POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HC Deb 22 February 1927 vol 202 cc1609-89

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 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 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- 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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- 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- 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 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- 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 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- 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.

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- 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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- 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. WHEATLEY

I 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.- 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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.