Commons Sitting of 13 May 1925

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time
Sandwich Port and Haven Bill,
Petition of the Ramsgate Corporation, against; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIA (IMPRISONED BRITISH SUBJECTS, REDRESS)
  Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a large number of British subjects were thrown into prison by the Soviet Government in 1917 without trial; how many of them died in prison, and how many suffered permanent disablement from the effects of the illtreatment they underwent; and what steps he is taking to obtain redress for these British subjects, or for the relatives or dependants of those that died?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): The total number of claims in respect of imprisonment between 1917 and 1920 registered with the Russian Claims Department is 309. These include six claims in respect of death in prison, while certainly five, and possibly six, relate to persons who died, on release or later, as a result of imprisonment. 17 persons claim to have been permanently disabled as a result of their imprisonment. As regards the last part of the question, I regret to say that I do not see what steps can be taken at the present moment
  1822
  that would be in the least likely to prove effective
  Mr. MACKINDER: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to publish a list of the claimants, and for what they are claiming?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite see why I should do that. I doubt whether it would serve the purpose which, I presume, is in the mind of the hon. Member

  GERMAN DISARMAMENT (ALLIEDCOMMISSION REPORT).
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state when the Report of the Allied Commission on German Disarmament will be published?
  Mr.CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir
  Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are doing all in their power to expedite an announcement on this important question?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said before

  TOKYO LIBRARY (BRITISH GRANT)
  Sir P. RICHARDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the grant of £25,000 sanctioned for the purchase of books in Great Britain to be presented to the Tokyo Library, if he will say to whom is entrusted the purchase and choice of the same
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Purchases will be made by the Foreign Office. They are assisted in the choice of the books by a Committee of the British Academy under the chairmanship of the Earl of Balfour. This Committee is acting in consultation with the Tokyo University authorities

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS

    ARMS TRAFFIC CONFERENCE
    Mr. T. THOMSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what

    1823
    instructions the Government have given to their representatives at the International Conference for the Control of Traffic in Arms and Munitions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on the 6th May to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby)
    Mr. DALTON: asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the British representatives at the Arms Traffic Conference in Geneva are drawn exclusively from the fighting Departments, and that the Conference raises important political questions which make the presence of advisers with other than merely technical qualifications desirable, he will consider the desirability of strengthening the British delegation?
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend, who has been unavoidably detained. There is only one British representative, my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, who represents His Majesty's Government, and holds his instructions from them. He is assisted by experts of all branches, including members of the political and legal establishments of the Foreign Office. I see no necessity for the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion

    OPIUM CONVENTIONS
    Mr. DALTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any States have yet ratified the Opium Conventions recently signed at Geneva; and when His Majesty's Government propose to take this step?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Mr.GLockerLampson): I have been asked to reply. The Convention concluded by the Second Conference remains open for signature until the 30th September next, and cannot, I am advised, be ratified until after that date. As regards the Agreement concluded by the First Conference, I am informed that no State has yet ratified it. His Majesty's Government hope to do so at an early date, but it is necessary first to consult certain of our Protectorates

    NIGHT BAKING
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: asked the Minister of Labour whether the British Government delegates to the International Labour Conference at Geneva this month have been instructed to move an amendment to the present draft on nightwork in bakeries that will enable them, if carried, to vote for the Convention?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR(Sir Arthur STEEL-MAITLAND): The Government have tabled certain amendments to the draft Convention on night work in bakeries, and have informed the International Labour Office that, subject to these amendments being carried, they would be disposed to accept the Convention, provided they could be satisfied that the effect of its adoption would not be to cause an increase in the price of bread to the consumer. Since that time the Royal Commission on Food Prices has examined this question, and, in view of its findings, the delegates will state that the Government is unable at the present time to ratify the draft Convention
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Have these amendments been published?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure; I will let the right hon. Gentleman know
    Mr. C HAR LETONasked the Minister of Labour the nature of the instructions issued, or to be issued, to the Government representatives at the International Labour Conference with respect to the proposed draft Convention concerning night work in bakeries?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Newcastle Central on the 7th May

    ADMISSION OF GERMANY
    Mr. THU RTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the admission of Germany into the League of Nations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cornett on the 4th March last, to which I have nothing to add

    TRIAL OF BRITISH SKIPPER,ICELAND
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make inquiries into the case of Skipper G. W. Robinson, of the Grimsby trawler "Quercia," who was recently fined 2,000 gold kroner at Vestmannoe, Iceland, for the alleged offence of not having his gear properly stowed away when within the three-mile limit, and ascertain by whom he was tried; and if the British consul was present at the trial
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Inquiries were made as soon as this case was brought to my notice, and I am now awaiting a report from the British consul at Reykjavik. The trial was held in the local Court at Westmann Islands, and the British vice-consul was represented at the proceedings
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called Judge who tried this man is a sort of local Pooh-Bah—shopkeeper, Judge, clerk and his own assistant? Will he make inquiry as to the authority of this man in dealing with this case?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that the British vice-consul was represented, and I am awaiting his report. I must dissociate myself from any kind of attack on the local Court

    POLAND (TREATMENT OF UKRANIANS)
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about. the reported oppression of the Ukranians by the Polish Government in provinces inhabited by a big Ukranian majority; whether it has been brought to his notice that Ukranian schools are being closed, the Ukranian language is being driven out from schools and Government offices, Ukranian organisations are being suppressed, and newspapers confiscated; and whether His Majesty's Government will take action in the matter under the minority clauses of the Treaty of Versailles or through the League of Nations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have from time to time received reports about the treatment of Ukranian minorities in Poland, but my most recent information comes from exclusively Ukranian sources. The Ukranian inhabitants of Poland have no doubt in the past had genuine grievances; but these have not appeared to be such as could be effectively redressed by any intervention of the League of Nations under the terms of the Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Poland of the 28th June, 1919. I am confident that the Polish Government intend to observe the stipulations of that Treaty, and that, should action unhappily be called for, the Council of the League, under whose guarantee its execution is placed, will not be unmindful of its obligations. But no good purpose would be served by inviting its intervention at present

    BULGARIA
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information with regard to the recent troubles in Bulgaria?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the Press

  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

    .UNITED STATES SQUADRON
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the prospective cruise of an American battleship squadron and other ships to Australia and New Zealand; if he can give any particulars of the cruise; and whether, in view of the importance of our Imperial interests in the Pacific, he can see his way to arranging in the near future for a cruise in those waters by a number of His Majesty's ships, to include battleships, light cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and an aircraft carrier?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The United States Squadron which is shortly to visit Australia and New Zealand waters win probably consist of 11 battleships, 6 cruisers, 28 destroyers, and a number of fleet

    1827
    auxiliaries, including a fleet base force of 9 vessels, and store, hospital, depot and repair ships. This force will be divided into two detachments, one of which will visit Melbourne and Wellington, while the other will visit Sydney and Auckland between the 23rd July and the 25th August. With reference to the last part of the question, the cruisers of the Special Service Squadron, consisting of 2 battle cruisers and 5 light cruisers, which was completed as recently as 29th September, 1924, includes visits to Australian, New Zealand, and other Pacific ports, and it is not proposed to arrange another cruise of this nature in the near future. His Majesty's Ship "Concord" it at present in Australian waters, and His Majesty's Ship "Delhi" will proceed to Australia at the end of 1925, in accordance with the approved policy for the interchange of Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy light cruisers
    Rear-Admiral BEAM ISHWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether the decision not to send battleships is in any way connected with the lack of facilities for docking?

  ROYAL NAVY

    OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE
    Major HOREBELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to his statement that the £350,000 provided in the Navy Estimates in respect to officers' marriage allowance would only be required if the proposals put forward by the Admiralty were eventually accepted by the Government, whether he will say what those proposals were for which £350,000 were required?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I am unable to make a statement of the kind suggested by the hon. Member
    Major HOREBELISHA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he owes a statement to the House in respect of the money which the House has voted for this particular purpose? Can he not say what are the proposals?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The House voted the money after I had made a careful explanation, though I was unable to go into
    1828
    details, because I was awaiting a decision, and I am still in that position
    Major HOREBELISHA: But did not the right hon. Gentleman make any calculation on which this £350,000 is based, before he put that figure into the Estimates?

    DEVONPORT (FLOATING DOCK BERTH)
    Major HOREBELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the provisions made under Vote 10 in the Navy Estimates for a berth for a floating dock in Devonport Dockyard, whether he will say where this Coating dock is at present; and for what purpose it is now being utilised
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY(MrDavidson): This floating dock is at present moored at Portland, pending completion of the berth selected for hey at Devonport

    His MAJESTY'S SHIP "REVENGE."
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the Atlantic Fleet flagship, His Majesty's Ship "Revenge," has completely refitted at Portsmouth and leaves that port on Thursday for Rosyth to be docked; and if he can say why this ship could not be docked at Portsmouth, the headquarters of the Fleet, instead of being sent to Rosyth?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The "Revenge" is not being clocked at Portsmouth, as the only graving clock which will take this ship is required for other services. The vessel could not be docked in the floating dock at Portsmouth, owing to certain work being necessary which can only be carried out in a graving dock
    Sir B. FALLE: May I impress upon the hon. Gentleman the necessity of having a dock at Portsmouth?

    BACCHUS DIASTER (DEPENDANTS)
    Major HOREBELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to the "Bacchus" disaster and the condition in which the dependants of the men who lost their lives now find themselves, apart from the temporary charity provided for them, to state what were the terms of the contract on which these men were employed by the Admiralty; what was their exact rating

    1829
    and status; and whether provision is being made for the said dependants of these men under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The crew of Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Bacchus" were engaged and signed on an ordinary Board of Trade form of agreement. The actual agreement for this vessel is a foreign going running agreement, which terminates on 30th June next, or on the vessel's first arrival in United Kingdom after that date.
    The men lost were rated as follows:

    V. Wakely, third officer.

    C. Stonehouse, junior wireless operator.

    C. Chinn, able seaman.

    A. Edwards, able seaman.

    J. Riddle, water tender.

    E. Tucker, water tender

    Their status was identical with that of the crews of the ordinary British merchant ships, and they were paid in accordance with the rates agreed on by the National Maritime Board. The question of making suitable provision under the Workmen's Compensation Acts in the cases of those men who had dependants is under consideration.

    VISITS TO DOMINIONS AND COLONIES
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the success which attended the last tour of the British Fleet round the Empire, he will consider further visits of smaller sections of the Navy to certain of the. Dominions and Colonies in the near future?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: By the present distribution of the fleets and ships of the British Navy, and the annual programmes of cruises, practically all the Dominions and Colonies in the Empire are visited by His Majesty's ships at least once a year. Every consideration will be given to requests for additional visits provided that financial and strategical considerations will admit
    Mr. SANDEMAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it possible that naval detachments might also go round the South American ports? They are the best advertisement we ever had. We, sold more goods than ever before after the last visit.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member must realise that we are very much circumscribed by the amount of fuel that we are allowed to burn in the course of the year. We must use it in the most economical way
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the fact that the Prince of Wales is away advertising the British Empire round there, or he will be? I do not see why the Navy should be sent there

    INVALIDEDRATINGS
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of naval ratings invalided since the 1st January, 1925, whose disability was considered by the surveying board to he not attributable to service; and the number of such invalids who have questioned this decision?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The reply to the first part of the question is 470, and to the second part approximately 30 per cent
    Sir B. FALLE: Does not my hon. Friend think the, time has come for some form of appeal for the invalid naval ratings?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid I cannot add to my answer

    CADETSHIPS
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether ho will consider a scheme whereby the standard of education in the upper nautical division of the Royal Naval Hospital School. Greenwich, shall be increased to that of a higher technical school and a number of annual scholarships established for naval cadetships at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, for the sons of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy, and open to competition to all such boys who have received a higher technical education?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The approximate age at which boys enter Dartmouth is 13½. The approximate age at which boys leave the Royal Hospital School is 15½. Long experience has shown that it is undesirable for cadets to enter Dartmouth except at the normal age. Even if it were considered desirable to adopt the proposed scheme it would be difficult to arrange for special instruction being given to a few boys, and in any case it is extremely doubtful whether such a

    1831
    scheme, if adopted, would be made use of. If there are any boys in the Royal Hospital School who possess the requisite educational and other qualifications for entry as naval cadets, and are within the age limits for entry into Dartmouth, every facilitily would be granted to enable them to attend the necessary interviews and examinations
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the trouble that the fees are too high, and that boys whose parents are poor have no chance of getting in?

    FLEET MANŒUVRES
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to hold naval manœuvres or a review of the Fleet during the present year?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the negative

    YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First, Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" is now in commission; why she was not used for the recent official visit, of certain members of the Board to Malta: and to what use is it intended to put her during the rest of this year?
    Commander FANSHAWE: Is it not a fact that if this yacht had been employed on these duties we should not have had the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, causing extra expense?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANNo, Sir. The yacht has not been in commission since she was paid off last August. The recent Board visit to Malta was conveniently carried out without the expense of sending her to the Mediterranean. Nothing has as yet been arranged for her use during the rest of the year
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, if it is not to be used and was not in use for the Malta visit, why not give it up altogether and save the expense
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said that no decision had yet been made

    WIDOWS' AND DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that pensions are awarded to the widows and dependants of retired officers and that the regulations governing the granting of pensions and gratuities to the relatives of officers state that these pensions cannot be claimed as a right but are granted as rewards for good and faithful service rendered by deceased officers and will only be conferred on persons deserving the public bounty, he will consider the desirability of issuing regulations giving to the relatives of men of the lower deck who have given good and faithful service similar privileges in the matter of pensions to those at present received by the relatives of officers?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 12th February last on this subject, and to Clause 16 of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, which is at present awaiting a Second Beading

    ROYAL NAVAL BENEVOLENT TRUST
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will inquire into the complaints from the lower deck that ex-naval ratings are not employed in the office of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust at Chatham?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 1st April to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Southwark

  UNEMPLOYMENT

    EX-ROYAL IRISH CONSTABLES, ILFORD
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are registered at the Ilford Employment Exchange a number of ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, resident on the London County Council Becontree housing estate, who are receiving pensions, some of a considerable amount, for services in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that preferential treatment is being afforded

    1833
    them when available vacancies arise in the above area; and whether he is prepared to recommend to the officers at the Ilford Employment Exchange that this preferential treatment to pensioned officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary be discontinued, so that vacancies shall be placed in the way of men who have no income or pension?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that three ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are at present registered at the Ilford Employment Exchange, but I can find no evidence of any preferential treatment being given by the Exchange

    JUVENILE CENTRES
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour how many juvenile unemployed centres are in operation in England; how many pupils are receiving instructions and the number of boys and girls, respectively and what steps are taken to assist them to get work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 6th May to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley
    Mr. THOMSON: With reference to the last part of the question, will further steps be taken in order to deal with the important question of finding work for those attending these centres?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThat question was dealt with in the seventh section of my answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley
    Mr.KIRKW00D: Can the Minister do anything to find work'?
    Mr. THOMSON: The question was whether the Government could not do something more than was indicated in the answer. I am aware of that answer, but 1 ask whether, in view of the urgency of the problem, the Government cannot do more than they promised at that time
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will turn to that answer. I do not think he is familiar with the facts stated therein. I think he will find
    1834
    that the employment of boys as distinct from men is as high in sonic Exchanges where I have made inquiries as 60 per cent
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I again put my supplementary question? Can the Minister find work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister's reply referred to a question which was answered last week, and perhaps the hon. Member will read that answer.

    SHREWSBURY (MR. A. E. ROBERTS).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. A. E. Roberts, of 10, Plough Court. Frank well, Shrewsbury, who, although granted a further period of unemployment benefit on 30th March last, has so far been unable to obtain payment; whether he is aware that efforts to ascertain the cause of nonpayment have been unavailing; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Roberts and 'his nine immediate dependants are experiencing great hardships, steps will be taken immediately to investigate the matter?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This case is one for decision, not by me, but by the statutory authorities. The insurance officer has ruled that Mr. Roberts is not entitled to benefit, and is liable to repay certain benefit which has been overpaid; Mr. Roberts has appealed to the Court of Referees, and I will notify the hon. Member of the decision in due course

    INSURED PERSONS (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the numbers of insured persons under the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts in Orkney and Shetland, Caithness, Sutherland, Rossshire, Invernessshire, Argyllshire and Morayshire, respectively: and what percentage of the population of each county this figure represents in each case?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having a table prepared giving the information asked for by the right hon. Member, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT
    Following is the statement:

    Area

    National insurance Acts

    Unemployment insurance Acts

    Estimated No. Insured,*

    Percentage of Total Populations.

    Estimated No. Insured ‡

    Percentage of Total Populations.

    Orkney

    …

    3,474

    14·5

    Shetland

    …

    4,050

    15·9

    5,2290

    10·7

    Caithness

    …

    5,404

    19·1

    3,900║

    13·8

    Sutherland

    …

    3,128

    17·6

    ║

    —

    Ross shire§

    …

    13,780

    19·5

    4,930║

    7·0

    Inverness-shire

    …

    18,535

    22·3

    10,760

    13·1

    Argyllshire

    …

    15,173

    19·8

    8,560

    11·1

    Morayshire

    …

    13,2191†

    26·51†

    5,010

    12·1

    * The figures are based on the mean of the four quarterly counts taken by Insurance Committees in the areas in question in 1924

    †Including Nairn; the Counties of Moray and Nairn, being served by one National Health Insurance Committee, health insurance figures for Moray alone are not available

    ‡ The figures are approximate. I is not practicable to apportion with strict accuracy the numbers for Exchange Areas on the borders of two counties

    § Including Cromarty

    ║ Unemployment Insurance figures for Sutherland cannot be given; they are included partly in those for Caithness and partly in those for Ross-shire

    FISH-DOGE WORKERS
    Mr. GROTRIANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, on the 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 27th of April last, trawler owners in Hull were unable to discharge fish from their vessels owing to lack of men; whether he is aware that men usually employed in this class of work were drawing unemployment pay on those same dates; and if he can make arrangements whereby trawler owners can get the labour and men can get the employment they both require
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed that there is an agreement between the Owners' Association and an association to which fish-dock workers belong for the supply of labour, but that there has been a shortage of labour on recent occasions. No vacancies have been notified to the local Employment Exchange, although the manager has intimated his willingness to help

    WOMEN FISH WORKERS (BUCKIE)
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the suffering among the women fish workers at Buckle as a result of the refusal of benefit that the typical cases submitted to the chief referee resulted in a decision that the women were entitled to benefit; and that the Edinburgh office interpreted the referee's decision in a sense hostile to the women: if he has received protests
    1836
    from the employers on the Buckie rota committee: and what steps he proposes to take
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received a number of representations on this subject from different bodies, including the Buckie rota committee. There appears to be some misapprehension. In the answer given to the hon. Member on the 25th February the rule regarding extended benefit was explained, and the rule regarding standard benefit was explained on Wednesday last in my reply to the right hon. Member for Ross arid Cromarty. The cases which were referred to the Chief Insurance Officer were claims for standard benefit, and the decision that standard benefit could he paid in respect of unemployment during the ordinary season does not necessarily apply to extended benefit, the conditions for the receipt of which are different. What the Edinburgh office did was w make clear for the guidance of the local office the distinction between the rule as to standard and the rule as to extended benefit
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can say that the Edinburgh office made it clear to the authorities at Buckie when as a matter of fact the authorities at Buckie protested against their treatment by the Edinburgh office?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not quite clear as to what the hon. Member means. The Edinburgh office tried to make clear the difference between the standard and the extended benefit in this connection. I am not sure what the hon. Member wishes to imply. A complaint was made to me as to the distinction which was attempted to be shown
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the chief referee decided in favour of these girls, but the Edinburgh office virtually decided against them, and as a result the Buckie fish worker women are riot getting any benefit?
    Mr. MACPHERSONHow can the right hon. Gentleman justify these people paving contributions for unemployment benefit, and telling them at the same time that they cannot get any benefit in almost every case?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that under the last Unemployment Insurance Act, where the local or chief insurance office disagrees with a decision of the court of referees, it must, according to the terms of the Act, be referred to the umpire? Will the right hon. Gentleman see if there is still any doubt as regards these Buckie fish worker girls and will he refer it to he decided by the umpire?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps after the different supplementary questions which have been put to me, the hon. Member will confer with me in order to try to clear up the situation. It is not merely a question of a decision of the Court of Referees being sent to the umpire; that is a question of extended benefit. When it comes to standard benefit, the procedure is different. It is because there has been some misapprehension between standard benefit and extended benefit that I think the present misunderstanding has occurred. The whole position is extremely complicated as regards seasonal workers, and it is because of this complication that the misunderstanding has arisen. I am afraid it is not possible to go into greater detail or to argue the case in reply to a question
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a case for a private interview

    BOYS AND GIRLS OF SIXTEEN
    Captain GEEasked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls, respectively, who attained the age of 16 years during the year ended 31st December last; and to how many of each of them were unemployment insurance cards issued because they were then in insurable employment
    Sir A. STEELMA1TLAND: The number of juveniles in Great Britain who attained the age of 16 years during the year ended 31st December, 1924, is approximately estimated at 421,000 boys and 416,000 girls. During 1924 the number of unemployment hooks issued to new entrants to insured trades of 16 and under 18 years was 352,817 to boys and 254,610 to girls. It. is not possible to distinguish separately books issued to juveniles of 16 years

    COALMINERS
    Captain GEEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the number of coalminers reported to be at work and unemployed, respectively, at the end of March, 1925, was 1,122,700 and 148,400, respectively, or a total of 1,271.199 in the industry, and that the corresponding figures for the end of March, 1921, were, respectively, 1,188,500 and 26,400, making a total of 1,214,900; and Whether the number of coalminers has increased by over 56,000 in the past year
    Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend relate to the number of wage earners returned to the Mines Department. as recorded on the colliery hooks at a particular date, and to the numbers of workers, covered by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, recorded by the Ministry of Labour as unemployed at a proximate, but not an identical, date. These figures are not mutually exclusive, as a colliery worker may be retained. on the colliery books at a particular date and yet be recorded as unemployed, owing to short time or intermittent working. it would not be correct therefore to add the figures together in order to ascertain the number in the industry. I may add that the Mines Department figures include workers under 16 while those for insured unemployed do not, and, on the other hand.

    1839
    the latter include non-manual workers earning less than £250 a year while the Mines Department figures exclude them

    ELECTRICAL DEVELOPMENT
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Transport how soon he expects to be in a position to state the Government's plan for providing work for the unemployed in connection with the development of the electrical industry
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT(Colonel Ashley)The whole question of the supply and distribution of electricity is under consideration, and considerable progress has been made, but I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer given on the 24th February in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Newport. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that the Government are giving financial assistance, through the Unemployment Grants Committee, to electrical schemes which are being expedited for the purpose of relieving unemployment

    OFFERS OF WORK
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to complaint that jobs are offered to men out of work in the hope that they may be refused and that consequently unemployment payment may be stopped; and whether he will investigate it
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware that this suggestion has been made, but I have seen no evidence in support of it, nor do I think it has any foundation in fact. It is the duty of the Exchanges to bring vacancies to the notice of persons on the register in the hope that employment may thus be found for them. If apparently, suitable employment is refused it is of course their duty then to report the matter to the insurance officer, but the decision as to disallowance of benefit is taken by the insurance officer and not by the Exchange, and, as the hon. Member is aware, there are rights of appeal to the Court of Referees and the. Umpire

    UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Minister of Labour whether, under the Regulations, an unemployed worker is entitled to draw uncovenanted benefit, no matter how large the weekly income of his family
    1840
    through the working of other members and the letting of rooms?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is not at present any disqualification for benefit on the ground of the wages or income of other members of the applicant's family. The letting of rooms might be a ground for the disqualification of the applicant's wife for dependant's benefit, or, if the letting amounted to a business carried on by the applicant, it might be a disqualification of the applicant himself

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE)
    Captain GEEasked the Minister of Labour the income and expenditure of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the latest week for which the figures are available, and for each of the previous three weeks; and what is the present indebtedness of the fund?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The average weekly revenue of the Unemployment. Fund for the past three months has been £938,000, as stated in my reply of the 6th May to the hon. Member for Nottingham East. This figure does not vary materially over short periods. The expenditure for the week ending 2nd May, 1925, was £992,000 and for the three preceding weeks £1,010,000, £925,000, and £1,023,000, respectively. This expenditure included about £30,000 weekly of nonrecurrent expenditure on refunds and compensation for future abolition of refunds. The debt on the 9th May, 1925, was £7,620,000
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to infer from that reply that the income is now larger than the expenditure?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. It is the other way round
    Mr. BATEY: If you deduct the £30,000
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If I deduct the £30,000 from £54,000, the answer is that in that week it was £24,000 to the bad, and similarly in corresponding weeks

    JURY SERVICE
    Mr. W. THOMAS for Mr. HAYDAY asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a recent case where an unemployed man had his unemployment benefit stopped for the time he had served on a jury, for which he received ls. in

    1841
    remuneration; and whether, in view of the financial loss thus thrown upon a family suffering from unemployment, any steps can be taken to continue payment of benefit in such cases?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that benefit has been refused in any case of the kind. In two cases recently payment of one day's benefit was suspended while the question of eligibility was decided. The amounts due were paid a week later

    DISTRIBUTIVE TRADE (PAYMENTOF WAGES)
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the present practice by many firms in the distributive trade of not paying wages until after closing time on Saturdays is the cause of much inconvenience, and in some cases hardship, to those employed, and at the same time results in a large amount of Sunday trading being necessary; that the various trade associations and grocers' associations, and especially the annual general meeting of the shop assistants' union, suggest that wages should be paid on Friday so that earlier shopping on Saturday may result; and whether he is prepared to amend the existing Trade Board Act by the insertion of a Clause that will definitely provide for payment of wages at a time which will allow those employed the opportunity of purchasing during normal hours and in the open market?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware that resolutions in the sense stated have been adopted by certain trade associations; but the matter would not, in my view, fall within the scope of Trade Board legislation

    WASHINGTON EIGHT-HOUR DAYCONVENTION
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now taken steps to get in touch with foreign Governments with a view to securing simultaneous ratification of the Washington Eight-Hour Day Convention?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement I made on this matter in the. House of Commons on Friday, 1st May
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make any statement at all in regard to his action or inaction?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the Noble Lord will repeat his question
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement on this subject
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am anxious to make a statement as soon as I possibly can, but the Noble Lord is aware that when it comes to international negotiations very often it is not possible to issue invitations and to take action of that kind without, first of all, making sure that such invitations will be favourably received

    CEMENT TRADE DISPUTE SHEPRETH
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Labour whether the stoppage of work at the Cement Works, Shepreth, Cambridgeshire, is still continuing; how long this stoppage has now lasted; whether he is aware that the company concerned stands outside the Whitley Council of the cement industry and refuses to pay the rate of wages agreed upon by the Council; that the men have offered arbitration; that the company has refused either to arbitrate or to discuss the points at issue with the men's trade union representatives; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any further steps to facilitate a settlement
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a dispute has been going on for nine weeks at the East Anglian Cement Company, Shepreth, Cambridgeshire; that the cause of this is the firm refusing to pay the recognised rates of wages decided upon by the National Joint Industrial Council for the cement industry; and that repeated offers have been made by the men to submit the matter to arbitration, which the company has refused; and whether he will order a public inquiry into the matter
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Members. My Department have been in constant touch with both sides, and their services will remain available for the pur-

    1843
    pose of assisting in reaching a settlement if the parties desire to utilise them. I do not. think that any useful purpose would be served by a public inquiry.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware on more than one occasion efforts have been made to arrive at an amicable settlement, and that the cause of the dispute is the burning question of not carrying out the wages agreed upon by the Joint Industrial Council; and is he not prepared to institute an inquiry in accordance with his powers under the Industrial Courts Act?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not prepared to agree that an inquiry, in the present. circumstances, would do any good. If it. would do any good it would be a different matter, but, as circumstances arc. I do not think it would
    Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive further representations upon this matter, which is causing very serious concern in very wide circles in the Cambridge district, quite apart from any political views
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall always be very anxious to receive any further: information
    Mr. W.THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government has a contract with the East Anglian Cement Company, Shepreth, Cambridgeshire: and whether he is aware that the firm in question refuses to pay the recognised rates of wages decided upon by the National Joint, Industrial Council for the Cement Industry?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain King): I have been asked to reply. This company holds a small contract from the War Department, but no complaint has been received in regard to wages paid under it. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any information to show that less than current rates have been paid, I will have the matter inquired into
    Mr. THORNE: I will, with pleasure

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION(ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES)
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has
    1844
    been called to the action on the part of certain representatives of the electrical trades union who, on the eve of the opening of the British Empire Exhibition, removed the fuses and put out of action various electrical appliances both at the Colonial Office exhibit in the British Government Pavilion and elsewhere, on the ground that certain parts of certain electrical apparatus had been made, or partially made, by men who were not members of their union: and what action the Government has taken, or proposes to take, in the matter
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply on behalf of my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department. It has been agreed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that all electrical work in the exhibition, including the Government Pavilion, is to he carried out by members of recognised trade unions. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend, the installation of certain electrical apparatus, which arrived at a late hour on the day prior to the opening, was held up for a short time until arrangements could be made for its installation by trade union labour. There was no interference with the working of any appliances
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has any action been taken with regard to the men who removed these fuses
    Sir H. BARNSTON: I will represent that to my hon. Friend.

    COMPANIES (DIVIDENDS)
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister if lie will consider the introduction of legislation to limit the amount of dividend which may be paid by public or private companies
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that legislation such as is suggested would tend to promote peace in industry?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would it not be equally fair to ask the Government to limit the amount of losses sustained by such companies

    MISS V. DOUGLAS-PENNANT
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to publish, or to allow access to, the Harmsworth Departmental Committee Report with regard to the case of Miss Violet. DOUGLAS-PENNANT
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Harmsworth Report was not the Report of a Departmental Committee, but a private Report for the information of the Prime Minister of the day, made by a member of his personal staff
    Mr. ROBERTS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of the day stated that that Report would he published, but that it has never been published, and can he give any reason, seeing the great public interest in this case, and the feeling of intense grievance under which this lady suffers, why her advisers should not have access to this Report?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond that which I have given, but perhaps the question of my hon. Friend would be better put to the. Prime Minister of that clay in a personal communication.
    Mr. MORRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the only evidence which the Air Ministry has stated to be alleged against this lady was the evidence of a very junior and inexperienced officer?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must not be taken as accepting that statement. This matter was very carefully inquired into. I do not want to prolong the controversy, hut I must not be taken as accepting these ex parte allegations

  EX-SERVICE MEN

    OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (APPOTNTHENTS BOARD)
    Mr. MORRISasked the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, he is taking to draw the attention of employers to the appointments hoard of the Officers' Association and to the exceptional facilities provided by that organisation for bringing them into touch with qualified ex-officers in need of employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As has been announced in this House and in the Press, the work formerly done by the Ministry of Labour in finding posts for ex-officers has been transferred to the Officers' Branch of the British Legion, who aye now entirely responsible for it. If they desire my help in obtaining publicity among employers, along the same lines as were previously followed by my Department, I shall be glad to consider it
    Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty experienced by this Department is that riot sufficient use is being made of the Department by the employers—that they do not notify the Department of vacancies which thy have
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I have said, this is really a matter now for the British Legion, but if they wish me to help them in any way I can, I shall, as I have said before, be very glad to do so.

    NIGHT TELEPHONISTS (EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES).
    M. Mr. ROBERT MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that married ex-service men are, being engaged through the Employment Exchanges as part-time night, telephonists. per hour; that the hours worked are, approximately, 18 per week: that the men, although only earning 18s. per week, have to pay 4s. per week travelling money; and whether he will see that no unemployed man is disqualified from receiving benefit for refusing to accept such employment
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware that employment with the London Telephone service, on conditions corresponding generally to those described, is offered through the Employment Exchanges. The question whether a person who has refused an offer of employment should he disqualified for unemployment benefit is determined, not by me, but by the statutory authorities, who consider each individual case on its merits in the light of the statutory conditions.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see that any man who refuses to accept a job at 18s. a

    1847
    week, out of which he has to pay 4s. a week to get there and back, is not disqualified from receiving benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the hon. Member will be aware, I cannot interfere with the actual statutory authorities. On the other hand, I have not had any case brought to my knowledge where, under these conditions, benefit has been suspended on the ground of refusal to accept the employment

    KING'S ROLL (LONDON NEWSPAPERS)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALLasked the Minister of Labour whether all the leading London daily newspapers are now on the King's Roll
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The following London daily newspapers are on the King's Roll: "Daily Chronicle,"" Daily Express,'' "Daily Graphic," "Daily Mail "and "Evening News," "Daily Mirror," "Daily News" and "Star,'' '' Daily Telegraph,'' '' Financial Times," "Morning Post,"The" Times," "Westminster Gazette." I am asking the local committees concerned to approach the relatively few papers not or, this list with regard to enrolment
    Commander WILLIAMS: May I inquire whether the "Daily herald" is on?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: What constitutes a "leading daily"?
    Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member's own psychology
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it not be more illuminating if the right hon. Member had given us a list of the newspapers that are not on the King's Roll?

    BOILERMAKERS' DISPUTE, BARROW
    Mr. BROMLEYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of a probable stoppage of work of boilermakers employed upon the construction of a new cruiser at Barrow; whether the men have offered to submit the matters in dispute to arbitration; and will he use his influence to secure a satisfactory settlement
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that there is a dispute, regarding certain piecework prices to he paid on the work in question, which is being dealt with by the normal negotiating machinery in the industry. In the circumstances I do not think the intervention of the Department would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm is the only firm responsible for the building of these new cruisers which is enforcing, or seeking to enforce, these new merchant shipping prices, and is it the fact that they have refused arbitration upon this matter?
    Mr. BROMLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the negotiations are practically finished when the men are balloting today as to stoppage, and will he not, in the circumstances, try to alleviate the position
    Sir A. STEELNIAITLAND: Tf the hon. Member will confer with me afterwards. I shall he glad. My information was that, so to speak. the resources of ordinary negotiation machinery had not been exhausted, and, of course, in that case, it is always better to let these be utilised to the fullest extent before any other intervention takes place.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm is asking for warship painting to be done at merchant rates, which means 15 per cent. less than usual, and is he also aware that neither in this nor in any other country is this done: and, having regard to the Fair Wage Clause, will he bring his influence to hear upon the firm to have regard to that Clause?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is really asking me to pronounce beforehand on a statement from him as to the merits of a dispute one way or the other, and I am sure he will not expect me to do that in this case
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Those are the terms of the ballot that the men are taking at the present time.

    AERODROME, SOUTH-WEST IRELAND
    Mr. J. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the aerodrome built in the south-west of Ireland

    1849
    during the war is still under his control; what amount was spent on its erection; for what purposes, if any, has it been used: and what is its present use?
    The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for AIR(Major Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first and last parts of the question, the Air Ministry does not now control any air station in the southwest of Ireland. As regards the second and third parts, if the hon. Member will state the name of the aerodrome which he has in mind, I will endeavour to obtain the information requested
    Mr. BECKETT: Has there been more than one large aerodrome built in the west of Ireland
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Ministry has no control over air stations in the Irish Free State, and, therefore, we have no knowledge of any air stations there at present. If the hon. Member would let me know what air station he has mind, I will let him know about it
    Mr. BECKETT: Am I to infer that the Air Ministry did not build an aerodrome in the south-west of Ireland?

    CANCER RESEARCH
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make respecting the progress, if any, of the various bodies of local research regarding cancer; and whether he proposes any Government action in this matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH(Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend assumes that the hon. Member refers to the inquiries which are being carried out by certain of the larger local authorities, on the advice of the Departmental Committee on Cancer, which was appointed by his Department. These inquiries have not yet reached the stage at which he could usefully make a definite statement as to progress. As regards the concluding part of the question, I may say that the Departmental Committee are continuing their investigations, and Circulars are being issued from time to time by my right hon. Friend's Department to local authorities giving such
    1850
    available information on the subject as is likely to be helpful to them
    Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a common practice now, in connection with these small local Committees, for funds to be raised by local bazaars and the like I Has he considered it in that light, because I think it is very infra dig that a proposal with regard to cancer research should be carried out in that way?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech

  HOUSING

    .WEST HAM
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the estimated deficiency of living rooms for the people of the county borough of West. Ham was in 1921, 59,324; and, as there has been no substantial improvement in the housing conditions of the borough, will he take special steps to call a conference at an early date with this authority and his officers to make arrangements for improvements to be effected?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the figures quoted by the hon. Member, which are taken from the Census Report of 1921. He will be glad at any time to make arrangements for a deputation to discuss their housing difficulties with his Departmint
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the borough of West Ham at the present time there are about 120 vacant houses which the landlords will not let?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter. I would remind the lion. Gentleman that local authorities can acquire such houses
    Mr. GROVES: Does the hon. Gentleman say that it is necessary for the West Ham Town Council to send a deputation to his Department before we know whether the Department will help us or not? I ask for a conference; can we have it?
    Sir K. WOOD: We shall be very glad to see the authorities concerned at any time in order to discuss their housing difficulties with them

    RATING AND VALUATION BILL
    Sir ROBERT SANDERSasked the Minister of Health how far, if at all, it is the intention of the Government that assessments determined by the rating authority established under the Rating and Valuation Bill shall be conclusive for the purposes of Schedule A of the Income Tax?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the provisions of Clause 19 (3) of the Rating and Valuation Bill, which leaves it to Parliament to determine when and subject to what conditions the gross values in the valuation list shall be adopted for purposes of Income Tax

    VACCINATION, CHESTERFIELD WORKHOUSE
    Mr. LEEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to complaints made at a meeting of the Chesterfield Board of Guardians on Saturday last as to the wholesale vaccination of the inmates of the workhouse, some of the persons being over 80 years of age and ill at the time; if he is aware that several deaths have followed, believed to have been accelerated if not caused by the vaccination; whether the vaccinations took place at the suggestion of the Ministry of Health; whether he will instruct one of his inspectors to attend the inquiry the guardians propose to hold into the matter; and whether the Report of such inquiry can be communicated to this House?
    Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is informed that, on the occurrence of a case of smallpox in a ward occupied by elderly females, 379 of the inmates of the institution, including elderly persons, were offered and accepted vaccination. Forty-eight of the inmates were not vaccinated, either because this was thought to be undesirable on account of their state of health or because they declined. Since the time when the vaccination was carried out, there has been no death in the institution which could be attributed to, or was accelerated by, vaccination. The vaccinations were carried out on the advice of the medical officer of health of the borough, acting within his routine and prescribed duties. In the circumstances my right hon.
    1852
    Friend does not think it is necessary for an inspector of the Ministry to be present at the guardians' inquiry, though he has asked for a report of the proceedings.

    CASUAL PAUPERS (TASKS)
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information or statistics as to the numbers and causes of prosecutions of casual paupers in the Metropolitan or the provincial unions later than those given in the Local Government Board Report (C 5,813, Appendix p. 332); if so, will he publish them or state where they are to be found; will he cause an investigation to he made whether, and, if so, to what extent, oakum picking, stone breaking and stone pounding have given rise to prosecutions; and will he direct that, from the date when the new order took effect, a record be kept of the prosecutions in each union for refusal or neglect to perform the task and of the nature and amount of the task which was imposed. and of the sex and age, or approximate age, of the persons charged?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid this information is not available. My right hon. Friend will consider the suggestions made in the latter part of the hon. Member's question
    Mr. GROVES: Is it correct for me to assume that the hon. gentleman's Department has recently increased the amount of oakum from 1lb. to 1⅓ lb.?
    Sir K. WOOD: That of course, is another question, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to put it down?
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would it be open, under the new Order that has been issued, to prosecute a casual woman pauper for not picking the oakum?
    Sir K. WOOD: That, again, is a matter which does not arise out of the question on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put it down?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would it be possible for the Minister to put on view in the Library a pound of the best oakum and a pound of the most difficult oakum that these people have to pick?
    Sir K. WOOD: I see no advantages in that
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Minister tried picking the oakum himself?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Why cannot the House be allowed to judge, by seeing this oakum, whether it is a reasonable task to which to put these ex-service men? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer. !"]
    Captain BENN: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, when a Minister is asked to supply some simple information of this kind, it is not the usual practice in the House for him to give some answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member must have heard that the Minister did answer. That the reply may not be acceptable to some hon. Members is another matter

  AGRICULTURE

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
    Mr. SPENCERasked the Minister of Agriculture what sum has been recovered from the salvage of carcasses of healthy animals in connection with foot-and-mouth disease since 1921?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE(Mr. Edward Wood): The net amount received in respect of salvage of carcasses of healthy animals slaughtered on account of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease since 1st April, 1921, after deducting all relevant expenses, is £588,448
    Mr. SPENCERasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the numbers of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease since 31st December last; and what amount of compensation has been paid?
    Mr. WOOD: Twenty-one outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Great Britain since 31st December last, and £29,669 has been paid in compensation in connection therewith.
    Mr. SPENCER: Are arrangements being made now for the testing of a certain specific, as was promised as far back as February, as a preventive of this disease?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question was asked and answered, I think, last week—within a few days, anyhow.
    Mr. SPENCERasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the numbers of cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats slaughtered in consequence of foot-and-mouth disease since 1921
    Mr. WOOD: The total numbers of animals slaughtered in consequence of part-time disease since the 1st of January, 1921, up to the 9th May, 1925. were:

    Cattle

    …

    …

    137,676

    Sheep

    …

    …

    78,467

    Pigs

    …

    …

    61,624

    Goats

    …

    …

    186

    SMALL HOLDINGS (LOANS)..
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in cases where loans have been guaranteed to tenants of small holdings which the tenants cannot repay without being sold up, he will be prepared to provide for a discretionary power to county councils in the matter of any proceedings taken for recovery of the amount due?
    Mr. WOOD: The Laud Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, gives councils full discretion to manage their small holding estates as they think fit, and the Ministry is required only to pay the loss which in its opinion has been reasonably and necessarily incurred each year up to 31st March, 1926. I do not consider, however, that it would be reasonable and necessary for a council between now and the date mentioned to write down as irrecoverable sums due from its tenants, and claim such amounts from the Ministry as part of its annual loss. At the same time, my Department have given a committee of the County Councils Association, of which my hon. Friend is Chairman, an assurance that it will be prepared to agree to a reasonable allowance for bad debts outstanding at 31st March, 1926 (including the loans referred to in the question), being deducted from the valuation of the estate which is to be made at that date. This arrangement should meet every reasonable requirement on the part of councils.

    SULTAN OF NEJD
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what forces are at present in

    1855
    occupation of Mecca, and whether an effective Government has been set up; whether an Emir has been appointed and whether he has taken office; and whether hostilities are still continuing in the Hedjaz?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The forces of Ibn Saud, the Sultan of Nejd, are at present in occupation of Mecca, which has come under his effective government. According to my information, no Emir of Mecca has been appointed. Hostilities are still continuing in the Hedjaz

  TRANSPORT

    LONDON TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Minister of Transport when the Advisory Traffic Committee was set up; how many meetings have been held; and, in view of the urgency of the traffic problem, will he use his influence and urge the Committee to expedite their investigations and complete their Report?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The London Traffic Advisory Committee was constituted on the 17th December last, and held As first meeting on the following day. Up to date, 12 meetings of the full Committee have been held. In addition, a number of subcommittees have been appointed. These subcommittees hold frequent meetings and by personal visits investigate on the spot the traffic problems which they have under consideration. The Committee have, as a result of much hard work, already made a number of recommendations, to which effect has been given, and they will continue to report to me from time to time on the matters which have been referred to them. The Committee are also under a statutory obligation under Section 1 (11) of the London Traffic Act, to make an annual report to me on their proceedings, and this report will be laid before Parliament in due course.
    Mr. ERSKINEWhen may we hope for some amelioration of the traffic congestion in the main streets of London?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid the hon. Member must really wait and see. After all, it is best to hasten by going slowly.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Are the Traffic Committee considering the traffic between Essex and Liverpool Street?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

    LONDON STREET REPAIRS
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many of the principal London streets are now under repair during the most crowded period of the year; and whether he can see his way to impress upon the local authorities the desirability of relegating such work to the autumn and winter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Section 4 of the London Traffic Act empowers me, after consultation with the London Traffic Advisory Committee, to draw up schemes prescribing the times during which works of road maintenance and improvement in the London traffic area are to be commenced and the order in which they are to be executed. The first scheme, covering the six months from 1st April to 30th September, has already been approved. In drawing up these schemes full regard is had to the requirements of traffic, and to the other considerations urged by my hon. Friend. He will appreciate, however, that there are other factors to be borne in mind, such as weather conditions and hours of daylight, which have a material bearing on the question of cost
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Victoria Street has been under repair now for six weeks, at very great inconvenience to the whole of London?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The question the hon. Member refers is as to working in summer or in winter. I have pointed out that it is not possible to do it all in the winter because of the cost
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether. in view of the traffic over the leading London streets, he will use every endeavour to see that the work of repair is carried out wherever practicable in full relay shifts. during a 24hour day and so give employment to as many men as possible, and reduce to a minimum the inconvenience to traders and the public generally?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In giving effect to the provisions of Section 4 of the London Traffic Act every endeavour has been, and will be, made to arrange, wherever practicable, that road works in the principal London streets are carried out continuously by day and night. Certain work, as for example, the breaking up of cement, can not, however, be carried out at night save in very exceptional circumstances. The road and other authorities concerned have readily cooperated. I may instance as examples the cases of Westminster Bridge and of Victoria Street, where the London County Council and the Westminster City Council respectively agreed that the work should be carried on continuously. In addition, other arrangements, such as the use of quick-setting cement, have been adopted whenever possible in order to minimise the inconvenience to traffic
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Could not that very excellent practice which is carried out continuously in Victoria Street be applied elsewhere? The cost is surely infinitesimal compared with the great benefit to industry
    Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. Friend must remember that people like to go to sleep at night.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Do people want to go to sleep in other places more than in Victoria Street
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument

    AUSTRALIAN BUTTER AND CHEESE
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a ring of London provision brokers are controlling practically the whole of the imports of Australian butter and cheese; and whether, in view of the higher prices resulting there from, the Government propose to take power to deal with the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE(Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)I can find no information to warrant the suggestion contained in the first part of the question. Australian butter and cheese are brought here on a consignment basis to be sold on account of producers
    1858
    by agents acting under instructions from the other side. The Overseas Farmers' Co-operative Marketing Association sell about 25 per cent. of the Australian output and sell to anybody. I understand also that a producers' board is being set up in Australia., with representatives in London, to supervise marketing arrangements.

    LICENSED PREMISES (DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT)
    Captain BENNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to state the constitution of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the different systems of disinterested management of licensed houses and, in particular, the licensing system in Carlisle; whether he can give the House the terms of reference and whether the Committee will be so constituted as to ensure that the different views held on this subject shall be fairly represented?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The first and second parts of this question were dealt with in the answer given to the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division of Lancashire and to the hon. and gallant Member for North Cumberland on 11th instant. As regards the last part, I can only say that it will be the endeavour of the Government to secure the services of impartial persons who will command general confidence
    Mr. BUCHANAN: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce the names of the Committee?
    Mr. LOCKERLAMPSON: I should think in a very few days' time

    WHISKY AND GIN (EXPORTS)
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of gallons of whisky and gin exported from the United Kingdom in 192324, and to date?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I regret that it is not possible to furnish the information desired as whisky and gin are not separately distinguished in the official records.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Would not the right hon. Gentleman find out the various amounts of these two commodities which have been exported, and will he not consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the desirability of imposing an export tax?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have not got the information, and as to the second part of the question, it is obvious that if we put on an export tax without a simultaneous and corresponding tax being imposed by other producers, such as the Irish Free State, it would cause very serious damage to the distilling interest in this country
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that so far from an export tax being put upon whisky, we actually give a bounty of 4d. a gallon?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scotch whisky cannot be produced anywhere else, and has a monopoly?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Of course it is a matter of taste. My information is that it is very difficult chemically to distinguish between Scotch whisky and certain competing products which are produced elsewhere.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: If these two figures are inseparable why could not the right hon. Gentleman give us the total The question could be construed either as asking for the total, or as asking for the separate figures for whisky and gin
    Mr. GUINNESS: I did not understand the question to ask for the total, nor apparently did the hon. Member who put the question put that interpretation upon it
    Mr. SPEAKER: Another question can be put down

    OLD AGE PENSIONS
    Mr. CONNOLLYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of persons prosecuted for offences under the Old Age Pensions Act from 1908 to 1924; the number of old age pensioners sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine; and what is the average age on retirement for Army,
    1860
    Navy, teachers, police and old age pensions (normal retirements, excluding disability cases)?
    Mr. GUINNESS: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer
    With regard to the first and second parts of the question, information as to the number of persons prosecuted under the Old Age Pensions Acts, and the number of old age pensioners sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine during the period mentioned by the hon. Member, is not immediately available, and will take some little time to obtain; it will be furnished to the hon. Member and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as early as possible
    In reply to the third part of the question, the following are the approximate average ages (so far as known) as regards normal retirements, excluding disability cases

    Army (soldiers' service pensions)

    40

    Navy (ratings' service pensions)

    43

    Teachers

    62

    Police (based upon Metropolitan police figures only

    48˙5

    The statutory age for eligibility for the old age pension is 70 and 50 in the case of blind persons

    SILK (FACTORIES AND EMPLOYES)
    Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Labour how many factories there are, and where situate, in which the manufacture of artificial silk is carried on; and the number of persons employed in its manufacture?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to the information in the possession of the Home Office there are 27 factories and one workshop engaged in artificial silk manufacture, including winding, bleaching and dyeing. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the places at which they are situate. There are no available statistics with regard to the number of persons employed.
    The following is the list promised:

    ARTIFICIAL SILK MANUFACTURE

    Foots Cray, Kent

    2

    factories

    flint

    2

    factories

    Gloucester

    1

    factory

    Coventry

    1

    factory

    Nuneaton

    1

    factory

    Spondon, Derbyshire

    1

    factory

    Honley, Huddersfield

    1

    factory

    Bradford, Yorks

    3

    factories

    Manchester

    1

    factory

    Nelson

    1

    factory

    Rastrick, Brighouse

    1,

    factory

    ARTIFICIAL SILK WINDING

    Leicester

    1

    factory

    Bradford, Yorks

    2

    factories

    Manchester

    2

    factories

    Bury

    1

    factory

    Liverpool

    1

    workshop

    A RTIFICI1L SILK BLEACHING

    Bulwell, Notts

    1

    factory

    ARTIFICIAL SILK DYEING

    Hackney

    1

    factory

    Leicester

    1

    factory

    Macclesfield

    2

    factories

    Norwich

    1

    factory

    FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (EMPLOYES)
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Minister of Labour how many wage earners there were in Great Britain in 1924 registered as such; how many of these were employed in factories or workshops; how many factories were employing over 5,000 workpeople as average per year; and how many between 500 and 5,000?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards the first part of the question, the only information available is from the 1,321 Population Census which shows that the total number of employés gainfully occupied in Great Britain then was, approximately, 17,400,000. This total, however, includes salaried persons as well as wage earners and two classes are not separately distinguished. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Home Affairs regarding the remaining parts of the question, but I understand that the information desired is not available.

HIGHWAYS (BUILDING LINES)
Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move,
" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the proscription of building lines along public highways, and for purposes connected therewith."
In reply to numerous questions which have been asked in the House during the like of this Parliament and the life of preceding Parliaments, information has been elicited that this question is under consideration. The fact remains that up to the present nothing has been done. I cannot help thinking that in the absence of pressure from private Members it is unlikely that the powers which county councils seek in this direction will be granted to them. Many hon. Members thought that under the provisions of the Roads Improvement Bill powers would be granted to deal with this question, but, unfortunately, under a ruling which has been given in Committee upstairs, the Committee have found themselves unable to insert any Clause dealing with this matter. It was held to be outside the preamble of the Roads Improvement Bill. Hence, other methods have to be sought to deal with this question
I would like to remind the House that the borough and district councils have, under the provisions of the Town Planning Acts, 1909 and 1923, powers to make town planning schemes, in which they may prescribe building lines. Under the Public Health Act, local authorities can prescribe improvement lines in their streets. While these local authorities have these powers, they are denied to county councils, who have no similar powers to deal with building lines along the main highways which stretch throughout the length and breadth of our country. The only method by which county councils can prescribe building lines, apart from powers given to them by fresh legislation, is by approaching the rural district councils, and asking them to form town planning schemes. It is, obviously, impossible to expect rural district councils, numbering as they do many hundreds, to form town planning schemes simply to prescribe building lines along the highways
For some years after the old stage coach ceased to rumble along our highways, until the coming of the petrol era., there was little need for powers of this kind. Roads occupied what was, after

1863
all, a very secondary position in the country. They were dirty in winter and dusty in summer. No one desired to build houses close to the road, but a change has come about with the construction of the modern dust free road, and the handsome inducements now being offered by the Government for building houses have given a stimulus to building houses in a manner which compels attention to be given to this matter. Houses are springing up in great numbers along our highways, and they are made along roads which are already in many cases too narrow for the heavy traffic which they now carry, and will certainly prove far too narrow when the traffic increases, as it is bound to increase, in the near future.
I would remind the House of the great burden upon the ratepayers. In 1913–14 the ratepayers were called upon to contribute £71,000,000, or £1 18s. lld. per head. In 1923-24 they contributed £144,000,000, which represented a burden of £3 14s. 10d. per head. Ratepayers are naturally somewhat anxious about the burdens which may be placed upon them, yet it is clear that unless the local authorities, the county councils, are given powers to prescribe these building lines, in the near future, when they are called on to widen these roads, as in many instances they will have to do in the public interest, they will have to pay enormous sums for compensation. The County Council Association have received numerous representations from their constituent bodies. No fewer than 16 county councils have approached the central organisation. Those representations have come from Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Norfolk, Monmouthshire, Surrey and Yorkshire. They come from all parts of the country, and it is clear that this need is not a local but a general need felt throughout the country
I would suggest to the House that this matter is urgent. It cannot be denied that many of our roads are already too narrow to meet the requirements of modern traffic and will have to be widened. I respectfully ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill which, I am glad to think, has been backed from all parts of the House, to give powers to the county councils to prescribe building lines, and thus check the rapidly
1864
increasing drains which are being, and will be, made upon the ratepayers in the shape of compensation arising out of the widening of roads
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Turtou, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Mr. Fenby, and Mr. William Thorne.

HIGHWAYS (BUILDING LINES) BILL,
to make provision for the prescription of building lines along public highways; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

BILLS REPORTED
Land Drainage (Black Sluice) Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Keighley Water Charges) Bill[Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill[Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill[Lords],
Darlington Corporation (Transport, etc.) Bill,
Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to he printed
Great Western Railway Bill[Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill[Lords],Reported, without Amendment; Report
to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill to be read the Third time

STANDING ORDERS
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;
1. "That, in the case of the MidGlamorgan Water Board Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit
2. "That, in the case of the Mersey Tunnel [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:The parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill
3. "That, in the case of the Surrey County Council Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit
Resolutions agreed to

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to,
Gold Standard Bill, without Amendment
Port of London Bill, with an Amendment
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Abertillery and District Water Board, Barnoldswick, Eastbourne, Leek, Llanelly, Nuneaton, Paignton, and WestonsuperMare." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill[Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the closing of the Church of Saint Mary, Birmingham, and the sale of the site and churchyard thereof, and the application of the proceeds of sale for church purposes, the extinction of the ecclesiastical parish of Saint Mary, Birmingham, and the merger thereof in another parish; and for other purposes." [Saint Mary's Church, Birmingham, and General Hospital Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to re-incorporate The Standard Life
Assurance Company; to provide for the control and management of the company as a mutual company and for the conversion of its share capital into perpetual stock; to confer further powers on the company; to repeal existing Acts; and for other purposes." [Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to children born out of wedlock." [Legitimacy Bill [Lords.] Saint Mary's Church, Birmingham, and
General Hospital Bill [Lords], Standard Life Assurance Company Bill
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No 2) Bill[Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RATING AND VALUATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time
  The main purposes of this Bill are to simplify the methods of making and collecting rates, and to promote uniformity in valuation. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the process of arriving at simplification is rather complicated, and, though I am anxious to avoid the censure usually bestowed on the Front Bench of taking up an unnecessarily long time, I am afraid that it will be necessary for me to trespass somewhat on the patience of hon. Members this afternoon if I am to give any clear explanation of the provisions of this Bill. This is not a party question. It would puzzle the ingenuity of the most extreme partisan to find an electioneering slogan in its clauses. In spite of the fact that there are some Amendments—I might almost call them diversions—upon the Paper, I yet hope, in view of the fact that in all quarters of the House there are bon. Members who have themselves taken part in local administration and know the difficulties which beset those who are carrying on with so much public spirit and credit that work for the service of the country, that from them I shall have general support for a Measure which is not only valuable in itself but which will pave the way for further reforms calculated to promote efficiency and economy in local administration, and to extend a greater measure of equity and justice in the distribution of local burdens
  I would like to express my regret that a longer time has not been afforded to hon. Members to study this Bill before taking the Second Reading. That has been due to circumstances beyond my control. But, on the other hand, I would remind the House that the Bill is founded upon, and indeed in most respects is identical with, a draft Bill on the same subject, which was last year circulated lo all local authorities and
  1874
  others interested in the subject throughout the country. It was circulated in order that the Department might have the benefit of their criticisms and suggestions. We have received from them very valuable advice and some constructive suggestions, which we have to a large extent embodied in this Bill. In fact, I may say that, with the exception of the Clause dealing with the rating of machinery—which is entirely new and does not appear in the Bill of last year —this Bill may be said to differ from the draft Valuation Bill only in respect of alterations which have been designed to meet criticisms and suggestions received from those to whom the draft was circulated
  Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to begin by giving a very brief sketch of the conditions which we seek to reform, so that hon. Members may have some adequate idea of the chaotic condition of things which we find today, and may realise the necessity of overhauling a method which was designed to meet a condition of things that has long since passed away, and which in present circumstances may be called obsolete, cumbersome, illogical and unjust. In order to find the origin of our present system of rating, we must go back over 300 years in the history of the country. We must go back to a time when the population of the whole country was considerably less than that of Greater London today, and when the various parishes were almost entirely isolated from one another owing to the meagre and scant means of communication which existed in those days
  4.0 P.M. Of course, at that time there were no local authorities in existence as we find them today, but wherever people are gathered together in communities the necessity arises for common services, for which it is necessary to raise money. Among the common services, in the days of which I am speaking, was the relief of the poor in each parish, and before the dissolution of the monasteries, that relief was largely maintained by means of alms from the monasteries, and by bequests and charitable institutions. When the monasteries came to an end, there was a deficit, but it was still sought to meet that deficit by voluntary means. In those days, as now, there was always a difficulty in getting by voluntary means sufficient

  1875
  contributions to provide the funds that were required, and so a law was framed, and in 1536 it was enacted that parsons, vicars, curates and preachers should be directed to "exhort, move, stir and provoke" people to liberality. That does not seem to have been effective, and in the reign of Edward VI some further Measure was found to be required, and another Statute was passed under which collectors were appointed, who were enjoined to hold what we should now call a flag day. On a certain Sunday they were to ask all people in the parish to contribute, out of their charity, a weekly sum for the relief of the poor. Still, that was not sufficient, and in 1563, in the reign of Elizabeth, a rather more drastic Measure was passed, in which it was enacted that if any person, "of his wilful and froward mind," obstinately refused to give a weekly sum in relief of the poor, he should be brought to the sessions, and there he was to be "gently and charitably exhorted "by the justices. If he continued forward, the justices were empowered to tax him, and if he still refused to pay the taxes he might be sent to prison. That seemed to parry matter further, but, still, the use of force was the very last resort. Last of all, we come to the famous Statute of 1601, in which, for the first time, overseers of the poor were appointed in every parish, and they were empowered to tax all the inhabitants in such competent sums as the overseers might think fit. But even then no guidance was given to those officers as to how they were to assess the parishes, or how they were to distribute the contributions which they were empowered to exact
  I think the House will observe two points in this brief historical survey: first of all, that the parish, which was the unit taken for the purposes of the relief of the poor, was the only unit which could have been taken at that time on account of the difficulty of communication I have mentioned, and, secondly, in those happy days the relief of the poor was the main, and almost the only, service for which local rates had to be raised. But, later on, other services naturally developed, and the money required to provide these further services, such as the maintenance of roads, cleansing, lighting, and so forth, was
  1876
  raised in two ways—either by the addition of fresh charges to the poor rate, or by the levying of fresh rates, which, as a rule, were based on the same valuation as that on which the poor rate was based
  These two methods continued to expand as centuries went by, but they received their greatest expansion in the last hundred years with the great development of local services, and with the increase in the number of local authorities. Today a parish is still given a local administration, and the overseers are still the principal rating authority, but other authorities make demands upon the overseers for their expenses, and the overseers are precepted by borough councils, urban district councils, rural district councils, and boards of guardians. The county councils also precept, but not frequently upon the overseers, as they make their precept upon the boards of guardians, who make the county demand upon the overseers. On the other hand, boroughs are empowered to raise rates for their own services irrespective of the poor rate, and you have improvement rates, borough rates, and general district rates, which provide funds that are necessary for police, for education, for sanitary service, and so on, and these borough rates are, in some cases, not levied on the same valuation as the poor rates, but the boroughs are themselves empowered to make separate valuations. Moreover, these different rates are not equal. Certain properties, for instance, are entitled to relief under one rate, and to no relief under another rate, although the two rates exist in the same area
  So that it will he seen how extremely difficult it is to keep accounts straight, bow much bookkeeping is necessary, and how extremely hard it is for members of local authorities to see exactly what their various services are costing the ratepayers. In the rural parishes there are, again, special rates for services which are peculiar to individual parishes. The parishes may raise a special rate; there are library rates, lighting and watching rates, and some of these rates are really extremely trivial in amount, although they still require separate accounts and, in some eases, separate staffs. I have made an investigation, for instance, into lighting and watching rates, and I find that in 1922-23, out of 800 lighting and watching

  1877
  rates in the parishes, 723 were under 6d. in the pound, and 423 were under 3d. in the pound
  The House will see, from what I have said, that there is today altogether an unnecessary number of rates, and, further, that this complicated and rather cumbrous procedure of precepts through overseers, is really a mere survival of the past, which has really no significance in relation to the conditions of today. Accordingly this Bill provides for the final disappearance of the overseers from the Statute of 1601. If hon. Members will refer to the Ninth Schedule, they will see there some of the rather quaint wording of that ancient Statute. The duties of the overseers are to be transferred, under the Bill, to the real, living bodies of today, that is to say, to the local authorities, the borough councils, the urban district councils and the rural district councils. They will form the new rating authorities, and the main rates, which I have already described to the House, will be consolidated into a single general rate, and only in the parishes in the rural areas, where special services still have to be provided, will there still be rates known as special rates, but, where those rates are really light, they will be included as special additional items in the general rates.
  This reform, I think, is going to lead to a very great amount of simplification. From papers which have been circulated, probably the House is aware that, in urban districts, the number of rating authorities is going to be less than half of what it is today, and in the rural areas the reduction is to be far greater: from 12,882 rating authorities existing today we shall come down to 648. We are sometimes told that we are getting rid of a number of unpaid officials, and that we are going to substitute for them paid officials at an increased cost. I think hon. Members must bear in mind that there is already a whole army of paid officials in connection with this rating, and that assistant overseers, collectors of poor rates and other officials are employed in such numbers, that I am advised frequently they have all the apparatus of separate rate-books, separate rate demand notes, receipts, audits, cash books and the rest of it for, perhaps, a dozen or 50 ratepayers
  As to the economy which is to be effected in this way, it is going to be
  1878
  very great. I think clear evidence of that is to be found in the fact that a large number of towns have already gone to the expense of obtaining a local Act in order to get consolidation of the rates. I believe in the present Parliament there are no less than 15 Bills before us now in which the same object is to be attained, and I am told by a gentleman, who is, I think, recognised as the greatest authority in the country upon this subject, that from his experience the consolidation of rates in urban districts will effect an economy equal to a penny rate, with the exception, perhaps, of some large towns, where the penny rate represents such a sum as £20,000 or £30,000, and where the economy will, probably, be found to range between £5,000 and £10,000 a year. One case has come under my knowledge of the consolidation of rates obtained by a private Act which has resulted in economy to a county borough of no less than a 4d. rate. So that the House will see there is a very considerable saving to be obtained by the proposals of the Bill in this respect
  There is one other reform in this connection which I should like to mention, and which particularly affects rural areas. That is what is known as the precepting reform. I have explained that county rates are obtained by precept through the guardians, and the amount of money required for the county rates is apportioned among the various parishes concerned, according to their rateable value. The rateable value in many rural parishes is concentrated, frequently, in one considerable property. It may be the big house of the parish, or it may be a factory or a mine. If that house, factory or mine is temporarily closed, the valuation list remains as it was before, but the property is contributing nothing to the rates, and, as the county rate is in proportion to valuation, and not in proporion to the produce of that valuation, the unfortunate ratepayers of that particular parish may have to pay, perhaps, twice as much as those in an adjoining parish, although they do not get any corresponding benefit. That is swept away by the present Bill. The precepting reform consists of this, that there is one rate having uniform poundage right throughout the area, and, therefore, in special circumstances such as those I have described, the deficiency occurring would be shared by the whole

  1879
  body of ratepayers throughout the area, instead of falling upon a few particular individuals
  I now pass to the new proposal in the Bill which refers to the collection of rates by owners. Under the,present system, owners of dwelling houses can elect, or, in some cases, be forced to come into what is known as the compounding system. Under that system the landlord pays full rates on the whole of his property, whether any of that property is void or not. It does not matter whether it is occupied or not: he undertakes to pay the rates on every house belonging to him. For that he is given a commission which ranges from 15 to 30 per cent. in the Poor Rate and 50 per cent. in respect of other rates. That means a considerable loss to the rates, especially in present circumstances, when void properties are practically nonexistent, and we propose, instead of that system, to introduce a new plan under which a landlord will only be compelled to pay over the rates which he actually collects. If, therefore, he is unable to collect the full rates, he will not be liable to the rating authority for the full rates but only for what he actually collects, and for that purpose he is going to be given a commission of 5 per cent". It will still be open to him voluntarily to undertake to compound on the old plan, but if he does so, in that case his commission is to he limited to 15 per cent
  We believe that under these new proposals, local authorities will be able to get some considerable part of their rates collected on something like reasonable terms instead of the prohibitive terms to which they are subject today. In any case, the landlord who is collecting rates will be compelled to furnish the tenant with a statement, not only of the rent, but also of the rates stated separately—the rates in respect of the house. The object of that provision is to enable the tenant to realise his liability for the services which he is receiving and induce him to recognise that it is his duty as a good citizen to see that economy is properly exercised by his representatives on the local council. I believe Part I of the Bill with which I have been dealing up to the present, will receive general assent
  I now come to Part II, concerning which there is more likely to be difference
  1880
  of opinion, owing to various fears as to the results which may arise from the proposals. I hope to convince the House that these fears are without any serious foundation. I mentioned in an earlier stage of my remarks that under the statute of Elizabeth no guidance was given as to how the inhabitants who were to be rated should be assessed, and the result of that want of guidance was want of uniformity. I may cite the case of the clothing trade, which used to be carried on in the southern and southwestern counties. It was decided that the stock-in-trade of the clothing trade should be rated, and the result was that the trade left those districts and removed itself further north where no such imposts was laid upon it. That is a fact which I ask the House to bear in mind, because it has some relation to what I may have to say at a later stage on the question of the rating of machinery. This want of uniformity, owing to lack of guidance, continued for a very long time, in fact, until 1836, when the Parochial Assessment Act was passed, which, for the first time, laid down the basis upon which valuation should proceed. In that Act I find it laid down that:
  No rate for the relief of the poor in England and Wales shall be allowed by any Justices or be of any force which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto, that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenant's rates and taxes and tithe commutation rent charge, if any, and deducting there from the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent."
  That is a provision which has a very familiar ring to those who know the definition of gross valuation which is generally adopted today. But although that basis provided that the valuation in an individual parish should be uniform, it did not provide that the same basis should be used in different parishes, and so, in 1862, the Union Assessment Committees Act was passed, which gathered together the different parishes into unions, set up in each union an assessment committee which dealt with the whole area of the union, and so provided for uniformity over a district larger than the parish itself. Even under that Act no scale of deductions was laid down,

  1881
  and there was no provision for periodic revaluations. That Act being still in force, and still being without that pro vision, hon. Members may understand what the position is today. To take the case, for instance, of a borough which includes areas situate in two separate unions, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to impose an equal rate over the whole borough, the valuations being on different bases in the two unions because one may have been revalued quite recently, while the other has not been revalued for a very long time. So difficult has this want of uniformity made things that, outside of London, it, is possible today to have no fewer than three valuations for rating purposes. There may be one for the borough, another for the county, a third for the poor rate, and, when it is remembered that in addition to these three there may also be a fourth for purposes of Income Tax, the House will see that things have got into a very tangled condition indeed
  What is the way out of this tangle? I think when we remember the great development of local government and the large areas which are today covered by one service carried on by local autho rities, it is quite evident that we must try to get uniformity over a very much larger area than hitherto, and the area over which that uniformity is to be pre served should be coincident with the local government boundaries. So the Bill proposes to set up new valuation areas which instead of being areas of unions—of Poor Law authorities—will be in the case of a county borough the area of that borough, and in the case of a county an area to be delimited by the council of the county, after consultation with the rating authorities in the county, and to be submitted to the Minister of Health for his approval. For each of these new valuation areas we propose that new assessment committees shall be set up. In the case of the county boroughs the assessment committee will be appointed by the town council. In the case of the county it will be appointed by the county council, by the boards of guardians and by the rating authorities in the areas concerned. In order that we may not lose the wide and long experience of the overseers and guardians, it is provided that in the case of the county boroughs not less than one fourth of the members of the assessment committee shall be
  1882
  nominated by the boards of guardians. In all cases there will he included in the assessment committee two general commissioners of Income Tax. As a further effort to obtain uniformity over largo areas, it is proposed to set up county valuation committees to include members of the county council and members of the various assessment committees in the area. These county valuation committees are expressly directed to hold conferences at which may appear members of the assessment committees in county boroughs, as well as those in the county itself, and in this way it is hoped that a much greater amount of standardisation will be achieved than is possible in present circumstances
  I observe with some regret that the appointment of these new assessment committees has been taken in some quarters as a reflection on the existing committees. For that view there is no foundation. The existing committees have done their work very well and they have been praised frequently for it by various predecessors of mine. But I think it obvious that their constitution does not fit in with the new state of things and with these much larger valuation areas. It is essential that the assessment committees should represent not merely the hoards of guardians, but the local authorities, who are responsible for the bulk of the expense. There have been very great changes in this respect in regard to the position of those who are responsible for the administration of poor relief compared with the other local authorities. For instance, I find in 1840 the total amount raised by rates in the country was just over £8,000,000, and out of that sum £4,750,000 was raised for the poor rate alone, and only a little over £1,000,000 was raised for the purposes of county authorities and municipal corporations. That offers a very striking contrast to what we find today, when the total amount raised in rates has risen to £142,000,000, and out of that only about £31,000,000, or 22 per cent., is attributable to the expenses of the guardians and overseers of the poor. That shows the change in the relative importance in value of these two sets of authorities, and I think is justification for the setting up of the new assessment committees proposed in the Bill
  I have some fear that hon. Members who are not familiar with this subject may be

  1883
  puzzled by all this jargon about assessment committees, valuation committees, rating authorities, and the rest of it, but I would ask them to remember that the valuation area is to be a large area, probably comprising several rating authorities, and the assessment committee which represents that larger area may be regarded as a sort of court of appeal who will have to consider the valuation lists presented to them by the rating authorities representing the smaller areas comprised in the valuation area. I believe there has got about some sort of idea that these assessment committees are going to be unduly influenced by representatives of the Revenue. I cannot help thinking that some people—I do not say this House—have got the idea that, for instance, a revenue officer will be a member of the assessment committee which is to be the court of appeal. That is not so. The revenue officer is not a member of the assessment committee. It is true that he has a right to appear before it, but in appearing before it, and in stating his objections to any items in the valuation list, he is put in exactly the same position as any member of the general public, and is allowed to do no more than any other member of the public is allowed to do in the examination of witnesses before the committee. I cannot help thinking that those who have taken this view, that the assessment committee was going to be in favour of the Revenue, have been misled by the fact that these General Commissioners of Income Tax are appointed as members of the assessment committees. Of course, the General Commissioners of Income Tax are not servants of the Revenue at all. I have here a passage in the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax for 1920, and after discussing the suggestion that certain powers should be taken away from the General Commissioners, they use these words:
  We believe that to do this would create a great opposition and would be regarded as an injustice by the taxpayer, who often looks upon the General Commissioners as a natural safeguard introduced between himself and the revenue authorities
  It will be understood, therefore, that the real functions of the General Commissioners of Income Tax are very different from those which are sometimes popularly attributed to them, and that their presence on these assessment committees
  1884
  must rather be regarded as a guarantee that the interests of the general public will be taken proper care of than as any indication that the interests of the Revenue officer are going to have undue prominence
  But let us return for a moment to the rating authority. It is provided in the Bill, in Clause 18, that they are to prepare fresh valuation lists every five years, in that respect following the practice of London, and it is further provided, in Clause 19, that the gross values, which are finally found for rating purposes, are to be taken as conclusive evidence of the gross values for Income Tax purposes, so that at last we get down to the ideal of one single valuation, not merely for rating purposes, but also for Income Tax purposes, which, for over 50 years, has existed in London, and in one of the Schedules of the Bill will be found a fixed scale of deductions, which will give that uniformity in municipal valuations which has hitherto been so conspicuously lacking. This ideal of a single valuation has been recommended for years past by Royal Commissions, by committees, by associations of local authorities, by surveyors' institutions, and so forth. I find in the Report of the Royal Commission on Imperial and Local Taxation, which came out in 1901, the statement:
  A general desire has been expressed by most of the witnesses, and in a number of resolutions which have been forwarded to us by public bodies, that it is desirable to have one valuation authority, and one system of arriving at valuations for the whole rating area over which common rates are raised; that upon such valuation all rates and taxes, both for local and Imperial purposes, should be charged and levied; and, further, that, if possible, provision should he made to obtain uniformity in valuation throughout the whole country."
  I have here also an interesting quotation from the evidence which was given before a Departmental Committee on Imperial and Local Taxation in 1912 by a very distinguished surveyor, Mr. (now Sir) Henry Trustram Eve, who said:
  We are unanimous in thinking that we want one rateable value for rates and taxes. and we took a leading part under the Bill of 1904 in that direction. I personally was one of the deputation of three that went to see Mr. bong. We asked for that, and we pointed out in our memorandum … that there were five rates and taxes which could have different totals presented to the ratepayers … The answer of the Local Government Board was that they had

  1885
  nothing to do with Somerset House, and we ventured to say that we wanted to talk to the Cabinet and not to the President of the Local Government Board; we wanted some Government to bring in a Bill that was above the Local Government Board and above Somerset House, so that we could have one rating value for Schedule A, poor rate, and Inhabited House Duty, so that the ratepayer would have merely one account that he could really remember and pay everything on. We were told we could not have it, and the matter dropped; but I hope that this Committee will seriously take it into consideration, because that is what the public want."
  I know it is argued that, although this principle of a single valuation may be very desirable in normal times, these are not normal times, and I think that some criticism has been directed against the Bill because it is suggested that, owing to the existence of the Rent Restriction Acts, rents on precisely similar properties are to be found differing very widely, and if you are going to have a single valuation, in which the Inland Revenue officer is concerned as well as the rating authorities, he will go forcing up the rate value for rating of any particular house of which the rent is in considerable excess, perhaps, of the normal rent charged upon similar property. I do not think there is any foundation for any fear of that kind. In Clause 76 will be found the old definition of gross value, with which we are all familiar, and in Clause 72 it will be found that nothing in this Bill is to affect the principles upon which hereditaments have hitherto been valued; and, taking these two Clauses together, it seems quite clear to me that the rating authorities, in preparing their valuation lists, will take what seems to them to be the normal rent which is being paid for a house as the annual value of that house, and that they will treat these exceptional rents, where they exist, as being what you might call fancy rents as being something more than the value, which is indeed being paid by the tenant, but which should not affect the annual value for the purposes of rating
  That is what I believe will be the practice of the rating authorities. But then, it is said, if you are going to do that, you are going to deprive the Revenue officer of his right to get the proper amount of tax for the purposes of Schedule A. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to what is the intention
  1886
  of the Treasury in this matter, and he tells me that, according to Clause 18, the new valuations will not be completed throughout the country until 1929, and that in the next ensuing Finance Bill after that time, it is proposed to make the gross value in this valuation conclusive for Income Tax purposes, as well as for rateable purposes, subject to such conditions as Parliament may then impose If the special conditions to be asked for in that Finance Bill involve giving powers to the Revenue officer to obtain the additional assessment upon these fancy rents, then, I think, two things may be said: First of all, that will not be giving the Revenue officer any greater powers than he has today. Today he makes his own valuation, quite independent of rateable value altogether. Secondly, if the idea is that the Revenue officer is going all the time to provoke the rating authorities to work up the assessments on ordinary properties to the highest possible point, give him these powers of putting additional assessments on fancy rents, and you will take away from him all inducements to raise the rateable value beyond what it should properly be, in the opinion of the rating authority
  Having met, as I hope, the particular points which I know are in the minds of some hon. Members on that matter, I would like to say a word about the statutory deductions which are provided in the Schedules of the Bill. As I have said already, there is a great want of uniformity in the rates of deductions which are practised in different parts of the country today. I have seen a valuable statement of rates levied in 1924 and 1925 compiled by the Borough Treasurer of Preston, and, after pointing out that out of 217 towns with which he was dealing, in 97 there had been no revaluation since 1914, he goes on to say that the deductions vary in different cases from less than I5 percent. to more than 30 per cent I think that shows that, if you are to get any sort of standard by which you can compare the rates or valuations in one part of the country with another, it is necessary to lay down some kind of1 uniform scale. We have prepared and put forward such a scale in the Schedule of the Bill, and when we come to the Committee stage I shall be ready, of course, to listen to any arguments or considera-

  1887
  tions that may be brought forward with a view to showing me that that scale is not a proper scale, but I may say, in the meantime, that what we have done is to adopt the scale laid down in the Finance Act, 1923, and that where there have been in the past special reliefs for certain classes of property, such as, for instance, the relief of 75 per cent. afforded to agricultural land, that is included in the Schedule, and it is made permanent, the only change being that, instead of, as now, being a rebate off the rate, it will be a rebate off the valuation
  Now I want to say a few words about Clauses 36 to 46, which deal with the valuation of special properties. Special properties, as the House probably knows, include railways, canals, and public utility undertakings generally, which very frequently are situated in more than one valuation area. The present practice of valuing railways is a very complex one. The valuation is parochial, and that is to say that what we have to try to ascertain is the rent which a hypothetical lessee of that particular part of the land which is comprised in that particular parish would pay for it —obviously a perfectly absurd and impossible method of procedure, and one made the more difficult since the War by the amalgamation of the railways which has taken place. It is, therefore, proposed in the Bill to set up a central valuation authority on conditions which are the result of an agreement arrived at, after very protracted negotiations, between the railways and the various local authorities concerned. This new railway assessment authority will be composed of an independent chairman, who will be an experienced lawyer nominated by the Lord Chancellor, a representative of the London County Council, and six other representatives of various associations of local authorities. The duty of the central authority will he to value each railway as a whole,in cumulo,as the lawyers say, and, having ascertained the value as a whole, which they will do by taking account of the net receipts of the railway, they have then to apportion it out among the several parishes through which the railway runs
  With regard to the Anglo-Scottish railways, the task is even more difficult here,
  1888
  because the law and practice with regard to rating differ in the two countries, and it will be seen that they are not included in the present Bill. They are to be dealt with in a subsequent Bill, which will be introduced, probably not this year, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, to deal with the Scottish and Anglo-Scottish railways. They, too, will have to be valued as a whole by the railway assessment authority in England and the railway assessor in Scotland jointly. There will, first, have to be an apportionment between Scotland and England of the valuation, and then there will be a further apportionment in each country between the several parishes of the valuation so assigned. In the meantime some provisional arrangement is provided for in this Bill for dealing with the English railways until a final arrangement can be made. Special properties are to be dealt with by assessment committees, in which case the railway assessment authority will act as an appeal court
  Mr. MacLAREN: Will that court he always in session?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. I now want to say something about Clause 22, which deals with the provisions as to the valuation of hereditaments containing machinery and plant. The rating of machinery and plant has been a grievance with manufacturers for a great many years. First of all, the possessors of machinery have argued that process machinery is really in the nature of chattels or possessions on which they ought not to pay rates, and they have further argued that, owing to the uncertainty of the assessments and the practice of the different unions as to valuing, machinery of the same manufacturer, or of the same kind owned by different manufacturers, situated in different parts may be differently dealt with according to the town in which it happens to be situated. They have sought to remedy this state of things by numerous private Bills, many of which have passed their Second Reading in this House, but have never reached the Statute Book. A Royal Commission in 1901 recommended that
  all such machinery and tools as were not fixed, or which were so fixed that they could be taken away without interference or destroying part of the hereditament should be exempt from rating—."

  1889
  That would be assimilating the practice in England to that which prevails in Scotland. More recently the matter has been again inquired into by a Departmental Committee, in 1923, presided over by a late Home Secretary (Mr. Edward Shortt). They found, first of all, that in the classification of the law and present practice there was a serious lack of uniformity which, if possible, ought to be rectified. Furthermore, they found that some manufacturers were entitled to relief, and they recommended that loose tools and plant and machines operated by hand or toot power should be excluded from rating altogether, and that the rest of the machinery used should be divided into two classes. One class to be considered part of the hereditament and to be fully rated; this was to include motive power, lighting, heating and electrical apparatus, lifts, elevators, railways and tram tracks, and plant or combinations of plant and machinery of the nature of the structure. The second class, which was process machinery, was also to be rated, but was to receive a rebate of 75 per cent. The Committee also suggested the setting up of a panel of referees to decide whether any particular piece of machinery fell into one or other of the two classes
  I have considered these recommendations very carefully, and I have decided to adopt certain of them with certain modification. The Bill will be found to follow the recommendations of that Committee, first of all, in exempting loose tools and plant from rating altogether, and, secondly, in dividing the other machinery into two classes, one of which will be fully rated. I am very anxious that we should avoid unnecessary litigation in this matter. I do not think it is possible to put inside the Bill a complete schedule or category of the machines which are to be fully rated. On the other hand, I recognise that, if you put in a general recommendation, you run the risk of numerous cases in Law Courts, till a sufficient structure of ease law has been built tip
  So I have adopted the expedient of setting up a Committee, and of leaving to that Committee to divide machinery into the classes, and to revise the classes at intervals. There is provision for objections to be heard. Proposals like this have been considered imprac-
  1890
  ticable before. I do not know why. After all, it is really only what has been done in the past when case after case has been taken to the Law Courts, and after an immense amount of eloquence, time, and money has been spent the matter has been decided one way or the other. I am not anxious to go through all that process again. That, therefore, is the proposal in the Bill I have carefully considered the suggestion in the Report that this machinery should be subject to a 75 per cent. rebate. What influenced the Committee was the desire to tide over by easy stages the transition from the rating of machinery to full exemption, which they feel in their heart of hearts is the thing to be done. I must say that I myself find it difficult to justify the expense and the protracted delay involved in valuing all this machinery foe which, after all, you are only to get 25 per cent. It does not seem to me to be a businesslike proposition at all. The valuation itself will certainly almost always be subject to dispute, and perhaps lead to litigation. Only the man who is carrying on the business knows the value of his machinery, and I cannot see the necessity of harassing manufacturers by a. process of the kind, especially at this time, when they are so much in need of relief
  When I was considering this subject and when I was coming to the conclusions which I have put before the House, I did not have in mind any measure connected with the Budget. I was just thinking of what was the right course. I have myself in the past supported more than one of these Private Member's Bills which have been brought in for the exemption of machinery from rating. I thought it was a hindrance, and that putting a charge on a manufacturer for bringing his machinery up-to-date with the object of making the machinery and plant more efficient was handicapping him in competition with foreign competitors
  But my attention has been called to the bearing of this upon the Pensions Bill by the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Budget Debate, and the way in which he attacked lay right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the first thing he said was that he was pretending to give relief by taking something off the Income Tax, whereas the real way to give the relief was by reducing the rates. The

  1891
  Leader of the Opposition pointed out exactly what I have been saying, that every time a manufacturer improves his equipment he puts upon himself a new charge, and the critics of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said he had done nothing to relieve that. I do not think it was for the Chancellor to include in the Budget proposals for the relief of the manufacturer from rates. But here is the relief for which the Leader of the Opposition asks, so that possibly I may claim the support of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in carrying out the policy which his Leader has propounded. If you are going to take a burden off the shoulders of one section of the ratepayers, and that. burden has got to be lifted on to the shoulders of some other of the ratepayers—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—there is no advantage unless the burden itself is decreased. Hon. Members who cheered a moment ago lose sight of the latter point. What is going to be the effect of this relief? Is it not a fact that a great many manufacturers today are bearing burdens upon their industry which are not suffered by their foreign competitors? These burdens have to be borne whether they are making a profit or not. By them they are seriously handicapped in their work and it tends to increase unemployment. We start out to relieve them by the proposal to exempt. certain machinery from rating, and this is going to help them in their struggle, enable them to increase their output, and to employ more men; and therefore it is going to decrease the charge on the ratepayers, and generally relieve the total burden on the ratepayers
  I am afraid I have kept the House a considerable time, but I wanted to make a full statement. I do not propose to deal now with any of the Amendments. They seem to me to be irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which makes it impossible for hon. Members opposite, at any future time when they happen to have the opportunity to carry the matter still further, for the better the machinery there is the easier it will be to do what they wish. The matter has been discussed in all parts of the country by various authorities and by those concerned, and it is one of great length, great complexity and great importance. Hon. Members will now
  1892
  have time to consider it, but only a short time in which to discuss it. The time has been shortened in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members who desired a further opportunity of discussing the silk duties, and I trust that the time of the House is not to be taken up by discussing proposals which, however they may be argued, have nothing to do with the proposals in this Bill. I hope that in our Debate today we shall discuss the provisions of the Bill as it is, and leave the merits or demerits of new systems of rating to be discussed again on some more suitable occasion
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead there of the words
  5.0 P.M.
  "while being in favour of a reduction of the number of rating authorities and uniformity of valuation, and being of opinion that the existing practice of rating machinery is detrimental to trade, this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a measure which will impose the burdens removed from machinery on to dwelling houses and improvements instead of placing them upon land and minerals which should be separately valued."
  The right hon. Gentleman need be under no anxiety with regard to the interest which the House has felt in his speech. He has made a naturally dull subject thoroughly interesting, and at times even amusing, to us. Indeed, in a sense I am sorry to be moving this Amendment, for it would have been pleasanter to have spent all the time in praising and being thankful for the good things that he is offering us. All of us on this side of the House admit that many of the things which the right hon. Gentleman offers us are good. The view of the Labour party with regard to Bills that are brought in by the Government is not that we ought to object to everything that is brought in. Indeed, yesterday we helped forward on its way the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill. There is no desire to do other than help the better kind of legislation of the Government. Frankly, we are not sorry to see this Bill brought forward. It has been suspected of existence for some time, and every year, like a sort of sly rabbit, it has been poking its nose out of the hole and has gone in again. It has come out into the open now. So far, so good. But, more than that. there would, I think, be

  1893
  agreement almost everywhere in the House as to the need for reconstruction of the valuation authority and the reform of the administration of rating. Most of this elaborate Bill in principle would certainly be praised from this side of the House. There will, of course, be innumerable points to be dealt with in Committee, but with all that side of the Bill my comment on the Second Reading can be only a general approval
  The substantial reduction of the myriad assessment authorities to a manageable number is good. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can reduce the number still further than he proposes, but we would be very glad to assist him if he has such a proposal to make. It is a great reduction from 15,000 to 1,700. Then it is good that the valuation will now be under the control of the most effective and most democratically chosen authorities of the country. It is good that the valuation for local purposes will be linked up with national taxation, and that the Income Tax Commissioners will help to make the assessment, which is to be used for local and taxing purposes alike. The increase in uniformity is good. The disappearance of the variety of rates is good. The fact that the quinquennial valuation now practised in London will become universal is good In fact, the whole principle of the reform of the administration of valuation meets with our approval, as much as it does with that of hon. Gentlemen opposite
  But that is not all the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had stopped there, and if that had been all the Bill, there would have been nothing more to say. But, the Bill is something besides that. It is a halfhearted tinkering with the basis of valuation and with the evils of the incidence of rates. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the two principal alterations in that direction. There is some exemption of some machinery which is now rated, and there is a new system of rating for railways. Of the general principles underlying the exemption of machinery, most of us on this side are heartily in favour. Most of us agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a high tax of 15s. or 20s. in the £ on a necessary part of the industry and the enterprise of this country is bad, and very bad indeed. What we ask is this: Why is it bad only
  1894
  for machinery? And why is it not bad for all machinery? It is bad for some machinery, but not for all. It is bad for loose machinery that you can work with your foot, but not bad for machinery that is worked by some impersonal motive power. Why is it more difficult for us to compete with foreign countries because our industrialists pay on this kind of machinery, and why is it not just as bad because they pay, in the terms of the Third Schedule, on such things as
  "generating, storing, transforming, or transmitting of power, heating, cooling, ventilating, lighting, lifts and elevators, gas holders, blast furnaces, coke ovens, tar distilling plant, cupolas, water towers with tanks,"
  and so forth? What is the difference? The proposal is, that certain kinds of machinery shall be exempt. Note what is not exempt. What industries are at the present time most depressed and most in need of relief? Shall we say the mining industry? How much loose machinery is to be exempt in mines? A little, possibly, though I do not know. The main machinery, certainly, will not be touched at all. I am told that none would be exempt. It will riot be denied that most of the mining machinery cannot possibly be touched by this exemption. Take our shipyards. Most of the machinery there will not be touched by this exemption. The same applies to the machinery of most of the iron and steel industries. The very places where relief is most wanted, in the opinion of all industrialists, is to be exempt from nothing. But it is worse than that. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is to he an improvement in the general condition of the country because of the exemption of machinery but someone will have to pay the rates. There is to be an exemption for certain classes of machinery in certain industries. Nevertheless, someone will have to pay the rates. The rates will be paid by the unrelieved machinery, by the unrelieved shops, by the unrelieved houses, and by all the other industries and all the other structures to which this Bill gives no relief at all.
  I am not sure whether the same thing applies to a certain extent to the other change which is being made in the incidence of rates. It is very difficult to tell what will be the effect of the changes with regard to the railways. The right

  1895
  hon. Gentleman told us nothing on the very obscure question as to what the economic effect of the change is to be on the railways. I think we probably agree with him that the present system is a most clumsy one—the system of assessing each bit of railway in each district through which it passes, and that whatever the merits of the system of assessment are, it will be a great improvement to have a central valuation authority for the railways. But there is obscurity as to what will be the economic effect on the railways. One thing is certain, and that is that the railways are rejoicing. I suspect that that means that they think that in one way or another, they are to be the gainers. If they are the gainers, if they, as well as the industrialists, are to be helped by the exemption and are to pay less, again I say that someone will have to pay more
  Mr. WALLHEAD: It is the policy of broadening the basis
  Mr. TREVELYAN: What we feel is this: The right hon. Gentleman has laid down the principle that the taxation of industry is bad. Why did he not go on to the logical conclusion? If he realised the evil of rates on machinery and on railways, how can he exclude the evil of rates on mills, on shops, on houses, and all the other things which are on the land and on which industry depends? The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that we are working our local taxation under an indescribably bad and antiquated system. It is indescribably bad because it is so old. It had an Elizabethan origin. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, rates were at that time an insignificant matter. The same system, patched during 300 years, is now in operation, at a time when the rate is not a penny in the pound, but 15s. and 20s. and even 30s. in the pound. (HON. MEMBERS: "Poplar !"] It is not only Poplar, but many other places. It is such a bad system that everybody hustles to escape from it. Some industrialists and the railways have hustled best. What we ask for is justice all round, and not justice only for those who happen to be politically most influential and most able to make their voices heard in this House
  Houses are the greatest need of our people today, and overcrowding is our
  1896
  greatest social problem. A tax on houses means fewer and dearer houses, and it means overcrowding, just as a tax on bread meant more expensive bread and starvation. If we were going to exempt anything in our rating system, we ought to have given priority to houses. We have a precedent for it. In New York at the present time new houses are not rated at all. I am not saying you ought to select one thing more than another, for our proposition is a general one, that all this enormously heavy taxation upon improvements, houses, mills and shops is bad, and that we ought to find a better basis of taxation. Let us not, however, pick out one thing or another in dealing with this question and give preferences to one interest or another, or, if it is done, do it on the largest scale, over the whole living of the people. In order to exempt houses and industries effectually, land and houses must be separately assessed. Then we can exempt houses, shops and factories, as we cannot do today; that is why we ask for the separate assessment of land. The principle we want to assert is that the proper basis of taxation is the communal value of land, and not the improvement value of the structures, whatever they are, upon it. The present system is too tender to land and too rigorous to enterprise
  See what is happening today in the mining industry. As long as a pit is working, there arc rates to be paid on it—on the machinery, and on the whole property. The moment the pit ceases to be worked, there are no rates to be paid. But the values are still there. Moreover, the fact of that pit ceasing to pay rates throws more rates upon those industries which are still going on and which are, as likely as not, going on because, of their greater competence and greater capacity. Houses have a taxation of from 15s. to 20s. or more on the value. New houses are put up on land which, in spite of its value, has very likely had hardly any taxation at all upon it. The moment those houses are put up, heavy taxation is clapped on them, and, at the same time, on the land which has the houses on it. If houses are closed, no rates at all are paid upon the property. There is plenty of property—hon. Members see it every day —which is being unused, even in central and important parts of the City, where it is obvious that it could be used.

  1897
  Many Members of the House walk down Piccadilly every day, and ever since the beginning of the War they have seen there a skeleton hotel looking over the Green Park. I presume that has been paying no rates all these ten years. That is only one instance
  Our point is that the existing system rewards the unenterprising, exempts the sluggish and profits the unsocial, while taxes and burdens are put upon properties which are doing best. I know quite well how bitter, and even relentless, is the opposition of a part of the Conservative party to every mention of land taxation, but there is another large section, even of the Conservative party, which has never been much alarmed. It has seen that there is nothing terrifically evil in levying the same amount of rates as you do now, but taking care that idle land pays high and used land pays less. That is what we want. I would like to quote the words used by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood when he was Lord Robert Cecil, at a rather hot period in this House, in 1909. He said:
  A large number of hon. Gentlemen of Conservative opinions have pledged themselves to the taxation of land values. But for what? As a substitute for our existing system of rating, which is a perfectly easy and rational proposition."
  He was objecting, hon. Members will observe, to the partial taxes which were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He said that proposals such as we are now asking the House to agree with were a perfectly rational proposition as a substitute for our existing system of rating. He said, further:
  " You have already the principle that land contributes to local rates and the question is whether the rates should be levied upon the improved value or upon the site value."
  I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to discard too lightly the arguments we are putting forward. I do not know how long they think we shall be able to go on with the present unscientific system of rating. See what has happened in the last fortnight. There is no big proposal for relieving industry. The cry, the refrain of the Conservative party is, "Industry is suffering from burdens." What has happened? Sixpence is taken off the Income Tax, and £14,000,000 is put on to
  1898
  insurance. They first throw up their hats, and then they have to pull a long face. Then we get this Bill under which a few hundred-thousand, or a few millions, I do not know how much, is to be taken off certain manufacturers, but it is all to be clapped on to some other manufacturers, or somebody else. There is no way out there. Industry is going to be no better off
  May I also put this to my hon. Friends opposite? Their other refrain is that the real solution of the problem of local government is economy in the rates. Has that been successful? For the last 25 years there has been a predominance of Conservatism on local bodies, and here and there the rates have been reduced by 1s., or by 3d.; but then they have gone up again, because not even the Conservative party can stem the main tide of social expenditure. It is no use saying that our great towns and other places where we want. to see social expenditure are not rich enough to pay. They are rich enough to pay, only we ask the wrong people in the wrong way. The people are poor, but the cities are rich. Industry is heavily taxed, but great wealth is being drawn from those cities every day. It is the system that is unjust, and nothing except a root change will ever bring real relief to the rate payer in industry. We have got to adopt a system under which industry is relieved, activity is relieved, the life of the people is relieved, and the communal values arc, taxed for the community who make them
  Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should certainly not have selected this particular subject on which to address the House for the first time—a very complicated subject—in the presence of Members who are much more familiar with it, but for the fact that this voluminous Bill has been in our hands only for a comparatively short time, and it might be desirable that one who has studied the draft Bill which has been it the hands of people concerned for some time should say a few words about it. It may not always be possible to do it, but it certainly was a very happy thought of the Minister, in dealing with a complicated question of this kind, to publish a draft Bill with an explanatory memorandum in order that every authority throughout the country and every association representing

  1899
  interests which would be materially affected by the proposed changes should have an opportunity of studying them. The result is perfectly manifest in this new Bill. Many of the points which disturbed those who studied the draft Bill have been modified or eliminated, as far as one can see on a rapid study of the Bill
  As Chairman of the Chambers of Commerce Committee appointed to study the Bill, I can tell the House that we went into it very closely, and in common with many others the members of the committee were entirely in sympathy with the objects of the Bill. The main object of the Bill is the simplification of the system, consolidation of rates, a more equitable method of dealing with precepts, a greater uniformity of valuation, a better representation on the assessment committees, and, two more important points, the quinquennial valuation and the single valuation. After the very able and lucid speech of the Minister it would be a presumption on my part to touch on those points beyond saying that I am sure those of us who have had experience on assessment committees or on city councils or other local authorities realise that the time for amending the whole system of rating and valuation in the country is overdue
  We welcome this Bill as an effort to do this. There are one or two points I would like to bring to the attention of the House, and as it, is the first time I am addressing the House, I hope hon. Members will pardon me if I am not keeping quite in order. First of all, the question of expense has been brought before us. It seems to many business men that that is a very vital point. If this is really going to save a large amount of money to the country, and it does appear as though it will, that alone calls for a welcome on our part. With regard to the railways we must all admit that they call for special treatment, and they are therefor properly so provided for in this Bill. This scheme must be most closely examined, as I hope it will not mean the creation of another Government Department with a further army of officials
  When we come to the details of the Bill, we find that in the draft Measure a central authority was
  1900
  proposed to be set up to deal not merely with railways but with public utility concerns and special properties and that proposal created a great deal of anxiety, because we felt that it was going to take away a great deal of the authority which local government possesses in different parts of the country, and we thought the country was going to be overburdened with a big single authority further increasing expenditure. Happily this has been disposed of and it now appears that the whole idea has been abandoned. When you come to other properties, surely it is an excellent arrangement that where they overlap in different areas, we should have a joint assessment committee rather than have people coming all the way to London. Therefore, I support this new proposal to deal with these important matters by means of a joint assessment committee.
  Another point is the question of single valuation rates and taxes, and, as to this, there can be little difference of opinion as to the economy and convenience of such a system, but if we are to have the revenue officer at the assessment committee, it must be clear the one valuation will apply from the earliest possible moment. If that is going to be clone, and I understand it is clearly laid down by the Minister, though there is nothing in the Bill which says it is the intention of the Government to deal with it at a fixed later stage if that is done, it is only right and proper that the moment the new valuations are made, the representative of the Treasury who, after all, is the representative of this nation, should be the person to watch over those interests, and he should have a proper status and reasonable powers from the start. Reference has been made to the Commissioners of Income Tax. Those of us who are Commissioners of Income Tax, instead of terrifying people, as some imagine, we are simply protecting, as far as we can, the interests of the public
  I rather wondered, when I saw on the Order Paper the Amendment which has just been proposed, what connection it had with the Bill before us. Of course, I realise that it is my lack of parliamentary experience that leads me as a business men to look upon this Amendment as entirely irrelevant. At all events, it seemed to me that what we were going to consider was the improvement of rating, and making an attempt to put

  1901
  in on a proper basis, instead of adopting a new idea altogether
  I want now to confine my remarks to the question of the rating of machinery. A great deal has been said on this subject, and I do not know how far this House is aware of the extraordinary and absurd anomalies which exist in regard to this matter throughout the country. Scotland is in a very different position, and the Scottish law is particularly clear on matters of this kind. We have there a clear line of demarcation which is more or less set up under this Bill. What is properly structural is defined, and you have the whole hereditament as a rateable concern, and not what a tenant or a hypothetical tenant may choose to put in. In this country a different practice has crept in, and you have the absurd position of some of our manufacturing towns, where machinery is rated up to 100 per cent. value, and there are other towns where none of the machinery is rated, with the result that you have manufacturers in different parts of the country suffering under disabilities greater or less according to the views of the assessment committees in their own particular districts. Surely absurd anomalies of that kind which exist in different towns of the country should be put right at once
  A great deal has been said about the various inconsistencies in our system of rating, and such a matter ought to be put right at once. The difficulty is that in some cases the burden will fall on those who have been escaping from that burden at an unfair cost to the industry in times gone by. Where the machinery has been rated highest, it has invariably been in an industrial centre in which they have derived their principal means of existence from it, and if the burden is going to be lifted from that industry so that it can go ahead, that necessarily must involve better conditions and more employment, and be a benefit to the whole district in which that industry is run. It is no use talking about average rates, because each district has to pay its own rates, and the inequalities only fall on one district. There are districts where the machinery is rated, and districts where it is not rated, and, therefore, the relief is only partial
  On the general question of alleviating the burden, the unnecessary and rather
  1902
  wanton burden which has been placed upon industry in recent times, it cannot be too much insisted upon that this country today depends for its existence upon foreign trade. It is no use people talking about the home trade alone, because you have to realise that 75 per cent. of our existence, so to speak, depends upon our being able to export our manufactured goods, and, therefore, it is of the most vital moment that we should consider that question. The important point is whether we have gone far enough in that direction in giving the relief, at any rate in the interests, not merely of any of those who may be called industrialists, or anybody who may be called capitalists, but in the interests of everybody living in this country
  It is vital that we should all put our shoulders to the wheel in order to develop our foreign trade, and in order to remove any obstacle out of the way. Here is something which is distinctly an obstacle, and without going into the interesting arguments advanced by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, I would like to say that I feel that even he in his heart, and every one of us, are agreed on this subject that it is rightly removed. hope the Amendment will not be pressed. and if there are these wonderful new ways of extracting money from quarters which do not pay at present, let them be brought before this House in the ordinary manner, but let us face the business before us, namely, that of putting the whole system of rating and valuation as it exists today upon a proper basis and upon an economical basis with proper representation and economic handling of all the various industries and properties, which have entirely changed in view of the opening up of communication throughout the country, and which call for immediate alteration. Many of us will have something to say in Committee on the various points dealt with in this Bill. I trust the House will excuse me for having taken so long in putting these few points, but I felt that it was necessary that the Minister and the House should understand them. I strongly support this Bill
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken upon bringing to the service of the House a deep knowledge of the important matters under discussion. The House is also fortunate

  1903
  in having such a complicated Bill as this presented by one who is a master hand in local government, and who knows the whole business of rating from A to Z. The Minister of Health has made this question as clear as it is possible to make such a complicated subject, and although we agree with him in regard to the first part of the Bill and the efforts made in the direction of the simplification of rating and assessments, at the same time some of us regret, that while an attempt has been made to deal with this complicated problem, the right hon. Gentleman has not gone to the root of the matter, and he has not attempted to deal with the injustice of rating from the very beginning
  With regard to the question of the rating of machinery, the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the relief given to industry by the exemption of machinery from rating. We are all in favour of the exemption of machinery and of the exemption of improvements, but why stop at one class of machinery and at one class of improvements? Why not go to the root of the whole question as the Amendment foreshadows, and place the whole of the rating and assessment by local authorities on site values, and that would tend very greatly to alleviate the heavy burden which the right hon. Gentleman claims is now crippling industry? What will be the effect of these proposals if they pass in their present form I ask hon. Members to visualise what will be the effect in their own particular district. At the present time a certain sum of money has to be raised, and the proposal of this Bill is that in future a part of the contributors are to be exempt from their share of payments, and the consequence will be that the other contributors will have to pay more money. Therefore, if the Bill passes in its present form, without any form of relief being made available it means that every ratepayer in these districts will have to pay a higher rate than they are paying at the present time. Estimates have been made that, throughout the country, something like £10,000,000 of rates will be transferred from the machinery users to other ratepayers, that is to say, in the majority of cases, to small householders and tradesmen. Surely, the present time, when the problem of house-
  1904
  ing is so tremendous, as no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, and when rents are so high, is not the time to add to the burden of rents and rates. I have had a communication from an authority in my own district who estimate that the increase in rates which will accrue from the proposals of the Government will amount to 2s. in the £. Whether that be so or not—whether it be 6d. or 2s.—I submit that it is disastrous at the present time to remove a burden from one pair of shoulders on to those of the householder and other ratepayers
  In the end it is no relief to industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that if machinery were relieved it would relieve industry of a first charge on production, which would enable it to compete and get more trade, but will that be so? As has been already said, you have to raise the same amount of money whether machinery pays or not, and if it does not pay—the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but, surely, he does not suggest that the total rates levied in any particular town are going to he less, simply because machinery is going to be relieved The amount precepted for, the amount to be raised, is the same whether it comes from the machinery user or is spread over the rest of the community. If the machinery owner is relieved it goes on to the other ratepayers and the householders, and, if more rent has to he paid, then more wages have to be paid in order to enable the workers pay that rent: and, if more wages have to be paid, the industry has to bear it in the end. All these charges come out of industry in one way or another; it is only a question whether you take them through wages and rents or direct from the industry by way of rates. This, therefore, is going to be of no benefit to industrial areas, but is going to put a tax on the householder, a tax on the ratepayer, and the position will be a very serious one indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will have to face a tremendous outcry when this extra burden is placed on the rents of houses, and when those who are now unable to pay high rents are asked to pay higher rents because of this transfer of burden. Surely, the correct thing would have been to follow the example of what was done when relief was given under the Agricultural Rates Act, and make a grant from the Treasury, or, failing that, to explore new avenues

  1905
  of rating and taxation such as would be afforded by land values
  The present system, as the Minister has said, penalises industry and development. Why, therefore, does he not follow that principle to its logical conclusion, and relieve industry entirely—relieve improvements, relieve buildings, and put the burden on the site value, which is the only sound way of getting a just basis for these charges? The right hon. Gentleman has lost a great opportunity. Apart from that, if he were not prepared to go the whole way, surely he might have attempted to remove some of the inequalities of the present system of rating. As he said in his interesting speech, when he sketched the history of rating, we know that originally the basis taken was the house or building which was, apparently, the only visible sign of what ability there was to pay. That may have been all right in agricultural days, but since the industrial revolution that basis has proved to be entirely faulty. At the present time, in any ordinary town, as it develops and loses its residential character, you may have one house still occupied as a residence, or possibly as a small shop, the income from which may be £100 a year, while in the same street a similar house may have been converted into offices used by a successful professional man, or possibly a merchant, earning £1,000 or £2,000 a year; and yet the rating is the same on both properties. Surely, that is a very unequal incidence of burden. The same question arises in the case of a works where, say, 1,000 men are employed, occupying a large area of land which is rated at so many thousands a year; while another man, possibly a successful merchant prince, occupies a few rooms in a palatial building for which he may pay £100 or £200 a year in rates, whereas he has made a bigger fortune than the man employing thousands of people in a large works. Therefore, you have a gross inequality of burden, and I submit that the time has come to scrap the present system entirely, and sec if the local burden cannot be made to have some relation to the ability to pay. That is done in some places on the Continent, and there is room for further exploration here to see whether the local burden cannot be more fitted to the shoulders that have to bear it
  My great disappointment is that the Government have not dealt with this ques-
  1906
  tion on larger lines. Some figures were given to me by the Government the other day which illustrate this point as to added income and values. I was told by the Minister in charge that the rents from the frontages of property in Regent Street, which happens to be owned by the Government, amount to £450,000 a year. That is from property which 100 years ago was worth a comparatively small sum. Fortunately, in this case, the State is getting the whole, but there are many other frontages in important streets of London and other towns where there has been a. considerable increase in the value of the land due to the community that has grown up around it. That is a source of revenue which would relieve machinery, which would relieve industry of this heavy burden, and which the Government might have tackled. We cannot undo the past, but at any rate, in preparing for the future, we might see that this enormous increase in the value of land, due to the growth of the community, is tapped at its source for the relief of the ratepayer. Abroad you find something like 1,100 towns in Germany and Mid-Europe where they have had the foresight to legislate in the past along these lines, and where they are paying no rates at all, because of the communal value of the property which they own. It is no wonder that, in the competition for trade, we have to suffer when our industries are so heavily rated as a first charge, and have to compete with others abroad where no rates are paid owing to the foresight exercised in this way. It is unfortunate that, when there was this great opportunity of revising the whole basis of rating, the Government did not go to the root of the matter and follow out the principle which the right hon. Gentleman adumbrated when he indicated what a heavy burden the rates were upon industry—that they did not take steps whereby industry might be largely relieved of such a serious handicap to its development
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir ROBERT SANDERS: After what the Minister of Health has said, I am a little nervous about saying anything on the subject of the Amend merit, but I do feel that it might be desirable to say that Members of the Conservative party have not any sort of agreement or sympathy with the speech which has just been made, or with that made by the

  1907
  as clearly as I can, that I think the ideas that have been foreshadowed by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) receive no sympathy or acquiescence whatever in the Conservative party. This is the old idea, which has been brought out over and over again, as to the rating of land apart from improvements. Take the agricultural land of the country: how do you arrive at the value of that land as apart from improvements? Suppose that you take the present value of the land and make that the original assessment. You will then take the capital value of the money that has been spent on improvements to the land, and deduct the interest upon that from the rental which is now being paid; but, if you did that, I venture to say that in four cases out of five you would get a minus quantity. That is really what would happen in the case of agricultural land. As a rule the rental received from the land does not amount to the interest upon the capital which has actually been expended upon it, that is to say, the value of the improvements. I think that will be found to be so in one case after another, but I actually have the figures of an estate where I know that, since the beginning of last century, over £100,000 has been spent on improvements, while the total product of that estate today is only about £1,500 a year. That is a strong instance, but you would find instances of that sort all over the country. Therefore, as regards agricultural land, the idea that you are going to get anything from rating the land when you have deducted the cost of the improvements is absolute moonshine
  Now let me take the question of building land and the question of the site value. I hope I may he allowed to say a word on that, because I can claim to speak from some little experience of it. All my life I have been making a precarious livelihood by the development of land in the suburbs of London. I had the fortune, or the misfortune, to come into an estate consisting of big villas with big grounds, and within my memory —within the last 25 or 30 years—I have been down there and seen racehorses bred within four miles of where we are now sitting. I have been developing that ever
  1908
  since, and have been engaged in what I hope is the lawful occupation of trying to make some 20 or 30 houses grow where one grew before. I may claim, therefore, to speak with some knowledge and experience of this subject. I say that if you take a house in a position like that, with five acres of ground attached to Ha villa residence—the value of the site is an absolute guess. I do not say you cannot get it valued, because you can get anything valued. I have been dealing with a Government Department lately in connection with some land that was wanted for public purposes, and there were three different valuations, the lowest of which was only one third of the highest. They were all made by expert valuers. You can get a valuation upon anything, but it is a mere guess, and, in an instance such as I am considering—a house with five acres of land on the outskirts of at own you cannot tell the site value of that five acres, because you have to reckon with such uncertain factors as the cost. of making roads the requisitions of the local authority and the amount you are likely to get as rent for the land when you have spent all this money upon its development. It is not until the roads have been made, the plots have been let, and houses are beginning to go up, that you can form any accurate idea of what the value of the site is
  I should have thought that the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) would have been a sufficient deterrent to those who wanted to deal with this question of separate site values. Perhaps I might be allowed to give my own experience with regard to that. I was a good deal alarmed about it, but, during all the time that those taxes were in existence, I never paid one halfpenny to the revenue under these taxes at all. It cost me, however, hundreds of pounds to go into the valuations that were necessary to fill up the forms. What is the good of that to anyone? In my case it simply meant a certain pecuniary loss, but the evil effect of it was that it frightened not only the builders who construct the houses, but, what is more important, it frightened those who were behind them and financed them. In my own case I have always financed the builders myself, and I went on building

  1909
  houses just the same while these land Clauses were in operation; but, speaking generally, building stagnated and came to a stop because the feeling of security had been taken away from those who lent money to builders. During the four years before the Budget of 1910, the average construction of new houses was 118,900, while in the four years afterwards the average construction was 72,385; that is to say, in those four years there was a loss to the country, through the influence of that Budget, of 180,000 houses, which, of course, had a great deal to do with the shortage of houses that has come after the War
  There is another matter which is dealt with in one of these Amendments—I think the Labour Amendment that has not been moved—and on which I want to say a word. That Amendment expresses regret that the 75 per cent. reduction on agricultural land is made a feature of this Bill. That is a provision in it which I welcome most heartily, because it makes perpetual what is now only a temporary provision, and what I think is a just provision. If you look at rating in the way in which it ought to he looked at, you want to rate the inhabitant or occupier of every house according to his ability to pay, and it is not fair to rate a man who is making his livelihood in agriculture on a higher scale than the man who makes the same income in any other occupation. That is the justification for the Agricultural Rates Act, and that is why I am very glad that this provision is being renewed. After all, as the Minister of Health has said, the original provisions as to rating were left excedingly vague. The reason why the rates were originally levied upon landed property was because that was practically the only form of property in the country at that time, and in the comparatively modern history of rating—within the last 100 or 150 years—there has been a gradual, persistent shirking, on the part of the newly developing industries, of their proper share in the local taxation of the country. That is why, at the present day. we find that those engaged in manufactures bear such a much smaller part of the rating burden than those engaged in agriculture
  I apologise for having dealt with these Amendments at all; I now want to say a word or two about the Bill itself. I do
  1910
  not think my right hon. Friend imagines that this is a Bill which is going to create any great enthusiasm in the country. If I may put it from an electioneering point of view, there are not many votes in it. It is mainly a Measure to simplify procedure and administration, and from that point of view I think we ought all to welcome it heartly. The English rating system has grown up bit by bit, and various Acts of Parliament have been passed to deal with it piecemeal. The wonder is, not that it is not working extraordinarily well but that it has ever worked at all, and I think it is a tribute to the genius of the English race in adapting itself to any arrangements, however extraordinary and inconvenient, that we really get our rating system to work at all. I must say I am sorry that my right hon. Friend introduced a Clause into the Bill relating to the rating of machinery. I do not want to discuss that question now, but my right. hon. Friend knows as well as I do that this is a very contentious proposal, and the Bill seems to me to be a big enough and difficult enough one not to he overburdened with such a proposal, without which it could have got on perfectly well. I do not suppose my right hon. Friend will find the Bill very easy to get through Committee on this account, and I am rather surprised that he has burdened it with this extra provision
  As to the railway Clauses I will say nothing, for the simple reason that I do not know anything about them. The only word I have to say in that connection is that I dislike, if I may say so, the preservation in the Bill of the provision as to the hypothetical landlord and tenant. Putting hypothetical people into Acts of Parliament at all is a practice to be avoided. But with regard both to this matter of the rating of machinery and the new system of rating of railways, I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend could give us some rough idea—it is quite impossible to give anything like accurate figures—as to what the burden is to be that is thrown upon the other ratepayers by the relief that is to be given to the railways and to the owners of machinery. In the country districts there is great distrust of these proposals. One of the features of the Bill is that he is disestablishing something over 11,000 rating authorities in the country districts. A disestablished authority is an estab-

  1911
  lished critic, and, on the whole, the assistant overseers and the assessment committees of boards of guardians have done good work. On the whole their assessments have been accepted with a minimum of friction, and I think it ought to be pointed out what the reason is, and that there is good reason for adapting these new authorities. In showing the people who are discarded the reason why they should be so, we ought to point out to them how we are going to substitute something better
  Another point on which there is a go d deal of suspicion is the powers given to the revenue officer. I think it wants to be brought home to the country elector and to members of the old assessment committees that if it is true that the revenue officer is in the future to have a very considerable say in the valuation for rating purposes, it will also be true that the elected representatives will have a considerable say in what will become the value for Schedule A, and I think it wants to be made clear, and to be published as widely as possible, that these valuations which are now being made are not only to be valuations for the purpose of rating, but that they arc to be uniform valuations for the purposes of Income Tax as well. Then the idea is about that this is going to cost more. I think what the right hon. Gentleman said was probably conclusive. My own view has been all along that it will diminish spending very considerably, but it wants to be made more generally known. Then all these elaborate provisions as to appeals of course arc much less formidable than they look. When anyone reads the Bill, or extracts from it in local papers, and sees all these elaborate provisions about special valuation officers to be appointed for special occasions, and appeals to quarter sessions, and surveyors of taxes being allowed to make special applications for appeals, they give rise to the idea that they are much more formidable and elaborate machinery than they really are
  Of course, the real answer is that these things are likely to occur in only very exceptional cases. But they are causing comment in country districts. And I suggest to the Minister that, as he wisely consulted the local authorities as to the drafting of the Bill, so he should now take steps—not for political purposes, but in order to make things work
  1912
  smoothly—to bring home to those who in the country districts especially are alarmed about the provisions of the Bill that they have not much to be frightened about. If he can think out any way in which to do so, through the Press or any medium he chooses to devise, I am sure he will be doing a good service to his Bill. He will also do a good service to local government if he can familiarise those. who had the working of the old system, and who will have the working of the new one with the strong points of his Bill before it actually comes into operation
  I think it will be very important, especially if he can show that it will not cost more money but will actually save money, and, more important than all, if he can show them that this Bill is, what I believe it is meant to be, a step in the direction we all want. Whenever you talk about local rates to anyone in the country districts, they always complain that there are so many things that fall upon the ratepayer that ought to be national services. That is the great complaint of the countryside. They say "Why should we pay for all this extensive system of education, why should we pay for these beautifully made main roads which are used for the motor cars coming down from London or Bristol?" Proposals for altering the incidence of local taxation by shifting what are national burdens in to the shoulders of the nation have hitherto generally been met. by the right hon. Gentleman's Department by saying, "Before we can do this we must have a uniform system of valuation "—that a valuation is a necessary preliminary to any further extension of the system of grants by Government Departments towards what are now local services. If that is so, well and good. From the little experience I have had, I must say that when a Government Department says "we have to have this first," it is very hard to get your wishes carried out until the Government Department have got their wishes carried out first. What it really amounts to is that the Ministry of Health is saying, "You must have your pill before your jam." What I want the Minister to do is, if it is a necessary preliminary to the other alterations in the incidence of local taxation, that practically all local authorities want, if it has to be the pill first and the jam

  1913
  afterwards, to make sure when we have swallowed the pill that we are going to get our ration of jam
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is one of those Bills that do not fill the House of Commons, because it is a very dry and technical subject, but, nevertheless, it is one of the most important Bills with which the Government could possibly deal. I am very loth to criticise it, because it requires a good deal of courage to tackle this problem at all. It is one of the most difficult problems that can be dealt with by this House, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman did would provoke a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst very powerful interests. I make allowance for that. It shows it is an act of courage on his part to have taken it in hand at all. Nevertheless, when the Government submit it to the House of Commons, we are bound to consider it on its merits. I was very surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman scoff at the idea that the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had anything whatever to do with the problem. That is quite a new theory. I was Chancellor of the Exchequer for a good many years before the War. There was not a single year when I was not invited as Finance Minister, on Motions which came from the other side of the House—or rather they were on this side of the House then —to consider the problem of what the Exchequer could do to relieve the burden of local taxation, and I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman or anyone can possibly deal with this problem without somehow or other drawing upon same source of revenue, which, at present, the local authorities have not got at their command
  The Bill is divided into two main parts. The first deals with the question of machinery and the other deals with the incidence of local taxation. With regard to the first, I say at once that I think it is a very great improvement upon the present untidy, uneven, ineffective, and rather ramshackle method of valuation. It is a very crude method at present, and produces a good deal of inequality and inequity, and very often there is the suggestion of a good deal of personal and local favouritism. To what extent that is justified I do not know, hut, at any rate, it lends itself to that. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman,
  1914
  from my experience of local taxation, has here sketched out a scheme of valuation which is, undoubtedly, a great improvement upon the present system. But when I come to the incidence of taxation, I feel myself very opposed to the provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman here is making alterations which will grant a certain measure of relief to certain ratepayers, but, as he himself points out—and, of course, it is quite obvious—you cannot relieve one set of ratepayers without passing the burden on to another set of ratepayers
  I agree with my right hon. Friend who was spoken from these benches that it is all very well to talk about economy. I have heard the cry of economy raised at election after election, in county councils, town councils, urban councils, and parish councils, and the ratepayers' friend gets in. As my right hon. Friend said, no doubt for a year or two you get a half penny off the rates, but, ultimately, if you look at the transactions over five or 10 years the rates go up steadily. The House of Commons is responsible for that, but it is no use blaming the House of Commons. The House of Commons is carrying out the mandate which it receives from the constituencies, and if a Member of the House of Commons votes against something that involves an increase, his political opponents say, "Do you know your Member actually voted against some beneficial proposal that came from the other side of the House?" Members arc naturally nervous under those circumstances. The rate payers' friend is not alert when the General Election comes, but the men who want improvement; are there on the spot and recording their votes. Therefore, it is no use talking about economy. You may effect certain economics, but, in the main, the demand for improvement in the, social status of the people and rightly so—are so great that the conscience the nation is enlisted on the side of expenditure. Therefore, it is idle to imagine that we can achieve very much from economy. I am not preaching against economy. On the contrary, I am all for it, whether in national or local' expenditure. But it is idle for anyone who looks at the trend of things to imagine that he is going to reduce the rates by a more efficient expenditure of the money which is at the disposal of the local authorities

  1915
  Therefore, when you come to relieve a certain class of ratepayers, it must necessarily fall upon another class. That is what the right hon. Gentleman does here, and he does not provide any new source of revenue at all. The best is always the enemy of the good, and in every Measure you bring in you can say, "Why did you not do a little more, and why did you not do something else? "I am very both to use that argument, and I would not do so except for the fact that this does not effect any real improvement at all, but aggravates the present condition. Take, if you like, what was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite about the condition of agriculture. Agriculture, undoubtedly, has a very considerable grievance. When a landlord or a farmer effects improvements in his farm, or has additional buildings and doubles its value, the assessor soon discovers it. If you plant fruit trees, what every expenditure as capital you put into the farm, you are penalised by your rates being increased in comparison with your neighbour who has done nothing. That is a bad system. But if in those districts, in addition to that, you carry this Bill, which relieves people who undoubtedly deserve relief, the farmer is in a worse position than ever, because it will fall upon him, with the other ratepayers, to make up the deficiency. That is especially true of cases where you have the industrial and agricultural inextricably intermixed. Take Glamorganshire, and Yorkshire and Lancashire, where the relief here will be passed on to house property, to farmers and to others, people who deserve relief just as much as the owner of machinery, and they will find themselves in a worse position than ever. I do not think the House of Commons ought to pass the Bill in, that form without at any rate saying, "We are going to find you something which will make up for that."
  It is no use saying there is no new source of revenue. There is. At present you have property, which ought to be rated, the value of which is created, not by any effort on the part of the owner himself, but by the combined efforts of the whole community. In addition to that, the very rates which others are paying increase the value year by year, and he escapes practically altogether{Interruption.]That is so.This is
  1916
  really not a smiling matter, because I think rates are about the most serious problem for industry at present, and, therefore, it is vital that if any relief is to be given, it is not given by imposing fresh burdens upon industry, but by imposing a burden on something which is the result of the industry of others, and not of the person himself
  Take, if you like, the case of mines. That is a very good case in point. In the mining areas the rates are simply crushing. I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman did not come to me and introduce a deputation, when I was Prime Minister, to put in an appeal for a great grant from the Exchequer in respect of certain communities which at present were paying over 20s. in the £. I remember one of the cases he gave was a case in Wales. He thought that might appeal to me. It was the case of Bedwelty. It was, I think, 27s. in the £. Take areas of that kind. What happens? At present the rate falls upon the colliery owner, who has invested the whole of his fortune there, upon the workers and the traders in a district, but there is one man, who is deriving probably a large income from the district, who is not contributing one penny. Really, it is a scandal that that should be the case. At present you have over £6,000,000 a year drawn from royalties throughout the kingdom, drawn at the risk of the lives of a great many men. Anyone going through these villages knows that a good deal more money ought to be spent upon making them tolerable. Why is that not done? It is not because the urban councils are not doing their duty. They are going to the very limits of endurance in the taxation they are imposing upon these districts. There you get, perhaps in the same parish, thousands of pounds a year drawn by somebody who has contributed nothing towards the amenities of the parish, and, at the same time, is charging huge sums of money for the sites of houses for the people who are digging the coal. When you are relieving burdens, the burdens ought not to be transferred to the shoulders of people who at the present moment are finding it very difficult to struggle on from day to day. The burdens ought to be put upon the shoulders of people who have hitherto not borne in the slightest degree any measure

  1917
  of that burden. That is what the right hon. Gentleman ought to do The same thing applies to all our great cities. What has happened during the last 20, 30 or 40 years, owing to the great industrial development of England? On the whole, the value of rural land has remained fairly stationary. On the whole, I do not think that rural land has appreciated much. There has been a nominal appreciation since the War, but that does not represent a real increase in value. That is not the case in regard to urban values. Urban values have gone up by millions, tens of millions, scores of millions, without any contribution from the owner of that land towards the expenditure which has helped to make his wealth. That is an injustice. That is an unfairness,
  When you come to taxation, what happens? When you come to the taxation in Death Daties, you levy upon the whole value, whatever it is. That principle has been accepted even in the present Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a Budget in which he has increased Death Duties by a certain percentage. There is not one of these cases where a man who owns urban land where the Death Duties are not paid upon the real selling value. Why should not that principle be extended to local taxation? It, is a principle which is accepted by Liberals, by Conservatives, by Labour men, by all parties in this House, and has been operated without any challenge at all. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter. To carry through a Bill like this—I am not talking now about the matter of machinery—which will increase the burdens which are now being borne by deserving people in a Measure which is not fair and equitable, is unjust. The position ought not to be aggravated, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing it by this Bill. Unless he can see his way to alter that, I certainly shall do my best to oppose the Bill
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: The introduction of this Bill is causing great concern up and down the country. I have received a telegram from the Rating and Valuation Bill, Yorkshire Conference, as follows:
  "Rating and Valuation Bill, Yorkshire Conference, representing so per cent. of Assessment Committees and nearly £24,000,000 rateable value, unanimously deplore Second Reading being rushed eight
  1918
  days after publication of Bill, and urge postponement, to give time for proper consideration."
  From the Sheffield Union Assessment Committee I have received a similar telegram, urging that there should be some delay before the matter is pressed forward in the way suggested. There is a very general feeling all over the country in favour of a very important matter of this character not being dealt with quite so hastily. The Corporations of Liverpool, Sheffield and Rotherham have made representations to the Association of Municipal Corporations in opposition to the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the rating of machinery. I will only quote one of the paragraphs in which they express their opposition.
  "The Report does not justify the view that the adoption of the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee will favourably affect the trade of the country. On the contrary, we contend that the disturbance of trade which will necessarily follow the adoption of those recommendations will seriously retard the improvement of trade generally."
  Representations from important communities, such as Liverpool and Sheffield, with all the industries which gather round such districts, cannot be passed by hurriedly, as though they did not matter in any way. May I quote also a Report of the Law and Parliamentary Committee of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, who at their meeting an the 17th April last reported on the question of rating of machinery? In one paragraph of the report they say:
  "The Committee would also point out that if a large amount of machinery which is at present included in the rateable value were excluded, there would be a very substantial increase in the rates levied per £, which would fall upon the general body of ratepayers. There would be a relief to the manufacturer at the expense of householders, shopkeepers, and tenants of offices."
  That is a resolution passed by the Chamber of Commerce of Sheffield, to the members of whom, there can be no doubt a very substantial benefit would accrue. It has been estimated by the chief assistant overseer of the Sheffield Union that the, effect of this Bill, if passed, will put an additional 2s. in the £ on the rates. That is a very serious matter at any time. When we remember that already Sheffield is: one of the overburdened areas and that appeals are repeatedly being made to the

  1919
  right hon. Gentleman to find some relief, I am quite sure that he cannot desire that an addition of 2s. should be put on the rates of Sheffield, instead of any relief being secured. Already, there have been an enormous number of summonses issued for the nonpayment of rates. The effect of this Bill, if passed, will be not to diminish that number, but very seriously to increase it. I trust there will be further consideration of this matter before the Bill passes
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: desire to address the House for a short time on certain features in this Bill which concerns the ratepayers very closely. The right hon. Gentleman, in the very effective, lucid and informative speech in which he introduced the Bill, dealt to a certain extent with the points I desire to mention. I would remind the House that, for better or for worse, if we pass this Bill we shall definitely commit our rating system all over the country to the system of a single valuation list. I suppose that all of us present on this occasion may be reckoned as witnesses at the ceremony. I have no doubt that I shall, so to speak, sign the register, but, before I do so, I want to address a. few words of caution, if one may venture to do so, in order to suggest to the parents and guardians of the Bill some of the possible pitfalls and dangers that lie in its future path
  We shall apply to the whole of England and Wales the principle of a single valuation list, so far embodied in the Act of 1869, and apply it only to the Metropolis. So long as there was no very great inflation in rentals, and in the value of residential property, that Act, no doubt, worked well. We may admit that it was free from serious defects and hardships. That was all very well for the period before the War, and in normal times, but since the War, with the housing shortage, and the existence, possibly side by side, of houses controlled, and houses uncontrolled by the influence of Rent Restrictions Acts, and owing to the building of new houses at expensive costs, and partly at the expense of the rates, we have in the same street, certainly in the same area, houses which commanded pre-War approximately the same rents and which today command rents varying from one another by anything up to 50 or 60 per
  1920
  cent. That represents a situation which has rendered the task of the assessment committees very difficult. At the quinquennial valuation of 1920, the assessment committees in the Metropolis met that difficult situation by resolving to apply in their valuation assessments the standard of pre-War rentals. I am not prepared to say that they were wrong in arriving at that conclusion. I think they were right in interpreting their duty in that light. They applied that valuation on the definition which appears in this Bill in Clause 76 of gross value. As far as the assessment committees were concerned, I think we may agree with what they did certainly I regard it as right.
  Under the Act of 1869, there is another party to the valuation, namely, the Inland Revenue. What did the Inland Revenue say? They said to the assessment authorities, "For the purpose of local taxation, you may very well have done what you have done, and we are not disposed to quarrel with your decision as far as the levying of local rates is concerned, but when it comes to Inland Revenue taxation, we take a different view, and we have something to say on that point." What they said, in effect, was, "Rents have gone, up, and for the purpose of Inland Revenue taxation gross values should go up too." When that situation had to be faced two different methods of adjustment were proposed. One was the method of adjustment which had at the time, and I believe has still, the support of no less an authority than the Landon County Council, and a considerable body of opinion to which I personally subscribe considered that the best method of dealing with this difficulty was to establish a separate valuation for the landlord's Income Tax and another valuation for the local rates to deal with the local services performed by the local authority. That proposal was not adopted. It did not receive the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman's department. What happened instead was that the Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment, Bill, now on the Statute Book, was brought in to remedy so far as possible the difficult situation which was found to have arisen. It certainly remedied in a large part the defects which had been disclosed, but it has not entirely removed the evil. I would suggest that the very necessity which has been recognised for an amending Measure

  1921
  of that sort is sufficient to indicate a recognition of the fact that a system of the single valuation list, where it is applied, requires some additional modification in order to avoid its operating with hardship on the individual ratepayer. That is a point which recent legislation to a large extent brings out
  I have alluded to the fact that at the present time we have houses and properties commanding different rates of rentals, although of a similar character, and such as before the War commanded a similar rent. The incidence of the single valuation list, under the pressure of the Inland Revenue, seeing that it has a dual interest, does, in my judgment, tend to increase the gross value. So far as the landlords' Income Tax is concerned, I have not the slightest objection to the Inland Revenue exercising their authority in exacting full Income Tax on the whole rent received. But where the gross value, following as closely as it may under the single valuation system, tends to increase to the extent of, or in proportion to, the present increased rent obtained, then there is undoubtedly a hardship on the individual occupier. We see the tenant in the circumstances of today, owing to the shortage of housing accommodation or other circumstances, called upon to pay a rental higher than would normally be charged him, Are we, in addition, going to subject him to the obligation of paying rates for local services at a higher level and on a higher assessment than he otherwise would pay? Surely we want to avoid any additional hardship of that kind. But if we cannot have the principle of a separate valuation, then let us at least introduce some further precautionary measure which I would like to suggest later on to the right hon. Gentleman
  In the course of the Debate to which I have listened this afternoon considerable reference has been made to the question of local taxation in proportion to ability to pay. With the permission of the House, I would like to digress for a moment to deal with that aspect of the question. The services rendered by the local authorities, for which charges are made which the community pays through the rates, have been, and are, usually divided into two main portions—what are termed "onerous charges" and what are
  1922
  termed "beneficial charges." The use of those terms will be familiar to hon. Members, but, by way of explanation, I may mention that under the heading of onerous charges are included the cost of Poor Law administration, education and main roads. Those services approximate closely to the services which are rendered by the national Government, and which arc in large measure paid by means of grants from the national Exchequer
  So closely do they accord with national services that the practice today is constantly extending in the direction of making them a national charge. They are a national charge up to about half of their total annual cost. Those onerous services absorb at the present time about one-third of the total amount levied in the whole country by way of rates. They are charged, or they may be charged—they will be correctly charged in principle—in a similar way to that of direct taxation imposed in this country for national purposes, namely, in accordance with ability to pay. But those charges represent only one-third of the total sum levied and expended in rates in England and Wales. The other two-thirds, represented by the cost of beneficial services, should not, according to the best principles of rating and according to those on which I would venture to insist in this connection, be chargeable in accordance with ability to pay, but should be chargeable in accordance with the extent of the benefits received
  Where we have a tendency to raise the gross assessment to the level of the rental, or approximating thereto, it may operate to increase the amount of rates paid by the individual occupier or property owner beyond that of his neighbour, and consequently, in so far as at least two-thirds of the expenditure is concerned, it prejudices him as compared with his neighbour, because houses, for instance, in the same street of a similar character even if today they command different rentals do not, so far as beneficial services are concerned, exact from the local authorities any different services, nor do those services cost any more to administer. To recapitulate the point which I have endeavoured to make, by adopting the principle of the single valuation list we run the risk of imposing hardship upon the occupier because the single valuation list, or rather a system which applies it,

  1923
  is endeavouring to perform the difficult task of at one and the same time serving two masters
  If I am at all correct in believing that there is any risk of hardships being imposed upon the ratepayers I world like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the acceptance of a possible additional Clause. He has stated that Clauses 72 and 76 provide effectively against any risk of this sort. I should hesitate to disagree with him. At the same time he perhaps would not object to a proposal to make assurance doubly sure, and I would therefore ask him favorably to consider, in the Committee stage or at some convenient point, the inclusion of a provision, possibly as part of Clause 21, which I will venture to read to the House.
  " After the assessment committee has made the necessary deductions from gross valuations the assessment committee shall take into consideration any inequalities of assessment which may be seen to result after such deductions and may have regard to the pre-War standard of rent in arriving at an assessment which will secure uniformity and equality of assessment as between occupiers of houses of a similar character."
  That, I venture to suggest, makes assurance doubly sure. If there is any risk to the occupier under the provisions of this Bill these words will remove it effectively. If it be suggested that this additional power or special provision is not desirable in this Bill, or will burden it too much. I think that one may fairly point out that the Bill and its Schedules are full of special provisions of a necessary and valuable kind, and that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was passing his Housing Bill in 1923, introduced certain powers of varying the rates in connection with houses converted from single houses into fiats and so forth, so that I have the necessary precedent. Undoubtedly, anything that will tend to reduce the burden of rates on house property will tend to encourage the building of houses, and anything which acts in a contrary manner must have precisely the contrary result. So much for that particular point
  7.0 P.m.
  There are only two other small matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the House, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to give them favorable consideration also. Clause 4 contains the provision that any
  1924
  enactments requiring that rates must he allowed by justices shall cease to have effect. If I am correct in my interpretation of those words, they remove the power of justices to quash a rate illegally made, and remove from the ratepayer the right of appeal which he has hitherto enjoyed. There is an example in recent history of a rate which was illegally made, and, on appeal to the justices, that rate was quashed. That undoubtedly is a simple, effective and inexpensive method of making an appeal on the part of the ratepayers. If you do away with that simple, inexpensive method you remove a protection from the ratepayer. If you say that that right is so rarely used that it may he unnecessary to preserve the machinery to allow of its being made, I can only say that I do not think that is a very effective argument, and there is no reason why you should do away with it because it does not often come into action
  There is only one other point I want to add, and that is the case of the ratepayers on the outside of small towns in the neighbourhood of urban areas who do not receive the whole of the local services which their neighbours enjoy nearer to the centre of the town or rural district. They, for instance, do not enjoy the advantages of the main drainage, possibly they do not have the same advantages in the direction of dust collection, street cleaning and so forth. The practice largely is for the assessment committees to adjust the burden to those ratepayers, again in proportion to the benefits received, by assessing them at a lower gross valuation than they otherwise would do. Unless some provision of that kind be introduced, we shall have these ratepayers also suffering by the incidence of the system of the single valuation list. That. I think, will bear hardly on cases of that kind all over the country where they do require some method of adjustment, in order that they should bear their share fairly, and not unfairly, in proportion to their neighbours
  Those are the three points which I venture to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I trust he will see his way to give some favourable consideration to them, and thereby relieve certain possible disadvantages, which otherwise so valuable and excellent a Bill

  1925
  contains, and I think if he could see his way to do that, he would undoubtedly commend the Bill he has so effectively introduced to the favourable consideration of the country

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. Commissioners
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Gold Standard Act, 1925

  2. Advocates Widows' Fund (Widowers' Provisions) Orders Confirmation Act, 1925

  RATING AND VALUATION BILL
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. MARDY JONES: In dealing with the rating of machinery, the Minister invited us to deal with some of the effects of the Bill. I would like to point out that there are several serious defects in this Bill even from the point of view of the method of assessment and the rates of allowances. I think they will lay a burden on trades people and householders in this country, and they will do it in two ways. In the first place, they propose to relieve industrial property under the allowances that are going to be made in the rating of machinery. That must be made good, as other speakers have pointed out, by increasing the rate on all other property. The relief that is proposed for industrial property is not going to be of much benefit to some classes of property, particularly in the coal mining industry. In the coal mining industry to-day we are suffering more than in any other industry, except the shipbuilding industry, and because of the methods of assessing property, which has been in force more or less all over the country for the last 100 years, the proposed relief on what is know as a tenant's capital in this Bill, the Schedule will not be of much, if any, benefit to the colliers of this country
  It is the practice to define industrial capital invested in collieries in two ways. First there is what is known as the fixed
  1926
  capital, which is treated legally and for rating purposes as part of the hereditament of the mine, and which, when the lease expires, becomes the property of the royalty owner. That has always been taken as rateable, and while there are numerous petty differences in the various coal fields as to assessing the value of this fixed capital for rating purposes, roughly we may assume it to be about 5 per cent. of that fixed capital. The remaining capital, which is equally necessary for the working of the mine, is known as the tenant's capital, and is that part of the capital of the mine which the tenant or the coal owner can take away with him when his lease expires. It is not fixed; it is not part of the hereditament which goes with the remaining minerals to the landowner when the lease expires. It may be likened to the furniture of a house. Under the leasehold system a house becomes the property of the landlord when the lease expires, but the tenant has power to take away the furniture in the house—and that is about all. It is known, and, I think, generally admitted, that the coal industry of Great Britain is now passing through a most trying period, and there does not seem to be a bright future ahead of it at present. I regret to find there is no prospect of relief for the coal-mining industry under these proposals
  I come to the second defect in the Bill. It is quite obvious that you cannot automatically control the rate revenue of a municipal body in such a way as to give relief to a certain class of property. The revenue must remain pretty constant and you have to make good the relief given in one direction, by increasing the rates on other property. In that sense it is the small tradesman class and the tenants of the cottages who will have to make good the loss in this case. There is another serious loss which the tenant class of this country are liable to make good if this Bill becomes law in its present form. This point has not been mentioned by any previous speaker, and I particularly draw the attention of the Government to it. The poor rate assessment under the Act of 1869 permits certain compounding allowances to the house owner when he pays the rates instead of the tenant and an additional commission if lie undertakes to pay poor rate, whether the house is occupied or not. In addition to the compounding allowances under the 1869 Act

  1927
  there is another general allowance under the Public Health Act of 1875 in respect of houses of a certain annual value, and, broadly speaking, these two compounding allowances work out in different parts of the country at between 30 and 50 per cent, according to which sections of these Acts apply locally. Generally speaking, house owners take advantage of these compounding allowances because they are running practically no risk of empty houses. They have not run any such risk for years past and are not likely to run any such risk for years to come. We all know that whatever progress may be made with building, there will be an acute shortage of houses for many years to come. In place of these compounding allowances it is now proposed in this Bill to allow 5 per cent. to the owner if he pays the rates instead of the tenant and a further 10 per cent. if he undertakes to pay the rates whether the house is occupied or not. It would be safe to predict that the vast majority of house owners will take advantage of the full 15 per cent. off the general rates permitted under this Bill
  I wish to have one point made clear, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary with his legal and expert knowledge in regard to rent law will make it clear in the course of the Debate. I am not quite sure from my limited knowledge of the legal phraseology employed in the Bill, whether the practice which has become case law in the courts of the land is to continue when this Bill becomes law, namely, that for the period of the existing Rents Acts, any compounding allowances allowed by rating authorities are not retained by the house owner as extra profit but have to be allowed by him to the tenant in a corresponding reduction. If that position is to be maintained well and good, so far as it goes. If it is not to be maintained, and the house owner is to be legally entitled, despite the existing Rents Acts, to keep the whole of that 15 per cent. as extra profit in his own pocket, then I have no hesitation in saying, calmly and deliberately, that it is going to create serious discontent in the country, and I venture to say that house owners generally may get a nasty experience and something much worse than the Clyde experience
  I think it is pretty evident that when you allow for the rebate on industrial
  1928
  properties in the Bill and for the increase which the other ratepayers will have to pay for the relief of industrial property, the rates will go up, generally speaking, throughout the country anything from 9d. in the £ to 2s. in the £ and even 3s. in the £ in some of the more necessitous areas. It is obvious that the Government have not made sufficient allowance for that burden. I suggest that the Government should, between now and the Committee stage, go into this matter carefully and see whether my estimate is right or wrong. If it is at all near the mark, the Government ought to leave the basis of rating alone until the period of rent control is ended so far as cottage assessments are concerned, whether that is to be three, five or 10 years hence. The impression has been left on my mind that the Government are out to relieve certain classes of industry at the expense of the bulk of the people. I suggest that the Government ought to relieve both industrial property and the trades people and the house owners and make good the loss by tapping the unearned wealth which is now going to the landowner in ground rents and mining royalties. Many millions are being extorted in this way by the landlord class from the people. This unearned wealth has been created by the social growth of the community and the benefits accruing from municipal enterprise and government
  As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has pointed out, not one penny piece has ever been paid by the landlord class towards local rates from this unearned wealth. They ought to pay on the two principles of ability to pay and benefit received. They are able to pay, they should be made to pay and the relief of industrial properties should 1, met, not by putting the whole burden on the shoulders of the tenant class, but by making the landlord class pay for it out of the wealth which they receive but which they have done nothing to create. They get the benefit of the money spent by local authorities in the improvement of localities, in roads and so forth, and money derived from the increased value of the land consequent on these improvements should go to the relief of the community. I estimate that under this Bill in the whole area of the South Wales coalfield we are going to be

  1929
  saddled with an additional rating burden of about £1,000,000 per year. The South Wales coalfield is reputed to be the richest in the world. It produces the finest quality of coal and it has as enterprising coalowners and as fine a class of people among the miners as any coalfield in the world. Yet it is suffering most to-day from the depression of trade and, on top of the existing depression, we are asked to agree to this additional burden of £1,000,000 a year of rates. On behalf of the local authorities of South Wales I say they are against the proposals of the Bill, and I trust in Committee the Minister will consider the objections I have raised
  Captain CROOKSHANK: It happened to be my good fortune this Session to he placed in charge of the introduction of that almost perennial Bill known as the Rating of Machinery Bill which was down for Second Reading to-morrow, but which will not be proceeded with, in view of the terms of the Government Bill now before the House. It would be presumptious of me to congratulate the Government on having reached the same conclusions as those reached by my friends and myself in this matter. We have both agreed to ignore the recommendation of the Departmental Committee as to the 25 per cent. Perhaps it was a case of intelligent anticipation on our part, but in any event we ought to pause for a moment to consider that we may no more see a Rating of Machinery Bill. Mine would have been the twentieth Bill of the kind, for 1 understand 19 Bills on the subject have been presented previosuly, but they all suffered the same fate through the eloquence of hon. Members on Friday afternoons, though one almost reached its Third Reading. We have in this Bill, however, proposals which we think are going to be of assistance to industry generally, if not to the coal mining industry, as the last speaker seemed to think. The Mover of the Amendment and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson) expressed the opinion that by this Bill we should only be shifting the burden on to the shoulders of the people who were least capable of bearing it. They missed the point of our argument which the Minister of Health has already put forward. We hope that owing to the reduction of the rates on machinery, par-
  1930
  titular industries will be able to get a measure of relief which will bring about more employment and the consequential reduction in the rates. That is the argument which we submit. It may not "come off "—that is another matter—but it is a legitimate line to take up. We welcome this Bill. Naturally from the historical and sentimental point of view we regret having to repeal Statutes going back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but the principle of the Bill is one to which we subscribe, and to which I think the whole Opposition also subscribe. Reading the reasoned Amendments on the Paper, the concluding passages of them brought to my mind an old quotation
  "Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret."
  which I may translate as follows:
  "Land taxes may be driven out by the pitchfork of electoral defeat but they still keep peeping out."
  In these Amendments I see such phrases as, "while welcoming a Bill which reduces," etc., and "whilst in favour of a Measure," and so on. In fact, the Opposition join with us in thinking that the Bill will simplify the collection of rates, promote a new form of valuation, reduce the cost of administration—which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) has pointed out, will be of assistance to agriculture—and I, as one of the promoters of the Rating of Machinery Bill, believe it will help industry. We all, apparently, agree on these points, and I hope that the House will give a generous measure of support to the Government in this present undertaking
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: There must be many hon. Members who will really welcome the intention of the Government to simplify our whole rating system and to consolidate it along the lines suggested in this Bill. The sweeping away of the thousands of parochial authorities, the bringing together of the two main rates, the substitution of one recognised valuation throughout the whole country in place of the three and even the four valuations, and, I think, this attempt to do away with the enormous amount of litigation in connection with railway valuation, and to set up one national committee to do that work—all these things, I think, as has been said many times this

  1931
  afternoon—hon. Members of all parties appreciate very much. But when we come to Part II of the Bill, we are asked by the Minister of Health not to raise issues which are not immediately included in the Bill. Yet he himself has definitely raised the issue by going beyond the problem of structure, beyond this praiseworthy effort to simplify and consolidate the local rating system of the country, by actually interfering with the incidence of taxation in the shape of giving certain proposed benefits to those who own machinery under the various local authorities. He has, so to speak, lifted the curtain upon the whole problem of rating and valuation, and we feel very strongly that, if it be the intention of this Bill to confer benefits upon certain owners of machinery, then it is perfectly germane and logical for us to raise the whole issue of principle which is involved in that fact itself
  We know that, from the point of view of business as well as from the point of view of the average householder in the country, there has been no time so serious in respect of local rates as the present. I remember 15 or 20 years ago, when I used to have to go to the police courts regularly to deal with the problems of unpaid water rates, unpaid general district rates, and unpaid poor rates, how in those days there were, in relatively small boroughs, hundreds of cases of honest working men and women who could not face their burdens of rating, and every hon. Member knows that that problem has grown still more acute in the last five or six years, and that the number of unpaid rates and of summonses in the Courts in respect of them are a tremendous local burden, sometimes involving quite serious additions to the rates. Therefore, at a time when the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to relieve the rates on machinery, we feel that these more general considerations are of great urgency and importance, and that it is not enough, in bringing a constructive Bill of this kind before the House, simply to deal with a mere fragment of relief, but that the larger issue of a much more substantial relief of the rates, not to a particular class, but to the whole of the ratepayers throughout the country, should have been brought within the purview of the Bill.
  1932
  We definitely suggest that there are important sources, sources which have been only too long neglected in the country, which this Government, in seeking to codify and reorganise the local rating system, ought to have taken seriously into account at this time. We refer especially to the big sources of untaxed land values, which have been for 40 years now a subject of contention in and outside this House. We feel, as a party, that the mere omission to bring these potential values on to the rating system of the nation is simply the continuance of one of the most fundamental injustices in our whole local taxing system. In my own constituency, for example, there has been opened up a few years ago the construction of a reservoir for the water supply of the inhabitants of the City of Sheffield. That land, for years out of mind, has merely been taxed as agricultural land. Sheffield has been busy growing for half a century, developing its metallurgical industries developing its university life, and building itself up as one of the big cities of Yorkshire, and when all that social, creative work has been going on for 40 or 50 years, you suddenly get the demand, for the service of the people, for a new kind of reservoir. A place is found, in a little valley, the land is taken over, and you find, if you inquire into the cost of purchasing that land, that it is, as in all similar cases, altogether out of proportion to the actual rateable value that has been levied on that land for the whole of the period
  We feel that this system of neglecting a fundamental source of wealth for local rating purposes is a very serious omission from the present Bill. I find, from Parliamentary papers that I was looking through yesterday, that in connection with our urban authorities, out of a total of something over 4,000,000 acres of land, two-thirds of that amount is classified as agricultural for rating purposes, and yields, therefore, only ridiculously small sums for the local revenues. That means that a very oppressive burden is put upon the great mass of the ratepayers. From the housing point of view, and not simply from the point of view of an extension of rating, we feel that this method of improving the local incidence of taxation ought to be included in this

  1933
  Bill. When we remember the fabulous prices that are charged for land to-day in order to get houses built, land which is paying only 3s. and 4s. per acre, when we remember that landlords, when they gut the chance to sell, are charging 2500, £800 and even £1,000 and more an acre, at a time when they are paying practically nothing at all to the local rating system, we find it difficult to understand how the people continue to accept quietly such a system of taxation. Therefore, we want to raise this whole issue. The right hon. Gentleman has said, very plainly and definitely, that he does propose to give a certain amount of relief to a certain small class of local ratepayers. He has not made it clear where that relief is going to come from, and it seems perfectly plain that the burden is going to fall primarily upon the great mass a the ratepayers themselves
  We have been told to wait for the future for this extension of rating relief. But, if I may say so, we have already waited a very long time. A great party has used the language which has been used in this House this afternoon, in connection with the Amendment, for some 25 or 30 years. It is 40 years, I think, since a Royal Commission reported first upon this subject of taxation, arid then suggested propositions, which my party is advocating this afternoon, for the definite rating of land values and its incorporation in the local rating system. We feel that the time has come when, in so great and, if I may say so, so statesmanlike a Measure of revision, of co-ordination, of simplifying the structure of local rating, when the Minister himself has ventured to interfere with the incidence of rating, he might have gone further, and at least have set up a committee to take a valuation of the land of the country and hare given, if not compulsory powers, at least optional powers to those municipalities and cities in the country which care to go ahead with their taxing system to open up this new source of just and legitimate revenue, until they can get which they will never be able satisfactorily to deal with the pressing burdens that confront them now. I beg, on these grounds, to support the Amendment
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I want to deal with a few points and to answer some of the
  1934
  questions which have been raised in the Debate this afternoon, but I should like to say, first, on behalf, I think, of the whole House, how much we have appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith), who has just sat down, and who evidently has a great knowledge of many of the: matters mentioned in this Bill. I believe he defeated at the last Election a Member whom we knew very well in this House (Mr. Pringle), and it is refreshing to know that that division has returned a man of, perhaps, a different kind, but one who certainly contributes very much to the value of our debates. May I say that I think, having heard the whole of the Debate this afternoon, that I shall have the assent of the whole House, with perhaps one or two exceptions—I agree, of an important character—when I say that this Bill has received very general approval? If I went through the various Clauses and referred to the matters dealt, with in them, such as the institution of one valuation instead of four valuations, the reducing of the rating authorities of this country by more than 50 per cent., the important suggestion that is made of having one general rate for local purposes, instead of many, as we have at present, I think it could fairly be said that, so far as this Debate is concerned, most of the provisions have received, having regard, naturally, to the complicated nature of the Bill and the diversity of interests affected, very general approval indeed. We are obliged to the hon. Members for receiving it in this way I quite agree that in one or two matters considerable criticism has been made, and I want to deal with a few of the more important points that have arisen. If I am not able to answer all the questions, I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that we shall be able to do so when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), who moved the Amendment, generally approved, 1 think, most of the portions of the Bill to which I have already referred, but he implied that in two respects, in connection with railways and in connection with the rating of machinery, he disapproved of the proposals in the Bill. Let me tell him, in regard to the railway provisions, that no further reliefs, so far as railways are concerned, are proposed in this Bill. He

  1935
  asked why the railway companies viewed the change in the Bill with joy, and I think I can answer that question to his satisfaction and to that of the House. The old principle, so far as the valuation of railways is concerned, remains, but the old method is certainly not preserved, and I can understand very well indeed—and I daresay the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) will bear me out in this—no railway company being aggrieved at the proposition made in this Bill, I hope in a proper and appropriate way, of their having no longer to deal with their lines and stations and all the rest of it in relation to parishes. When one thinks of the multiplication of work, and calculations, and documents that have to be. supplied under our ordinary system at the present time, one can understand that the railway companies, which have to keep expensive and extensive staffs for this purpose, are very glad to see this Bill
  The Bill will simplify the valuation, and, certainly, relieve the railway companies—quite rightly—of a great deal of litigation, and it will improve the whole system. That is the simple position so far as the railway companies are concerned. The most important criticism I have met so far in the Debate this afternoon has been the criticism of the proposals in the Bill in relation to the rating of machinery. It has been asked, as it was by the last speaker, why should these he introduced into the Bill? It is bringing in a new incidence of taxation and a new method, which should he brought in by a Bill dealing purely with machinery. I think the answer to that, if one has studied this question of the rating of machinery and its history in this country, is, that the proposals in this Bill are really carrying out what, I believe, has always been the intention of Parliament. The real reason why people find their machinery rated to-day as they do is largely owing to what I may call case-made law
  What has been stated in this matter Go back to the year 1840—and this has been apparently overlooked by the Courts in many of the decisions that have been given—and note what is stated in the Poor Rate Exemption Act of that year. It exempted the inhabitants
  "from liability to be rated as such in respect of stock-in-trade or other property."
  1936
  As a matter of fact the proposals in this Bill are little different from what is the law in regard to the rating of machinery in Scotland, and possibly, in Ireland today. Therefore one cannot but say, if you have regard to the whole position, that no new matter of principle has in fact been imported into this Bill. If one looks at the Report of the Royal Commission and the special Committees on the subject that have sat from time to time I think it will be found that they bear out a good deal of what I say. There was a certain well known case in the House of Lords, and another case in the Court of Appeal, the effect of which was that the cases went a great deal further than the authorities and, certainly, than Parliament, ever intended. I think everyone will agree, whatever view they may take of what ought to be done as to the exemption of machinery that, at any rate, the present position, so far as the rating of machinery is concerned, is impossible and intolerable. Two instances occur to my mind, which, I dare say, hon. Members at the present moment who are connected with industrial districts know about, where one rating authority is putting into practice a decision of the House of Lords, and the other partially putting it into effect. That is a perfectly impossible position for manufacturers who are competing for orders in the same area, for one is much more heavily handicapped than another. I venture to say to the House that, quite apart from the merits of these proposals in this Bill, no one can allow the present position to continue if you want to be fair and just It has been stated by several hon. Members and emphasised very strongly indeed by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) that the provisions of this Bill will act very unfairly and harshly upon other ratepayers. I understood him to take as his instance the existing industrial conditions in Middlesbrough. At the present time, I suppose, the real reason for the heavy burden in Middlesbrough is its heavy unemployment. What is the best way to attack this? One of the best ways to attack the unemployment problem in Middlesbrough, I venture to say, is that of getting trade and industry in Middlesbrough going again. If you do that you will soon relieve your rates, especially those due to unemployment in that particular district. I am rather

  1937
  afraid that that point is not sufficiently appreciated by the critics of these proposals, for the relief in this respect will in the end be considerable, and help to lighten taxation and the rates. I venture to ask the House in this connection to take a long view. Only the other day I heard the Leader of the Opposition and other Members of the House say that the great burden on industry was the burden due to the rates, which means, so it is suggested that rates have to be paid though no profits are made. At any rate, this one matter will help them. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) dealt with the matter in relation to the mines. lie seemed to have some extraordinary figures, which I cannot accept, and he seemed to make out that there was an extra £1,000,000 in rates in his particular district
  Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred generally to the district, to the whole area, and not to his constitutency alone
  Sir K. WOOD: That may be so. I was wondering whether I heard the hon. Member aright, but as I am not a lightning calculator, I took the figures as I seemed to hear them. But what is the position of the mines at the present time? I suppose the greatest help you could give to the mines would be greater production. You are not going to get that unless you stimulate trade and industry
  Mr. WALLHEAD: May I—HON. MEMBERS: "Order! Order! "] Mr. Speaker will call me to order, if need be. May I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that in the mining districts, when the mines shut down there are no rates paid by the mines. But the miners who are unemployed still go on paying the rates
  Sir K. WOOD: Then the best way in Which to get the miners employed again is to get more production in the country, to stimulate trade and industry, certainly as we are doing by the provisions of this Bill. I ask hon. Members to have regard to that particular aspect—I believe a very important aspect—of the proposals that we are making to the House. Whatever may be said of the present position, no one, I think, can allow the present inequalities and injustices in regard to the rating of machinery to continue. Conse-
  1938
  quently, anyone who has studied matters, and has regard to Scotland and Ireland, will see that it is carrying out the original intention of Parliament. Thirdly, we are dealing with the assessment committees, which, I think, is a very vital improvement. It will be of great benefit to the whole of the community
  There is a criticism which arises in connection with these proposals which was put to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders). He spoke of the uneasiness manifested in certain parts of the country in regard to the demands we are making, and to the fact that under this Bill the revenue officer may, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought, have undue power arid be able to exercise undue influence. I have seen other documents with far bolder statements, in which it was said that this Bill is going to introduce a new rating inquisitor into the operations of the rating of this country. Ratepayers as well as taxpayers are to be left to the tender mercies of the revenue officials of the Treasury. That description is inaccurate, and really there is no foundation for it in connection with the proposals of this Bill. It is perfectly true that certain further powers are to be given to the officers—not of a very extensive character —but, after all, the suggestions of The local authorities have weight. appearance of the revenue officer before the assessment committee is an important matter indeed, but he stands in exactly the same position as the rating authority itself, and the ratepayers
  Members of London divisions know that since 1869 surveyors and inspectors of taxes have possessed statutory duties in connection with the valuation of rates in London, including the right of sitting with the assessment committees, and of inserting their own gross values in the valuation lists. But everybody who has given a fair consideration to this matter knows that if you have one valuation, as we propose in this Bill, the revenue officer should have some method of putting the point of view of the Inland Revenue before the assessment committees at, every stage. But the decision, after he has had the opportunity of putting his case, rests with the local representatives. I venture to hope that after the explanation which has been given in the House that that matter will be cleared up, for,

  1939
  perhaps, the provisions of the Bill have not been sufficiently appreciated. But there is no foundation, at any rate, for saying that the proposals in the Bill at the present time mean that the Inland Revenue officer has an undue place or is able to exercise improper influence. There is another suggestion that has been made to the effect that there is considerable distrust in rural districts owing to the proposed abolition of the assessment committees. But I notice that even the Association of Poor Law Unions agree that there ought to be a change in that direction.
  8.0 P.M.
  They have stated in the suggestion that they have made to the Ministry, that the power of Poor Law assessment committees should remain unimpaired, but that such committees should be enlarged by the admission of representatives from other spending authorities and the commissioner of Income Tax, but that in all cases members of the assessment committees appointed by the boards of guardians should constitute a majority of the assessment committees. So really the issue now is in regard to the majority of the assessment committees. It is agreed that the committees have to be extended in their personnel, but what the boards of guardians desire is to retain a majority on the committees. When it is realized that 99 per cent. of the expenditure to-day is chargeable upon a larger area than the parish, it is seen that that is an impossible position, however much one may appreciate the work done by the guardians. No one desire to decry it. I hope the House will agree that in this Bill we have given due representation to the Poor Law guardians. A real effort has been made to meet the position. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) has put a case which involves a criticism of the proposal in the Bill that there shall be one valuation for all purposal in the Bill that there shall be one valuation for all purposes. I think it is fair to say that apart from that criticism, and, perhaps, the criticism of one other authority, there is not a single authority in the country which does not approve of the important principle of one valuation for all purposes. We have, for instance, received the approval of the National Conference of Assessment Committees, the Association of Poor Law Unions, the Association of Municipal.
  1940
  Corporations, the County Councils Association, and a body which I should have thought would have been particularly anxious to look after the interest of people who, it is said, may be affected by the proposals of the Bill--the National Federation of Property Owners. That Federation sent a communication on the question of the constitution of assessment committees and in it stated:
  " The Federation wishes to support and emphasise the view that both the gross and rateable value should be entered in the valuation lists."
  The experience in London has justified the proposals that we now make. In another communication which we have received from the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Committee, 1924, it is stated that
  " The system in London has worked well for half a century."
  I agree that we must have regard to some of the difficulties that have arisen, and this we shall do in Committee, if that be at all possible without destroying the principle of the Bill. It will be agreed that, having regard to the practical agreement of everyone with the principle of one valuation, it would be impossible now to make any variation of the kind suggested. Such a variation would go right against our main proposals
  There is only one other point I desire to make, and that is in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, who spoke about the collection of rates by owners, and referred to some point, which I am afraid I did not directly appreciate, regarding the Rent Restrictions Acts. I can say to him that there is no proposal in the Bill which will in any way vary or alter the Rent Restrictions Acts. If we wanted to alter the Acts we would have to do so by express enactment. I do not think the hon. Member can have appreciated the proposals of the Bill in connection with the collection of rates by owners. All that we are suggesting in the Bill is that owners should be made liable to account for the rates actually received by them. If they collect the rates on that basis then they will receive a small percentage. Under the provisions of the Bill they would simply be responsible for the rates received and no more. On the question of what is called compounding, everyone who has had experience will agree that many of the conditions now are of a very

  1941
  extravagant nature and that alterations and reform were certainly necessary
  I will say a word or two on the Amendment. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman who moved it practically agrees with the main portions of the Bill, except in relation to the rating of machinery. To my surprise, he and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that in some way or other some further proposals must be made involving the rating of land. The House must have regard to previous experiments made in this same connection. I think the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has a very short memory. He has many qualities, and that may be one of them. He may remember the somewhat similar proposals that he made in connection with a famous Finance Act, and how very disastrous, especially to house building, was the effect of his proposal. I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough talk about the taxation of land, in view of the present shortage of houses, because with the single exception of the effect of the War I suppose that nothing has brought about a greater accumulation of difficulties in connection with housing than the proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his Finance Act of 1909-10. Wherever you go the small builder and investor will tell you that he was frightened away from house building by those proposals. An hon. Gentleman said that the present situation will bring about a most fabulous price for land in connection with house building. There could be no more complete misconception. At present the cost of the land in connection with the
  average worker's house provided under the Housing Acts is simply £20 per house. That has been the average price all over the country for every house that you see
  Mr. WALLHEAD: That is about £240 an acre
  Sir K. WOOD: I have reminded the House what were the results of the last land taxes. We should give due considerations to facts rather than to aspirations in this matter, though it may be a painful thing to have to do. The maximum yield of the land taxes was £1,800,000, and I very much regret to say that, according to the Report of the Board of Inland Revenue, the cost was £5,000,000. If the Minister of Health adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs I think he would be met with a much bigger volume of objection. The people of the country would rightly say to him: "You have already made this experiment. Instead of getting anything out of this taxation in the past we have had to pay heavily for it." This Bill is an attempt, and a big attempt, to deal with difficulties which have confronted local authorities and everybody who has worked in municipal life for many years. It is the greatest attempt to deal with the situation, and I confidently appeal to the House to give the Bill a Second Reading now
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 129

  Division No. 100.]

  AYES

  [8.15 p.m

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bethell, A.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T

  Betterton, Henry B

  Burman, J. B

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Burton, Colonel H. W

  Albery, Irving James

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Blundell, F. N

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Campbell, E. T

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A

  Cautley, Sir Henry S

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

  Brass, Captain W

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn(Aston)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J

  Balniel, Lord

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M

  Brocklebank, C. E. R

  Christie, J. A

  Barnett, Major Richard W

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C.R. I

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W

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

  Clayton, G. C

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

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Bennett, A. J

  Buckingham, Sir H

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A.D

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Connolly, M

  Berry, Sir George

  Bullock, Captain M

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Couper, J. B

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Radford, E. A

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Holt, Captain H. P

  Ralne, W

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Homan, C. W. J

  Ramsden, E

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Hopkins, J. W. W

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Remer, J, R

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N

  Remnant, Sir James

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Rhys, Hon. C.A.U

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, whiteh'n)

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

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Hume, Sir G. H

  Roberts, E. H. G.(Flint)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J.H

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Roberts, Samuel(Hereford, Hereford)

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Hurd, Percy A

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas(Clrencester)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Ropner, Major L

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M

  Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth)

  Dixey, A.C

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H

  Rye, F. G

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S

  Salmon, Major I

  Drewe, C

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Duckworth, John

  Jacob, A.E

  Sanders, Sir Robert A

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Edmondson, Major A. J

  Jephcott, A. R

  Sandon, Lord

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

  Elliot, Captain Walter E

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Savery, S. S

  Ellis, R. G

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Elvedon, Viscount

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

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

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R

  Shaw, Capt. W. W.(Wilts, Westb'y)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lloyd, Cyril E.(Dudley)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Fairfax, Captain J. G

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G

  Loder, j. de V

  Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ Belfst

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Smith-Carington, Neville W

  Fleming, D. P

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Smithers, Waldron

  Forrest; W

  Lynn, Sir R. J

  Somerville, A. A(Windsor)

  Foster, Sir Harry S

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Spender Clay, Colonel H

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(will'sden, E.)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Stanley, Lord Fylde)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  McLean, Major A

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macmillan, Captain H

  Storry Deans, R

  Gates, Percy

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord c

  Gee, Captain R

  Macquisten, F.A

  Stuart, Hon. J.(Moray and Nairn)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacRobert, Alexander M

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Glyn, Major R. G. C

  Malone, Major P. B

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Manningham-Bulier, Sir Mervyn

  Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Margesson, Captain D

  Tinne, J. A

  Grace, John

  Meller, R.J

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Merriman, F.B

  Waddington, R

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. E

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

  Guest, Capt Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

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

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Gunston, Captain D. W

  Moore, Sir Newton J

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W.(Carlisle)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hanbury, C

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Murchlson, C. K

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Harland, A

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Winby, Colonel L. P

  Harrison, G.J.C

  Neville, R. J

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Nicholson, William G (Petersfleid)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Womersley, W. J

  Haslam, Henry C

  Oakley, T

  Wood, B.C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M

  Oman, Sir Charles William C

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

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur

  P. Pennefather, Sir John

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hasting)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice Adm. Sir A

  Perkins, Colonel E.K

  Wragg, Herbert

  Herbert, Dennis(Hertford, Wattord)

  Peto, Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T

  Hilton, Cecil

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  Pilcher, G

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Price, Major C. W. M

  Major Hennessy and Major Sir Harry Barnston

  NOES

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Buchanan, G

  Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood(Leith)

  Cluse, w. S

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamplon, Bllston)

  Briant, Frank

  Compton, Joseph

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Broad, F. A

  Cove, W. G

  Barr, J

  Bromley, J

  Dalton, Hugh

  1944

  1945

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kelly, W. T

  Snell, Harry

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kirkwood, D

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Dennison, R

  Lansbury, Gearge

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Duncan, C

  Lawson, John James

  Stamford, T.W

  Fenby, T. D

  Lee, F

  Stephen, Campbell

  Garro-Jones, Captain G M

  Livingstone, A. M

  Sutton, J.E

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Lowth, T

  Taylor, R. A

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lunn, William

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

  Gillett, George M

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

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Mlddlesbro. W.)

  Gosling, Harry

  Macklnder, W

  Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thurtle, E

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

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Greenall, T

  March, S

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Viant, S. P

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Morris, R. H

  Wallhead, Richard C

  Griffiths, T.(Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murnin, H

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Groves, T

  Oliver, George Harold

  Warn, G. H

  Grundy, T.W

  Palln, John Henry

  Watson, W.M.(Dunfermilne)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Paling, W

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

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

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

  Potts, John S

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Hall, G.H.(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

  Westwood, J

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Riley, Ben

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

  Hardle, George D

  Ritson, J

  Whiteley, W

  Harris, Percy A

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Wignall, James

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Wilkinson, Ellen C

  Hayday, Arthur

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Scrymgeour, E

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Hirst, G. H

  Sexton, James

  Williams, Dr. J.H.(Lianelly)

  Hirst, W.(Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Williams, T.(York, Don Valley)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Short, Alfred(Wednesbury)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H

  Windsor, Walter

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Siesser, Sir Henry H

  Wright, W

  Jones, Henry Haydn(Merioneth)

  Smillie, Robert

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Jones, J. J.(West Ham, Silvertown)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)

  Smith, H.B. Lees(Keighley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T Kennedy

  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move
  " That, in view of the practically universal acceptance of the principle that a living wage for all workers should be the first charge upon industry, and in view of the large measure of agreement with respect to the advisability of fixing legal minimum time rates of wages reached at the national industrial conference, this House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill introduced by the Government of the day of 1919, constituting a commission to inquire into and report upon legal minimum time rates of wages."
  I am afraid I must apologise to the House for the fact that I must in the course of my remarks cover ground which has already been covered in previous Debates. This is very largely unavoidable, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) and the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Comptonin previous Debates have dealt with this matter so exhaustively that there is very little now left untouched by them to be said on this occasion. It has been my privilege to be a Member of this House
  1946
  for some few years, and I never fail to be impressed by the contrast provided by the varying moods of this House on various occasions when various Motions are presented to it. At times the House is quite pleasantly indulgent to some Motions, and at other times it is acutely critical. For instance, when this Motion was presented some two years ago, it was defeated by a narrow majority of about 13. Last year, when the same Motion was presented, it was not even opposed but carried with no Division upon it
  Last night. we had another illustration of how the House can behave when it is in an indulgent mood. We were discussing last evening the problem of the superannuation of teachers, and in the course of that Debate reference was made to the fact that various other types of the public service, such as the police, local government officers, and like employés either of local authorities or of the State, were not only in receipt of a minimum wage, but were also in receipt of substantial pensions. I am quite sure I may say on behalf of my hon. Friends on these benches that while they represent in the aggregate millions of organised workers, they would not for

  1947
  one moment deny the right of those public servants, either of the State or of local authorities, to receive an adequate minimum wage for the services which they give to their employers of one sort and another. They grant it, and grant it as I believe, quite readily without any cavil whatsoever. The House last night was in an indulgent mood, and we were actually discussing a proposal which would involve as a consequence of its passage the expenditure of millions of money, and the House was so indulgent that it carried the Second Reading of that Bill without any Division whatsoever
  To-night I hope the House will be equally indulgent, and I am encouraged by the fact that there are not many hon. Members on the opposite side present to hear my arguments. At any rate, if they are not indulgent to my proposal, I hope they will be indulgent to me when I put my arguments in favour of this Bill. Let me emphasise this point that the Motion I am putting forward involves no money from the State. It is not a question of pensions at all. I am putting forward a very modest proposal, and one which I think all decent-minded people, whether they are Tories, Liberals or Labour Members, will grant as an elementary right for every decent-minded man, namely, the elementary right to be allowed to live a decent, full and complete life
  I submit that my party, anyhow, is thoroughly consistent in this matter in the attitude it took last night when it cordially agreed with the terms of last night's Bill, and to-night, when we are discussing people who are not able to say they are in receipt of salaries because they only receive wages—and they are lucky if they receive those very often—we assert that these people, the manual labourers, are equally entitled to the action we demand of Parliament to-night in defence of their elementary rights as workers and as citizens. I have already referred to the past history of this Motion. It will he observed that it has on one occasion been defeated and on another occasion it has been allowed to pass unchallenged. I know the composition and the complexion of this House has somewhat changed since then, and we have now an overwhelming majority
  1948
  of Conservative Members in this House, and therefore I think it is right and proper at the outset that I should ask this clear and specific question as to whether the Tory party stands precisely in the same position regarding this Motion as it did last year; that is to say, that it is not even prepared to challenge the principle of this Motion, or will it revert to the position it took up two years ago?
  We want to know in clear and precise terms from the Minister in charge of this Motion what is the view of the Government in regard to the clear proposal in this Motion, namely, that the first charge upon industry shall be the right of the worker in that industry to a fair and decent minimum wage. I wonder how many Members of this House have not been, as I have been, at some time or other in their lives, struck with wonder and a sense of pride and, indeed, a sense of exhilaration when visiting an ordinary power-house or engine-room attached to any particular works, to observe the cleanliness and spick and spanness of the machinery therein. No one grumbles at it and no one finds fault with it, and everyone concedes that it is entirely appropriate. Even the employer admits it for the simple reason that, in his judgment, it is absolutely essential that the machinery and the mechanism so useful in the production of the commodity which he has for sale shall be kept in an up-to-date condition
  The same applies to the keeping of horses at a colliery or in connection with any ordinary business. That is to say, in the matter of mechanism or the matter of the treatment of animal life in connection with industry the employer concedes that these elements have a right to the first consideration in connection with the charges on his business. Now we suggest that human life, the life of the worker, the worker himself, has an equal right to consideration, and he should have the right to be kept in a state of full health and full activity, both mentally and physically, so that he too may be able to give as full a measure of service as his capacity will allow. The only way, as it seems to us, of guaranteeing that each individual worker shall be able to discharge his duties to the utmost of his abilities, is to secure, in the first place, that his

  1949
  labour shall be a first charge upon the industry concerned. The mechanical medium, the animal medium, if I may use that expression, we always provide for amply, but the human medium is to-day, as a matter of fact, underpaid, underfed, ill clad, ill-housed, discontented, often disgruntled, frequently impatient, and, as a consequence, very frequently ill-tempered. We assert that it is no use, that it is nearly platitudinous, to talk about peace in industry until you can remove the causes of this disgruntlement and the occasion of the discontent, by granting to each worker his rights in connection with a minimum wage associated with industry
  The question arises, should the labour of the worker he a first charge upon industry? We await the answer of hon. Members opposite to-night with some interest, not merely from the benches opposite, but we shall watch the interpretation of that opinion as they march through either the "Aye" or the "No" Lobby if a Division is challenged. I want to place the House in possession of the opinion of people, apropos of this matter, who cannot be accused by any stretch of imagination of belonging to that class of much derided people called Socialist agitators. At the end of the War, when leaders of industry in this country were somewhat perturbed as to the future, the Ministry of Reconstruction issued an official pamphlet on the subject of the State regulation of wages, and in that pamphlet I find this very interesting statement:
  " One thing is certain; the question of wages will never be allowed to return to the position of 10 years ago, when the Government had no concern in it. A policy will be pursued of stimulating production and at the same time of securing to the worker a fair share of the product. More than that cannot be done."
  We should be very glad indeed if that much were done
  " Wages, salaries and incomes all depend finally on the total volume of the internal and external trade of the country and the total income derived from it; but labour is riot to be regarded as merely part of the raw material of industry, to be purchased at the cheapest possible rate. A reasonable standard of wages must be a first charge, perhaps the first charge."
  Whenever a proposal such as this is put before various Members of the House, we are immediately presented with a
  1950
  sort of organised despondency, a sort of pleasurable pessimism and a delightful depression that only bursts forth when we begin io talk of the wages of the manual workers of this country. For instance, we are told that a proposal like this may be all right in theory; that it may sound very well in the House of Commons, and may look very nice on the Order Paper; but that the facts are that the country could not stand it, that we simply could not bear such a burden. It is very curious that this country does bear its burdens remarkably well in certain ways. Let me give, if I may, seine facts drawn, again not from a tainted source of Socialism, but from such a respectable source as the "Economist" newspaper. On the 7th March of this year we found that in December, 1924, the unskilled workers in the building trade were in receipt of wages between 49s. and 61s.; in coal-mining the wages of such workers were from 39s. 6d.to 46s. 9d.; in iron and steel from 36s. 4d.to 44s. 7d.; in engineering from 38s. to 43s. ad. I could add a number of similar figures. Taking, again, the skilled workers—men who have acquired a mastery of their trade—fitters and turners, in December, 1924, were receiving an average weekly wage. of 56s. 6d.; iron moulders, 60s.; pattern makers, 60s. 11d.; shipwrights, 55s. 7d.; ship joiners, 57s. 9d.; and in these cases the percentage increase over the 1914 wages in no case exceeds 45 per cent. For the three months ending in January, 1925, the wages of iron and steel workers were 49.6 per cent. above the 1914 standard, and in 1924 they were 48.7 per cent. above the 1914 standard. I could go on retailing to the House a large number of similar figures, but perhaps I may put the position in a more striking way if I say that the average loss in weekly wages which the workers sustained in the year 1921 amounted to the colossal sum of £6,026,000 per week, in 1922 to £4,195,008 per week, and in 1923 to £309,400 per week. That is a total loss per week of £10,530,400. If that be worked out, spread over the three years, it amounts to the colossal aggregate sum of something like £547,000,000 per year. That is a sacrifice, anyhow, which the workers have had to bear
  Mr. G. W. H. JONES: Was there not a fall in prices?
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I put it in another way? On the 31st December, 1924, the cost-of-living index number above July, 1914, to which, apparently, the hon. Member refers, was 80 per cent. above the 1914 standard, and, on the same date, the average increase in the weekly full-time wages was somewhere between 70 and 75 per cent. The obvious deduction from these figures is, that in point of fact, judged by the standard of wages as compared with the cost of living, the workers of this country are worse off to-day than they were in 1914. I could weary the House with a, statement on the other side, showing the profits which have been made in various types of industry in the same period, but I will forbear in order to pass on to another statement which has been presented to this very House. We have a Return, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, which shows the Exchequer receipts in regard to Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties, and we have this amazing result, which I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to apply himself to and explain, if possible, when he replies. In the year 1918-19 the total receipts from Super-tax amounted to 235,595,000. In 1924-25 the Super-tax receipts amounted to £62,680,000 —an actual increase, as between those two years, of 76 per cent. Again, the total receipts from Death Duties in 1918-19 were £30,262,000, while in 1924-25 the total receipts from Death Duties amounted to the colossal sum of £59,450,000, showing a total increase, as between those two years, of 96 per cent. or nearly double. In that very same period the wages of the workers of this country were not merely not stationary, but they showed an actual decrease as compared with the standard obtaining in 1914. These figures are not drawn from a tainted source; they are drawn from official sources, and they prove beyond dispute the argument which the working classes advance in these days, with entire justice. that their claim has been overlooked by the State in connection with their right to a minimum wage in the course of the last few years
  I pass on to offer one word of consolation to hon. Members opposite in regard to the Motion I am submitting. There is no need for them to be alarmed on account of this Motion. The rapacious wolves of revolution will not be scratching at their doors to-morrow morning
  1952
  on account of its being passed. It merely states a principle which, I presume, is acceptable to all decent-minded men. It merely asks that to-night Parliament, which is still the vehicle for the expression of enlightened public opinion upon these public questions, shall take this opportunity of declaring that it remains of the same opinion as it was last year in asserting the right of the worker to a minimum wage in return for the labour that he gives to his employer, whoever he may be. We are not asking anything new. Social legislation of this kind has been carried repeatedly. I need not detail the occasions on which Parliament has stepped in to assert the feeling that the public has that unrestricted capitalism is a danger to the life and health and well-being of the individual. Parliament, with that knowledge, has stepped in in defence of the more defence less worker from time to time. This Motion is not merely supported by Socialist agitators: it has been supported by supporters of hon. Members opposite. In 1919 the Tory party constituted the majority,in support of the Coalition Government, though it had a Liberal leader, and they decided to convene a great conference of industry. The Minister of Labour in that day was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead, (Sir R. Horne). It is worth noting what he told that conference. He said:
  " He had read to-day the letter of the Prime Minister and it explained the circumstances in which they stood to-day by reason of his absence. It was the most momentous document which had been presented to the country in a long number of years, and so far as he was concerned, they might take it that lie would not he there that day if ho did not believe that the principles of the report would receive without delay the favor of the Government."
  I gather from those words that the right hon. Gentleman regarded this as it were as the veritable Ark of the Covenant and the right hon. Gentleman as the High Priest officiating on that occasion, declared that if anyone placed his impious hands upon that Ark, he, the High Priest, would desert the tabernacle. He remained in the tabernacle, however, to officiate in other capacities on later occasions. Similarly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Car Narvon Boroughs sent a letter which is worth reading:
  " I have read the Report of the Committee of the Joint Industrial Council with

  1953
  very great interest. It seems to me to be an excellent piece of work considering the short time at the disposal of the Committee. I welcome it, especially as it shows what can be done when the representatives of the workers and the employers come together."
  That is a second reason for the second reference in the Resolution. We ask that the principle of the Bill which was introduced into the House as a consequence of the findings of that Conference shall be embodied in a Bill and presented to the House without delay. We ask, however, that the Government, if it so prefers, shall appoint a Commission of Inquiry so that the whole question shall be examined if you like de novo, having regard to all the questions relative to the subject, presenting to the country an ample report so that the public may arrive at informed judgment upon the point
  We are not in this Motion, as we have been accused of doing on previous occasions, advocating anything in the nature of a flat minimum rate. We are merely urging that the principle of a minimum wage shall be recognized, leaving of course to each locality and to each trade in each locality to determine for itself, according to local conditions and customs and so on, what shall be deemed an appropriate minimum wage. That is not a new principle at all. It was embodied in the Coal Mines Minimum Wage Bill, and the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act of last year, and as far as I am able to observe, though of course those pieces of legislation are not perfect, they indicate the lines upon which this kind of legislation might run. The question arises as to what we might call a minimum wage. I am not called upon to answer that in precise arithmetical terms to-night, but in the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act there was laid clown a principle concerning the interpretation of the terms. It read as follows:
  " In fixing minimum rates a Committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for every able-bodied man such wages as in the opinion of the Committee are adequate to 'promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation."
  If I was so disposed, I could quote precedents which might be useful for our guidance as having been applied in other
  1954
  parts of the Empire. For instance, this principle is accepted in every State of Australia, in certain provinces of Canada and in certain States of America. The Australians have a very vigorous way of laying down the principle in regard to the minimum wage. May I read one or two extracts from principles propounded by Mr. Justice Higgins for the settlement of minimum wages by the Court of Con collation and Arbitration of the Australian Commonwealth. No. 7 reads as follows:
  " The wages cannot be allowed to depend on the profits made by the individual employer, but the profits of which the industry is capable may be taken into account. If the industry is novel, and those who undertake it have to proceed economically, there may be a good cause for keeping down wages, but not below the basic wage, which must be sacrosanct. Above the basic wage, bargaining of the skilled employé may, with caution, be allowed to operate."
  No. 8 is more vigorous still.
  " The fact that a mine is becoming exhausted or poorer in its ores is not a ground for prescribing a lower rate than would otherwise be proper. If shareholders are willing to stake their own money on a speculation, they should not stake part of the employés proper wages also. The Court cannot endanger industrial peace in order to keep unprofitable mines going."
  In another portion of the same principles we find this quite unexceptional statement made
  " No employer is entitled to purchase by wages the right to endanger life, or to treat men as pigs.''
  Perhaps I should not state that principle in the same language, but I entirely agree with the sentiment nevertheless It may be argued that we are not obliged to follow the example of these various parts of the Empire. I admit that no nation is really great that is merely imitative, but, after all, there is no dishonour in honest emulation.
  9.0 P. m.
  We are not concerned to-night primarily with people who can look after them selves—the organised trades. After all, the strength of every chain, even the humanchain, depends on the strength of its weakest link, and we are concerned, therefore, that some sort of established principle shall be embodied in legislation so as to safeguard not a few, not even the majority, but all those people, chiefly

  1955
  women, who are associated with those unorganised trades. I know the hon. Gentleman may reply to me, as has been done on previous occasions, that this problem is amply met by the establishment of trade boards. I am not going to argue against Trade Boards. I am not going to discuss the problem as to the applicability of trade boards in all trades. All I say is that, in the absence of other and better machinery, trade boards have undoubtedly been of enormous benefit to the workers concerned. There are, I think, something like 3,000,000 people who are under the ægis of trade boards. There are sonic 2,000,000 still left outside, and if the Government attaches great faith to the establishment of trade boards all I would say is, for heaven's sake establish them as quickly as possible in the interests of the people concerned. There is a case for a forward march in connection with these trade boards. The other day I had placed in my hand a statement, which I believe is duly authenticated, the facts of which are simply staggering in their significance. An organisation whose members are largely employed in distributive trades, writes as follows: " We find in London a man assistant of 20 Years of age in the grocery trade receiving 20s. a. week, a woman assistant of 24 years of age 25s. a week, a woman clerk of 22 years of age in the trade 18s. a week, and in the tobacco trade a manageress and a woman assistant of 21 and 24 years of age respectively receiving 26s. per week. All Over the country similar conditions were discovered. In Cornwall a firm was found whose practice it was to pay no wages to women assistants who had already served three years' apprenticeship without wages, but to allow them a small commission on sales. In Plymouth a branch manageress responsible for cash and stock and employed from 8.30 a.m. to 8 p.m., without any relief for meals, received £1 per week with out commission. This girl paid 18s. per week for board and lodging. The firm concerned have four or five branches. all the employæs being paid proportionately."
  Cases like that can be multiplied, I believe, from various parts of the country, and if that is an indication not of the general character of cases, but is only an indication of a certain number of cases, there is an overwhelming case for legislation being enacted speedily to punish the people concerned in such unjust and inequitable conditions of employment. I have already overstepped the limit of my time in presenting my case, and I apolo-
  1956
  gise to the House for it. I will close my remarks with this statement; that the argument has been advanced frequently by Members on the opposite side that the effect of this kind of legislation is to destroy industrial efficiency and to interfere with the free play of individual initiative in trade. I will not read the document, but I recommend hon. Members to read the evidence given by a gentleman named Mr. Counsell before the Committee of Inquiry into the working and effect of the Trades Boards Acts. I believe they will find in that evidence alone overwhelming proof of the effect of the operation of Trades Boards in regard to the various trades over which they have some sort of supervision. Apart from speeding up the efficiency of the various trades concerned and compelling individual employers, in the absence of unfair competition, to bring their industries into an up-to-date condition for commercial purposes, the work of the Trades Boards has been beyond praise. It has been found that the operation of Trades Boards in Australia., generally, has been to stimulate production and to increase the general volume of trade in the businesses concerned
  We ask that the Government should take this problem into consideration at the earliest possible moment. We invite them to set up a commission of inquiry, because if it be found that a large number of our people, as I fear may be the case, are in such desperate straits, and are so ill-paid, in spite of the general service that. they give, and if it he found that no alternative can be provided by our present system, for this system of underpayment, with all its accompanying evils, then we must come to the inevitable conclusion that the system under which we live must be deemed to be inadequate to our modern needs. It will he weighed in the balance, and if the evidence from such a commission of inquiry tends in the direction which I suspect it must go, then the present system must be deemed to be inadequate, and honest men of good will in all parties must apply their minds to substitute something better than this hopeless chaos which we now see about us
  Mr. JOHN BAKER: I have pleasure in seconding the Motion, which has been so ably moved. The meaning which I attach to the establishment of a minimum wage goes a little beyond that set up by the

  1957
  Wage Boards. The Wage Boards were set up to prevent the sweating which was destroying the life of the people. We want to take a step ahead of that. The Mover of the Resolution invited hon. Members to go into an engine room, where you can see the engine cared for, the engine-room kept nice and clean, spick and span, as my hon. Friend called it. If you went into the boiler house you would find there, in all up-to-date establishments, much elaborate machinery for testing and keeping track of the efficiency of the boilers. The water is measured, the coal is measured, the coal is analysed, to see that the quality is delivered that is paid for, the ash is measured and tested in order to see that: everything is efficient as far as the mechanism is concerned, but you would not find a single point in those works showing that it was anybody's duty to keep up the physical efficiency of the workers
  Many years ago, I read a pamphlet written by a medical gentleman who was a member of the Barrow-in-Furness Board of guardians. In that pamphlet he was demonstrating that the guardians were expecting more energy out of the tramps who called upon them, and who were required I o break so many stones in return for so much food, than the guardians would get out of a steam engine with an equivalent weight of coal. That doctor pointed out that, not only were the guardians unfair to these tramps, but that they were injuring them and shortening their lives. I am afraid that every manager of every works in this country is always trying to get more energy out of the human engine than he is prepared to put into it in the shape of food. The wages paid, on an average, to the workers of this country will not enable them to purchase a sufficient quantity of the proper sort of food to keep up their physical fitness
  I am sorry to use a phrase which got into ill-repute a few years ago, but it appears to me that all we are asking for to-night is to get the workers on to a fodder basis. We are actually asking the capitalists, in their own interests, to see to it that their workers are as well fed as their horses and as well cared for as their machinery, at least. We shall be told that we cannot afford it. That is a statement which I am riot prepared to
  1958
  accept. If hon. Members will examine the publications of the Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers—not my trade union, but the employers' association—they will find that in 1873 the average output for a blast furnace was 961½ tons per year. They would also find that we have blast furnaces in this country to-day that are turning out 3,000 tons of pig-iron in a week. If adjustments were made for the increased number of men about these modern furnaces it would be true to say that the modern blast furnace-man, working on a modern furnace is producing 100 times more pig-iron than his grandfather did in a year. His efficiency, with the aid of the engineer, has increased 10,000 per cent., but his wages have not increased 10,000 per cent
  In 1873 in all probability the average wage for blast furnace men would be between 25s. and 30s. a week. Twenty years ago the average wage would be 35s. or 40s. a week. I have an elaborate return from South Wales for 1923 which gives an average of about £2 19s. per week, or in a period in which the efficiency of the men has increased 10,000 per cent. the wages have only doubled, and yet we are told that industry cannot afford to pay the men enough to live on in decency. The British Steel Smelters' Association since its inception has kept a record of the age of death of its members who died, and for the first 20 years of its existence the average age of steel smelters who died in this country did not reach 40 years. I am one of those who believe that the health of the people is the wealth of the nation, and I want to suggest that those men were sacrificed to Moloch on the altar of profit, and that we have no right to allow the capitalists to go on destroying the people of this country at that rate
  I saw in the Press last week that there are people in the steel trade getting from £20 to £25 a week. There may be, but we do not know of it at our office, and it would be interesting if the gentleman who made that statement would tell us where they are. I would like to be introduced to them. The gentleman who made that statement complained some time ago that his labour cost had gone up 500 or 600 per cent. I knew that our members did not receive 500 or 600 per cent. in advances, and I wanted to know how he arrived at his figures. Part of his state

  1959
  ment was that in 1912 his labour cost for turning out a ton of pig iron was 2s. 4d. He was selling that pig iron at between 50s.and 60s.a ton. In other words, his labour cost was less than 5 per cent., and yet we are told that in an industry like that the workers cannot have more than 5 per cent., of the product without ruining that industry. It is time for this House to try to find out where the waste is. If the workers have increased their efficiency, as I am saying they have, on figures published by the employers themselves, if the labour cost of producing one ton of pig iron is no more than 5 per cent., of the selling price, I think that we are entitled to know where the remainder of the cost is going to. Personally I have a shrewd notion where it is going to
  I am not against reading the works published by the opponents of Socialism, and I have taken a keen interest in Mulhall's Dictionary of Statistics, and our friend Mallock's fulminations against the claims of the workers to participate in the product of their own industry to a greater extent than they have done previously, and he gives us there a great number of figures which do not prove his case, but, based on the figures that Mallock gives us in one of these books —I am not sure that the title is not "The Distribution of the Product "—I find that the workers are not getting the same share of the national wealth that they got in the year 1800. In the year 1800 Mallock tells us—and his figures are borne out by Mulhall—that the total income of the nation was £174,000,000 per year. Sir Josiah Stamp tells us that in 1920, as nearly as he could estimate it, the national income was £4,000,000,000, or 28 times as much as in 1800. The same authority tells us that the wealth of this country has increased 10 times in that 120 years. The population has also increased, and if you divide the figure for 1800 by the estimated population at that date you would get a sum of £16 14s. per head. If you carry out the same process for 1920, you would get a figure of £85. That means that the wealth per head of the population has increased five times. Yet while this wealth goes on increasing, not merely as a total, but per head of the population, we are told that the workers are never
  1960
  to have a share that would give them a decent life
  This country has spent hundreds of millions of pounds in breeding a race of aristocrats. We have been conducting an experiment as to how far we could develop the human animal, and we believe that we have attained perfection in the people who dub themselves aristocrats. They have bearing, learning and manners and the rest of it. [HON. MEMBERS" Morality!"] No, we do not admire their morality. Accepting the argument that they are better than the common people, we have no right to continue that experiment unless we are going to apply to the common men and women of this country the things that they claim as having made them the finer metal. We want our people not merely stoked as you stoke a boiler. We want for them a wage that will enable them not merely to exist as pieces of mechanism for the production of wealth for others to enjoy, but we want them to have a wage on which they can live up to the magnitude at which God intended that they should live. We want for them leisure, art, literature and music. We want that they should he what we admire in a man, that which many of us would describe as a fine old English gentleman. We want the whole of our people to he fine old English gentlemen. I second the Resolution
  Mr. DIXEY: T should like to pay a word of compliment to the excellent way in which the Mover took the strong point of this Resolution and also to the able speech made by the Seconder. It does seem a most significant fact. that more people belonging to the other Party in the House of Commons were present this evening to hear this Debate. It is a Subject which, to my mind, should occupy very keenly everybody who takes a real interest in the condition of this nation. If I may say so, I think the Seconder was a hit unkind. Even though some of us may disagree with the emphatic tone of this Resolution, nevertheless I can assure him that among the party on these benches there is a tremendous feeling of sympathy with the idea of a man having a decent day's wage for a decent day's work. A lot of people on this side of the House take every hit as much interest in their own common people as Members opposite, and Members on this side of the House are not

  1961
  wholly composed of bloated aristrocrats without reputations. Some of their reputations are equally as good as those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and all of us on these benches consider we are as much entitled to represent the interests of the majority of the people in this country as hon. Gentlemen opposite. If I may say so, it is not the sympathy and it is not the feeling behind this Resolution that I object to, and although I have not made up my mind which way I shall vote in this Division to-night, I may say this emphatically, I do feel that the whole future of this country rests on better feeling between capital and labour. I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that probably in years gone by Labour has not had its proper share of the profits of industry. But what about the schemes of co-operation which have been sometimes suggested by employers? I say emphatically that some of the best employers of labour in this country who have suggested good schemes of the kind have been very poorly received by trade union officials. Everyone agrees with the Seconder of this Resolution that from the financial position it is far better for an employer to give his workmen every comfort and consideration. The old days of the employer who merely looked on the workmen's methods as making money for him to spend have gone
  All the brains of industry are not with hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they were, their places might be here instead of where they are. What. I suggest very strongly is—and I think a lot of the sane Labour community in this country agrees—that the majority of employers are men who carry on industry, not merely for what it is worth to themselves, but for the interests of the country. We have a lot of these employers in the country to-day. It would be more helpful if certain prominent Members of the party opposite, instead of holding off the employer, were to give a few words of encouragement to get him to see these things in a friendly way. It is all very well to say of the employer that the. capitalist will not give anything to labour. I say the capitalist appreciates to-day that he has got to give something to labour and I say, further, that sensible and sane labour realises that if our industries are to go ahead at all prosperously, labour has to come forward and give something to capital.
  1962
  There is one other point I should like to speak about. Hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke about the minimum wage, but they did not say how it was to be defined in practice. [An HON. MEMBER: "£400 a year, like we get! "] Some hon. Gentlemen do not think £400 is sufficient. Some people might say some of us are overpaid at £400. If they could see the actions of a certain party in this House to-night they would certainly say they were overpaid. There is too much inequality between skilled and the unskilled rates of pay. Even some hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that, taking the minimum wage all through, you have unskilled men in certain protected trades who get a far bigger wage for the work they do than many employed in the skilled trades. I am not going into the question of whether these unskilled men are paid too much or too little. All I say is, taking labour as a whole, there is a great discrepancy between the wages paid in certain unskilled trades and skilled trades
  I, for one, think the whole question of the wages of British industries needs careful examination. I do hope that this Government with its leader will go into the whole question of British industry. I believe there are certain measures which ought to be taken, not only to equalise the conditions between capital and labour, but also to equalise the conditions amongst labour itself. should appreciate it very strongly if we could have more evenness between the wages paid to the skilled engineer and the wages paid to the unskilled labour, say, of the Corporation of the City of Manchester. I shall vote on this Motion to-night according to the reply given by the Minister in winding up this Debate. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh. but I am as capable of voting against my party as a lot of hon. Members on the opposite benches. I say with frankness I shall vote according to the reply given by the Minister to this Motion. Whether you pass this Motion or not, whether it is accepted or not, does not matter. What does matter is the engendering of the better feeling in this country between capital and labour. I do not care about the late Prime Minister's gestures to Labour. I know if we could get real Labour leaders from the trade unions and hon. Gentlemen

  1963
  who sit on benches opposite to go hand in hand and meet the decent employer, it would do far more good than all the Resolutions put on the Paper of this House
  Mr. HADEN GUEST: While agreeing entirely with the appeal of the last speaker for a better feeling between capital and labour, I suggest that the way to get it is very simple. If labour receives anything like justice, you will begin to get that better feeling. But while a large number of the people are underpaid, overworked, casually employed, and unemployed, it is ridiculous to talk about good feeling between those people and the employers. It is one thing to make speeches about good feeling between capital and labour after a good dinner or a good lunch. It is another thing to consider such remarks after returning from a visit to the Poor Law officer for the purpose of obtaining parish relief, and after finding it impossible to obtain an adequate amount of parish relief. The difference in the points of view is a difference which starts, not from the head, but from the stomach. As long as men are divided by those tremendous natural differences which exist when the men on one side are starving and desperate, all your fine appeals to fine feelings fall not on deaf ears, but on the ears of hungry people. I am perfectly certain the Prime Minister did not intend his appeal to be addressed to hungry men. He intended it to be addressed, as it should be addressed in the first instance, to the employers, because it is from the employers that the first move must come at this stage. I intended when I rose to address myself to the question raised by the Seconder of the Motion, and by the last speaker, namely, how a minimum wage is to be defined and calculated. I do not propose to enter into any figures, but I shall place before the House certain purely medical considerations, certain considerations dealing with human life, and certain considerations dealing with wages, and I suggest that these matters should be brought into account when considering how a minimum wage is to be calculated
  We are all familiar with the appeals for funds made by the numerous hospitals existing in London. During the last few
  1964
  days, we have been distressed to learn that the Middlesex Hospital is in a very bad position, and needs a large sum of money. From time to time, every hospital in London appeals for money. If you add to the amount of money spent on voluntary hospitals, the money spent on Poor Law infirmaries, and on medical relief through the Poor Law, and, further, acid the amount spent on clinics of one kind or another, you get a sum running into many millions a year. All hon. Members can go into the figures themselves in the statistical returns which are available. A large part of that expenditure is part of the price we pay for compelling men to live on low wages. I would ask hon. Members if they want an illustration to go to Guy's Hospital which is close to London Bridge, and derives a large proportion of ifs patients from occupations where there is casual employment and low wages. They will see how the people in such occupations suffer directly from the effects of low wages and insufficient food. In my own experience in connection with the school clinics, which deal with many thousands of school children in London, I have found the same thing. One curious result. of the War was that the number of cases of illness among children attending schools in London treated at the clinics went down considerably. The figure went down during the War, because separation allowances were being paid. and for the first time in their lives—and apparently for the last time—a large number of people were receiving regularly, week by week, a definite amount of money. The result was a great diminution of illnesses among the children and a consequent diminution in the cost of the arrangements for treatment made by the London County Council, the biggest educational authority in this country
  I would also point out that a large number of the cases of what is called mental deficiency as well as of physical deficiency in this country have their origin in conditions of poverty. Those mental and physical defectives, when they reach adult age, are, in one way or another, a charge upon the community. Taking it in the aggregate, you have a very large number of people who are so mentally defective as to be incapable of earning their own livelihood, and of being responsible for themselves. I do not wish

  1965
  to exaggerate. I do not wish to suggest that all these cases are due directly to the underpayment of the fathers and mothers of the patients, but a considerable proportion of those cases, undoubtedly, are due to poverty. They are not really mental deficiency cases, but poverty cases. Many years ago I read an analysis of a large number of cases in London, and I think about 20 per cent. of the cases of illness among children were found to be due to poverty pure and simple. I judge that we pay, on the average, a great deal more for the cost of medical treatment year by year than would make up the wages paid in industry to a decent minimum wage. It is a tragedy. It has always been my opinion that the Labour party, the trade unions, and the workers generally have been much too modest in their demands. The working class of this country have been chronically underpaid for many years
  I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite. to realise some very simple facts which they can easily verify for themselves. Go to any ordinary elementary school in a poor district, examine the children, observe their height, their appearance, and their general physical standard. Then go to a school of the secondary grade attended by children from the same social class, and from the same district, and note the difference. It is not a difference of origin, or of place of residence. Speaking broadly, it is a difference clue to the fact that the parents of the elementary school children arc paid less than the parents el the secondary school children, and, consequently, the latter are bigger and broader, and have the opportunity of much better mental development as they grow up. That can be ascertained by dissecting in detail the records of the London County Council, or any education Authority. The Seconder of the Resolution referred to the aristocracy of this country. There is not very much aristocracy in this country. We are a very "mixed bag," taking us all round. and it is probably true that, with a very few exceptions, all classes of the community at present, whatever their financial condition may be, have very much the same kind of blood in their veins and are descended from very much the same class of people
  Mr. DIXEY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. GUEST: I am glad the hon. Gentleman assents to that view. If he assents, I would ask him what causes the difference between the physical development and efficiency of a young man of 20 working as a grocer's assistant and that of a young man of 20 at Oxford or Cambridge?
  Mr. DIXEY: May I say that the finest physical specimens of men I have ever seen have been working men in the colliery districts—mostly miners
  Mr. GUEST: No doubt there are exceedingly fine specimens, but you must take the average, and if you do, you find that the average university undergraduate is much better physically, and has much more opportunity of developing his mind than the average young man working for a low wage in an occupation like that of a grocer's assistant. Where you get men healthfully employed at physical work, you get very good physical development; but I leave it to my friends the miners to say whether they think the life of a miner is the Utopia to be aimed at for members of all classes in this country. I think they will agree with me that it is not. What I want to suggest is that paying people wages below the minimum required to maintain them in health is, from the national point of view, the very worst kind of economy, because we have to pay for it. I am afraid I can-riot share the optimism of my hon. Friend opposite about the good intentions of all employers. Of course, some employers have good intentions, but, perfectly definitely and obviously, other employers have anything but good intentions, and, what is worse than having bad intentions, they are simply indifferent; to the. economic effect of their enterprises on the workers. lion. Members must be familiar with the class of argument—we may even hear it to-night—that the business cannot afford to pay a proper minimum wage, that the industry cannot stand it. and all that kind of thing. It has always seemed to me that, if an industry has to be run on a basis of being unable to pay those whom it employs a wage sufficient to maintain them and their families in health, that is a bankrupt industry and ought not to continue
  It is perfectly ridiculous that, because Mr. John Jones wishes to invest his money in a particular industry—[H0N.

  1967
  MEMBERS: "Order ! "]—I should have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), if I had meant him, by much more endearing epithets —it is ridiculous, I say, that because Mr. John Jones wants to invest his money in a particular industry, we, the nation and the community, should be saddled with having to pay for the cripples that he produces because he has not the capacity, the common honesty—for it is really a question of honesty—to pay the men and women whom he employs a proper amount to maintain them in health. I must confess that I never feel more revolutionary than when I go down to my own clinic in Blackfriars and see the children coming up there for treatment, children who are presenting now the same kind of illnesses, malformations, and bad developments as they did when I began my work down there eighteen years ago, children having good fathers and good mothers, so far as their morals and their care of their children are concerned, but who receive so little that they can only afford the bare minimum of room, and thank God if they are able to get any rooms at all, that they are only able to afford the bare minimum of food, and just enough clothing to keep their children decent and well, and send those children to school to be educated, and, as regularly almost as they go to school, send them to the doctor to be attended to for maladies which are absolutely preventable if they only had more money, more room, and more food
  I think on these occasions that some of those whom I know are right when they say that this whole system is so rotten that we must take it up and smash it in our hands. My only reason for not associating myself with those is that I feel certain that out of mere destruction you will only get more misery for the masses. That is the only reason, for it is certain that our present arrangements are, from the scientific point of view, contemptible, and from the human point of view, the moral point of view, absolutely despicable. We only tolerate them because we do not know them. Hon. Members here only tolerate the things which are going on partly because we are so accustomed to them and we do not see them, and partly because of that intolerable patience of the poor, which does not allow them to obtrude
  1968
  themselves upon the attention of others. Poor people are much too patient. As a matter of fact, they do not get enough food to be impatient; they are kept very mild
  Let me give the House one or two plain facts, dealing with this medical aspect of the matter, which show the effects of underpayment. Take a very simple malady, such as measles. Years ago the medical officer of health for the County of Essex made a detailed investigation of the deaths from measles in that county, and he found that there was a high death-rate from measles in the county as a whole, but that the death-rate from measles was confined to members of the working classes, that the children who died from measles were the workers' children, and that the children who got measles and who belonged to those who were better paid did not die of measles, because they were in a better physical condition and had better circumstances and were better off because they lived in better homes. The terrible death-rate from infantile illnesses, from tuberculosis, and generally the illnesses which are indices of poverty, these things fall almost entirely on the lives and the homes of poor people, who are underpaid under our present circumstances
  Very often, those who are, in my opinion, receiving very low wages, think that they are receiving quite enough. I hope that my lion. Friends on these benches will pitch their demands for a share of the wealth of this country a little higher than they have been doing in the past. I never could see any special reason why one man weighing 10 stone required any more food than another man weighing 10 stone. I never have been really able to see why there should be a different standard of life for one class of the community as compared with another. There is only one real standard of life, and that is to give people the amount of food, the amount of fresh air, the amount of the good things of life that they require for a. full development, and there is no moral, no social, and no respectable intellectual argument which can controvert that position, although our institutions every day controvert it and our daily life controverts it, and everything in our present social system makes a mockery of what should, plain common sense

  1969
  This Resolution seeks for an inquiry. I hope that that inquiry will be entered into, and that when it is being attempted to define the level of a minimum wage, there will be taken into consideration the medical and physiological questions, and that there shall be determined the amount of food which men and their families require, the amount of sunlight, the amount of air (which means the amount of housing), and that these matters shall not he regarded primarily from the point of view of industry and of the facts and figures that my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution brought forward, but from the point of view primarily of the requirements of the human being, not as an animal, but as a man. I believe that if that inquiry is pursued, not on the old road of these inquiries, not taking trade unions and employers only—they must, of course, both be consulted—but taking also medical evidence, finding how much is required by men, by women, by children, adding these things together and ascertaining their cost, and in that way establishing a kind of criterion for gauging the minimum wage; in that way we shall really take a definite step forward. I very much hope that that will be done. I very much hope that this Debate will emerge from its rather academic stage—I cannot help thinking that that is the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, not to mention some on this side., that the Debate is in that direction and is so regarded—I do hope that it will be brought out from the academic atmosphere into an atmosphere of reality; an atmosphere in which something will really get done to establish a real minimum wage
  Mr. KIDD: I hope that hon. Members opposite, whatever may be our views on the main point, will agree with me when I say that just as fully on this side of the House as on the opposite side of the House we are agreed that there. should be a good day's wage for a good day's work. But there is a wide difference between hon. Members on the opposite side and ourselves as to the best way of getting this. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who submitted this Resolution, was rather unhappy in his references to the minimum wage as applied to the mining industry. We cannot but recognise that the conditions of that industry are distinguished quite clearly from those of most other industries. One realises that in working
  1970
  a mine a man may have a difficult position to-day where, if he did not get the minimum wage, his wage would be altogether insufficient, despite the fact that the particular work he has done, under perhaps most disagreeable conditions, is an absolute necessity for the conduct of the mine, and, therefore, is a condition precedent to the earning of a better wage by the man who has a better place. There is a good deal to be said for the minimum wage in these circumstances. I am speaking in the presence of many who are intimately connected with mines, but I hope they will not suggest that we on this side of the House do not recognise the legitimacy of the principle of the minimum wage as applied to mining, but we would have preferred that it had been related to the mine rather than related to the industry as a whole. Take the position of mining to-day. The only pits that look like surviving are the pits situated in the rich mineral areas. There is an extraordinary difference between district and district, and the point which is recognised even in the mining agreement
  Mr. WALSH: So-called agreement
  Mr. KIDD: We have evidence of that in the so-called agreement. I hope the right hon. Gentleman-
  Mr. WALSH: There was no agreement. The arrangement was forced upon the men
  Mr. KIDD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have the patience to listen while I put forward the view I am doing in regard to how best to get these conditions changed for the better. It may be a very stupid view from the standpoint of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is the view of one who is as intimately connected with mining as anyone on those benches, and as honourably. Therefore, I hope he will listen with patience
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALSH: A word of explanation, please. The hon. Gentleman was speaking of a certain principle being recognised in the agreement, but that agreement was never entered into by the men. The. arrangement was thrust upon them in the conference. There was no principle recognised in it at all
  Mr. KIDD: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say, because I am not an admirer of the so-called agreement, that the so-called agreement—and the right hon. Gentleman will admit this—whether it was thrust upon the men or arranged between masters and men, does embody a principle which recognises this diverse value in the mineral fields? What is the position to-day? Every pit is in jeopardy except the pits in the very rich districts. Is it any consolation to the miners to be told that they are enjoying a minimum wage when it is proved to demonstration, and to the satisfaction of both masters and men, that the so-called minimum wage is beyond the ability of a particular mine? Is it any consolation to them to be told that there is a minimum wage, when in certain cases the management, however anxious to give the minimum wage, and even a better one, is baffled as to how to provide it in certain mines? Is it any satisfaction to a man to hear this doctrine of a minimum wage discussed when, with that minimum wage, the pits close down? I, therefore, say that the mining industry is a reminder as to how cautious we ought to be in regard to a national minimum wage. I only mention that in view of what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Haden Guest), who, I believe, is a distinguished member of the medical profession. He spoke about the emaciated condition of the pupils in the elementary schools. But that has not been my experience of the pupils in the schools north of the Tweed
  Mr. H. GUEST: I was pointing out the difference between the pupils in the secondary schools and the pupils in the elementary schools
  Mr. KIDD: North of the Tweed precisely the same class of pupils are to be found in the secondary as in the elementary schools. If there is a difference in the health of pupils, it is in favour of those in such schools
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Glasgow is north of the Tweed, and if you go into the West End schools of the city of Glasgow and into the elementary schools of Gorals you notice the difference right away
  Mr. KIDD: Well, we will not discuss that point. There does not seem very much difference to me, at least in favour
  1972
  of our side. But we will leave it there. What I do submit to hon. Members opposite is this, that perhaps we are entitled to argue that industry to-day is suffering most from rigidity and want of flexibility arising, partly perhaps, from excess of political interference in industrial affairs. We want more flexibility in industry
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Silk Duties, for instance
  Mr. KIDD: If we are to deal with mining in the best possible way, it seems desirable to pursue this discussion with patience. What is wanted more than anything else at the present time is more flexibility in industry. The Prime Minister has given an indication as to how that may be brought about. I think there is an indication by hint that we shall discover the solution of our industrial difficulties, not by more interference, but by the coming together of masters and men, and in the realisation by both of the menace hanging over industry to-day. The Prime Minister has indulged a hope that. I believe will be more and more realised as the days go on, that ways and means will be devised whereby we shall render industry more flexible. Take the case of Germany in the matter of mines to-day. Let us get down to rock bottom. We are being beaten by our competitors in the matter of price. Therefore our objective is to discover ways and means that will occasion the least possible disturbance of social conditions by which we can reach a price that. will enable us to meet our opponents and overtake them
  That is the whole problem before the Shall we settle that problem by country passing such a Resolution as this, or shall we be more likely to settle it by pursuing the methods suggested by the Prime Minister and bringing into more and more intimate contact the management and the men? We want to discover a way of so adjusting industry that we shall at one and the same time give security to the general mass and a largely increased independence to the individual worker. It is all very well for us here, where each man enjoys full liberty to exercise any talents that he may have to bind others with legislation. But that is not the position of the worker to-day. We want to get rid of the embargo put upon the worker as compared with other classes, and if in

  1973
  doing that we can devise a system whereby we can give general security and greater individual freedom, we shall bring back to industry much of the elasticity which it has lost. When we come to discuss the industrial situation apart from politics, when we look at it simply from the social and economic point of view, we shall discover matters other than money to discuss. The hon. Member who spoke before me belongs to the medical profession. He knows that in that profession money is not the only test. Take a doctor in the Highlands, as compared with a doctor in the industrial district of Gorbals. The man in Gorbals will have a very much larger income than the man in the Highlands
  Mr. BUCHANAN: No
  Mr. KIDD: I hope you pay the doctor, however you may treat the landlord. All this concentration on money is degrading to the dignity of the worker. The hon. Member who preceded me, speaking in regard to his own profession
  Mr. BUCHANAN: How about the legal profession?
  Mr. KIDD: They are not insensible to ash any more than Labour Members. They don't pretend otherwise: that is the difference. Once you adjust industry and make it more social without impairing the general security, you take a great step forward. If as a miner North of the Tweed I am offered a better wage in some of the richer fields of England, and if I prefer to remain in Scotland, it is because my Scottish habitation has associations and charms for me for which the higher English wage would not be sufficient to compensate me. That is the road we must discover before we can make industry as elastic as it ought to be. My objection to this Resolution is that, over rigid as industry is now, we are adding to the rigidity, and we are postponing a more elastic period
  Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), in saying that he had some association with mining, was very careful to depart from any details when he spoke about Germany. I am not an unfair debater. I know that the hon. Member knows nothing about German mining, and he knows very little about
  1974
  British mining. On the question of the school child, let me say that as a former member of the Glasgow School Board I know that the difference between a child of the people living in the West End of Glasgow and that of people living in the East End of Glasgow, when the children were put on the scales, was from 4 lbs. to 7 lbs., and that the difference in height was from 2½ to 4 inches. We hear great stories told about the poverty of industry, but no speaker opposite has even admitted that the money sunk in mines has been taken out of mines more than once. Nor do hon. Members consider seriously from where the money is to come. I have here a return dealing with the nation's wealth as measured by Income Tax. In 1913–14 the income subject to taxation was £985,000,000. In 1021–22 it was 2,462 millions. Yet we are, being told that there is nothing on which hands can be put for the payment of a living wage. Turn next to the yield of Super-tax and Death Duties. In 1913–14 the taxable total was £74,000,000.In1921-22 it was £451,000,000. Yet we are told that the poverty of industry is such that those engaged in it have nothing wherewith to pay a living wage to those who work. The net income, after paying taxes in 1913–14 was £911,000,000, and in 1921-22 it was £2,011,000,000—an increase in eight years of 120 per cent
  Do not forget that the increase in wages, taking the average, is under 60 per cent. Yet we are told that there is no possibility of finding the wherewithal to pay a living wage. These are figures taken from Government Blue Books and they state exactly what have been the returns of industry. The actual income brought under review in 1913–14 was £951,000,000. In 1923-24 it was £2,300,000,000
  The living wage, the minimum wage as it-, is called in mining, is not something that permits the father of a family to act as he ought to act had he the means. The moment the law allows it, he has to get his child into industry, in order to help the family. His child is denied opportunities of education for making what is called a gentleman. I do not mean the gentleman of the frock coat and the tile hat, I mean the gentleman of the heart, who wants to see a society in which no child in any walk of life is denied education. The lack of the minimum wage is the biggest contributor to blind-alley

  1975
  occupations. Every time we have a man who is underpaid we see his child pushed into the job which, for the time being, gives the greatest return, and that is how blind-alley occupations are fed
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow was talking about mines that could not pay and other mines in the rich mineral areas that do pay. Perhaps he does not realise what the last big fight was about; it was for the pool. If he had the logic of a lawyer, as we understand the legal mind, instead of a confused brain, he would have seen that his argument leads him straight to the nationalisation of our coalfields. The man who is working in the mine which is not so efficient or so good as the mine in the rich field is working harder than the man in the rich field. When the mineowner goes to sell his coal from the inefficient or badly-placed mine, he gets only the same price per ton as does the man whose coal came from the rich field. Therefore, apart from logic, hard, common, horse sense should tell Members that the one thing to be done is to pool. If this nation is to be successful in getting through its present crisis it has to conic down to scientific methods in dealing with the foundation of its industries, which is coal. Unless we apply science to the coal business we are going to be knocked out, not by the Germans, but by our own stupidity. No nation can beat us in coal, iron or steel, as shown in the figures I have mentioned of the increase of 120 per cent. in eight years in the millions made in this country. Yet hon. Members get up and tell us that we cannot pay a minimum wage. The thing is absolutely absurd. Then we heard from the Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Dixey) about the skilled and the unskilled men. It requires skill to handle a shovel properly. I do not know of any unskilled trade or occupation. If anybody can tell me of one, I will be very glad to have all the details
  Mr. J. JONES: The House of Lords
  Mr. HARDIE: The idea in some men's minds is that because what they call an unskilled man is something less than a skilled man, his children have got to do with less bread and fewer comforts than the others. If brains were to be bought
  1976
  of course the rich would have them all, and we would be left with none, but that is not the way brains come. Do hon. Members like the hon. Member for Linlithgow admit that because a man happens to be endowed by God with the gift of brains in his skull he is to have all, and the children of another man not so endowed are to go without education and to have less food? That is not the basis of human life. There is no morality in that. The nation that stands by and permits the masses to get down below the standard that means the best development of the human mind, is not on the road to poverty, it is in poverty, and it is on the road to destruction
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR(Mr. Betterton): This is the third time that this question has been brought forward in identical terms before this House, and I am glad it has been moved again to-night. [HON. MEMBERS:" Speak up! ") A good deal has been said by all the speakers with which I agree, and they have also said a good deal with which I disagree. I was asked by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution what is the policy of the party to which I belong with regard to the question we have been discussing to-night, and I will endeavour to tell him. When he indicated as he did that there has been a great change in the country and in the policy of all parties with what he rightly called the principle of laissez faire,he was absolutely right. I know nothing more striking or significant than that during the first seventy years of the last century the policy of laisez fairr wasregardedby a great number of people, and by the majority of the people of this country as almost a fetish. Certainly during this century there has been a great growth of opinion in the direction that State control in some form or other is necessary under present day conditions, and with that I absolutely agree
  It was not really until 1874, at the beginning of Mr. Disraeli's Administration, that it was realised for the first time, and that realisation was translated into law, that the State had obligations to industry which it refused to recognise before. The party to which I belong are no more favourable" to a hard, rigid, relentless doctrine of laissez faire than they are favourable to the dead hand of

  1977
  state regulation and control of industry. One result, undoubtedly, of the long prevalence of that idea of laissez faire is that industry, sometimes inarticulate, but often clamant, insisted that it should have full rights of organisation before the law in order that the workers might be able to meet organised capital on as equal terms as possible. The result of that was the Act of 1876, which has so often been called the charter of trade unions. It has never been our policy to leave the conditions of labour to the free stress of unlimited competition. The sanitary conditions of labour, the safeguards of life and limb, have long been regulated by Parliament, and, in the passing of laws relating to such matters, the party to which I belong have taken a very close and honourable part
  Let me just pursue this line of argument one step further before I deal specifically with the Motion we are discussing to-night. One of the results of the Act of which T have spoken was, of course, the creation of great and powerful unions, and the result of the creation of these great and powerful unions, organised to a high degree, was that those who were engaged in organised industries entered into and made agreements—agreements made by those who knew the difficulties of the trade, the conditions of the trade, and the circumstances of the trade; and many of those agreements are in existence to-day. But in unorganised trades—and this is the point which was, I think, in the mind of the hon. Member for North Southwark k Mr. H. Guest) and also in the mind of the. Mover—in unorganised trades the assistance of the State was and is necessary to prevent sweating. I remember quite well, although I was not a Member of this House at the time, the Debate which took place. in 1909 when the Trade Boards Bill was first introduced. I remember an hon. Friend of mine, who is now dead —Mr. Lyttelton—saying in almost identical language what the hon. Member for North Southwark has said to-night. He said that sweating was not only piteous, but was a menace to the social welfare of the State, and—he was then in Opposition—he urged, and successfully urged, the party to which he and I belonged to support that Bill. Support was given, and the Bill was passed
  The policy of the present Government has been stated in the clearest possible
  1978
  language by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. He said, in answer to a question, very shortly after ho came into office, that the Government adhered to the principle that the gross evil of sweating must be prevented, and endorsed the view which was reached unanimously by the Committee of Inquiry presided over by the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, that the Trade Board system is necessary for this purpose. He went on to say that the Act would be extended, and only extended, to new trades where it had clearly been ascertained by systematic investigation that conditions of sweating prevailed. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution referred to the grocery trade. At this moment there is an inquiry going on in the grocery trade, with the object of assisting my right hon. Friend to ascertain whether conditions of sweating do or do not exist. The hon. Member said it had been going on for years. When my right hon. Friend came into office, he found that for one reason and another, for which he, at any rate, was not responsible, that Board had never functioned, and no rates had ever been fixed; and, in his determination to clean up the position in that particular trade, he caused inquiries to be instituted, which, as I have said, are at present proceeding
  In the speeches to-night we have heard singularly little about the Motion itself, and what the Motion means. May I remind the House what the Motion says, and then explain to the House exactly what the Motion means? After two recitals, the operative part of the Motion is as follows
  " This House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill introduced by the Government of the day of 1919, constituting a commission to inquire into and report upon legal minimum time rates of wages."
  The hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution described this as a modest proposal which he imagined we should have no difficulty in accepting. But, before the House comes to a decision on the matter, may I explain exactly what this Bill is and what it proposes to do? The Bill which the Resolution urges us at once to put into operation does this: After stating that it is expedient. that minimum time rates of wages should be fixed for all persons of the ages of 15 and upwards, and that a Commission should

  1979
  be appointed to inquire and to decide what those rates should be and the manner in which they should be put into operation, the very first Clause of the Bill asks that these Commissioners should be appointed, and that they should consist of a chairman and such other persons as His Majesty—which, of course, is the Government of the day—may think fit. The discretion, therefore, is entirely in the hands of the Government. It further asks that these Commissioners should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into and deciding what such minimum time rates of wages should be, regard being had to the cost of living and all other relevant circumstances
  Further on it says that the Commissioners may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and that five shall be a quorum; and later it says that the Commissioners may in their discretion refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at the proceedings during the hearing of any part of the evidence except with the consent of the Commission, and, further, that, if any person is present at any of the proceedings, he shall not be allowed to disclose without the authority of the Commissioners anything which takes place, and that, if he does, lie will have to pay a penalty of £50 or suffer imprisonment with hard labour. That means that we are urged to pass into law at. once a Bill which would enable Commissioners appointed by the Government not merely to inquire, but to decide the rate of wages of every industry in the country. I cannot think if the House realises that that is the result of the Bill —to which no reference was made by any previous speaker—that it would be prepared to trust this or any Government with the appointment of gentlemen with powers so arbitrary and so autocratic
  I agree, with some hesitation, with the hon. Member opposite who said that what he did not want was a flat minimum wage over the whole country but a minimum wage for each industry. Let the House consider what would be the powers and the duties of the Commissioners if this Bill was passed into law. They would have to fix a minimum wage for every industry, and they would have to make that wage appropriate to the various conditions. I am certain that if such powers were entrusted to
  1980
  any body of men, however faithfully they might attempt to discharge their duties, when it was realised in the country that that was the effect of the Bill, so far from producing anything like contentment and peace it would produce an outcry and an uproar of which we can form but a dim notion. That, to my mind, and in the view of the Government, makes it impossible for us to accept this Resolution. This same Resolution was moved on 4th March last year, and it was accepted by the Government of the day and by the House. From 4th March to the end of the session there was not displayed by the Government a symptom that they intended to put into operation the Bill which the House so urgently asked for. If they are to be merely dead letters it is really not honest, it seems to me, to accept Resolutions which we know perfectly well would be unacceptable to the country and to the House. The principle of the Bill is utterly opposed to the principle in which we believe, namely, that those who know the conditions and the difficulties of industry, and are vitally affected in the prosperity of industry, are better fitted to settle these matters than an arbitrary body, selected by the Government, who would have autocratic powers
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: We have listened to one of the most remarkable defences for a change of policy which this House can ever have heard. One would have thought, to listen to the hon. Gentleman, that the Bill of 1919, which he attacked in such severe language, was one produced by some irresponsible person, possibly a Socialist, and therefore deserved all the remarks he made. But what are the facts? This Bill, which the Government now speak about as such a miserable production, was one produced by a Government of which the present Prime Minister, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present. Secretary for Foreign Affairs were Members. Therefore the Bill, which I quite agree the Resolution asks the Government to adopt, is one which at least three Members of the present Government, in their collective responsibility as Members of the Cabinet at that time, decided was a proper way to deal with the question of the minimum wage. I hope the House will bear that fact in mind, that whether the Bill be good or

  1981
  bad, it is a Bill of which Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Churchill—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order ! "]and the Foreign Secretary approved. If I referred to them by their names it was because they had been so dissociated from the Bill by the hon. Gentleman that I had forgotten that they and the present Ministers were the same persons
  Why was it that the Government of 1919 decided to produce the Bill They produced it at the joint request of the employers and the employés at that time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was then Prime Minister, had told soldiers very gratifying and consoling things as to what would happen to them when they came back from the War, and one thing he did was to set up this joint conference of employers and employed. Those were the days when heroes were to receive minimum wages, among other benefits, and this joint body of employers and employed agreed to this principle and unanimously asked the Government to introduce the Bill. The Government then proceeded to consider it, and the present Prime Minister, the other members of the Cabinet raised no objection and the Bill was produced before the House. Those are the facts. Therefore, it behoves the hon. Member, who represented the Government in the Debate to-night, to tells us why the Prime Minister has changed his mind as to the usefulness of this Bill, and why employers in this House to-night have got up and condemned this Bill, when their representatives at the Joint Conference in 1919 pressed for this Bill. What has happened
  While we have had many discussions, and I hope there will be many more discussions, in this House on the question of a decent living wage for workers, we have reached a much more interesting point to-night, because we are now entitled to ask the Government and the supporters of the Government whether, in spite of all their talk about their sympathy and enthusiasm for social reform, they are in advance or behind the Coalition Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. That was an imperfect Government. Very few people defend it to-day, but, at least, in these matters, it was prepared, apparently, to go a good
  1982
  deal further in the direction of securing a minimum wage than Members of the Government are to-day. When it comes to talk about enthusiasm for social reform upon the benches opposite, the fact is that if hon. Members vote against this Resolution they will be saying that they are not prepared to carry out what both the employers and the employed demanded in 1919, and what the various Members of the Government then thought was expedient
  Having said that, may I say a few words as to the wisdom of proceeding with this Bill. Hon. Members speak as though the only two questions for our consideration were the questions of sweating and no sweating. That is entirely a false view. What have we in between sweating and the question of a living age? By a living wage we do not mean a wage which is something better than sweating. We mean a living wage, and to say that only those industries are to be protected where there is sweating proved does not meet the case in the least. What we say, and what the Mover of this Resolution said, is that we demand that in every occupation the workers in that occupation shall receive such wages as will give them full opportunities of life. Taking those words in their fullest context, what is the great gap between that and such deplorable states of sweating that you need to havetrades boards? A trades board is altogether inadequate to deal with the demand which we are making this evening
  I think we shall clearly to-night by the Vote which will soon take place, what the professions which have been made by hon. Members on the other side of the House as to their newly-discovered zeal for social reform and social betterment are really worth. If they are going to vote against this proposal, they are going to adopt the view which has been put forward by the hon. Member who represented the Government, that to extend the laws dealing with sweating adequately meets the situation. I do not agree for a moment that the, record of the Government is good in this matter. We know that a great Press agitation went on in this country for some years for the reduction of even such minimum wages as were given under the Trade Boards Act. As a result of a great deal of what I think was

  1983
  a very heartless, very callous and very inhuman attack on the work of the trades boards, and what the trades boards did, by some of the less honourable of our newspapers, the Cave Committee was appointed to inquire into sweating conditions. In many respects that Committee reported that the powers of the trade boards should be whittled down, and not increased. That has not been entirely done, but nobody can say that in recent times there has been any real extension of the principle of protection for sweated industries in the way which it was once desired, that, automatically, it shall be applied to all the trades requiring it
  We have in mind the agricultural labourers who were deprived of the minimum wage which had been given by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) through the repeal of the Corn Production Act. We had to wait for the Labour Government to give back to the agricultural labourers a minimum wage. Had it not been for the Labour Government the agricultural labourers to-day would be without a minimum wage. Therefore we do not see any evidence that the sympathy which is expressed so freely on the other side of the House reveals itself in concrete proposals. We are asking for no more than that this Government should carry out what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs promised the returned soldiers in 1919. Hon. Members opposite may say, "We are not the same Government. We are not responsible for what he said then," but I do not think that they can escape on that account because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and many other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were Members of his Government and they cannot avoid responsibility for the promise which he made to the joint conference between employers and workers that this minimum wage should be increased
  Remember what happened the other day on the Debate on the Eight Hours Bill. In that matter also a promise was given, and the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) said: "You made these promises and you are not going to carry them out, while all the other countries of Europe have been made to understand
  1984
  that you intend to carry them out." We have to-night the same cynical attitude taken up. I do not propose at this hour to go over again the arguments in favour of a minimum wage. They have been stated by a large number of Members on this side of the House, and it is needless to repeat them. I am only concerned to point out that the principle. Has been accepted by the Government opposite or by members of the Government opposite, and that to-day so far from bringing in any progressive programme of social reform they are now irrevocably pledged to do something less than the Coalition Government promised in 1919. I would appeal even now to the House to show that it is prepared to give something equal at least to what was given by that Government by voting for this Resolution. It would be quite an unexpected thing for any Resolution from these benches to receive the support of the majority of this House, but I do think that when we move a Resolution in favour of a Measure which so many hon. Members opposite themselves supported they should support their own proposals, and I little thought to see a Member from the Front Bench opposite rise and denounce the Bill for which he shared the responsibility. I do not see any consistency in voting against this Resolution unless hon. Members are prepared to contend that what they voted for in 1919 was wrong, and I ask this House to give a vote in favour of this Resolution
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has expended a great amount of energy and an equal degree of eloquence in demanding that we on these benches who were Members of the 1919 Parliament should give an adequate reason for not. voting for this Resolution to-night. I gladly accept the challenge of the hon. and learned Member. The reason is very simple and the answer all-sufficient. The reason is that in 1918 a Coalition Government was returned, supported by Conservatives and Liberals. In 1919 a Bill was presented containing some of the proposals which are in *his Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "All of them!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman pressed the point that these things had been agreed between employers and employés. That possibly is true, but thank Heavens this House of Commons has still a great duty to perform which is

  1985
  greater, more dignified, more important in the interests of the protection of the liberty of the subject than merely ratifying any private agreement made outside this House. That Bill, which was presented to this House, failed to secure support, even in a Coalition Government made up by a large proportion of Liberal Members. The matter is again presented to-night when those Members of His Majesty's Government, who, in 1919, were trammelled by their faith and allegiance to a Coalition party, are free to come to their own conclusions and abide the responsibility of their own actions and abide by the verdict of the people when they go before them for having accepted the responsibilities if their own acts. I would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that if that Measure, presented under the conditions of 1919 to a Coalition Government could not obtain support even under the quasi-Socialism which pervaded that Coalition, if it could not at that time command the support of the House, they have no right to expect that an out-and-out Conservative Government—[An HON. MEMBER "An in-and-out Government! "J —should adopt such a Measure. For my part I shall always resist any artificial minimum wage proposal. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) appealed to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) and said: "Is it fair when you have two men, one endowed by the Almighty with great gifts and the other with lesser endowments, that the man with the lesser endowments should be penalised because he is not endowed like the other one?" My answer to the hon. Member is this, "You cannot legislate against the Almighty."
  If in fact a single speech had ever been made from those benches opposite which would lay before me a reason to feel, based upon something that I could lay hold of and see, something which hon. Members opposite could present to me for adopting a minimum wage which could be put into effect and would make for the prosperity of the working man of this country, then I am prepared' to support it
  Mr. HARDIE: I made no suggestion about legislating against the Almighty. I was asking you to put the Sermon on the Mount into practice
  Mr. BALFOUR: It would be very nice if we could solve all the ills of the people of this country on sentiment. It would be so easy. My appeal to hon. Gentlemen is that they should formulate their proposals, back those proposals by sound reasons, and show us that if a minimum wage is put into force, it can be reconciled with economic and social conditions, and that it will leave the people at least as well off as they are to-day. But do not come to those of us who have had experience of every condition of industry, including the workshop, and ask us to support a proposal which can only bring ruin and distress to working people. I say in all sincerity I do not yield to any hon. Member opposite in my desire and determination to do the right thing by the workers, but I will never, until sound logical reasons are put forward to show that you will at least leave the people as well off as they are to-day, move one inch from the position I occupy, and I will oppose, on every occasion, proposals for a minimum wage in the interest of and fur the protection of the working people of this country
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: In the very short time left to me I can only make one remark. I am sure the House is very much obliged to the hon. Member who has just sat down for interposing in the Debate. He has made the issue perfectly plain. When there was a Coalition Government in office it did things or proposed things which the present Conservative majority, according to the hon. Member, will not support at all, even though that Coalition Government included his own Prime Minister, his Chancellor of the Exchequer, his Foreign Secretary and various other Members of the present Government. His argument is that, with a Conservative majority of over 200, all the pledges given in 1919 by the Coalition Government, all the attempts made by employers and employed to come to agreement upon a minimum wage will be torn to smithereens, and also this Bill. which not only was supported by that Government, but which received a Second Reading towards the middle of August —when there was a majority of Conservative Members in the Coalition—and was only dropped because the Session came to an end. We are much obliged to the hon. Member for making the position of

  1987
  those for whom he can speak in his party so admirably clear, and I am perfectly certain the country will note the declarations he has made
  The MINISTER of LABOUR(Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): In the one minute that remains may I say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and his friends made it perfectly clear that when they passed this Resolution last year they had six months in which to take action
  Question put,
  "That, in view of the practically universal acceptance of the principle that a living wage for all workers should be the first charge upon industry, and in view of the large measure of agreement with respect to the advisability of fixing legal minimum time rates of wages reached at the national industrial conference, this House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill introduced by the Government of the day of 1919, constituting a commission to inquire into and report upon legal minimum time rates of wages."
  The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 227

  Division No. 101

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m

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

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Sexton, James

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

  Hayes, John Henry

  Short, Alfred(Wednesbury,)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sitch, Charles H

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bllston)

  Hirst, G. H

  Slesser, Sir Henry H

  Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smillie, Robert

  Barr, J

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben(Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, Rennle(Penistone)

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromley, J

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Brown, James(Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T.I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buchanan, G

  Kelly, W. T

  Stamferd, T. w

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R

  Kennedy, T

  Stephen, Campbell

  Compton, Joseph

  Kirkwood, D

  Sutton, J. E

  Connolly, M

  Lansbury, George

  Taylor, R. A

  Cove, W. G

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lee, F

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)

  Davies, Evan(Ebbw Vale)

  Lowth, T

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, E

  Dennison, R

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Duncan, C

  Mackinder, W

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P

  Dunnfeo, H

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Viant, S. P

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Marc, h, S

  Wallhead, Richard C

  Fenby, T. D

  Maxton, James

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Forrest, W

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Watson, W, M.(Dunfermline)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Murnin, H

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gillett, George M

  Oliver, George Harold

  Westwood, J

  Gosling, Harry

  Palln, John Henry

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W

  Whiteley, W

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wlgnall, James

  Greenall, T

  Pethick-Lawrence, F.W

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Williams, Dr. J.H. (Llanelly)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Rifey, Ben

  Williams, T.(York, Don Valley)

  Groves, T

  Ritson, J

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilfle)

  Grundy, T. W

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

  Windsor, Walter

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Rose, Frank H

  Wright, W

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

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hall, G.H.(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Salter, Or. Alfred

  Hardle, George D

  Scrymgeour, E

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Scurr, John

  Mr. Warne and Mr. A. Barnes

  NOES

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M

  Briscoe, RichardGeorge

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T

  Barnett, Major Richard W

  Brocklebank, C. E. R

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I

  Albery, Irving James

  Beamish, Captain T. P. H

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'thld., Hexham)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)

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

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

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bethell, A

  Buckingham, Sir H

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S

  Betterton, Henry B

  Bullock, Captain M

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

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Burman, J. B

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D

  Balniel, Lord

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Burton, Colonel H. W

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Radford, E. A

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M

  Raine, W

  Campbell, E. T

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

  Ramsden, E

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton

  Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A

  Remer, J. R

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J

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

  Rentoul, G. S

  Chllcott, Sir Warden

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Christie, J A

  Holland, Sir Arthur

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J.(Warw'k, Nun.)

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)

  Clayton, G. C

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Rye, F. G

  Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cope, Major William

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Couper, J. B

  Hume, Sir G. H

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Courtauld, Major J. S

  Hurd, Percy A

  Savery, S. S

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n P'bl's)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H

  lliffe, Sir Edward M

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Shepperson, E. W

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

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

  Skelton, A. N

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smith-Carington, Neville W

  Davidson, J.(Herff'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smithers, Waldron

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R

  Somerville, A. A.(Windsor)

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Spender Clay, Colonel H

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(WIll'sden, E.)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Loder, J. de V

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Dixey, A. C

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Drewe, C

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Steel Major Samuel Strang

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lumley, L. R

  Storry Deans R

  Edmondson, Major A. J

  Lynn, Sir R. J

  Stott Lieut.-Colonel W. H

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Elveden, Viscount

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C

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

  McLean, Major A

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macmillan, Captain H

  Styles Captain H. Walter

  Fairfax, Captain J. G

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sugden Sir, Wllfrid

  Falls, Sir Charles F

  Macqulsten, F. A

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H

  Fermoy, Lord

  Mac Robert, Alexander M

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Fleming, D. P

  Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Forestier-Walker, L

  Makins, Brigadlor-General E

  Tinne, J. A

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T

  Mannlngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Margesson, Captain D

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P

  Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

  Merriman, F. B

  waddington, R

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. E

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Warner Badler-General W. W

  Gates, Percy

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Gee, Captain R.

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Moore, Sir Newton J

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir John

  Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Greene, W.P. Crawford

  Murchison, C. K

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Winby, Colonel L. P

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Neville, R. J

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wingterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

  Oakley, T

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Gunston, Captain D. W

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

  Womersley, W. J

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H

  Oman, Sir Charles William C

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Rlpon)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

  William Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge Hyd

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wragg, Herbert

  Harland, A

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T

  Kartington, Marquess of

  Peiklns, Colonel E. K

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennlngton)

  peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir j. Nail and Mr

  Haslarm, Henry C

  Price, Major C. W. M

  George Balfour

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Altrincham Gas Company, which was presented on the 29th April and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  " That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor,
  1990
  Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Stockton-on-Tees, which was presented on the 29th April and published, be approved." —[Sir Burton Chadwick.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed

  MALTA
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsenll.
  Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: I rise to speak on this Motion, in order to draw the attention to the reluctance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to cause inquiries to be made into the manner in which permanent officials in Malta are giving effect to the constitution which has been his great work, and for which I am sure that not only I, but this House and the Empire, will be most grateful to him. In dealing with this question, I am fully conscious of the necessity of keeping entirely clear of the responsibility of permanent officials to the Secretary of State, as distinguished from the responsibility for local affairs of Ministers in the Colonies. But if this constitution is to be a success, and to emerge from the difficulties under which it is labouring, it is necessary that the right of any hon. Member of this House to call for an inquiry should be emphasised. Perhaps the most brilliant of the provisions which my right hon. Friend inserted in the constitution has reference to the composition of the Upper House. My friends of the Labour party
  1992
  have this evening been making a reference to the House of Lords. They will be interested to hear that my right hon. Friend has been so careful in balancing in the constitution of Malta, the various interests, sentiments, difficulties about language, religion and interests in Malta, that he has devised a new method under which there are representatives of the Trade Unions Council in the Upper House in Malta. But what has happened with reference to this representation? For nearly a year the representatives of the trade unions in the Upper House have been eliminated. The elimination of the balance of power has had the result of keeping in office a Ministry that has not a majority either in the Upper House or in the Lower House or in the country. In an Upper House of 16, by eliminating two
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Eighteen Minutes after Eleven of the Clock until Tomorrow