Commons Sitting of 22 February 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bradford Corporation Bill (by Order),
Buxton Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Greenock Burgh Extension, etc., Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORT CREDITS (POLAND).
    Mr. BECKETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any export credits have been granted to Poland, and, if so, what amount?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary Overseas Trade Department): Since the introduction of the guarantee system in 1921, guarantees amounting to £601,545 have been given by the Export Credits Department in respect of the export of British goods to Poland.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is it the policy of the Board of Trade to satisfy themselves of the settled nature of the Government of a country before granting credits?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The question as to whether an export credit should be guaranteed for British goods exported to Poland rests entirely with the Export Credits Committee.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that part of the credit given to Poland was for the development of the beet sugar industry, to compete with our own?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Committee, which is a very capable one, looks into every point in connection with all applications, and would, therefore, consider that factor.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any loss has been incurred by the British taxpayer on this transaction?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

    SHIPBUILDING (COSTS).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in view of the fact that the Shipbuilding Joint Inquiry Committee have reported that the high prices of materials which have to be purchased by builders for use in the construction of ships are prejudicing the total costs of shipbuilding, and that these high prices are due to the operations of rings and price-fixing associations?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir B. Chadwick): I understand that the joint Committee decided to seek first an interview with the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the discontinuance of the Trade Facilities Act, and only subsequently to approach the Departments concerned with the other matters dealt with in the Report, including those to which the hon. Member specially refers. The interview with the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently taken place, and I expect now to be approached shortly by the Joint Committee.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in the Report issued by this Joint Committee it was specifically asked that the Board of Trade should inquire without delay into these rings and price-fixing associations?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, Sir; but, as I have said, we are ready to see the Committee whenever the Committee invites us to do so. It is not for the Board of Trade to approach the Committee. For one reason or another, an invitation to the Board of Trade has not been received, but, as I say, we are quite ready to meet them.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nine months ago inquiries were promised? Have any preliminary inquiries been made into the serious allegations in the Joint Report, and are the Government now convinced that a prima facie case has been made out for a full inquiry into this matter?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I could hardly say that until we have had our conference with the Joint Committee, which has been the subject of discussion for some time, and I cannot say more than that we are ready to meet that Committee and go into these matters whenever they like to invite us to do so.
    Several HON. MEMBERS—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate this now.
    Sir R. THOMAS: On a point of Order. I have put this question to the President of the Board of Trade three times since June of last year, and, having regard to the very unsatisfactory reply which the hon. Gentleman has now made, I beg to give notice that I shall call the attention of this House to this matter at the first opportunity.

    DUTIABLE GOODS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the retained imports into the United Kingdom during 1926 were dutiable goods; and what percentage of the imports of foodstuffs and manufactures respectively, were dutiable in 1926 and, for comparison, the corresponding figures for 1913?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The information desired by my hon. Friend for the year 1926 is not yet available. But he will find particulars on these lines given for 1925 and other years, including 1913, at page 453 of the recent volume, "Factors in Industrial and Commercial Efficiency."
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it the case that the figures in the report go up only to 1923?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is so. I have not got the figures which my hon. Friend requires, but if he will wait until publication of Vol. II of the Annual Statement in the autumn, he will find the information he is now seeking.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask why an important document like this does not contain information laser than 1983, when it is rendered out-of-date owing to the changes which took place in 1925.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Obviously, I have no control over what the Balfour Committee does. They publish such information as is available.

  MEAT (RETAIL PRICES).
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the excessive retail prices which are being charged for chilled beef; and whether he proposes to call the attention of the Food Council to the matter?
  Dr. WATTSasked the President of the Board of Trade what action, if any, the Food Council intend to take in the case of those towns where they are satisfied from their investigations that excessive prices for meat are charged by the local butchers?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: The Food Council is at present engaged on a general inquiry into the retail prices of meat, and it is not possible to say what will be the result.

  BOOK-MAKING (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES).
  Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new limited liability companies formed for the purpose of carrying on a bookmaking business in the years 1925 and 1926?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: The number of new limited liability companies incorporated in England, Scotland and Wales, with the object of carrying on a bookmaking business, was 14 in the year 1925, and 51 in 1926.

  RUSSIA (COMMERCIAL ENGAGEMENTS).
  Sir PARK GOFFasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since his answer to a question on 1st July, 1926, he has any further informer-

  1549
  tion as to whether the Soviet Government have fulfilled their commercial engagements or otherwise up to date?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: So far as regards commercial contracts entered into by the Soviet Government, I am not aware of any change in the position.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have the British Government fulfilled all their agreements with Russia? Is it not the case that when Russia came into the War, this country guaranteed that they would give Russia Constantinople?
  Mr. THURTLE: Do we understand that there have been no losses whatever in connection with trade transactions with Russia?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman must understand what I said, that so far as regards commercial contracts entered into by the Soviet Government, I am not aware of any change in the position since the answer referred to in this question was given in June last.
  Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that in June last there had been no losses whatever?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is the answer which was given.

  —

  War Office.

  Army.

  Numbers.

  Pay and Allowances.

  Numbers (Vote A) excluding additional numbers.

  Net Cash Total of Army Estimates.

  £

  £

  1914–15

  …

  1,878*†

  450,600*†

  181,568‡

  27,845,000║

  1926–27

  …

  2,451*

  934,000*

  153,773§

  42,500,000

  * The numbers for the War Office Staff include attached officers, typists, messengers and cleaners, but exclude Metropolitan Police and staff on loan to other Government Departments; they also include Local Audit staff at outstations. The pay and allowances have been adjusted accordingly.

  † Excludes staff for military aeronautics.

  ‡ Excludes "additional numbers," 3,300; Royal Plying Corps, 1,429; and Central Flying School, 103 (see Estimates, 1914–15, p. 12).

  § Excludes "additional numbers," 2,027, and native troops in Middle East administered by Air Ministry, 3,600.

  ║ Excludes £1,000,000 provided for Aviation (see p. 74, Estimates, 1914–15).

  CAVALRY AND YEOMANRY (REDUCTIONS).
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War what reductions
  BRITISH ARMY.

    ENLISTMENT (BOYS UNDER 18).
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of boys under 18 who were enlisted in the Army during the past year, and how many came from Poor Law schools?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): 1,795 were enlisted as boys during 1926. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

    HEADQUARTERS STAFF.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of and the annual charge for the headquarters staff at the War Office in June, 1914; the number of all ranks in the Army at that time; and the respective figures and cost in January, 1927?
    Captain KING: I have had the information drawn up in tabular form, and will, with the hon. Member's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As was explained in answer to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on the 15th instant, the numbers are those included in Estimates for the respective years.
    Following is the table promised:
    have been made in the cavalry since January, 1919; and whether, having regard to the increasing mechanicalisa-

    1551
    tion of transport, etc., in the Army, it is proposed to effect further reductions in the number of cavalry and yeomanry regiments?
    Captain KING: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to page 31 of Army Estimates, 1926. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with the second part in connection with next year's Army Estimates.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION (COST).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Secretary of State for War what the cost of the Army of Occupation was in 1926 and 1925, respectively?
    Captain KING: I can only repeat the information given to my hon. Friend on 21st July last, namely, that the estimated cost for 1925 was £2,089,000 and that for 1926, £1,854,700; and add that the actual expenditure in 1925 will be lower than the estimate, owing mainly to a considerable credit for returned stores.

  SOCIETE GENERALE HELLENIQUE.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade how far the actual payments of cash to the Athens Power and Transport Company have proceeded; and whether, in view of the hostility felt in Greece to the concession made to this company by General Pangalos, he can restrict, by agreement or otherwise, the amount of capital hitherto guaranteed by the British Government or direct the application of the guaranteed loan into safer channels?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by the first part of the question. A guarantee has been given under the Trade Facilities Acts to loans to a total of £2,000,000 to be raised by the Societe Generale Hellenique; but the Treasury have no responsibility for the ordinary administration of the company, and are not responsible for making any cash advances. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The validity of the concession has been recognised by the present Greek Government, with the authority of the Assembly.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless he looks into this matter afresh, the British taxpayer is likely to lose a great deal of money as well as suffer in national popularity in Athens?
  Mr. McNEILL: I think the whole of the circumstances were taken into account by the Advisory Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act takes the responsibility of advising the Treasury whether advances should be made.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this guarantee was given when General Pangalos was dictator. Now that he has gone, circumstances are very different, and the Greek Government, apparently, would like to have this Agreement modified?
  Mr. McNEILL: As I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman and the House, this concession has been recognised by the present Greek Government, and ratified by the Assembly.

  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION).
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any skins or plumage of birds prohibited from import under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, have been seized by the customs during the months from October to the end of December, 1926; and, if so, what were the species of skins and the approximate number in each case?
  Mr. R. McNEILL: As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The following is a list of birds the plumage of which was illegally imported and was confiscated by the Customs Authorities under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, during the period 1st October, 1926, to 31st December, 1926, together with the approximate amount of plumage involved in each case:
  Name of bird and approximate amount of plumage.

  Bosun Bird.—20 feathers.

  Bird of Paradise.—2 skins, 1 tail, 4 millinery mounts.

  Egret.—2,621 feathers, 2 millinery mounts.

  Finch.—1 skin.

  Grebe.—4 necklets, 1 dress trimming.

  Hawk.—3 skins.

  Heron.—6 millinery mounts.

  Kea.—1 wing.

  Owl.—5 skins.

  Peacock.—118 feathers, 6 fans.

  Parrot.—22 wings, 42 feathers, 3 millinery mounts.

  Pheasant, Reeves.—6 feathers.

  Pheasant, Blood.—1 skin.

  Pheasant, Argus.—120 feathers.

  In addition to the above, 4 parcels containing in all 38 skins, 4 wings and 16 feathers not identified, but within the prohibition, were seized.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    HOUSEHOLD COAL (PRICES).
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention is still being called to the charge of 60s. per ton for the best kitchen coal in London; and whether, in view of the hardship to small householders, he is satisfied that such a charge can be justified on the allocation of expenses between the pit-head and the private coal cellar of the householder?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves), a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the Board of Trade is now taking any action at all with regard to increased supplies of coal? Until they get supplies, they cannot reduce prices.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises on this question.

    EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed underground in coal mines under the age of 16?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The number of persons under 16 years of age employed underground in coal mines at the end of 1926 was approximately 25,000. The total number of persons employed was then approximately 920,600 and is now 1,001,000, but I have no later figures giving an age classification.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that boys under the age of 16 are working on night shifts from nine o'clock to five o'clock on the following morning, and can he amend the Act in order to put those boys in the same position as the boys working on the surface, who are not allowed to work those hours?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will mention that matter to the Secretary for Mines.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Are children allowed to work underground without previous medical examination, and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that they have to undergo a medical examination similar to that which children have to undergo under the Factory Acts?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will see that my hon. Friend's question is put before the right Department.

    COMPETENCY CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary for Mines how many men holding first and second-class certificates of competency under the Coal Mines Act are employed in mines on manual work; how many men are acting as firemen or deputies; and how many men holding firemen's certificates only are employed as officials intermediate between the under-manager and the firemen, giving the numbers for Scotland separately?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The only information available relates to the year 1921, and it is only approximate. In that year there were about 850 men holding first or second-class certificates (including 180 in Scotland) who were employed below ground otherwise than as managers, under-managers, overmen or firemen. About 1,100 men holding first or second-class certificates (including 160 in Scotland) were employed as firemen. The number of overmen holding firemen's certificates only was about 2.400, including 360 in Scotland.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although there are hundreds of practical working miners holding first and second-class certificates of competency, they can never become managers or officials by reason of the Government's policy under Section 22 of the Mining Industry Act of last year.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Secretary for Mines the amount of money spent per annum from funds provided by the State, local authorities, and the miners' welfare fund, in promoting education devised to enable young miners to qualify themselves for first and second-class certificates of competency under the Coal Mines Act, and the number of students availing themselves of the opportunities provided?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (The Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend has been asked to reply to this question. The Miners' Welfare Committee have set aside, for the purpose of improving the accommodation and equipment for higher education in mining, a sum of £750,000, to be expended over a period of several years. As regards the provision made by local authorities and aided by my Department, it would not be possible, without special inquiries and the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time and labour, to supply the statistical information desired. The hon. Member may, however, take it that provision for the technical instruction of young miners is made in practically all the coalfields of England and Wales.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask the Noble Lady if she is aware of the fact that in Durham County very few miners can manage to attend these classes because of the hours they are called upon to work, and is she also aware that the classes are being ruined?
    Mr. PALING: Would it be possible without great expense to reply to the last part of the question as to the number of students availing themselves of the opportunities provided?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I will endeavour to ascertain if the figures can be
    1556
    obtained, but, as the answer I have given indicates, it is difficult to get any figures on this question which are really complete.

  ARMY OFFICERS (PRE-WAR PENSIONS).
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that officers disabled by former wars draw 50 per cent. less pension than officers disabled in the Great War; and whether he will inquire as to whether this anomaly could be removed?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I have been asked to reply to this question. My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that officers disabled in former wars receive 50 per cent. less pension than officers disabled in the Great War. On the contrary, express provision was made in 1919 for the general re-assessment of former war pensions at the rate appropriate to the present degree of disablement under the Great War Warrants. If my hon. and gallant Friend has a case in mind, and will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into the facts.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they are not getting the 50 per cent. increase in respect of the cost of living, which is paid to pre-war pensioners?
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars, I will look into them, but my information is to the contrary.

  CHINA.

    SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has authorised the Officer Commanding the Shanghai Defence Force to resist the entry of any Chinese forces, victorious or defeated, into Shanghai?
    Captain KING: It is not in the public interest to disclose the terms of the instructions given to the General Officer Commanding the Shanghai Defence Force.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Does not this question go to the root of the foreign policy of the Government? How are the Government going to preserve their pledged policy of neutrality if the defeated army is to be allowed in and the victorious army refused admission?
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the reason for withdrawing from Shanghai a Punjabi batalion which arrived there a few weeks ago; and whether it will be followed by the withdrawal of the other troops recently landed at Shanghai?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I can make no further statement as to troop movements at present.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Member not consider the very great danger of playing the Asiatic races one against the other in this way?
    Sir CLEMENT KIINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a rumour current that they are shelling Shanghai? Can he say whether that is true or not?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no information.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate as to the monthly cost of the occupation of Shanghai by the present Shanghai Defence Force if that occupation be stabilised as at present; and whether any contribution towards this cost can be obtained from the beneficiaries in Shanghai?
    Captain KING: I have been asked to reply. The cost of the Shanghai Defence Force will be dealt with in connection with the Supplementary Estimate which will be presented shortly.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the second part of the question—whether there is any prospect of a contribution towards this expense coming from the beneficiaries?
    Captain KING: I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that we are to get no assistance from the people we are protecting?
    Captain KING: The right hon. Gentle man is certainly not to understand anything from what I have just said, except that I am not in a position to make a statement.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer when a question is put on the Paper?

    CANTONESE FORCES (AEROPLANES).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now been able to obtain any information as to the number of aeroplanes and aeroplane armament in the possession of the Cantonese forces?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The position is still as stated in the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 15th February.

    KIUKIANG CONCESSION (AGREEMENT).
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the agreement in respect of the British concession at Kiukiang?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes. An agreement was signed at Hankow on the 19th February in regard to the British concession at Kiukiang. Its terms are as follow:
    "Agreement relative to the British concession at Kiukiang.
    "A settlement on similar lines to that concluded in the case of the Hankow concession will immediately be made in the case of the concession at Kiukiang. If any direct losses due to the action or culpable negligence of the agents of the Nationalist Government were suffered by British subjects during the recent disturbances at Kiukiang, such losses will be compensated by the Nationalist Government.'
    Mr. O'Malley is now proceeding to Kiukiang to discuss the question of compensation with His Majesty's Consul there.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does that refer to Hankow? Will the nationals in Hankow receive the same compensation as those at Kiukiang?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that at Kiukiang there was intensive looting, which was not the case at Hankow.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Oh! It was.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of new holders registered on lands acquired by negotiations initiated since the present Government came into power, and the total acreage, total cost, and average annual rent of holdings formed on land thus acquired?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The number of holders settled on schemes initiated since the present Government came into power is 117, of whom 43 have been formally registered by the Land Court. The schemes, when completed, will provide for an additional 21 new holdings. The total area made available is 8,061 acres. The total gross cost of carrying the schemes to completion is estimated at £107,600, of which part is recoverable, and the average rent per holder is £11 6s.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, unless greater progress be made, it will take many years

    —

    Number of years of pensionable service at date of withdrawal.

    Under 5.

    5–10.

    10–15.

    15–20.

    20–25.

    25–30.

    30–35.

    35–40.

    40 and over.

    Total.

    Men—

    Retirement (age)

    —

    —

    5

    9

    13

    12

    32

    104

    348

    523

    Retirement (infirmity)

    2

    1

    2

    2

    2

    9

    19

    12

    —

    49

    Death

    —

    5

    11

    8

    8

    15

    22

    17

    10

    96

    Contributions repaid‡

    10

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    11

    Total

    12

    6

    18

    19

    24

    36

    73

    133

    358

    679

    Women—

    Retirement (age)

    —

    —

    13

    20

    36

    34

    67

    209

    230

    609

    Retirement (infirmity)

    11

    8

    24

    40

    42

    32

    42

    29

    —

    228

    Death

    —

    25

    19

    27

    22

    20

    19

    17

    7

    156

    Contributions repaid‡

    318

    679

    262

    88

    18

    10

    1

    1

    —

    1,377*

    Total

    329

    712

    318

    175

    118;

    96

    129

    256

    237

    2,370

    to overtake all the ex-service men's applications, and can he hold out any hope that the rate of progrese will be accelerated in the next year or two?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The rate of progress must be limited in respect of the cost, as well as of other factors.

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of teachers, male and female respectively, who left the teaching profession after 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 years' service respectively, between the years 1922–25?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    In the absence of precise and complete data as to the numbers of teachers withdrawing finally from the profession, it is only possible to furnish figures as to the numbers of teachers who, during a given period, retired with pension or gratuity (on account of age or disability), or died in service, or secured repayment of their superannuation contributions. For this purpose the period from 1st June, 1922, (the date as from which contributions became payable under the 1922 Act) to 31st December, 1925, has been taken. In addition separate figures have been given for the year 1925, as some indication of the annual rate of wastage in a more normal period.
    The corresponding figures relating to the year ended 31st December, 1925, which may be regarded as a normal year, are as follow:—

    —

    Number of years of pensionable service at date of withdrawal.

    Under 5.

    5–10.

    10–15.

    15–20.

    20–25.

    25–30.

    30–35.

    35–40.

    40 and over.

    Total

    Men—

    Retirement (age)

    —

    —

    1

    2

    5

    4

    7

    37

    85

    141

    Retirement (infirmity)

    1

    —

    1

    —

    1

    2

    5

    4

    —

    14

    Death

    —

    3

    5

    1

    2

    5

    4

    4

    1

    25

    Contributions repaid‡

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Total

    3

    3

    7

    3

    8

    11

    16

    45

    86

    182

    Women—

    Retirement (age)

    —

    —

    4

    4

    7

    6

    15

    45

    51

    132

    Retirement (infirmity)

    2

    —

    7

    11

    17

    6

    12

    4

    —

    59

    Death

    —

    8

    5

    8

    3

    5

    6

    6

    l

    42

    Contributions repaid‡

    107

    239

    85

    32

    5

    2

    —

    —

    —

    470†

    Total

    109

    247

    101

    55

    32

    19

    33

    55

    52

    703

    * Of this number 35 teachers have since returned for periods of varying duration, but only two were in service on 1st January, 1926.

    † Of this number 10 teachers have since returned. None of these, however, were in service on 1st January, 1926.

    ‡ Under the provisions then in force, the contributions of men were returnable only on death or ultimate ineligibility for superannuation benefit. In the case of women, however, contributions were conditionally returnable also on marriage.

    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that 6,361 pupils attending primary schools were in 1925 granted exemption from school attendance after reaching 12 years of age; and whether he will cause arrangements to be made by education authorities for continuing educational supervision of exempted pupils and imposing conditions for compulsory attendance by these pupils at continuation classes carried on either lay the same or some other authority?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, subject to the qualification that in the great majority of cases where the exemptions were not, as they frequently were, temporary, they were granted either to pupils who were already almost 14, or to pupils who, having actually passed that age, were being detained in school under a "fixed date" arrangement for leaving. As to the second part of the question, I think that, in the circumstances just explained, the fact that a condition of attendance at continuation classes was attached in as many as 2,453 of the 6,361 cases, is evidence that as a
    1562
    rule education authorities take a serious view of their responsibilities in this matter. The Department certainly are fully alive to its importance, and exercise a constant watchfulness.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of primary classes in Scottish schools in which one teacher has to teach 30, 40, 50, or more pupils, respectively?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the figures available do not quite cover the ground required for a categorical reply. But I may say that last year's returns show 22,279 primary classes as having fewer than 50 pupils habitually under the charge of one teacher, 2,205 as having between 50 and 60, and 40 as having a number in excess of 60. Later information from the areas concerned indicates an all-round improvement, the last figure being now reduced from 40 to 26.

    AGRICULTURE, KINCARDINESHIRE (CHILD WORKERS).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is

    1563
    aware that the International Labour Organisation adopted a convention in 1921 prohibiting the employment in agriculture of children under 14 during the hours fixed for school attendance and, if they are employed at other times, employment of such a character as will prejudice their attendance at school; whether he is aware that although His Majesty's Government failed to allow Great Britain to ratify this convention, several States, including Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, the Irish Free State, Italy. Japan, and Sweden, have done so; and whether, seeing that His Majesty's Government are parties to the international Labour Organisation, he will refuse to consent to the by-law proposed by the Kincardineshire education authority?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that the International Labour Conference held in 1921 adopted a draft Convention containing provisions generally to the effect stated in the first part of the question subject to certain exceptions. I am informed that the draft Convention has been ratified by several States which, however, do not include Canada. With regard to the byelaw referred to in the last part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs. I have under consideration the objections lodged with me and have not yet reached a decision in the matter. The proposed amendment of the Kincardine Byelaw does not affect the employment of children in seasonal occupations on school days.

    ERRIBOL ESTATE (SALE).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether inquiries were received from prospective purchasers or agents subsequent to the last public exposure of the estate of Erribol as to the possibility of any offer of a lump sum for the estate of Erribol and the sheep stock on the farm being accepted; and whether any indication of an inclusive figure was given by inquiries?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In one case an inclusive figure was
    1564
    tentatively indicated which, on examination, did not appear to be so favourable as the offer I accepted.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper, and tell me what was that inclusive figure?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I never had any firm offer, except the one I have dealt with.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Was another bidder encouraged to compete against the purchaser who eventually got it, or was he choked off?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am bound to say that I can only do business with those who make me a firm offer.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the customary procedure in Scottish arbitrations, for the arbiter to issue proposed findings and to allow each party a limited time within which to make representations if so advised against his proposed findings in order to assist him before he issues his final award, was followed in the case of Erribol; and whether any representations have been lodged by him or the Board of Agriculture against the valuation of the Erribol sheep stock?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In the case of Erribol the parties agreed that the valuation should be made by the valuator, whose opinion should be taken as final, and it is the practice in such cases for the valuator to issue his award without proposed findings. This practice was followed in the case of Erribol. The answer to the second part of the question is accordingly in the negative.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not the reverse procedure being almost universally followed in Scotland, and universally followed by the Board of Agriculture? Why was an exception made in this case?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Baronet is confusing arbitration and valuation. This was a case purely of valuation and an agreed arrangement, come to by both parties, to accept the findings of the individual concerned.
    Mr. G. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the approximate cost to the country of these persistent questions?

    BURNHOUSE COTTAGE, BINN'S FARM, STIRLINGSHIRE.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the lack of any sanitary conveniences, the broken ceilings, the almost roofless byre, and the other complaints, referred to in the report by the medical officer of health for Stirlingshire to his Department in November, 1926, as made by the tenant at Burnhouse Cottage, Binn's Farm, Stirlingshire, are still unattended to; and what steps he can take to expedite the necessary repairs?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that, following upon the issue of an intimation to the proprietor under Section 19 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, estimates have been taken for the execution of certain repairs on the premises at Burnhouse Cottage. Having in view the isolated situation of the premises, however, the proprietor has indicated his intention to delay the commencement of the work until the advent of the good building weather.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when these repairs, which are absolutely vital from a sanitary point of view, will be executed? Is he aware that there have been complaints for years?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the matter was before the local authority, who were satisfied that the delay was reasonable, and I have no reason to doubt that the repairs will be carried out as soon as possible.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to certain farms in and around Glasgow where great damage was done by the storm, and where landlords and factors have refused to carry out any repairs, though the present state of things is a menace to health?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

    RURAL WORKERS (HOUSING) ACT (CROFTERS' HOUSES),
    Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he, is taking to make it clear that crofters' houses are eligible for grants or loans from local authorities under the recent Rural Workers (Housing) Act?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the circular issued on the 5th instant by the Scottish Board of Health to all Scottish local authorities including those for the crofting areas, wherein attention is called to the fact that special provision is made in the Act for its application to landholders under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: In view of the special importance of this Measure to the Highland crofters, will the right hon. Gentleman send a special letter to the crofting authorities explaining crofters' rights under this Act, and thus remove many misunderstandings?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I shall be prepared to consider that, but I have already circularised the authorities in question.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman send a special letter to the Highlands?

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.

    LICENCES (FADELESS INK).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the ink used for inscribing motor taxation licences is liable to fade upon exposure; that a conviction has been obtained against a motorist for using a car the excise licence of which was not legible, due to the above fact; and will he stipulate that licence-issuing authorities shall be obliged to use fadeless ink for the purpose in question?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel W. Ashley): With the assistance of His Majesty's Stationery Office, various makes of ink have been tested from time to time, and the results communicated to licensing authorities, with a view to ensuring that the entries on licences should not fade upon prolonged exposure to sunlight. I am satisfied that the authorities are fully alive to the importance of the question. I may add that the Regulations specially provide that where the licensing authority is satisfied that the entries on the licence, or the colour of the licence, have faded owing to causes not due to any neglect of the licensee, a duplicate licence may be issued free of charge.

    VEHICLES (REGISTRATION 1926).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport how many motor cars, commercial vehicles, and motor cycles, respectively, were registered for the first time in 1926, and how many in each class were of British manufacture?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The periodical returns made by licensing authorities are not in such a form as enable me to give the figures required by my hon. Friend. I have, however, made arrangements for returns, as from the 1st March next, showing the number of first registrations under each of the various taxation classes and sub-classes. These returns will be collated and issued periodically by my Department, but they will not indicate the different makes of vehicles or their country of origin. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, information as to the number and value of motor vehicles imported into the United Kingdom is contained in the returns published by the Board of Trade.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY DOCKS, HULL (BY-LAWS).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Transport when the new by-laws for the London and North Eastern Railway Company's docks in the port of Hall will become operative; and whether it is his intention to include the clauses similar to those operative at Swansea and pressed for by the Hull Vigilance Association and by the Hull Watch Committee?
    Colonel ASHLEY: These by-laws were confirmed on the 16th February, with the inclusion of the. Clause suggested by the Hull Vigilance Association and the Hull Watch Committee, and they will become operative on the 3rd March.

    RAILWAY WAGON'S, HULL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has been able to take any steps to relieve the shortage of railway wagons, felt from time to time in Hull, and particularly inconvenient for the timber trade; and what these steps are?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The provision of adequate facilities for the conveyance by rail of timber imported at Humber ports
    1568
    is a matter for which the London and North Eastern Railway Company are responsible. But I have had occasion from time to time to discuss this matter with them. As regards the present position, the company recognised that during last month, when for various reasons they were exceptionally pressed for wagons, there was not a full supply for the timber trade, but I am informed that during recent weeks there has been, in spite of the occurrence of fog, a distinct improvement.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Minister of Transport aware that this difficulty has arisen at intervals for the last five or six years, ever since the amalgamation of the railways, and can he represent the matter to the railway companies, in order that this difficulty may not occur again after trade improves?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I certainly will direct the special attention of the companies to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that we have some connection with the railway companies, will the right hon. Gentleman not make inquiries into what is happening now because they are making one man on the railways do the work of two men?

    FREIGHT TRAFFIC.
    Captain STREATFEILDasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he can give the freightage costs per ton for goods carried by rail, road, and canal, respectively, operating at the present time;
    (2) whether be can give the tonnage quantity of goods carried in the United Kingdom during the year 1926, or the latest year for which figures are available, by rail, road, and canal, respectively; and whether he can state the percentage increase or decrease in each case as compared with the years 1921 and 1913?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As the replies to these questions include a number of figures, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no information as to the tonnage of goods carried by road.
    The figures for Question 39 are as follow:
    The average charges for freight traffic conveyed by rail in the first four months of 1926 were as follows:

    Per ton.

    s.

    d.

    General Merchandise

    16

    1

    Coal Coke and Patent Fuel

    3

    8

    Other Minerals

    5

    0

    All classes

    6

    3

    During the last eight months of 1926 importation of foreign coal and other cir-

    —

    1926.

    Percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) 1926 compared with

    1921.

    1913.

    By Rail.

    Tons.

    General Merchandise

    …

    53,513,000

    + 5·9

    - 21·0

    Coal, Coke and Patent Fuel

    …

    114,035,000

    - 11·1

    - 49·5

    Other Minerals

    …

    48,032,000

    + 23·0

    - 32·4

    Total

    …

    215,580,000

    - 1·1

    - 40·8

    By Canal.

    Coal

    …

    5,247,00

    - 6·6

    Separate figures not available.

    Other Traffics

    …

    7,715,000

    + 23·2

    Total

    …

    12,962,000

    + 9·1

    - 46·2 (estd.).

    The prolonged stoppages in the Coal Mines in 1921 and in 1926 affect any comparison be ween those years and between either of them and more normal years.

    STEAM VEHICLES (SMOKE NUISANCE).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport what action he has taken or proposes to take regarding smoke from steam vehicles?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am considering this question in connection with the Bill' for the regulation of traffic on roads.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the steam wagons going through London are a perfect scandal?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think primarily that is a matter for the police.
    Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever sat on the top of a motor omnibus anywhere near one of these steam vehicles?
    cumstances rendered the results unrepresentative.
    On the 1st February, 1927, the percentage addition to railway rates was advanced from approximately 50 to 60 per cent. over the pre-War level.
    No information is available in my Department showing the carriage charges in respect of traffic conveyed by road or canal.
    The figures for Question 40 are as follow:
    The provisional figures of freight traffic carried by rail and canal during the year 1926, and the percentage increases or decreases compared with 1921 and 1913, are as follow:
    Mr. MARCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Home Secretary, in order to get the police busy on this job, as it is getting a perfect nuisance?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I ought to have mentioned that I am in communication with the Home Secretary on this very subject.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I raised this matter here a year ago, and the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing.

    SUTTON BY-PASS ROAD.
    Brigadier-General Sir GEORGE COCKERILLasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to

    1571
    those who use the new Sutton by-pass road by the absence of a bridge over the railway to connect its two sections; why the necessary steps were not taken to permit a, bridge being built while the road was under construction; who is responsible for this neglect; and when it is proposed to remedy it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I fully realise the urgent need for the erection of the bridge, so that the entire length of the new road may be brought into use. The delay is due in great part to the necessary negotiations between the highway authority and the railway company. I am glad to say, however, that agreement has now been reached and tenders obtained for the construction of the bridge, thus enabling the work to be put in hand.
    Captain BRASS: Could the Minister say how long the Sutton by-pass road has taken to make?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say that without notice.

  ELECTRICITY BOARD.
  Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Transport whether members of the Electricity Board, apart from the chairman, can hold other lucrative posts or retain separate commercial interests?
  Colonel ASHLEY: The answer is in the affirmative. None of the members of the Central Electricity Board other than the chairman is required by their appointments to devote the whole of their time to the performance of their duties as Members of the Board. Under Section 1 (4), however, of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, a member of the Board if interested in any company with which the Board has or proposes to make any contract must disclose to the Board the fact and nature of his interest, and may take no part in any deliberation or decision of the Board relating to such contract.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask whether it is the opinion of the Minister that a salary of £750 a year is a proper sum for a part-time job.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that arises out of the question but in any case, as I settled the £750, I think it is a proper amount.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that £7,500 a year to be paid to Sir Andrew Duncan is a proper salary when only £2 a week is being paid to a miner, and does that not prove conclusively that there is a class struggle going on in society?
  Mr. HARDIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after the discussion which took place in Committee upstairs on the Bill, he is satisfied that anyone taking part as a member of this Board can have any spare time for anything else but the work of the Board?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; I am quite sure on that point, and membership of the Board is to be a part-time job.
  Mr. HARDIE: Should not the salary bear some relation to the amount of work, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that £750 a year is a good wage for a full-time man engaged in that kind of work?

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (RECEIPTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Postmaster-General what were the receipts of the telephone service for the last quarter of 1325 and for the last quarter of 1926, respectively?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The receipts of the Telephone Service, excluding deposits, for the last quarter of 1925 and for the last quarter of 1926 were £3,965,000 and £4,298,000 respectively.
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: Is this a paying service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, Sir; on a commercial account it shows a balance.
    Mr. PALING: May I ask what steps the Department are taking to speed up the process of installing telephones? is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are complaints of people having been waiting two and three months?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That should be put as another question.
    Miss WILKINSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these receipts could be considerably improved if he could cheapen the service?

    ARMY AND AIR FORCE (POSTAL RATES).
    Captain BRASSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the distinction drawn by his Department between members of Has Majesty's Navy serving in foreign waters (for example, in the Persian Gulf) and members of His Majesty's Army and Air Force on foreign service (for example, in Iraq) whereby the former can receive letters at lid. for the first ounce and ld. thereafter, while letters addressed to the latter are charged at the ordinary civil rate of 2½d. for the first ounce and l½d. thereafter; and whether he can see his way to arrange for members of His Majesty's Army and Air Force on foreign service to be treated in the same way as members of His Majesty's Navy?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that I am not in a position to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. Letters addressed to the Army and Air Force in Iraq are delivered through the civil Post Office and are therefore subject to the same rates and conditions as civil correspondence. The Iraq administration has not adopted Imperial postage rates, and the foreign rate therefore applies. Letters for His Majesty's ships abroad are, under a special arrangement embodied in the International Convention of the Postal Union, conveyed in direct bags for the various ships, which undertake the duty of delivery, and the Imperial rate can thus be applied to them wherever the ships may be stationed.
    Captain BRASS: Would the Postmaster-General inform the public of this distinction, because a number of letters addressed to officers and men in the Air Force at Iraq have had to pay a great deal of extra postage?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: All the relevant information is set out in a special section of the "Postal Guide." I should acid, perhaps, in order to make it clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that troops in any part of the Empire other than Iraq get the benefit of the Imperial rate.

    REX V. POSTMASTER-GENERAL.
    Mr. WOMERSLIEYasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the recent decision of the King's Bench Division Court in the case of Mrs. Ethel Carmichael v. The Postmaster-General, he
    1574
    will be prepared to reconsider eases of claims for compensation similar to the one in question?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the case of The King v. The Postmaster-General. The decision in that case refers to a matter of procedure, but any person who considers that it affects his position is at liberty to make representations in the matter.

  BROADCASTING (PARLIAMENTARY SPEECHES).
  Captain FRASERasked the Prime Minister if he will give time for a discussion upon the advisability of permitting certain specially selected Front Bench speeches to be broadcast by arrangement between the parties at rare intervals when the importance and general interest of the subject is unquestionable; or if he will set up the Select Committee of both Houses which he told the House he was considering on 25th March, 1925?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir; I cannot give time for such discussion. Under the Rules of the House, many opportunities are afforded to hon. Members to bring forward a Motion dealing with this question on a night set apart for Private Members' business. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to set up a Select Committee, as I am unaware of any change of opinion since the reply which I gave on the 22nd March, 1926, to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell).
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Has not a question been raised already by the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) with regard to this matter?
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I object.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Very naturally!

  CONVERSION LOANS.
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the additions to the National Debt caused by the issue of conversion stock at a discount by the Treasury, he will

  1575
  consider repealing Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1921, and restore to Parliament the same control over the exchange and issue of securities which it possessed in pre-War days?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. I think such a course would be quite impracticable in present conditions.
  Mr. WADDINGTON: Has my right hon. Friend considered whether the policy of the Treasury is not imposing serious disadvantages upon Parliament in making future conversions when money rates are easy?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a large question, and I shall be prepared to debate it on any suitable occasion, but I am quite-certain that it would be impossible to carry out the great and numerous conversion operations which are inseparable from the post-War period if every one of them had to be passed through this House by legislation.
  Sir F. WISE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the same procedure was carried out after the Napoleonic Wars, when the amounts were just as big in proportion to the wealth of the country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: At any rate, for many years before the recent War, when the procedure that my hon. Friend wishes us to bring in was in operation, conversion took place scarcely more than once in a generation, which is a very different thing from the position that we have to face now.
  Sir F. WISE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that after the Napoleonic Wars there was a great number of conversions, up to the Goschen conversion of 1888?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite clear that it is utterly impossible for us to attempt to deal with these matters by legislation in every case at the present time, and I am not aware, except from one or two questions from my hon. Friend, that any case has been deployed against the policy the Government are pursuing. If he can advance such a case, I shall be very glad to give it consideration.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the fact that, after the Napoleonic Wars, the amount of taxation in this country was lower in proportion to the wealth of the country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I must plead guilty to not having specially looked up what happened as regards conversions after the Napoleonic Wars. I am more concerned with what is happening after the last Great War.
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan redeemed under the operation of the 2 per cent. per annum Sinking Fund and the actual cash paid for the redemption of such stock from. 1921 to 31st January, 1927?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Sinking Fund is 1 per cent. of the stock outstanding at the end of any half year, as long as the price is below 90. Between 1st April, 1922, and 31st January, 1927, £79,836,586 of the stock was redeemed, the cash paid being £61,239,336.
  Mr. JOHNSON: Bas the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect upon his Conversion Loan of the present unrestricted export of British capital, and especially the £3,000,000 to Poland announced in to-day's Press?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be all right if it went to Russia.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Colonel DAYasked the Prime Minister whether the representations made by the Southwark Borough Council asking that a Committee from this House be appointed to re-examine the claims made by civilian sufferers from enemy action during the War, with a view to such claims being made a prior charge upon the reparations received from Germany, has received his attention; and can he make any statement in this connection?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply to this question. The letter from the Southwark Borough Council referred to in the question has been received. I

  1577
  have nothing to add to the numerous previous answers given on the same subject.
  Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to receive a deputation to discuss this matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That would be perfectly useless; there is no question about giving any more money.
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the sum of £5,300,000 allocated by the Government to meet the claims of those who suffered loss and damage through enemy action has been distributed to the claimants; and what is the amount of the outstanding claims to date?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The total amount distributed to claimants up to the present date is £4,898,102. It is impossible to state what is the amount of the outstanding claims, as a large number of claimants have still not returned the forms issued to them.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many seamen still awaiting the Government decision?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that a great many complaints have been made on the subject, but we cannot make any additional funds available.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no undue delay?
  Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: Is it not a fact that of the £5,300,000 referred to, the first £5,000,000 was merely advanced by the Government for claims that were delayed owing to not getting a settlement with Germany, and it was never intended originally when the money was loaned that the claims should be settled?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter has very often been debated in former Sessions, and I think the attitude the Government have definitely taken up is quite widely understood.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (POOR LAW RELIEF).
  Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has
  1578
  received from the Huddersfield Board of Guardians a resolution expressing their concern and distress at finding so many male applicants for relief who have fought and been maimed and disabled in the great War, and deploring their becoming chargeable to the Poor Law; how many other boards of guardians have forwarded similar resolutions; and whether the Government contemplates any modification of the present pensions administration in order to meet this situation?
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have been asked to reply. Receipt of a resolution from the board of guardians in, question cannot be traced, but representations in identical terms to the effect stated in the question have been received from some 60 boards of guardians. I would remind the hon. Member that the duties of my right hon. Friend are confined by Statute to the provision, subject to the Royal Warrants and War Pensions Acts, of compensation and of medical treatment for disablement caused by War service only. So far as any of the cases referred to are of this type, it is open to the board of guardians to take the action indicated in the Circular addressed to all boards of guardians by the Ministry of Health in October, 1923. Any assistance that may otherwise be required by ex-service men in consequence of ill-health or unemployment necessarily falls to be provided under the arrangements in operation for the civil population at large, which are outside the purview of my right hon. Friend's Department.
  Mr. HUDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that these 60 boards of guardians, when passing this resolution, had, in mind the Circulars which have gone out from his and other Government Departments; and, in view of the fact that they continue to object to the position that confronts them, cannot some further step be taken to deal with this issue?
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As far as the Ministry of Pensions is concerned, it has always been carefully and must explicitly laid down that the question of employment or unemployment does not enter into the case at all.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is it correct to say that all the industrial boards of guardians in Wales, both

  1579
  North and South, are represented in the 60 boards of guardians who have protested against this?
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Mr. BECKETT: Is it the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department that pensions should be considered by boards of guardians when they are considering the amount of Poor Law relief to be given?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point concerns another Minister.
  Mr. REMER: In view of the large number of boards of guardians who sent identical, word-for-word resolutions, has my hon. and gallant Friend made inquiries as to the source from which they got those resolutions?
  Lieut.-Commander: KENWORTHY: Canton!

  TREASURY CHEST.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the balance at present in the Treasury Chest?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Treasury Chest Fund is a fixed sum of £700,000.
  Mr. SEXTON: Does it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman that this gives an opportunity for one of his periodical raids on henroosts?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that this might almost be described as one of my own henroosts?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where this Treasury Chest is?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it lacks corporate existence; it is a financial abstraction.

  SHOWMEN'S VEHICLES (LICENCE FEES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the travelling showmen of Great Britain at their annual meeting at the Agricultural Hall, Isling-
  1580
  ton, on 20th January, in which they regret that the concessions in last year's Budget on the licences for their vehicles do not apply to their steam and petrol lorries, although these are only used for the purpose of moving from one fair ground to another and are not used as common hauliers; if he is aware that a large percentage of the showmen find it impossible to pay the increased licence fee of 100 per cent., and are thus prevented from pursuing their calling; and whether he will favourably consider this matter with a view to a further concession in this year's Budget?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a copy of the resolution in question, but I have no information as to whether showmen are in fact taking out licences for fewer vehicles. An exceptional concession was made last year in respect of showmen's traffic, and, having regard to the damage which it undoubtedly causes to the roads, I cannot hold out any prospect of my being able to extend the concession further.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and receive a small deputation, between now and the time of the introduction of the Budget, to deal with this matter, which is causing hardship to a class of poor men who cannot afford to be ruined?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a certain procedure—a rule—which governs the kind of deputations which are received at the Treasury before a Budget, and I am not sure that this would fall in that class. Obviously, if we opened the door wide, there would be an illimitable number, but if the hon. and gallant Member will write to me on the subject, I will see what usefulness would attach to a deputation being received. perhaps by one of the officials of the Department.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a tax on petrol, and avoid all these difficulties?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot anticipate the Budget.
  Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing a rebate to these showmen when their vehicles are not in use?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we arrived at a very good arrangement on this with general consent last Session.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that agreements reached by the National Whitley Council are binding upon all departments, that the promotions committee Report is such an agreement, that the terms of this agreement were departed from by the Public Trustee Office, Manchester, in connection with a recent promotion, and that the Public Trustee has refused to give an assurance that the Report will be complied with in future, he will say what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the Report is fully observed?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the Public Trustee, acting in strict accordance with Paragraph 21 of the Promotions Committee Report, considered that the institution of a Promotions Board was unsuited to the circumstances of that Department, and accordingly gave an opportunity for a full discussion of the subject to the appropriate Whitley body, a:, a result of which a working arrangement was instituted. I understand that the particular vacancy to which reference is made was notified to the Secretary of the staff side of the Manchester office, and he was informed of the proposed promotion, but in the circumstances of the case—which were exceptional—no notice of the vacancy was placed upon the Notice Board. I have every reason to suppose that the Public Trustee abides and will abide by the understanding arrived at between him and his staff.

    STATIONERY OFFICE WORKS, HARROW.
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the circumstances in which a volunteer employé, holding a position as overseer in one of the printing departments of the Stationery Office works at Harrow, while absent from his duties without leave, took a stranger into the confidential department without permission; whether any inquiry has been made into
    1582
    the man's sobriety and general conduct on this occasion; and whether it is intended to retain his services?
    Mr. McNEILL: In reply to the first part of this question, I am informed that the visitor to whom I presume reference is made was in the works with the permission of the management; that the overseer was not absent from his duties without leave, and that the visitor was not taken into the confidential department. The latter parts of the question therefore do not arise.

  RACE MEETINGS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will state the total receipts in respect of Entertainments Duty derived from race meetings during the months of November and December, 1926, together with the amounts received from the same source during the two corresponding months of 1925?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that particulars of the total receipts of the Entertainments Duty paid in respect of different kinds of entertainments held in a given period cannot be obtained.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT PAYMENTS).
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the sums that are due for payment by this country to the United States for War debts in 1927 and 1928; what is the sum total that has already been paid; and what amount remains yet to be paid?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The sums due to the United States Government in respect of the British War Debt in 1927 and 1928 (at par of exchange) are £32,900,000 and £33,200,000 respectively; the total sum already paid (taking the actual sterling cost of dollars) is £213,500,000. The amount remaining yet to be paid (at par of exchange), including the sums due in 1927 and 1928, is £2,150,000,000.
  Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the correct amount

  1583
  owing by the various individual States of the United States to British nationals which has beer. repudiated?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, certainly not without notice, and even then it would be a very questionable field to embark upon.

  BEER, SPIRITS AND WINE.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the quantities of malt, unmalted grain, molasses and other materials used in distilling in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year ended 30th September, 1926, and the number of proof gallons distilled;
  (2) the quantities of malt, unmalted grain, rice, maize, etc., sugar, etc., and hops used in brewing in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year ended 30th September, 1926,, together with the bulk barrels produced; and
  (3) the quantities of beer (standard' and bulk barrels), spirits and wine retained for consumption during the calendar year 1926 in Northern Ireland; and the estimated revenue attributable thereto?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answers to these questions involve tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the answers:
  The quantities of certain materials used in distilling and the number of proof gallons of spirits distilled in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year ended 30th September, 1926, are as follow:

  Materials used.

  …

  Cwts.

  Malt

  …

  1,984,338

  Unmalted grain

  …

  1,573,071

  Rice

  …

  12,498

  Molasses

  …

  1,315,197

  Glucose

  …

  —

  Sugar

  …

  —

  Other materials

  …

  —

  Proof gallons.

  Spirits distilled

  …

  31,833,385

  The quantities of certain materials used in brewing and the number of bulk in Great Britain and barrels brewed in Great Britian and
  1584
  Northern Ireland during the year ended 30th September, 1926, are as follow:

  Materials used.

  Cwts.

  Malt

  10,948,168

  Unmalted corn

  23,113

  Rice, rice grits and flaked rice

  45,100

  Maize grits, flaked maize and other similar preparations

  782,293

  Sugar, including its equivalent of syrup, glucose and saccharum

  1,832,914

  Hops

  355,375

  Preparations of hops

  79

  Hop substitutes

  28

  Bulk barrels.

  Beer brewed

  25,987,830

  The approximate quantities of beer, spirits and wine retained for consumption in Northern Ireland during the calendar year 1926, and the estimated revenue attributable thereto are as follow:

  Article.

  Approximate quantity retained for consumption.

  Estimated Attributable Revenue.

  £

  Beer

  Standard Barrels 201,000

  779,000

  Bulk Barrels. 238,000

  Spirits

  Proof Gallons. 331,000

  1,171,000

  Wine

  Gallons. 338.000

  69,000

  BETTING DUTY.
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any appreciable decline in the receipts from the Betting Duty on account of the reduction in the amount of credit booking transacted?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In the absence of all previous experience, it was impossible to forecast what variations in the receipts of the Betting Duty were likely to occur at different seasons of the year. The revenue from credit betting is how smaller than it was; in the early weeks of the duty when flat racing was still taking place.
  Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bookmakers throughout the country say their businesses are affected by at least 50 per cent. by the Betting Duty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen a number of statements, but I think it is altogether too early to form any view of the effect of the tax.
  Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage cost of collecting the Betting Duty; whether the tax has involved the employment of additional staff; and if any officials are wholly employed in connection with this tax?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No close estimate of the cost of collecting the Betting Duty can be made until there has been some experience of the requirements of the duty during the flat-racing season. But the experience that has been obtained during the short period the Betting Duty has been in operation does not suggest that the estimate of the annual cost of collecting the duty, namely, £150,000 furnished to the Select Committee in 1923 will not prove to be substantially correct. Comparing this with the estimated yield of the duty for a full year of £6,000,000. the percentage cost works out at 21, per cent. The numbers and pay of the only special staff recruited for the purposes of the duty were given in reply to the hon. Member for Oxford City on 16th November last. In addition to this staff of 17 officers, about 100 officers are employed at headquarters and elsewhere exclusively in connection with the Betting Duty. For the rest the work is performed by the general Customs and Excise staff throughout the country in con junction with their other duties.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The next time the right hon. Gentleman brings in a tax like this will he take the advice of some of us who know?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry to hear the Noble Lady's confession.
  Mr. SANDEMANIasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated annual cost of collecting the Betting Duty?
  Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right
  1586
  hon. Friend earlier this afternoon to the hon. Member for Huddersfield.

  GERMAN REPARATION RAILWAY BONDS.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he anticipates a flotation of German reparation railway bonds in the near future?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS HOSPITALS (MEAT PURCHASES).
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions if the practice of bulk purchase of the meat for the patients and staff in Ministry-controlled institutions still continues; and what was the average price paid per pound for mutton and beef in the six months ending 31st December, 1926?
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The arrangement referred to was terminated in October last, as it was found to be no longer economical in view of the diminished number of patients and staff to be provided for. The average prices per pound for mutton and beef in the six months ending 31st December last varied from 5d. to 10d. a pound, and from 3d to 10d. a pound respectively, according to the nature of the joint supplied.

  AGRICULTURE (WOMEN WORKERS).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information as to whether orders affecting women workers, made under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, meet, the varying conditions under which women are employed in different parts of the country; and, if not, whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the Orders made under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act are made by committees comprising representatives of local employers and 3yorkers I have no reason to believe that the Orders generally are not sufficient to meet the circumstances of women's employment, but, in view of the representations which have been made, I am proposing to make inquiries as to the actual conditions under which women are employed in each county.

  SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVES LAND ACT).
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the South African Native Lands Bill; and whether, seeing that the Imperial Parliament is responsible for the four Protectorates which are vitally interested in and affected by the problem and its solution, he proposes to confer with General Hertzog whilst the draft Measure is before the South African people for discussion?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): Yes, Sir, I have seen a copy of the Union of South Africa Natives Land Act, 1913, Amendment. Bill, 1927. The Measure relates solely to the Union of South Africa, and the policy to be adopted is a matter for the Government and Parliament of that Dominion. In the circumstances, the hon. Member will appreciate that the course which he suggests in the last part of his question would not be appropriate.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LEAVING AGE).
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the President of the Board of Education if he will reconsider the advisability of revising the Regulations which compels children in elementary schools who reach the age of 14 years remaining on the books until the end of the term, so that they can drop out individually as they reach the prescribed age, and thus prevent the flooding of the labour market at certain periods?
  Duchess of ATHOLL: This matter is not governed by Regulation, but by Statute, under Section 138 (1) of the Education Act, 1921. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Committee on Education and Industry, which has just reported, recommend that the provisions of that Section should be maintained.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Noble Lady bear in mind that the Committee also recommend the raising of the school age?

  AFFORESTATION.
  Sir NEWTON MOOREasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as repre-
  1588
  senting the Forestry Commissioners, whether he can give information as to the average cost per acre of the 78,000 acres now under trees and the cost per acre of planting the same; when it is contemplated the balance of the 72,000 acres will be planted; will he specify the different variety of trees being planted; when it is estimated the more quick-growing timber will be marketable; and if he can state the total expenditure on administration, acquisition of land, and planting operations, respectively?
  Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The average cost of the purchased and planted by the Commissioners was approximately £3 3s. per acre including buildings. The average cost of planting was £8 15s. per acre. It is contemplated that the balance of 72,000 acres will be planted by 1929–30; the programme for the current season is 22,600 acres. The species planted are mainly Scots and Corsican pine, Norway and Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, European and Japanese larch, oak, beech and ash. The first sales of the more quick-growing timber will be 15 years after planting. The Commission's expenditure (a) on administration in connection with acquisitions and cultural operations including local supervision (foresters) to the end of the last forest year was £302,700 (b) on the acquisition of 165,306 acres (91.051 plantable) purchased including buildings was £288,210, and (c) on planting operations was £682,500.
  Mr. MARCH: Has the Commission considered looking into Essex to see if they can grow elm and oak trees there?
  Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: We are planting in every county on every bit of land that we can find.

  TURKEY (GALATA BRIDGE TOLLS).
  Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount the muncipality of Constantinople has handed over from the Galata Bridge tolls, which forms the security for the Constantinople loan of 1909; and has the amount been deposited in London?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am unaware of the amount handed over by the Municipality of Constantinople from the Galata Bridge tolls. The amount was

  1589
  paid in to the Constantinople branch of the National Bank of Turkey, and I have no information as to its subsequent disposal.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister in what, order he proposes to take businese during the rest of the week?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow, Wednesday, until a quarter-past eight, we shall take the Committee stage of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Money Resolution; the Report stage or outstanding Supplementary Estimates and, if time permits, other Orders on the Paper.
Thursday: we shall make further progress with the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Bill and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. GREENALL: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of Unemployment, and move a Resolution.
  SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.
  Captain BOURNE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to Subversive Propaganda in this country, and move a Resolution.
  CO-PARTNERSHIP.
  Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the principle of Co-partnership as an assumed palliative for our industrial troubles, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED.

  EDUCATION IN PRISONS BILL,
  "to provide for education in prisons and other places of detention, and to extend enactments relating to superannuation allowances and gratuities to teachers; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. RHYS DAVIES; supported by Mr. Hayes, Mr.
  1590
  Morgan Jones, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Kennedy; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 9th March, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

  SHOPS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL,
  "to amend the Shops Acts, 1912 and 1013," presented by Mr. TAYLOR; supported by Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Riley, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Paling, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Mackinder, and Mr. George Hall; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
  ENGINEERS BILL,
  "to provide for the registration of, and to regulate the qualifications of, engineers," presented by Mr. HERBERT Williams; supported by Sir Martin Conway, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Burgoyne, Mr. Clarry, and Mr. Bird; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
  BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquors to bona fide travellers," presented by Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK; supported by Mr. Clarry, Colonel Applin, Colonel Grant Morden, Lieut.-Colonel James, and Mr. Remer; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION BILL.
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General on the Birkenhead Extension Bill [pursuant to Standing Order 175a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Mr. Albery, Lord Apsley, Mr. John Baker, Mr. Barker, Mr. Bethel, Mr. Roy Bird, Mr. Blundell, Mr. Campbell, Major

  1591
  Carver, Major Colfox, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Duff Cooper, Mr. Dunnico, Lord Fermoy, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Sir Robert Gower, Captain Fergus Graham, Mr. Greenall, Mr. George Harvey, Captain Robert Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Hilton, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Captain Holt, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Haydn Jones, Major Kenyon-Slaney, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Miss Lawrence, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Montague, Mr. Sandeman, Mr. Scurr, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Lieut.-Colonel Stott, Mr. Waddington, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, Dr. Watts, Mr. John Williams, and Mr. Windsor.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; that they had nominated Standing Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence. Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room Tomorrow, at Twelve o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Lords Message considered.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[ Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill arises out of the difficulties in Poor Law administration which came to a somewhat acute head in May last, followed by a decision of the Courts in December last which determined chat certain expenditure on the relief of dependants of those engaged in the coal dispute was illegal. I invite the House to consider what our Scottish law was and what it has recently become, because it is essential to an understanding of the Bill that we should approach it from that aspect. To go back to the year 1921. Prior to that year the relief of able-bodied persons was a thing unknown in the Poor Law of Scotland. It has existed for a long time—so far as I know it has always existed—in the law of England under certain conditions, but in 1921, owing to the extensive nature of the unemployment which existed after the War, it was considered right that our Scottish law should be extended, and it was extended by what is known as the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, which authorised and directed parish councils in Scotland to give relief to destitute able-bodied persons who could satisfy them that they were destitute and unable to find employment. The relief of the dependants of such persons is really an ancillary part of that branch of the law, and while the matter did not come up acutely until last year it was bound to be a matter for consideration as to whether and how far—so long as we had these temporary provisions of the Act of 1021 continued from time to time—we were to assimilate our law to the English law.
  In England for more than a quarter of a century, following a decision of the Court of Appeal in the well-known Merthyr Tydvil case, the dependants of those engaged in a trade dispute have been held to be entitled to relief, and they get relief. As soon as the general strike and
  1610
  coal dispute started last May, this question of relief at once became very acute, because it was obvious that any claim for relief for dependants of the men engaged in the dispute was going to be on a much larger scale and over a much larger area than had been the case in any previous dispute. There was considerable legal doubt as to whether the existing provisions of the principal Act of 1845 and the Emergency Act of 1921 made such relief lawful or not, but the Government decided in the beginning of May that, whether it was actually legal or illegal, it was right such relief should be given, and for this reason—there are many other reasons—that it seemed quite impossible, administratively or with any fairness, to have the dependants of those engaged in the dispute in England receiving relief out of the rates while the dependants of those in Scotland were not receiving such relief at all, the dispute being common to both countries and in many cases the actual employers being common to both countries.
  Mr. THURTLE: But is there not this very important difference, that whereas in England the relief is to be found out of the rates, it is now proposed, as regards 40 per cent. of it, to find it out of the national Exchequer?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member would only bear himself with a little patience, he will find that I propose to deal with that point later. I am approaching the matter now from the general point of view. If is perfectly obvious that to treat dependants in Scotland and in England differently would of itself tend to promote ill-feeling and possibly disturbance. I do not think any fair-minded person would accept that as a general proposition. The Government decided that whether it was strictly within the law or not it must be given, and on the 8th May last year the Scottish Board of Health issued a circular to the parish councils in which they dealt, first of all, with the question of the men themselves engaged in the strike—and no question arises on that as regards this Bill—and then went on to deal with the question of the dependants. The circular said:
  "I am to add that, apart altogether from the question whether the men are entitled to relief under the 1921 Act, parish councils should bear in mind that in cases where acute destitution exists and suffering

  1611
  on the part of a man's dependants is immediately threatened, temporary relief in respect of such dependants may have to be afforded, but the relief afforded in such circumstances cannot be regarded as relief given under the powers of the 1921 Act.
  In a case in which a man himself, though ordinarily able bodied, as a result of continued unemployment or otherwise is no longer physically able to perform work the case may be treated as one under the Act of 1845, and it is obviously proper in such cases that a medical report should be obtained."
  In a later Circular issued in June the necessity of having a most careful scrutiny in all cases at the earliest possible date was impressed on the parish councils in order to insure that only cases of acute destitution were being relieved. I only pause for a moment to say that on the whole it is clear that the relief was carefully and fairly administered by the parish councils and they are to be congratulated on the way they administered it.
  4.0 p.m.
  The next stage was that in the Autumn three test cases were raised in the Court of Sessions by ratepayers, at the appropriate stage, challenging the right of the parish councils to rate for this particular expenditure along with their other and lawful expenditure, and on the 15th December last the Lord Ordinary, Lord Constable decided the case. I do not propose to go in detail through his opinion, but he decided that such expenditure was illegal. Then at once arose the situation which this Bill proposes to remedy. I particularly wish to draw the attention of the House to this. It will have been observed that in 1921 we had already departed from our previous practice in order to bring ourselves nearer to the English situation, and, because of the spread of unemployment, to the English Law. We have brought within the realm of our Scottish Poor Law able-bodied persons, whereas prior to that date a person had to be not only destitute but also disabled before he was entitled to Poor Law relief. Then one had to consider what is to be the policy for the future so long as the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Act, 1921, is continued. It is quite clear that at the moment we must continue the Emergency Act, and, as I will mention later on, this Bill proposes to continue it from the forth-
  1612
  coming expiring date of 15th May this year for another three years until 1930. That being so, the Government have taken the view that this is a necessary corollary to that extension, therefore what this Bill is mainly deciding is not what is an important but a lesser question, as to how to bridge the gap, but the main question as to what is to be the policy until 1930 so long as we retain in our Scottish law this relief of the able-bodied person.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Why not make it permanent?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I think there are very good reasons for that. Undoubtedly, we shall have to reconsider a great deal in our Poor Law, and it is a pity to take it piecemeal.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is what you are doing.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The Government maintain that the continuation till 1930 of the present situation will give the House time to consider what is really a complete change.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Since 1921.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, there have been many things which have happened since then. But to come to what we are really considering now, the Government have taken the view that this relief of dependants of men under these circumstances should be continued so long as the Emergency Provisions Act continues, and that is the reason why this Bill has been brought in. The second question which arose—and I will deal with it more particularly on the Clause—is as to the bridging of the gap. The expenditure has been made on that basis since the beginning of last May. It has been incurred, and the question is what are we to do? I will deal with what we propose to do when I come to the Clause, but obviously it has to be dealt with somewhere or other, and it is fair enough to say, that if the House is satisfied, as I hope to satisfy it, that the basis we now propose is right, then obviously we must deal with the period that has passed on the same basis as we intend to deal with the future.
  Clause 1, Sub-section (1), as the House will notice, legalises or brings within the scope of our Poor Law the relief of the

  1613
  destitute dependant of any destitute able-bodied person who is out of employment owing to his being directly involved in a trade dispute, and Sub-section (2) makes that retrospective to the 30th April last and continues that provision so long as the Emergency Act of 1921 shall continue. Then Sub-section (3) applies the ordinary procedure to this extension. We have had representations made to us by the parish councils to the effect that, as the expenditure was incurred on the recommendation of the Government, it should be wholly met out of Government funds. The Government cannot agree to accept complete financial responsibility, nor do we agree that the expenditure was wholly incurred as the result of the Circular of 8th May. In many cases, the parish councils merely anticipated by a few days' expenditure which they themselves would have incurred in the ordinary course. Hon. Members should be aware that for something like 50 years it has been the practice of our parish councils not to wait until a man, by ill-health and want of work, becomes disabled before giving him relief; they take the humane view that you should relieve a bit earlier and prevent actual disablement happening.
  Mr. STEWART: That is only very recently.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It is since 1878.
  Mr. STEWART: I have known cases which have been treated very differently, and I speak from experience.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It may not have happened in all parishes.
  Mr. HARDIE: It is not general in Scotland.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: As far back as 1878 it was a recommendation from the Board, or their predecessors, that you should not carry that rule to the extreme and wait until a man was actually disabled, but should anticipate it by a short time for one reason, if for no other, that, apart from the humanitarian point of view, it is really more economical. There is an economy to be gained. All that I wanted to point out was that in a good many of these cases it is difficult to say, and I do not pretend to say, how much of this expenditure would have
  1614
  been incurred by the Parish Councils in the ordinary course, apart altogether from the Circular of the Government.
  Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Circular—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given way, but I think it would be better if hon. Members would allow him to make his statement. It is rather difficult to deal with such an intricate and legal matter, and it is not fair for hon. Members continually to interrupt.
  Mr. LAWSON: I quite understand that, and I would have been the last to interfere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was mentioning a Circular, and I simply wanted to know whether that was the same Circular as that published by the Ministry of Health to the rest of the country.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, the hon. Member is referring to the Circular of the 8th May. It is practically in identical terms with the Circular which the Ministry of Health in England sent out, so I understand; indeed, it was the proposal of the English Ministry of Health to send out that circular which raised the question whether Scotland was to get a similar circular or not in the beginning of May last. Obviously, it had to be decided some way or the other at once. In many cases, if the parish councils had not given this relief, the education authorities or the child welfare authorities—the public health authorities—would have had to incur a very large amount of expenditure just in the same way as, indeed, they did incur expenditure during the much shorter experience of 1921; and, as one knows, while expenditure by one of those methods is wholly met by the ratepayers, expenditure by the other is partly met, to the extent of one-half, I think, by a Government grant. In that way, the ratepayers would still have had to find, through those channels, a very large portion of the sum which we are now considering. Keeping that fact in view, the Government have come to the conclusion that, while the parish councils may plead for some substantial relief towards this cost, they cannot fairly claim to get the whole of it,

  1615
  and the proposal of the Government is contained in Clause 2, which provides for 40 per cent. of the approved expenditure being provided by the taxpayers of the country, and of course the necessary Financial Resolution will be submitted.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Will you explain the conditions?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the next Clause.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Clause 2.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It has got to be approved by the Board. There is another point that should be borne in mind. If the Law had been as we are now making it and if they had had the power which we now propose to give them and which already exists in England of making a loan instead of a grant, then any recovery by the parish councils would have been in small sums over a long period, which is never an economical proceeding, and which would have been more expensive than this grant from the Government which will wipe out some of the loans that they have got from the Goschen Committee and other sources.
  I now come to Clause 3. Under Clause 3, it is proposed to extend to Scottish parish councils the power at present possessed by boards of guardians to afford relief on loans, but the power proposed to be given is not confined to the particular relief which I have hitherto been considering, the relief to dependants of strikers, any more than it is in England. It will extend to relief, whether given under the Act of 1845 or the Act of 1921, and, in all such cases the recovery of the relief is possible in Scotland as an alimentary debt as we call it. Undoubtedly this power to give relief on loan has been found a substantially useful power in England, and we think it is right, if you are going to assimilate the Law in Scotland to the Law in England so far as to bring the able-bodied person within the lawful bounds of our Poor Law, then it is also right that you should adopt this addition as well seeing that it is an essential part of the existing English law. It is for that reason that we have put this power in. Obviously, that is not, a provision
  1616
  which you can make retrospective, and therefore it operates only from the present date.
  Finally, Clause 4 proposes to continue the Act of 1921, which otherwise would expire on the 15th May this year, for three years more until the 15th May, 1930. It will be continued as a result of this Bill without amendment, except as regards the point to which I have just referred, the power to give on loan.
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House, being of opinion that the additional cost thrown upon parish councils in Scotland in the provision of relief to dependants of miners affected by the stoppage in the mining industry should be made a national charge, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which limits the contribution from the National Exchequer to a maximum of 40 per cent. of this expenditure."
  This Bill seeks to legalise the payments made by parish councils in Scotland to dependants of miners during the recent coal stoppage. Those payments were made by our parish councils on the recommendation of the Scottish Board of Health. As has already been pointed out by the Lord Advocate, a Circular was issued by the Scottish Board of Health on 8th May, recommending parish councils to make such payments. Therefore in the carrying out of the recommendation there is no doubt that our parish councils were carrying out of the policy of the Scottish Board of Health. In carrying out this policy our parish councils incurred very heavy liabilities. Here are some examples of what the carrying out of the policy meant, particularly to some of our mining parishes. I give first the case of Ballingry, which is a purely mining parish. The total amount of emergency relief paid out in this parish was £18,360. That was the burden imposed on a population of 10,348 persons. It meant on the current year's rental approximately a rate of 8s. in the pound. In order to raise this money this small parish increased its debt to the alarming total of £27,996. Another parish, almost purely mining, is Auchterderran. The total amount that was paid out there, from May to December, in emergency relief, was £28,951. That again was a heavy burden on a population of roughly

  1617
  24,000 people. It meant a rate of 9s. in the £ on the current year's valuation, and the parish's burden of debt was increased to the alarming total of £41,888.
  One could go on giving example after example of how the carrying out of this policy of the Government raised the liabilities of our mining parishes. I have here also the figures for the parishes of Dunfermline, Wemyss and Beath, which I do not intend to take up the time of the House in quoting. Their experience has been similar to that of the two examples I have already given. As has been pointed out by the Lord Advocate already, exception was taken by certain ratepayers to the payment of the rates involved, on the ground that such payments were contrary to our established practice and to the Poor Law of Scotland of 1843 and 1921. A test case was taken to the Court of Session, and Lord Constable upheld the contention of the ratepayers and declared that payments which had been made by our parish councils in carrying out the Government policy were illegal and were not recoverable from the ratepayers. Naturally such a decision has caused great consternation, so far as our parish councils in Scotland are concerned. Already a deputation of the Scottish Parish Councils Association has put before the Secretary of State for Scotland a request that the Government should meet the whole of the cost. Personally, I think the circumstances are such that the parish councils are fully justified in putting forward that request.
  Not only are the parish councils alarmed at the position that has arisen, but there are other consequences to people who are quite as influential and who have been bringing their influence to bear on the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has already met deputations of employers of labour, Chambers of Commerce and others of that character. He has also had representations made to him by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, and others. So great is the interest taken in this matter in Scotland, that we ace to-day receiving telegrams protesting, not only against the terms of this Bill hut against the undue haste with which the Bill is being put before the House—a haste that has prevented a number of representative men from being present to-day in order to discuss this matter
  1618
  with their representatives in this House. I have here two telegrams—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have all got them!"]—which I have received, one from the Parish Councils Association and the other from the Scottish Steel, Iron and other Heavy Trades, strongly protesting against the character of the Government's proposals and against the undue haste with which the Government seeks to get the Bill through the House.
  This Bill is the Government's way of getting over the difficulty that has arisen regarding Poor Law administration in Scotland. We on the Labour benches consider that the whole cost involved ought to have been met by the Government. As I have stated, it is the Government's policy that was carried out by our parish councils, and if our parish councils as a result have got into an impossible position, such as the decision had undoubtedly placed them in, then it is the duty of the Government to meet the whole of the expenditure involved. All the parish councils in Scotland view with dismay the debt created in the carrying out of the instructions of the Scottish Board of Health in relieving the dependants of miners during the industrial dispute. Should such a burden have to be met by local ratepayers, undoubtedly it will put a handicap on industry for many years, and will be reflected in many other directions. That we would like to avoid. If the Government wish to do the right thing, they should forthwith declare their intention of meeting the cost involved. I hope that before the discussion closes to-day we shall have the Secretary of State for Scotland consenting, on behalf of the Government, to meet the whole cost. If we fail to get that undertaking, I hope that the House will see its way to support the Amendment which I have moved.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to reinforce the protest which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). I think all Scottish Members will agree, and certainly the parish councils of Scotland are agreed, that undue haste has been and is being displayed in connection with this Bill. That is not a thing which one can always say about Scottish legislation. It is very often far too dilatory, but in this case it is quite

  1619
  clear from the telegrams which we have received from Scotland that there is a great deal of fear that an injustice may be done to the ratepayers and the parish councils of Scotland if this Bill is rushed through during this week. I, personally, never saw it until this morning, and I think many of my colleagues are in the same position. It is bad enough to have the Second Reading to-day without any previous knowledge of any kind but to be told at Question time, as we were to-day—
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): It was announced last Thursday.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry to differ from my right. hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He is quite right in saying that an announcement was made last Thursday, but that announcement was quite the reverse of what he seems to suppose. We were all led to believe that many days must lapse before the Bill would appear on the Paper. Now, we have been told at Question time to-day that the Committee stage is to be taken to-morrow and that the Bill is to pass through all its stages this week. Nobody could listen to the very lucid exposition of the Bill by the Lord Advocate without coming to the conclusion that the parish councils are both defendants and appellants in this case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear to us that a very large amount of money is involved and that this Bill introduces what I regard as a very bad form of legislation, namely, retrospective legislation. He made it equally clear that Clause 3 of the Bill introduces for the first time, and suddenly, a new principle in the law of Scotland. This principle, it is true, has been in existence England for a long time, hut conditions in England are entirely different from conditions in Scotland. We are asked here suddenly to adopt in the legislative system of Scotland a principle which has been utterly unknown to the low of Scotland for centuries.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour)The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour) indicated dissent.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but if I listened to the admirable statement of the Lord Advocate aright he surely said that by Clause 3 of the Bill it is proposed to give the parish councils of Scotland the same power as boards of guardians in England have, namely, the power to give money on loan for relief purposes. That is an entirely new principle and it is introduced like a thief in the night. It is true that the representatives of the parish councils of Scotland have obviously seen my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but, as I understood what he said, they have only seen him upon one point and that is the very proper point which they have been advocating that the national Exchequer should in a case of this kind bear a far larger proportion of the burden than 40 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife went so far as to ask that the whole amount should be paid by the National Exchequer. If that proposal is put forward, I for one shall support it. Did the parish councils of Scotland realise when they saw the Secretary of State that this new principle was being introduced? I doubt it. I say, this principle has been introduced without the knowledge of a single Scottish Member of Parliament, and I beg of my right hen. Friend on the Treasury Bench to reconsider the situation. It is very dangerous indeed to interfere with the legislative system of Scotland in this way and I make my protest against it.
  I understand I cannot move the Adjournment of the Debate, as I would like to do, because I think I am entitled as a Scottish Member of Parliament to get the advice on this matter of ratepayers in Scotland through their appointed bodies, namely, the parish councils. True the Second Reading of the Bill may go through to-day, but I beg those in charge of it to consider again the advisability of postponing it until we have an opportunity of consulting the parish councils in Scotland who are so directly and deeply concerned in this Measure. As at present advised, I realise that the Government found the situation to be such that they had to take action at this time. What I am protesting against raw is not that they have taken action. Far from it. What I am protesting against, and I think I

  1621
  carry the great body of Scottish Members with me in that protest, is against taking action in this hurried fashion, before we have time to get the advice of the parish councils who alone know the ratepayers' point of view. I am certain my right hon. Friends on the Front Government Bench did all they could to find out the ratepayers' point of view, but have the ratepayers through the parish councils been consulted with regard to the Bill in its entirety? I am convinced they have not. I am convinced this new principle has never been discussed in the public prints of Scotland or at the Association of Parish Councils, and I therefore ask the Secretary of State to give the House and particularly the Scottish Members an opportunity for a full, frank and free discussion with those who, because of their status in Scotland, are in a proper position to advise on this subject.
  Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: There is no doubt as to the great interest and great anxiety which has been aroused by the subject dealt with in this Bill. The parish councils of Scotland were induced by the issue of circulars from the Scottish Board of Health to give relief to the wives and dependants of the miners who were on strike.
  Mr. WRIGHT: They were not on strike.
  Sir A. SPROT: Well I will put it that the councils were induced to give this relief during the labour dispute. They were induced by further circulars to continue that relief, and when they found that the finances of their councils were being injured and when bankers refused to give them further overdrafts, they were encouraged, if not compelled, by the Scottish Board of Health to take action in this respect. A great many members of parish councils were no doubt induced to believe that the Government were behind them in this matter and would support them by a grant from the Treasury if they did what the Board of Health demanded. There is no doubt about that fact. I have watched this matter during the whole of its progress with great interest and I have been in touch with the people concerned. I sympathise greatly with the members of the Scottish parish councils in the districts affected who were endeavouring to do
  1622
  their duty in very difficult circumstances. It now appears from Clause 2 of the Bill that the Government are prepared to give a partial grant towards the expenses which were incurred. The parish councils concerned, and other bodies, have passed resolutions demanding that in the circumstances the whole and not merely part of the expense should be borne by the Treasury. What we have to consider is: Are we justified in expecting that the whole of this expenditure should be borne in that way and should fall upon taxpayers who are not concerned with the mining districts and who derive no advantage from having mines or royalties in their parishes? Are we justified in expecting them to foot the bill? I agree that in the circumstances there was a moral claim that the Government should do something to help the parish councils in the matter, but I am not prepared to to go so far as my colleagues opposite and to say that the whole expenditure should be met from the Treasury.
  We were in doubt about this matter for a long time and in reply to a deputation and in other speeches which he made, the Secretary of State gave us to understand that the whole cost was to fall upon the ratepayers of these parishes. That caused great anxiety, and it is a relief to myself and to all concerned to find that, at any rate to the extent of 40 per cent., it is proposed to meet this expenditure by Treasury grant. I think the people of Scotland, and we Scottish Members, ought to be satisfied with that proposal. It would be a very difficult matter to persuade those who live in other districts not affected by the coal stoppage—English Members of Parliament and people living, say, in the South of England—to contribute in this way to Scottish expenses. I think we ought to accept what is offered by the Cabinet as a very handsome donation towards meeting the situation which has been so unfortunately created. We should be grateful to the Secretary of State for what he has done for Scotland in this matter. It cannot have been easy for him to go to the Cabinet and to plead the case of Scotland in this particular way. We all know money is not easy to get, and evidently the right hon. Gentleman had great hesitation in approaching the Cabinet on the matter. However, he did go before the Cabinet and he has been successful in persuading them to meet

  1623
  Scotland's case to a very large extent, and we ought to be grateful to him. There are other provisions in the Bill to which I will briefly refer. The power of giving relief by way of loan is a new thing in Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has pointed out.
  Mr. KIFIKWOOD: What about the pawnshops?
  Sir A. SPROT: That is a different matter. I do not see any objection to the introduction of this feature into the law of Scotland permanently as the Bill proposes. It would have been a very good thing if an Act of Parliament had been passed before the coal stoppage took place so that things might have proceeded in Scotland and in England on similar lines. Therefore, I am prepared to support that proposal. With regard to the prolongation of the Act of 1921 until 1930. I am not so sure about that point. I ask leave to consider whether it ought to be prolonged to that extent or not and I presume the point will be dealt with when the Bill becomes before the House in Committee. Finally, with regard to Sub-section (2), Clause 1, I do not see any good reason for continuing the provisions of Sub-section (1) as long as the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, continues in force. I think that has been brought in to meet an emergency, but the emergency is now over, and the provision ought to cease. I, therefore, reserve power to myself to propose an Amendment to the effect that that should come to an end, say, on the 31st March, 1927. I recommend my friends from Scotland on this side to accept the Bill as the best thing that can possibly be done to remedy the unfortunate state of affairs which we have slipped into.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: In the old days it was considered to be the duty of every parish solely to maintain its own poor, but in modern society I believe that view has been departed from, and no one any longer believes it is possible in an industrial community for an industrial area to maintain its own poor, where the bulk of the poor reside, while in the neighbouring parishes these is a very small number of poor, but the rich live and escape
  1624
  their share of Poor Law taxation. I really thought that by general consent that old parochial view, which might have been justified in mediæNal Scotland, after John Knox's time, had been departed from, and I was surprised to hear this voice from the early Victorian era this afternoon. I should like the Lord Advocate to understand something of the difficulties under which this Bill is being discussed this afternoon. To begin with, it has been shoved forward two days. It was to be discussed by arrangement on Thursday.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: May I make it clear? I find that in the OFFICIAL REPORT, giving the Business of the House on the 17th February, the Prime Minister said:
  "On Monday and on Tuesday and Wednesday up to 8.15, we shall further consider the Supplementary Estimates in Committee and on Report, and if time permit, we shall make progress with the Public Works Loans Bill and the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Bill. The business for Thursday will be announced later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1927; cal. 1112, Vol. 202.]
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely what the right hon. Gentleman has said has contradicted his own statement. The Public Works Loans Bill was put. on before this Bill, and in the statement he has just read Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday were to be devoted to Supplementary Estimates, and this Bill was to come on afterwards. That for a beginning, Secondly, as the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has said, we have had no opportunities of meeting the representatives of the parish councils in our areas and of discussing this Bill. Thirdly, there is a very great difficulty indeed in private Members of this House getting to know what the actual facts are regarding Poor Law taxation in the various parishes and districts of Scotland. If you go to the Report of the Scottish Board of Health, which I have in my hand, you cannot get the figures, and, so far as I can discover, they are in no printed paper in the Library. I know that the Lord Advocate may ask me to turn to Appendix 21 in the Report on the Scottish Poor Law, but that only gives 36 parishes and only deals with the rate per pound for the destitute able-bodied unemployed. It has nothing whatever to do with the

  1625
  dependants or with the general rate of taxation levied as poors rate in the various parishes in Scotland. If one wants, for example, further, to get Lord Constable's decision on this matter, one cannot even get that in the Library of the House of Commons. The Library of the House of Commons does not stock reports of the Court of Session. You can get similar reports of English law cases, but not those for Scotland. You can only go to the House of Lords Library and, by permission there, sit down and copy out what you want from the volumes in their possession. Here, therefore, is the curious situation, that you cannot get the figures or facts in your Library so far as Lord Constable's decision is concerned. The Bill is undoubtedly being rushed, and adequate consideration cannot be given to it in this House.
  I find that in Lord Constable's decision there is this statement, although I noticed that the Lord Advocate did not read it out. After he had decided against the parish councils in the case of David Colville contra the Daiziel Parish Council, and that the Daiziel Parish Council had no right m law to levy for the dependants of able-bodied men who had opportunities to work offered to them, he said:
  "The Board of Health might relieve those responsible for the payment."
  It was evidently the considered opinion of the Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session that morally, at any rate, it was the duty of the Government to relieve those responsible.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is under quite a misunderstanding as to what Lord Constable said. Lord Constable was referring to the Board of Health, on a report by the auditor, having power to withhold the surcharges, and the effect of that would mean that the parish council would be entitled to recover from the ratepayers, but that the members of the parish council would not be personally liable for the expenditure. It has nothing to do with the Government.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I am quoting textually from Lord Constable's words. He said:
  "The Board of Health might relieve those responsible for the payment."
  1626
  Those responsible for the payments were undoubtedly the parish councils in Scotland, and undoubtedly they were acting under, if not the instructions, the explicit recommendations of the Board of Health when these payments were made. I am not a lawyer, but it is quite clear to me that—
  The LORD ADVOCATE: That does not correspond with the Report that I have. May I read a sentence or two to make it clear?
  "All that is left to the Beard is the exercise of their discretionary power to relieve those responsible for the payments, and the fact that the Board themselves considered the position at the time will the better enable them to judge whether it would be fair and equitable that those who actually authorised the payments should be made personally responsible therefor."
  The question is one between personal liability or an ordinary recovery by the parish council by a rate.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman does not read out the sentence which I have quoted.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Because it is not there.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I found it in the Session Notes of the Court of Session, to be found in Number 9 of the series in the House of Lords Library to-day, and it is an official document.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It is a summary.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The Lord Advocate says it is a summary, but, at any rate, it is a summary drafted by some Law Officer of the Crown.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: No.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Here we have it that these documents are not official, that that statement made in official Papers in the House of Lords Library, purporting to be the decision of the Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session on an important matter of this kind, is only a summary and does not reflect, according to the Lord Advocate, what Lord Constable really said. I repeat that the sentence from his decision that I have quoted is textually accurate. He said:
  "The Board of Health might relieve those responsible for the payment."

  1627
  I submit to this House that that is not capable of the construction that the Lord Advocate pretends to be putting upon it. As I have already said, I do not know what is the position of men in the parish councils. The right hon. Member for Western Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) gave the figures, I think, for three parishes. There was one of 9s. in the town, I think,, of Auchterderran, another of 8s., and there was a third, but what are the figures for the industrial parishes? Nobody knows. Nobody can say whether relief to the extent of the maximum of 40 per cent. in these cases is seriously going to affect the position at all. Hon. Members opposite are continually telling us that what we want to do in this House is to give industry a chance. Most of these industrial parishes are parishes where industries have been very hard hit, where they are producing commodities of one kind and another in competition with industries settled in more favoured parishes or even countries, and here, in these heavily hit parishes, some of them with rates, perhaps, of 18s., 19s., 20s. or 27s. in the £, the Government come along and, as a maximum, propose only to allow them relief to the extent of 40 per cent.. on an expenditure which was really imposed upon these parishes by a decision or a Circular issued by the Scottish Board of Health.
  If the Lord Advocate will look at page 272 of the last Annual Report of the Scottish Board of Health, which is only for 1925, and does not at all cover the situation that has arisen in 1926, he will find that in the city which I jointly represent with my hon. Friend on my left. (Mr. Scrymgeour), in regard to the number of able-bodied unemployed persons, excluding dependants, on the whole of the Poor Law—and I want to interpolate that this is due to the maleficent activities of the Minister of Labour—the percentage increase for one year was actually 468 per cent.—an increase of 468 per cent. in one year on the numbers of able-bodied poor for whom the parish council was compelled to find relief. That was not the worst year. Now we have got 1926, and we do not know what the figures are. Nobody in this House, unless it be the Secretary of State for Scotland himself, has had an opportunity of collecting the figures, and we
  1628
  do not know what they are. Here is a Bill, of vital importance to the people of Scotland and to the ratepayers in the industrial parishes, being rushed through this House, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty that it is unjust and unfair when you find that in 1925 one parish, the parish of Douglas, has to levy its ratepayers 1s. 9d. in the £ for able-bodied poor, not considering the dependants at all, and than there is a whole string of other towns only levying id. What are the figures now? Nobody can tell. The whole basis of taxation requires complete revision, and I submit that this Bill is only a farce and is being rushed through before the people of Scotland can adequately grasp what the situation is, but once they do, there will be a great outcry and agitation. In conclusion, I want to refer to the importance of Clause 3. Here is an innovation in Scottish Poor Law.
  5.0 p.m.
  Here, for the first time since the John Knox Settlement, the first time for four centuries, you have slipped into a Bill, which is presumably going to relieve local rates to the extent of 40 per cent. for a certain expenditure, the provision that for the future any parish council may in any ease not give relief at all unless by way of a loan. That applies not only during a dispute but for all time. The poor have silently shoved on to them by way of loan, no longer by way of grant, debt piled up on debt. The miseries of the poor are to be made greater than they were before. I do not say that this will apply in every case, but I say that the right hon. Gentleman is slipping into the Bill that which is not relevant. This has nothing to do with the immediate problem of getting out of the Constable decision, but it is a new provision which is slipped into the Bill which is being rushed through this House in two days before the people in Scotland know what is happening. I trust that a large number of hon. Members will register their protest in the Lobbies by voting against this Bill.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: If the House is to appreciate accurately the reason for the introduction of this Bill this afternoon, hon. Members need to recognise the very exceptional circumstances of last year. What are the facts of the case? We had

  1629
  a complete coal stoppage, not only in England but also in Scotland. Under that state of affairs, where you had a stoppage existing in both countries, is it possible that we could have relief given to dependants of the men connected with that stoppage in England, and not also given out to the dependants of the men connected with that stoppage in Scotland Therefore, I would have imagined that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), when he commenced his speech, might rather nave expressed some word of thanks to the, Secretary of State for Scotland for having brought some measure of relief to the homes of our miners in Scotland. He gave instances where parishes were having to find very large sums of money, and of course he wishes those moneys to be found from some other source. But when he pleads that in England the local people have a burden to bear, must we not realise that in Scotland, with the same stoppage, we cannot expect the local people there not also to bear heavy burdens? The right hon. Gentleman the Members for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said that this Bill was being pushed through with undue haste. When we recognise the financial confusion which exists in those parishes where that money has been found, is it not essential that a Bill should be brought into this House soon as possible in order to clear up that unsatisfactory state of affairs. Therefore, I think that this Bill, in being brought forward at the very beginning of the Session, is being brought forward in Scottish interests, and I, as a Scottish Member, welcome the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon.
  The Bill proposes that we should assimilate conditions in Scotland with those in England. In doing that, is it not right, when we see what the stoppage has done in both countries, that the treatment for the relief of those people in both countries should be on somewhat similar lines. When we realise what this Bill proposes, we are bound to recognise that, in fairness to the ratepayers both in England and Scotland, this Bill is framed on model lines. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) twitted my hon. Friend the Member for Northern Lanark (Sir A.
  1630
  Sprot) that he was taking a parochial view when he rather indicated that the parishes should bear or could bear their own burdens. Of course, in the future an enlarged treatment of Poor Law administration may be required and might be an advantage, but surely this afternoon we have not the time nor the opportunity to go into that very large question. Is it not right that we ought to meet this exceptional case which is before us at the present time? This Bill is brought in to straighten out this financial difficulty which exists in many of our industrial areas. Is it not right that this emergency Measure should be brought forward so that the people there will know how they are going to stand and how they will get relief? For those reasons I heartily welcome this Measure this afternoon, and I am perfectly sure that public opinion in Scotland will consider that it is a fair and reasonable compromise to settle a very difficult and intricate problem.
  Mr. BARR: I do not propose to follow what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite save to say that I do not know at all on what grounds he supposes that this Bill will be acceptable to opinion in Scotland generally. I have not known in recent times any question that has excited such an amount of opposition from all sections of the community as this particular Bill has done. I should like, first of all, to bring home if I can something of the responsibility of the Government in this matter. On 8th May last they issued a Circular. It is fair to say that it was guarded in several respects. It pointed out that if men were actually able-bodied and were connected with the dispute, they could not in any case be given benefit. It further called upon the parish councils to conserve their resources in view of what might be a prolonged dispute, but it went on to indicate a particular scale, and it was particularly careful to point out that in a matter of this kind the parish councils could not take account of the merits of the dispute. They had to look to the relief of distress, and it encouraged them further to go forward. That is in the thirteenth clause of that Circular. It really encouraged them to go forward and deal with those cases in their ordinary lines of administration, with the view of giving relief.
  I should have thought that the Lord Advocate to-day would have given us

  1631
  some strong reasons for taking up this position. Surely, when the Government issued this Circular they had some idea that they were acting legally, or at least that there might be some legal justification for their action. As a matter of fact, we had no statement at all to-day from the Lord Advocate of any reason that the Government had in their minds at that time which led them to believe that the action they were taking was legitimate and would be justified in the Court. All that the Lord Advocate said was that, whether it was legal or not, they thought that it was surely the right thing to do. The other reason he gave was that a different system prevailed in England, and that it was so far right that we should assimilate our practice to the practice in England. That is surely no reason for bringing such a large recommendation as was contained in the Circular before the parish councils of Scotland, leading them to take action on the lines they did. As a matter of fact, I do not hold that if no circular had been issued there would have been none of this relief granted, because it was made plain by the Lord Ordinary in the Hamilton case that there had been precedents, and that was pleaded by the parish councils then. But I do hold that it gave an enormous impetus, coming as it did from a high authority. Not only did it initiate this movement, but it led to the continuance of it, and that in no few ways. For example, when the Cambusnethan Parish Council refused to grant relief of this kind, the Scottish Board of Health came forward with a strong representation to them that they should give it. That was done in that case and also in other cases. It is quite true that in that case the Cambusnethan Parish Council did not give relief—at least not in that way—but there you had a strong case put forward not only in the circular, hut in other ways, and you had the Scottish Board of Health insisting on this relief being given. Not only so, but it led to its continuance in another way.
  One of the arguments used by Lord Moncrieff, the Lord Ordinary in the Hamilton case, was that he might have been inclined to grant an interim interdict to disturb the status quo, but he could not think of doing that when there was the influence of a Government De-
  1632
  partment, with its authority, behind what had been done. He pointed out that that might have no effect on the final decision, but the influence of it had weighed with him in refusing to grant an interim interdict at the time, and allowing this to go on. So in the case of the Dalziel Parish Council—with regard to which Lord Constable's judgment was given in the end—when they had gone to their limit with the bank, when their credit to this extent was exhausted, and when they came before the Scottish Board of Health asking if they were to go forward in this and that they were not only to continue relief but also to stand in and to exercise all their powers, the Board said that they would not instruct them, but they would strongly influence and advise them to go forward in the way of granting relief. Indeed, the memorandum of the council said that the Scottish Board of Health sent a voluminous letter of reasons why they should not stop paying relief to miners' dependants. Further action was taken by the Hamilton ratepayers, the Dalziel ratepayers and others, and when the parish councils asked the Scottish Board of Health what they should do in the circumstances, they were again told that they should defend these actions and continue giving relief.
  I think I have made out a very strong case for the continued responsibility of the Scottish Board of Health in regard to these payments. I am not speaking as one who is critical of the Government in what they did in this regard. In many ways I sympathise with their decision, and in some ways I was glad that they did what they did. First of all, I consider it was an act of humanity that they did provide some way in which relief should be given to miners' dependants in the circumstances, and, as a matter of fact, the memorandum of the Dalziel Parish Council says that from the moment they knew they would have the hacking of the Scottish Board of Health, they could not do otherwise on grounds of humanity than give this support which has been declared to he illegal. Further, as pointed out in the decision of Lord Moncrieff, as Lord Ordinary, he did not feel he could come in and stop the ordinary administration of the parish councils, that they were called upon to do the task of relieving destitution, that they should continue to do that unham-

  1633
  could not take upon himself the responsibility of interfering with the granting of that relief in the ordinary course.
  Further, I think the Government were really seeking to, relieve the harshness of the old Scottish law in this matter. I do say the old Scottish law is harsh as compared with the English law. It meant that no able-bodied person, on any consideration whatsoever, could be granted relief either for himself or his family. The law was as stubborn against his wife and family as against himself. They stood exactly in the same position, and they could not be relieved from distress as long as he was able-bodied, and work was available. It means, as the Lord Advocate has said to-day, that we have here a far-reaching issue. Here is the situation as strictly interpreted by Lord Constable. During a strike, he argued, the pit-heads had notices up that there was work available. A man, therefore, could not get unemployment benefit. He could not get the benefit of relief from the parish council. Work was available, and he was bound to accept whatever were the conditions offered. I say, quite frankly, that if that be the law, it differs, in my view, little from slavery, if a man has no option but to accept the conditions and the wages which may be put up at the pit-head.
  On the ground of equity in the districts, the incidence of this rate, I think, should be, much more equalised, and indeed, if possible, the Government should meet the whole charge. Of two parishes in my own constituency, one, Cambusnethan, refused to give any relief whatsoever to miners and their dependents, save that in the end they were willing to give a contribution of, I think, £100 a week to the soup kitchen, and that also will have to be legalised, because, in the judgment of Lord Constable, there is no legal authority for that, unless you take each child by itself and allot it relief of that kind. In the same constituency there is another parish council which says, "We are anxious, on humanitarian grounds, to spend up to our utmost limit. We begin with 12s. in respect of a woman, and 4s. in respect of a child. Rather than cut it off altogether, we will come down to 6s. in respect of a woman and 2s. 6d. in
  1634
  respect of a child, and we will go on spending to the extent of 217,000," as they did, and the result now is that the parish that was loyal to the Scottish Board of Health, the parish that was loyal to what, was put forward by the Government, is to pay at least £10,000 of that large expenditure, and the parish. that was disloyal and did nothing is to get off free. I say that, on the ground of equalising the burden, we should have something quite different from what is. set before us in this Bill.
  Then, I think, we need also to consider ability to pay. I have already indicated that in the parish of Dalziel £17,000 was spent for the relief of miners' dependents. That works out at 10d. per £ on. the owner, and 10d. per £ on the occupier—a total of 1s. 8d. per £. There are neighbouring districts still worse. In Hamilton, for example, the amount is equal to a rate of 2s. 10½d. per £ on the owner, and 2s. 100. per £ on the occupier £55. 9d. per £ in all, to make up the £55,000 they have spent; and in the neighbouring parish of Bothwell, where £74,000 was spent, an assessment is required of 7s. in the £ to meet this expenditure.
  That brings me to the last point I wish to emphasise as between one district and another. My constituency has had, unfortunately, an uncommonly hard time for the last six years, largely dependent as, it is on the steel and iron trade, and on coal mining. The steel work labourers are earning something like 30s. a week and the engineers 55s., the average over the whole district. in the steel industry being something like £3 or £3 1s. a week, and you are asking that the burden of this rating should fall heaviest on these highly-rated districts, which are depressed, and have been depressed for many years. More than that, as has been shown in a memorandum prepared by the Dalziel Parish Council, not a few, especially of the owner occupiers, have reached the limit of rating, and will be carrying the whole property at a loss, even with the relief which is given by the Government. The hon. and gallant Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir A. Sprot) spoke about certain areas adjoining that had little to do with mining or' the dispute; but in those very areas, there are some people who were most: closely connected with the dispute. Some-

  1635
  times the coal owner himself is living in a happily situated area, and escaping the taxation that falls so heavily on these adjoining industrial areas.
  I put myself behind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife in this Amendment. I would be relieved if there were any possibility of the Government even considering some higher percentage than they propose in this Bill. As the Bill stands, we are still putting an enormous and impossible bruden on the very poorest areas. The destruction of the poor is their poverty, and you are laying new burdens on the poor. You are giving a new form of relief to the rich, and you are doing nothing to lessen the incidence of taxation. I think the hon. and gallant Member for North Lanark spoke about the difficulty of finding money. In the memorandum I have here, although the figures are subject to correction, the total sum is put at £500,000. Even if the Government were to pay the whole of that £500,000, what is that? We have seen them able to give relief of £10,000,000 at a stroke to the Super-tax payers. Surely, then, they can relieve these poor industrial, heavily-rated areas in a matter of this kind. It does not mean much to the Government—a mere bagatelle—hut it means a very great deal to these poor, distressed areas. Unless something is done, and that very quickly, to relieve this burden of rating which is falling so unjustly, by a far-reaching change in the methods of taxation, you will speedily see in Scotland a rising against the present system, an irresistible claim for a more just system of taxation, and a more equitable distribution of the burdens as well as the resources of the country.
  Mr. KIDD: It would appear that the limits of this Debate are, first, was a compassionate allowance justifiable; and, secondly, is this settlement equitable? T have not heard a single speaker take exception to the Secretary of State for Scotland shutting an eye to the strict letter of the law, and indulging in a compassionate allowance. I understand that all Members in the House are entirely at one on this point, that in giving this relief the Secretary of State for Scotland acted in a way that Members of all parts of this House
  1636
  would wish him to act. That being so, the only point remaining is, is this an equitable settlement? I would not be so disloyal to my native instinct as to deny having a certain sympathy-with placing the burden on a larger scale upon our English neighbour, but I should be entirely mistaken in the character of my English neighbour, generous and ingenuous as he is compared with his northern friend, if I expected him to be more generous towards us. Observe! Having conceded the point that the Secretary of State for Scotland acted rightly in ignoring the law and giving those allowances, it is impossible that we should do otherwise than admire the extraordinary success he has had in getting so much from the British Exchequer. I do not think the Secretary of State ever showed more successfully his Scottish extraction.
  As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), speaking with one eye on his constituency, I could not help wondering what he would have done. We can imagine him coming from the Exchequer with a grant of £260,000, cocking his beaver and looking as happy as a pup with two tails. That would have been his attitude had he been Secretary of State for Scotland. But quite seriously, do not let it go out to the country that any hon. Member in any part of the House has failed in his duty in this matter. It would be misrepresenting the position of the Government to suggest that in the circumstances anything more could have been done. The English Members in this House would have an extraordinarily good case against this grant, because all the power that an English board of guardians has is to give a loan. I quite recognise that in nine cases out of ten, owing to the difficulties of the situation, that loan will not be recovered; but if it is not recovered, who is it, who will bear the burden? Not the Exchequer, but the English ratepayers. Therefore, in this £260,000 we have got something extra as compared with our English friends; at the same time I would remark that we are entitled to it. It is entirely within the option of an English board of guardians to give a loan, it is entirely within their option as to whether they will press for its re-

  1637
  covery or themselves liquidate the loan, whereas we had no option and have no right of recovery. With the law against us, we did what we did under the guidance of a Government Department, and that, of course, involves some equitable payment by the Government.
  I have a certain sympathy with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) respecting the provisions of this Bill under which we subvert not only the letter of Scottish law, but, I should say, the spirit also. I should have liked to hear the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) champion this spirit of the Scottish Poor Law. As I understood him, his chief complaint is that the actual provisions of the Poor Law were not applied, and the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Fife was:
  "The law allows it, the Court awards it."
  That is the only case he could put up. It is a sound doctrine that, if a man is fit to work and can get work the ratepayers ought not to have to keep him. I share the suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty about the Clause in the Bill which revolutionises our law. Let me put the case thus. In the last coal stoppage, pits were brought to a standstill, although the wage asked for by the men was offered to them. They were stopped in order to make the coal stoppage general. But am I to understand that it is contended that in those circumstances the general body of ratepayers should make an allowance to the men who stopped work I Again, in scores of districts the wages offered were bigger than were to be obtained in any other industry in the area. I speak for a county which has been particularly hard hit, which has had both shale troubles and coal troubles. Let no hon. Members on the benches opposite imagine I am not deeply sympathetic with them when they deplore the height reached by the rates. I know of one district where the principal industry is at a standstill, where the rates are something like 22s. in the £, where the only industry has disappeared, and the rates prohibit the creation of any other industry there.
  1638
  want to hear what is the case from the opposite side of the House with regard to the Poor Law. If in future there is to be a stoppage of work simply because a general stoppage has been decreed, is that to involve the ratepayers in the payment of relief, although the men concerned can get the wage they want if they care to take it, or where the wage is larger than the wage which can be afforded by other industries in the district? I see that as a possibility under this proposal to revolutionise our law, and even at the risk of being misrepresented by a clergyman as being flint-hearted I ten thousand times prefer to have our law of 1845, which embodies the spirit of thrift and independence of the Scottish people, to any law which would cultivate the pauper spirit on a universal scale. I am comforted, however, by the thought that the introduction of this Clause may be for the moment only, and by the thought that the Poor Law is likely to undergo revision not later than 1930. I say frankly to the Secretary of State for Scotland that but for the indication given to us by the. learned Lord Advocate in his lucid speech that this Bill is of the nature of stop-gap legislation and that the provisions disturbing our Poor Law system in Scotland are later to be revised in some big revision of the Poor Law of the country, I should have been inclined not only to sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty but to support him in his speech.
  I do not want to say more than that I think it is common ground that this compassionate allowance was justifiable. I have not seen a, scintilla of evidence to combat the case of the Secretary of State that his settlement is strictly equitable. If I keep before myself the fact that the parish councils—this is not a matter of speculation; I am basing myself on the experience of 1921—would have paid through other agencies at least as much as, if not considerably more than, they will have to pay now, even taking into account the extra allowance, I am satisfied that the Secretary of State, in getting 40 per cent. of the total, has done a very great service to the parishes. Being a Scotsman, I should naturally prefer 100 per cent., but having a modicum of fairness I recognise that I could not estab-

  1639
  lish a case for 100 per cent. against my English friends,, and I even recognise that they are not being severely critical in agreeing to 40 per cent. For all these reasons I hope the House will be at one in offering congratulations to the Secretary of State for Scotland on having done so much to relieve the burden on so many overburdened parishes.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: We have listened to four speeches from the supporters of the Government. The first, to which I listened with great attention, was as clear and as fair a statement of the law in relation to Poor Law administration in Scotland as this House has heard for a long time. It was a quite fair, quite clear and quite straightforward and unbiased statement on things as they are. The three other speeches are in direct contradistinction to the clear and fair statement of the Lord Advocate; they exhibit confusion of thought and lack of logic. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir A. Sprot) suggested that he was very critical of a particular Clause in this Bill which seeks to continue the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 7921, in connection with the relief of able-bodied poor. His argument was that the necessity for that particular law had passed. He does not seem to realise that there are a larger number of able-bodied unemployed with no means of getting assistance except from the parish councils than ever there were before. His constituency in North Lanarkshire is different from mine, but I do not think I am wrong in saying that in North Lanarkshire, as in Peebles and in Midlothian, there are scores of men who previously drew unemployment benefit who cannot now get extended benefit and must apply to the parish councils for relief. But for the continuance of the particular Bill to which the hon. Member is objecting, and on which he is going to move an Amendinent—
  Sir A. SPROT: I am afraid the hon. Member has misunderstood me. I do not oppose the continuance of the 1921 Bill, but of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. The whole of his speech has been made under a misapprehension.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I am within the recollection of the House. The hon. Member stated quite definitely that in
  1640
  place of allowing 1930 to remain in the Bill he was prepared to move an Amendment. There is only one reference to 1930. It proves the confusion of thought there is on the part of the hon. Member. Clause 4 makes a definite reference to 1930 and deals with the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Soctland) Act, 1921.
  Sir A. SPROT: I would refer the hon. Member to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, in which it is proposed to extend the provisions of the first Sub-section so long as the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, continues in force. That is the point at which I propose to put down an Amendment, and not the other.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Now we are getting still more confusion of thought because you have to read Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, together with Section 4, which deals with exactly the same thing, namely, the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921. Now we realise that instead of that Act being continued until 1930 an Amendment is going to be moved that it be continued until 1927. May I suggest that the gospel of the Postmaster-General might be al le to meet the case, and that is that when anybody is going to cause you any trouble you should shoot them.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hardly think this can arise on a Bill dealing with the Scottish Poor Law.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I was only suggesting that the' Government might get out of all their troubles by giving the same advice. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Sir H. Hope) made a special plea for this legislation because of the exceptional conditions connected with the provision of the relief we are now seeking to make legal. I do not think anybody would object to legislation dealing with exceptional conditions, but what we have in mind is the great lock-out of the miners in Scotland, England and Wales, and the Scottish law was not the same as the English law so far as the providing of relief for the destitute is concerned. The relief was granted on the advice of the Minister of Health as a result of a memorandum issued by the Scottish Board of Health. I agree that that advice helped to relieve the situation so far as the trouble in Scotland was concerned, and

  1641
  I agree that but for the issue of that memorandum many of the poor people who were granted relief would not have been relieved at all. Therefore, I have no complaint to make so far as the administrative side of that matter is concerned.
  Having issued that memorandum and relief having been granted, we find that a ease was taken to the Law Courts, and the granting of such relief was declared to be illegal. I do not think anybody would complain about legalising illegal payments. I would point out, however, that in the retrospective legislation we have had before those who had incurred financial responsibilities, through doing something which was not legal, have always been cleared of that responsibility. There are two sets of persons involved in this illegality. First of all, there are the parish councils. No one suggests that they are to be held responsible for having carried out the humane instructions of the Board of Health. The second set of persons who are to be considered are the ratepayers. Why should they pay 60 per cent. in connection with an illegal payment? Hon. Members will recollect that on one occasion we had retrospective legislation to make legal an illegal act of the Attorney-General, hut the Attorney-General in that case was not asked to pay any of the expenses, because this House exonerated him entirely. Therefore, I think we should do the same thing in regard to the parish councils and the ratepayers. I am sure no one on this side would object to passing legislation for the purpose of dealing with emergency conditions and putting right what was an illegal act so far as the parish councils and their payments are concerned. We have been told that there is only one thing for us to discuss, and it is whether the 40 per cent. paid by the Government is just and equitable.
  This Measure seeks to establish a new procedure so far as Scottish Poor Law is concerned, and it contains something which ought to be resisted by every Scottish Member, because it seeks to penalise the poor on account of their poverty. The Poor Law in England allows you to relieve only a person who is destitute, but we are now asked in this Bill to place upon the Statute Book a Clause
  1642
  which will allow the parish councils merely to lend sums of money or provide goods and charge it as a loan to the recipients. In other words, you are going to make the poor pay for their poverty, and I hope this particular proposal will be rejected. If a Second Reading be given to this Measure, I hope the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills will fight this proposal word by word and line by line.
  It bas been said that this Measure will pauperise our people, but I resent that statement. We do not want any legislation that will pauperise; if people are in despair and misery, they are at least entitled to have food. I would like to point out that it was not the miners who caused the recent dispute. We have heard that in some instances the miners were offered the same wages as they were receiving before the stoppage, but I challenge the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) to give me a single case of a mine where it was open for any miner to return to work with a guarantee that he would receive the old terms and that they would be maintained. Will the hon. Member for Linlithgow give me a single district throughout the length and breadth of Scotland where the old wages were guaranteed to the miners for a given period if they would only go back to work? There is not a single case where the old conditions were offered. Certainly there are cases where the old wages were offered in some instances during the dispute.
  Mr. KIDD: I gave two illustrations. In one case, I was dealing with a colliery which was prepared to pay the old wages, and that mine had to close down because of the general character of the stoppage. I also gave the case of a colliery which offered a wage which was refused because it was below the standard desired, although it was very much larger than could be obtained in any other industry in that district.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: No hon. Member of this House is entitled to make statements without being able to prove them, and I repeat that there is not a single instance in Scotland where the old conditions were offered or where there was any guarantee. I know that the old wages were offered in some instances, but, whatever were the terms of settle-

  1643
  ment, they were to apply so far as those particular collieries were concerned. I resent the suggestion that any of the miners who got relief during that dispute were paupers. As a matter of fact, the coal owners have been paupers up to the present time, and they have been living on the backs of the workers.
  Mr. KIDD: I made no such suggestion. I quite understand the tone of the hon. Member's speech, but he is entirely misrepresenting my argument.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: At any rate, the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will show whether I am misrepresenting the hon. Member or not. It has been asserted that this legislation was for the purpose of pauperising our people, but when we have seen the Report of the Proceedings then we shall be able to deal with this subject again at some other time. The provision of the relief should be upon equal conditions in England and in Scotland. This Bill does not make it equal, because it is of a retrospective character The Measure proposes to make a loan to those recipients of relief during the mining dispute in Scotland, and, therefore, the conditions are not equal. This it legislation to deal merely with emergency conditions, and, in dealing with illegal payments of this kind, there was every justification for the Government paying the whole 100 per cent., because it is retrospective legislation. We want a real relief of destitution, and not a piling up of debt on account of the poverty of the people. For these reasons, I am going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and I shall support the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel THOM: I rise to support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not approve of every provision which is included in the Measure, hut, as a Scotsman, I am not going to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which provides for Scotland a sum of £260,000. I wish at the outset to dissociate myself from a certain line of criticism which has been directed against the Government and against the Scottish Office in connection with this affair. I do not say that the criticism to which I refer has been made in this House, but it has been made in different parts of the country. There is no doubt
  1644
  about it that, in handling the situation as they did during the nine months of the stoppage, the Scottish Office could have acted in no other way whatever. This Bill is in the nature of an Indemnity Bill, a kind of legislation to which we are not entirely unaccustomed in this country. In the past, it has sometimes been found to be necessary to introduce such legislation to legalise acts which were illegal when committed, and generally such legislation has taken the form of proposals to legalise acts committed by officials of Government in time of danger or during a national crisis. It is one of the fundamental principles of our constitution that if a situation does arise not contemplated by law and which the law does not meet, it is not only necessary but it is the duty of the Government even to break the law in order to meet that situation.
  6.0 p.m.
  That situation arose in Scotland in April and May of last year, and there was only one line of action that the Government could have followed, namely, the line that they took. Consider what would have been the position if in Scotland the parish councils had confined themselves to carrying out the strict, limiting provisions of the Act of 1845. In England you would have had the boards of guardians giving outdoor relief—unemployment relief—to the dependants of miners, while in Scot-hind that relief would not have been given; across the Border a different set of circumstances would have existed. If that had been permitted, within a week—less than a week—the situation in Scotland would have got completely nut of hand, and would have resulted in consequences which one shudders to contemplate. Therefore, I say that the criticism which in many quarters of the country has been directed against the Government on this particular point is quite unjustified.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) suggested that my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate had not given sufficient reasons for the course which the Government pursued; but might I say this, that the Government can adduce, in support of the line which they took, so eminent and notable an authority as Professor Dicey, the most eminent authority en the British Constitution. May I remind the House of what that eminent authority said, dealing with this very subject of

  1645
  retrospective legislation? We all agree that retrospective legislation is bad in principle, but there are occasions when it is absolutely essential, and Professor Dicey, referring to this point, says:
  "There are times of tumult when for the sake of legality itself the rules of law must be broken. The course which the Government must then take is clear. The Ministry must break the law and trust for protection to an Act of Indemnity. A Statute of this kind "—
  and I wish the House to note these words—
  "a Statute of this kind is the last and supreme exercise of Parliamentary sovereignty. It legalises illegality. It affords practical solution of the problem of how to combine the maintenance of law and the authority of the Houses of Parliament with the free exercise of that kind of discretionary power or prerogative which, under same shape or other, must at critical junctures be wielded by the executive Government of every civilised country."
  That is the principle upon which the Government proceeded. In support of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), I would point out that Professor Dicey says that this form of legislation is
  "the last and supreme exercise of Parliamentary sovereignty."
  Therefore, I would propound to the House two principles which I think must refer to all kinds of legislation of this kind. First of all, I say—and I do not think there is any reason for contradicting this, and I do not think it will be seriously refuted in any part of the House—that this kind of legislation, this Indemnity Bill, must be strictly confined to legalising the particular acts which have been committed and which are illegal, and it must not be made the vehicle of wide and far-reaching changes in the law of the land. I think the Bill does offend against that principle. It introduces, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a principle which has been entirely unknown to the law in Scotland, a principle which is not admitted as a real and true interpretation of the law even of England; and, though the principle has been acted upon for 25 years, since the Merthyr Tydvil Judgment, that judgment, upon which these payments have been made, is a judgment which has not been considered by the Court of Appeal. While I do not wish to question the authority of the Court which decided
  1646
  that case, or to question the principle which is there laid down, it undoubtedly is the fact that amongst legal authorities in England the sanity and rectitude of that rule is not admitted.
  The other princple which I suggest should apply to legislation of this kind is that, so far as possible, it should not result in the penalising of any section of the community, and, so far as that point is concerned, I find myself in almost absolute agreement with many hon. Gentlemen opposite. The argument, so far as it has come from the other side, would seem to be simply that the Government, representing the nation, directed the parish councils in Scotland to make these payments; that the Government must take the responsibility; that the nation is represented by the Government, and that, therefore, the whole nation must foot the bill, and this burden must not rest upon those particular districts which air affected in Scotland. That is a very simple argument, but the question, really, is not so simple as it looks. What is the law in Scotland? What is the law which the Government did not put into operation? The law is this: If a man allows his family to fall into destitution when he can get work, and does not provide them with the necessaries of life, he is haled before the Court and put into prison. Of course, no one suggests that such a course would be taken, or could possibly be taken, at the time of a strike or stoppage like the stoppage which this country experienced last year. But, even if we had tap en it, the burden which would have fallen upon the ratepayers would, I think, have been immensely greater than the burden which has: fallen upon them at present. There is also this consideration to take into account, to show how really difficult the question is. In England the burden is met by the local ratepayers. Now Scotland comes forward and asks them, in addition to bearing their own proportion of the burden in England, to help the ratepayers in Scotland to discharge their-burden. Although it may be necessary in the circumstances, and there may be a great deal to be said for it, as I admit there is in the circumstances, on the other hand it just shows that the position is not so simple, and that there are grave considerations which must be taken into account when we are to decide whether the nation is to bear the whole

  1647
  burden of this extra taxation which resulted from the giving of unemployment relief to miners' dependants in Scotland during the coal stoppage.
  I would say that, while I support this Bill because it does bring a certain amount of relief to those districts in Scotland, I must register my protest against many of the far-reaching principles which are for the first time introduced into the legislation of this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite rightly complain that the burden upon these necessitous areas and upon these mining parishes at the present moment is greater than they can really bear, and that industry in those parts of the country is being cramped and crippled and held down because of the enormous burden of taxation. I do not yield one inch in my desire to see the burden of taxation resulting from the giving of poor relief spread over a wider field than it is at the present moment. I think it is entirely unfair, and I have never disguised ray own view on the matter, that the poorer districts in the country should be called upon to bear a burden on industry which results from causes which are national in their incidence and in their nature; but that is a very difficult question, and it is not one which can be settled in this Bill. Even when the Labour Government were in office, and they endeavoured to tackle the question, they found it so difficult that they could not produce a solution in the short time they were in office. They admitted the difficulty. Everyone who has studied the question and knows anything about it realises that it is one of the most difficult questions that the Minister of Health has to consider; but I do hope that, before the year is out, he will be able to bring forward some solution which will do something to mitigate the burden resting upon these areas. That, however, as I have said, is not a question which can be settled in a Bill such as this.
  One other observation in conclusion. This Bill introduces for the first time a recognition of a right of strikers to be subsidised out of the rates. I do not think for a moment that anyone can put forward a single argument in favour of that proposition. Consider a mining area, where, perhaps, you have steel workers or iron workers. The miners
  1648
  come out on strike, or are locked out; there is a stoppage in the industry, and, as a result, steel workers and iron workers lose their jobs. They may be able to draw unemployment benefit, but at any rate they are not drawing regular wages, and are suffering privation and misery as the result of the dispute in the minefield; and not only that, but they have to be called upon, if this principle is to be accepted, to subsidise that dispute, to prolong that state of affairs which is doing the damage from which they are suffering. That is a proposition in support of which I have never yet heard one single argument. For these reasons I would say that. I think it is the duty of this House to give this Bill a Second Reading. It does meet a very difficult situation with which the Government were faced; it does accord to Scotland a very generous measure of relief, when we take all the factors into consideration, and when we consider that the taxpayers in England are to be called upon specially to subsidise mining necessitous areas in Scotland. I suggest that the House should give this Bill a Second Reading, that we should accept the measure of relief that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been able to get, and that, when the Bill is passed, we should do our best to amend and improve it in Committee.
  Mr. STEWART: The first thing I should like to do would be to associate myself with those who have protested to day against this Bill being rushed as they and I think it is being rushed. We have had representations from our constituents, including those engaged in the industry that has been referred to here, that industry which has been so badly hit over a prolonged period in Scotland, which has its resting place in mining areas. They have strongly protested, in a telegram sent to every Scottish Member, asking him to do his utmost to get this Bill delayed, on the ground that they have not had an opportunity of meeting with their Members of Parliament and putting their point of view before them as fully as they would like. There is no protest in their telegram against the Government dealing with the matter; they do not suggest that the Government should not give any relief in this matter, nor do (hey make any protest of any kind against what has been

  1649
  done; they merely ask that they should have an opportunity of expressing their views, and that we who are interested in those districts should have an opportunity of consulting with them. Then there are the parish councils, who represent just as large constituencies as we do ourselves, who represent the same people, who are the people who have to bear the burden. They, again, are unanimous in asking that the matter should be delayed; and I think it is hardly fair for the Secretary of State for Scotland to get up and say that on the 17th February, that is last Thursday, the Prime Minister made a statement that this business would be taken in the course of to-day or to-morrow. As a matter of fact, as he himself stated, this was not the first business to be taken, but the second. At any rate, as I understand it, that was the position in which it was placed. If that is not so, then, of course, that impression will be corrected later. In any case, the fact remains, that the parish councils feel aggrieved at the unnecessary, as they think, rushing of this matter. My own opinion is that it would have been advantageous, that it would have been to the benefit of all concerned, if these very important bodies, trading and representative, had had an opportunity of meeting with the Scottish Members and placing their point of view before them. So much for that.
  I should like now, if I am in order, to deal with the position taken up by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd). He made the remark that he was against this Bill. If it had not been that it was of a temporary character and if it had not been that it was to end in 1930, he would have been compelled to take some action against it. He referred with that pride that Scotsmen always do to our wonderfully thrifty habits, our sturdiness of character, and our hatred of the Poor Law, crediting us with something which no one else on earth has except our wonderful selves. Then he went on to say that he stood for going back to the old conditions. I have some experience of those conditions. I. was a member of a parish council dealing with Poor Law administration from 1901 to 1910. There is now a new spirit at work. Remember the conditions under which relief was granted before the Board of Health was
  1650
  established. I well remember one case which will illustrate in some degree the general conditions that obtained. A labouring man in a poor locality in Glasgow with four children applied for relief for a child some two years of age suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. He was unemployed at the time. Under the Poor Law administration, supported by the Board of Supervision of the Local Government Board of those days, the Glasgow Parish Council refused that child relief, refused to take it into an empty bed at the big modern hospital of which we are so proud, and it died. That was the condition of the law that obtained in those days, and that seems to me the spirit in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow expressed a desire to get back to those very desirable days when the people of Scotland were so sturdy that they would not accept relief from the Poor Law institutions of that time.
  No one is quarrelling with what the Government propose to do in accepting responsibility in some degree for the situation that has arisen. What we are protesting against is that they should only accept a proportion of it and should leave 60 per cent. to be borne by the local authority, while they assume 40 per cent. We have heard from various speakers of the unfortunate position of England in this matter and how it would be unfair to them to ask the nation to bear their burden for the benefit of the Poor Law of Scotland and the people of Scotland. Some of them have said they think this ought to be borne nationally and equitably, that it ought to be equal rating all over, so that none of us would have to bear a heavier burden than others. But they have not stated that in Scotland the unemployment rate has been higher during the whole period of unemployment than it has been in England. In Scotland, for 1925, the unemployment of insured persons was 14 per cent., while in England it was 12 per cent. Further than this, owing to the action of the Government in 1925, the numbers of unemployed that fell to be treated by the Poor Law very considerably increased. In 1924, from September to December, the number the Government relieved was 7,500, and in 1925 9,100. The increase that fell to be treated by the Poor Law between those two periods was 23 per cent.

  1651
  Then when you come to the amount of money spent by the Poor Law, it nearly doubled in the same period. The actual figures were £3,191 in 1924, and £6,291 in 1925, an increase of 95 per cent. Under these circumstances, in a country where trade has been worse hit than it has been in England, where our staple industries are in a more depressed condition, while our poverty has been more intensified than it has been in England, you come along and suggest that you are doing a generous action in giving us this relief. The relief that we expect in this matter is only an equitable relief. Scotland, with all its faults and all its virtues, desires nothing more than fair play. We desire only fair play on this occasion, and we ask that this relief shall be given to us to meet the situation created in a great degree by the Government of the day—we on this side would have done exactly the same; I hope and believe we should have accepted the responsibility of a situation which might have ended disastrously for us all—that you shall come along and meet us by taking the whole of the expense on the shoulders of the Government.
  There is another point that we have to consider. In reply to an interjection by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), the Lord Advocate said that the Poor Law needed reforming, but that he was not in favour of reforming it by piecemeal legislation. This Bill is piecemeal legislation, creating a new standard of Poor Law. We protest as strongly as we can against Poor Law legislation being dealt with by piecemeal methods. We further protest against it on the score of its cruelty and harshness. Let us imagine an unemployed man, a miner or a steel worker or a worker in the shipbuilding industry earning less than £2 a week, with a family perhaps of two, three or four dependent persons. He has exhausted his statutory benefit under the Unemployment Act, and he applies for relief to the parish council. They say, "We will grant you a loan, but we will not give you relief." After a period he is lucky enough to get a situation back at his own vocation. If he be a shipyard worker he gets 38s. a week, from which various amounts for insurance, etc., have to come off. If he be working as a steel labourer in the steel works, he gets somewhere about 36s. a week, and there are
  1652
  miners earning less than £2 for a full week's work. These men are to be saddled with a loan, and, when they start work, the soulless machinery of the Poor Law is to be put in action to compel them to repay the loan, wasting the ratepayers' money, employing lawyers to take him into Court and get a decree, and, having got their decree, they proceed to reduce the man still further in the scale—
  The LORD ADVOCATE The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.
  Mr. STEWART: It may be that there is a humanity which will prevent such action taking place, but it is equally true that there are people who will conform with the law and exact what they are entitled to. We protest against this loan method. It may be good enough for England, but we who have managed to do without it would like to do without it still. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland may be able to announce that after consideration they do not think it worth while to put another favourable weapon into the hands of Labour to castigate this Government. The Government are getting us votes. We do not need the soapboxes or the street corners. You can do it at that bench more effectively than we can. I would beg of the Government to try to take notice of the feeling on this side of the House. It is not a party feeling. We have no desire to make this a party issue. It is much too big a question. It is the welfare of our people that is at stake. I have no desire to give you sob-stuff, which has been so contemptuously referred to on occasions, but I would beg of you to consider these people with whom we are dealing. It is not the big ratepayers, it is not the people who are fairly well off, and get three meals a day, solid and substantial as we like to have them, but the fellows and the children who never know what a full meal really is. I beg of you to consider them when you are coming to a decision in this matter.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I do not know whether at Englishman should intervene in a Scottish Debate, but seeing that the English taxpayer will have to foot the bill, he may possibly have some standing. The Lord Advocate stressed the necessity of making the Scottish law and practice similar to the English law and practice. I want to ask him and

  1653
  the members of the Government present whether they are really going to do that? Are they going to make the contribution to the English boards of guardians similar to the one they are giving to the Scottish parish councils? If not, they are occupying a very invidious position. We have heard tales of necessitous areas in Scotland. We can balance them many times over by tales as bad of necessitous areas in England and Wales. What is good for one, surely, is good for another. Therefore, I rise only to put in a plea on behalf of the necessitous areas in England and Wales and to ask that they shall have equal treatment with the necessitous areas in Scotland, and that if to per cent. is to be given to pay for the relief of the over-burdened ratepayers in Scotland, a similar amount should be given to the over-burdened ratepayers of England and Wales.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I would like the House to take into consideration what happened in 1921. Up to 1921 the law in Scotland was that no relief could be given to persons unless they were certified to be unfit. The Coalition Government of that date compelled parish councils to pay the unemployed against the Scottish law, but passed an Act making it legal. I was very much opposed to that alteration, and I would have preferred that the parish councils had refused to operate that law. Unfortunately, the Government was strong enough to put it through. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) is not present, because I disagree with the position he took up in this Debate, and I do not want to say something that is incorrect. I believe that he was a member of the Government at that time or, at any rate, he was a supporter of the Government which passed that alteration in the Scottish law. The result of that alteration has been that the ratepayers in Scotland have had to pay millions for the upkeep of the unemployed by that one Act of the Coalition Government. There is no comparison whatever between the position of the workpeople in Scotland as a result of that alteration of the law and what takes place in England. We have to remember that in England the commitments were made on that understanding. In Scotland our commitments were fixed on the assumption that this burden was not to be cost
  1654
  upon the rates. Now, to-day, we have this suggestion in this Bill.
  I want to assure Members of the Government that we do not wish to be unreasonable in connection with this procedure. I think the people of Scotland are entitled to the full 100 per cent., but there may be difficulties in getting that through, and the probability is that the right hon. Gentleman has had his troubles with the Exchequer. I think he will admit that if the Government had wanted to be fair there should have been a much. larger percentage than 40 per cent. allowed. He would not have been just even if he had given 60 per cent., because according to the decision in the Courts, you are entitled to carry the whole burden. Unfortunately, we are asked to meet the difficulty. I would remind hon. Members that we are not talking so much for the actual poor as for all the people we represent. In the Parish of Bothwell we have steelworks and coalfields. That parish paid out £79,000 to the dependants of miners, which meant an increase in the rates of 6s. 9d. in the £. Hon. Members know that the steel trade has complained bitterly about the difficulty of carrying on their industry owing to the burden of rates. I agree that there is something in that. If we increase the burden of rates, then we are making the complication more difficult than before fir the employers of labour as well as the people whom we directly represent. I hope the House will take that into account in connection with this debate.
  A further matter is the question of loan. I would like the Lord Advocate to explain something to me in connection with the loan. At the end of Clause 3, there are, the words "alimentary debt.' I would like a definition of "alimentary debt." The only alimentary debt which I know of in Scottish law is that in an affiliation case. In an affiliation case, if a party refuses to pay, the money can be arrested every pay day, and there is no allowance at all. All the money can be arrested. I would like the Lord Advocate to assure us that the putting in of the word "alimentary" has not that meaning. If it happens that the word does carry that meaning, it will need to be bitterly opposed, because it would be creating a much greater hardship than the one which the Government have, presumably, set out to relieve. I do not

  1655
  like the idea of giving relief by way of loan. I have had some experience of that in connection with an education authority. It simply means that you commit people to certain payments and then you start a process of endless prosecutions amounting to persecution, and at the end of the day you have spent more in legal fees than you have recovered. I am afraid the results of this Bill will be much on the same line. I would rather that had been kept out of the Bill.
  The relief of the dependant of the able-bodied unemployed person is a very difficult question. There are many Members of this House who have very strong opinions on both sides. Unfortunately, that is part of the price that the Government and the country have to pay for the handling of the last dispute. It was a very useful weapon for the Prime Minister, in connection with his telegram to America, to say that there was no need to send any help for the relief of destitution among the miners, because the local authorities were attending amply to claims for relief. If that argument suited the Prime Minister on that occasion, the Government must face the position to-day. I would have preferred that the Government bad tried to recoup the parish councils wholly for the burden which they had to bear and that they had kept out the other things until such time as they were redrafting the Poor Law as it affects Scotland. On the whole, whilst I would like more money, and we are entitled to more money, the Government deserve a certain amount of credit for meeting us in some way.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I want to associate myself with the protest made in all quarters of the House against the way in which this Bill has been rushed. If the Government have an answer, I hope the Secretary of State will make it clear. It appears that this Bill was put down for Thursday next.
  Commander EYRES MONSELL Commander EYRES MONSELL indicated dissent.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg pardon. I have made a slight mistake. The Bill was not even definitely put down for next Thursday. It was not put down definitely on the Order Paper at all, but an indication was
  1656
  given that, if Supplementary Estimates were completed early enough, two Bills might be brought forward, and the first of these Bills was to be the Public Works Loans Bill. Therefore, the prospect of the particular Bill which we are now discussing being brought forward was remote, and it was never taken seriously by any Scottish Member or, as we have seen from the telegrams we have received, by the parish councils in Scotland that it would be brought forward to-day. This misunderstanding was not confined to this side of the House. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot), than whom there is no more loyal, faithful, unswerving supporter of the Government, said that he was surprised that this Bill was being taken now. He knows, as we all know, that there are representatives on the parish councils who wished to come up to London to consult us and to put their views before us before this Bill came before the House.
  There are some provisions in this Bill of which I had no idea, and the hon. Member for North Lanark had no idea that they were going to be put into the Bill. It is far more remarkable that he was ignorant of that it is in my case, because in my constituency we are not concerned with the most important part of the Bill, as there are no parish councils which have made payments for which they are to receive these grants. But in the hon. Member's constituency there are, and he has been closely concerned with all the negotiations that have gone on between the parish councils and the Scottish Office. He was absolutely ignorant of the fact that there was going to be smuggled into this Bill this very important provision in regard to the power to give relief by way of loan. If those representatives of parish councils most directly concerned were ignorant of that fact, obviously, the parish councils in other parts of the country had no idea that this Claus—which the Lord Advocate, in his lucid statement, said introduced an absolutely new principle into Scottish Poor Law administration was to be inserted. It has been done without the knowledge of at least half and. I think, probably without the know—ledge of any of the parish councils in Scotland. It is most unfortunate that this Bill was introduced without due notice being given to the parish councils

  1657
  and without an opportunity being given to representatives of the parish councils to come and inform us upon this point. The important fact is that it is not only the parish councils who have made the illegal payments concerned in this Measure, but all the other parish councils in Scotland, and I do not believe that fact is known in Scotland.
  I have two grounds on which I wish to object to the main provisions of this Bill. With respect to the 40 per cent. grant, the first ground is a purely legal one. There are in the parishes affected very important industries which are oppressed by the burden of rates, and there are a number of very poor people who have been going through very hard times, as has been shown by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) and other hon. Members above the Gangway. It has been proved that payments have been made out of rates which are illegal, and as they were made at the direction of the Government as representing the general taxpayers of other countries, as a matter of public policy, then the Government and the general taxpayers of the country, as a matter of public policy, should foot the Bill. I object to it on more general grounds. It is admitted that there is no greater burden on the industries of this country than the burden of the rates. Income Tax is paid out of profits, but rates have to be paid whether profits have been made or not. Where is the right hon. Member for Hilihead (Sir R. Horne) this afternoon? He has made some most admirable speeches in Glasgow. I will not criticise them as he is not present this afternoon, but I can heartily associate myself with those parts of his speeches with which I agree. He pointed out the peculiar damage and harmful incidence of rates on the industries of the country, as opposed to general taxation.
  If he came to this House and raised his voice in the same way it would have far more effect on the Government than going down to Glasgow and making speeches there. It is because this Bill will, to the extent of 60 per cent., increase the burden of the rates in the Parish Councils of Scotland that I appeal to the Secretary of State to see if he cannot get a larger grant than 40 per cent. I criticised the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday on the Supplementary
  1658
  Estimate. I want to see public expenditure cut down as much as anybody, but in this case it is a matter of public policy. This burden has to be borne by someone. It can be borne by the ratepayers in a particularly distressed area or by the general taxpayer, and in my opinion it will do far less damage to the industries of this country if it be borne by the-general taxpayer. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) that this is not a matter as between England and Scotland. It is a matter of Government policy. I agree with him in complimenting the Secretary of State on the part he has played. I have no doubt that he had a difficult task to get any money at all from the Exchequer, and he deserves our congratulations for the fight he has put up. What is wrong is not the attitude of Englishmen or Scotsmen. What is wrong is the policy of the Government. The Government do not seem to realise that by putting this burden on the rates they are making the burden on our industries heavier; placing it where it is most harmful and will do most damage. For these reasons, I feel bound to associate myself with the Amendment which has been moved.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: When the Lord Advocate was introducing this Bill this afternoon I interjected an observation to the effect that such legislation should be made permanent and the hon. Member for St. Rollox Division (Mr. J. Stewart), emphasised the same point, There is no doubt that what we are dealing with this afternoon is a piecemeal kind of legislation. It looks as if we are going to have a week of Scottish business. Whether that is a hopeful out-look for Scotland, I cannot say. We are considering this Bill this afternoon, and we are to go into Committee stage on it to-morrow. We dealt with Scottish business yesterday, and it looks as if we are in for a full week of Scottish business. The most unsatisfactory position of Scotland in regard to Poor Law legislation was emphasised in 1921. Before that date a deputation from the parish council of Dundee waited upon the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was one of the representatives of Dundee, and appealed to him to sanction an alteration in the law so as to enable destitute people who were unable to find employment to receive the same provi-

  1659
  sion as was given in England. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion made the admission that he did not know there was such a difference between English and Scottish. Poor Law administration. Legislation was introduced in the form of the 1921 Act. Since then, however, things have been steadily getting worse, and when the Lord Advocate was speaking this afternoon I thought we had reason to hope he would introduce legislation whereby we should be taxed on the basis of means and substance, as was the case in earlier years—a very safe basis on which to operate. I think it would go far to meet the requirements of Justice.
  I submit that when we are dealing with poverty arising from such circumstances as are present here, that it is a national issue. We cannot possibly localise it as the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) tried to do; we cannot pursue that course without doing an injustice. All interests are interlinked in this matter, and on that ground I claim that it should be treated from a national standpoint. We find now, even after the 1921 Act has been passed, that Scotland is still in a ridiculous position as compared with England. The Law Courts have been appealed to on the matter, while the Government have thought it necessary to introduce fresh legislation which can only partly mend the mistakes and blunders for which they are responsible. If that is the position, then I want to put one solid argument before the House. It is this; that a mistake having been made, the law having been wrongly interpreted by the Government, the financial responsibility should be met by the Government to the full 100 per cent. If Scotland had had the power she seeks to obtain by having her own national assembly and the right to manage her own affairs far more substantial results would accrue than we shall be able to obtain here. The present situation constitutes another very strong argument for taking Scotland out of the sorry plight in which she is placed at present. I can quite understand that hon. Members on the Government Bench can afford to smile at the conception of Scotland having power to manage her own affairs, and we will take care that the attitude of the members
  1660
  of the Government is brought home to the people of Scotland whenever we have an opportunity.
  This is a far more serious matter than many people imagine. What we are trying to do is to follow up the legislation which England has and give a modicum of justice to those in Scotland, who are in need of it. Now we have this fresh piece of legislation which is going to constitute the parish councils of Scotland into a sort of moneylending concerns. I suppose they will take the place of the triple alliance, the three balls. The thing is positively preposterous. This is a national concern, a national matter. It is idiotic to say that there is not money enough. You can get as many millions as you want for some purposes, and the supporters of the Government are quite prepared to back them up. For people who are living under conditions which these people suffer the situation is exasperating, especially when, having been turned down at the labour exchange and sent on to the parish council, they are to be met by an attitude of this kind on the part of the Government. In my opinion, it calls for the strongest possible protest. Then this legislation is being rushed through. The Lord Advocate, in my view, gave the whole case away. You are going to put through a piece of permanent legislation. If you pass one provision which is contained in this Bill it makes the attitude of the Government towards the parish councils utterly ridiculous.
  7.0 p.m.
  It is not a question of making a bargain and arranging how much you are going to give in the form of a loan. Do you ever try to imagine what it is after those people have got it? Are any of you going to sit on a parish council and try and screw it out of them after those people have got their chance, or are you going to take them, as the hon. Member for North Lanark asked, to the Courts? Surely there has been enough ridiculous conception about parochial legislation when you have a man's birthplace, a place for which he is held responsible in the sense of debiting the parish council with the outlay in his case. We have had cases of that kind taken to the Court of Session and lawyers engaged on the job on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I can understand the apprecia-

  1661
  tion of the legal representatives. Sometimes thousands of pounds have been spent to fight whether one parish council should pay the whole expense for the upkeep of some poor member of the human family or whether another should pay. The whole thing is a mockery. Scotland has sore need to get out of this miserable plight in which she is placed and have a chance of managing her own affairs.
  Mr. WHEATLEYI do not intend to detain the house more than a few minutes, but there are two points on which I should like to make some observations. The first is the argument that Scotland has got preferential treatment here in the 40 per cent. that the Government are to contribute towards the liability incurred during the recent mining dispute. One has to admit that that is perfectly true, but I think, when you look at the history of the necessitous areas, you will agree that the Government are adopting a very wise course in not allowing the poor areas in Scotland to get into the same wretched condition. During the past two or three years we have had discussions in this House and agitations outside regarding the plight of certain districts that have been heavily hit through unemployment and industrial depression generally. We know it is not merely that the poor in these localities have suffered, but, as has been pointed out from all sides of the House, industries in those areas, where industrial prosperity is most required, have been crippled by the heavy local rates and handicapped in their struggle for prosperity. The matter is not ended there. We have seen boards of guardians in more than one locality break down under the burden, and the Ministry of Health compelled to take over the administration. I think the Scottish Office has acted very wisely, even to the limited extent they have here, in having come out and done something to prevent the industrial wreckage and the local government wreckage which has occurred in similary districts in England.
  The other point to which I wish to refer is the argument which has been used by more than one speaker on the other side, that legislation of this kind is a matter of subsidising strikes. I think the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-
  1662
  Colonel Thom) rather weakened an otherwise excellent speech by using that argument in his concluding remarks. There is nothing in this Bill that would enable a parish council to grant relief to a striker. All that this Bill proposes to do is to authorise the parish council to grant relief to the destitute dependants of destitute strikers. That brings us down to a very fine point. We have to make up our minds, whether or not, we believe that pressure should be brought on workers engaged in an industrial struggle through the starvation of their dependants. I think that what we are debating is but a very elementary principle of modern civilisation that has been introduced into all questions of warfare. All civilised nations agree that it would not be creditable to people of the twentieth century to win the military struggle through punishing the women and children of the enemy. Surely, if we exempt the women and children of a foreign foe in a military struggle from the punishment we desire to inflict on the nation, we are going to grant the same consideration to the women and children of our own people in an industrial dispute. That is all that is claimed in this Bill, that in an industrial dispute women and children should be taken outside the firing line and employers and workers left to fight out their own dispute in a more civilised manner than can possibly be the case if the women and children be punished in order to compel the workers to accept conditions that they would otherwise reject.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps I might be allowed to intervene at this stage. I should like, at the outset, to try and clear some doubts which seems to be in the minds of hon. Members opposite as to this Bill having been rushed. I think that, on reflection, it will be found that it was made clear in the announcement to the House on 17th February that the Government proposed to proceed with this and other Measures on Monday and Tuesday of this week. That announcement was made clearly and emphatically by the Prime Minister. Because one Measure is mentioned more than another, there is nothing in the answer to a question of that kind to mean that that is the order in which they will be taken, unless it be emphatically stated that

  1663
  No. 1 will be taken first. I think it is clear that due notice was given, to Members of this House. There has been the further allegation made repeatedly by a number of Members that the interests concerned in Scotland have not had any opportunity of considering this problem or of being consulted. I, of course, realise the kind of pressure which is always brought by interested parties upon Members of this House—not improper pressure. I want to say to the House, quite frankly, that it is common knowledge that this problem is not a problem of yesterday. It is a problem which was well known to all classes and interests as being a clamant, urgent, and important problem, and, furthermore, during the Recess I have had numerous opportunities of meeting representatives of all those who are immediately concerned with this problem. Apart from the various interviews which I had, on the 31st January I received a very full and representative deputation of the Parish Councils' Association, and on the same day I received a deputation representative of all the manufacturing interests throughout Scotland, including those who represent the steel industry. In fact, I took care, when I was approached on the subject of meeting representatives of the great industries, to ask those who were arranging, the interview to include representatives, not of one section of those interests or one part of Scotland, but of all the parties.
  At those interviews we discussed, of course, the vexed problem of the situation as it had arisen subsequent to the Constable judgment; the problem of how this expenditure was to be met; the question as to the liability of the Government either in whole or in part. I want, also, to make it clear to the House that I took most particular care, in talking to the parish council representatives and representatives of the great industries, to say to them, "However the Government may decide to deal with this problem and the contribution, if they choose to make a contribution, or by retrospective legislation, what I am concerned to put to you parish councillors on one side and representatives of industry on the other is: Can this question be left where it stands under that judgment?" I made it quite plain to
  1664
  them, I think, and they understood, that it was certain we could not leave it in that position, and that two things only were possible: Either that the law of England should be brought into line with the law of Scotland; or, alternatively, that the law of Scotland should be as far as possible brought into conformity with the law of England. That being the case, can it be honestly said that these bodies have not had the opportunity of considering this problem, or that they are unaware of what is the intention or what is in the mind of the Minister responsible? While I was discussing this question the power of loan was also specifically mentioned and discussed.
  Let me ask the House to remember the circumstances out of which this difficulty has arisen, and remind those who cavil at retrospective legislation that there are precedents for dealing with this kind of problem by such methods as these. We need go no further back than the situation in 1921. It was well known to those who were responsible for the administration of the Poor Law in Scotland that advances were being made to able-bodied unemployed quite illegally, that those illegal advances were being made by authorities as early as April of 1921, and that retrospective legislation to deal with the problem was introduced into this House and carried without any compensation whatsoever. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom), to whose speech the whole House listened with pleasure, reminded us that so high an authority as Professor Dicey had stated emphatically that retrospective legislation was not only necessary but justifiable in certain circumstances. What I am doing in this Bill is to deal so far as necessary with the problem purely upon such lines as were laid down by Professor Dicey. The consequent changes which I am proposing in this Bill, in order to bring the administration of these problems more into line with the system of administration in England, are not retrospective; they are lying in the future. Therefore, the view put forward is met fully.
  What is it that we are doing? We are legalising expenditure which, if I judge aright, Members in all parts of the House believe to have been necessary under the circumstances in which it was made. I think that. that

  1665
  has been admitted. That being so, we have to consider what the position is when a legal judgment is given in which it is declared that certain payments are illegal. The House has received from the Lord Advocate, in the clearest possible language, an exposition of the law of Scotland as it stood and the law as it will stand under this Bill. I am sure that the House is satisfied with the clarity of that exposition. I am no lawyer, but I find myself in the position of the administrator and I find myself a member of a Government dealing with this great problem at a time of great national difficulty. The advice which the Board of Health gave, the Circulars which they issued, are, I claim, within the law. They urged the parish councils to deal with care and circumspection in the administration of this admittedly difficult problem. It may well be that certain sections of those payments are illegal, that it is difficult to assess how much of this could have been avoided even if the law, strictly interpreted, had been adhered to. I would say emphatically that a very large proportion of this expenditure would have been incurred by the parish councils under a strict interpretation of the law. That being so, there is no justifiable claim against the Government for the total sum. Right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite have repeatedly pressed upon my Office, during the course of this struggle, the necessity and desirability of our regarding this as a legal payment and the necessity of meeting this problem. Yet they come here with an Amendment which my right hon. Friend from West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) has submitted. I will almost say that I think an Amendment put in those terms and with knowledge of the circumstances is humbug.
  What is it that the right hon. Gentleman asks? He asks that the whole of this sum should be met. On what grounds? I think he showed no grounds. In the whole of his speech he made no mention and, apparently, gave no thought to the future or how we were to deal with the future. We are bound on the other hand to take that into account. I say, emphatically, that I do not feel constrained to apologise in any sense for the course taken or the advice which was issued by the Board of Health to parish councils. I think it was the
  1666
  only course that could have been pursued at the time and in the circumstances. That being so, the House, on reflection, will agree, I hope, that the Courts, having declared certain aspects of these payments illegal, the Government are recognising their responsibility in meeting, by a contribution of 40 per cent. to the relief of that expenditure, their responsibility towards such payments as were illegal. The right hon. Member for West Fife brought to the notice of the House the sad plight of certain parishes which he mentioned. One was Ballingry, and the other Auchterderran. It may be of interest to know that if this 40 per cent., which the Government propose, is contributed towards the difficulties of those two parishes, in recognition of the Government's responsibility, in the case of Auchterderran, when the expenditure was £28,951, the parish will receive, under the grant of 40 per cent., something like £11,600; and in the case of Ballingry, where the expenditure was about £18,000, the parish council will receive something like £7,200. The total sum with which we are concerned is, roughly, estimated at £650,000. That is no doubt a considerable sum; at least it is one which will give material relief to those districts.
  With regard to what fell from the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), in dealing with this problem as we have done the Government have not, as he appeared to indicate, attempted to deal with necessitous areas. It is recognised on the part of the Government that their liability to meet a portion of this expense is due solely to the fact that they recognise the moral obligations which rested upon them after having given certain directions which the Court said subsequently were not correct. If we were to have to deal with that problem, a much larger problem, it would be probably in quite a different manner, and certainly if it were to be assumed in any way that this was our solution of the necessitous areas problem in Scotland, I at once disagree with such a view. I do not know that I need add much to what has been said. Everyone, I am sure, trusts that the local circumstances which necessitated this great expenditure will not soon recur. But looking into the future and even to the imme-

  1667
  diate administrative necessity, the Government felt that it was essential, first, that they should extend the operation of the 1921 Act, which would have fallen into abeyance this year, and I frankly came to the conclusion that it was right and reasonable, having in view the life and possibilities of Parliament, that that should be extended until 1930. At the same time and concurrent with that runs this other power.
  In order that we may come as nearly as we may into line with the administration of this problem in England these provisions for advancing under certain circumstances and at the discretion of the parish councils have been included in the Measure. I trust the House will realise that the Government have met in a reasonable and fair manner this expenditure of the parish councils. They have provided the administration of this problem until 1930, when it may indeed be possible that a general recasting or review of this great Poor Law problem may be more possible than it is now. In the circumstances I suggest to the House that they should give the Bill a Second Reading, and in view of the urgency which presses upon these parish councils now, the necessity of legalising the collection of rates for carrying on their regular work, the necessity of recovering moneys which have been advanced by the Government to these parish councils—on all these grounds there is neither reason for delay nor reasonable cause for opposition to the Bill.
  Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am sure we have all listened with interest and pleasure to the vigorous defence of his position which the right hon. Gentleman has put up. It has always been a proud boast of Scotsmen that Scottish law was very much in advance of English law, but I think we have seen this afternoon that, as regards certain humane elements in legislation at any rate, English law has been in advance of that of Scotland. I am sure that no hon. Members on this side of the House object to the approximation of the Scottish law to English law in regard to the 1921 Act, or to the main object of this Bill. I think it is a rather interesting commentary on the development of
  1668
  public opinion that, when the question arose of approximation being necessary, it was found better to approximate Scottish law to English Jaw than to do it the other way round, and it is a pleasant thing to know that it is now recognised that women and children are not to be made factors in industrial disputes. It is also a tribute to the growing public opinion in favour of the independent right of a woman to her own place as a citizen, instead of her being regarded as a mere chattel or piece of property belonging to the husband. Although the right hon. Gentleman nut up a very vigorous case for the main proposition, I think we on this side are at least on good logical grounds when we say that if the Government were responsble for instituting this expenditure, which was ultimately found to be illegal—although we are very glad indeed they did institute it—they are responsible, not for 40 per cent. of it, but for 100 per cent. of it. While logic cannot always be applied to Parliamentary Measures, I think at least we can say that we have it in favour of this Amendment.
  These good things which we have said about English law do not apply to the Clause dealing with loans. I am quite willing to take anything English that is good, but I would rather leave to the English themselves those things which are not so good, and I am anxious about this provision. It may be that it is not very much in use in England, and I am sure we shall welcome some information as to the practice of local authorities in England in the use of this provision. I can foresee disastrous results if this Clause is put into operation by parish councils in Scotland. It will have a pauperising and demoralising effect. One can well imagine many cases where the applicant will be compelled to sign a form promising to repay this money and will not have the option of doing otherwise. It will be a case of signing such a form or going without relief. I think that is encouraging improvidence. It encourages people to get into debt—a thing which has always been repugnant to the Scottish character. It is far better that no burden of that kind should be left upon poverty-stricken people, who, if they emerge from the Poor Law stage, are not

  1669
  in the least likely to be in a position for a long time to repay this money without great privation and suffering.
  It would be interesting to be reminded of the provisions which parish councils already can use to get repayments of money in certain circumstances. I believe even at the present time there is a working arrangement between parish councils and unemployment Committees in regard to unemployment. relief of former poor-law dependents, and we know that if a person who has had parish relief comes into a fortune—we read about such cases sometimes in the newspapers—the parish council concerned at once makes active efforts to secure the repayment of the money which they have advanced. This Clause, apart from being an innovation in Scottish law which has been introduced without due notice, is an innovation in the wrong direction and one which is entirely contrary to the spirit of Scotland. While there are many aspects of this Bill which we welcome, and particularly the action which occasions the Bill, I think hon. Members on this side, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has so well said, must vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. W. M'LEAN WATSON: After listening to the Debate this afternoon, I must admit I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to give way in one or other of two respects—either by agreeing that the grant should have been bigger, or by agreeing that greater time should have been allowed for the discussion of the Measure. It may be true that the Secretary of State met the representatives of the bodies concerned, and discussed with them the various points included in the Measure, but the people of Scotland have had no opportunity of discussing the serious questions which are bound up with this proposal. Had this merely been a Measure to rearrange financial matters, which had arisen between the Scottish Board of Health and the parish councils, there might have been less opposition to it, but the Bill seeks to make a very important change in Scottish Poor Law administration, and Scottish ratepayers up to now have had no opportunity of expressing their opinions on that proposal. Even if it were impossible for the Secretary of State to secure a greater
  1670
  grant than 40 per cent., he might have met us on this important subject of the alteration which it is proposed to make in Poor Law administration. He might have left that proposal out of the Measure. It is opposed by all sections of the community in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that in the Debate this afternoon he has received much encouragement even from his own side for the proposed change.
  If he turns to the organs of public opinion in Scotland. and particularly to the "Scotsman" of yesterday, I think he will agree that there is no encouragement for this Measure. The "Scotsman" newspaper may not speak for the Government, but at any rate it is the leading Conservative organ in Scotland. It claims to be the mouthpiece of Scottish Conservatism, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to read an interesting article on this particular Measure, let him get the "Scotsman" of yesterday's date and read the leading article. I am informed there is also a reference in today's "Scotsman." This shows at any rate that the Measure has not the approval of Scottish opinion, and we ought not to be asked to consider it further until we have had an expression of public opinion in Scotland upon it. We are entitled to have more time than the Government propose to allow for the discussion of such a serious change in the law. The Government, I understand, propose to pass the Measure into law this week. That is a most extraordinary course and evidently it has been taken on the ground that it is best to get a disagreeable task finished as speedily as possible. The Government seem determined to rush the, Bill through without giving the Scottish people an opportunity of expressing their views upon it and Scottish Members in all parts of the House are justified in the protest they have made.
  With regard to the contribution of 40 per cent., we must take into consideration a, very important fact which has not been denied by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the Scottish Board of Health issued instructions to the parish councils to make certain payments, and fixed scales upon which those payments were to be made. They practically said to the parish councils that the councils were to do a

  1671
  certain job, and I dare say the parish councils expected that sooner or later the Government would make themselves responsible for payments which the Government, not merely authorised, but compelled the councils to make. There are parish councils in the mining districts who were practically compelled by the Board of Health to make these payments. Now those parish councils are being asked to make a contribution of 60 per cent. of that expenditure. The parish councils, especially in the mining and other industrial areas, have been suffering badly for years. Since the last piece of retrospective legislation, namely, the Act of 1921, which, for the first time, authorised parish councils to relieve able-bodied unemployed, our parish councils have been called upon to bear burdens which ought to have been placed on the nation as a whole. They have been burdened with an expenditure which ought to have been borne by the Ministry of Labour, and additional liabilities have been place upon them by order of the Scottish Board of Health which will mean a considerable increase in the parish rates in these industrial localities for many years to come. In my parish we have a rate of 10s. in the pound, 5s. on the house, and 5s. on the occupier. That. is the rate imposed by the parish council at present, but if this 60 per cent, payment has to be made, it means that the rate will be considerably increased. Apart from the money aspect of the question altogether, the change which is proposed in the law, empowering parish councils to make loans in the future, is a serious one. That system may have been good enough in England, but we have not had such a system in Scotland up to now. For the Government to propose such an important change in a Measure like this is a most extraordinary action and one which will not redound to the credit of the Government in Scotland. I am disappointed at the attitude of the Secretary of State. He might have given us some assurance that more time would be allowed for the discussion of this Measure, and I hope he will reconsider a matter which is most serious for the people of Scotland.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: This as a Scottish Measure, and, as a rule, only Scottish Members speak in Debates on
  1672
  Scottish Measures. But the subject matter of this Debate is one which affects the purses of all taxpayers of the country, and for that reason I am glad to see in his place the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The financial principle of this Bill is of great importance. We observe in the Bill that, on the ground that the Scottish Board of Health instructed parish councils in Scotland to do certain things which were not within the law, the Poor Law authorities are to receive a grant from the general Exchequer Fund up to 40 per cent. of the cost of relieving people who were unemployed as a result of a trade dispute. However righteous that may be—and I am not against the principle of the Bill, but would vote for 100 per cent. being paid by the Government—I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what his Department are doing with regard to the case for the English Poor haw authorities. The Secretary of State for Scotland was careful to say just now that this grant only applies in the case of Scotland because the Courts have held that the Poor Law authorities of Scotland did something illegal, into which they were led because of the instructions of the Government, for which the Government take responsibility. First of all, the Government hold the view, during a trade dispute, that it is the duty of the Poor Law authorities in Scotland to relieve the able-bodied unemployed as a result of that dispute, and then, because the Courts hold that that was illegal, they are prepared to pay a considerable moiety of the cost. Therefore, because these people in Scotland did a righteous thing which was illegal, they are to get a grant from the Exchequer, but because we in England have done the same thing in our most necessitous areas and because. it was legal as well as righteous, we are to get no grant, but are to have our pockets picked once more from Scotland, at the same time having to bear all the expense in our own areas.
  When hon. Members have justified this grant from the point of view of what otherwise the effect would be upon the productive costs of industry from a rating point of view, I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what the effect upon the industries in Great Britain is. We have had in Sheffield, in a steel

  1673
  centre, to pay out since February, 1925, the date of the iniquitous Circular of the Minister of Labour, nearly £250,000 for the relief of those turned off the Employment Exchanges, apart from those who were placed upon our Poor Law funds as a direct result of the trade dispute of 1926. The steel industry of Sheffield is to have its productive costs increased by the rates, and, forsooth, our Sheffield industries have to compete with Scottish industries which are being relieved by special grants from the Treasury which do not apply to England. That is an impossible situation to go on. You are actually relieving one part of the United Kingdom at the expense of the whole, and at the special expense of competing industries in the other part of the Kingdom.
  I am not going to oppose a grant to Scotland. I think the Poor Law authorities in Scotland need the money, but we need it for our Poor Law authorities too in Great Britain, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who will no doubt have something to do with the handling of the Money Resolution tomorrow, ought to come along with some specific information in moving that Resolution. He ought, first of all, to he able to tell the representatives of the English taxpayers what the cost to the Treasury is going to be and whether we are then to get at least an equal sum, pro rata to population, contributed for the relief of those who have had to pay for this special Poor Law burden during the trade dispute. I ask the Financial Secretary to give us that information to-morrow, because I warn the Government straight away that, although they may get this Measure through for Scotland, it is only going to mean that the whole of the United Kingdom will be renewing its importunity for direct and special relief for the necessitous areas.
  While I have criticised the sectionalised nature of this legislation, I shall vote against this Bill for this reason, that it introduces into Scottish law a principle which unfortunately we already have in English law. Anybody who has examined the reports from the County Courts in the mining areas in England during the last two or three weeks and who has seen what the miners now have to put up with in being sued in the County Courts, and the extreme poverty in which they are placed as a result,
  1674
  would surely not wish that any work-people in Scotland should be reduced to the same level of poverty and extreme inconvenience. I would rather see the English Poor Law amended to make it impossible to have our people not only having to come for relief because of their poverty, but afterwards being hounded down for repayments out of their miserable wages. I would oppose this Bill from that point of view alone, but we shall certainly require a great deal more information on the Money Resolution before some of the English Members, speaking for the English taxpayers who will be asked—not for the first time—to foot the bill for Scotland, agree to pass that Resolution. We shall want to know exactly where the similarly placed areas in England and Wales are going to be in the same connection.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The argument used by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) should convince the Scottish supporters of the Government of the wisdom of cutting our connection. It would be a relief, I am sure, to the English taxpayer. There is one thing I should like to say, and that is that we do not want to rob the English taxpayer at all, but we want the Government to play a fair and honest game, and their proposals at the moment cannot be described as fair. There would have been considerable difficulty in Scotland in most of the parishes in the industrial areas before any money would have been paid out at all, had it not been that the Beard of Health, on instructions from the Government, laid it down that the money had to be paid. I was interested to listen to the Secretary of State for Scotland saying he was not quite sure but that under ordinary circumstances the payments would have had to be made under the ordinary law. In his calmer moments, I think that if he were addressing the parish councils in his native county or in that part of Scotland which he represents in this House, he would have stated an exactly opposite thing.
  The parish councils and the officials of the parish councils of the Board of Health tell us that the ordinary law was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, and the Government agreed to advise that these payments should be made, and I know that in my own parish

  1675
  of Hamilton there would probably have been considerable difficulty before there would have been any payments made at all—and in any case there would have been a very strong attempt to reduce the payments—had it not been for the solicitation of the Board of Health. I have been with the representatives of the parish council meeting the Board of Health in an attempt to get money in this connection, and the Board of Health, while they did not say it was the law—they were always doubtful whether or not it was the law—and while they did not say the Government would stand for every penny that was spent, contrived to convey the impression to the mind of any man who was on any deputation that met them that' they would be refunded for whatever outlay they made. While, as I say, it was not definitely stated, the impression was created in their minds that this, which was an altogether irregular payment, would be made by the Government, because they were acting under instructions by the Government.
  I think it is a very shabby trick on the part of the Government. I am sorry to have to make such a suggestion in respect to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it looks to me as if it was shabby practice, and I think I am supported in that statement by the telegrams which have been received here today from parish councils, and not from parish councils alone, but every section of public opinion in Scotland, which has been taking a very keen interest in this matter for some months past. This is not something new. Conferences have been held of the parish councils, and members of all political parties have been invited to attend, and we have been advised that under no circumstances in certain areas would the parish council put into operation the law in the event of any ratepayer refusing to pay the extra rate that might be involved. All of the men who are taking a leading part in this matter are supporters of the Government, or at least 90 per cent. of them are.
  8.0 p.m.
  All the coal masters are against this Bill, not because they are going to pay the rates, because the miners will have to pay their share, and all the steel and iron masters are against it, and every farmer
  1676
  of repute in Scotland is working against it. Every section of the Tory community in Scotland is up against it. In view of the statements that have been made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, I would suggest that this Vote should be confined exclusively to Scottish Members. I should like to see where some of the Government supporters would vote. I am not opposed to the whole of this Bill, though I do not profess to be very favourable to the idea that parish councils should be made pawnbrokers, because that is what it would mean, but my main point is that no words that may be used from the Treasury Bench or anywhere else can absolve the Government from the responsibility of urging the parish councils to make a payment which otherwise they would not have made. That being the case, the full 100 per cent. expenditure incurred by the parish councils should be returned to them. Even from the trade standpoint, Scotland is suffering worse than England. There are few parts of the civilised world which are suffering more than the Clyde districts. The steel industry in and around Mother-well is probably in a very much worse position than the steel industry in any other part of the Kingdom. If the English ratepayer is suffering, he must not imagine that the Scottish tenant gets off any more easily. What the Englishman loses on the swings, he gains on the roundabouts. If we have to pay less rates in Scotland, we have to pay very much higher rent. In the long run, the tenant will have to pay the whole of this amount, apart from what is given by the Government. I submit to the Government that, unless they can bring evidence that they led the parish councils to believe they would have to bear their share of the burden, then the Government ought to accept the full responsibility. I do not doubt that right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in a difficult position, as he has probably been told by the Government what he was to do; but I warn him and his party that there is nothing that has happened, not even the coal dispute itself, which has created so much feeling in Scotland and particularly and principally amongst the Government's own supporters. That need not worry me, because I will get the support of these people, but I appeal

  1677
  to the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask the Cabinet to reconsider the point of whether full payment should not be made.
  The ratepayers of Scotland are not in a position, particularly in those areas which are the poorest parts of Scotland at the moment, to meet this burden, which means to them all the difference between being able to carry on in a reasonable way and being brought in many cases to a state of bankruptcy. I hope the Government will reconsider their attitude; otherwise the most strenuous opposition will be given to them, not only in the House but in the country, and the Conservative Members will have considerable difficulty when the time comes in justifying what this Government have done.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to state frankly that when I. left Glasgow last night I had no intention of opposing this Bill or of going into the Lobby against it. Then I thought it contained merely the Clause by which the Government agreed to pay 40 per cent., and that it contained nothing more. Had it not been for the inclusion of the Clause which deals with relief on loan, I had no intention of voting against the Government to-night. I think, therefore, it will be quite fair if I state one or two reasons for my attitude. We have to remember that, when the mining dispute was going on, the first thing that had to be considered was how the women and children were to he fed. It might be that, ultimately, the whole burden would fall on the State, or that the local authorities would have to hear the burden. But the first consideration was the feeding meantime of the women and children. Some sort of machinery had to be set up for that purpose. Certain parish councils in Scotland did their best tr., stop payments "to the miners' dependants, and it was urged, mostly by people on our side, that the Scottish Board of Health ought to compel these parish councils to pay relief to the dependants of those who were locked out. The consequence was that parish councils, generally at the request of the population, and of the Labour party in particular, agreed to pay these sums. I am not very much concerned about the National Federation of Property Owners, whose point of view was that this thing must be delayed.
  1678
  The thing I was concerned with at the time was that the wives and children ought to be fed.
  I think that the settlement which has been reached, taking all things into consideration, was not bad from my point of view. I do not come from a mining area, and I do not feel the position so acutely as people do in such areas; and I was prepared, the principle having been conceded that the women and children during an industrial dispute ought to be fed, not to be too keen to fight as to whether the Government's contribution should be 40 per cent. or 100 per cent. But I come to what I term the vicious part of the Bill. The Scottish Office know that last year the Minister of Health said he intended to bring in a Bill to reform the Poor Law of England. When rating reform took place in England, it was followed by rating reform in Scotland. Wherever you had a big reform in England, that was shortly followed by a similar reform in Scotland. Now the Secretary for Scotland., without waiting for his colleague's comprehensive Measure to reform the Poor Law in England, comes along with this Bill. It may be true that he has consulted with one or two people about this new Clause, hut, generally speaking, when a Bill is introduced containing a Clause altering fundamental features of the Scottish Poor Law, there has usually been some sort of demand from somebody in Scotland for the alteration. Where was there any demand from any section of the community in Scotland for this alteration, which means relief on loan?
  It is perfectly true, as the Lord Advocate said, that the payment of relief is not an obligation on the parish councils, that they can exercise it only if they care, and that in England it has not been exercised to any considerable extent. But, while that may be true, you cannot compare the parish councils in Scotland in many respects with the Poor Law authority in England. In Scotland the whole of the Poor Law machinery has been built up on a different basis, and you cannot compare the two. Even if you did compare them, it has been generally accepted that, where Scottish law has been better than English law, there has been a demand in England to bring their law into line with that of Scotland. You have that in regard to

  1679
  the legitimating of children. It was the law in Scotland for many years that where the parents subsequently married, the child was legitimated, but it took many years in England before the law in this respect was brought into line with that of Scotland. Here we are having, for the first time, a Government bringing Scotland back to the very worst thing that England has, this indefensible system of loans. In a poor district like the South-Eastern portion of Glasgow, where you have teeming poverty, it would
  be too great a risk to give such a power as this to the parish council. They might not use it, but it is too great a power to risk them using, and I hope Scottish Members will unflinchingly oppose this cruel and barbarous method.
  Sir J. GILMOUR Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Applin, Colonel B. V. K.

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

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

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

  Astor, Viscountess

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Balniel, Lord

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Jacob, A. E.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Ellis, R. G.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

  England, Colonel A.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Bennett, A. J.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Berry, Sir George

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Bethel, A.

  Fanshawe, Commander G, D.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lamb, J. O.

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

  Finburgh, S.

  Lister, Cuniiffe-. Rt. Hon. sir Philip

  Blundell, F. N.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-

  Brass, Captain W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lougher, L.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

  Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William dive

  Gates, Percy

  Lumley, L. R.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Goff, Sir Park

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macintyre, Ian

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

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Macnaghton, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Meller, R. J.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hammersley, s. S

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Harland, A.

  Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Chapman, Sir S

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Christie, J. A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Murchison, Sir C. K.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Clayton, G. C.

  Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar, & Wh'by)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Neville, R. J.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Cope, Major William

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Couper, J. B.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Skelton, A. N.

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Pilcher, G.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Smithers, Waldron

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Radford, E. A.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wells, S. R.

  Raine, W.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Ramsden, E.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hawson, Sir Cooper

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Remer, J. R.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Streatfeild, Captain s. R.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Withers, John James

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ropner, Major L.

  Styles, Captain H, Walter

  Womersley, W. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Rye, F. G.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Sandon, Lord

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Young, Rt. Hon, Hilton (Norwich)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Savery, S. S.

  Tinne, J. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K, P.

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

  Waddington, R.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Betf'st.)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  NOES.

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sexton, James

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barnes, A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Barr, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smillie, Robert

  Batey, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smitn, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)

  Lansbury, George

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buchanan, G.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stamford, T. W.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lee, F.

  Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lindley, F. W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clowes, s.

  Lowth, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lunn, William

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Compton, Joseph

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Connolly, M.

  Mackinder, W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cove, W. G.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Vlant, S. P.

  Dennison, R.

  Maxton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Duncan, C.

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Morris, R. H.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

  Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 127.

  Balniel, Lord

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Banks, Reginald Mitchen

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Pilcher, G.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Berry, Sir George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Bethel, A.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Raine, W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ramsden, E.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

  Harland, A.

  Rees, Sir Be doe

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Remer, J. R.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rye, F. G.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar, & Wh'by)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Guetave D.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Savery, S. S.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mel. (Renfrew, W)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Herlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Tasker, R. Inigo

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Templeton, W. P.

  Cope, Major William

  Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-

  Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Couper, J. B.

  Lougher, L.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Tinne. J. S.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Waddington, R.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Macintyre, I.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wells, S. R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Meller, R. J

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  England, Colonel A.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fielden, E. B.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Withers, John James

  Finburqh, S.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Murchison, Sir C. K.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wood, Sit S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Neville, R. J.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Gates, Percy

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nuttall, Ellis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Goff, Sir Park

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland now moving that this Bill, which applies wholly and solely to Scotland, be committed to a Committee of the Whole House?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): The Standing Order on this point says that the matter must be decided without debate.
  Mr. MAXTON: I want to understand exactly where we are. I would like to know is it in accordance with precedent in this House that a purely Scottish Bill of this sort should be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not in order to move that the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would have gone there but for this Motion.
  Mr. MAXTON: This is an important matter on which I am asking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your guidance.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member must ask for my guidance at some other time.
  Mr. MAXTON: Even I must insist upon a certain amount of fair play.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Standing Order says that this Motion must be put immediately, and I am only carrying out the Rules of the House in so putting it.
  The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES.

  [8.25 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

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

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Albery, Irving James

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Balniel, Lord

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Banks, Reginald Mitchen

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Pilcher, G.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Berry, Sir George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Bethel, A.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Raine, W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ramsden, E.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

  Harland, A.

  Rees, Sir Be doe

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Remer, J. R.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rye, F. G.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar, & Wh'by)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Guetave D.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Savery, S. S.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mel. (Renfrew, W)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Herlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Tasker, R. Inigo

  Cooper, A. Duff

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

  Templeton, W. P.

  Cope, Major William

  Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-

  Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Couper, J. B.

  Lougher, L.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Tinne. J. S.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Waddington, R.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Macintyre, I.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wells, S. R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Meller, R. J

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  England, Colonel A.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fielden, E. B.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Withers, John James

  Finburqh, S.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Murchison, Sir C. K.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wood, Sit S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Neville, R. J.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Gates, Percy

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nuttall, Ellis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Goff, Sir Park

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  NOES.

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

  Hayday, Arthur

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

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

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Scurr, John

  Baker, Walter

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Sexton, James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smillie, Robert

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Ben (Barmondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bromfield, William

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lansbury, George

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lawson, John James

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lee, F.

  Stewart J. (St. Rollox)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Clowes, S.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lowth, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

  Connolly, M.

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

  Mackinder, W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Varley, Frank B,

  Dennison, R.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Vlant, S. P.

  Duncan, C.

  March, S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Maxton, James

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

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Montague, Frederick

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Westwood, J.

  Glbbins, Joseph

  Mosley, Oswald

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

  Palln, John Henry

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

  Wright, W.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Riley, Ben

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Ritson, J.

  Hardie, George D.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Bill read a Second time.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES.

  [8.37 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Goff, sir Park

  Penny, Frederick George

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Albery, Irving James

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Phillipson, Mabel

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Grotrian, H. Brent.

  Pilcher, G.

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

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

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Astor, Viscountess

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Radford, E. A.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Raine, W.

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Ramsden, E.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Harland, A.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Remer, J. R.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

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

  Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

  Berry, Sir George

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Roberts, sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Bethel, A.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Rye, F. G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Sandon, Lord

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

  Savery, S. S.

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Jacob A. E.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Christie, J. A.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Styles, Captain H. W.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Lord, Sir Walter Greaves-

  Templeton, W. P.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lougher, L.

  Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lynn, Sir Robert J.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Cope, Major William

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Couper, J. B.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Waddington, R.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  McLean, Major A.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wells, S. R.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Meller, R. J.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Merriman, F. B.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  England, Colonel A.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Withers, John James

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fermoy, Lord

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Womersley W. J.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Murchison, Sir C. K.

  Wood B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Finburgh, S.

  Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Neville, R. J.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Gates, Percy

  Nuttall, Ellis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Captain Lord Stanley and Captain Margesson.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  NOES.

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

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Scurr, John

  Baker, Walter

  John, William (Rnondda, West)

  Sexton, James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smillie, Robert

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Kirkwood, D

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bromfield, William

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Lawson, John James

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

  Lee, F.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Lindley, F. W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lowth, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lunn, William

  Sullivan, J.

  Clowes, S.

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Mackinder, W.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Connolly, M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cove, W. G.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  March, S.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maxton, James

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dennison, R.

  Montague, Frederick

  Vlant, S. P.

  Duncan, C.

  Morris, R. H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnlco, H.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

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

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Gardner, J. P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Glbbins, Joseph

  Palln, John Henry

  Westwood, J.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Greenall, T.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Potts, John S.

  Wright, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Riley, Ben

  Hardle, George D.

  Rltson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayday, Arthur

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr Whiteley.

  Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No point of Order can arise after the resumption of business. Mr. Parkinson.
  Mr. MAXTON: You were good enough to say you would give me your guidance on some appropriate occasion—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Parkinson.
  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Parkinson.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I will raise it in some other way.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY (CO-OPERATIVE SELLING).
Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: I beg to Move,
"That, in the interests of the coal-mining industry and of coal consumers, it should he the duty of the Mines Depart-
1690
ment to promote a system of co-operative agencies for the sale of coal."
In moving this Motion, I desire to call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Co-operative Selling in the Coal-mining Industry. It has been the recommendation, not only of that Committee, but of the Sankey Commission in 1919, that co-operative selling should be adopted in connection with this great industry. I know that it has not been received with favour by many people, but still, if we have the idea and the desire that this great industry should he re-established, that we should get the best out of the industry, it is necessary that we should take this matter in hand. The Samuel Commission on the Coal Industry, in 1926, stated that the present system of selling appears to carry competition to excess, and that the collieries would be well advised to establish selling associations. They say, on page 93 of their Report:
"For the rest, we are strongly of opinion that the collieries would be well advised to establish co-operative selling associations, The creation in the future of the larger undertakings which we envisage would make this easier."

1691
And also, on page 94:
"In the exporting districts, the associations are especially needed. Their function would be to maintain prices at a remunerative level in those foreign markets where the competition is not so much between British and foreign exporters as among the British exporters themselves."
Then they summarise their recommendations as follow:
"The industry as a whole has so far failed to realise the benefits to be obtained by a readiness to co-operate. Large financial advantages might be gained by the formation, in particular, of co-operative selling agencies. They are specially needed in the export trade."
I presume—indeed, it is so—that it was on these recommendations that the Prime Minister or the Government set up the Committee which has been dealing with the question of co-operative selling in connection with the coal mining industry. While we agree, from our point of view that this ought to have been adopted following the Sankey Commission of 1919, we regret that it has taken seven years to get a move on in that direction. With reference to the question of cooperative and competitive selling, we have very little material to work upon, and it is rather difficult for us to find the evidence that it would be successful which it would probably be necessary to lay before the House. But, whether we are prepared and are able to find the necessary evidence or not, it does go without saying that the method of selling coal during the existence of the coal-mining industry has not commended itself to a large body of right-thinking people. It may have commended itself to the coalowners as a body, but I am not quite sure that it has done that, because, if my recollection serves me, I believe that two or three coalowners, in the evidence they gave before the Sankey Commission, themselves recommended that the co-operative selling of coal should take place.
What I have in mind now is the question of directly dealing, by an organised association, with the people who are going to buy coal. We have in mind the home market, which is a very difficult thing indeed. We have not in mind the idea exactly of only buying and selling through co-operative societies or through factors, but we have in mind the idea of setting up an organisation which will take
1692
the whole of the coal from the collieries, if that can be organised and agreed to by the coalowners, so as to dispense with factors and merchants and only employ that organisation. It is not only with the idea of doing away, with these people that we make this proposal. What we really want is a scheme applied by the industry itself. In the export market it is well known that, a multiplicity of sellers gives many and large advantages to the buyers. There is no organisation in the export trade of the country which would be able to get the best out of the selling of coal, and, where there is a multiplicity of sellers and would-be sellers, whether coal exporters or factors, it tends to undercutting and to giving the advantage in bargaining always to the buyer. Perhaps I may repeat a statement in the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey on this particular matter. He said:
"The export trade in coal has greatly increased, and the system of competition between many private colliery owners and exporters to obtain orders frequently prevents the industry from getting the full value of the article."
He went on to say:
"The inland trade in coal has greatly increased, and the system of distribution through the hands of many private individuals prevents the consumer from getting the article as cheaply as he should do. It has been estimated that there are 28,000 coal distributors in the United Kingdom."
In other words, there is underselling in the export trade, and overlapping in the inland trade. We have to realise that the difficulty under which we are suffering is one on which, as I have said, we lack experimental evidence to lay before the House, but we are quite certain of one thing, namely, that, while we lack that evidence, we have every evidence that the marketing side of this great industry has been prostituted to such an extent that the buyers of the commodity have been doing much better, and the sellers also have been doing much better, than the people who are directly concerned, either in the capitalist, the financial or the working part of the industry. The selling and the competition have been haphazard and of such a character and nature that they could hardly have been followed by anyone who was not very closely associated with the industry from the inside. While we believe that the existing organisations have lamentably failed in their particular work, we see at

1693
the moment that, in dealing with this matter without any direct and proper organisation, the price regulation for the commodity is of such a character that it is creating, not only discontent, but, shall I say, newspaper controversy. Day by day one sees articles pointing out the price which has to be paid for the commodity. The prices to the consumer are, in my opinion, scandalous. An attempt may be made to justify the charges that are being put upon the commodity, but I think that, if the accounts were closely gone into, it would be found very difficult to prove the case. In reference to the London prices to the consumer, we may take one concrete case and that is the case of the best Welsh steam coal. Only last week this coal was being placed in the docks at 22s. to 23s. per ton for export. When I say that it is possible to export this coal as far away as Port Said and sell it there at about half the price they are charging on the London markets, it reveals a conditions of affairs which really ought to be dealt with.
Mr. HOPKINSON: The price the hon. Member quoted was not the price at Port Said, but the price at Cardiff.
Mr. PARKINSON: If the hon. Member had waited, I would have given the particulars. The freightage to Antwerp is 3s. 9½d., and they can put the best Welsh steam coal at Antwerp at £1 6s. 3d. a ton. At Algiers they can put it, with freightage paid, at £1 12s. 4d. a ton. In the west of Italy they can put it at £1 12s. 6d. a ton, and they can deliver it at Port Said at 33s. 5d. When we can have this kind of thing done so many miles away, and particularly with the best class of coal that we have for steam purposes, and we find in London it is selling to the consumer at over 60s., there is certainly plenty of room for inquiry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not Welsh steam!"]
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Yes, I can take you there to-morrow.
Mr. PARKINSON: Output regulation is one of the things that must be considered. Output regulation has so little interfered in the conduct of the industry because the great amount of coal they can get out has always been rather a boast of the employers. While they say a greater output is needed we say it is not needed. The Eight Hours
1694
Act has come into operation. There is bound to be a greater production of coal, and you will see in the latest reports that the output per head of the people working in the mines is gradually on the increase. The allocation of markets is another difficult problem. I do not know to what extent the Committee has probed that particular part, but it is one of those things that are difficult to imagine unless we have the organisation to go into that part of the business. It would more or less be a matter for the Commission to arrange provided a co-operative selling association was formed.
9.0 p.m.
We know very well in the mining areas the great difference that exists between colliery and colliery. It is no uncommon thing to find collieries in the same district working half the time that others are working. It is quite common for some collieries to be working four or five days a week while there are others in the same district working three days a week. That may be brought about by many causes. It may be that they are overburdened with capital or have greater difficulties in working the seam. There may be many causes for it, but we cannot get away from the fact that we ought really to understand that a co-operative selling association would do something to equalise and to bring about a condition of affairs which would be more acceptable both to employers and workmen. Competition in selling is one of the things we have always been up against, and while we have it, they say, "We cannot help ourselves, we must sell at the best price we can secure." On that also we have the evidence of experience to work upon because collieries normally sell direct to the consumer or the factor or the shipper, employing their own particular salesmen. There is in the South Yorkshire area something that may be called an agency for co-operative selling. In 1924, out of 170,000,000 tons sold, only 20,000,000 were disposed of by selling agencies, and in those selling agencies it is understood that the colliery undertakings and some of their directors were directly interested and had a direct and substantial financial interest. There is a fair amount of coal sold through the anthracite co-operative agency in South Wales, but it is a very small amount as compared with the output of the collieries. The one outstanding feature is

1695
the one in South Yorkshire. The Doncaster Collieries' Association, I understand, is financed by about four colliery companies who sell their coal at a commission of 6d. a ton. That is an excessive price according to the statement made with respect to the Westphalian Wholesale Syndicate. They sell their coal at something like a rate of ld. a ton, and if it takes six times the amount of money to sell coal in this country as compared with Germany, we must understand that there is a very wide leakage or there are very excessive profits made somewhere.
It is said there is no need for such an organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I can understand some hon. Members saying "Hear, hear," because they have held that opinion and will never remove themselves from it, but if this nation desires to do the best it possibly can for its citizens and its great industries, it must begin to realise that there is something in organisation. If there had been nothing in organisation, why should so many of the greater and heavier industries have organised their selling and buying as they have done in the past few years? That proves that there is more in this question than meets the eye. The Committee which has been sitting on co-operative selling, makes this statement on page 23:
"Organised marketing is increasingly recognised as an effective method of avoiding excessive competition, of achieving economies and improvements in marketing and of helping to stabilise an industry. In one form or another it has been widely adopted in many other industries in this country and in the coal mining industry of Germany. It seems to us clear that the British coal mining industry also could make effective use of it."
I do not think we could have any better evidence that that because this is the evidence of a committee directly set up to investigate the matter. But that is not the only paragraph in which they refer to organised marketing. They say on page 20:
"We believe that the organisation of its marketing would help the coal mining industry to regain its stability and would be an important contribution towards the foundations of a lasting peace in the industry."
On the same page they say:
"Regulation of output does not necessarily mean contraction of output. There
1696
would be nothing to prevent a marketing organisation from following a normal policy of a freely expanding output so long as marketing conditions permitted."
There is the other point which will be raised. With that method of organised selling, how would they be able to secure the capital for the industry? Capital for the industry has been at least secured during the whole of these years, and whether we like it or not it will always be forthcoming because it has always been a speculative investment and it has always carried to the investors a good percentage of return. We cannot get away from the fact that it has been one of the most lucrative in the whole of Great Britain, though it has been passing through hard times in the last few years. If we can do anything at all to restore prosperity, it will be better both for employers and workmen and for the nation as a whole. While it may be argued that it will affect the capital brought into the industry, I do not believe for one moment that the co-operative organisation of sales will stem the tide of capital investment; I think it, would rather help to bring in more capital. Another statement which the Committee have made in their report is at the bottom of page 12:
"The greater uniformity of prices, it is suggested, would tend to stabilise the proceeds of the industry, and this in turn would lessen fluctuations in wages, whether they are regulated by a system of ascertainments similar to that set up in 1921, or on the pre-War basis of a sliding scale of selling prices. To maintain wages at a more uniform level would, in itself, be a powerful aid towards establishing better relations between Capital and Labour in the industry."
The point I want to raise is, that the stabilisation of prices would also be an encouragement for people to purchase their supplies for lengthy periods, which would be for the benefit of the colliery industry and of the large consumers. I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more about the question of organisation. I believe the suggested organisation would do away with the haphazard method of selling carried on at the moment, and would eliminate that particular section of people who are nothing but a burden upon the industry as a whole.
With respect to the export trade, the competition of other countries is an important factor; so far as my knowledge

1697
goes we have never had any organisation to deal with the export trade. I am not giving away anything on that point because I believe that if we had a expert commission to deal with the question, we should probably get better returns in our export trade by means of an organised method of selling, in place of the present haphazard one. Competition by British exporting areas is also a factor, and this might be largely avoided by organisation. It is necessary to have some sort of national organisation capable of entering into agreements with other countries. In this direction, in other industries, important developments are taking place. In page 13 of the Report, the Committee say:
"It is claimed from general knowledge of the trade, that export prices are depressed not only by foreign competition, but also by competition of different British exporting areas against each other in the same export market, and by competition among colliery companies in the same exporting area and among exporters. This unnecessary competition could be eliminated by a marketing organisation."
I do not think it is necessary to carry that point further, because time is pressing. On the other hand, it may be argued that the setting up of a co-operative selling agency might bring about a monopoly. My opinion is that public opinion will prevent the growth of any further monopolies, and will tend in the direction of rising against the present monopolies in other businesses and trades.
With regard to the cost, the only association to which we can turn for practical advice is that of the Rhenish Westphalian Coal Syndicate. That syndicate have operated for a number of years in such a manner as to give to that country and the miners there very great benefit, which has not been secured to the miners in this country. The German Syndicate in its early days had to go through a very trying and unpleasant experience., but by the continuance of their efforts they overcame the difficulties with which they were faced, and it is gratifying to know that, as a result of their experience, the German Government since the War have decided to make it a compulsory organisation over the coal producing districts. The syndicate claim that distribution costs have been cut to the lowest possible point; that all inter-
1698
mediaries who made profit formerly without contributing real service, have been eliminated; that only those merchants are retained who are essential for distribution, and that their profit is strictly limited. I do not think there is anything wrong in any country doing that, because, truly speaking, the coal industry has been too much the happy hunting ground of the man who is always ready and willing to make a few shillings out of nothing. We do not want that to continue. We think we ought to get a price which is lucrative, which would pay the employers and give the miners a proper standard of life, and we think we are right in pressing forward the idea of getting cooperative selling on the basis expressed by the Committee who have been investigating the matter.
The Westphalian Coal syndicate further claimed that the curve of price fluctuation has been straightened out to a remarkable extent since the syndicate became effective. That is something to be proud about. They further claim that the manufacturers have had more stability and could calculate fuel costs for a long time ahead in making contracts. In boom periods, they say, prices have been kept below the point to which they would have soared but for control, and in times of depression they have not sunk to the point to which cut-throat competition would have carried them. The syndicate further say:
"Over a series of years the balance of advantage has been with the consumer, and the rapid progress of the German steel industry before it became so closely associated with colliery undertakings is attributed with authority to this stabilisation of coal and coke prices by the Syndicate. The miners' union leaders declare emphatically that the system has been beneficial to the workers. By stabilising prices it has helped to, stabilise wages, and this has been especially noticeable during the difficult period since the War."
It has been proved without doubt that the Westphalian Syndicate have been able to sell their coal better than we have been able to sell ours, that they have been able to maintain their markets at the more even level, and by doing so, they have been able to justify and guarantee continuity of employment for their people. Moreover, their costs on their organisation only amounts to, about one penny per ton, as compared with the amount in the Doncaster area of sixpence per ton.

1699
In their report, the Committee are agreed that co-operative selling ought to be compulsory, in a sense. In setting up this organisation it will take a long time before it becomes anything like a perfect organisation, but if we are struggling upward and onward and consolidating the industry, getting better returns, better wages and better profits, that is what we have been struggling for for the last seven or eight years. It may be found possible for the colliery owners themselves to try to organise this kind of thing. If they took it upon themselves to organise it, it would require some time before they would be able to get the percentage of people agreeing upon the organisation that would be necessary to make it national. It might take a period of one or two years. I would be quite willing even if the Government adopted it to say that they should not make it compulsory for at least two years and that, in the meantime, the employers and the people associated wish the coal mining industry ought, at least, to take what action it is possible for them to take.
The Committee recommend the development of local marketing arrangements and the organisation of local selling pools as in South Yorkshire. I do not know exactly what they mean, but it appears to me that they are suggesting that there should be district organisations, splitting the coal areas into sections at the beginning. Whether they mean that or whether they mean that the 'South Yorkshire Selling Association shall be the model upon which they ought to build, perhaps some member of the Committee can express an opinion. In the district marketing organisation which the Committee recommend, they suggest that when 75 per cent. or more of the product on a tonnage basis are favourable to district organisation, the other 25 per cent. or less may be compelled by law to give in, subject to various safeguards. They also recommend later coordination of district organisations. With respect to the export trade, they recommend local selling pools by exporting colliery companies.
Government action on the lines of the Report would be very desirable and acceptable, but we must have a limit to the voluntary period. I ask whether this great question ought not to be taken
1700
outside the political arena. It should be really a national desire to bring prosperity to this great industry, to as large an extent as possible. That we can improve it there is no doubt. There are many opportunities by which this great industry can be put on its feet, if we only have the incentive and the desire, and there is a determination on the part of the employers at least to make everything as efficient as possible. And if they do that they will have the full support of the whole working mining community. To give the miners a: decent standard of life, to raise the standard of life of these people, give them conditions of decency and comfort, should be our desire and our aim. There is no hon. Member in this House who will say that the mining community at the moment are not living under the most depressed conditions. It the Government would take up this matter they could make it a success; and I think a strong Government would do this.
Mr. VARLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
I am pleased to have an opportunity of doing so in-as-much as it affords to this House an opportunity of implementing the recommendations of the Samuel Commission. I hope the attendance in the House at the present moment is not an indication of the amount of interest still remaining in the coal question. If we compare the attendance now with what it was a few months ago it indicates the fact that it is only in periods of great national distress that we are able to stimulate the interest of this House in the affairs of a great industry. Up to date for our £23,000,000, and our seven months stoppage, all that the country has to show is a result of the labours of the Samuel Commission is that by an Act of Parliament 10 per cent. is being taken from the royalty rents and devoted to the sacred cause of washing the miners. I hope something more substantial than that is going to emerge. It is true that a Committee has just been set up to deal with the wagons problem. That problem will automatically evolve itself in the course of the next few months, and we may expect that the Wagons Committee will then fell us how it should be done.
Whatever arguments are brought forward by hon. Members opposite against

1701
the Motion, I hope we shall not have the cry that because it is promoted by the Labour party it is in essence and in fact a Socialistic Measure. I hope the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) will bear in mind some of the things which the Mover of the Resolution has said, and also that the Samuel Commission itself said things about the necessity for selling organisations. The members of that Commission were not Socialists. There ought to be no question about the bona fides of men like Sir Herbert Samuel and Sir William Beveridge, while General Sir Herbert Lawrence would resent the implication that he is a Socialist. The right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) and myself might be deemed to be interested parties, but men like Mr. Kenneth Lee and other members of the Commission ought to be credited with a sincere desire o do something towards solving the problems which have beset the coal industry, and their views are therefore entitled to the careful consideration of this House. On page 5 of their Report the Committee include a paragraph which is perhaps the most unanimous thing in the Report. We had to inquire from the Mines Department whether we were expected to report on co-operative selling agencies from the point of view of what they would do for the coal industry or for the nation, and we were told that we were to consider what co-operative selling industries could do for the coal industry. This is what we say in the Report:
"We have accordingly limited our inquiry and have not sought information except from within the coal mining industry, hut our conclusions are based on the obvious fart that the well-being of the coal mining industry and the well-being of the nation go hand in hand, and that the coal mining industry cannot exploit the consumer without, in the long run, harming the nation and harming itself."
That is a paragraph to which I more than heartily subscribe, and I am not going to apologise if I treat the welfare of the mining industry and the welfare of the nation as being more or less synonymous terms. What are the alleged gains which those who advocate co-operative selling hope to secure? The hon. Member who has moved the Resolution has said that we hope ultimately to obtain regulation of output. There are opponents of the proposal who say that regulation necessarily means restriction. It might, and if
1702
by restriction of output we do secure more money coming into the mining industry and an increased standard of life for the parties engaged in it, if we can bring order out of the chaos which now exists, I am not at all frightened by the word. The coal-mining industry will have to face in the near future such a competition as it has never known because of the increased production on the Continent and the use of substitutes for power. In my opinion we cannot hope to secure the proportion of the world's coal markets which we formerly had, and, if we do, or if we attempt it, we can only do so at the price of ruining the coal mines of this country and having a population working practically under slave conditions. There are those of us who would far rather tackle the question of regulating the output of coal than contemplate conditions such as this.
We hope, starting from small beginnings, that ultimately we shall have in the coal industry of this country a regulation of output. We hope, secondly, to eliminate unnecessary competition. Against this it is alleged that there is no unnecessary competition, that competition in the main is healthy. Perhaps we would agree, but there are those of us whose duty it has been to listen to what has been told us by the coalowners—and that is all we know about it. The hon. Member for Mossley will probably tell us that we know nothing about it, hut we have never been allowed to know anything about the commercial side of the industry, and when we have had to sit and listen to what we have been told we have seen evidences all around us of unnecessary competition. In the early part of 1926 anyone who was there would know that from the County of Nottinghamshire hundreds of thousands of tons of Top Hard slack was leaving our pits at 4s. a ton, for the simple reason that in that particular seam, one of the best scams in the world, we have 27 per cent. of small coal, and when there is a good market for all kinds of coal slack becomes a drag and it must be got rid of somehow. The sales agents were told to sell it for any old price. That coal was bought because it was wanted for use. Coal is a purely utilitarian article, and people do not even buy slack to save it up against a rainy day, or to put it on the parlour mantel-shelf. They buy it because they want to

1703
use it. The simple fact of that coal being sold at that ridiculous price simply means that some other man who previously supplied that market, lost the market, and e had to accept ridiculously low prices.
Our interest as colliers in this matter lies in the fact that about 70 per cent. of the realised price of the commodity sold has to form our wage fund. When people mouth co-operation they should remember that though in the principles of the 1921 agreement, which received the laudation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and lesser lights, our wages are dependent absolutely on the realised price of the commodity, yet we have neither part or lot in the determination of this price. We have seen rich and powerful colliery companies who think that it pays better to have high output and reduce overhead charges, rather than work your pit on short time. We have seen those people constantly breaking the market, and whereas from their own particular pecuniary point of view it might pay them to do that, they have been giving away the livelihood of our men. Selling agencies would eliminate that portion of the competition which, in our opinion, is unnecessary. We think selling agencies are necessary to create more confidence. I have just instanced the fact that, although we have been alleged to be partners in the industry, we have had nothing to do with the selling of the commodity. The employer in the coal industry, even in 1927, adopts the attitude, "Well, I will lend you my money. You dig a hole. What we find at the bottom of that hole has nothing to do with you. How it is brought to the top, to whom it shall be sold, or for what purpose has nothing to do with you. We recognise your right to say what is the worth of your services, but "if we disagree" we reserve the right to put the lid on the pit for seven months and when you come back in a less reasonable attitude, perhaps we will let you work again."
We think that even the establishment of selling agencies might do something to mitigate the feeling that that spirit engenders. I am speaking personally here. I want the institution of selling agencies to bring more money into the coal industry, and I do not apologise for it. I say, quite designedly, that the
1704
time has gone by when the basic industry of this country should continue to be the milch cow for all the others. I was a collier for 20 years, and it is no satisfaction to me to be told that cheap coal is necessary for the prosperity of the railways or any other industry. Cheap coal is the slogan of the day. I thought we had heard the last of slogans for a long time, hut there are people who adopt slogans when it suits their purpose. But if cheap coal means the degradation of the standard of life of the people I represent, I do not necessarily want cheap coal. Consequently, one of the things that I look forward to as being for the real good of the mining industry by the adoption of selling agencies is that it will bring more money into the industry.
There are two Amendments on the Paper, one of which says it is not proper to force on the employers compulsory selling arrangements. The other with the customary sardonic humour of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), says that the industry should be given sufficient time to recover from unwise legislation of the past. He does not particularise what. Perhaps he will do so when he gets up. These Amendments would give the impression that in the mind of the hon. Member the industry is all right and should be left alone, but in the mind of the other hon. Members that, if left alone, it will heal itself. To begin with the position is that there are nearly 200,000 men unemployed. The figure is not my calculation. It is approaching 200,000 men who were at some time winners of coal. On the other hand, output is rapidly approaching normal. It is rapidly approaching the figure which I estimate to be the maximum quantity we are going to sell at any rate in the years lying immediately ahead. The last figures I saw were a weekly output of 5,288,000 tons; about a quarter of a million tons less than the maximum output of any period. That must mean that more coal is being produced for less wages. The men, with the exception of one or two districts, are on the minimum wage—a wage in some eases less than that which they were receiving last April—and they are working half an hour longer for it. Short time is the order of the day in some districts. Prices are falling, and there is not the least doubt whatever, if

1705
the slogan of "cheap coal" is universally adopted by the nation, if all we have got to do is to win back our markets at any old price, the position will have to grow considerably worse before it can mend. That is not a position in which this country can be expected to recover, and left to heal itself. I have said that short-time in some districts is the order to-day. Perhaps hon. Members might find that difficult to believe, having regard to the fact that there are 200,000 unemployed men.
Mr. WRAGG: Short time is not owing to lack of demand, I think the hon. Member will agree with me, but is owing to the scarcity of railway wagons to get the coal away from the pits.
Mr. VARLEY: If the hon. Member will rest his soul in patience, I was just coining to that. It is the most convenient way which the coalowners from the districts from which the hen, Member comes find to smooth over this question. The probability is that transport difficulties have played their part in the short time, apart from other causes. Let me suggest to the hon. Member and to the House that. London draws the majority of its coal supply from Nottingham, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire, and that in those four Midland counties the wage is slightly higher in some of those districts, and in two of them very much higher, than the average of the country, and that the coalowners of those districts do not want to give away the advantage they enjoy by the fact that their men returned to work before the other men. They are not frightfully anxious to sell coal except on their own terms. The terms charged in those counties are perhaps in excess of the price charged throughout the country. Not that I blame them for that.
Mr. WRAGG: We want to sell everything.
Mr. VARLEY: I would allow the hon. Member sufficient perspicacity and business ability to grant him the fact that he will sell anything that he can make a profit on and so will I, but he will not sell if he is going to make a loss.
But that short time which is being worked is by no means uniform. In Nottinghamshire to-day at one colliery they are working 2¼ shifts in the mornings and the night shifts do not work at all. It is pretty much the same
1706
at many other collieries, one of which employs 4,000 men. At others the men are working full time all the time. Why? Is it a question of wagons? Is it because the railway companies discriminate in the supply of wagons to one colliery as against another? Not a bit of it. It is a question of price. It is simply because one colliery company made a fortune from August to Christmas of lost year, and they are now, as at all times, able to offer terms to their customers and rig the market as against everybody else. This precious colliery company in Nottinghamshire, which in the early days of the dispute came out with the declaration that if the pits stood idle for three years, work could not be resumed except on a longer day—this company, according to last Thursday morning's newspaper, declared a dividend of 15 per cent., free of Income Tax. Yet it has been turning out coal seven months out of the 12 only. It is carrying forward £107,000 to reserve. That is a direct example of the fact that the selling arrangements of to-day do lend themselves not only to the giving away of the livelihood of the men, but to this discrimination in the amount of time worked by the men, as also to the detriment of the competing colliery companies.
There are several reports which this House will consider to-night. There is a minority report. There are the objectors to the principle of co-operative selling. Having regard to the facts that we confined our attention to the coal mining industry and took evidence only From it, and only from those who have the largest share in it, we found that the objectors mainly were the vested interests—the coal merchants and the coal exporters. They are not likely to look very kindly upon any system of cooperative selling, for it is by the competitive system that they have their wealth, Therefore we never expected—at any rate, I did not—that we were going to get much support from such evidence as we called. It is perfectly true also that there is a minority report signed by three coalowner representatives on the Committee. But it is to be remembered of those three. coalowner representatives that each of them represented large and powerful corporations which are in the same position as

1707
Bolsover, and can at any rate, and do all the time if necessary, crush out of existence their less fortunate brethren.
These people like the competitive system. They want to reserve to themselves the right at any time to rig the market. I am not imputing motives to these men. I am not saying that if I were in their position I would differ in the slightest degree from the opinions they have expressed, human nature being what it is, but I want their contribution to be discounted, at any rate to that extent. However, many of the smaller men in the business are not so hostile to this principle as the three coal-owner representatives on the Committee were. We found that, so far as the Forest of Dean and South Derbyshire were concerned, and smaller districts of that kind, a large measure of support was given to the idea. That was so in regard to my own district and the smaller people in it. But there is at any rate one man with fairly large interests who subscribes to the point of view which we hold. I have here the Trade Supplement of the "Yorkshire Post" of the 30th January last, in which there is an article on the coal industry by Mr. A. W. Archer, who happens to be the managing director of South Kirkby, Featherstone and Acton Hall Collieries, a concern which has now taken in another company and is a very large corporation. He says:
"During the controversy of the last 12 months much has been said about economic wages and the right of workmen to such wages as the industry can afford. These so-called economic axioms may be only half truths. If the rule of the economic wage is to be upheld, then the rule of the economic selling price should also be upheld. Wages and selling prices must be in intimate relationship. It is absurd to argue that the products of the mines should be disposed of at ridiculous prices if out of sale proceeds alone wages are to be paid, and those wages reduce a large part of our population to comparative poverty."
Later on he says, in commenting on the Reports which are the subject of Debate in this House to-night, and particularly in commenting on the report of his fellow coalowners:
"The minority report was signed by three gentlemen largely concerned in the coal industry, but it is necessary to point out that the interest of coal exporters and coal exporting collieries may not be identical. I regard the minority report as a reactionary and futile document. Whether its
1708
signatories have learned anything since 1912 is difficult to say."
Therefore there is not that unanimity among the coal-owners themselves which the signatures of three of the most prominent members who signed that Report seem to imply. The writer goes on to support the contention which I am advancing, that in the industry's own interest and in the national interest some form of co-operation will have to take the place of the present competitive chaos. He says:
"Coalowners will be driven by sheer force of circumstances to take more interest in skilful and scientific salesmanship and to act more closely together, if the great evil of excessive competition is to be mitigated. To suggest, as the minority report does, that things are all right and should continue without improvement is pure obscurantism. Is there any industry in the country in which so little administrative change has taken place for a generation, or which would be bold enough to plead for a perpetuation of existing methods."
If that be the view of one of the largest coalowners in Yorkshire, I sincerely hope that this House will give some consideration to his point of view as representing, in contradistinction to the signatories of the minority report, a considerable section of those who get coal. The Mover of this Motion gave as an illustration the fact that at a certain colliery something of the kind had been attempted. I had proposed to read the whole of this document, but I will just say what they themselves record as being the advantages they have derived from this little experiment. They say that they have achieved the elimination of inter-competition. That is an admission that there was inter-competition, which the coalowner representative on our committee denied. They say that one of the advantages is, for example, that the loading of a 10,000-ton vessel with steam coal presents no difficulty at all. They have achieved the pooling of wagons. All the wagons belonging to these four colliery companies are in common user, so far as the trade with the Port of Hull is concerned, and considerable economies have been effected. The Association guarantee the collieries against all bad debts and, if I were a coalowner, that would be a very attractive proposition to me, The size and grading of the coal from these collieries are as far as possible standardised. It is also suggested that to some extent prices can be regulated particularly

1709
when the demand for coal is close to the supply. But they say it must be remembered that the Doncaster Collieries Association is subject to competition from many neighbouring collieries. I need not deal with that any further. At any rate it is an indication that there is nothing inherent in the British coal industry which makes co-operation impossible. We are led to believe by the opponents of this Motion that there is something in the British coal industry which you will not find in any other industry in the world, but the people to whom I refer have tackled it and, to, their own satisfaction at all events, have achieved something.
I am not sufficiently optimistic to believe that the coalowners of Britain will voluntarily act in this matter. I know that the people who control the Mining Association of Great Britain and who are in a measure I suppose those who decide who shall sit on these committees, are, in the main, men belonging to corporations which are sufficiently strong to look after themselves and they will do it. The Mover said that one of the objections to the adoption of the Motion would be that it was likely to create a monopoly. I have no great objection to that, if it is a monopoly beneficent to the coal industry, and I cannot for the life of me conceive any boards of directors, if they had a selling agency, getting together for the sole purpose of presenting to the foreigner the whole or any part of their export trade or cutting off any of the considerable home consumers of coal. Therefore, even though there should be a monopoly, I can conceive that in certain circumstances it might be an advantage to the home consumer to have that monopoly, if, as a price of the monopoly, he could get anything in the nature of a guarantee of a constant and regular supply. Even while the Committee was sitting, I was in conversation with a man whose coal bill as a result of the late unhappy dispute, was up by £800 a week, and as he had to carry on for many weeks he calculated that his loss owing to the dispute was more than £l0,000. The proposition was put to him that if the institution of a selling agency ensured peace in industry and gave him the right to expect normal and regular supplies of coal without stoppages and without having to pay high prices in times of crises, it would be
1710
worth while paying a few extra pence per ton, and he said, "Certainly." We heard in this House last week that in a small thing like the paper supply to this House, the fluctuations in price as a result of the coal dispute, led to an increased charge of £35,000. At the annual meeting of the Southern Railway Company yesterday it was announced that the extra cost of coal to that one company ran to £500,000.
If any monopoly would relieve the coal consumers of irregularities such as that—in some cases catastrophes—I imagine they would not boggle at that monopoly because they had to pay a few pence per ton more for their coal. I am not outlining a scheme under which selling agencies would work, because the attitude of the coal owners is that they will not admit the desirability of the scheme and it is no use going into the details of the scheme until, either voluntarily or by compulsion from this House, they have adopted the principle. However, scheme galore have been submitted and whilst I admit that it would be difficult to put them into operation, the difficulties are not insuperable. I am now coming to the end of my time and other Members wish to speak. [Interruption.] Well, this is a question which is being debated for the first time in this House, and whether or not it is a matter of any moment to hon. Members opposite, it is a matter of great moment to some of us. If there are any arguments which can be adduced in favour of this proposal, they certainly ought to be adduced here, but in deference to the feeling on the Benches opposite, I will content myself with a very few words in conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) and myself have signed a reservation to the Majority Report in regard to the point that two years should be given for the recommendation of the majority to be put into operation voluntarily by the coalowners. We have no faith in such voluntary action and we felt compelled to put in a reservation on that point. This Motion brings forward the compulsory method, but, if the Government can assure us that on this particular question and as regards this particular part of the report of the Samuel Commission, they are endeavouring by any means within their power to induce the coal owners to take some action, then I know the difficulties which

1711
surround the question are such that hurry would perhaps be fatal. But I earnestly beg the House to adopt the Motion. Whether the Government find time afterwards for acting upon it or not, is an entirely different matter but I hope by their Vote to-night the House will let the coalowners see that the recommendations of the Samuel Commission are not to be lost in the limbo of oblivion and that so far as this particular aspect of the question is concerned, we expect something to emerge from those recommendations.
Mr. STORRY DEANS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
"this House holds that it is not proper that Parliament should intervene to force selling combinations on particular industries."
I would like to assure the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottingham (Mr. Varley) and the hon. Member who moved this Motion, and also to assure the House generally, that the Amendment is not one which is, or is intended to be moved in the interests of the coalowners or in the interests of anybody except the general public of this country. I may also reassure the hon. Member for Mansfield that I shall not criticise this as a Socialistic Measure, neither shall I impugn the sincerity or even the knowledge of any of the gentlemen who have signed any of these numerous reports. But I would point out to the hon. Member that when one tries to get at the gist of his argument, that argument seems a little odd. The gist of it is that if you have this cooperative selling, you will, as he puts it, get more money into the industry. That is to say, you will then be able to control prices in a way which you cannot now do, and you will therefore be able to charge more for the coal to the people who consume it. I find that a very strange argument coming from those benches where Member after Member has arisen in the last month to ask why the Government do not stop people charging so much for coal. The next point of the hon. Member is that the coal industry will be able to restrict output, and yet he is complaining that already 200,000 men are out of work and many others on short time. If he restricts output, is
1712
he going to put back any of those 200,000 men into work, or the men who are now on part time on to whole time?
Mr. VARLEY: The hon. Member will do me the justice to remember that I said that restriction and regulation are not necessarily the same thing.
Mr. DEANS: I remember the phrase in his speech that restriction and regulation are not the same thing, but I can only think that it is a distinction without a difference. If there is a distinction, the words are different, but I think the hon. Member will find in practice that the two things are the same, and that in all these questions where rings and trusts and cartels have acted and have talked about the regulation of output, what they have meant is the restriction of output, so that there shall not be so much competition between the producers of the goods in question. If, as I believe, the regulation or the restriction of output would cause rather a diminution in employment in the coalfields than an increase, surely that diminution of employment would worsen the position of the men in the coalfields, for whom I am very much concerned. [HON. MEMBER "So are we!"] I do not deny, indeed, I know that both the hon. Members and many other hon. Members on the benches opposite are also concerned. For hundreds of years it has been the policy of this House and the policy of the law of England that monopolies should not be encouraged.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Except the Post Office.
Mr. DEANS: I think that is rather an unworthy interruption, because that is, after all, a. monopoly in the hands of the Government.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I withdraw.
Mr. DEANS: I do not complain of interruptions, but I do not encourage them. I was saying that, for hundreds of years, the policy of the law and of this House has been against monopolies and against restraints of trade, and although restraints of trade are not punishable nowadays as criminal offences—they used to be punishable actions—yet no contract can be enforced which is in restraint of trade, and you cannot have one of these co-operative agreements

1713
which is a compulsory one binding upon the people who are in the coal trade unless you alter the law about restraint of trade. That is seen by the gentle, men who sign the Report.
10.0 p.m.
They recommend that there shall be a revision of the law on restraint of trade, and I ask the House to think a very long time before tinkering with that law. You cannot, if you are going to alter the law about cartels and trusts and rings, alter it merely for the coal trade and leave other people out. And then, what happens? If you are going to make an agreement of this sort, an agreement in restraint of trade, binding in law upon the people who enter into it, you will have people induced or sometimes forced by pressure to enter into one of these arrangements, and when they have done that, their hands will be absolutely bound. It may be an arrangement for a long terms of years, and they can easily draw the agreement so that they could obtain an injunction to restrain the parties to it from breaking it, so that a man, although he might think he was not getting his fair share of the market and that unscrupulous and powerful members of the cartel were depriving him of his share, would be quite unable to escape from the agreement. I know that these rings and trusts do exist to-day, but the protection of the consumer and of the public is this, that they are not legally binding, and that anyone who has entered into one of these agreements, if he finds that he is not being fairly treated, or if he thinks that the cartel, ring or trust is going too far, can at once break his agreement, because there is no law which will enforce it.
Mr. VARLEY: Even under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, I suppose?
Mr. DEANS: No agreement of this sort can be enforced, and it has always been the policy of the law and of this House that agreements in restraint of trade should not be enforced.
Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the hon. Member read a summary of the Balfour Report on cartels and combines, in which they quote cases in the Courts?
Mr. DEANS: If the Balfour Committee say that under the present law of England it is possible, as between mem-
1714
bers of cartels or rings, to enforce the agreement, I respectfully say that the Balfour Committee are wrong. We have heard many most interesting statements—at least, they interested me—from both the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, but it seems to me that all their talk has been absolutely beside the mark. it is all very well to say that you will get more money in the coal industry and thus benefit the people concerned in it—that is, that you will enable them to make more profits in the industry, because that is what it comes to—bat somebody has got to pay them, and who is going to pay them? It is not the business of Parliament to put money into the pockets of one industry at the expense of other industries. What would become of the steel industry and of all the other industries which depend for their very life on coal? And if you have a policy adopted by Parliament that will compel people to enter into agreements as to the prices at which they will sell the commodities which they produce—and that, not with a view to protecting the public, but with a view to increasing the price to the public—I say that that is a vicious principle. It is for that reason that I have moved the Amendment in the form that I have moved it, that it is not proper for this House to force selling combinations upon any industry.
Mr. LLOYD: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Amendment might very well have been moved in an alternative form, to this effect: "That this House expresses its surprise at the recommendation of the Labour party for the complete trustification of one of the great industries of this country." Certainly that is the most astonishing line for the party opposite to take, and the strangeness of it is only equalled by the extraordinarily contradictory nature of the arguments which have been put up in support of the Motion. First of all, we find emanating from the distinguished representatives of the coal industry on the benches opposite a sudden and violent enthusiasm for the Samuel Report, which was not at all in evidence last summer. We welcome, this rather tardy repentance, but I think it would have been very much better if this enthusiasm had found expression last summer. Again there was on the part of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr.

1715
Varley) an honest and courageous declaration in favour of raising prices in order to improve the standard of living. That is a recommendation which many of us on this side welcome, but it comes rather strangely from benches from which repeated and fierce opposition has constantly come whenever the idea of safeguarding British industries and the livelihood of British workers in these industries has been debated in this House.
Mr. VARLEY: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not identify this party with what I said on that matter, because I sand that I was speaking purely for myself.
Mr. LLOYD: Again, there was an expression, which I think also came from the hon. Member for Mansfield, that the consumers will benefit by this move, apparently in the sense of having to undertake an altogether altruistic attitude of congratulation to the merchants on having achieved and established higher prices. I do not quite see the consumers functioning in that capacity, but that seemed to be the trend of the argument. Finally, he set up, or it seemed to me he set up, speaking with all deference, the illusion of an idea that certain collieries, I think he said in a Yorkshire district, were endeavouring to restrict output with the idea of improving prices—an idea which, it seems to me, actually underlies his Motion. And he seems to blame another colliery in the same district for undermining that very thing, which apparently is the objective of his Motion. He suggested that there was no organisation in the export trade, and his colleague the Seconder expressed the view that the intense competition brought a greater profit to the export merchant. These again are views which I find great difficulty in bringing into accord, and they seem to me to counteract each other.
I want to deal with one point which was raised by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) and that was the question of London prices. I do not know why the collieries which, after all, have their work cut out to organise the production of coal, shout I be the target of blame for prices which are charged by merchants in London. The collieries have absolutely no concern in the prices, and
1716
the hon. Member might just as well blame, we will say, the cloth merchants because one of the Oxford Street stores charges his wife 100 per cent, profit when she buys a dress. He mentioned the price of Welsh coal in relation to the f.o.b. price for sales abroad, and I think he dealt with it on the basis of 22s. a ton. If I may again adopt an Oxford Street simile, there is great virtue in quantity, and I saw the statement of an Oxford Street store manager yesterday, to the effect that if anyone will buy three socks instead of two, he might get them cheaper. It is just the came with coal. If the hon. Member went into the South Wales district, brandishing an order for 20,000 tons to be delivered to London, he would probably find that the price he has named for delivery somewhere else was very much on the same plane.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same colliery company which produces coal from the Rhondda Valley, and delivers it f.o.b. at Cardiff at 22s. a ton, are selling it in London at 62s. 6d. a ton?
Mr. LLOYD: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would listen to my argument about quantity in relation to price—
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I want the hon. Member to answer the question I have put.
HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can only address the House if the hon. Member who is in possession gives way.
Mr. LLOYD: The Motion is drawn in an extraordinarily clumsy way. There are many of us on these benches who are anxious to see an advance made in the organisation of the coal industry. We yield to no one in our desire for that, but the suggestion in the Resolution is extraordinary in two respects. First of all, it suggests that this co-operative selling agency would be in the interests of the coal consumers. It does strike me that they would be about the last people to benefit by the in crease of trust operations in that industry, and certainly many of us who are large consumers would very much resent development on those

1717
lines. Secondly—and this seems to me even more serious—the Resolution puts this duty on the Department of the Secretary for Mines. Those gentlemen who have any recollection of the commercial operations of Governments during the War, and their efforts to establish buying and selling departments, will realise, that whatever saving there was in the distribution of coal would be very much more than swallowed up by the multiplication of staffs created to deal with them. Many of us, I believe, have extraordinary recollections of the actual manipulation of coal itself under control during the War, and to put on the Department of the Secretary for Mines the duty of organising an enormous trade like this, seems to me an utterly foolish idea. You might as well ask a master of foxhounds to run a girls' school. It is not because we do not wish to see increased organisation within the industry, but because we do not want to see increased political and Government interference in that industry that we oppose the Motion, and I beg to second the Amendment.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It would probably be convenient at this stage that I should state the position of the Government on this Motion. Whatever view may be taken as to the merits of the Motion in any quarter of the House, the whole House is under an obligation to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) for bringing this matter forward to-night. When an important Committee has made a Report on a, matter of general interest and practical importance, it obviously is desirable that the Government should state their view on the Report, and that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its view as early as possible. The hon. Gentleman has given us this opportunity, and, if I may say so, he has put his case before the House in a very interesting, very temperate and closely reasoned speech. There are three propositions before the House. The first is the Motion of the hon. Member for Wigan, which proposes that the Government themselves should promote a system of co-operative agencies for the sale of coal. That makes the Government the active agent from the very start. Then there is the majority report of what I may call the Lewis Committee. That is different from the pro-
1718
posal of the hon. Member. The majority report laid it down that this is a matter which, in the first instance, must be decided by the industry itself, and that unless there was a strong movement on the part of the industry for co-operative selling, no further action was practicable. As time is short, I will not quote the exact passage, but the hon. Member will recall that that is their statement on page 5. They were against any form of compulsion unless the bulk of the industry was in favour of it. It is true that they went on to say that if in any district 75 per cent. of the coalowners were in favour of a co-operative scheme, power should be taken to compel the dissenting minority to join an organisation, but that is less than the hon. Member proposes. Thirdly, there is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Deans), which says that it is not the business of the Government to coerce any industry into combination.
What we are asked to express our opinion upon is not whether it is in the interests of the mining industry that there should be selling agencies on a large scale. That is not the issue. I say quite frankly that, if I were asked purely from the point of view of the mining industry whether I thought the recommendations of the Lewis Committee were sound on the whole, I think they are; but that is a very different proposition from saying that it is the business of this House or of any Government to coerce an unwilling industry into conducting its business in a particular way, and it is upon that point that we have to decide. The Government have given very careful consideration to the Report of the Committee, and are grateful to the Committee for the work they put into the Report and the time they gave up, and it is only fair to say that the question put to them was a very limited one. It was, What is the interest of the mining industry in this matter? They were not invited to consider the much wider question of what would be the effect upon the general community or upon the State. If they had been, I think that probably they would have made a more qualified Report.
I want to put to the House the reasons why, in the view of the Government, we ought not to adopt the proposal for compulsion. In the first place, in a case of

1719
this kind the onus is surely on those who claim compulsion to prove their case up to the hilt. It is a very strong thing to ask the House to force an industry against its will into a particular line of action,' and I do not think the House would be ready to accept such a proposal unless the case were unanswerable.
In the second place, let the House observe what is proposed. This is not a case where some form of regulation or restriction is considered necessary in the public interest or for the safety of those engaged in the industry. [Interruption.] I have listened carefully for over an hour to the speeches made upon this Motion, and perhaps the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) will allow me to continue my speech without interruption. I quite agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Wigan that what is dealt with here is exactly the kind of case with a practical issue which ought to be debated without heat and without prejudice. We are not being asked to regulate an industry, but we are invited to force an industry to conduct its business in a particular way because some people suppose that what is suggested is a better way of conducting that particular industry, and that is a very novel proposition.
Let me put a third point. You cannot take the coal industry by itself, because if this principle is right we must apply it throughout industry, and there is no reason why it should not be applied to other forms of combinations. Some of those combinations have been rightly criticised, but if this kind of combination in regard to selling prices is right to force upon the coal industry it is equally right to force it upon any other industry. Hon. Members from Lancashire have heard of a suggested price control in regard to yarns. There is much to be said for that proposal, but should be very much surprised if Lancashire was to say that while this is a business propostion in regard to 70 or 75 per cent. of the spindles, it is quite a different matter to put compulsion upon the other 25 per cent., and in regard to that I should be surprised if Lancashire put forward opposition to such a proposal seriously. If we gave compulsion to the mining industry what possible answer should we have to the case of
1720
the cotton industry and other industry. The hon. Member for Wigan, in a very persuasive speech, and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley) said that we wanted price associations in order to remove excessive distribution costs. I do not think he really put his ease high enough because the margin of one penny is very small indeed. I do not know where he got his figure from about the Westphalian Syndicate but the report of the Samuel Commission was that the margin is 62 pfennigs, and that covers more than the cost. If one says the general cost was 5d. that would be about the figure.
Mr. PARKINSON: I got my figures from the Report of Mr. Walter Meakin.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The actual margin is 62 pfennigs. The claim that is really made for this proposal is not that you can save 2d. or 3d. on distribution costs, but it is that you will keep prices at a particular level. I think that is a sound propostion looked at from the point of view of the coal industry, although I think hon. Members would be well advised to consider maximum sales rather than small sales with a higher price because the export market depends entirely on the price. In regard to the home market and the domestic market, I think hon. Members will agree that the law of diminishing returns applies and the higher the price the less coal will be sold. If we are to be frank about this problem, it is not a question of saving a few pence on the distribution costs, but the claim made is that it is in the interest of the coal industry to stabilise prices and, if necessary, to keep prices up. That means that any Government adopting the proposal of compulsion to force everyone into a semi-ring of this kind, could scarcely avoid the charge that they were forcing dear coal upon the people.
Let me pursue that one stage further. This is not a proposal for one single combine. It is not a proposal, incidentally, to deal with the export trade, where it is much more necessary. The Samuel Commission, which was quoted to-night, laid stress upon the importance of combination to the export trade. Although they envisaged some combination in the internal trade, they took care to point out that that combination would not be

1721
on a scale which would eliminate competition. The House will observe what is likely to happen if everyone is forced into a district selling syndicate. Is it not likely that that syndicate may raise prices—stabilise prices, if you will, but raise prices, I think—just where prices ought to be kept down? If it is legitimate to charge high prices in the coal trade, it is legitimate to charge them against the big sheltered users—against the railway companies, against the large public utility companies. It is not justifiable to charge them against a competitive industry which has to sell its products in the markets of the world, or against the domestic consumer. But in a district organisation it is just in the case of the consumer and the competitive industry, in a particular area where the coal-owner gets quasi protection in railway rates, that the price is raised. If the district association raises the price to the railway company, the railway company can say, "I am not going to buy from you, but will buy from another county association which is also on my line," and the great sheltered organisation would be able to play off one district against another. The persons who could not face that would be the domestic consumer in the particular locality and I he smaller industry in that locality; and t hat is exactly that does happen in Germany. In Germany, as anyone who reads the reports of the Westphalian Syndicate, and the history of it to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will see, it sells cheapest in the foreign market, but the people who have to buy dearly, and against whom prices are put up, are the domestic consumers and the industries lying close to the site of the syndicate, who cannot buy coal from other sources in competition. That is stated quite clearly in the history of the Westphalian Syndicate in the Appendix to the Lewis Report.
Mr. VARLEY: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is exactly what happens now in competition.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think it does, but I think that that is what is quite certain to happen if you force everyone into a ring. We are asked, moreover, not to take the ordinary commercial risk in this matter, but to put on Government compulsion, and penal compulsion. I only want to
1722
take two other points, and they are these. If the coal industry itself enters into amalgamations it may be very sound, but it takes the responsibility of the finance and of the method on which it conducts its business, but what is the position of a Government which forces an industry to conduct its business in a particular way? Surely those who engage in the industry and who dissent from the action the Government is taking will say, "If you force us into this position, you become responsible for our success or our failure." That may easily land us into financial obligations. Any Minister who stands at this Box can say industry must look after itself. No industry is entitled to come on the taxpayer for assistance. But if the Government interfere with the conduct of the industry, and make it conduct its business in a particular way, they are not in a position to withstand the claim of the industry for financial support. But the Government assume another and an even more serious responsibility. They become directly responsible for the success of the industry and for the whole conduct of those engaged in it. If we have learned one lesson about control it is this—and it is agreed in by everyone who had responsibility for control during the War—that if you are to control you cannot do it in an arbitrary way, but you have to do it by having control of any article from start to finish. That really means taking over the whole of the industry. You have to choose between those two and I have no doubt on which side my choice lies.
But let me put another case, not at all in a controversial way. The hon. Member for Mansfield said, boldly and courageously, that what he was concerned with was that there should be more money coming into the coal industry so that there would be more for the coal-owner and more for the miners' wages. That is a frank statement. I think he, as a miner, and the coalowners are entitled to say, "We will enter into voluntary combinations in order to get the best we can." That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. But suppose the Government exercise coercion, what is the position? He and the coalowners will get together and come to the Government and say, "You have forced everyone into this ring." No one

1723
escapes. You put them in and they cannot get out. They then come together to the Government, for once united, and say "It is worth paying something to have the industry peaceful," and that is the argument the hon. Member used tonight. But observe the position into which the Government is then put. Miners and coalowners come together to the Government and say, "Put up the price to the domestic consumer 1s. or 2s. and you will have peace in the industry." That is an impossible position for any Government to be in.
This is my last observation. I believe in the general development there will be more combinations. These combinations are essential, and I have always maintained that it is idle to try to prevent them. But I have always said the safeguard of the public against a combination exploiting the public was that any member of the combine was free to leave it, and if he found prices were being raised against the consumer, it would be good business for one firm or another to come out of the combine and offer cheaper service. That is a much better safeguard than any unpractical, ineffective control. It is the one real safeguard. But what are you asking us to do? You are asking us to remove that safeguard. You are asking us to force everyone into the combine whether he is willing or not and to keep him there by an alteration of the law against his will. I ask the House to consider this, as it must be considered, in the light of what is in the interest of the mining industry itself. Any industry is free to do in its own interest what it thinks is for its benefit. The more efficiently it does that, on the whole, the better service shall we get. If it acts improperly, it may be necessary for the State to come in, but I believe that with combination and freedom, it will be unnecessary for the State very often to act. I am sure that it is an impossible position to put any Government in to ask them to compel an industry to abandon its freedom, to compel one industry. They would have no answer to the argument that you must compel all industries to abandon their freedom. That is an impossible proposition to put to any Government, and faced with that alternative T shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member who seconded the Motion introduced the question of wages and prices I am sorry that the question of wages and prices has been introduced into this discussion, because it has led a number of those who have taken part in the subsequent discussion into the very common fallacy, from my point of view, that values are determined by wages, and that in order to make conditions possible for wages to be maintained at a satisfactory level, all that it is necessary to do is to get some artificial arrangement, Government-supported or otherwise, in order to maintain an artificial price in the market. That seems to me to be an utter fallacy, because if there are the ordinary conditions of competition, the market determines the price at which the commodity is sold, and wages are not at all determined by what the market determines the price of the commodity shall be. I know, of course, that in the coal industry there are exceptional circumstances, and I know that the whole question is mixed up with the question of the importance of the export trade to that industry; but as a fundamental principal of economics I deny that wages have anything to do with the value at which the goods are sold upon the market. For that reason, it seems to me rather an. unfortunate thing that so much of the discussion has centred round this question of the artificial method of extending prices, of keeping prices up in order to maintain a wage level.
The point, surely, that is of importance in this discussion is whether or not the distributive side of the coal industry is worked upon efficient lines. If it is not worked upon efficient lines, then the coalowners and the colliery workers have a right to complain that the circumstances of the market exert pressure upon them and that they cannot maintain the profits that they need and desire so that wages may be paid. If that artificial condition is to be granted, that is the case for the Motion: the fact that there is inefficiency in the selling side of the coal industry. There is plenty of evidence available with regard to the inefficiency of the selling side of coal. Apart altogether from the evidence that has been given in more than one commission of inquiry, there is the obvious fact, that in this country we have the most productive mines in

1725
the whole of Europe, that we have a higher production per man-shift than any other country in Europe or in the world, with the exception of certain parts of America; and we have coal, too, that is superior to any other coal in the world. If with these advantages—higher production for a man per shift and a higher quality of coal—it is impossible to run the industry so as to give a decent wage and reasonable conditions of life for the workers concerned, it is ipso facto clear that in some part at least the industry is being run upon uneconomic and inefficient lines. That is the case for the Motion.
Something has been said about the productive side of the industry, but the difference between the price of coal at the pithead and to the consumer is, at any rate, a justification for our charge of inefficiency and incompetency, so far as the distributive side of the industry is concerned. If these arguments do not avail then I say that an industry which cannot provide a decent standard of life for those engaged in it is bankrupt, and no industry should be carried on in a bankrupt state. If the coal industry cannot provide decent conditions of life for its workers it should come to an end it ought to give way to the cultivation of our soil and to other methods of utilising the labour and ability of our people; and let ordinary economic laws take their course. It is idle to say that we have to keep a certain industry in being because we have to find some method of exporting coal in order to pay for the food which we require to import from foreign countries, if that industry does not provide a decent livelihood for its workers. Let us provide the food ourselves, and not be dependent on foreign countries. I appeal to the House to get down to the fundamental economies of the position. Any properly organised industry which justifies itself ought to provide a decent standard of life for its workers. H it does not, one of two things happen. We have no right to pretend that we can carry on an industry of that character, or else there is a prima facie case for our charge of incompetence and inefficiency. That I regard as the fundamental principle involved in the Motion.
When we consider the question of Government control, the point has been
1726
well made that the logic of the position is this, that if you control prices, if you establish a ring inside the coal industry, there is no reason why other industries, which are in as bad a way as the coal industry, the engineering industry and the metal industries, should not have a right to the same kind of Government interference. I admit that point. I admit also that mere control and interference is a bad thing in every industry. The logic of the position is that, so far as the basic industries are concerned, the nation ought to have the final word as to their management, because it depends upon them. The President of the Board of Trade says that we have had experience of Government control in the past. That is perfectly true, yet our experience during the War showed the value of control by the nation over the resources upon which we primarily depend.
Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Never again.
Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. and gallant Member may say "never again," but he stands for a principle in economics which differs from mine. Facts are facts, whether he likes to face them or not. The fact is that so efficient and valuable was Government control during the War period that even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when disposing of the services of his own Ministry, had to say that the advantages of Government control had almost made him a Socialist. Where there was under control during the War a disadvantage, where there was an avenue open to very considerable question, was not in the control itself or in the management of public necessities under conditions of emergency, but in the getting rid of them after the War, in the jobbery and corruption which took place after the War was over.
The Food Ministry, in spite of the jobbery and corruption that was proved, not of Socialism, not of the State, bat of private enterprise which got on to the public necessities when they got their chance: despite all that, the Food Ministry made a net profit for the nation of £6,000,000 and kept the price of food down by Government control. If that could be done during the War for food, wool and clothing and other necessities that were required because we were at war, then surely under the extreme conditions of

1727
the coal industry at the present time, this policy and principle of Government control is a valuable one and ought to be adopted so far as the question of the organised distribution of coal is concerned.
Time does not allow me to go into some of the details I would like to enlarge upon, and one can only touch upon subjects very superficially in an impromptu address to the House limited in time. I urge that this question shall be divorced from the bad economics suggesting that the reason why the coal workers can only get a bad wage is because the price of the commodity is not high enough to pay them a good one. That is not sound economics. The price of commodities is determined by the principles of the cost of production, and the cost of production includes the cost of the production of labour. That is perfectly true. Wages do not determine values. Values are determined by the market, and if the market does not provide sufficient profit to pay decent wages, then there is something wrong with the market, and if there is something wrong that is justification for the resolution before the House.
Mr. A. HOPKINSON: There is hardly time to go fully into all the arguments which have been adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of this Motion. I should like to join with other speakers on this side in congratulating the Mover and Seconder in particular upon their very restrained speeches and upon the care with which they have gone into the whole subject and put it before the House. There are one or two points, however, which I cannot leave unanswered. The last speaker, and I think also the Mover of the Motion on the front bench opposite, seemed both to be of the opinion that the organisation of the selling of coal in this country somewhat on the lines of the Westphalian or Ruhr syndicates woufd result in very much better conditions for the workers. The average shift wage for coal getters in 1913 in Great Britain was 8s. 9d. and under the system of the syndicate in Germany was only 6s. 4d. during the same period. I have taken those figures from the Report of the Coal Commission, which was eminently in favour of the Westphalian system of syndicates for the
1728
industry. This is a case where the proof of the pudding is surely in the eating, and if a totally disorganised industry like the coal industry in Great Britain can pay very much higher wages than can the highly organised and immensely competent coal industry of Germany, then I think it would be rather a mistake to improve the efficiency of our industry.
There are other dangers which arise, and I am going now to make some quotations from the Report of the Departmental Committee on Co-operative selling to which reference has been made. The quotations are from an Appendix which was included with the assent of the majority as well as the minority. This Appendix, to which reference was made by the President of the Board of Trade, gives the history of the coal syndicate in Germany. I will quote one or two typical sentences showing what the German Government found was the effect of the syndicate on the coal industry. On Page 36 of the Report there is the following:
"In 1901 the Prussian Diet was apparently alarmed at the progress of the Syndicate's monopoly and its rising prices, and voted large sums of money to buy mines in the Ruhr, obviously with the intention of breaking down the monopoly. … The struggle between the Syndicate and the Government came to a head in the attempt of the Government to buy a company called the Hibernia Company, with an annual output of coal of over 5,000,000 tons. The Syndicate, however, raised capital from its members with the support of five large banks, and itself succeeded in gaining control of the Hibernia Company. Two years Inter, 1905. the Syndicate pushed its advantage further by purchasing large areas of proved but undeveloped coalfields so as to prevent possible competitors opening collieries there.… Government competition' seems at no time to have been effective in keeping down prices, owing to the cost of production being considerably higher in the State than in the Syndicate mines."
There we have a case held up as an example to us where a Syndicate eventually came into direct conflict with the Government of the country and ultimately made the Government stand on one side. The Government attempted by various commercial means to break that monopoly, but the Syndicate being more clever than the German Government of the time succeeded in preventing that monopoly from being broken. That was the history of the German Coal Syndicate, as given in the Report of the Committee on Go-operative selling. What is the

1729
origin of these proposals for forming a selling ring in the coal industry of this country? It dates from the period when the Samuel Commission was sitting. On one occasion two of our bitterest competitors from Germany were received in a sort of private audience by the Coal Commission. Their evidence was entirely suppressed. We do not know to this day what evidence they gave. A memorandum was submitted by the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) and signed also by the gentleman who is now the Secretary of the International Miners' Federation, Mr. Frank Hodges, and by Sir Hugo Hirst—a memorandum also of a secret nature. The result was that, without publication of evidence, the advice of our bitterest competitors abroad was accepted, and the Commission suggested that our export trade should tie its hands for the benefit of the Westphalian Syndicate, which had provided with the evidence. That is really the whole origin of this marvellous idea that we, for the benefit of the Westphalian and Ruhr Coal Syndicate who are our chief competitors abroad, should tie our hands in the export market and give them a chance which they will never get again of filching away from us the whole of our export trade. These facts I think the House should know, and they should cause the Rouse to give a determining vote against the proposal.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

PARISH COUNCILS (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION EXPENSES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. RAINE: The Law Officers have discovered that there is a technical difficulty in connection with the Title of this Bill. I propose, therefore, with the leave of the House, to ask that it be withdrawn, with a view to presenting it in proper form subsequently.
Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Major Ainsworth, Mr. Batey, Mr. Blundell, Captain Bourne, Sir William Bull. Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Clowes, Mr. John Guest, Lieut.-Colonel James, Major Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Foot Mitchell, Sir Robert Thomas, and Mr. Robert Wilson nominated Members of the Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.