HC Deb 25 January 1929 vol 224 cc533-61

I beg to move, in page 62, to leave out from the word "and," in line 24, to the end of line 38, and to insert instead thereof the words: as if for the words the amount of the loss on account of rates and grants of that county' there were substituted the words an amount equal to the county borough apportionment for the first fixed grant period increased by the loss or reduced by the gain of the borough as a whole, as ascertained under Sub-section (1) of this Section.' This Clause is the analogue in respect of county boroughs to Clause 72, which dealt with counties. Both Clauses refer to the additional Exchequer grants which are given in certain cases. There is, however, a difference between the two. We have amended Clause 72 by extending the guarantees. We are extending the extension to county boroughs, but the words which I move to put in here make clear again that the guarantee in the case of a county borough applies after account has been taken of any changes brought about by the alteration of the Poor Law areas. Generally speaking, this Bill may be considered to be a Bill which enlarges the area of Poor Law administration, and where you have in country districts unions or boards of guardians the county will become the unit in future, and that will mean an extension of the area of charge. When you come to the county boroughs you find cases exactly the opposite. You find cases where there are existing unions which include county boroughs or perhaps parts of county boroughs, and other districts outside those boroughs, and as in future the units are to be the county on the one hand and the county borough on the other, that involves the splitting up of the units which take in county boroughs or parts of them, and the creation of an area in which Poor Law will be administered on the one hand by the county borough and on the other hand by the county council.

The result, of course, is that where the county districts adjoining county boroughs were formerly included in the union, they did actually bear a certain part of the cost of the poor of the county boroughs, and one may take it generally that the provision for the poor in those districts would not be so high as in the industrial districts. Consequently, if you restrict the area in the future, making the county borough take upon itself the whole charge of its own poor, thereby, of course, you increase the burden on the county borough. Under the terms of the guarantee which we apply to the county borough, calculations have to be made to see whether any increased charge is put on the county borough by reason of the alteration of the boundaries for the administration of the poor, and if the county borough has suffered a loss in respect of that which is not made up by the county borough apportionment, then the guarantee comes in, and we not only make up to the county borough the loss owing to this change, but we also give it a gain of one shilling per head of its population. Therefore, one may say that the arrangement in respect of the county borough guarantees are in all ways similar to those given to the counties, except that as the county boroughs are subject to this special difficulty, where they are now included in unions, which include also other districts adjoining the county borough, that difficulty has been met by the Amendment I have now the pleasure of moving.


I want, first of all, to point out that this Clause must be read in connection with Clause 111. We are now dealing with exceptional areas. The state of affairs which the Minister has briefly outlined is the state of affairs applying to areas under Clause 111, so that we must bear in mind that a great part of these difficulties have been left to be dealt with by the Minister under his very wide powers. Indeed, if you take Clause 111, it seems very difficult to see what is really left of Clause 78. Under Clause 111, in every case where the boundaries are altered in this way, the Minister, apparently, may do anything "which appears to him necessary or expedient," for applying the Act to that particular district. I say that in passing, because that is the first shadow of complexity which is thrown upon the operation of Clause 78. All the districts where the Poor Law union does not agree with the boundaries of the borough are exceptional areas under Clause 111, and under that Clause the Minister may modify the provisions of the Measure. That is the first cloud on our horizon—the degree of uncertainty imported into the provisions of Clause 78 by the very wide, general and overruling powers given by Clause 111.

I come to what is, perhaps, one of the great difficulties of the Clause. There are two ways in which the county borough can gain or lose, and those two ways are not at all connected with each other. First of all, there is this difficulty with regard to the gain or the loss which happens, for instance, in a borough when you take away a suburban fringe which has formerly paid Poor Law rate. What is the gain or loss in such circumstances? I will take my own extreme case. I do not suppose there is any case where the contributory districts pay so heavily. In the Union of West Ham the Poor Rate is now uniformly 8s. 8d. If the scheme were applied the West Ham Rate would be 12s. 8d. and the richer parts would be relieved of about 5s., since they have been paying to relieve the poorer parts.

That sort of case arises in a great many boroughs where the population occupies a central part of the town which is usually poor, and when the borough will be deprived of the tributes of suburban districts which commonly give a good deal more to the Poor Fund than they receive. That loss is a serious thing, and one of my complaints with regard to this Clause is that you lump into one sum the losses or gains due to the loss of territory and the losses or gains due to the operation of Part V of the Bill. They are determined by different considerations and by considerations of an entirely foreign character; and you introduce a degree of confusion into the Bill when you lump into one repayment considerations which are so different in their nature. In my district it failed so completely that they are left to the operation of Clause 111 or to the operation of the other Clause which allows the Minister to put the whole of the proceedings into cold storage for seven years in the hope chat somebody else may take care of the matter. As to the gain or loss of each county borough under Part I and Parts V and VI, the ascertainment of the loss under Part 1 is a desperately complicated question. It depends on the loss of territory and gives rise to all the familiar difficulties of the alteration of county boundaries, which is perhaps one of the most troublesome things with which a Minister of Health has to deal.

Let me come to the gains and losses under Parts V and VI. These are the creations of the Bill—compensation for loss of rates and grants of new money and so on—and have nothing to do with the boundary difficulties. I will not go on to describe the very sketchy nature of the guarantee afforded to county boroughs. The sketchiness of that guarantee is very much the same as the sketchiness of the guarantee given to the counties. We debated that at some length yesterday, and all that we said then about the smallness of the sum, and the fact that that sum was stereotyped on the rates of 1928–29. applies equally to the boroughs. I cannot see any equivalent condition with regard to the losses in the districts in the counties. There is not any estimation of what the county gains or loses by the transfer of certain portions of the county borough districts. Essex, for instance, will gain enormously at the expense of West Ham borough if the arrangements so set forth apply to the Union of West Ham. It seems to me that the county may be given a little extra by the transfer of territory, and in some cases the county may be making a little less by the transfer of territory. I think, on the whole, that the county council under this recommendation will get a little extra in some cases. It depends on the circumstances, but considering what the fringes of the boroughs are, it looks as if most county councils in those areas will gain a trifle.

I come to the victory of the local authorities—a victory on which we desired to comment on Clause 76, but which under the Guillotine could not be mentioned. The boroughs have been united in a desperately hard fight to keep the benefits of the scheme away from them as long as possible, and this new Amendment of the Minister, coupled with the Amendment in a later Clause, proclaims their partial victory. The boroughs have been able, like the counties, to say that the whole scheme should be revised in the light of future experience, and that the results of that revision should be submitted to Parliament. They have not gained as much as the smaller towns, because they do not lose so much. Here we have a real commentary on all that the Minister of Health has said with regard to the important addition to the health services of the county, and we come back to the stubborn fact that every local authority has been stining heaven and earth to escape from the scheme. The only way in which their opposition to the scheme has been put off has been by a promise that they shall not in any way lose anything on the standard year, but shall gain a little on the standard year for four years, and that then the matter shall come back to Parliament. I am very glad that the local authorities have maintained the status quo, and, it may be, in some cases have done a little better than maintain the status quo in some cases.

What have we done with all these long Debates in Parliament? What have we done with our Debates on Parts V and V1? On what have we wasted this morning? We have done nothing but discuss what is essentially a provisional matter, which must confessedly be revised within four years from now. We have done nothing; we have settled nothing. At the end of four years, what we have done during the past six months will be revised, and whoever sits at Whitehall—even if we can imagine the Minister of Health there passionately attached to his scheme—will have to make similar concessions. He will have to do what the Minister should do now, and seriously set to work in con- sultation with the local authorities and provide a permanent scheme of which they can approve. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to deal a little more closely with the actual gains and losses with regard to Part 1, and with the application of Clause 111 and Clause 78. It seems to me that all this business almost goes by the board if the Minister can do anything he pleases to bring the provisions of the Bill into operation. I wish to ask whether, in regard to these exceptional districts, the wide powers given by Clause 111 will not enable the Minister to do away with the financial provisions of this particular Clause. If the Minister may do anything he pleases to bring the provisions of the Act into operation, it seems to me he may deal with the financial matters set out here in such a way as will disappoint the expectations of the local authorities. It is difficult for us to fight something which is reserved to this extent for the Minister's decision, and perhaps it is hardly worth while for the Committee to spend so much time over these intricate details when we know that everything is to come back to be re-discussed by us, probably, after there has been consultation with the local authorities.


I wish to emphasise the point made by the last speaker regarding Clause 111, as to what will be the. effect of the power which the Minister possesses to introduce modifications. If the Parliamentary Secretary would be so good, I should like to have from him an assurance to supplement that which was given by the Minister, in order that I may have a right understanding of what this Amendment really does, because I have received from the Town Clerk of the County Borough of Stockport a communication indicating a very great degree of apprehension as to the effect which the Clause in its original form would have upon the finances of the borough. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether I had a correct understanding of what the Minister means by his Amendment. In the case to which I am referring, the union not only covers the county borough of Stockport itself but extends beyond the boundaries of the borough, and the common fund expenses of the union are so divided that the county borough has to raise three-fifths of the sum expended as against two-fifths contributed by the area outside its boundaries; but the measure of relief is not shared in the same three-fifths to two-fifths proportions.

I frankly confess that we reap a benefit from our connection with the outside areas. While the outside areas contribute two-fifths of the money expended, the number of cases from those areas needing relief total only one-fifth of the whole. Therefore, the Stockport borough benefits by a relief of one-fifth, that is, the difference between three-fifths and four-fifths, at the expense of the outside areas. Four persons out of five requiring relief come from within the borough boundaries. One-fifth of the expenditure amounts to £22,000, according to the figures supplied by the local authority, and that is equivalent to a 7d. rate, applied over the whole borough. The question I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether, in the event of the Amendment submitted by the Minister operating in the way he indicated to the Committee—at least as I understood it—the whole of the £22,000 will be met by the Ministry, and no additional expenditure will be involved through the operation of this Clause, if it is allowed to go through as amended?

There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. According to the figures quoted in the White Paper, we as an area find ourselves in a position of marked disadvantage in relation to another area very close to our own; the fairness which we are told is to be assured by this Measure is not evident. The area which I represent is almost a necessitous area; as a matter of fact, I believe the figures now indicate that it is a necessitous area; but the amount of relief which will be enjoyed by our area is less proportionately than that of a more happily placed area like Southport. The names are similar, but the conditions are widely different. The need for this relief is nothing like so strong in the case of Southport as in the case of Stockport, and we feel that the basis upon which the figures have been arrived at calls for some explanation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to answer the points raised by various speakers in the Debate, to give a cate- gorical answer to at any rate the first question which I have put to him.


From the point of view of Sheffield, I can confirm what the two previous speakers have said regarding the many disadvantages which will be suffered. There are on the outskirts of Sheffield, certain areas which are in the same position as those to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) has just referred. They are areas where much less necessity exists than exists in the borough itself. Further, there are a very large number of persons using the borough for business purposes but living entirely outside the area and make no contribution towards relieving the poverty of the borough. Whether you regard them from the point of view of the number of children under five, which is very much larger in the poorer areas, or whether you regard them from the point of view of the number of unemployed, there is a very marked difference between these areas, and when it comes to the allocation of assistance between them we do not feel that we in Sheffield are getting the proportion which we ought to have. It may be well for us to consider how this matter is going to be left at the end of a few years and whether it is going to be satisfactory to Sheffield as a whole. We ought to consider it also from the point of view of those who are in no sense associated with the Labour policy in Sheffield. I would like to mention in this connection the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, which does not contain any, or at any rate very few, persons in that position. The Committee of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution to this effect: That this Committee, having considered the Government proposals in Part VI of the Bill, records the opinion that the relief to Sheffield provided by the Government's formula is totally inadequate owing to the burden upon the rates of the past, present and future maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed. That is a pretty strong resolution to come from such a body as the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce. When considering the grounds for making that statement they say: Comparing, therefore, the hypothetical relief to the rates of say £90.000, with the figures for the year ended March last, it will be seen that the cost, including repayment of debt, of dealing with able-bodied unemployed is £99,267, plus the cost of administration. In other words, apart from the concession as to the repayment of loan, the City is left to take a load of approximately £300,000 per annum. It is all very well under these circumstances for the Government to represent that there is going to be a substantial contribution in this particular case, but, when we come to analyse the facts, what does it mean? It means that out of an expenditure of £400,000 there is going to be a relief of only £90,000, and that after Sheffield has been losing year after year. Under those circumstances it is no satisfaction to tell us that the matter will be reconsidered later because then we shall only be very slightly better off than we are now.

When we look at the matter from another point of view in the same manner as the case of two county boroughs which have been referred to, comparing Sheffield on the one hand with Southend-on-Sea on the other hand, it appears that while the estimated loss of grants and rates expressed in pence per head of the actual population in Sheffield is 236, in Southend it would only be 52. When we come to consider the gain or the loss under the scheme in pence per head of the actual population the figure for Sheffield is 41 and Southend 37. While we have in Sheffield a loss represented by 236 and we secure an ultimate gain of 41, Southend has only a loss of 52 and an ultimate gain of 37, which is practically the same as ours. Anyone who endeavours to compare these two county boroughs must be shocked by the entirely different circumstances. In Sheffield we have a percentage weighting for unemployment represented by 27 whereas in the case of Southend there is no weighting at all. Even that weighting for unemployment in the case of Sheffield does not take into account the whole of the circumstances. It may take them into account for one particular year, but it is quite unfair to consider it in that way.

Taking unemployment for a year, and beginning at a particular figure, before you have reached the end of the year you may have a figure which has increased by something like 12 or 15 per cent., and you make this calculation at a time when that figure is going up by leaps and bounds. When you get back again to a comparison between these two places, one suffering losses for a long time, and the other not suffering at all, and where there is none of the disadvantages from which county boroughs suffer, it is ridiculous to say that they are both having the same amount of benefit. In Sheffield, we are equally divided so far as political representation is concerned for voting purposes in this House. My three hon. Friends opposite who represent Sheffield are satisfied that this Bill provides a very generous contribution on the part of the Government towards Sheffield's needs. On the other hand the Labour representatives of Sheffield think it is a very miserable contribution, and we cannot get away from the fact that a very large part of Sheffield's difficulty is that during the War we had a very great influx of population, and that has not been taken into account at all.

We have had an influx of population, and so far as our industries are concerned, we have had an enormous amount of work done in Sheffield for war purposes, and that has been rated in the past. Consequently there will be an immense drop in the amount derived from derating. When you come to deal with this case, and when you consider the whole question from the point of view of rateable value, again we are not going to get in Sheffield anything like the proportion which we ought to have. Whilst we may he able to go on for a few years in the hope that something better is coming, what is now proposed can never really satisfy us even if the county borough may have been driven into the position of accepting some slight concession from the Government, because what we are to receive is entirely inadequate.


I would like to deal with this question from the point of view of practical experience in my own constituency. The town of Huddersfield, which is largely covered by the Huddersfield Union, will be very much affected by the terms of the Amendment and by the Clause we are discussing. I want to know whether the Government will make some allowance when they come to deal with the gains and losses of a town like Huddersfield for the loss sustained by the removal of the present control of the Huddersfield Board of Guardians, and transferring that control to other authorities in the county area. Let me make clearer what I mean, because I do urge the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that a serious point is here involved. In the Huddersfield Union we have developed, during the last few years, a very remarkable school, which, as it seems to me, could be used to assist the Huddersfield Education Authority, if it were kept in the Huddersfield area, to carry on some of its most important work. It is a school placed out in a country district; it might be called a country school, though the guardians do not use that term. It has done a very great deal to improve the health of the children that the board of guardians have sent to it.

The town of Huddersfield at the present moment is contemplating extending certain work which at present is done by voluntary associations. The medical officer of health, who is co-operating with those voluntary associations, has found that, by taking children from the schools of the education authority and placing them in a specially-developed country school run voluntarily, the health of those children has been tremendously advanced, and their weight increased, in a very short time. I can see the possibility that that school will now go out of the Huddersfield area, and be operated by the county authority or some committee set up by the county authority, and I want to know whether, in estimating the gain and loss from the county borough point of view in Huddersfield, account is taken of the probability that Huddersfield will have to spend, from its general rates or from its education rates, an amount of money to build a new country school, whereas possibly they could have had part use, shall I say, of the existing school run by the board of guardians. In the terms of the Clause and of the Amendment there is no reference to a point of this sort, but merely a statement in general terms about gain and loss.

2.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say in reply that some of these institutions now run by the board of guardians will be left to the new municipal authority of Huddersfield after the changes have been made. For example, the casual wards, certain of the infirmaries, and other workhouse accommodation are within the borough. But, naturally, when we are thinking about the institutions of which we are most proud, and which represent the highest value from the social point of view, such as the country school to which I have referred, we feel that as a borough we shall lose very considerably from the fact that that institution will go entirely outside borough control. What we want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary is whether, in com puting gains and losses, account will be taken of the loss of certain institutions by boroughs like Huddersfield and many others similarly situated. I know, for instance, that in the case of Stockport, to which my hon. Friend has referred, there are excellent institutions outside the borough. Manchester, again, has some most wonderful institutions in the county of Cheshire, and these, I suppose, will be lost to the management of the Manchester Municipality, which would have been able to use those institutions for the purpose either of its general health scheme or of its general educational scheme. It seems to me that those losses will be very considerable, and the work will have to be done by the new municipal authorities. Do the Government propose to allow anything for the losses that municipalities will suffer in cases of that sort? That is a very explicit question, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will treat it more seriously than the points we have raised up to the present in the presence of the Minister himself have been treated. I know that it is a point about which guidance is wanted in Huddersfield itself and in the other authorities to which I have referred. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the values of these institutions will be taken into account in computing gain and loss?


My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) has raised a very interesting and rather important point, upon which the Committee is entitled to some enlightenment. He made the statement that the institutions belonging to an authority, but existing outside its own area, are likely to be taken from under its control. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated no dissent from that point of view, and, if the statement is correct, it constitutes a very serious question indeed. If the institutions that Manchester has in various parts of Cheshire and North Wales are to be taken out of the control of the local authority—the town council—that is a matter upon which this Committee and the various authorities concerned are entitled to some assurance, or at least some enlightenment. I want to put the point of view of my own constituency and I want to be sure that I have understood the Minister aright.

It has been held that Merthyr is one of the places that are going to benefit under the Bill, and it has been pointed out that Merthyr is going to benefit to the extent of 3s. 7d. in the£. Owing, however, to the splitting of the Merthyr Union as the Bill originally stood, part of the advantage that Merthyr was supposed to derive would have been taken from it because of an increase, estimated at Is. id. in the£,for the relief of the proportion of the poor remaining in the county borough after its dissociation from the larger and wider area. I understand that the Minister's present Amendment will guarantee county boroughs like Merthyr against the loss which I have indicated, but I should have liked to see the Minister give way a little further than he has. I suppose he has really been bullied into this Amendment, because apparently it has been given in rather a grudging spirit, as the relief is only granted for the first quinquennium, after which it comes under the review of the Minister of Health under Clause 111. On that point a question arises. One would like to know here and now whether under Clause 111 the Minister is going to claim the right to exercise a supervisory power over the scales of relief that may be granted in those areas whose control he takes upon himself under the present Amendment and under Clause 111. If that be so, it is another serious matter.

The Minister has talked this morning about bureaucracy, but apparently this Bill can lead to a good deal of bureaucracy, and to the exercise of bureaucratic powers the extent of which is undisclosed at the present moment. I imagine that the Minister claims that Merthyr gains some advantage, but that advantage is of a purely illusory character, and is not nearly so great as the Minister plumes himself upon having given by this Bill, because, under the pressure of the Ministry of Health, all the health services in Merthyr have been reduced to what I call a dangerous minimum, and, if they were restored to the normal, Merthyr would not gain, but would lose, under this new Bill. Every service, including street lighting, has been brought down, and the Minister has not quite played the game. It appears to me that the Ministry of Health have adopted a sort of double-crossing game, because, while they were pressing these various authorities to depress their services to economise, to bring them down, they did it with the knowledge of what they were proposing to do. The various municipalities have fallen into the trap, and, under the standard rating for 1929 under this Bill, block grants are to be made on the standard year 1928-9, when the service had been depressed under the pressure of the Ministry without the municipalities realising what they were laying up for themselves in the years that were to come. That does not seem to me to be quite playing the game, and I should like to know that the same game is not going to be repeated under the present Amendment and under Clause 111. I should imagine from what we have seen already that it is just as likely to be as not because, as far as I can gather, even this grudging Amendment has been given to us under the pressure of great authorities like Liverpool, which has been stripped away from West Derby, and it is the fear of the loss of seats at Liverpool, I take it, that has moved the Government to give the grudging relief they have given up to now. The Minister says "We will grant you some relief and will guarantee you against loss for the first five years and, after that, you can come to us again and, if you are pretty good boys and bring your relief down to what a Conservative Ministry of Health thinks it ought to be, we will probably go on and, if not, you will bear the loss yourselves." That is not a prospect to which enlightened authorities can look forward with any degree of pleasure and I should like to know, broadly, what are the powers the Ministry is proposing to take to itself, as to whether we are right in assuming the loss is to be made up as the Minister has indicated, and to what extent. There are various other things which lave to be made un. There is the question of unemployment and the question of all the Goschen grants to be made up. There is the question of the relief which we are going to get in that direction and whether we are going to have more of the impositions of the Ministry placed upon our shoulders. I should like to know at least that this little relief which has been offered to us is real in essence and in fact.


I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to apply the force of the Amendment to a concrete case. There is going to be, in the case of Penistone, a very considerable redistribution of road and Poor Law powers to the county boroughs of Sheffield on the one hand and Huddersfield on the other and the County Council of the West Riding. I should like to ask him to make it plain just how the Amendment will affect the relations between those two county boroughs and the county council. I think the whole of the councillors, without discrimination of party whatever, on these three authorities, who are so much involved in this Clause, with the further powers contained in Clause 111, would be very grateful. I can imagine some of them on Sunday including a special prayer of thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary for an explanation.

The second point that I should like to put is in the form of a question. Laborious days were spent during the sittings of the Local Government Commission on the question of boundaries. Is the Amendment going to increase or diminish the difficulties arising out of boundary questions? The West Riding Council and the County Boroughs of Sheffield and Huddersfield try to act, as we do in Yorkshire, as a band of brothers, but there have been some very real problems with regard to boundary questions. This redistribution service cannot be described technically as a boundary question, but it is psychologically of the same nature, and I want to ask the Minister whether he can give us some assurance that the changes contained in this Amendment are not going to make more difficult what is a very difficult set of problems in relation to the county boroughs and county council authorities. I want to ask him particularly, not simply to deal with the question as it affects county boroughs directly with the Government, but to show us that in relation to county boroughs and county councils the difficulties of the situation well be met.


I will do my best to earn these prayers to-morrow, especially if the hon. Member himself will join in them. The Clause and the Amendment of my right hon. friend correspond in general terms with the provision which is made, and which we have already discussed, in relation to the counties, and, putting it broadly, it provides that there shall be a minimum grant in each year, and, where the apportionment share of the county borough is below the minimum, that the deficit should be made good by an additional Exchequer grant. The special case in relation to certain county boroughs which has been referred to by hon. Members opposite really arises from the special position in relation to the Poor Law and Poor Law functions which arises when you have to deal with the case where the area for Poor Law functions cover more than the county borough, and in some cases what we may call the area of charge has been narrowed. Under those circumstances, we have a special provision for it, and, speaking broadly—I would not attempt to deal with individual cases—as regards the scheme generally, this has taken into account the question of Poor Law burdens, both gains and losses, due to the scheme on the calculation:! of the standard year. The whole guarantee of the minimum annual grant in the case of the county boroughs as in the case of counties will, for the first grant period, be the standard sum increased by a sum equivalent to a shilling a hen I of the population, and the standard sum in the case of county boroughs will be the county borough apportionment increased or reduced by the estimated loss or gain by the operation of Parts I, V and VI of the Bill.

Arising out of that, there are two important questions that have been put to me. Hon. Members have read extracts purporting; to be from reports of the proceedings of chambers of commerce, borough councils, and authorities of that kind. I think it will be found that those observations were made before the further concessions had been given by the Government. I observe that one speaker—I wish the hon. Member was present—from one of the Divisions of Sheffield stated, quite fairly, that these criticisms had been made before the further concessions had been granted. We have not to consider this afternoon the criticisms in relation to the scheme as it was then, but the criticisms in relation to the further concessions that have been given by the Government. I gather from the observations that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that their view is that these concessions have been extracted horn the Government, that we have been forced into making them, and that they are not, at any rate, adverse to the concessions that have been made.


We take anything that we can get.


That is the usual attitude in life. Sometimes it happens that if you give people something, that very fact makes them want more, and perhaps the Opposition would not be doing their duty unless, whatever concession was given by the Government, they asked for a bigger concession. That is such an obvious attitude of an Opposition that we find the greater Opposition putting it into operation this afternoon. Whatever concession might be given by the Government in this connection, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead), who valiantly defends that district, would come forward and say that we ought to do more for that distressed area. He will probably go down to his constituency and say, "It is true that the Government have given this concession, but I asked for more," and by that means, no doubt, he will impress the electors of Merthyr by his endeavours on their behalf. I think it can be said both from the point of view of Sheffield and of Merthyr that we have come to the assistance of these particular areas, and that the only criticism that can be made in connection with this Clause and other Clauses in the Bill is to say that one ought to do more.

It is not germane to this Amendment to compare the position of Brighton with some other place, or say, Southport with Stockport. You cannot compare the new proposals with the old on the assumption that the old rates and payments are good. The more one examines the way that grants are made under the present system, and the amount that the respective authorities, especially the poorer, and the rich, are receiving, the more one is impressed by the unfairness of the present financial arrangements. Therefore, it is not fair, in the first place, to say that because we are making an alteration the thing is not right. The very fact that we are making an alteration, and that different results are being achieved, really points to the value of our new financial arrangements, particularly with regard to the poorer areas. I would remind hon. Gentlemen in that connection that in any criticism they may make, they should carefully see what are the actual concessions that we are giving these various areas, and not look at them from the present position. For instance, under our scheme, as far as the county boroughs are concerned, we give Eastbourne per head of the population 97 pence, and a place like Southport 128 pence per head; but when you come to distressed areas like Dudley you get a figure of 313 pence per head, and in West Hartlepool or Sunderland 319 pence per head. I quote this, not because it is a proper subject for discussion under this Clause, but in order to remind hon. Gentlemen of that particular side of the question.

The hon. Lady the Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) said—and this is really one of the important questions which arose from the discussion—"Well, it is all very well to put forward an Amendment like this, and it may be a step in the right direction, but what about Clause 111?"One is rather apt, in looking for subjects for discussion, to bring in this Clause, which, after all, is one with which we are familiar in complicated Acts of Parliament of this kind. It is a Clause entitled "Power to remove difficulties." The Clause is of limited duration, and anything done under it has to be laid before Parliament. Of course, one could not say definitely what would or would not be done under a particular Clause of an Act of Parliament. It would be foolish for anyone to make such a statement, but I can say this—that as far as the financial adjustments which will be required in the ease of a county borough and part of a county in one unit are concerned they will be fully dealt with in the Clauses of this Bill. We do not think, as far as we can see at the present time, that there will be any necessity to use Clause 111. Clause 111 is put into the Measure, as it was put into the National Insurance Act, in order to give the Minister power to bring schemes into operation and to deal with points which may arise on a complicated matter of this kind and which are not fully covered by the Bill.


Does that mean that at the end of the period indicated in the Amendment—the four years and the one year, that is the first quinquennium—any new proposal put forward by the Ministry would have to some before this House for ratification or otherwise?


No. The hon. Gentleman could not have heard the hon. Lady who has put the question to me. She rather implied that we might put into operation Clause 111, which gives very exceptional powers to the Minister, and that by using that Clause, we might upset the arrangements that had been made. I have given a reply—and I have put it in careful language—to show that there is really no intention of using Clause 111 for that purpose, and that we do not think there will be any necessity to do so. There is no intention of that kind. Of course, one cannot give a definite undertaking on a matter of that kind. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr, what the authorities have secured from the Government is the inquiry at the end of the seven years' term. The Government undertake that there shall be a full inquiry and that it shall be made in consultation and association with the local authorities of the country. Thus, a good deal of the argument which has been addressed to the Committee to-day and which was addressed to the Committee yesterday, and which, no doubt, will be addressed to the Committee next week, is met by the short answer that, after all, under the scheme, as now proposed by the Government, you have your guarantee for five years. There will then be only two years, before you have a complete inquiry into the matter. The reason why we in- clude these further two years is to get some experience of the working of the scheme in the county districts. Even on the figures contained in the White Paper, the variations are very small. One did not want to prevent Parliamentary discussion or anything of that kind, but what has satisfied a very large number of people who are not in the Government, or in the official Opposition, are those two facts which I have mentioned.

The hon. Member also raised the question of the buildings. We must not assume that the Poor Law institutions in such a case would go away from the county borough to the county, because we have provided that in Clause 93 the matter is to be one of agreement between the county and the county borough as to the way in which the buildings shall be most properly used. It may be that arrangements may be made for either or both of them to use the buildings. In the case of an institution such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member, it will be a question how the building is to be used and it may be that. notwithstanding the provisions in the Clause, an agreement may be arrived at under which the building may be utilised for common purposes. I think that is the answer so far as the existing Poor Law schools are concerned.


In the case of a decision by the Minister and having regard to the point that there may be loss in the sense that the building—I am referring to the institution which I have mentioned— may not be used by the county borough for its educational purposes, will that fact that loss has taken place under agreement, or by Ministerial decision, be taken into account in reckoning the loss?


It will not be taken into account in the operations of this Clause, but if arrangements have been made by which the county has the complete use of the building, that will be a matter of financial adjustment outside the terms of this Clause. The point which the hon. Member has put has been a subject of discussion with the local authorities. All sorts of suggestions were made as to how it could be dealt with, and they came to the conclusion that it would be better to allow the two local authorities to get together and to make arrangements, if they could, concerning these particular buildings. In the great majority of eases they will probably come to an agreement, but if they fail to do so, the Minister will have to make arrangements and make the necessary financial adjustments.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."


My worst fears regarding the operations of Clause 111 have been confirmed by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I expressed my doubts as to whether the Minister could override by Clause 111 the whole of the financial provisions. I hoped that the answer would be an unhesitating "no." I looked for a statement that nothing in Clause 111 would affect the financial provisions of this Clause. I thought that answer would be given by the Minister, but he only said that the financial provisions were so satisfactory that it would be unnecessary to use Clause 111.


I did not quite quite say that. I said that there might he no necessity to bring Clause 111 into operation. That Clause is only to operate when difficulty arises, and we think that the financial adjustments are already sufficiently specified.


Then, may I take it that the right hon. Gentleman says that nothing in Clause 111 can override the words in italics in this Clause? Is that so?


The hon. Member must not misinterpret what I say.


I hoped that the Minister would say "Nonsense! The words in italics cannot be overridden."


I hope not.


The right hon. Gentleman says that he hopes not. Then, instead of a firm guarantee being given it is true that the words in italics are or may be overridden. The right hon. Gentleman only says that he hopes it will not be necessary to override them. I have been a little persistent on this point. If those words can be overridden, then the whole of the financial Clauses are thrown over. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the Standing Orders. I do not believe that anything which is not in italics in a Clause can override a special Financial Resolution. The Minister adheres to a gloomy view of the subject.




The right hon. Gentleman adheres to the gloomy view of the subject that his right hon. Friend can use the powers in Clause 111 to override the financial guarantee. That seems almost too dreadful to be true, and I hope that when the Minister of Health comes back he will say that as far as the words in italics are concerned, he cannot touch them by Clause 111.


The hon. Member must look at the terms of Clause 111. If a difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act in any exceptional area or the other conditions referred to in this Clause, then that Clause can be put into operation. Every Order made by the Minister under the Clause must be laid before Parliament. The real answer is that the Clause, as drafted, operates in connection with the machinery provisions of the Bill.


Then Clause 111 gives the Minister power to override the guarantee. Is that true? It seems to me too dreadful to be true. I have put the point to experienced Parliamentarians, and they say that it cannot be true. Parliament votes money for a particular purpose under a Financial Resolution, and we are now told that an overriding Clause, given to the Minister to do what he likes, extends to a jurisdiction over the money voted by Parliament under a Financial Resolution. That is a new doctrine, and I do not believe that it is a true doctrine. I think that the Minister under Clause 111 can arrange the accounts, upon which the Parliamentary grant depends, as he likes; it comes to the same thing. He can determine that the loss is 2d. or £20,000, and then the guarantee will have to apply.

The fact that a district may lose or gain by an alteration in the formula is a very important matter indeed, as it may run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. As it is, the position is not very satisfactory. If this monstrous claim is upheld, then, despite what Parliament has done in the financial Clause, the right hon. Gentleman may do exactly what appears to him expedient in these financial matters and the whole position becomes extremely complicated. It is indeed made more confused and complicated than the nature of the subject matter justifies. I am glad to have that point established, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary after reflection will think that his Department is a little more bound than he supposes at present. This scheme was proposed as a partial remedy for the inequality and unfairnesses in our rating system, but when you apply it to the boroughs the amount of relief given is of such a capricious nature, so much of it goes to districts which do not want it and so little to districts which do, that we have now profound distrust of the whole scheme. It was pointed out that under the guarantee certain boroughs and districts seem to come out in a very curious way. They do. There does net seem to be any connection between the needs of a district and the amount of their gain.

The Parliamentary Secretary dismissed the question in a very airy manner, but the fact remains that a place like Southend-on-Sea comes out much better than a place like Stockport. Southend-on-Sea gets 4.1d. of relief, while Stockport gets 3.7d. Why should Southend-on-Sea, one of the happiest, jolliest and most prosperous places in the country, get a greater measure of relief than Stockport? Brighton gets a rate relief of 4d. Some of the other districts mentioned, necessitous areas, may get a rate relief as little as 2d. Bradford, without the guarantee, would lose very heavily by the unrestricted operation of the Minister's scheme, and other districts which ought to get money would actually lose if it were not for the guarantee. Why on earth should Brighton gain and Bradford lose? The truth is that the scheme does not work; the formula does not work, or, at any rate, it works so badly that the Minister has had to run away from his own scheme and buy off all the authorities with the promise that they shall not be very hard hit for a few years. That is the root of the matter, and that is why this Committee is wasting its time in discussing these fantastic financial provisions. The only solid and serious thing in the Bill is the guarantee that nobody shall be hurt by these proposals for a short period of time, and that Parliament shall afterwards review the matter.

Local authorities do not like the scheme, but they have promised not to fight the Bill on condition that it shall be put into cold storage for a few years. The formula is hated and disliked by every local authority, and it has never been adequately defended or explained. I have always been very much amused at the defence of the formula. The right hon. Gentleman says, "There are places with high rates; unemployment is a great burden, and the care of children is very expensive." All very well. "I have got them all in the formula. I have multiplied the percentage of all these things by a figure I have been pleased to take and then I have multiplied them altogether and it must, therefore, make a perfectly scientific formula." That is the only defence of the formula, against which we are trying to protect local authorities; all the things mentioned apply to local affairs; they represent special burdens, and very low incomes, and the Minister is therefore justified in multiplying them all by anything he likes, multiplying them altogether again, and then ask the House of Commons to distribute their money on that basis. It will not work. The only thing we are doing is to say that local authorities shall be able to put the thing in cold storage until some Minister will bring forward a suitable scheme. Now that the Minister of Health is in his place I should like to put once more the question which I have already put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it true that Clause 111 gives the Minister power to alter the financial guarantee? I think not. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks it does. I doubt very much whether the overriding provision of Clause HI with regard to any exceptional areas, does give the Minister power to do just what he likes.


I did not say that. I said that, if a difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Bill in any exceptional area, then the Clause can be put into operation.


I pressed the Parliamentary Secretary over and over again to tell the Committee plainly what I be- lieve to be the truth, that is, that nothing in Clause 111 can alter that part of this Clause which is in italics. He would not say that. I believe it is true. I think that nothing in Clause 111 enables the Minister to alter the guarantee, but it-gives him power to estimate the apportionment which is to be made in any way he likes. I do not think it gives him power to alter the financial guarantee.

Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.


Now I have got it. I have been pleading with the Parliamentary Secretary to say that nothing in Clause 111 can override the part in italics in this particular Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has now admitted it. That is all right.


Just like a woman.


I also said that I believed the right hon. Gentleman would take the view I am taking and would say that he was entirely bound by this Clause. That is clear. Under Clause 111 the calculation of the loss can be, I think, determined by the Minister, but there is a shade of uncertainty as to that, and there is nothing more intricate than to determine what is the gain or loss of an area. I have at last got the Parliamentary Secretary to say "yes" or "no" to a simple question. It is an achievement which no one on this side has yet accomplished. I have seen experienced Members spend hours of time in trying to get an answer "yes" or "no." I and I alone am the one person in the whole House who has ever persuaded the Parliamentary Secretary to give a plain answer to a plain question.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I think we can congratulate ourselves on the exhibition we have had of the hon. Lady trying to persuade the Parliamentry Secretary to give way. It has been a lesson to us as to what must have happened since the earliest days in our history. On this side we have always been astonished at the want of perception in the Socialist party of the merits of the formula, and at the extraordinary fog which has spread over their minds as to the meaning of it. I think that the hon. Lady is responsible to the party, and perhaps to the country, for a great deal of the misconception which has permeated the Socialist party and the country on this point. Let me refer to some of her previous criticisms. I remember her saying that she remembered the time when the Poor rate was ten times smaller than now.


Domiciliary relief.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

When dealing with a matter of mathematics, as the hon. Lady has done all the time, the question of the application of a sum which is ten times smaller is a little hard to apply. No doubt she meant a tenth of what it is now, but she mystified the Committee, and she cannot be surprised if, bearing in mind the remark of a previous Parliamentarian in regard to the decimal point, the Labour party have put that point in the wrong place.


What I said was that domiciliary relief was ten times smaller than it is to-day. Ten times smaller means that you divide the present figure by 10. It used to be just about one-tenth of what it is to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I am very glad that the hon. Lady realises that it is an ambiguous phrase. I have referred to only one phrase, but there are many ambiguous phrases dealing with the formula which the hon. Lady has imparted to her own side. I would like an explanation of the second part of this Clause. In certain parts of the county, even with the new distribution of valuation and rates, it is clear that there may be an arbitrary line drawn and two sides of the street may be rated and valued on different bases, according to the private capacity of the valuation committees. I want to know what the system will be.


This does not deal with counties but with county boroughs.


I am as anxious as anyone that the Bill should be explained, so that the country may have a chance of appreciating the intention of the Government. With regard to the formula, can we have some explanation of what was in the mind of the Government when the Bill was being framed? Why is it that we have this great difference between certain districts? I shall not mention the names of towns, but there are manufacturing districts receiving little assistance compared with other districts which are not industrial. This is one of the things that makes me wonder whether the Government did intend to make this a helpful Measure for the country or whether it was intended simply to embody proposals for local government which suited the Government's particular ideas. References have been made to inland towns and seaside districts by way of comparison. I am not concerned with that method of discussion, but when one sees what is happening under the estimate that has been handed to us, one is justified in asking for an explanation. Then there is the point raised by the hon. Lady as to Clause 111. Is it to be used as a threat to the districts in case they do not conform quite

to the Minister's point of view? I hope that even now we shall have some further explanation.


Clause 111 is a Clause which gives the Minister, as it states, "power to remove the difficulties" such as we are all familiar with. It says that the Minister may by order remove the difficulty or make any appointment or do any other thing which appears to him necessary or expedient for bringing the said provision into operation.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 75.

Division No. 124.] AYES. [2.55 p.m.
Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charies Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Albery, Irving James Fermoy, Lord Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Foster, Sir Harry S. Pilcher, G.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Fremantla, Lieut.-Colonsl Francis E. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Gates, Percy Rawson, Sir Cooper
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent,Dover) Goff, Sir Park Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Atkinson, C. Gunston, Captain D. W. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hacking, Douglas H. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Balniel, Lord Hamilton, Sir George Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Harrison, G. J. C. Ropner, Major L.
Backett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Salmon, Major I.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Berry, Sir George Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Savery, S. S.
Bethel, A. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Betterton, Henry B. Hills, Major John Walier Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Boothby, R. J. G. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Briggs, J. Harold Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Smithers, Waidron
Briscoe, Richard George Hopkins, J. W. W. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Brittain, Sir Harry Hopkinson. Sir A (Eng. Universities) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Buckingham, Sir H. Hurst, Gerald B. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Bullock, Captain M. Iveagh, Countess of Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Campbell, E. T. James, Lieut.-Coionel Hon. Cuthbert Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Carver, Major W. H. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Styles, Captain H Walter
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) King, Commodore Henry Douglas Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Chanwick, Sir Robert Burton Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Knox, Sir Alfred Tasker, R. Inigo.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Lamb, J. O. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Clarry, Reginald George Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Clayton, G. C. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Vauglian-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Cockerill, Brig.-Gcneral Sir George Loder, J. de V. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Conway. Sir W. Martin Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Ward, Lt.-Col A L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Cope, Major Sir William Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Lumley, L. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Watts, Sir Thomas
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) MacIntyre, Ian Wayland, Sir William A.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro) Macquisten, F. A. Wells, S. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset.Yeovil) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Davies, Dr. Vernon Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Dawson, Sir Philip Margesson, Captain D. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Dean, Arthur Weliesley Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Dixey, A. C. Meller, R. J. Wolmer, Viscount
Drewe, C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wonersley, W.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Moore, Sir Newton J. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Everard, W. Lindsay Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) Mr. Penny and Major the Marquess
Fairfax, Captain J. G. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh of Titchfield.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hardie, George D. Scurr, John
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Harris, Percy A, Shinwell, E.
Batey, Joseph Hirst, G. H. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bellamy. A. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersffeld) Sitch, Charles H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Briant, Frank Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Broad, F. A. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Stamford, T. W.
Bromley, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sutton, J. E.
Cape, Thomas Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Charieton, H. C. Kennedy, T. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistew)
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, George Thurtle, Ernest
Cove, w. G. Lawrence, Susan Tinker, John Joseph
Dennison, R. Lowth, T. Tomlinson, R. P.
Duncan, C. MacNeill-Weir, L. Townend, A. E.
Dunnico, H. March, S. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morris, R. H. Wallhead, Richard C.
Gardner, J. P. Mosley, Sir Oswald Watts-Morqan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gillett, George M. Naylor, T. E. Wellock, Wilfred
Greenwood, A. (Nelson end Coine) Oliver, George Harold Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Palin, John Henry Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Ponsonby, Arthur Windsor, Waiter
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Potts, John S. Wright, W.
Groves, T. Purcell, A. A. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. W. Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Sakiatvaia, Shapurji TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Scrymgeour, E. Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.