Commons Sitting of 5 December 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Holland and Lindsey) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Holland and Kesteven) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leicester and Warwick) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Gloucester and Warwick) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cumberland and Lancaster) Bill.
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any recent international conversations or negotiations on disarmament have arisen; and whether the British Government intends taking the initiative in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I should prefer to make no statement on this subject to-day beyond referring to what I stated to the House on the 22nd November last.

  SAAR TERRITORY (MAINTENANCE OF ORDER).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any request of an official nature has been made to the British Government, either on behalf of the League of Nations or of any State, suggesting that British troops shall be associated as mandatories of the League with the French troops at present organised for and available at the request of the President of the Saar Governing Commission for the sup-
  1558
  pression of disorder beyond the competency of the local police to deal with?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.
  Mr. MANDER: Did the right lion. Gentleman see the speech of M. Laval in the French Chamber last week, in which he appealed to the other Powers to take their share of responsibility?
  Sir J. SIMON: If my hon. Friend means that he already has the answer there is no reason for him to put his question.
  Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the further point?
  Sir J. SIMON: If my hon. Friend's question is not the original question, I prefer to answer no supplementaries to-day.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FOREIGN TRADE.
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any special instructions have recently been issued to commercial attaches, and consuls and vice-consuls, with a view to the expansion of British trade in world markets?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No general instructions have recently been issued. Special instructions are constantly sent to individual officers as circumstances dictate.

    COLONIAL EMPIRE TRADE.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the development of trade between this country and the Colonial Empire, and the problems which must arise through resultant prosperity leading to the development of various colonial manufactures, he will consider the desirability of calling a conference at an early date in order to lay down future policy with regard to colonial manufactures as a whole?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave on the 14th November. For the reasons there given I do not think a conference is either necessary or desirable.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that a great deal of uncertainty exists in the mind of the primary producers in certain parts of the Empire, and will my right hon. Friend take steps to reiterate what the Government policy is in regard to manufactures in the Colonial Empire?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not really think that there is any uncertainty. The whole policy of the Government is to give the greatest possible encouragement to primary producers of the Colonial Empire—this is being done—and to give-the widest possible preference to the British manufacturer.
    Mr. PALING: Does that mean that it is not the Government's policy to encourage the building of factories in the Colonies or anything that may lead to manufacture?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The policy, broadly speaking, is to encourage the primary producer by the grant of preference and to give reciprocal preferences in return. It is only in rare cases that any conflict of interest is likely to arise. I believe that with, reasonable good will and common sense cases like that can very easily be settled.

    AUSTRALIA.
    Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the threat to Lancashire and other industrial areas, he can make a statement on the position raised by the proposed alteration of Australian commercial relations with Great Britain, announced by Dr. Page at Canberra, as a result of the agricultural policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have seen a Press report of a speech made by Dr. Page, the acting Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, at an inter-State agricultural conference on 3rd December. I am not at present in a position to add to the statements regarding the situation in relation to various primary products which have been made by the Government from time to time, and in particular to those regarding milk products and meat respectively contained in Command Paper 4519 and 4651.
    Major PROCTER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the agricultural policy of His Majesty's Government is jeopardising not only—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!

    NEW ZEALAND (MEAT EXPORTS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will give particulars of the proposal made to the New Zealand Government under which she is given until December to accept the quota on meat exports to this country and to pay in addition a levy of ½d. a pound in order to buy a subsidy for the British farmer on home-produced meat?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. His Majesty's Government in New Zealand, in common with other Dominion Governments, were asked in July last for their views as to the payment of a preferential levy on meat imported into the United Kingdom, on the lines indicated in Command Paper 4651 of 11th July, as an alternative to quantitative control only.
    Mr. MANDER: Would it not be more in accordance with Imperial traditions to allow New Zealand produce to come free into this country?

    COASTAL TRADE.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of British coastal trade is carried by foreign ships; and whether he has evidence to show if this has increased during the last six months?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Of the total net tonnage of the arrivals and departures with cargo in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom during the 10 months ended October, 1934, 0.8 per cent. related to foreign vessels. The proportions for individual months varied from 1.4 per cent. in February to 0.5 per cent. in July. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Commander MARSDEN: Are not those figures taken from the returns of all the ships which technically come under the heading of coastal trade, which includes many big ships; and may I ask whether the same proportions exist in the smaller ships, of 250 tons and under, engaged in the coastal trade?
    Dr. BURGIN: I could not answer that question without notice. The particulars which I have given relate to the net tonnage of vessels in the coastal trade entering and leaving ports.
    Mr. DICKIE: Having regard to the lack of definite knowledge on this particular matter and the frequency with which it arises in the House could not the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of altering the method in which the statistics are compiled, so that we may actually know the tonnage whether in or out?
    Dr. BURGIN: I must protest at the suggestion that there is any lack of definite knowledge. If the question is made definite, I will give a definite reply. I was asked a question as to the total coasting trade. If the hon. and gallant Member desires information as to vessels of any particular tonnage and will say so, there should be no difficulty in giving an answer.
    Mr. DICKIE: Is it not a fact that these figures relate to the gross tonnage entering and leaving the ports and have no relation to the tonnage carried in or out?
    Dr. BURGIN: That is quite another question.

    SPAIN.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any special representations have been made to the Spanish Government in view of the visit of the Board of Trade delegation to that country to investigate the possibility of increasing British trade; and if the commercial attaché and British consuls and vice-consuls in Spain have been advised of the object of the mission and were asked to co-operate in making its work in Spain a success?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Spanish Government were consulted before the departure of the Delegation, and expressed general approval of the objects of the investigation; the Delegation is working in the closest possible co-operation with the Commercial Counsellor and His Majesty's Consular Officers in Spain.
    Sir P. GOFF: Can the hon. and gallant Member give any further information than that?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir, not at this stage, but the matter will be actively pursued.

    BROADCASTING (EMPIRE SERVICE).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the desirability of improving the standard of broadcasting to the Colonial Empire and of making some arrangements to obtain financial support for such service from the Colonies which benefit; and whether he will call for observations on this matter from the various Colonial Governments?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Colonial Office is in constant touch with the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as with Colonial Governments with a view to securing the greatest efficiency in the Empire Broadcasting Service. I will not lose sight of the possibility that Colonial Governments might be asked to consider some form of contribution to the cost of the service, where their finances permit. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of two circular despatches which have been issued with regard to the scheme.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the Colonial Empire a great deal of the programmes that are broadcast is from Germany and is of a propaganda nature? Will he take steps to see that an adequate programme is provided from Imperial sources and that this other source of broadcasting is curtailed as much as possible?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is impossible to prevent people who have listening-in machines from receiving anything that may happen to go on the ether, The whole object of the broadcasting scheme of the British Broadcasting Corporation for the whole Empire is that there should be an effective British programme available for the whole Empire, and that is being done, I think, with great success.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Will my right hon. Friend co-operate with the Foreign Secretary on the question of broadcasting to the British communities in foreign countries?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that that is rather outside my province.

  KENYA.

    NATIVE LANDS TRUST BOARD.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what action he proposes to take on the assertion in the Kenya Land Commission Report regarding the difficulty of securing suitable local people, official or otherwise, to sit on the lands trust board as trustees of the native interests, the necessity that the board should command the confidence of the natives, and that it should be removed from the sphere of local politics?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No final decision has yet been taken on the question of the composition of the Native Lands Trust Board. I am still in consultation with the Governor.

    PETITIONS.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a petition from Kenya Colony complaining of an order issued by a District Commissioner in the Kavirondo Reserve, prohibiting the collection of funds by the North Kavirondo Central Association, a native body formed to protect the interests of African workers at Kakamega; and, if so, whether he will direct the Kenya Government to see that the prohibition is withdrawn and permission to collect funds granted?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the reply which I gave to his question on 7th November. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it is impossible for me to give consideration to memorials of this nature unless they reach me through the recognised and prescribed channels.
    Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that that is the recognised channel?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, it always is. The recognised channel is for petitions and memorials to go through the Governor in order that he may have an opportunity of commenting upon them. That is not only the regular way but it saves a good deal of time.
    Mr. PALING: May we take it that these people will have facilities for presenting petitions to the Governor?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, and hundreds of petitions are presented every year, but they get considered more quickly if they go the right way.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we take it that there is no objection to petitions in principle, and that there is no objection to natives providing for themselves, collectively, some method by which petitions may be presented?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would much rather not answer a general question about petitions and in regard to circumstances of which I have no knowledge.
    Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in this case the interests of the natives of the Kakamega district are vitally affected?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The interests of the natives of the Kakamega. have been and will be most thoroughly looked after, but I am sure it would be very wrong of me to attempt to answer a question about a petition which I have not even seen.

    JAMAICA (CUSTOMS OFFICERS' REDUCTION).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement of the circumstances attending the dismissal of a customs official in Jamaica for alleged fraud and the subsequent order for his reinstatement?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A member of the staff of the Collector-General in Jamaica admitted that he had misappropriated a sum of about £14 from Government funds. In view of his service of over thirty-five years and as dismissal would have entailed the loss of pension, the Governor in Privy Council recommended that he should be punished by a. reduction in rank, and should be retired on reaching the pensionable age of 60 in 1937. I accepted this recommendation.
    The elected members of the Jamaica Legislature deleted from the Estimates of the Colony the provision for the salary of the officer in his new appointment. While on reconsideration in the light of fuller information which subsequently became available I reached the conclusion that the delinquent officer had been

    1565
    treated with undue leniency and should have been dismissed, I found myself unable to agree to a procedure of which the effect would have been to try him twice for the same offence and to allow the Jamaica, Legislature to intervene in regard to discipline in the public service, a matter in which, under the constitution of the island, His Majesty exercises his prerogative through the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor in Privy Council. As it was my duty to maintain that prerogative, I requested the Governor to bring the matter before the Legislature with a view to financial provision being made for the salary of the officer concerned. On the elected members declining to reconsider their action, the Governor, with my authority, declared the matter to be one of paramount importance, and the motion to restore the salary was carried on his casting vote.
    I will place in the Library a copy of my despatch to the Governor of Jamaica, which has been laid before the Colonial Legislature, and which elaborates the reasons for my decision.

    COLONIAL SERVICE (LEAVE AND PASSAGE REGULATIONS).
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action the Government proposes to take with regard to the recommendations of the committee on leave and passage conditions for the Colonial service?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply which I gave to a similar question on the 28th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. LEWIS: Does my right hon. Friend hope to be in a position to make a statement when the House re-assembles after the Christmas Recess?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I should very much doubt that because the report has to go out to every Colony, and in some cases that will take a very long time, and the report raises a number of extremely difficult and intricate points which are possibly susceptible of different constructions in different Colonies. It is a tremendously important document, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

    MALAYA (ANIMAL PRESERVATION).
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the fines for killing preserved species of animals in Malaya are in all cases fixed at a higher figure than the value of the animals in the local market when killed?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information as to the decisions of the local courts io such cases. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the law provides for penalties of imprisonment as well as fines for certain offences against protected wild life.
    Mr. LEWIS: If I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a case where the value of the animal when killed is much more than ten times the value of the animal in the market, will he consider the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I would certainly refer such a case to the Governor. Speaking from memory, I think the fine goes up to 100 dollars in that case. I should think that a maximum fine of that kind covers the majority of animals. For a second offence there is a possible penalty of imprisonment as well.

    GRENADA (HEALTH CONDITIONS).
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on health conditions in Grenada; what action has been taken on the report of the commission set up in December, 1932; whether housing conditions are adequate; what is the incidence of tuberculosis; whether there is any intention of providing a more hygienic consumption hospital; what is the state of nutrition of the school children; and why milk grants for children have been stopped?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the reply is necessarily of considerable length, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Health conditions in Grenada are, so far as I am aware, generally speaking, satisfactory. The latest report avail-

    1567
    able shows that the death rate of 13.8 per 1,000 in 1932 was the lowest on record. In accordance with the recommendations of the 1932 Poor Relief Commission, the poor asylum buildings were enlarged, a casual ward was provided in the vicinity of the Government hospital, and the nurses' quarters at the asylum and its sanitary arrangements have been improved. My approval is being given to the adoption as from the 1st of January, 1935, of a simplified and more expeditious procedure for granting of poor relief.
    In the case of housing conditions the information before me shows that there is still room for improvement in Grenada where conditions outside the towns have not altered materially in the past ten years, although in the town areas a considerable number of better-class houses have been erected in recent years. The possibility of providing funds to assist the St. George's Town Board in a scheme of slum clearance and the erection of 50 model houses is under consideration.
    As regards the incidence of tuberculosis the latest figures available are as follows:—36 new cases were notified in the year and 46 deaths were notified. The erection of a new and improved tuberculosis hospital forms one of a number of recommendations made recently by a medical commission appointed to report to the Governor of the Windward Islands on the medical services there. The Acting Governor has yet to consider these recommendations. I can trace no information regarding any malnutrition in schools. The latest medical report available shows that as a result of school inspection 85 per cent. of the children were regarded as healthy. The results of medical inspection of schools are now entered in the school registers and a form sent to the district nurse giving the names of all children in the district needing treatment.
    As regards the cessation of milk distribution, to which the hon. Member refers, a Government grant of £100 to the Maternity and Child Welfare League in Grenada was deleted from the Grenada Estimates in 1933, owing to financial stringency; but in 1934 this grant, some portion of which is understood to be applied to milk distribution, was substantially restored.

  PALESTINE.

    JEWS (DEPORTATIONS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews have actually been deported from Palestine during 1934 to the latest date available?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the period from 1st January to 25th November 627 Jews have been deported from Palestine, including 243 who were rejected at the frontiers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain an estimate from the Palestinian Government of the cost of preventing people going into that country and of imprisoning them before deporting them, including the new naval service recently organised?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would be quite impossible to give such an estimate, because very largely it would be within the ordinary department. But I am perfectly clear that the number which the High Commissioner thinks it right to admit to Palestine as economically possible is in the common interests of everyone. It is absolutely essention that those permitted to enter should come through the recognised channels and not come in illicitly.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: In order to avoid the possibility of cost to which my right hon. Friend referred, will he take steps to see that the channels of immigration are closed up, so that these illicit immigrants shall not be allowed in?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take no such steps whatever, and can he give the figures at the same time of the number of Arabs who have been deported?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of people who are either deported or rejected is certainly not confined to the Jews, and, if my right hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question, I will try to get for him any figures he requires. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) is speaking rather under a misapprehension. By the recognised channels, I mean the channels of permitted immigration under which the

    1569
    labour schedule is agreed as between the High Commissioner and the Jewish Agency, and the Jewish Agency distribute the certificates to authorised immigrants. It is frightfully important that the number of authorised immigrants should not be reduced, as it must be if illicit immigration goes on.
    Captain MACDONALD: That is exactly my question. Is it not possible to tighten up the channels?

    JERUSALEM MUNICIPALITY.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to secure that the two nominated members of the Jerusalem Municipality are British or/and American subjects, residents who have no votes?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I informed the right hon. Member last May, the High Commissioner's powers of nomination are discretionary, and I should not think it proper to intervene.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the High Commissioner has power to appoint anybody to the municipality, and has the right hon. Gentleman no guarantee that they will not be German subjects instead of British subjects?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know. I will ask the High Commissioner whether he does exercise his discretion and how he does it, but I will not interfere with his discretion.

  AVIATION.

    AIK SERVICES (ACCELERATION AND DEVELOPMENT).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he expects to be in a position to announce the new plans of the Government for the further development of Empire air routes before the House rises for the Christmas adjournment; and whether these proposals will involve legislation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE-for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I still hope that it may be possible to make an announcement before the House rises for the Christmas adjournment, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend will recog-
    1570
    nise, the matter is one which concerns other Governments as well as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and I cannot therefore yet say definitely. So far as can be judged at present, legislation will not be involved.

    AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any financial grants are at present made by the Air Ministry to any British universities for aerial scientific investigations?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Ministry keeps closely in touch with research at o the universities, and grants are made on the recommendation of the Aeronautical Research Committee to individual scientists to assist them to carry out investigations of special aeronautical interest. No grants are given directly to the universities.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Does not the French Air Ministry make such grants to the universities of Lille, Toulouse, and Marseilles?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I do not know about that, but we find that we get much more benefit out of the special grants to certain individual scientists to work on special subjects.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are those grants given to individuals with the approval of the university authorities?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Are not the results of our research generally far better than in any Continental country?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I believe that is the case.

    AIRCRAFT INSURANCE.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed that Great Britain shall ratify the Rome International Convention of May, 1933, regarding liability for damage by aircraft and compulsory insurance of aircraft?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir, I hope that this convention will be ratified in due course. Some difficult questions in regard to insurance remain, however, to be settled before a definite decision can be reached.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Will this mean legislation?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think so.

    FLYING DISLAYS.
    Mr. WHITESIDEasked the Under secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the growing importance of civil aviation, he will consider organising an annual civil aviation display correspond ing to the Royal Air Force pageant at Hendon?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which has been, sympathetically considered. As he will be aware, however, a number of flying displays are arranged each year by different flying clubs throughout the country, in addition to the two annual displays at Hendon, the second of which is organised by the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, and includes both military and civil aircraft. In the circumstances, there hardly seems to be scope for the organisation of a third annual display.
    Mr. WHITESIDE: Could not the Director of Civil Aviation co-ordinate the various air circuses which are touring the country into one super annual air display under the auspices of the Air Ministry?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I will pass on to the Director of Civil Aviation the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MANDER: Would it not be practicable to ran the two together, or indeed to substitute one for the other?

    BRITISH AND DUTCH AIR LINES (SUBSIDIES).
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to state the comparative subsidies paid to Imperial Airways and the K.L.M. Air Line of Holland?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that the information published with regard to the subsidy to the Royal Dutch Air Line does not enable such a comparison to be made.

  TRANSPORT.

    HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (ATTENDANTS AND SIGNALS).
    Mr. DOBBIEasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been
    1572
    called to the growing widespread demand, in the interest of public safety, for the provision of an adult attendant in addition to the driver on all heavy road-motor goods-carrying vehicles; and whether he will propose the necessary legislation on this matter at an early date?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): During the passage of the Road Traffic Bill of this year, Amendments proposing to require that an additional man be carried on heavy goods vehicles were negatived in Committee and again on Report; and I know of no new circumstances which would justify me in asking the House to reverse that decision.
    Mr. DOBBIE: Has there been any communication between the Ministry and the trade union representatives of the road-motor drivers?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Not as far as I am aware, but I know that all the branches of the National Union of Railwaymen have passed resolutions on this matter, and I realise that it was to take traffic off the roads and convert it to the railways.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Does my hon. Friend recognise this as part of the railway propaganda to prevent road transport developing?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister take powers to see that trailers drawn by road-motors have a man on them, because that is done in the case of every vehicle of that kind on the Continent?
    Mr. WHITESIDEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that it is impossible for the drivers of omnibuses, oil tankers, and various species of delivery vans to give signals which are visible to traffic immediately following; and whether, in view of this fact, he will consider making it obligatory for them to carry some form of mechanical indicator?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs recommended that the fitting of direction indicators should be optional and the draft Regulations on the subject, which are at present before the Road Safety Committee, have been framed accordingly.
    Mr. WHITESIDE: Is my hon. Friend aware that none of these omnibuses

    1573
    carry indicators, and, as the drivers cannot show which way they are going to turn, will he take steps to rectify the matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not admitted that hand signals are invisible. My predecessor referred this subject to an expert committee, which confirmed that view.
    Mr. WHITESIDE: If it be demonstrated to my hon. Friend that hand signalling is impossible, will he take steps?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that question.

    ROAD TRANSPORT.
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that considerable apprehension exists among operators of public service and goods vehicles as to their future in the industry of road transport owing to their licences being withheld; and will he reassure them that no combines of railway companies will be allowed to take over their trade, especially that of the small men in rural districts?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the number of cases where a licence is refused is small, and that it is always open to an unsuccessful applicant to exercise his right to appeal against the decision of the authorities responsible for the administration of the two systems of licensing.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is my hon. Friend aware that the small men in many cases try for licences, and the big railway companies and the lawyers turn them inside out, and they go in fear of their lives; and cannot he give them some protection?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry to hear that. The provisions of the law ought to be followed, and, as I have said, there is a right of appeal.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a mass meeting at Newbury these grievances are going to be put forward, and, if I send him the resolutions that are passed, will he look into the question?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Most certainly I will. I shall be very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, for I desire to see all injustice avoided.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it a, fact that in some cases licences are disallowed to small men because the services are no longer required on those routes, and later on they are granted to the bigger companies?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that I am not the licensing authority, and I cannot intervene, but the provisions of the law must be obeyed by the licensing authorities.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the reason why the small men were dropped was that an accident happened, and, when we pursued the matter for the benefit that should accrue to the individual who met with the accident, the small men went out of business?

    BRIDGE SCHEME, BARNARD CASTLE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the negotiations between the county councils of Durham and the North Riding of Yorkshire regarding the provision of a new bridge over the river Tees at Barnard Castle?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no information as to the progress of negotiations between the two county councils, but have expressed my readiness to consider an application for a grant to an agreed scheme, subject to funds being then available.

    MOTOR INSURANCE (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any figures of the number of running-down cases in which the insurers of motor vehicles against third-party risks have repudiated their liability on the grounds of breach of conditions or fraud on the part of the policy holder; if such cases are increasing; and whether he contemplates any amendment or strenthening of the compulsory insurances provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1934?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My Department is not in a position to ascertain the total number of cases of repudiation of the character to which my hon. and gallant

    1575
    Friend refers, but the number of cases reported by interested parties to my Department has decreased. It would, I think, be premature to ask Parliament to re-open the question until some experience has been gained of the operation of Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which comes into operation on 1st January next.

    CHURCH STRETTON BY-PASS.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to consider making a grant for the construction of the Church Stretton by-pass?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The scheme is a desirable one which I shall not overlook, but I cannot regard it as possessing a sufficiently high order of priority to justify a grant from the funds at present available.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that giving them a grant to construct the road will not be prejudiced by the erection of the orange globes?

    MOTOR VEHICLES (REGISTRATION PLATES).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inadequate lighting of registration plates on practically all motor vehicles; and will he take steps to make compulsory the use of plates providing for the illuminant showing through opaque letters and numbers adequate to permit of identification of a fast-moving vehicle?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree that many of these plates are very difficult to read at night, and I have already asked the committee on road safety to consider and to report to me upon the whole matter.
    Captain STRICKLAND: May I ask whether the subject of the inadequate lighting of the number plates on mail vans will be considered at the same time?

    RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents which have occurred at level crossings since the repeal of the speed limit at railway level crossings by the Road and Rail Act, 1933?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During 1933, 140 accidents, and during the first 10 months of 1934, 122 accidents, in which the movement of trains at public road level crossings has been involved, have been reported by the railway companies
    Mr. GUY: In view of the great danger of level crossings, will my hon. Friend consider reimposing this speed limit, which had been in force for 90 years, or, alternatively, speeding up the steps which he is taking to abolish level crossings?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think that the figures which I have given would justify any such action at the moment.

    LONDON ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Minister of Transport whether any schemes of road improvement in the area for which the City Corporation is responsible and for which assistance from the Road Fund was asked were held up by the financial crisis of 1931; and whether any such schemes are now to be proceeded with?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As a result of the financial crisis in October, 1931, the City Corporation were informed that applications for grants from the Road Fund could not be entertained in connection with schemes for widening—

    (a) Houndsditch, between Cavendish Court and Cutler Street;

    (b) Parts of Leadenhall Street, Aid- gate and Aldgate High Street; and

    (c) Part of Queen Victoria Street.

    I understand that the corporation are considering the question of proceeding with the Houndsditch scheme in the next financial year.
    Mr. JANNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the scheme relating to the re-paving of Lombard Street, and is he prepared to assist it?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hardly think that that arises out of the question.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman nowprepared to review each proposal from the City on its merits in the light of the present financial position?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

    ISLAND OF BUTE (ROAD SCHEME).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that

    1577
    his Department endorsed a proposal to proceed with a road scheme on the island of Bute, Scotland, upon which a survey has been made, the cost of which has been met by the Road Fund to the extent of 50 per cent., and his Department promised further 25 per cent. if the work was proceeded with, and also to pay 75 per cent. of the cost of the scheme; and whether he can state what obstacle now prevents a commencement of this scheme?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A grant of 50 per cent. of the cost of surveying the site of a coastal road from Ettrick Bay to Kames Bay was made to the Bute County Council. I have also promised to consider making a grant of 50 per cent. of the cost of widening a section of private road, forming part of the route, provided agreement can be reached with the landowner to make it a public highway. This matter is still the subject of negotiation.
    Mr. LEONARD: In view of the fact that the local authorities desire that this work should be proceeded with, will the hon. Gentleman take every available means to press the landowner to allow it to be proceeded with as money has already been spent on it?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will do all that comes within my province.

    ROAD PASSENGER VEHICLES (UNCOLLECTED FARES).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Transport if he aware that in a recent prosecution an inspector of the London Passenger Transport Board stated in evidence that it was the duty of passengers desirous of leaving a vehicle and whose fare had not been collected to give their fare to the nearest passenger; and whether, in view of the difficulty imposed upon a passenger in such circumstances, he is prepared to urge all road passenger transport undertakings to adopt the practice in vogue in Glasgow for many years of having an uncollected-fares box on the vehicle's platform?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter. The Regulations require a passenger whose fare has not been demanded to pay it to the conductor before leaving the vehicle. It is the conductor's duty to collect fares and I do not see any need for action on the lines indicated in the second part of the question.
    Mr. LEONARD: As many passengers are inconvenienced because of the impossibility of paying the conductor, who has too much work to do, will the hon. Gentleman adopt the suggestion in the question in view of the fact that in Glasgow they collect an income of over £1,000 a year by this simple expedient
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be happy to receive any information as to what happens in Glasgow.
    Mr. BURNETT: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Aberdeen we adopt this system and that it is most successful in getting uncollected fares from the Glasgow visitors to our city?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there anything left in the boxes in Aberdeen?

    BRIDGE AND TUNNEL SCHEMES.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Minister of Transport how many applications there are at present in his Department from local authorities for financial assistance for bridge and tunnel schemes, the details of which schemes have already been worked out and a definite financial contribution promised by the authorities concerned; what is the total capital sum involved in the schemes; and what is the amount promised by the local authorities?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The records of my Department do not distinguish bridge works from the comprehensive road schemes of which, in many case, they form part; and I fear that the information which the hon. Member desires could only be obtained at considerable cost in time and labour.

    PARKING REGULATIONS.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ascertain from the police authorities and state to what extent they will permit public thoroughfares in the Metropolitan area to be obstructed by the storing of cars in the streets instead of at garages; and whether he is aware of the annoyance caused to residents and shopkeepers whose premises are obstructed by these vehicles?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): In this matter the police have a very difficult task to perform. There

    1579
    are not sufficient garages in. central London to accommodate all the cars seeking accommodation, and the result is that many cars are left standing in the streets. Again, while it is true that annoyance is sometimes caused to frontagers access to whose premises is obstructed by standing vehicles, complaint is often made by shopkeepers that their customers' vehicles are not allowed to stand in front of their premises. In these circumstances it is the practice of the police to intervene when obstruction or danger is likely to arise, and to consider, as far as possible, the interests of all concerned.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the problem caused by the excessive time taken in loading and unloading tradesmen's vehicles outside shops?
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the answer given recently by the Minister of Transport, in which he stated that this form of obstruction was a fruitful cause of fatal accidents?

    METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).
    Lieut.-Colonel J. SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Minister of Transport whether with a view to obviating the excessive overcrowding now prevalent during rush hours on the suburban trains of the Metropolitan Railway, he is prepared to recommend to the London Passenger Transport Board that trains proceeding to a given destination should, as in the case of omnibuses, be run in duplicate, so that accommodation may be provided without any appreciable delay in the second train for those passengers for whom adequate seating or standing facilities are not available in the first of such duplicate trains?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The London Passenger Transport Board inform me that they are already running during the peak period, the maximum number of trains which can be worked over the junction at Finchley Road and that in the circumstances it would be impracticable to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion. They expect, however, that when their proposals for improving the service on the Metropolitan line, in connection with which they are seeking statu-
    1580
    tory powers, have been put into operation any overcrowding which at present exists will be eliminated.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the Minister be good enough to consult the Chairman of the Board to see whether it is advisable to run the trains alone in what is known as the rush hour service?

    VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER (SUBWAY).
    Mr. WILMOTasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department are taking any steps in conjunction with the Westminster City Council to provide a subway for pedestrians at the junction of Victoria Street and Vauxhall Bridge Road to link up with the existing subway between Victoria Underground and the Southern Railway stations?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, my Department is in consultation with the Westminster City Council and other interests concerned, regarding the provision of a subway at this junction, and I am hopeful that a decision will be reached in the near future.

    ELECTRICITY CHARGES.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport how many undertakings in the area of London and the Home Counties electricity district have a standard charge for lighting under 4d. per unit; and how many of them are municipal undertakings?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer contains a number of figures, it is proposed, with the hon. Minister's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WEST: Did not the hon. Gentleman the other day give figures which showed that the charges for these districts average 50 per cent. above the charges of local authorities, and does he not think that these extra charges by the companies in London constitute a heavy burden of hundreds of thousands of pounds on the people of London?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have given the hon. Gentleman full particulars, and, if any further question arises out of them, I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. WEST: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the figures refute the fallacy that public authorities are not more efficient than private enterprise?
    Following is the answer:
    Of the 83 undertakings in the area of the London and Home Counties Electricity District, 10 have a separate standard or flat rate charge for lighting and do not offer the alternative of a two-part tariff under which the unit charge is not determined by the purpose for which electricity is consumed. Of these 10 undertakings, four municipal authorities and one company make a charge of 4d. per unit or under for lighting purposes. Of the undertakings which combine the offer of an all-in tariff with an alternative flat rate charge for lighting, the flat rate charge for lighting is 4d. or under in the case of 28 undertakings, of which 22 are "municipal" and the remaining six "company" undertakings.

    WEMBLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (AUDITOR'S REPORT).
    Sir WALDRON SMITHERSasked the Minister of Health whether the recommendation of the district auditor in his report to the Wembley Urban District Council, 18th September, 1934, that under Article 4 of the Rate Accounts Order, 1926, a list of irrecoverable rates should be submitted, has been acted upon; what is the amount involved; and for what reasons were the rates irrecoverable?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend understands that the recommendation of the district auditor referred to has been acted upon. The total amount of irrecoverable rates involved was £4,647, made up of £3,237 in respect of allowances for empty buildings and £905 in respect of reductions in assessments. The balance—£505—was irrecoverable owing to failure to trace defaulting ratepayers or for other reasons.
    Sir W. SMITHERSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the reports of the district auditor on the late Kingsbury Urban District Council, dated 15th May and 18th September, 1934, and submitted to the finance committee on 26th September, 1934; what is the amount of the defalcations of the late collector; whether legal proceedings have been taken; and, if not, will he state the reasons?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The amount of the defalcations was £236 12s. 10d. The Wembley Urban District Council, as successors to the Kingsbury Urban District Council, decided that in view of the past record of the officer in question and of other circumstances they would be justified in not instituting criminal proceedings. My right hon. Friend subsequently brought the case to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who after careful consideration of the facts saw no reason to dissent from the view which the council had taken.
    Sir W. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Health, when introducing new legislation, to make it imperative for local authorities to take proceedings against dishonest public servants, with severe penalties?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think the matter is best left to the discretion of the authorities.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is not this a case in which the Ministry should consider putting in commissioners?
    Sir W. SMITHERS: Hear, hear!

    HOUSING (HORNCHURCH).
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider the reply sent to the Horn-church Urban District Council in response to their application for sanction for a loan for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts to the effect that the council should consider the possibility of applicants borrowing the money from building societies, seeing that the conditions and terms of borrowing from councils under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts are lower and preferable to those obtainable from building societies?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As stated in reply to previous questions, my right hon. Friend is awaiting a reply from the Horn-church Urban District Council to the letter which he addressed to them.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
    Miss CAZALETasked the Minister of Health the number of ante-natal clinics and. the average attendance at each in Dewsbury, Rochdale, Hudders-

    1583
    field, Blackburn, Poplar, Putney, Wands-worth, Shoreditch, West Ham, and the Welsh counties, and the amount of hospital accommodation for maternity in each of these districts?

    The following figures relate to the year 1933. They do not include anti-natal clinics or maternity accommodation at voluntary institutions which are not susidised by Local Authority.

    Local Authority.

    Number of Anti-natal Clinics.

    Average Number of Women per clinic who attended these clinics during the year.

    Average Number of attendances per clinic during the year.

    Number of beds provided at Maternity Hospitals and Homes in the Local Authority's area maintained or subsidised by the Council.

    Dewabury

    …

    2

    242

    623

    13

    Rochdale

    …

    1

    546

    2,468

    51

    Huddersfield

    …

    2

    340

    1,409

    28

    Blackburn

    …

    1

    737

    2,558

    51

    Poplar

    …

    4

    282

    964

    36*

    †Wandsworth

    …

    9

    54

    140

    20

    Shoreditch

    …

    3

    182

    527

    15*

    West Ham

    …

    9

    2,181

    5,718

    141

    Anglesey

    …

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Brecknockshire

    …

    —

    —

    —

    7

    Carnarvonshire

    …

    —

    —

    —

    13

    Cardiganshire

    …

    —

    —

    —

    10

    Carmarthenshire

    …

    1

    67

    238

    6

    Denbighshire

    …

    2

    47

    127

    11

    Flintshire

    …

    6

    134

    423

    16

    Glamorganshire

    …

    35

    76

    198

    58

    Merionethshire

    …

    —

    —

    —

    5

    Monmouthshire

    …

    16

    85

    175

    19

    Montgomeryshire

    …

    —

    —

    —

    18

    Pembrokeshire

    …

    —

    —

    —

    9

    Radnorshire

    …

    —

    —

    —

    3

    * These beds are in hospitals provided by the London County Council.

    † Separate figures for Putney (which is included in the Metropolitan Borough of Wandsworth) are not available.

    MATERNAL MORTALITY.
    Mrs. WARDasked the Minister of Health the figures of maternal mortality in the administrative areas of Cannock urban district and Brownhills urban district; and how the position compares with five years ago?

    Maternal Mortality.

    —

    1928.

    1933.

    Deaths.

    Rate per 1,000 Live and Still Births.

    Deaths.

    Rate per 1,000 Live and Still Births.

    Cannock U.D.

    …

    …

    …

    3

    3·73

    2

    3·08

    Brownhills U.D.

    …

    …

    …

    2

    4·90

    1

    2·98

    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the tabular statement:
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

  AGRICULTURE.

    BARLEY.
    Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make with regard to the position of the barley trade?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply he gave on 26th November to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), of which a copy is being sent to my hon. Friend.

    CHINESE EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. T. COOKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the egg imports from China in October, 1934, amounted to 208,471 great hundreds of eggs in shell as compared with 151,560 for the same month of 1933; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?
    Major DAVIES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the current arrangements for the regulation of imports of eggs in shell relate to the three months October to December, 1934, and too much significance should not therefore be attached to the figures for one month only of that period.

    LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Agriculture when he will be in a position to state whether the cattle subsidy is to be continued after 31st March, 1935?
    Major DAVIES: The Government's proposals for the period after 31st March, 1935, in respect of the livestock industry are embodied in the White Paper on the Livestock Situation (Cmd. 4651). As my hon. Friend is aware, these proposals involve negotiations with supplying countries and my right hon. Friend cannot give any indication as to when he will be in a position to make a further statement on the subject.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon. and gallant Member bear in mind the importance of making an announcement as soon as possible?
    Major DAVIES: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. PALING: Can the, hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House whether the negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons killed and seriously injured in and about coal mines during the present year and the cause of the same?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The figures are 991 killed and 2,901 seriously injured. As the remainder of the reply involves a statistical statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the remainder of the reply:

    Number of persons killed and seriously injured duriug the eleven months ended November, 1934, in and about Mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911.

    Place or Cause of Accident.

    Number of Persons

    Killed.

    Seriously Injured.

    Underground.

    By explosions of Firedamp or Coal Dust.

    290

    88

    By falls of ground

    403

    1,296

    Shaft Accidents

    14

    61

    Haulage Accidents

    135

    680

    Miscellaneous

    84

    519

    Total Underground

    926

    2,644

    Surface.

    On Railways, Sidings or Tramways.

    30

    83

    Other Surface Accidents

    35

    174

    Total on Surface

    65

    257

    Total (Underground and Surface.

    991

    2,901

    SOUTH AND WEST YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines the number of separate coal mines at work in South and West Yorkshire, respectively; and the number at work in 1931, 1929 and 1924?
    Mr. E. BROWN: During the years 1924, 1929, 1931, and during the period January to November, 1934, the number of coal mines at work in South Yorkshire was 121, 114, 109 and 106, respectively. The coresponding figures for West Yorkshire were 169, 123, 108 and 96.

  EDUCATION (ROAD SAFETY INSTRUCTION).
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is the general practice in schools for police officers to give occasional instruction on road safety?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. H. Ramsbotham): The Board have no information which suggests that the services of police officers are commonly utilised for giving such instruction in the schools.
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this practice has been adopted in some schools, and, in view of the fact that children have been found to pay great attention to a lecture by a uniformed police officer will he consider extending the practice in the interests of road safety?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think this matter is better left to the discretion of the local authorities, who are fully aware of its importance.

  DARTMOOR PRISON (CONVICT'S SUICIDE).
  Mr. ISAAC FOOTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has-been called to the circumstances attending the death of Ernest Collins at Dartmoor Prison; and whether he intends to institute any inquiry in respect thereto?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for Bristol North (Mr. Bernays).
  Mr. BERNAYS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man was visited by warders every quarter of an hour, day and night; and is that the usual practice with men sentenced to this terrible punishment?
  Mr. FOOT: Can an inquiry be directed to the point of the physical condition of those on whom such a sentence is passed? May we not, in certain circumstances, be reverting to the ancient suffering of torture in this country?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The physical condition of the prisoner is always taken into consideration.

  LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.
  Mr. PETHERICKasked the Home Secretary whether, in the event of a person buying in Ireland a ticket for an Irish sweepstake returning to his residence in the United Kingdom and then winning a prize with that ticket, his prize money will be confiscated by the Government?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.
  Mr. PETHERICKasked the Home Secretary under what Act of Parliament letters believed to contain tickets or applications for tickets for the Irish sweepstakes are opened by the Post Office; which officials in fact open such letters; and whether they are under the control of the Home Office or the Post Office; and whether he can make a statement to clarify the position?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The power is one existing at common law and has been repeatedly recognised by statute, the latest statute being the Post Office Act, 1908, Section 56. Letters are opened by Post Office officials in pursuance of directions issued to the Postmaster-General by the Secretary of State. In reply to the last part of the question I think that the practice is well known and it would not be in the public interest to make any detailed statement as to the measures adopted for the purpose of preventing the distribution of lottery matter in this country.
  Mr. PETHERICK: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's answer that the position is that, as it is a matter of common law, it is open to the Government to administer or not the law in respect to the opening of letters?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. As I say, it is the duty of the Government to administer the law to the best of their ability.
  Mr. McGOVERN: That is not saying very much.
  Mr. PETHERICKasked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to confiscate moneys sent to buy tickets in the Irish sweepstakes and/or prizes won by ticket-holders; and, if so, to what account the moneys so confiscated are to be placed?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer nay lion. Friend to Section 30 (3) of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, which, of course, I have no authority to interpret. Coins and bank notes ordered by a court to be forfeited are paid to the Exchequer if the defendant has been convicted on indictment, and to local funds if the defendant has been convicted summarily.

  CALVERT BRICKWORKS, STEEPLE CLAYDON (ACCIDENT).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with a fatal accident at the Calvert brickworks near Steeple Claydon, Bucks; and if he is satisfied that the staging through which the man fell was properly protected?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am inquiring into this accident and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

  KING'S BENCH DIVISION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHTasked the Home Secretary whether the annual statutory reports of His Majesty's judges relative to the work of the High Court will be printed for the assistance and guidance of the Royal Commission on the King's Bench Division?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Any reports made by the Council of Judges under Section 210 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, will be available for the information of the Royal Commission in such form as they may desire.

  AUSTRIAN LOAN, 1923–43 (CONVERSION).
  Sir PARK GOFFasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
  1590
  now in a position to make a statement on the prospects of the success of the converted Austrian League Loan, 1923–43; and whether His Majesty's Government has approved of the conversion?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The negotiations for raising An internationally guaranteed loan to convert the Austrian Government Guaranteed Loan, 1923–43, have been successfully completed with the full approval of His Majesty's Government, and issues of the Conversion Loan will be made in this and other markets shortly.
  Mr. MANDER: Is there any question of a further loan being under consideration?
  Mr. COOPER: Not so far as I am aware.

  RURAL COMMUNITY COUNCILS (GRANTS).
  Sir PERCY HURDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the purpose and amounts of the grants made by the Government to rural community councils in England for this and the past few years?
  Mr. COOPER: The grants from the Development Fund to rural community councils in England and Wales are made for the purpose of assisting the development within the several counties of rural industries. The total grants made for this purpose in recent years have been as follow:

  £

  1931

  6,070

  1932

  5,320

  1933

  5,385

  1934 (estimated)

  5,300

  RURAL INDUSTRIES (GRANTS).
  Sir P. HURDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount and defined purpose of the grant made by the Development Commissioners to the rural industries bureau in England; and what is the total amount of such grants since their inception
  Mr. COOPER: The rural industries bureau was set up in November, 1921, to obtain and circulate information and

  1591
  to give expert advice to the Departments, persons and institutions concerned in the development of rural and home industries. A grant of £7,000 was made from the Development Fund in aid of the work of the bureau during the year ended the 30th September, 1934. The total amount of the grants made to the bureau since its inception is £58,558.
  Mr. GLEDHILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases this bureau is competing with private concerns?

  CIVIL SERVICE (REMUNERATION).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of civil servants that are paid monthly; if there is any objection to them being paid weekly; and whether any representations have been made to have this practice altered?
  Mr. COOPER: The number of civil servants who are paid monthly is approximately 85,000. A general changeover to weekly payments would, as the hon. Member will appreciate, involve considerable additional expense, and on this account I should be unable to agree to it. No representations to this end have been made in recent years.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that where people are paid monthly the wives of the men in question have to get weekly credit; and further, when he gets home would the hon. Gentleman consult his own good wife as to whether she would like to have her income paid monthly?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    SINGER SEWING MACHINE FACTORY, GLASGOW.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any information from his representative at Clydebank, Glasgow, about the closing down of the Singer sewing-machine factory; whether he can state the number of workpeople discharged; whether they will receive unemployment benefit; and what was the cause of the factory being closed?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am having inquiry made and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of that reply, may I point out that I have not heard it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There was not very much to hear.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: This concerns my constituency, but there was such a noise that nobody could hear the reply.
    HON. MEMBERS: Read it again.
    Mr. STANLEY: I said: "I am having inquiry made and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible."

    ALSTON, CUMBERLAND.
    Captain DOWERasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the in slued population is registered as unememployed at Alston, Cumberland?
    Mr. STANLEY: The number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, recorded as un employed at the Alston Employment Exchange at 22nd October, 1934, represented 53 per cent. of the estimated number of insured persons of those ages in the area of that exchange at July, 1934.
    Captain DOWER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the report upon the distressed areas the number given is 41 per cent., but that since that time there has been a vast increase in the figures of the unemployed, and will he bear in mind the later figure, which is 53 per cent., in any further measures that are to be taken?

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (GAME SANCTUARIES).
  Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any steps have been taken or are in contemplation in regard to the provision of a wild animal reserve in Southern Rhodesia, with a view to giving sanctuary for as many varieties as possible of animals and birds in that Colony?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that game sanctuaries have already been established in four districts of Southern Rhodesia with a total area of 5,780 square

  1593
  miles and that the establishment of a further sanctuary in the Gwanda district is under the consideration of the Southern Rhodesia Government.

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (CROYDON OPERATIC SOCIETY).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Croydon Operatic Society is a society run not for profit but solely for the purpose of maintaining public interest in good music; that the activities of the society are being handicapped by heavy demands for entertainment tax; and whether ho will consider taking steps to have this burden remitted retrospectively?
  Mr. COOPER: I am informed that the performances recently given by the society in question have already been exempted from Entertainments Duty.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Arrangements between Central Electricity Board and authorised undertakers.)
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "or control."
    I move this Amendment partly in a spirit of inquiry. I am not quite clear what is the significance of the words "or control." The Clause deals with two classes of persons—those who are owners of a generating station, and a different class who control a generating station; and I am not quite clear as to what is meant by such control of a, generating station. I can visualise a case where a company who own a generating station may lease it to someone, who may be regarded as the person controlling it, but I imagine that that is not what was in the mind of the Minister in drafting the Bill. As far as I know, in the legal sense there is no class of persons falling into the category of controlling stations as distinct from owning stations, and, therefore, apparently, under the Bill we are conferring a power on a class that does not exist. If that be so, I imagine that later on we shall need an Act of Parliament to make this new entity into a statutory being. I would point out that this Amendment does not stand by itself; there is associated with it a consequential Amendment—in page 2, line 28 to leave out Sub-section (2).
    My investigations lead me to the conclusion that these words "or control" probably relate to one of those rather new bodies which are known as joint electricity authorities. I think I am right in saying that the only one that is functioning in the proper sense at the present time is the one known as the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, and, therefore, I am led to the conclusion that these words "or control" are inserted for the purpose of making it possible for the Central Electricity Board to make arrangements of this kind, not merely with authorized
    1600
    undertakers who own a non-selected station, but also with the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, who apparently, without owning, are controlling certain stations. I am rather led to this belief because I understand that the chairman of that authority has expressed the opinion that the power proposed to be conferred is already jointly in the possession of the Central Electricity Board and of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority. If he has correctly interpreted the law, there is no necessity for this provision. If, on the other hand, he has not correctly interpreted the existing law, I presume that this provision is inserted in order that he may possess the powers which he declares he already possesses; or there may be other reasons that I do not appreciate. In any event, for once I am going to make the declaration that I am not at all clear on the subject, and it is because I want to be made clear that I move the Amendment.
    3.45 p.m.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I take it that the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view is merely to elucidate the meaning of the word "control. As the Committee are aware, the purpose of Clause 1 is to enable the Board to enter into agreements with authorised undertakers, and as in some cases the stations of authorised undertakers are under the control of joint authorities, it would seem to be only reasonable that the body having the agreement-making power, namely, the joint authority, should in such cases be nominated, as it is here, as the party with whom the Board may make the agreement on the other side. That is the sole and the whole meaning of the word "control." I am advised that these words are necessary, and that, if they were extinguished from the Bill, no joint authority in these circumstances could enter into an agreement with the board.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that, for example, the arrangement with, the Wimbledon electricity undertaking, which belongs to the Wimbledon Corporation, was one of the arrangements of the kind to which these words "or control" refer? Was that an arrangement made through the Joint Electricity Authority, or was it made directly between the board and the local authority?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Joint Electricity Authority is the appropriate authority.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In that particular case?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes.
    3.47 p.m.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: I do not know whether the Minister is aware that, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, the chairman of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority has stated that his authority does not need any further powers. Is not that rather m conflict with the suggestion of the Minister as to the necessity for these words?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I heard my hon. Friend say that, but, of course, in these matters we are advised by draftsmen who wish to cover the legal position in a legal way, and, whatever may be the superficial appearance of the Bill, we are bound to be guided by the draftsman.
    3.48 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: As far as I understand the point, the Minister thinks that these words are only necessary in the case of a certain joint authority; but is he quite sure that this only applies to local authorities? I do not pose as an expert, but it seems to me that it might apply to other bodies than local authorities. Is the Minister quite sure that he has enough words to cover the case where there are local authorities and other people as well? At the moment it only refers to local authorities, and I would not like it to go forward that it applies only to local authorities if there is the remotest chance of its referring to other people.
    3.49 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think I can set my hon. Friend's fears at rest. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Board to enter into agreements with those who own or control generating stations, and, if they do not own the station, they will control it. It must be either the one or the other, and the words, I think, comprehend both.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In other words, my hon. Friend has gone beyond his first statement, and it goes further than local authorities?
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. RICHARD LAW: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, after "arrangements," to insert:
    "or continue any such arrangement entered into before tile passing of this Act."
    It is not the intention of this Amendment to whittle down the Clause in any way, or to weaken the objective which the Minister has in view. The purpose of the Amendment is rather to reinforce the Minister's intention. The purpose of the Clause is, of course, to give powers to enter into certain forms of contract which at the present moment are illegal. But the Clause gives certain safeguards to the general body of consumers, and also to the board itself, for it lays it down that the board cannot enter into such contracts in future unless the commissioners give consent, and base their consent on certain conditions of finance and also certain considerations as to the effect which the contract will have upon other authorised undertakings which may have a very strong though indirect interest in the contracts that are made.
    This safeguard is obviously one of considerable value. As things are at the moment, it is apparent that the owner of a non-selected station, if the station has been run on a sound economic basis, and if it be one of which the board ardently desires to get control, is in a position to drive a very hard bargain indeed with the board, and in some of these contracts which have already been made it is evident that the owners of the station have not lost anything by their contract, and there is reason to suspect that in some cases they have perhaps an undue advantage. There is, for example, the case of the Wimbledon Corporation, which under its contract gets electricity from the board at a discount of something like 40 per cent. upon the prices paid by other undertakings in the neighbourhood. It is obvious that contracts of this kind should be referred to the commissioners in order that they may judge of their financial soundness. If this safeguard be valuable and just in so far as it relates to future contracts, it is equally valuable in so far as it relates to contracts which have been entered into in the past. If the intention of the board is to be fulfilled and if the board is to be safeguarded from making any kind of mistake in the future in regard to these contracts, it ought surely to be safe-

    1603
    guarded equally from any of the mistakes which it may have unwittingly entered into in the past, and for that reason it seems to be just and reasonable to ask that the commissioners should have power not only to give their consent in regard to future contracts but to review contracts that have been made in the past.
    3.54 p.m.
    Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I wish to make it clear to the Committee that in no case where my name stands to an Amendment do I wish to do anything which will hamper the work of the Central Electricity Board in any shape or form. I consider that the board have done exceedingly well under very difficult circumstances, and I am confident that the new Chairman will go on with the work, as he possesses the confidence of practically all those connected with the generation and distribution of electricity. In this case it appears to me to be unjust that, if certain agreements already made are not such as would be passed by the Electricity Commissioners to-day, they should be allowed to continue while any new agreement should only be possible with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners. I hope the Minister will accede to the request in such a way that contracts which have been already entered into will be subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners.
    3.55 p.m.
    M r. HORE-BELISHA: I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend has spoken, and I take it that the tone of his remarks is a good augury for the Debate. The Government consented in another place to subject future agreements to be made within the terms of this Clause to the review of the Electricity Commissioners. My hon. Friend who moves the Amendment asks that not only future agreements but past agreements should be subjected to a similar review in similar conditions. There is a practical distinction to be drawn between what has yet to be done and what has already been accomplished. In cases where agreements have been entered into and are in force, certain acts have been done under them and certain acts have not been done. For instance, an undertaking may have refrained, by virtue of an agreement, from ex-
    1604
    tending its station and have accepted a certain position of dependence on the Board for its supplies which it would not have accepted had it not thought that the agreement into which it was entering was valid and would be in all circumstances implemented.
    Despite that difficulty—and it is a considerable one—I wish to show the Committee at this early stage that I am receptive to any sound arguments that can be used. I recognise that my lion. Friends may have some fear, if past agreements are not subjected to review, that they were agreements which would evoke suspicion. I do not assent to that point of view, but I understand it. I am prepared, therefore, to accept the spirit of the Amendment, although I believe the actual wording is a matter of slightly greater complication than perhaps my hon. Friend has envisaged. It seems to me that the proper place for such an Amendment would be at line 27, and, if anyone can devise a form of words which is legally acceptable and covers the point, I shall be only too happy to accept it. If such an Amendment has not been prepared, we could insert it upon the Report stage.
    Sir J. NALL: I think my hon. Friend has an alternative form of words which would come in at line 27. I should be quite willing to hand a copy to the Chair if that course commends itself to the Minister.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Minister's statement will relieve the anxiety of a great many people who think—they may have been quite wrong—that some of these past agreements were open to objection. I had the opportunity of seeing the alternative form of words just mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, and that alternative form of words contains words which will be the subject, in another part of the Bill, of a proposed Amendment. I take it that if that other part is amended first, these words will be inserted in the earlier part of the Bill. The Minister was good enough to say that if it could not be dealt with now, the matter could be dealt with on the Report stage, but I would remind him that unless an Amendment is made in Committee there will be no Report stage. In any case it would be satis-

    1605
    factory if we could get the Amendment incorporated this afternoon.
    Mr. LAW: In view of the Minister's sympathetic attitude and satisfactory explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.2 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:
    "(a) they are satisfied that the supply of electricity by the board will cover the expenses of the board (including interest and sinking fund charges on any capital expenditure incurred directly or indirectly) in the provision of such supply."
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that in looking at these arrangements the commissioners shall make certain that the supplies are not given on unremunerative terms. One of the troubles, if I may say so, has been the uncertainty as to whether they are remunerative terms. If the estimates of the board are correct, their grid tariff already published ought to cover their expenditure over a term of years. That is provided for in the Act of 1926. It is possible that in their anxiety to obtain custom the officers of the board may have been the cause of arrangements being made such as are proposed in this Clause at prices which give preference to one authorised undertaker as against another. The fact that they have already done this, or are believed to have done it, should point to the necessity of the Committee making some safeguard against its recurrence, and, indeed, that that aspect of the matter should be taken into consideration in a review of the existing agreements. As my hon. Friend knows, it is this suggestion or suspicion of undue preference arising out of these arrangements which is causing so much anxiety in a good many quarters. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will see fit to accept the Amendment.
    4.4 p.m.
    Mr. WEST: Is it not a fact that the board is allowed in no case to make any profit out of bulk supplies to any undertaking, and if the undertakers are not allowed to make any profit, what can be the object of this Amendment? I wish the Minister would give us some information upon that point. If it be true that the people behind this Amendment are
    1606
    only desiring to safeguard the interests of consumers, I think it is a very worthy motive, but it seems to me that even if the board were going to supply under cost price, the benefit surely would not accrue to the board, but would be passed on to the consumers in the district. Therefore, it could only mean a transfer of profit from one area to another. I wish we could have an explanation of what it really does involve.
    4.6 p.m.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: This was a subject of discussion in the summer when we had the Taunton Bill under consideration, and I endeavoured to deal with it at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was largely because of this that I was anxious that the matter should go to a Select Committee, as I wanted to find out precisely what would be the effect of these arrangements. May I repeat what I said on Second Reading? If the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) will refer to Sections 7, 11, 12 and 13, which, I think, are the appropriate Sections of the 1926 Act, he will see the general practice. Broadly speaking, the idea is that a certain number of stations are to be selected and developed, and the others are gradually to cease to be generating stations. The latter are to buy the current they require from the board when the situation has developed when they can no longer produce enough for their own requirements, and it is laid down in the Bill that they are to buy at the tariff rate, that tariff having been fixed so that it will pay for the cost of the electricity the board buys, together with the expenses of The interest and sinking fund on the capital raised to put up the grid. If current is supplied to certain authorities at terms less than the grid tariff, it may be, although it does not absolutely follow that it must be, that the cost of current does not yield its fair share of contribution towards the capital cost of the grid. Wimbledon, for instance, has one of these special arrangements which confers an apparent advantage on the inhabitants of Wimbledon, it may be to the detriment of the inhabitants of every other part of the United Kingdom.
    I maintain that in these matters there should be no preference, and that the board should treat, as far as possible, all alike. That is why many of us have

    1607
    had doubt with regard to these arrangements. If for any reason it is advisable to have a special arrangement, the cost of the current which is supplied to one of these non-selected undertakings which makes such arrangements, ought not merely to cover the bare cost of generating the electricity as distinct from these charges for transmission which arise out of the grid system. Therefore, if we are to treat all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom equitably, it seems to me that, in any event, the bargain made should provide for some of these capital costs. The obligation exists to pay interest on the money raised and to build up a capital fund, so that by the time the grid is assumed to wear out, there will be a capital fund to meet the situation. You cannot escape the obligation of a sinking fund even under a Socialist Government. In any event, these capital charges exist, and have to be met, and it seems to me that in any arrangement made, the people who enter into it ought to pay their footing, if nothing else—too use a phrase familiar in engineering workshops.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. A. C. REED: There is another point about this Amendment which I humbly commend which has not been raised, and that is the question of those smaller stations which are not selected. I believe it is a fact in the case of a number I know of that when they come up to the capacity of their stations, they have to apply to the commissioners before putting up a new station. The commissioners then say, "We do not want you to put up any new station, and will you apply to the Central Electricity Board and ask at what you can obtain current from the grid?" It is found that some of these selected stations can produce current very much more cheaply than the Central Electricity Board can supply it. In those cases the Central Electricity Board quote under the cost of supply to those stations, and get that portion of their supply, but it means that those stations accordingly get out of the expense, and in a few years' time will be obsolete, and will be entirely dependent on the Central Electricity Board. Therefore, as their contracts fall out, the districts may have to pay more for current than they do now.
    1608
    Consequently, I think that this is an excellent Amendment, because in the event of the Central Electricity Board not being able to supply stations equal to their own cost of production, they will have the sanction of the Electricity Commissioners to continue their stations and enlarge their plant. Therefore, it is some protection to the consumers that this Amendment should be accepted.
    4.11 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quite understand the motive of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, but the. difficulty with which he finds himself confronted when called upon to adduce words to express his idea is illustrated upon the Order Paper, where a number of diverse alternatives are given. We say in the Bill that the Commissioners shall not give their sanction to these agreements unless they are satisfied that the arrangements will not result in a financial loss to the board. When you are dealing with the Commissioners you are dealing with an impartial and a judicial body set up by Parliament to protect the interests of the industry, and when you are dealing with the Board you are dealing with a body of business men of high repute and capacity charged by Parliament with the fulfilment of a task—a task, be it noted, which is to be directed solely to the promotion of the national interest, and which is to be free—and here I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West)—from any motives or reality of profit-making. They enter into such agreements in pursuance of their general purpose. They act as ordinary business men would act, and to say to them with regard to each particular business transaction that that shall in all respects fulfil the close definition put upon the Paper by my hon. Friend is to expect too much from any body of business men.
    It would require that from the very moment any contract was entered into it should be lucrative, but the Board, in making contracts, have regard, like any other business firm, to the acquisition of custom, and to the ultimate profitability of the transaction. It seems to be sufficient guidance to the commissioners to say that they shall be satisfied that those arrangements will not result in any financial loss to the Board. If you try to specify the matter with greater

    1609
    particularity, you become involved in a difficulty with regard to choice of words such as that which has confronted my hon. Friends who have put this Amendment on the Paper. You are open to the danger that you have perhaps left out some items. Therefore, if Parliament is to trust the two parties it has established, then to give them a, general direction of this kind is surely sufficient. I would submit to the Committee that that is a sufficient test to impose upon them, and I trust that my hon. Friends, however doubtful they may be about the wisdom of this Bill, will, at any rate, agree that the lines they propose to leave out of the Bill are an ordinary commonsense business direction, and that more cannot be expected from a responsible body of men.
    4.16 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I appreciate what the Minister has said, but there are alternatives on the Paper. I was hoping that he would have indicated that, although he did not like this particular Amendment, he would accept one of the other Amendments. The question of financial loss is not so simple. In theory the board need not make a financial loss. It can sell current in any particular quarter or to any particular undertaker at a figure, and it can be shown that as a result of that no ultimate aggregate loss occurs, simply because it is covered up by somebody else at a different figure. Under the provisions of the Act of 1926 the board are now taking surplus supplies from selected stations at figures which are actually less than the economic cost. It may be that they do not incur a loss at a station, but the aggregate payments of selected stations for all current generated involve a loss because the capital charges of stations are loaded up on that part of the stations' product which is resold to the owners of a station, and thereafter the surplus is sold elsewhere at a figure which is actually less than the economic cost. With that in its account the board can then proceed to sell the surplus to somebody else at a figure based upon the cut price. In fact, one is prepared to say that the board sells something at less than cost, because it covers its capital charges on the part of the product of the selected station, which is resold to another selected station. To sell this surplus product to someone else
    1610
    at a low figure, to dump it into the area of another area, is, in fact, incurring a loss on that particular transaction. At least, it would be incurring a loss on that particular transaction if the matter were properly accounted in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
    I would ask the Minister to further review this matter. It may be that he will say that this would involve an Amendment of the 1926 Act. That may be so, but it is highly irregular and improper for the board to be acquiring surplus supplies from one source and dumping them into the area of another authority possibly for use in competition with the station from whence they came. It enables an undertaker to give a supply to a consumer at a dumped price, thereby enabling that consumer to compete with other persons in the same line of business who get their supply from the selected station of the original producer. He is bound to base his tariff on the grid tariff which he is charged for the supply he gets back from the board's pool. Therefore, I suggest that, if the Minister does, not like the words of the first Amendment we have moved, lie might well consider the two Amendments which follow, which approach the subject from the same angle, and might well be considered at the same time. The commissioners without some sort of direction might well find themselves in a dilemma. No one will question the wisdom of the commissioners in these matters, as my hon. Friend pointed out, but they are in that position. Unless they have some direction as to what is meant by loss, what factors are they to take into consideration in determining this matter? The intention in putting the Amendment upon the Paper was that there might be some sort of guidance to the Committee in determining whether there is loss or not. I suggest that some definition should be put in; otherwise, in theory, the board will always be able to say, "We know that we have sold a supply at.1 although it was derived from the surplus of somebody else at.08, but in fact we have not made a loss." But it will only be because other charges have been loaded on to other sales. If this particular transaction were property accounted, there would in fact be a loss.
    Mr. WEST: The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the dumping of the product by one company into an area of another undertaker, and gave the impression that there would be some unfair competition and an unfair price. Is it not a fact that there can be only one company in any one area?
    Sir J. NALL: The hon. Gentleman did not quite understand what I meant. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The original producer is the owner of the selected station. Therefore, the price at which he can sell is based upon the grid tariff. The board acquires the surplus of that selected station only and then sells it to somebody else, a neighbour, who is not a selected station owner, at a low price, which enables the neighbouring authority to sell it to a trader for power purposes at a figure less than the owner of the selected station can sell power to the people in the same line of business in the area of the selected station. They are not in the same area, but, by the mere accident of the geographical boundary between the area of the two undertakers, through these transactions the board can in fact give, and is in certain cases already purporting to give a supply to people in the same line of business, thereby enabling them to compete with somebody else, simply because one gets a supply from a selected station owner and the other from another under-undertaker who is not a selected station owner. Really, that is preference gone mad. It is no answer at all to say that it is not in the same area. The board, after all, is an authorised undertaker under the terms of the 1926 Act, and authorised undertakers are not allowed to give preferences within their own area. Therefore, the board ought not to be able to circumvent that prohibition against preference. In determining the question the commissioners ought to have guidance.
    4.22 p.m.
    Mr. WEST: There should not be, as I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman, any unjust competition in the same area. It is true that there may be two prices in different areas, but does not that apply to-day? In my own area, the Hammersmith Borough Council are supplying power to traders in Hammersmith at probably half the rate at which the adjoining company in Kensington are
    1612
    supplying it. Therefore, the Hammersmith tradesmen, according to the lion. and gallant Member, have an enormous advantage over the traders of Kensington, but the difference is, of course, that in Hammersmith it is a public authority supplying the power and in Kensington it is the beloved private enterprise. I hope that he will support me in urging that the Kensington, Chelsea and Chiswick traders who have the misfortune to buy bulk supplies from private companies should vote Labour and so obtain greater equality.
    4.24 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It does not appear that the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) has appreciated what was clearly explained by my hon. and gallant Friend. The circumstances with which he was dealing were as follows, and I will make the contrast as abrupt as possible. If you had two factories on opposite sides of the road in the areas of different supply authorities, it is conceivable that the factory in the area of the station where the electricity was produced would have to pay more for current than the factory in the other area which received electricity commercially at third hand, it having passed through the Central Electricity Board and the local undertaker before it reached it. It is manifest that if you acquire a thing at third hand cheaper than first hand, a situation may arise in which there may be ground for criticism. The Minister spoke as if the words on the Paper were intended to be an alternative definition to the words "financial loss." That is not the purpose.
    There are two items in the cost of production and distribution of electricity. There are the standing charges and the coal and other actual costs directly incidental to generation. If somebody else is paying all the overhead expenses, you can receive the current on terms which involve no loss in one sense; no loss to the board because they have forced somebody else to pay all the overhead expenses. The theory in business is that you spread overhead expenses evenly over all your production. The Minister did not face up to the issue, but seemed to misinterpret the purpose of our Amendment. I know that it is difficult to draft satisfactory words, but in one of the suggested alternatives provision is

    1613
    made in some circumstances which will not involve the full loading of overhead expenses. To say that there is no financial loss is most unsatisfactory, because the whole burden of the capital cost of the grid might be loaded upon 90 per cent. of the people in order that the remaining 10 per cent. might entirely escape that burden. That is hot an entirely satisfactory situation and does not represent equity. It represents a measure of undue preference, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude on that important point.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: I want to support what has been said by earlier speakers as to whether the directions which will be given to the commissioners will really deal with this question. I do not see how this afternoon we can arrive at a form of words defining the true cost in the varying circumstances. On the other hand, the commissioners will find some difficulty in deciding what the cost will be when they have cases submitted to them for approval, If the Minister would agree that they should be directed in a suitable way so that they would not get these differences between those who have concluded an agreement, and those who may conclude agreements in the future, I think that the difficulty could be overcome.
    Mr. CLARRY: On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Sir Dennis, before we dispose of this Amendment to call the following Amendments which are almost to the same effect, though the wording is rather different?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait and see. I am afraid I cannot answer that question now.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I try to appreciate the point of view of my hon. Friends, and I hope that they will appreciate the opposite point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) explained to the House that in some way or other selected stations were to be involved in financial hardship. I understood the purpose of this Amendment to be a means of avoiding any financial hardship to the board.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: To the consumers not otherwise protected.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The board. thought that the object of the Amendment was to protect the board.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The board gets its income by charging its expenses to a great variety of people. If it fails to recover enough from "A", then the charge made to people who represent the other letters of the alphabet is more. What we are concerned with are all the other undertakers.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That may be a. legitimate contention, but the Amendments on the Order Paper purport to protect the board. If they do not purport to protect the Board, then I do not understand the meaning of them. The Clause says that the Commissioners must be satisfied of two things, under Subsection (1a) that the Board will not be involved in a loss and, (b) that authorised undertakers having a legitimate interest in a contract will not be involved in a loss. It falls naturally into two parts and we are now dealing with the first. It is on the first part which is concerned with the financial position of the Board that the Amendment has been moved. Whatever prices electricity is being sold at by the selected stations are provided for in the Act of 1926. My hon. Friend opposite admitted in his speech that his complaint was about the Act of 1926. His purpose could not be furthered by the moving of this Amendment. If his intention was to call public notice to the fact that certain injustices may or may not be done under the Act of 1926, in the hope that the Government would take notice of them and provide for them if and when further legislation is introduced revising the 1926 scheme, his Amendment would have been moved to some good purpose, but so far as our present discussion is concerned if the Amendment is intended to protect the board from financial loss, then I claim that, within the ordinary business connotation the words in the Bill are sufficient for the purpose, namely that the Commissioners must be
    "satisfied that the arrangements will not result in a financial loss to the board."
    These words only find themselves in the Bill because of the contentions of those who take the view of my hon. Friends. They were put in as the result of a debate in another place in order to meet the very criticism that I am trying to

    1615
    meet now. I do not think that it can be legitimately said that the Board is so unhusinesslike as to enter into arrangements which will be to their disadvantage, but even so there is a protection, because there is provision for examination into the whole of the circumstances. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the Amendment and if the grievance is that selected stations are being enabled to provide electricity at an improper or insufficient price, then the words of the Amendment cannot properly be inserted in the Bill because they have to do with the whole scheme of the Act of 1926.
    4.34 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am profoundly dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister. He says that the words in the Bill were inserted in another place in order to meet our point. They were inserted as the result. of a Debate on the subject, but they did not satisfy those who were responsible for raising the issue. Those who raised the issue wanted words inserted on the lines of the alternatives on the Order Paper, and it was because the words "financial loss "as inserted in the Bill are meaningless that we are now asking that more satisfactory words should be inserted. The Minister says that our object apparently is to protect the board. The board, in the long run, is automatically protected. It has to fix its tariff at such a rate that its accounts will balance. If arrangements are entered into by which certain people will pay less than the tariff, then the tariff for other people will be higher than it would otherwise be. This Amendment has nothing to do with the board. What we are dealing with are the interests of a variety of consumers in places where no such special arrangements are entered into. Why should preference be given to consumers in particular areas over and above consumers in other areas? In other words, why are the principles of the Act, of 1926 being departed from and one set of consumers being treated differently from another? That is the point upon which I am pressing for an answer.
    4.36 p.m.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: The. Debate shows that those hon. Members who asked that the Bill should go to a Selected Committee were right and that
    1616
    the Government were wrong in advising the House to take it on the Floor of the House. Seeing that on the Government's advice we decided to take the Bill on the Floor of the House, it is all the more reasonable to urge that the Government should put us in possession of as much information as they can to enable us to understand the purposes of the Bill. The Amendment affects that part of the Bill which, as it now reads, concerns only future agreements. We are, however, given to understand that a number of similar agreements have already been entered into, although, as the Minister tells us, they have been illegally entered into. It is obvious that in considering the question of cost, it would be an assistance if we had before us some particulars of the similar agreements which have already been entered into. I understand that they are some 20 in number. and I would ask the Minister—it is too late to do it in the Committee stage—whether he will promise that before the Bill comes to be. considered on Report he will circulate a list of those agreements which have been already entered into. with particulars of the agreements, so that when we reconsider the Bill we may have before us information which is reasonable that we should have, and which will help us in considering the future arrangements. I hope that the Minister will accede to that request.
    4.39 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I am interested in the station in my own town which is producing at a low rate. We are, I understand, producing at a price considerably below the grid price and we sell from time to time, as other stations do, to the commissioners. They, in turn, supply the electricity which they have purchased from Walthamstow, to Woodford, a neighbouring authority. The contention of hon. Members who have spoken is, that in supplying to Woodford that which they have purchased from Walthamstow, they should charge Woodford a price in excess of the price at which they have purchased from Walthamstow. If they do that, the result will be a profit to the commissioners, but the commissioners are not permitted to make a profit. If they are not permitted to make a profit, it appears to me that paragraphs (a) and (b) cover all possible losses. The only people who could make a hiss would be the commissioners or the selling authority

    1617
    in selling to the commission. Waltham-stow sells to the commissioners and they re-sell to Woodford. Paragraph (a) says that the commissioners shall not make a loss but that they shall see that they cover their expenses when they sell to Woodford. Paragraph (b) says that they shall see that no loss is incurred by Walthamstow in selling to the commissioners.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member explain who is going to pay for the grid? He is leaving the grid out all the time.
    Mr. McENTEE: No, I am not leaving out the grid. If the hon. Member imagines that Walthamstow, or any other authority that sells from time to time to the commissioners, are not paying their share to the grid, he is labouring under a delusion.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member tell me how they pay?
    Mr. McENTEE: They pay in the price. We purchase from time to time. Quite recently we had a considerable supply from the grid. If a loss arises, and the hon. Member says that is so, then paragraph (a) says that there shall be no loss to the commission. The commissioners are the people who are to guarantee themselves against loss and they have it in their power to do so. Paragraph (b) is a guarantee against loss for the people from whom the commissioners purchase electricity. If the commissioners get anything over and above the amount necessary for guaranteeing themselves against loss, then, obviously, there must be a profit to them, although under the terms of their appointment they are not permitted to make a profit. I think the wording in the Bill is perfectly sound and equitable to everybody concerned. The hon. Member said that there might be a factory on one side of a road and another factory on the other side of the road, in different areas—I presume the dividing line would be in the centre of the road—and that one factory would have to pay a higher price for electricity than the other. Do not they do that to-day?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I put the argument where electricity in both cases was generated in the same station, and I said that the man who was nearest to the station might be forced to pay more than the man who was a greater distance
    1618
    away because the man who was the furthest distance away might be under an authority which had made special arrangements, and he got his electricity at below cost.
    Mr. McENTEE: I cannot understand how it could come from the same station. Take my own town. I cannot imagine any road in my town where a factory would be on one side and another factory would be on the other side, and they would be affected in the way suggested. One week we sell electricity to the board. Next week we purchase from the board, as has been done recently. It is the duty of the board to balance their accounts and to see that no loss is made. Under the wording of the Act itself all concerned are better guaranteed against loss than they would be either by the suggested Amendment or any other Amendment that I have read on the Order Paper.
    Sir J. NALL: The Debate has taken up a considerable amount of time. I hope the Minister will see what can be done before the Report stage. If so, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly consult the commissioners, but I cannot promise my hon. and gallant Friend that the discussion will lead to any formula other than that in the Bill.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, will the Minister say whether we shall be afforded information with regard to the agreements already entered into, and that the information will be given before the Report stage?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The reason why I did not answer the question was partly because it does not seem to be so relevant to the Amendment we are now discussing as to the Amendment that past agreements should be referred to the Commissioners. The proposal is that the Commissioners should review those agreements as being a proper and impartial body for the purpose. That will be the appropriate occasion for raising the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise it then. They have all the qualifications which the hon. Member thinks are possessed by a Select Committee of both Houses of Parlia-

    1619
    ment, or some other committee; but the more appropriate place to deal with the question is when we reach that Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.46 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
    "(b) after giving notice by advertisement and after giving to any authorised undertaker interested an opportunity of making representations in respect to the matter and of being heard."
    The Amendment is to give an opportunity for anybody who may legitimately be interested or affected in any way, other than those already mentioned in the Clause. The Clause as drawn relates solely to those under contract, but there may be other undertakers interested, and it is only reasonable that some account should be taken of their feelings in the matter, financially or otherwise. This provision would enable them to be heard and to represent their case.
    4.47 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question I have to put is "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'substantial' in line 26, stand part of the Clause."
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I call attention to the fact that the next four Amendments on the Order Paper deal with the same point. The fifth Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) deals with a different point, but the next three Amendments after that also raise questions which are raised in paragraph (b), which it is now proposed to leave out by the present Amendment. Therefore, the question as to whether these subsequent Amendments are called or not will depend on the Debate on the present Amendment, and hon. Members who have put their names to them will perhaps take note of the fact.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The Question you have put it to include all the words down to the word "substantial" in line 26. I take it that all the Amendments which come before that will not be called.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so.
    Mr. CULVERWELL: I understood you to say that the next four Amendments would be called.
    The CHAIRMAN: I apologise for making a mistake in the way in which I have put the Question. I think what I meant was to put it in this form: "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'to' in line 21"—that is the word "to" after the word "contract"—"stand part of the Clause."
    4.51 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Amendment of the hon. Member is designed to enlarge the class of persons who are to have an opportunity of being heard by the Commissioners in relation to any of these agreements. The Bill provides that a certain specified class of persons are to have that opportunity. The difficulty of ascertaining who are interested parties, undertakers, would be considerable unless the class is defined. The hon. Member will realise the difficulties of ascertaining who are interested undertakers, and he may propose that advertisements should be issued, presumably in the newspapers. It seems undesirable and unnecessary to enlarge the class beyond those authorised undertakers who are already in possession of a contract to supply electricity to, or obtain electricity from, the owners of a generating station. It may be a little difficult when the advertisement has been issued for the commissioners to know who are these other persons, apart from those specified, who are interested. Some people may regard themselves as interested undertakers, but the commissioners may disagree with them. Unless there are some words to indicate who are to be regarded as interested undertakers, other than those mentioned in the Clause, it would lead to some considerable difficulty. If the Amendment were accepted it would give them a right to a hearing and would lead to a great increase in costs, no doubt very convenient to the profession to which I have the honour to belong.
    I think it is sufficient, in this particular case, that authorised undertakers who have contracts shall be allowed to make representations, and it is not necessary to invite other persons outside that definite class to make representations as well and give them a right to have a

    1621
    formal hearing, a full dress inquiry, before the tribunal. The right to make representations will secure attention to their particular needs, and, if you are to have an open inquiry with an examination and cross-examination as to existing arrangements, other persons in the position of power companies ought to be in the same position when they desire to make contracts, which they have the power to make under the law as it stands. I hope the Committee will think that the Clause gives persons who are genuinely interested all the rights to which they are entitled.
    4.54 p.m.
    Sir P. DAWSON: I have listened carefully to the interesting speech of the Attorney-General. There may be difficulties of the kind he has mentioned in giving every class of person or authority who think they are interested, an opportunity of making representations; it may make such investigations much longer and much more expensive. At the same time I must point out that in the technical questions which are involved there may be some difficulty in deciding who are interested persons in addition to those referred to in the Clause. Would it not be a way out of the difficulty to insert some words to the effect that interested persons are those whom the commissioners consider may be interested. No one has a better knowledge of those who are likely to be interested in the supply and distribution of electricity than the Electricity Commissioners, and it would do away with the fear that persons who may be really interested might not be heard.
    Mr. CHORLTON: In paragraph (a) the same difficulty has been got over by allowing the commissioners full powers to say precisely what are the costs. They are given no instructions. My Amendment is only carrying the same principle into paragraph (b) and allowing them to say who are the interested parties.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot see any analogy between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), in spite of my hon. Friend's ingenuity. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West (Sir P. Dawson), it is somewhat difficult to fix his proposal on to the Amendment. New words will have to be devised. Speaking without much authority for the moment, I see no great
    1622
    objection to saying that the commissioners shall invite anybody who they regard as interested persons, and if the hon. Member will allow the matter to be considered with the Minister of Transport I will put his suggestion before him.
    4.57 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not think the Attorney-General has quite appreciated the significance of the Amendment. The country is divided into nine areas, and in each area a grid tariff has been fixed. That tariff is intended to provide enough revenue to enable the Central Electricity Board to pay generators for the electricity they buy and to meet the standing charges on the grid for that area. Obviously any authorised undertaker in a given region is an interested person, not merely the people who take a supply from or give a supply to the station affected. Taunton and Exeter are, I think, in the same area. St. Ives is also in the same area, and that is a long way away, but, nevertheless, the grid tariff for the people at St. Ives is bound to be affected by an arrangement-made with Taunton. Everybody is affected, and therefore every authorised undertaker in a region is likely to be affected and should be entitled to make representations. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider the question that all persons who are obviously interested, all municipalities and all companies who are authorised undertakers, should be entitled to make representations when one of these special contracts is being made in the region. I think it is possible to draft words rather narrower than the Amendment but which would still leave it open for representations to be made by the undertakers in a specified area.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. CULVERWELL: I understand that the Attorney-General is prepared to consider an Amendment which would ensure that those whom the commissioners consider to be interested parties shall be given an opportunity of making representations. I appreciate his objection to a very wide inquiry involving as many persons as my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) would wish to have consulted, but I think his argument scarcely applies to the Amendment which appears later on the Paper in the name of myself and some

    1623
    of my hon. Friends to the effect that the owners of each selected station in an area should be consulted. The purpose of that Amendment is to ensure that before giving consent to any of those arrangements the commissioners shall consider representations not only from the undertakers who are actually going to supply the electricity, the non-selected stations, but also the owners of the selected stations in that area. That would extend the scope of the inquiry much less than the present Amendment, and it is a proposal of which I hope the Government will see fit to approve.
    It is clear, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has pointed out, that any arrangement of the kind envisaged is bound to affect the whole area of supply concerned. We are particularly interested in Bristol, because as a result of the 1926 Act, and with the sanction and encouragement of the board, the Bristol Corporation spent something like £2,000,000 of the ratepayers' money upon a selected station which was designed to supply a large and increasing part of one of the sub-areas of the board. Obviously to the extent to which the board make arrangements with unselected stations for the supply of electricity to them, to that extent the selected station at Portishead will suffer. The more electricity the board obtains from unselected stations the less will the selected stations have to supply; and therefore the selected stations are particularly interested in any such arrangements as those envisaged in this Clause. Therefore, while the Attorney-General cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I hope he will accept the more restricted Amendment which would give the right to the owners of a selected station in a particular area to make representations concerning any arrangement of this kind which is being discussed.
    5.4 p.m.
    Sir CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON: I would appeal to the Minister on behalf of the industrial users of electricity who ought to be considered in this connection. Industrial users may feel that they are likely to be prejudiced under the new powers given to the hoard to sell electricity and really to become undertakers, and I suggest that they should be entitled to have their case considered. Such a concession would involve a compara-
    1624
    tively slight extension of what has been suggested by the Attorney-General. I hope that the position of the industrial users will not be overlooked.
    5.5 p.m.
    Dr. ADDISON: It is not the part of the Opposition to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman how he is to deal with his own supporters in a matter of this kind, but I venture to express the hope that he will not embarrass the commissioners by extending the right of making representations so that anybody and everybody can come in with representations when the commissioners want to do anything. Persons affected or likely to be affected by any of these arrangements are clearly entitled to state their case, but if, as I understand, the country is to be divided into only nine areas, the claim that any selected station in an area, whether affected by an arrangement or not, is to be entitled to come forward and state a case would involve a position which many of us can realise—
    Mr. CULVERWELL: My Amendment does not say "any selected station." It refers to each selected station in the area in which the generating station is situated.
    Dr. ADDISON: I was referring at the moment to what an hon. Member opposite said, but the other Amendment to which the hon. Member refers would lead to the same thing in the end, because the board would surely have these agreements in all nine areas, and the Amendment would mean that any station in any of the areas, whether affected by an agreement or not, would be in a position to make representations. Another hon. Member wants to go even further and to give the power of making representations to practically anybody who receives a supply of electricity. Such proposals it seems to me would open up an impossible vista for these unfortunate commissioners who would never be able to do anything except listen to representations.
    5.8 p.m.
    Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I thought that a rather sharp distinction was drawn between the direct and indirect effects of these arrangements. The commissioners will require to have consultations constantly with the selected

    1625
    stations in the area if this work is to be done promptly, and any case of the kind which is provided for here would affect every generating station in the area. In fact, any contract which varies conditions affects the generating stations. If the Attorney-General agrees to the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) and accepts the more limited wording of his Amendment, it will not put any more work on the commissioners. As it is, indirect consultation has to take place again and again. The Bill, as drafted, tends to narrow down the area in which those consultations can take place, and therefore I would ask the Minister to consider including those selected stations which are in the area of the generating station concerned. I think that such a provision would help rather than hinder the work.
    5.9 p.m.
    Sir P. DAWSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has misinterpreted what is really designed to help the consumers and help the Central Electricity Board and help the commissioners. What I understood the Attorney-General to be willing to consider was the proposal that all those who were considered by the commissioners to be directly or indirectly interested in any agreement of this kind should get a hearing. The Attorney-General has pointed out the difficulties in the way of the proposal that all interested parties should get a hearing, and it is difficult to define "interested parties." I hope, however, I rightly understood the Attorney-General to say that he would consider some words which would enable the commissioners to give notice to all those whom they considered to be interested in any of these agreements.
    5.10 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend will not, I know, desire to put what I have said higher than I intended. Speaking on the spur of the moment, I said that it seemed to me much less open to objection that the commissioners should give notice to those whom they thought were interested, than that notice should have to be given to everybody who thought himself interested. But on reflection I do see an objection to the proposal that the commissioners are to say who are and who are not "interested
    1626
    persons." It is a very vague phrase, and if we look at the ever-extending circles of interest, the degrees of interest involved, it may be said that everybody is interested in this matter. When the commissioners are exercising statutory powers they must do so with precise understanding of what is intended.
    Sir P. DAWSON: Would the word "affected" alter the case?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think on the whole that would make it worse. I do not know what "affected" might be said to mean. I am afraid I cannot go beyond what I have said, that the Minister will look at it again, but I am bound to say, after the reflection which has taken place in the ten minutes since I spoke on the spur of the moment, that I see a practical difficulty in the commissioners deciding to whom notice should be given, whether the word used be "interested" or "affected." In regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell), I do not see that the owners of selected stations are really in any different position from other authorised undertakers, and I do not see why they should be put into a privileged position. I think the words in the Bill are likely to prove satisfactory for the purpose of giving every person who is directly interested the right of making representations which the commissioners ought to entertain.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The only people who will have the right, to make representations will be those who directly supply current or who take current from these stations. In the case of Wimbledon, for example, if a contract is made after this Bill becomes law, the county of London Company which supplies the adjoining borough of Wandsworth, is likely to be affected. But they will have no power to make representations although the prices which they are compelled to charge may conceivably be affected because of the contract in Wimbledon. That contract might prejudice every consumer in their area. All we are seeking is that those who are obviously going to be prejudiced, namely, the authorised undertakers in a given grid tariff area, whose charges may be affected by one of these contracts, should have the right to make representations. I would not limit it to the selected

    1627
    stations. Every distributor whose tariff is altered by one of these arrangements should be free to make representations.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. CULVERWELL: I suggest that the selected stations deserve first consideration. Under the 1926 Act they were encouraged to proceed and to expand, the assumption being that in time the other stations would disappear. If there is one interest which deserves to be heard it is that of the selected stations. I have given an instance, which the Attorney-General of all people should be able to appreciate, in which a selected station was promoted and encouraged as a result of the 1926 Act with the idea that it was in time to take over a certain area of supply. It will be prejudiced if any arrangement is made by the board by which its production or its sales are reduced. Obviously, the sales of selected stations will be reduced to the extent to which the board purchases from unselected stations. It is only fair and reasonable that the selected stations should be heard and the acceptance of the Amendment would avoid all that vague extension of inquiry into all sorts of interests which might or might not be affected. In this case it is a defined small Dumber of persons who would be consulted. Therefore, I had hoped that the Minister would have seen his way to accept this small extension.
    5.15 p.m.
    Sir JOHN PYBUS: I would like to say a few words in support of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). I think there is very great danger in adopting a loose form of words, in endeavouring to manufacture sentences and to put them into an Act which may make the work of the commissioners very much more difficult, will cause delay in making contracts and will definitely handicap the business activities of the board. There is no business man who would consent to be bound to invite any number of people to attend and put in a claim to be allowed to interfere in the fixing of a contract, when possibly their plea would be merely devised in order to waste time. I beg the Minister to protect the commissioners and not to tie their hands too tightly.
    5.16 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: I must protest against the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus) making aspersions. We are really doing our best to improve this Bill, and it is too bad for the hon. Member to say that we are unbusinesslike or inviting everyone to come in and make applications.
    Sir J. PYBUS: I would not wrong the hon. Member for worlds. I am sure his intentions are perfectly fair, as indeed they always are.
    Mr. CHORLTON: The proposal is to allow the commissioners to say just precisely what is the cost. It is left to them entirely. The Minister got out of the difficulty with a lot of strange words by saying that they knew, and it was up to them to do it in that way. I thought this was going to be the outcome of all the Amendments that have been put in, that the powers should again be given to them to see that those who they thought were concerned in a particular case that arose should be consulted or notified. After all, we do want to ensure in these things that there shall not be hardships which are only found out later. Why should it complicate the Measure if the same action that is to be taken on one Clause is to be taken on another? It should be left entirely to the commissioners to select who are the parties concerned in these particular cases.
    5.18 p.m.
    Sir C. CLAYTON: I suggest that those people who consider that they are prejudiced by the action of the commissioners should be entitled to call the attention of the commissioners to the way in which they consider themselves prejudiced. The commissioners would have the right to turn them down if they considered there was nothing in their case, but if they thought it was worth while to meet these people they could consider their case. It leaves the turning down of the first application to the commissioners. I do not think that very much time would be wasted in that, and it would give a chance for those people who thought they had a grievance to have their case looked into.
    Amendment negatived.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out "substantial."
    Here I imagine that the learned Attorney-General will give me some explanation. I take the view that if one of these contracts involves any prejudice to any authorised undertaker—who again, I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, may be either a municipality or a private company—that circumstance ought to be taken into account. I do not think that the degree of hardship ought to be limited by the word "substantial," because it is going to be a little difficult to know what that word means. I visualise a case where there are two adjoining authorities, and one of them has spent a great deal of money in providing a stand-by plant for the purpose of assisting the other authority. There is a contract, but in the ordinary way the one authority very seldom supplies anything to the other because the emergency does not arise. Nevertheless there is a contract and the plant is available for the purpose. Then one of these contracts under the Bill is entered into and as a result the capital expenditure becomes perfectly useless—that is the expenditure on the stand-by plant. I am wondering whether in a case like that a "substantial' prejudice would have arisen. It is clear that prejudice would have arisen. The town council concerned might have spent £10,000 or £15,000 in buying plant because of this arrangement. The arrangement automatically comes to an end because of the new contract made by the board and the commercial value of the plant goes because it may never again be used. It is clearly a case of prejudice. Is it "substantial" prejudice within the meaning of the Bill?
    5.22 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The word "substantial" is intended to prevent the commissioners from being put in a ridiculous position. It is quite easy to imagine cases in which it would be impossible to say, as a matter of strict terminology, that there was not some prejudice, but on the other hand it might be a case in which there was no prejudice, which no one could say was prejudice that ought to alter or affect the decision of the commissioners, on the ground that it was very small and
    1630
    indefinite prejudice and not really "substantial" prejudice. The word "substantial" will enable the commissioners to direct themselves to that sort of consideration. It is precisely the sort of consideration which every ordinary business man would take into account when considering whether a particular proposal involved, say, a loss or a prejudice to his business. He would exclude those things which were not substantial and not real and which were not prejudice in any sense of the word, except from a very technical and strict point of view.
    The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has given an instance which shows on what different planes he and I live. He asked me whether, if a sum of £15,000 expended on new capital works was made immediately non-productive and useless, that would be "substantial" prejudice. I should have thought it would be "substantial" prejudice. My hon. Friend seems to think that £15,000 is not worth talking about. I am not going to attempt any hard-and-fast line until I have the whole circumstances stated. It is quite impossible during the Committee stage to deal with any particular case. I think the commissioners will have their minds directed to the real point in a particular inquiry if the word "substantial" is left in, but that they would be unduly fettered in their decision if they were left with only the word "prejudice" without any qualification of the directions which they must take into consideration.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. J. JONES: I do not wish to enter into a controversy about the Amendment, but I would like to know the position of those authorities which were in the field before the board came into operation.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must ask that question on some other occasion. The only question before the Committee now relates to the word "substantial."
    Mr. JONES: That is what I mean to say. I reckon it is "substantial" when a local authority has invested £250,000 before the Electricity Board came into operation. Surely that is "substantial." The question is, are they going to be overruled by this new board? Where do they stand in the eventuality of the Electricity Board deciding that

    1631
    they are no longer a contracting authority? I have been a member of a local authority for 30 years. This board is going to control the whole electricity supply. Is it not "substantial" to ask what is to become of the £250,000 which we have invested in electricity in the East End of London? In recent years a great electricity station has been established at Barking, only about a twopenny train ride from our station. Are we not "substantially" interested? I do not know the meaning of the word "substantial," except when I have been substantially fed on a beefsteak. I should like to know where we stand, particularly in areas that are newly developed. This great station will eventually come under the control of the Electricity Board. Our station may be looked upon as out, of date; but we have spent an enormous sum of money in developing it and we ought to know where we stand and what the power of this new board will be. Hon. Members opposite know something about the East End of London. The Minister of Transport recently opened a new road there, and he knows that electrical power is the order of the day. In fact his monuments are all over the place. There are 11 of them at one street that I know.
    The CHAIRMAN: They are clearly not under the Electricity Board.
    Mr. JONES: They ought to be.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to grasp the point that is raised here. I cannot see that what he mentions has any reference to the sentence in which the word "substantial" occurs in this Clause.
    Mr. JONES: I was talking about "substantial" damage that might be done to our Electricity Department.
    The CHAIRMAN: But it would not be done under this particular Clause and the hon. Member is out of order.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I call is the manuscript Amendment to which reference was made earlier in the Debate. Mr. Law.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) So soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Electricity Commissioners shall inquire into the working of any arrangements made before the passing of this Act to which sub-section (1) of this section applies, and unless—

    (a) they are satisfied that the continuance of the arrangements will not result in a financial loss to the board; and

    (b) after giving to any authorised undertakers who are or were when the arrangements were made under contract to supply electricity to or to take a supply of electricity from the owners of the generating station in question an opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter, they are satisfied that the continuance of the arrangements will not result in any substantial prejudice to any such authorised undertakers,

    they shall direct that as from such date as may be specified in the direction the arrangements shall cease to operate and the said arrangements shall cease to operate accordingly, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the said date."
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: On a point of Order. I do not wish to appear discourteous, but it seems to me that it is improper for the Committee to consider so complicated an Amendment in manuscript. We are unable to see its full import, and the Committee should be given possession of the Amendment in a form in which it can be examined properly.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member was in when the previous discussion took place, when it was intimated that the parties on the opposite sides of the question might come together, or rather that they were agreed on the matter of principle, but that it was a question of finding suitable words. Therefore, although this Amendment is rather long, I think it is not an improper one to put forward as a manuscript Amendment, and that at least hon. Members who followed the earlier discussion will have no difficulty in following the arguments on it.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: On a point of Order. We on these benches were not included in any arrangement. I suggest that as there is the possibility of dealing with this matter at a later stage, it is asking too much to have a long Amendment debated now which it is impossible to

    1633
    follow when read. If it is to be moved at all, I think it should come on the Report stage.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is nothing complicated about it. If hon. Members will look at page 2 of the Bill, lines 18 to 27, they will find that in those lines are practically all the significant words of this Amendment, except that there are certain introductory words in the Amendment to make it clear that it applies to past acts of the board, wherets the words in the Bill apply only to future acts.
    5.34 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: Further to the point of Order. I am sure the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. R. Law) is quite as competent as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) to explain his own Amendment, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves is that there are hon. Members sitting belonging to His Majesty's Opposition who are holding a watching brief on this Bill and who have not been parties to the arrangement to which you, Sir, have referred.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was mistaken when he suggested I had said that an arrangement had been made. I did not speak of any arrangement being made. I said that I gathered that the parties to the discussion on the earlier Amendment were agreed in principle. I did not speak of any arrangement at all.
    Mr. BEVAN: I did not wish to give any greater significance to your words, Sir Dennis, than properly belongs to them, but an arrangement was made between those parties to the discussion. We are all parties to the discussion in a way, although we may not be discussing this particular matter. We are all Members of the Committee, and if we do not take part in a discussion, it is because we feel that no matter of interest in which we are fundamentally involved has arisen; but how do we know that our interests are not affected by complicated lines of this kind, not placed before us so that we can examine them? I think it is extremely discourteous to the Committee that we should be asked to consider this Amendment in the form in which it has been presented, and I appeal to you to give
    1634
    us protection. We are at the moment helping to facilitate the business of the Committee.
    5.36 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a matter on which perhaps Members of the Committee will sympathise with the Chair. I have considered the matter very carefully. No one can be more opposed by the nature of his duties to manuscript Amendments than the unfortunate Chairman, but on this particular occasion I should have thought it was distinctly inconvenient that, those who have been taking a, leading part in the discussion should not have the opportunity of considering this manuscript Amendment. It is clear that those who were taking part in the discussion to which this Amendment, refers will be quite capable of taking part in the discussion on the Amendment. It is then for the other Members of the Committee to adopt any course which they may see fit as to voting for or against the Amendment, but I do not think it would be right in the circumstances that I should not put the Amendment to the Committee.
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further to the point of Order. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) to say this is a simple Amendment and that we should understand it, when he has been collaborating all the afternoon with the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Law), who has brought this Amendment forward, and—
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member is not questioning my Ruling.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If you give me time, Sir Dennis, I will come to the point of Order. Seeing that there has been a certain amount of discussion between certain Members of the Committee, but not all, it is impossible for all of us to be familiar with this manuscript Amendment, although we understand that it has certain implications, and a protest has been lodged accordingly. My point of Order is this, that, seeing this is the case, I hope you will allow some latitude with us when we discuss the Amendment and wish to put our point of view regarding the substance of the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to speak on the Amendment notwithstanding the fact that he does not understand it I can assure him that he will be given the opportunity.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You will notice, Sir Dennis, that I said that we did understand that there were certain implications in the Amendment, and it is those implications that we are watching all the time. We on these benches are not taking very much part in the discussion, but we are watching the business that is going on between the two contending parties like dogs after the beef on the bone.
    Mr. WEST: I was in the House when this question was raised earlier, but I think the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) will himself agree that the manuscript Amendment has been very greatly enlarged and the question made much more complicated.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled to the best of my ability, and, I hope, to the best convenience of the Committee, that the Amendment is a proper one to call.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: We are anxious to assist the business, but is it the intention of the Movers of the Amendment to press it to a Division? If that is their intention, we must protest at this stage.
    The CHAIRMAN: Really, the hon. Member cannot expect any Chairman to know what is the intention of any hon. Member with regard to pressing an Amendment to a Division. As to whether the hon. Member proposes to vote against the Amendment or not, that is a matter for him to determine, and to announce if he chooses in debate on the Amendment, but it is not a point of Order. Mr. Law.
    5.41 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: I do not want to advance the arguments that I put forward earlier on a similar Amendment, but I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said just now. The Amendment, although so complicated to read, does, as I understand it, raise a very simple principle. The Clause gives the Electricity Commissioners power to review contracts which are made under the Clause in the future, and the purpose of this Amendment is simply to give them
    1636
    the same power to review similar contracts which have been made in the past.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Can the hon. Member give us the wording of the Amendment again?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member thinks for a moment, he will realise that it has to be read from the Chair.
    5.43 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: Merely on a point of language, I thought, with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the Mover of the Amendment, that it was extremely simple, but the Mover's own explanation of it has made it rather obscure, because he said the Amendment gave the commissioners power to inquire. On the contrary, it places upon them an obligation to inquire. Is that what be intends, whether there is any need or not?
    5.44 p.m.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister if he would take steps, before the Report stage, to furnish Members with a list of these agreements which have been entered into by the board and which the Minister tells us are illegal, and also if he would furnish some particulars about them. He replied that that was an inconvenient moment at which to raise the point, and I, therefore raise the question again now. A Select Committee would certainly insist on having such a list before it, and the Government, having refused to send the Bill to a Select Committee, ought certainly in the circumstances to supply the Members of this Committee with that information. We are asked by this Bill to condone a number of agreements which have been made in excess of the powers of the board. It is not unreasonable that we should ask before we pass the Bill to have before us a list of the agreements and some particulars of them. I hope the Minister will see his way to circulate that information by way of a White Paper or some other convenient way.
    5.46 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should be extremely sorry if any Member of the Committee found himself in any difficulty, and I trust therefore that I may be permitted to recall the circumstances in which this manuscript Amendment was moved, assuring hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee that from

    1637
    whatever section of the Committee such an Amendment might have proceeded it would have received the same consideration from me, desirous as I am to see that complete justice is done and that all the doubts that can be removed are removed. That is my sole motive. Earlier in the discussion my bon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) moved an Amendment which sought to impose upon the Commissioners the duty of examining agreements already entered into in addition to the duty which is imposed on them in the Bill of examining future agreements. I said at once that there were difficulties in the way of such a course, quite apart from the wording of the Amendment, because certain acts have been clone under the agreements or have not been done which might have been done.
    So anxious was I that our discussions should proceed in as amicable a manner as possible and to demonstrate also that I do not wish to take up a stubborn attitude upon this Measure, I said that if a more appropriate form of words could be found to embody the same idea, a form which would meet with the approval of my legal advisers, I would accept it. Accordingly, my hon. Friend has produced what amounts to a duplication of the words already in the Bill, simply applying the past tense where the future now exists. Hon. Members will appreciate, from having heard the Amendment read, that the words in paragraphs (a) and (b) are reproduced with the exception of the fact that "are" becomes "were", and that the word "continuance" is used where it is appropriate. I do not think the Committee is in any difficulty in understanding the substance of the Amendment. It must be recalled also that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) did not, any more than I did, like reopening the past. However, I do understand and appreciate, although I dissent from, the view of my hon. Friends. They say that they do not know what these agreements are, but that they are suspicious of them and fear that they deal with some injustice that has been done which may never be disclosed. The Board takes the view that it has nothing to conceal and it is willing to make these agreements open. In these circumstances, I feel, if it would ease the course of the Debate and free the
    1638
    minds of my hon. Friends from any apprehensions they may have, that I could with propriety accept the Amendment. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they have any Amendments on the Paper which do not by their form of language justify inclusion in the Bill, I will adopt exactly the same course with them.
    I now come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask me to place these agreements before the Commissioners for review and at, the same time ask to review the agreements themselves. This is a business body, and the Central Electricity Board enters into agreements like every other concern, whether public or private, in the natural course of its procedure. The agreements made by an ordinary authorised undertaker are not open to public review, but in this case we have a body appointed by Parliament with an impartial and judicial authority, which can properly undertake this course on Parliament's behalf. I am therefore responding to the suggestion that is made to me by those who do not like these agreements, and I say they will be laid before the Electricity Commissioners in regard to both the past and the future. I trust that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. If he were to press upon me the other course of laying the agreements open to Parliament, quite probably I should not be able to accept the Amendment. In the circumstances which I have described, I am prepared to accept it, although I do not like it, as a gesture of good will and as an indication that I appreciate the qualms that hon. Gentlemen have. I trust that the Committee will take the same point of view.
    Mr. LEWIS: When I spoke I was not certain whether the Minister would accept the Amendment. I agree that as he has accepted it the other course which I ventured to suggest is not now necessary.
    5.51 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: In view of all the circumstances, it seems to me to be appropriate that the Amendment should not be put from the Chair, but that the Minister should get. up and say he would consider the inclusion of such words on the Report stage. That would be courteous to the Committee in the circumstances and would meet the wishes of the hon. Mem-

    1639
    hers who have moved the Amendment, and would still provide us with a proper opportunity to discuss it. I suggest to the Minister that that would be the fair way.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter for the Minister to decide at all. The Amendment is already before the Committee, and it is the duty of the Chair to put it in due course, unless it should be withdrawn by leave.
    Mr. BEVAN: It is customary for the Minister on many occasions to say "I will consider the insertion of such words on the Report stage," and then the Mover withdraws the Amendment. If the Minister will intimate that to the Mover of this Amendment, perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw it.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will respond at once to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. It is naturally a matter of complete indifference to me and to the Government whether this Amendment is inserted in the Bill at this or any other stage or in another place. Frequently Ministers say that proposed Amendments will be considered before the Report stage. I, however, like to make up my mind quickly where it can be made up, and I say to the Committee that I am prepared to accept this Amendment now. If the Committee prefers it. to be inserted in another place it is no concern of mine, but if hon. Members understand its purport I do not understand why they should object to it being inserted now.
    5.53 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: The suggestion of my hon. Friend ought to be accepted, because I am not satisfied that the Minister himself thinks the Amendment is necessary. He strikes me as being in the mood to oblige his hon. Friends rather than to give adequate reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. I think it would be much better to let it go on the Order Paper for the Report stage so that Members can see it and understand why it is to be accepted.
    5.54 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In the ordinary way I should not object to the course suggested by the two hon. Members opposite, but a Report stage is not inevitable. There is only a Report stage if the Bill has been amended. Up to now
    1640
    no Amendment has been accepted. The Minister has intimated his willingness to accept this Amendment, but I do not know what course he will take with other Amendments. In the discussion on a previous Amendment, however, the Attorney-General indicated the possibility of giving some consideration to the question of the rights of representation and of the measure of publicity, if any, that should be given to any agreement. In view of that undertaking I am anxious that there should be a Report stage so that the Minister may have an opportunity of considering that point. and a Report stage will be inevitable if the present Amendment is accepted now. On those grounds, if on no other, I am anxious that it should go in the Bill now.
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to add to the appeal that the Amendment should be accepted now because, if it goes in the Bill, we can then see how it looks, and if anyone wants to object to it he can put down Amendments on the Report stage and have it properly discussed. The Committee finds itself in an unsatisfactory position with this manuscript Amendment, and the only bright side to it is the clear explanation and the helpful position of the Minister.
    5.56 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I have never listened to a more astonishing suggestion. We on this side are not hostile to the Amendment; we are merely at the moment uncertain about its full implications and deeply suspicious that a Minister should accept the Amendment at this moment in terms which lead us to suppose that he accepted it, not because of its intrinsic merits, but merely to conciliate an opposition with which we have no sympathy. In such circumstances it is surely proper for us to say that we are not going to sit down and allow an Amendment to be inserted as though we agreed with it and get our own position misunderstood. That is an astonishing suggestion.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I did not make that suggestion.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member really must not imagine that every speaker in the Committee is replying to him. I was replying to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I want further to

    1641
    suggest that it is extremely discourteous to put us in this position. We protested when this Amendment was moved in the first place that it was a manuscript Amendment raising points of considerable importance which we have had no opportunity of considering and it would be more courteous to treat the matter in the manner I have suggested. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said that unless the Bill were amended there would be no Report stage. I understand that the Government themselves can make a Report stage by amending a Bill. The point of the hon. Member is therefore met. I understand, too, that if the Bill is not amended here, it may be amended in another place. The wishes of the hon. Member could be met. in that case. I would ask him to realise that we are not opposing the Amendment; we are merely asking a courteous response to the courtesy which we have shown in the discussions.
    Sir J. PYBUS: The hon. Gentleman has now given as his reason as to why this Amendment should not be taken today that the Minister, anxious to please the Committee, is doing something which is really not in the public interest—
    Mr. BEVAN: No. I said we were suspicious of the fact that the Minister has accepted the Amendment not on its intrinsic merits, but in order to conciliate an opposition to which we are ourselves opposed.
    Sir J. PYBUS: The hon. Member now repeats that charge, but I suggest that those of us on this side who have sat through the whole Debate do not share his view. There seems to be no good reason, beyond this extraordinary suspicion which the hon. Member has expressed, why matters should not follow their proper course and the Amendment which has been put from the Chair should be taken to-day.
    6.1 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I must apologise to the Committee for being absent when this particular Amendment was moved, because I am really the culprit, as the Minister had been good enough to say, when making some remarks on a previous Amendment, that he could accept a. different form of words. In this case, as this is only an alternative form of words, the reasonable thing to do is to
    1642
    insert the Amendment now, and not to withdraw it. Anything accepted to-day will be subject to further scrutiny and revision on the Report stage, and I should think that provides every opportunity that is required and is the best course. We are not introducing something new, but only providing an alternative form of words.
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. PARKINSON: I think that after the course the Debate has taken this Amendment ought not to be inserted in the Bill to-day. The Minister did say that he would accept an alternative form of words, but it should be remembered that this is a manuscript Amendment, and has not been in the hands of hon. Members, and before it is inserted in the Bill it ought to be open to their scrutiny in order that they may have an opportunity on Report to say anything they wish to say. It is rather unfair to spring the Amendment on us in this way, and, in a sense, insist on it being inserted to-day. The fair course would be to withdraw the Amendment, which would allow the Minister to give full consideration to the words between now and the Report stage, and also give an opportunity to other hon. Members to place their own interpretation upon them.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am sorry to take up any more time, but really there is no guarantee of a Report stage. All that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) can suggest. is that the Government should put down an Amendment which they do not desire in order to manufacture a Report stage. If the Amendment is inserted now it will be open to debate and to amendment on the Report stage, whereas if that is not clone now the chances are that there will be no Report stage.
    Mr. BEVAN: Do you not trust the Minister?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There is complete trust in the Minister. If they are not inserted now the words will be inserted in another place, and if then we should want to discuss them the opportunity will only arise at some odd hour in the morning, just before the Adjournment, when the House considers the Lords Amendments to the Bill, and under all the disadvantages of that situation it is

    1643
    practically impossible to make any alteration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Everyone with experience of dealing with Lords Amendments knows why. If we wish to have a free discussion and a free opportunity to amend Amendments, the
    proper course is to put them in on the Committee stage.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 9.]

    AYES.

    [6.7 p.m.

    Acland, Rt Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lennox-Boyd, A, T.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Lewis, Oswald

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Albery, Irving James

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lindsay. Noel Ker

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Entwistle. Cyril Fullard

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

    Apsley, Lord

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Loftus, Pierce C.

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mabane, William

    Barclay-Harvey. C. M.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gillelt, Sir George Masterman

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Bracken, Brendan

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Graves, Marjorle

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Magnay, Thomas

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

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Brown, Ernett (Leith)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney Zetl'nd)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Burnett, John George

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenn'gt'n)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Carver, Major William H.

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

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Munro, Patrick

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    North, Edward T.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nunn, William

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leoiric

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Christie, James Archibald

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Peake, Osbert

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth. C.)

    Pearson, William G.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Penny, Sir George

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jennings, Roland

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Copeland, Ida

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Petherick, M.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Potter, John

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Pybus, Sir John

    Curry, A. C.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western (Isles)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Denville, Alfred

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Dickie, John P.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Donner, P. W.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Leckie, J. A.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U

    Rickards, George William

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Spent, William Patrick

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Stevenson, James

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Salt, Edward w.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Storey, Samuel

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Scone, Lord

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Bantt)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Thorp, Linton Thendore

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine.C.)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Major George Davies and Dr.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Train, John

    Morris-Jones.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks.W.Riding)

    McGovern, John

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maxton, James.

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy. Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Buchanan, George

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

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobble, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    6.16 p.m.
    Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    "( ) Section twenty of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, so far as it relates to the making of agreements by authorised undertakers shall apply to the making of arrangements by the Board under this section, and accordingly the Board shall not in making any such arrangements show any undue preference to any local authority, company, or person."
    The object of this Amendment is to make sure that power companies shall be able to carry on their work now, as in the past, and that the board will not be able to get round those rights which already exist. It is true that the last Clause of the Bill contains a general statement to that effect, but I should like to have a definite statement that the power companies are not to be damaged by any possible evasion of that Clause.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks in regard to Clause 5. The Act of 1882 has to be read as part of the bundle of Acts of which this new Bill will form part.
    6.18 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If Clause 5 means that Section 20 of the Act of 1882 is to
    1646
    apply, how can Clause 1 be used? The sole purpose of Clause 1, it seems to me, is to enable preference to be given to certain people in the shape of terms which you do not give to other people. That is giving a preference. If Clause 1 is based on the assumption that, for certain reasons, you give a preference, what is the meaning of Section 20 of the Act of 1882, which says that a preference must not be granted? I cannot see how Clauses 1 and 5 are to he reconciled, because they seem to embody two entirely conflicting principles.
    6.19 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: The observations of my hon. Friend show the danger of referring to words without quoting them accurately. He says that Section 20 of the Act of 1882 forbids the giving of a preference. It does nothing of the kind. It forbids the giving of an undue preference, and that is a very different matter. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to look at the preceding Sections of the Act of 1882 lie will observe that they speak of the "like circumstances." It has been decided in a large number of cases that you are not guilty of giving undue preference merely because you give, in wholly different

    1647
    circumstances, two different rates to two different consumers. There is no difficulty at all in applying the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, even with the limitation imposed upon the powers of undertakers by Section 20 of the Act of 1882.
    Amendment negatived.
    6.20 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to add:
    "and nothing in this section shall prejudice the position of power companies under section ten of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926."
    If hon. Members will refer to Section 10 of the Act of 1926, they will find that the Central Board are debarred from supplying electricity direct to any authorised undertaker in an area in which a power company is the authorised undertaker. Some hon. Members might not he quite familiar with the distinction between a power company and a supply company. Power companies are those which came into being as the result of an investigation, I think by Viscount Cross's Committee, over 30 years ago, and they were given perpetual tenure, as distinct from the companies which are liable under the Acts of 1882 and 1888 to be bought out by the local authority when their franchise has expired. The reason the power companies were given perpetual tenure was that it was felt necessary that electricity should be developed in areas where it had not been developed at all. If it had not been for the power companies, the rural areas, which at last are beginning to be developed, and many of the more scattered industrial areas, would have been denied an electricity supply for an almost indefinite period.
    Because of the peculiar position and, incidentally, the peculiar responsibilities, of the power companies, they were safeguarded in the Act of 1926. I was not one of the committee which considered that Measure, but I think I am not going too far when I say that Section 10, in protecting the power companies, represented what might be called a fair bargain between the public interests and the private interests represented by the power companies, bearing in mind that a degree of responsibility is imposed upon the power companies which does not
    1648
    apply to municipalities and supply companies operating in the more congested urban areas. Those rates were a sequel to a situation which has grown up since 1900, and they ought to be preserved, as they were properly preserved in the Act of 1926.
    6.24 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to refer to the last Sub-section in Clause 1 he will find these words:
    "Nothing in this Section shall empower the board to supply electricity directly to any undertakers to whom they would not otherwise be entitled to supply electricity directly."
    So far as I understand the point of my hon. Friend—and I think I do understand it—those words seem to me to meet his point.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was of the opinion that the last Subsection of Clause 1 did give the protection desired, but I was anxious to have the best legal opinion without undue expense. I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having given to me for nothing something which, in other circumstances, would have cost me a great deal. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.25 p. m.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to add:
    "(6) The Board shall make compensation to any authorised undertakers who are injuriously affected by any arrangements entered into under this section, the amount of such compensation failing agreement to he determined by arbitration."
    I am informed that this matter may be of very great importance in cases where an existing line has been extended or plant installed and would be prejudiced as the result of agreements under the Bill. It is only reasonable that something should be done for those. who have incurred that expense. Contracts already in existence for supplies by authorised undertakers from non-selected stations, when the non-selected station is still in existence, will fall within the scope of Clause 1, but the period of the contract might not have been long enough to recompense the authorised undertaker for capital expended.In other cases,

    1649
    although no contract may exist, expenditure upon a transmission system may have been incurred. Such a system may have been laid out in anticipation of giving a bulk supply to the owners of non-selected stations. If in the ordinary course of business authorised undertakers have laid out their lines and sub-stations to meet a provisional demand, which has been met, or to provide for an ultimate demand which they might reasonably and probably expect and which it would be incumbent upon them to anticipate and provide for, it is only reasonable that, as and when one of these new arrangements under the Bill cuts out that additional load which would have been met, the undertakers should be indemnified. That seems a reasonable proposition, on its merits.
    6.28 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Before we go any further and get a reply from the Government, I wonder whether my hon. Friends who are putting down these Amendments would give an explanation. If you give the board this new power to make agreements in certain cases, it seems inevitable that matters of compensation will arise. Where a man is summarily dispossessed, he has upon him the legal pressure of this great board and he is at a very great disadvantage. My hon. Friends who are moving the Amendment suggest that if there is not a proper agreement there should be arbitration. I do not know the technical side of this, but it seems to me that if there is any dispute there should be arbitration in these very important matters so far as the individuals or the undertakings are concerned.
    The Committee should be informed by hon. Gentlemen who are moving the Amendment what form of arbitration they suggest. It is essential to know this before we can tell whether to help them to press their Amendment to a Division and to do what we can to get the Government to accede to the Amendment as they acceded to one just now. It is clearly the duty of this Committee to improve the Bill, but it is also the duty of the Conservative party to look after absolute fair play in every respect. We have always done so; we are doing so and we shall always do so. The great principle of arbitration which is included in this Amendment should be
    1650
    fully explained by the promoters of the Amendment, in regard to how it is going to work and who are the arbitrators to whom they propose to appeal. I would ask that we should be given that information, which is essential at the present time.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I had hoped that the discussions we had on the earlier part of the Clause would have made it unnecessary for this Amendment to be moved. However, I make no complaint of the fact that it has been moved, for it gives me an opportunity of stating quite categorically that the Clause does not give to anybody any power to break any contract. The Amendment asks that. compensation should be paid to authorised undertakers who are injuriously affected. I do not quite know what is intended by the words "injuriously affected." They are generally applied, I understand, to property cases; but, if a man has suffered any damage, or claims to have suffered any damage. it must be in respect of some contract into which he has entered and which has been compulsorily broken. As I have said, there is no such case here. On the contrary, the Electricity Commissioners are required to give their consent to any of these agreements, and to hear those authorised undertakers who can claim to be directly interested. Further, Subsection (5) says:
    "Nothing in this section shall empower the Board to supply electricity directly to any undertakers to whom they would not otherwise be entitled to supply electricity directly."
    In these circumstances, I do not see how we can properly insert these words. The Amendment suggests no machinery by which the arbitration is to be determined, and in any case I would submit to the Committee that the case for arbitration does not arise. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friend if he could see fit to withdraw his Amendmenet.
    Sir J. NALL: I do not want to press the matter unreasonably. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.33 p.m.
    Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to add:

    1651
    "(7) The Electricity Commissioners shall keep a record comprising full particulars of all arrangements entered into under this section, which record shall be available at any time for the information of authorised undertakers."
    It is obvious that, in an important matter of this kind, the commissioners would in all probability keep full records, but I think it would be just as well to indicate, by the addition of some such words as these, that it, is contemplated that any such arrangements shall be duly recorded, and, furthermore, that any authorised undertaker who is interested in an agreement of this kind should have the right, subject to the Electricity Commissioners considering the request reasonable, to see such records as they may have.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I feel that a somewhat different complexion has been put on this Amendment by my action in accepting the general Amendment providing for disclosure to the Commissioners of the arrangements entered into, whether in the past or in the future. Surely, they would be the proper persons to take note of the arrangements made, and I cannot see any valid reason why there should be published to the world—if that be the intention of the Amendment—every arrangement made by the board. That would make it extremely difficult for the Board to carry on its business, and it is a requirement that is not exacted from the industry as a whole. When one undertaker makes an agreement with another, he is not required to make it available for the information of all other undertakers. That is not required of ordinary undertakers, and, therefore, I do not see why it should be required of the Board. At any rate, I trust that my hon. Friend will feel that the acceptance of the previous Amendment, placing these matters under the review of the commissioners, will make it unnecessary for him to press the present Amendment.
    6.35 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: The Amendment does not suggest that these records should be published broadcast; all that it asks is that the commissioners should keep a record of these agreements—
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For the information of other authorised undertakers.
    Sir J. NALL: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The intention, however, is that it should be available to authorised undertakers who are concerned or interested; it is not proposed to throw open the records to the thousand and one undertakers all over the country. It seems reasonable that there should be a regular record of these agreements which are made from time to time, and that a definitely limited category of interested parties should have access to the information.
    6.36 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: Surely, a, record is kept of these arrangements as a matter of course. It would be absurd of any business organisation to keep no record—
    Sir J. NALL: We are only asking that a record shall be kept by the commissioners.
    Mr. BEVAN: I imagine that such a record is kept, and that that part of the Amendment, therefore, is entirely redundant. If it be the intention of the Movers of the Amendment to secure that the record shall be made accessible only to interested parties, it is just those parties who would desire to keep records. It would be astonishing if a public authority were put under a limitation which is never imposed upon a private concern. This is a matter in which there are rival interests, but the only party who would be placed under any limitation would be the public authority. The Amendment does not call upon private concerns to maintain a record of these undertakings and agreements and to present it to the board, but it is proposed that the board should be compelled to present such a record to the other parties to the negotiations. That, surely, is a monstrous proposition; it is an imposition that ought not be placed upon a public undertaking. It would mean that the public authority would enter the arena of these negotiations with its hands tied, while the other party would have his hands completely free. I think the Minister is perfectly right in resisting the Amendment.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Frankly, I have been overcome by the powerful and eloquent appeal which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has made

    1653
    for secrecy in these rather new circumstances. It seems curious, apart from all this Socialist desire for secrecy, that an Amendment should be moved for the purpose of keeping records. I can understand that it is necessary to keep certain records, and that it might be necessary for the Government to understand precisely how these commissioners are carrying out their work, but I do not think that other people in this industry should have the power to go and look at these records on all sorts of matters, and I am glad that the Government cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. It seems to me, however, that, when we are setting up a great board of this kind, we ought not to carry the policy of secrecy too far, but that there should be some means whereby the House of Commons, if it thinks that something wrong or unfair is being done, should be able to go into the matter, without unduly disclosing matters which in other businesses it is considered should not be published abroad. I rather regret that the Minister has not been able to suggest some solution, perhaps by another Amendment, so that we might have a really proper balance, without going to that perfection of secrecy which is characteristic of the Socialist party.
    Sir G. ELLIS: I must take exception to the suggestion that a rival to the Central Electricity Board ought not to be able to obtain information as to what the board is doing. We contend that in the Electricity Board we have a rival who can cast the whole of his expenses upon us, mild that we ought to know what he is doing.
    Sir P. DAWSON: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.42.42 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I want to take this opportunity of raising the question of principle which underlies the Bill. The Minister, on the Second Reading, admitted that the provisions of this Clause cut right across the principles of the Act of 1926, and the provisions of the Clause still appear, after the discussion this afternoon, to be difficult to justify. The Clause deals with a class of
    1654
    authorised undertakers—or perhaps, in these days, they might be better described as distributors—who own generating stations which are not selected in accordance with the Act of 1926. That Act definitely dealt with this class of undertakers, and clearly laid down the terms of supply and so on with regard to selected stations. Under Sections 10 and 14 of that Act, the Central Board are able to close down any one of these stations if they can prove that their price for electricity is lower that the owners' price. That seems to be a reasonably fair proposition.
    It was stated categorically during the passage of the Bill of 1926 that the board would be able to supply more cheaply than the local undertaker, but, if this Clause means anything at all, it means that the board have not been able to justify what was said in 1926, because in certain cases it has been found to be impossible to carry out the principle of the Act of 1926 and supply undertakers under the grid tariff. In fact, local undertakers can supply themselves more cheaply than the board can. So we get this Clause. So we get this misuse of the surplus output of certain selected stations and undertakings. It is clear that every criticism that I raised against the 1926 Act is amply justified by the presentation of this Bill and the endeavour to manipulate and negotiate not only agreements already existing but a number of others that are contemplated under the Bill when it passes. The Bill is here as a, public demonstration of the fact that there are throughout the length and breadth of the electricity industry a quite considerable number of electricity undertakers who can produce more cheaply than the grid, whose undertakings are more economical if they are left alone, and if the 1926 Act does not apply to them. It is in order to get behind the provisions of the Act and to bring these people in willy-nilly that we have this Bill, and because we have had in recent times these little illegal sub rosa surreptitious agreements which I am sorry my hon. Friend thinks ought not to be disclosed for anyone to look at.
    The Act, however, goes further. It enables the board, by amending schemes, to select stations which they did not select before. It has only recently called o into operation this last mentioned power. I understand it has practically torn up

    1655
    and scrapped one of its big schemes, that for the South-West of England, so as to bring in a number of stations which were not selected in the original scheme of 1931, abandoning the construction of a super-station which was included in that scheme, thereby again demonstrating that the whole theory of the Act was based on an entirely wrong conception and has been proved to be unnecessary. One agreement that the board has made with the Home Counties Joint Authority has already been the subject of correspondence between that authority and the board. It was reported at a meeting of the authority in March that the board had notified them that there has been a loss of £2,900 in arrangements to supply the Dorking station. The significance of this is that someone else has to bear a loss. There is also the case of Wimbledon, which was able to drive a particularly hard bargain with the board and got its supply something like 40 per cent. cheaper than its neighbours, and to make the board take over obligations hitherto borne by the authority. Someone else has to make up the deficit. The theory of the thing is that the board can make no loss and can do no wrong. The industry must pay. In this scrapping of the South-West England scheme we see the first evidence of a genuine and proper admission that the first effort was wrong and that something very different has now to be done.
    What is the position of the selected stations under the scheme of the board and under this Clause? These stations have, presumably, been constructed by local authorities and bigger companies with a view to supplying the smaller areas, enabling them to shut down non-selected stations. Any arrangement under this Clause under which these non-selected stations are kept running for the purposes of the Central Board must obviously operate against the proper and full working of the selected stations which was intended by the Act of 1926, and to the extent to which the Clause keeps in being the non-selected stations, which were not selected because they were unfit, it enables the board to fail or to halt in making a proper use of selected stations in accordance with the original scheme. So far from arriving at complete reorganisation and concentration in the generation of electricity, the
    1656
    1926 Act has placed upon the industry a burden of expenditure which need not have been incurred, and this Clause is one of the first steps to enable the board to cover up its tracks, to hand its losses on to certain undertakers and to bring in undertakers who would not otherwise be in. The Clause reveals a wholly unsatisfactory set of circumstances. It shows that the Government's intervention into the realms of productive industry is fraught with waste and unnecessary expenditure and it must inevitably and ultimately present a. heavy bill to the House in order to get the board out of the difficulties that it must get into if it goes on with agreements and working arrangements such as are indicated in the Bill. The unfortunate alternative is that the industry and the consumer will have to bear the losses arising from the follies of 1926, which will be made more acute in certain areas by the operation of this Clause.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 11 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.)
    6.57 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in no case shall the board have the right of negotiating directly with such persons aforesaid and shall have power only as to supply at the request of authorised undertakers."
    The object of this Amendment is to guard against the board setting up an organisation of its own to deal direct with consumers of large supplies. This raises an important issue, because the board was set up as a co-ordinating and cencentrating authority for the purpose of generation and to secure all the great economies upon which the Weir Committee so ludicrously went wrong. While, of course, the board has mainly and generally concentrated on that work, it has actually set up all over the country officers who are getting into direct touch with consumers, going behind the backs of authorised undertakers, and considerable doubt now prevails whether this Clause will not in effect enable the board to handle large supplies in much the same way as Clause 4 proposes that they shall handle the supplies of railway companies. I ask my hon. Friend to consider where the Central Board is getting to in

    1657
    this matter of direct trading. Why have these trading officers been established all over the country canvassing consumers? If a consumer wants a supply, he cannot get it without the aid of the Central Board, and he goes to the board and negotiates whatever arrangement may be reasonable in the circumstances. There is no reason for anyone to go without a supply, because the board has an officer to control and negotiate. Big consumers can complain to the commissioners and get redress if any distributing undertakers do not do their duty. Why then should the Central Electricity Board want to set up these trade offices, with trade canvassers duplicating each other, and getting in the way of the ordinary routine of the distributing undertakings?
    I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to regard this Amendment as important. If inserted, it would relieve considerable anxiety as to the possibility of the board quoting uneconomic rates, the result of which would be that a charge would be thrown on somebody else. If the intention of the 1926 Act regarding the incidence of charges is to be properly observed, then at least we ought not unnecessarily to develop this extra agreement side of the business. I hope my hon. Friend or the Attorney-General will be good enough in reply to indicate acceptance of the Amendment.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Amendment, to which my name is also attached, raises a variety of issues. It was always understood at the time of the 1926 Act—which I voted for and the Member for mime (Sir J. Nall) voted against, which shows that we were not in total agreement—that the Central Electricity Board was not to enter into the business of distribution. Upon that municipalities and companies are agreed. If in connection with these exceptional supplies the board is to be the negotiating instrument, then quite frankly the board is going to start in the business of distribution, and to duplicate the work already done by authorised undertakings. Obviously there is going to be a measure of waste that ought to be avoided. Quite apart from that there is another point. I am not one of those who believe in the modern doctrine of national economic planning. Whether I believe in it or
    1658
    not, since some other nation is conducting an experiment of this description on a large scale, which, in my judgment, will be disastrous—the nation of which I am thinking is not Russia but the United States; in Russia it is Socialistic and in the United States private enterprise nationally directed—we ought to wait and sea what happens there.
    The suggestion is that the Central. Electricity Board is going to negotiate direct with companies who want exceptional terms for an exceptional load. Suppose an undertaking were founded to produce calcium carbide, which is used for the production of acetylene gas. At present it mainly produced in Norway because the factories adjoin hydroelectric plants that provide cheap electricity. It is not yet realised that we are now getting from coal in this country electricity on terms which could compete, in my judgment, satisfactorily with that obtained by water power. I see no reason why, in due course, we should not manufacture calcium carbide, though I am not a chemist and have not inquired into the process. But no one is likely to start this manufacture, because the President of the Board of Trade in making an agreement with Norway has put calcium carbide in a favourable position. However, if somebody decided to undertake such an enterprise, you might have circumstances in which the Central Electricity Board, with their organisation, might be able to decide where this undertaking was to settle. If the promoters of the undertaking started negotiations direct with the board, the latter could say that they would give them such-and-such terms in a certain part of the country. The board might take unto themselves that power. I can see circumstances in which that power might be widely exercised, but I do not want the Central Electricity Board to be the determining factor in the location of industrial enterprises in this country.
    If the board is going to deal direct with people with exceptional loads, then I think the influence of the board is going to be undue in deciding these factors. There are a great many other factors, other than those which the board would take into account in dealing with such a problem. Take Merthyr Tydvil, a distressed area—I am going there to-

    1659
    morrow and they always welcome me—it might well be the case that it would be an ideal place to start some new enterprise. If influence is going to be brought to bear, it ought to be a national one. If the Electricity Board are thinking solely of equalising the load on the grid, they might say, go to some other place. You might have the wrong direction given. I do not want to over-emphasise its importance in this respect. Fundamentally, however, this country has practically its whole territory covered by authorised distributors, companies and municipalities. They are responsible for the distribution of electricity. When the question of negotiations of a special character arises, they ought to be in the hands of authorised distributors. Parliament has placed on them responsibility for the supply of this power, and ought not to split this with any organisation that has not responsibility at the present time. In. these circumstances, I very strongly support the Amendment.
    7.7 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend who has just spoken has invited the Committee to range over far wider considerations than are raised, as I understand, by this Clause or Amendment. If I understand my hon. Friend's thesis aright, it is that the board should not be in a position to initiate arrangements of the sort contemplated by Clause 2, because that will give them great power in settling the future re-organisation or organisation of the industrial system of this country; if anybody is to make arrangements which result in large industrial undertakings springing up in any particular place, it should not be the Electricity Board who are responsible but some other authority. I do not propose to enter into that sort of discussion. If the argument is sound it would apply altogether to Clause 2. The arguments are arguments which, if valid, can be used against all the conditions in the Clause. What my hon. Friend has not considered, I venture to suggest, is that if the Clause is a good Clause, if it is desirable that these new powers should be given to the board, they should not, so to speak, be kept under a cloak—not be hidden, but used.
    The only difference between the Clause as it is and as it would stand if the
    1660
    Amendment were passed, is that the board would be required to sit in its office and wait until some proposal was made for powers under the Clause to be used. Under the Bill as it stands it would be necessary for them to be satisfied that the special circumstances exist, and that the undertakers who are supplied with electricity will be enabled to supply the persons whose needs are of an exceptional nature with an amount of electricity corresponding to the electricity to be supplied by the board. If they are to be satisfied of the existence of these circumstances, obviously sooner or later they will have to get into touch with these persons in regard to whom these special circumstances are said to exist. It seems to me that this idea is implicit in Clause 2, and that it would be undesirable to subject those persons to this condition. The Amendment would have the effect of preventing the board from taking the initiative, from calling the attention of those persons to special rates having regard to the special circumstances that do exist.. It does not seem reasonable to qualify in this way the powers proposed to be given to the board. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) used certain arguments, but these were arguments, as I have already suggested, against the Clause as a whole, and are not valid because they deprive these new powers of their usefulness by fettering the board.
    7.13 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: My hon. Friend's speech, with all respect, is another example of the extraordinary Government policy. They are saying that the wholesalers should employ canvassers to find buyers and bring them to the retailers in order to buy goods from the counters of the retailer. The wholesaler should only have to find the retailer and supply that retailer when he finds it necessary to replenish his stock.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "and provided further that any such agreements which have already been entered into by the board shall be terminated unless the Electricity Commissioners have been satisfied by the board in accordance with the provisions of this subsection."

    1661
    The Clause we are discussing has the same ultimate object as Clause 1, that is to say, it. is legalising certain irregularities of the board. I think it is reasonable for us to suggest, as we do in this Amendment, that the same safeguards should be applied to this Clause as the Minister applied to Clause 1 when he accepted a similar Amendment. As Clause 2 stands, the board can only perform these operations, which are at present irregular, if they satisfy the Minister on certain points. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the commissioners shall have the same power to review past irregularities of the board. The point is exactly the same as that which was raised by a similar Amendment which I moved on Clause 1, the principle of which my hon. Friend the Minister accepted. On Clause 1 the Minister said he was willing to accept the principle of the Amendment although he did not like the form of words. I suggest that he might take the same view in regard to Clause 2, and that he should accept the intention of the Amendment and introduce on the Report stage an Amendment which would satisfy him as to form and satisfy us as to substance and give effect to the objects which we have in view.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) likes to refer to irregularities of the Board which he wishes rectified. The Board has at no stage admitted that there have been any irregularities, but it is others who have received legal advice which has cast doubt upon the powers of the Board with regard to the arrangements mentioned in Clause 1, or the agreements mentioned in Clause 2. We are dealing here with a, rather different state of affairs from that which confronted us in Clause 1. There we were dealing with arrangements between the Board on the one hand, and authorised undertakers on the other whereby the authorised undertakers would take a supply of electricity from the Board. It is true that I accepted an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend which would allow the Commissioners to review the arrangements which had taken place in the past, and if the Commissioners found against them and invalidated them the worst that could be done would be that the authorised undertakers would have to take a supply of electricity from the board
    1662
    as any authorised undertaker can now do. The damage, in other words, would be confined to the authorised undertakers.
    But in this Clause there are two agreements to be considered. There is the agreement between the Board and the undertaker, and the agreement between the undertaker and his industrial consumers. All that the Board have done is to stand behind an existing authorised undertaker too small to provide the supply which the exceptional circumstances demand. There is a vast enterprise demanding an enormous supply of electricity which the local undertaker cannot fulfil. Accordingly, the Board step behind him, and, relying upon the Board, this authorised undertaker has made an agreement with the industry. If we were to put under review and possibly run the risk of losing—because otherwise there is no purpose in having a review—agreements which are already made, I ask hon. Members to consider the disturbance which would arise in the whole industry. In the first place, you would have the industry with whom a contract was being made to supply its requirements of electricity saying, "This agreement, as a result of an Amendment carried in the House of Commons last night, is to be under review. If we had known that we should have put down our own generating plant and would never have made an agreement at all." That is the first effect of accepting the Amendment. The next effect is that the undertaker behind whom the Board are standing would still be liable under his contract to supply this vast enterprise which would be entirely beyond his capacity.
    I trust that I have drawn a distinction between reviewing the past agreements referred to in Clause 1 and those referred to in Clause 2. I feel that it would be difficult to re-open these agreements without creating confusion and putting doubts into the minds of big industries and of authorised undertakers who have acted in good faith. It is for these reasons that I would ask my hon. Friend, if it seems to him good, not to press the Amendment. The Board have no objection whatever to the Commissioners seeing the agreements which they have made. They have entered into them as a responsible business body and are prepared to stand by them, but it is the effect upon the minds of others that I am asking my hon. Friend to consider. I

    1663
    hope that he will be able to appreciate the point of view I am putting to the Committee, and that I am in no sense trying to conceal from the House or the Commissioners the agreements in question.
    7.22 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I appreciate the very cogent arguments which my hon. Friend the Minister has just advanced and realise the difficulty that might arise in the circumstances to which he referred. But we are dealing with Clause 2, on which the real cases of undue preference involving actual hardship to certain consumers are believed to be arising under these agreements. It is in Clause 2, page 3, line 21, that all this may be done so that the undertaker may
    "be enabled to supply to persons whose needs for electricity are of an exceptional nature."
    There are a number of industries in which the needs are of an exceptional nature, and it is this kind of case where the undue preference given in one area may involve very considerable hardship to industrial producers, and it leaves no redress. Notwithstanding the arguments of my hon. Friend, the difficulty is as to what is the fair thing to do. Is the newcomer who is found to have got something which he ought not to have had to continue enjoying that undue preference, or is the older established consumer, whose business is suddenly upset through the undue preference which has been given to the newcomer, to be put out of business or go on indefinitely heavily handicapped? It is a question of deciding which is the least objectionable course to pursue.
    I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend said. It may be very objectionable to go to consumer "A" and say, "Look here, the agreement which we made with you a week or a month ago may be wrong or may be all right, but, at any rate, it is to be broken up." We might say that this thing must now be reviewed by the commissioners, and that it means that if the commissioners are not satisfied they can stop and cancel it. There may be something to be said for that. But surely it is not as severe as the case of the other man where his business is prejudiced by reason of the undue preference. The Minister and my hon.
    1664
    Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) are obviously in a dilemma as to what is a reasonable way out, hut is it fairer to allow the hardship to continue, or to reopen the case of undue preference to see whether it cannot to some extent be relieved? I suggest that on balance, having regard to the two sets of difficulties, the fairest way is to give an opportunity for investigation not with the certainty of revision, but, may be, with the remote possibility of revision, rather than to leave, in certain instances, a hardship which may permanently prejudice a long-established firm constantly subjected to the difficulties arising from undue preferences. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, especially as he was good enough to meet us on Clause 1, to see what he can do in regard to Clause 2, if my hon. Friend thinks fit to withdraw the Amendment. The matter is well worth the further attention of the Minister in order to see what can he done to put right What is an undoubted injustice to certain cases already envisaged.
    7.26 p,m,
    Mr. H WILLIAMS: I was impressed by the speech of the Minister in which he said that this question involves two contracts, whereas Clause 1 only involves one contract. In this case there is the contract between the board and the undertaker, and a separate contract between the undertaker and the industrial consumer. The industrial consumer, in the case of past agreements, may have gone forward in his enterprise because he had obtained certain treatment with regard to electricity supply. I did not receive information officially, and I do not know where it came from, but I believe that Clause 2 owes its existence very largely to a great enterprise in Northamptonshire where they make tubes —the firm of Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyd. Whether this be correct or not, I do not know, but it is probably one of the instances. Naturally when the firm decided to move to Northamptonshire they had to take every factor into account, such as the supply of fuel, iron ore and of electricity. If my information be correct, they have been given very favourable terms. That is to say, the local undertakers have been granted favourable terms by the board, and the undertakers in turn are passing those

    1665
    favourable terms on to Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyd. It is part of the understanding as a result of which they put up their works, and it would be very disturbing to them if there was any drastic review of those terms.
    Let us look at the danger which might arise. I mentioned a short time ago Merthyr Tydfil where the famous firm of Guest, Keen and Nettlefold have great steel works which at the moment are out of operation. Let us imagine—I am not supposing that it will happen, because I believe it will not—that other great firm of tube makers decided to put up a tube works in Merthyr Tydfil. Their contract would have to be approved by the commissioners under the provision of Clause 2. The commissioners might decide that the terms proposed to be offered to Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold by the board, through the local authorised undertakers, would involve the board in loss, and might say, "Oh, no, you cannot offer those terms. You must charge more than that." You would have the extraordinary circumstance that, other things being equal, the Central Electricity Board would be supplying two sets of identical consumers on different terms. A condition of undue preference, because it would be a case of undue preference, would arise.
    In these circumstances, I would strongly urge upon the Minister the desirability of reconsidering his attitude. I think the proposal of the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) is rather too strong, having regard to the very sound argument produced by the Minister. If the pass has already partly been sold, if I may use that phrase, one may have to condone that, in part. Nevertheless, I think it ought to be the duty of the commissioners to examine these bargains and find out whether any are calculated to be prejudicial to the general structure of the scheme, or whether they would, if similar bargains were to be concluded in the future, involve an undue degree of preference. If in the future people come along and find that they have been treated differentially, grave trouble will arise. All of us are anxious that those who are responsible, the commissioners and the board, for certain important aspects of the development of the electrical industry shall not be hampered and brought into a measure of disrepute because of circumstances
    1666
    originally beyond their control. They did things which certain lawyers have said they were not entitled to do. The purpose of the Bill is to make the position clear. In future cases are to be treated differently, and it does introduce an element of danger. Therefore., I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter so that on the Report stage he may possibly be able to suggest sonic qualifying words which will meet in principle the point put forward by my hon. Friend.
    7.33 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: There is only a slight difference between the position which the Minister might take up and that of the Amendment. The difference may be slight, but it is vitally important from the Minister's point of view. Surely, the wording of the Amendment is wrong. In the past there have been, I will not say irregularities, but agreements entered into which are working to-day, and we do not wish to upset them unnecessarily. The Amendment lays it down that those agreements shall be terminated unless the Electricity Commissioners have been satisfied by the board. I would rather meet the position by reversing the procedure. I would say that it is the duty of the commissioners to satisfy themselves that these are fair bargains and agreements, without undue preference, but if there was an outstanding case of undue preference, then the commissioners would have to deal with the matter. That is the fair way of dealing with it, rather than laying it down that these agreements and arrangements should be terminated.
    It would be better to say that the whole of the agreements should be gone through carefully and that if there was an outstanding case it should be dealt with. Otherwise, there would be no need for any action to be taken. That would apply to all agreements to be made in the future. There ought to be in the Bill some words of the nature of the Amendment, but not in the way in which the Amendment produces them. If the Minister could go a little way to meet us in the spirit of conciliation which he showed earlier it would be an advantage to the Bill. If he could say that he would consider the points raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and others between now and the Report stage he would be doing

    1667
    something to meet what is obviously rather a difficult position in the Bill as it stands.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is preserving his role as an arbitrator and holding the scales evenly, as he does on every occasion, between the Mover of the Amendment on the one hand and the Government on the other. Unfortunately, on some of these matters one has to take a decision to come down on one side or the other, and it is not always easy so nicely to balance the issue as my hon. Friend would desire. The appeals of my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir Joseph Nall) are very difficult to resist, because he presents the very rare spectacle of a man labouring under great indignation while at the same time stating his case with moderation. I appreciate, and the Committee appreciate that, feeling indignant at the promoters of the Bill, he should show such a remarkable spirit of conciliation as to commend himself to the Committee as a whole. I acknowledge the assistance that I have received in getting through a Bill which otherwise would have been very difficult to get through Committee because my hon. Friend and those associated with him have confined themselves to making constructive criticism and not trying to tear the Bill to pieces in every Clause. I should very much like to meet my hon. Friend if it were possible.
    There is no objection whatever in the minds of the Board to these agreements being judged by ordinary business standards. It is not them that we have to consider when we are dealing with an Amendment to have their actions under review, but we must have regard to the effect upon industrialists and authorised undertakers of accepting this Amendment. If a public announcement were made now that all these agreements were to be brought into question I fear that it might have a very disastrous effect, which no one would desire. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull and other hon. Members who have spoken in support of his view recognised that at once. I am confronted with the task of finding some way of overcoming that difficulty, if it can be overcome, and I say readily that if
    1668
    there is a way to overcome it between now and the Report stage I shall be glad to meet his point of view. I do not know that it will be possible, but, there being no theoretical objection to this point of view, it remains to discover whether there is not some practical solution. I would not like to encourage the belief that there is, but I will do my best to discover whether in some way we can accept the intention of the Amendment.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister approach a review of the matter in a spirit of hopefulness and use a special endeavour? If he acts in that spirit he will find a solution, but if lie acts on the old standards of the Socialist Government he will fail. If he acts with his usual good will, he will do well.
    7.40 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: The Minister has met the Amendment with some very powerful arguments, and I would only like to point out that the very force of his arguments is a criticism of the Act of 1926, and the way it has worked. His argument is that we cannot remove one injustice without creating an even greater injustice. An Act of Parliament which works out with that result is not a very commendable one. At the same time I should like to thank the Minister not only for the cogency of his arguments but also for the kindness and geniality with which he has met the position put forward by us on this Amendment. In view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment of s. 12 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.)
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end, to add:
    "Provided also that the provisions of this sub-section shall not come into operation in the area to which the North-West England and North Wales Electricity Scheme, 1928, relates unless and until—

    (a) at least one existing or new generating station in the portion of that area which is situate in North Wales is a selected station; or

    (b) the Central Electricity Board shall have acquired or constructed such main or other transmission lines in the said portion of the said area as shall enable

    1669
    a supply of electricity to be afforded directly from such mains to any authorised undertakers therein;

    and in considering any similar matter or question which may be submitted to them under any existing enactment the Electricity Commissioners shall have regard to the terms of this proviso."
    We have put down this Amendment as the result of what happened in the Debate on the Second Reading, when I drew attention to the fact that the second portion of the Clause would operate very unjustly. I was able to point out how it would work in North Wales, and particularly the unfortunate way in which a community might be penalised by the high cost of electric current. The Minister said in reply, that if we could devise some Amendment which would come within the ambit of the Clause he would be prepared to look favourably upon it. Presumably, as it has been the Amendment comes within the ambit of the Clause, and I hope the Minister will look favourably upon it. In looking at the position broadly, I cannot. see any reason why the Amendment should not be agreed to, at any rate in principle. I do not want to go over all the points that I made last week in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill but I would remind the Committee that it is possible that while this provision will enable an authorised undertaker to pool the cost of transmission lines under his control, which would be a very good thing in the majority of instances, there are cases, as suggested in the Amendment, where it will work very hardly.
    In the North West of England and North Wales we have one electricity area set up under the scheme of 1928. That electricity area covers an area of 9,000 square miles, and nearly half of that area, some 4,400 square miles, are in North Wales, Monmouthshire, Cheshire and. Shropshire. We are a scattered area, but we have to take our supplies under the national scheme and the national grid. We are coupled with Lancashire, Westmorland and Cumberland The Central Electricity Board, under the terms of the Act of 1926, have selected certain stations in that area, but they have not selected one, in North Wales Where they have selected stations they have coupled them up by main transmission lines, as instructed to do in the Act,
    1670
    and they have laid other lines to join the central grid to authorised undertakers.
    At the northern end of this area are Cumberland and Westmorland, whose geographical character is very similar to that of North Wales. When the scheme was approved we had in North Wales the North Wales Electric Power Company, which had been in operation for some years. They had laid down certain lines and entered into certain arrangements with authorised undertakers. Because those lines were in North Wales, the Central Electricity Board leaves us out of the scheme altogether. They say: "You have certain lines there, and you have to get on with them. You have gone a little ahead of the times, and because you have been enterprising, you have to pay for it. We are having nothing to do with your lines in North Wales." To Cumberland and Westmorland they said: "You have not been enterprising and have not a power company. Therefore, we will build your lines." Those lines have been put up and the cost of those lines and the cost of maintenance and interest upon them has to be added to the grid price of current for the North West of England and North Wales area. The consumers in North Wales have to pay a price which includes all the maintenance costs for Lancashire and the North. Because we have a selected station and lines of our own we have to pay for all these other lines. The result is that the grid price of electricity in the North-Western part of the area is £3 7s. 6d. per kilowatt—that is what they pay in Lancashire for electricity delivered to the undertakers—whereas in North Wales we have not only to pay £3 7s. 6d. but, on the top of that, the cost of our own lines, £4 15s. 0d. per kilowatt. That is grossly unjust to the area.
    We have all the facilities in North Wales to enable us to develop our area as we should, and as we desire. We have coal, transport, water and agriculture, and if we want to develop we are entitled to do so. But every time we make any such suggestion we are asked: What is the price of electricity? It is in fact about two and a-half times the price paid in England, and it must always be remembered that it is the same electricity area. I cannot see any justice in such

    1671
    discrimination between two places carrying on the same kind of development. Some people may say that they do not object to Rhyl competing with Southport, but it must be remembered that Southport is getting its electricity much cheaper than Rhyl, as Rhyl has to pay the same price as Southport for electricity plus all the costs of the main transmission lines all over North Wales. Similarly, in Wrexham we have coal, but we have to pay much bigger prices for electricity from the same grid than the people in Wigan, a somewhat similar area. Again, Holyhead, which is a town carrying on a trade very similar to Heysham and Fleetwood, is placed at a very unfair advantage compared with these other towns.
    The object of the Amendment is not to prevent or upset the operation of the Clause. Most of us agree that undertakers should be entitled to pool the cost of local transmission. lines, but we do say that North Wales ought to be put right before that principle is applied to North Wales. If we get left out now we shall have an awful job in getting back. We have done the best we can by approaching the authorities, and although we have been met very kindly it does not settle the principle. We want the House of Commons to settle the principle. We want conditions laid down in the Bill which will compel the authorities to give us fair play in North Wales. There are only two ways in which this can be done. One is by having a selected station in North Wales. If we got that then the Central Electricity Board would have to put up main transmission lines and connect local undertakers. Our difficulties would be at an end if we got a selected station.
    It has been said that an hydro-electric power station is not very suitable, presumably because the amount of water necessary is not sufficiently reliable. We have had two of the dryest summers ever known and our hydro-electric plant has been running satisfactorily. There is a selected station in Lancashire and, therefore, there is plenty of room for the supply of additional current when we want to take a big load. At the present moment we have a line from Crewe for 93 miles, one transmission line going to Maentwrog where there is one of the biggest hydro-electric power stations in
    1672
    the country. We are supposed to be on the grid; it is there to supply us with electricity and to make sure that if one of our stations break down we shall be supplied with current. I was amazed, when the proposed terms for North Wales were published, to find that the maximum demand in North Wales is about. 26,800 kilowatts this year, and that in 1938 it would go up to 37,600 kilowatts, that is according to the scheme of the Central Electricity Board. The line which connects North Wales to the grid, and there is only one, will take only 15,000 kilowatts. Here you have a national scheme to make sure that everybody connected can get a supply of electricity, and the full capacity of the one line for North Wales—an area with a normal maximum demand of nearly 30,000 kilowatts—is only 15,000 kilowatts. The Central Electricity Board are not being asked to do anything out of the way when they are asked to put up main transmission lines in North Wales capable of carrying the amount of current required for the area. In other parts of the area, the lines are constructed to carry 50,000 kilowatts, and we are left with 15,000. The alternative to a selected station is that the Central Electricity Board should take over the line themselves. There is no considerable difficulty about that. There is a line belonging to the North Wales Power Company, but I do not suppose they would raise the slightest objection to selling if they got the right price.
    The plain fact is that unless something be done quickly the consumption of electricity in North Wales will not increase, as it is in other parts of the country, because the price is too high. In that case you will not get the additional turnover which is required to reduce your overhead costs and to reduce the price of the current. The other day I gave the House an example of what is happening in our area. In my own division a firm of chemical manufacturers actually spent between £70,000 and £80,000 in putting up a plant because they could not afford to buy electricity from the board, and in other parts you have smaller firms who are running their plant down with a view to taking their supplies from the grid. When people in one part of an area pay three times as much for their raw current as those in another part there is something very wrong with

    1673
    the national scheme. The only other point referred to in the Amendment is that the North Wales Power Company have a private Act which was passed last Session, and in Section 8 they have power to pool the cost of transmission lines in North Wales. If the Government look favourably on the Amendment, it will be necessary to prevent that Section coming into operation. I hope the Minister of Transport will give us some encouragement.
    7.51 p.m.
    Major OWEN: I desire to support the Amendment. The price of electric current in the North Wales area has been exercising the mind of all local authorities for a considerable period, and attempts have been made from time to time, by deputations to the commissioners and the Minister of Transport, to get some amelioration of the conditions obtaining in the area. So far we have had little encouragement. Parliament in an Act of Parliament decided that electric power and current should be supplied to the country at the lowest possible cost, and for that purpose they sub-divided the country into various areas. North Wales was coupled with Lancashire, Cumberland and Westmorland. Logically, if there were any sense at all in coupling North Wales with these three counties it was with the object of getting an equal price over the whole of the area, and I cannot understand why, having formed this one group, someone somehow should again sub-divide it with the result that those who require electric current in North Wales have to pay three times as much for it as those using the same current from the same grid in another part of the area. The price to the consumer in Lancashire is.347d., and that includes all distribution costs and everything else. In North Wales, without taking into account the distribution costs the price per unit is 1.101d., practically three times as much. An arrangement of that kind is bound to stultify the whole object of the legislation.
    I was glad to hear the way in which the Minister of Transport referred to the speech made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) a few days ago. For the first time for some years, during which many of us have been trying to remedy the conditions in North
    1674
    Wales, we heard some words of hope. They have been taken throughout the whole of North Wales as some indication on the part of the Government that the conditions are to be remedied. Let me read the words of the Minister of Transport:
    "My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Aled Roberts), in a most helpful speech, felt that the grid should take over the lines belonging to private power companies, in order that they might be charged less for their electricity coming from the Central Board. I say to him that that proposition is likely to be resisted by the power companies, but if within the ambit of the Clause he can devise an Amendment which would commend itself to the House, I shall be most happy to view it with favour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1934; col. 1134, Vol. 295.]
    I appeal to the Minister. He has been good enough to respond to some appeals that have been made to him during the course of the Debate to-night, and I appeal to him not to raise the bogey of the power companies. I think the actual consumption of units in the north-western area is over 3,000,000,000 per annum. In North Wales we consume a comparatively small amount of that. The extra charge involved, spreading the cost of the transmission lines over the whole area, would not raise the price of electricity to Lancashire, Westmorland and Cumberland more than a fraction of a decimal point. A line costs somewhere between £140,000 and £150,000. The estimate of the Central Electricity Board for the area was somewhere about 20 times as much. The power company has actually put up these lines at a much lower cost than the estimate of the Central Electricity Board.
    I press upon the Minister that he should help the whole of North Wales in this matter. We are looking forward to establishing new industries there. Some are being established now. We require them badly. We have facilities in North Wales and ideal conditions for the establishment of new industries but we are up against this difficulty, that no industry of any value will come to that area so long as current is going to cost what it is costing there to-day. I ask the Minister therefore, not merely to give the matter favourable consideration, but to accept some proposal on the lines of the Amendment so that at last we may be able to get new industries into that area, so that individual consumers may get their light

    1675
    and power at a reasonable price and so that we may give some help to one of the most struggling of our industries, namely agriculture, which at the present time needs this help as much as any other industry.
    8.3 p.m.
    Miss LLOYD GEORGE: I also ask the Minister to accept this Amendment. Speaking on an earlier Amendment, the hon. Gentleman told us how anxious he was that complete justice should be done in this matter. I think the situation as it exists in North Wales can neither be justified nor condoned. We are paying the penalty there of being progressive. We are paying the penalty of being enlightened. We laid down transmission lines before other areas had even contemplated doing such a thing. We are still paying for them and we are now paying also a proportion of the costs of the Lancashire and Cumberland transmission lines. We are not here asking the Minister to do something which is going to put an insupportable burden on other areas. It has been estimated that if the transmission lines were taken over, it would cost the consumers in the other areas probably an increase of 4 or 5 decimal points of one penny. I cannot help feeling that that is negligible compared with the burden, I might say the imposition, borne at the moment by consumers in North Wales.
    The high price of electricity is a handicap upon business and trade. It is a handicap, first of all, on businesses which are already established. To give an example from my own constituency, the town of Holyhead has to pay more for its electricity than two of its important competitors, Heysham and Fleetwood, and yet they are all in the same area. It is no small difference. It is not a difference of 4 or 5 decimal points of a penny. It is the difference between £3 12s. 8d. and £8 7s. That is an enormous addition to overhead charges. These high prices are also a serious check to development. We have in North Wales several distressed areas which are seeking to attract new industries, but although we have many advantages, which other parts of the country do not perhaps possess, the price of electricity is hardly an inducement to new industries to go there. The Minister said the other day that the greater the
    1676
    consumption the cheaper would be the price. There is a point, however, at which the price is so high that consumption cannot increase to any extent, and that is the position in which we find ourselves at the moment in North Wales.
    We have large agricultural areas which are undeveloped as far as electricity is concerned and they are very important potential customers, apart from the fact that agriculture has need of electricity as much as any other industry. But it is quite impossible, speaking for my own area at any rate, for the supply to be extended with prices at their present level. For all these reasons I most earnestly ask the Minister not merely to give this matter sympathetic consideration, but to give it serious consideration. If he cannot accept this Amendment perhaps he may find some other form of words which would be more acceptable to him and would achieve our object.
    8.8 p.m.
    Major LEIGHTON: I do not propose to detain the Committee for long but I do not think that gallant little Wales should be allowed to conduct this fight entirely by itself. There is a, very important agricultural industry in North Wales and I think the Minister might give serious attention to this question with a view to helping it. If the costs are pooled it will not involve a very large charge on consumers in Lancashire and elsewhere, whereas if we can get cheaper electric power into our agricultural districts, it will be possible to produce food more cheaply. Thus while the Lancashire people might have to pay a. fraction more for their electricity they would, at the same time, be able to buy their food more cheaply. I would add my voice to those of the Members who have already spoken in asking the Minister not to turn down this proposal but to give it careful consideration.
    8.9 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There are many inequalities and injustices in life arising from different causes such as size, weight and geographical position and I am sorry that the geographical position of North Wales in this case puts it at some disadvantage—conpensatcd for, however, by the powerful eloquence with which it asks for some readjustment. When I heard the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesea (Miss Lloyd

    1677
    George) my heart was very much moved, and I cannot tell her what unbounded pleasure it would give me to concede what she asks, if I could really understand what it was that she required me to do. But I am in some difficulty about this matter. Section 12 of the Act of 1926 provides that where any authorised undertakers take a supply of electricity from the Board, the price to be charged by them for the supply of electricity in bulk to any other authorised undertaker shall be on the same terms as those on which they have received it, plus an allowance in respect of the transmission lines. This Bill, amending that section, says that if it is made to appear to the Electricity Commissioners by any authorised undertakers or railway company that it is in the general interests so to do, the Commissioners may direct that the charges and allowances shall be pooled. That is to say that instead of trying to isolate one particular line and to acid that to the cost of the electricity supply, they may pool the costs of the whole system.
    That is a mathematical improvement in the method. It enables to be done easily what was previously done in a more difficult manner. In this improvement the North Wales Power Company were pioneers because before this Bill was ever introduced they came along with their own Bill and asked for that system, and Parliament conceded what they asked. Under their local Act of last Session, they obtained the right to have this pooling system. That was on the initiative of the North Wales Power Company. This Bill adds to their local power by enabling the Commissioner to act not only on the initiative of the power company but on that of any authorised undertakers or railway company. Therefore, at the request of any of those bodies transmission costs can be pooled as can be done now at the request of the North Wales company themselves. Now we find this Amendment which asks that there shall be no pooling in North-West England and North Wales—and therefore the Lancashire Power Company is calmly to be deprived of its advantages under the Bill although it is not in North Wales—that this Sub-section as to pooling on the initiative of any of these bodies, is not to come into operation until a generating
    1678
    station has been provided for North Wales or until the Board has acquired the transmission lines in the area.
    To be perfectly candid with the Committee, that proposal does not seem to me to be reasonable. Why should the Commissioners in deciding, at the request of someone in the area, that the costs of transmission have to be pooled say, "That is very sound in principle; that facilitates our task in determining how to apportion these costs which cover a whole network of lines, but it must not be done in North Wales, nor indeed in North-West England until North Wales has been provided with a selected station or until the Board has brought up the lines belonging to the North Wales Power Company." I cannot see the logic of such a position. I can appreciate that there is a grievance owing to the geographical position of North Wales—owing to the fact that it is not on the main transmission lines going from England to Scotland or that it is not in some other part of the United Kingdom. But what that has to do with these proposals I cannot see. My hon. Friends who have spoken will believe me, I am sure, when I say that if there is anything that I can do for them, as I said on the Second Reading, within the ambit of the Bill, I shall be only too glad to do it. But I would ask them to put down a proposal which has some relation to the realities of the case.
    It is because I cannot appreciate what is the relevance of the Amendment to this Clause that I am not, in a position to accept it. I would call attention further to this small detail: We were told on the Second Reading by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts), in that helpful speech which he made in supporting the whole Bill, that the cost of the transmission lines in North Wales was £140,000 or £150,000. The hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) repeats that, and says that it is a very small cost to he put on the industrial population of Lancashire, which has to bear the charge. But I am told that they have left out a nought, and that the cost will be £1,400,000 to £1,500,000. That is quite a different proposition. What one might be justified in doing at a cost of £100,000 or £150,000 one would not be justified in doing at a cost of £1,500,000.
    Major OWEN: Our reply is that we are paying for the cost of transmission lines which the Central Electricity Board built in Northumberland and Westmorland, but they pay nothing towards the cost of our lines.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is easily answered. But I do not want to be guilty of any inaccuracy, because I am told that my words are awaited with much expectation in Wales and that the interpretation put upon them is not always confined to their literal intention. I base myself, as I must do, on the sound foundation of my general argument. I repeat that if I can help my hon. Friends within the scope of this Bill in some relevant manner, I will do it. They are quite right to call attention to their grievance and I am sorry that they have so quickly repented of the course they took in promoting their own local legislation last Session.
    8.18 p.m.
    Mr. A. ROBERTS: The last thing I would like is that the Minister should think we are a, lot of illogical people and that he really cannot understand the object of this Amendment. I tried to make it clear and perhaps I may make it a little clearer still. It is a great mistake to mix up the North Wales Power Company with the people of North Wales. The North Wales Power Company is the North Wales Power Company. It has its job to do and money to pay. The people of North Wales are a different entity altogether. It may be of interest to the Minister to know that I understand that the representatives there, the Joint Electricity Authority, are playing up pretty high about this thing, and saying that they may as well go out of existence if they cannot do something better than is being done by the North Wales Power Company now. The real object in moving the Amendment was this: This is a national grid. We know that under Section 12 of the Act of 1926 the method of charging is laid down and that this Bill is going to amend that method of charging by enabling local pooling. Section 4 of the 1926 Act, which lays down the duties of the Central Electricity Board, clearly states that their duties are to
    "provide for interconnection, by means of main transmission lines to be constructed
    1680
    or acquired by the board, of selected stations with one another and with the system of authorised undertakers."
    We have not got main transmission lines now connecting us with selected stations, that is to say transmission lines which are capable of doing the job which North Wales is entitled to expect. I have said that our lines carry only 15,000 kilowatts. In the event of a breakdown they would have to carry 26,800 kilowatts, and eventually 38,000 kilowatts. Surely that is a justification for trying to get at the principle which the 1926 Act was introduced to provide. We want to get a national supply of electricity. The local Bills have nothing to do with us. We have to put up with them; we cannot avoid it. What we do know is that when the Bill of the North Wales Power Company came before a Select Committee upstairs the Clause which they asked for was turned down and another substituted. It had much the same effect, but the Committee would not have the company's Clause. Most of the local authorities in North Wales objected very strongly, before the Select Committee, to having that Clause put in at all. We should never have moved this Amendment if we had any hope of getting the 1926 Act applied. Section 4, sub-section (5) of the 1926 Act gives power to the commissioners to amend any scheme. We want the North Wales scheme amended so that we can come in on fair terms. But we have had little encouragement. We have seen the authorities and seen the Minister in the past, and the only thing left for us now is to ask the House of Commons to do it for us.
    8.22 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is clear that what my hon. Friend wants is a revision of the whole scheme. He will never get that without calling attention to it. The Clause dealing with pooling and pooling only is not the Clause which I could use for the purpose of reviewing the provisions of the 1926 Act. I am told that there is no economic ground upon which my hon. Friend can base himself, and he will realise the difficulty he places me in by asking me to accept his Amendment.
    8.23 p.m.
    Major OWEN: What we object to is the present method of pooling. We are left out of the pool in the North-

    1681
    Western area That is what we object to. In Lancashire and Cumberland and Westmorland they use more current than we do; it is a far bigger area. What we object to is that actually in the price that we pay for the grid supply we pay part of the cost of the main transmission lines in the North-Western area, and the North-Western area pays nothing towards the cost of our transmission lines in North Wales. What we ask for is a plain matter of common justice and common sense. What on earth is the object of creating an area and then splitting it up again? Why was not North Wales made an area by itself under the Act to begin with? The whole object of that legislation was to enable the whole area to get
    its current at the same price and the lowest possible price. Instead of that, Holyhead, for instance, has to pay more than any place in the whole country, in spite of the fact that we have agreed to a pooling system which was introduced by the North Wales Power Company. We are not concerned with the company but with the consumers of North Wales, and what we ask is a very simple thing—that we get a selected station in North Wales, and of necessity the transmission lines will be taken over by the board.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 148.

    Division No. 10.]

    AYES.

    [8.26 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Marthyr Tydvil)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cove, William G.

    John, William

    Thorne, William James

    Curry, A. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontyprldd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobble, William

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Williams. Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Lunn, William

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Aled Roberts and Miss Lloyd

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middletbro'.W.)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    George.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks.W.Riding)

    Maxton, James

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lleut.-Colonel

    Dickie, John P.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Lees-Jones, John

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Lewis, Oswald

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

    Elmley. Viscount

    Liddall, Waiter S.

    Apsley, Lord

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Assheton, Ralph

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lumtey, Captain Lawrence R.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Mabane, William

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Burghley, Lord

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Burnett, John George

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslle

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Christie, James Archibald

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Clarke, Frank

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

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlver'ties)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Pearson, William G.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    penny, Sir George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Petherick, M

    Denville, Alfred

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)

    Pybus, Sir John

    Siater, John

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswintord)

    Radford, E. A.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.

    Train, John

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Smith, Sit J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Soper, Richard

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Remer. John R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Rickards, George William

    Stevenson, James

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Young, Rt. Hon. sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Salt, Edward W.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Lieut.-Colonel Sit A. Lambert Ward

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Shepperton, Sir Ernest W.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    and Major Goeorge Davies

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at, the end, to add:
    "(3) In ascertaining for the purposes of the said Section twelve the terms on which any undertakers receive a supply of electricity directly or indirectly from the Central Electricity Board, any supply which is by virtue of the provisions of the last. foregoing Section given to the undertakers at prices other than those specified in the appropriate tariff shall he disregarded."
    At first sight, this Amendment is not very intelligible, but I would remind the Committee that when the Bill was introduced originally, last Session, in another place it contained these words, or rather it contained them when the Bill left another place and came here. That is to say, the Bill that was read a First time last Session and never got to a Second Reading contained the words which I am proposing to add. I am therefore asking the Government to return to their original point of view. I am not asking them to make a change. May I explain the rather complicated arithmetic of this Amendment? Where a special bargain is made between the board and an authorised undertaker, the situation that may arise under the next Clause in regard to railways is that they have to pass on the terms of that bargain. If reference is made to Section 12 of the Act of 1926, it will be found that in the case of the ordinary supply not subject to the special arrangements, the undertakers sell at the prices at which they buy plus the cost which they have to add because of their transmission systems. Let us assume I am paying 1d. a unit for some electricity. The cost in which I am involved because of my transmission system is½d., and I sell to my customer at 1½d.
    Now we come to he case of the special bargains, where I will assume that the
    1684
    board supplies electricity to the authorised undertaker at ½d. and his charges for distribution are ½d. That makes 1d. Suppose, however, I am taking some at 1d. for the ordinary consumers, and some at ½d. for these special people, how am I to calculate my charges in respect of the ordinary people when I am taking some of my supply at, 1d. and some at ½d.? I gather from what I am told that I have to average it. Therefore, in respect of my ordinary business, assuming that one-half is at ½d. and one-half is at ¾d. and the average price is 1d., I have to pass on that for which paid 1d. for ¾d. and therefore make a loss. I wonder whether I have made it clear. I will put it in another way. In the ordinary way, if there are no special arrangements, the authorised undertaker passes on the electricity which he buys from the board at the board's cost plus what he himself charges for his own services. If for any reason he is buying current at a variety of prices, he passes it on at the average. If, however, he is buying some on special terms, which he has to pass on, not at the average but precisely on the terms at which he buys, he has to pass on the whole advantage he is getting in buying cheaply, and he is compelled to pass on what he bought dearly as if it had been bought at the average price. He thus loses money. That is absurd and cannot be intended.
    It may well be that the Attorney-General, who, from his experience in the courts, will be able to explain this complicated matter better than I can, will say that if we only read this Bill together with the Act of 1926 everything will be perfectly clear, and that the only reason the Government have dropped these words out is not that they object to them, but that they are unnecessary. I have heard many definitions of an

    1685
    optimist and a pessimist. This is not the place to quote all of them, but one of them is that a pessimist is a gentleman who wears both belt and braces. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that we shall find our braces in the Act of 1926, all I will ask is why it was not discovered in April and May last year when this Bill first saw the light. How was it that the Bill continued in existence all these months before it was discovered that the Act of 1926 furnished us with this necessary degree of support? Are the Government now certain that their interpretation of the law is correct? If their interpretation be correct, no harm is done. If there be any chance of their interpretation being proved in the courts to be incorrect, there is no harm in putting into the Bill words that will make it certain beyond any possibility of doubt that their intentions really become the law.
    I remember about 1925 I put down an Amendment to the Finance Bill. I was assured that my words were unnecessary and that the Interpretation Act gave me all I wanted. I took the opportunity of consulting a friend who had had experience as a Law Officer of the Crown, and he said, "When I was a Law Officer I always used to say those things, but take my advice and insist that those words go into the Bill. Then there will be no possible doubt as to the interpretation of the law. There will be no need for people to go to the courts for an interpretation provided you have words in the Act which make it clear beyond a possibility of doubt." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says these words are not necessary, I am going to ask him if they interpret the law as he believes the law is intended to be. If his answer be "Yes," I say that it is evidently the case that there has been some doubt in the past; the matter has never been before the courts, and in order to avoid the necessity of going to the courts to find out what the law means, we ought to put it beyond doubt by putting these words in the Bill.
    8.44 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If a Bill is to be constructed on the principles upon which my hon. Friend's anonymous ex-Law Officer advised him to act, I am afraid our Acts of Parliament will be
    1686
    a series of explanatory provisions followed by sub-explanatory provisions, and so on ad infinitum. A Bill must he allowed to speak for itself without putting in words which somebody may think a proper explanation of its various provisions. My hon. Friend has this factor in his favour, that the words of this Amendment formed a Sub-section in the Bill as it reached this House from another place last Session. That is true, but further examination has shown that the inclusion of the Sub-section would not be of advantage and might produce certain disadvantages. I think that I understand what my hon. Friend's purpose is; I cannot, however, say that I was quick enough to follow his figures or all his examples. I understand that what my hon. Friend really wants to do is to ray that if a person has obtained a special price from an undertaker for a particular supply of electricity that price shall not be taken into consideration in connection with the ascertainment of the proper price of electricity supplied to other persons in quite different circumstances.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Yes.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very gratified to think that I have understood my hon. Friend's purpose, but, if he will allow me to say so, I discovered that not so much from his illustration as from a perusal of Section 12 of the Act of 1926. My hon. Friend told me what was his intention, and that he believed that that was the intention of Section 12, and so I looked at Section 12, and now know what my hon. Friend's intention is. I do not think anybody would interpret Section 12 in any other way. The supply which is dealt with by that Section 12 is obviously a supply which is provided, and the special price is not to be confused with, or averaged up with, a supply of electricity furnished to different people under the terms of the appropriate tariff. My hon. Friend asks why we first put it in the Clause. At that stage, no doubt, it was thought by someone, just as my hon. Friend has thought, that it was desirable, if possible, to make the position even clearer still: but if my hon. Friend will be good enough to look at his Amendment he will find that in order to make the explanation complete he would have to include some other matters in his Subsection. For instance, he would have to

    1687
    include the provision that they were not to be entitled to look at special prices which had been given under the powers conferred by Clause 1 of this Bill. When my hon. Friend realises that fact, as I am sure he will, the moment it is pointed out, he will agree that it would be more liable to cause error than to furnish a clearer understanding to put in an explanation which would allow somebody to say that in the case of a special price under Clause 1 of the Bill a different principle was to be applied from that which was to be applied with regard to the special price in Clause 2.
    If my hon. Friend wants to be a completely accurate commentator upon Section 12 of the Act of 1926 he must enlarge his sub-section. No doubt it was considerations of this sort which led the expert advisers of the Government on the drafting of this Bill to the conclusion that it was much better to leave Section 12 of the Act of 1926 to speak clearly for itself, instead of trying to produce a. commentary which would not be a complete commentary and would lead the traveller very much astray, having regard to the omission to include other matters all of which ought to be included if one is to be included. I do not know whether I have succeeded in making my point of view clear to the Committee. To put it as briefly and simply as I can it is better that Section 12 should be allowed to speak for itself, because if we are to attempt to write a commentary in the form of a sub-section to this Clause 3 we shall have to draft one which would be much more cumbrous and complicated in form than that which was originally devised by the draftsmen and put into the Bill in the House of Lords, that being the sub-section which my hon. Friend has now adopted. He is very anxious to impale me on the horns of a dilemma by saying that if it is so clear I ought to put it into the Bill. My answer is that I should he very glad apart from the objection to cluttering up a Bill with unnecessary Clauses, to put in anything which made that which was clear still clearer, but I do take objection to putting into a Bill an explanatory sub-section which is not accurate because it stops short of explaining the whole story. If we are to explain the whole story everything must be put in. We shall only make it worse by putting
    1688
    in one part of the story instead of the whole. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. We have given due consideration to the point, it has been examined in all its bearings, and I hope that the draftsmen and the advisers of the Government can be trusted on this small matter.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment I would like to say that I am a little surprised to learn from my hon. and learned Friend that he regards the drafting of it as unsatisfactory. If it was incomplete that was the error of those who put it in many months ago.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: So I said.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That was the error of the Government's learned advisers. I am only a poor engineer, and I do not understand what all those words mean, but I hope that what the Attorney-General has said as to the interpretation of Clause 12 of the Act of 1926 is the right one. I have read the Clause, and I am inclined to think the advice he has now given us is sound advice. My only regret is that he was not called in to advise the draftsmen of the Bill at an earlier stage, so that we could have avoided this unnecessary Debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.50 p.m.
    Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end to add:
    "Section twelve of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, shall have effect, as if the following words were added at the end of paragraph (6) of the Third Schedule to that Act or as regards capital raised after the first day of November, nineteen hundred and thiry-four, not less nor more than such rates as may be prescribed by the Electricity Commissioners, and those Commissioners may prescribe different rates for different companies'."
    The somewhat unusual combination of names which appears attached to this Amendment is accounted for by the fact that it is moved at the suggestion of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Minister of Transport has already explained to the Committee that this Clause amends Section 12 of the Act of 1926. Under that Section 12 authorised undertakers who take a supply and pass

    1689
    that supply on are allowed to charge to the persons whom they supply the price which they pay the board, plus a figure in respect of their transmission lines. In the Third Schedule to the Act of 1926 are set out certain things which may be taken into account in arriving at the proper charge in respect of transmission lines. One of the items included in the Third Schedule is interest for capital charges, and it is laid down that that interest should vary only between a minimum of 5 per cent. and a maximum of 62 per cent. Those figures were settled as long ago as 1926, when the general level of interest was very much higher than it is to-day, and it is felt that some alteration is required to meet the changed conditions of the money market to-day, when the general level of interest on Government and other securities is much lower than in 1926. What this Amendment would do would be to enable the Electricity Commissioners to fix the levels between which interest might be charged on fresh capital. We could not alter the levels in the case of existing capital, but where fresh capital was raised, and a sum had to be included in respect of that fresh capital, it would seem obviously right that a lower minimum than 5 per cent. should be fixed. This is a very moderate and a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to accept it.
    8.55 p.m.
    Sir G. ELLIS: I do not think the question is quite so simple as my hon. Friend makes out. To begin with, those rates were fixed by Act of Parliament in 1926, after due consideration, and it is now proposed to take the fixing of future rates out of the hands of Parliament and transfer it to the Electricity Commissioners. I am well aware of the competence of the Electricity Commissioners in regard to the amount and quality of electricity, but I doubt whether they are as qualified to fix rates of interest in relation to what the rates of money may be in the future. The main point is that these rates were fixed by Act of Parliament at a certain time with a view to the future and to last over a term of years. Over those years, money was raised and expenditure was incurred in the expectation that there would be no variation in the rate. Now we are asked to make a variation because there is a temporary change in money rates. If, every time there is a tem-
    1690
    porary change in money rates, the commissioners are to be able to make some alteration, that introduces great uncertainty into the method by which money can be raised by the companies. They work on a basis which has been given to them, and if the commissioners for the time being can make a change when they think that money rates are going to alter, it will be extremely difficult for a company to forecast the rates at which they can borrow.
    I am surprised that this suggestion has come from the Association of Municipal Corporations, who say that they may suffer in making bargains with particular companies as to the nature of contracts to be made between the corporations and the companies. Anybody with practical knowledge of the contracts which are usually made knows that a great many considerations other than the fixing of rates of interest are taken into account. If at the time a bargain is made between a company and a corporation the rates of money are much lower, and the contract involves a certain amount of expenditure, the treasurer of that corporation is well seized of the facts in regard to the bargain that he may be making with the company, and is perfectly capable of getting a bargain which will suit him.
    These rates have been fixed by Act of Parliament, and we are asked now to vary them, not by Act of Parliament, but through the temporary action of the commissioners. I put it to the Attorney-General that apparently this change is to be made only to the particular bargains under the Bill and that it would introduce a principle which might well be used in future so as to give the commissioners authority to deal with money rates in contracts other than those which relate to railway traction and lighting. Before we divest ourselves of the right to deal with these matters definitely fixed in the Act of 1926, we should remember that they will be taken out of the power of the House and passed into the power of commissioners for the time being.
    8.59 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I wish to enforce the arguments of the hon. Baronet the Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis). I was surprised when I saw the interesting collection of names attached to this Amendment. We are informed that the

    1691
    Amendment is promoted on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The association are presumably speaking on behalf of their various electricity departments. It is a little strange that the Association of Municipal Corporations should be endeavouring to change the financial relationship between the board and the companies. I am not denying their right to do so, but they are interfering with somebody else's business. I do not say that somebody else's business does not react upon them, but it is a little strange.
    In 1926 money was dearer than it is to-day, and the main reason why money is cheap now is that commodity prices have fallen. It is the object of the Government of every country in the world to raise the prices of primary commodities, because of the effect that certain fixed charges have had upon industry. The low level of wholesale prices is one of the causes of world-wide unemployment. It is obvious that if the efforts of the Governments of all the countries in the world are successful—there is no Government of which this is not true, whatever its political colour —the amount of working capital which every business undertaking wants will suddenly rise, this glut of bank money will vanish, and interest rates will rise. It is a perfectly well-known fact that the immediate effect of a sudden fall of commodity prices is to bring down the bank rate and finally a gradual droop leading to very low money rates. Just because money rates are very low at the moment it is proposed to alter what was regarded as a settlement in 1926.
    Mr. WEST: They alter wages quite easily.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In this case we are dealing with something over a long period of time. When you make a contract you take the rough with the smooth. There have been periods since this was passed when an Amendment in the opposite direction would have been convenient to the companies, but they did not propose such a thing because when you make a bargain which is intended to be permanent there are periods when the bargain suits you and periods when it does not. In 1888, the old Government Fund was converted into what are known as the Goschen Consols. Those Consols,
    1692
    which carried interest at the rate of 2¾ per cent. for so many years, and are now at 2½ per cent., have gone through every kind of vicissitude. There was a time when £100 worth of 2½ per cent. Consols could have been bought for £39, but the other day they were over £90, and I think they are over £90 at this moment. At no time have the people who entered into that arrangement voluntarily in 1888 ever had a right, or have sought, to vary their bargain. It was a bargain in perpetuity.
    So far as I know, the Act of 1926 represented a bargain in perpetuity. There were periods when conditions might suit the Electricity Commissioners and others when they might suit the companies, but when a bargain has been made, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Winchester stated, and all sorts of persons have invested their money on the assumption that all the terms of the bargin would be kept, it is clearly improper to vary the terms. If a trade union enters into a contract with a body of employers with regard to the rates of remuneration over a period of years, and that contract is varied during its currency, it is rightly charged against those who have committed the breach that they cannot honour a bargain that they have made.
    Mr. WEST: What about the school-masters?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: We are not talking about the schoolmasters. They have not done too badly as compared with prewar days.
    Mr. WEST: There was a bargain in 1931.
    The TEMPORARY - CHAIRMAN (Lieut.-Colonel Charles MacAndrew): I must ask the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) not to interrupt.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: All I am saying is that the bargain should not be broken casually by an Amendment tabled at the last moment. All sorts of interests are involved. A great deal of the money in public utilities is not held by private individuals, but by people representing every kind of trust and interest, and this proposal imperils all those interests and a vast degree of security. It is entirely improper that this suggestion should be

    1693
    brought up at this late hour. I am amazed that the Association of Municipal Corporations have not seized the opportunity for consultation—I do not think they have—with the other interests.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: I do not claim to have a great deal of knowledge with regard to electricity, but I have often wondered what was the necessity in the first instance for the Central Electricity Board. I imagine however, that the object of setting up that board, and the object of this Bill, is to try to encourage the use of electricity—to make it easier for more people to get supplies of electricity at cheaper rates. We have to take that as we find it, and, whether we agree with the board or not, we must assume that the whole object of setting up the board, and of this Bill, was to enable an extension of the supply of electricity throughout the country to be brought about. The present Amendment would act in an exactly opposite direction. If it were carried, its effect would be actually to retard the development and extension of electricity supplies in the country. Under the Act of 1926, Parliament, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchetser (Sir G. Ellis), fixed the rate of interest, and I think it would be detrimental to take this power out of the hands of Parliament and put it into the hands of the Electricity Commissioners.
    The Amendment goes on to say that the commissioners may prescribe different rates for different companies, which again would be a most retrograde step. If the commissioners had the power to decide at what rate of interest a certain company should be allowed to raise money, it might have a most detrimental effect on the development of that company. One can well imagine that the companies which would need an extension of capital might be companies in comparatively rural areas, where the revenue is small, and it is possible that a company like that, in order to get its capital, would have to pay higher rate of interest than perhaps a company on a sounder financial footing. If we allow these commissioners, however excellent they may be in their own capacity, to dabble in finance as regards the rate of interest which electrical undertakings have to pay, we shall definitely put ourselves back and retard the development and extension of those elec-
    1694
    trical supplies which I think the whole Committee will agree are so essential to the well-being of the country.
    9.9 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Undoubtedly the rate of interest is lower at the moment than it was in 1926, and from that point of view I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal of the Amendment that the commissioners should be allowed to reduce rates, or, indeed, to raise the rates, if they think fit. I cannot help feeling, however, the force of the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Sir G. Ellis) that it does not seem quite right that the Electricity Commissioners should be charged with this duty when perhaps they do not know so much about finance as they do about electricity. A great many people think that the present rates of interest are not likely to continue indefinitely, and, indeed, everybody hopes that, when new industries can be found in which to employ money profitably, the present rates will rise. I suppose the intention is that from time to time—I do not know quite how often—the Electricity Commissioners should reduce the rate of interest according as they found the market altering.
    But what impresses me about this Amendment is its smallness, if I may use that expression. I am told that, if there were a reduction of 1 per cent. in the rate of interest upon all capital expended upon transmission, the effect would be only a reduction in the cost to the consumer of somewhere about 1½per cent. on the price which he at present pays, and that if, as the Amendment proposes, the reduction in the rate of interest were limited to new capital, the reduction in price to the consumer would be very much less than 1½ per cent., and would become so small as to be wholly negligible. In these circumstances it seems to me that the game would be hardly worth the candle. It would introduce a principle which on the whole is not a very good one, namely, that the Electricity Commissioners should be charged with fixing the rate of interest for new capital. I think it is better that Parliament should fix it from time to time. I admit that, if it were going to make a great difference to the consumer, the consumer ought not to be mulcted, and there ought to be some elasticity for making arrangements from time

    1695
    to time in accordance with the varying rates of the market; but inasmuch as it is neither here nor there, broadly speaking, I suggest that the Committee might well be content to leave the provisions of the Act of 1926 as they are.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. N. LINDSAY: I agree with the Attorney-General that there may be something to be said against putting this in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners, and the figures which he gives would appear to point to the fact that this is a matter of rather less importance than some of us had imagined. If the Attorney-General would say that he will do what he can to encourage conversations on this point between now and the Report stage, so that the Association of Municipal Corporations may have an opportunity of considering the matter in conjunction with the power companies and anyone else who may be interested, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Supply of electricity by Central Electricity Board to railway companies.)
    9.14 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILIAMS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, to leave out from "company" to the end of the paragraph.
    With this Amendment must be read a later Amendment which I have on the Paper—in page 5, line 11, to leave out "to be provided for by the agreement." The effect would be to leave the Central Electricity Board in the position of supplying electricity directly to any railway company, but it would not give the board the power to do that upon such terms and at such prices as may be agreed upon. In other words, it would say that, if the board enter into this business, they must do so on the same terms as everyone else would. I think it is Section 12 of the Act of 1926 which prescribes the terms on which current may be supplied to a railway company. What are those terms? If it is an authorised undertaker supplying the railway company, the company will pay to the authorised undertaker the same price as the authorised undertaker pays to the
    1696
    Central Electricity Board plus the cost of transmitting the electrical energy from the authorised undertaker to the railway company. In other words, there is no element of profit in that except that represented by the charges on the transmission lines. If the Central Electricity Board is going to enter into the business of electricity distribution in competition with authorised distributors in supplying railway companies, there seems to be no reason why it should have any privilege in-the matter and should be in a position to quote to the railway companies different terms from those that they would quote if they were supplying them through the medium of authorised undertakers.
    Clause 2 deals with the question of exceptional supplies and says that they are to be passed on to the consumers on the same terms as they receive from the board, adding only the transmission charges. So far as the question of price is concerned, it seems to me that the whole supply of the railway companies could be dealt with under Clause 2, because I take it that the supply to a. railway company involves exceptional circumstances. The circumstances of a railway are obviously different from those of any other consumer. If a railway is electrified, it becomes a very large consumer. It takes current during long periods of the day at a very steady average. If Clause 2 were used for the supply to the railway companies, the terms would be the price of the electricity plus the essential cost involved in handing it on. I see not the slightest reason why a railway company should be permitted to make a contract direct with the board on terms which they Could not make if an authorised undertaker intervened. In other wards, railway companies are not entitled to buy on terms which are frankly preferential.
    When we discussed this the other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who made a very impressive speech, urged upon us that one of the things that worried the railway companies was the problem of negotiation. He was not primarily concerned in his support of Clause 4 with the question of the price at which the railway companies should buy. He was primarily concerned with the difficulty which he alleged had arisen in negotiating satisfactory terms. The hon. Member for

    1697
    Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan), in replying to me, said the reason they wanted to deal with one body was that their charge would consist partly of a charge based on the maximum at any time in the 12 months and partly on the actual consumption of electrical energy. It was because they wanted to negotiate with one supplier rather than any question of the general return that he was anxious that Clause 4 should become law.
    I should like to remind hon. Members opposite, who regard themselves as the defenders of municipal electricity, that two-thirds of the undertakings whose interests are likely to be affected adversely by this Clause are municipal and not private. It is not unreasonable to say that when the board enters into these direct relationships with railway companies they should not be permitted to offer specially favourable terms of a kind that they would not offer if they were supplying the same electricity through the medium of an authorised undertaking which happens to be a municipal council or a limited company. In both cases there ought to be fair treatment. I do not deny that there is an argument in support of the Clause on the grounds of convenience of negotiation and of planning and for technical reasons, though I think it has been rather over-stated.
    The difficulties which it is suggested that the Southern Railway have had were not insuperable, and in fact they were overcome. I am told that they are having certain difficulties at the moment in connection with certain further electrification that they have in view. Negotiation and planning a system of supply is the difficulty and not the general question of price, because the price depends on whose network you are going to use. If you become an authorised undertaker, you will use your existing network, with such additions as you may have to make to it in order to make contact with the railway circuit. If you take the supply from the board, there will also be certain extensions to the network involved, and conceivably the additions to the transmission system will be greater if the board do it than if the existing authorised undertakings do it.
    There will probably be more expenditure of that kind involved, but the original supply if the Central Board come in directly should not be given at
    1698
    different terms from those that would be given by authorised undertakers. That is a questionable attitude. It will definitely mean that any cheapness to the railway companies will be at the expense of every domestic and industrial consumer in every other part of the country. If the Electricity Board have to raise a certain revenue and raise less than they ought to do by supplying the railway companies below the average price, everyone else will have to make up the difference. I am amazed at the attitude of the party opposite towards this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "We will take the risk!"] I wish hon. Members would take the trouble to read the Bill and understand it. If they did, they would realise that throughout they have been supporting the interests of a monopoly, and those who have some connection with the electricity supply industry have been representing the interests of the general mass of the consumers.
    Mr. WEST: Does the hon. Member pose as a defender of municipal authorities?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Not in the least. If the hon. Member had been listening, he would know that I am defending the interests of the users of electricity. The last three minutes of my speech were devoted to that subject alone. My reference to municipalities was 15 minutes ago. I am sorry the hon. Member is so slow to draw his conclusions as to what I was talking about. I do not think I was unintelligible, because others seemed to understand me. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    9.25 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: My hon. Friend really raised two rather different issues, one being the issue of prices, in regard to which he has professed somewhat great anxiety to protect the consumer. I should have thought that in arrangements for bulk supply in exceptional circumstances, which railway electrification affords, you might very well enable cheap prices to be given concurrently with other consumers not being affected adversely. It is admitted that this particular aspect of the matter was really settled when the Committee accepted Clause 2. Experience has shown what an extraordinarily difficult thing it is to negotiate with a number of different undertakings, each looking at the matter

    1699
    from the purely local point of view, and not be able to negotiate the technical question with the people who do all the technical work. I do not wish to follow that point further, but that is justification for this Clause. On that ground, and because of Clause 2, the words should remain.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Member give an explanation why the board should be permitted to quote more satisfactory terms direct to railway companies than if the quotations were made through the authorised undertakers?
    Mr. AMERY: That is my suggestion. In so far as they are quoting to railways as a system they can quote specially favourable terms under Clause 2. If Clause 4 be not accepted, they will still be able to quote special terms, but only after the railways have approached the different undertakings and they have negotiated with the board.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr. LAW: I must confess I have been gravely disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), because after the Second Heading Debate I came to the conclusion that if we got support from no other quarter we should get it from Members like my right hon. Friend who is a director of a railway company. It was very significant in the Debate on the Second Reading that the railways wanted this Measure, not because of the reduction in rates, but purely because they might get a unification of contracts. On Second Reading many of us drew attention to the fact that this Bill would enable the board to supply railway companies at preferential rates. I think everybody who spoke on behalf of the railway companies skirted round that point as though it were an unworthy suggestion. I certainly was under the impression that those who spoke for the railway companies were only interested in the unification of contracts, and, secondly, in the management of the load. I was under the impression that the Bill would result in preferential terms for railway companies as far as costs were concerned. Now the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook takes the view that the railway companies, which are such great
    1700
    consumers of electricity, are entitled to preferential rates because they are bulk consumers.
    Mr. AMERY: I was only answering an argument. I only say that if that were done it would not be a loss to other consumers.
    Mr. LAW: Even if we grant that hypothesis, which is one that; can be argued, whether the right hon. Gentleman argued it or not, that railway companies are entitled to preferential rates as bulk consumers, I cannot see why they should receive this direct from the grid rather than from authorised undertakings. If it is desirable to reduce prices to the railway companies, the supply might still come through the usual channels, and authorised undertakers would still derive such benefit as they can from this supply. The benefits which authorised undertakers would obtain would not be at the cost of the railway companies themselves. They would be benefits which authorised undertakers derive purely from management. It would not cost railway companies a penny more to take their supply from authorised undertakers, unless the board are going to supply at special preferential rates. If that be so, why cannot the supply be continued as it is at present? This Clause as it stands goes right against the principle of the 1926 Act. It is making the board a direct competitor with undertakings in their own areas. I cannot see how the Minister can reject this Amendment when he considers his own speech on the Second Reading, because he then said there was nothing at all in this Bill to infringe any existing right or monopoly. If the board has power now to enter into competition with authorised undertakings, obviously the Minister's statement during the Second Reading is not justified, because the monopoly of local undertakings will be infringed to the extent to which the board comes into competition with them at preferential rates.
    I hope very much that in these circumstances my right hon. Friend will feel able to accept this Amendment. It is an Amendment which will, if accepted, redound greatly to the benefit of the ordinary domestic consumer. The reason has been explained more than once during the Debate, and I will endeavour to explain it again. If the railways are to

    1701
    be supplied at less than the cost price, which will have to be the case if they are to be supplied at less than the prevailing rates, because under the prevailing rates the authorised undertakers have to supply the railways at cost price, or if they are to be relieved of the charges which every other undertaker has to pay, the effect must be that either the board will be operating at a financial loss, which is impossible under the Bill because it is forbidden to operate at a financial loss, or else the loss will have to be passed on to somebody else. The only persons to whom it can be passed on are the authorised undertakers who are worse situated than the railways, and they will have to pass it on again in turn to the consumer. If the railways are to be supplied more cheaply, and if the board is not to stand the financial loss, then somebody else will have to stand it, and that somebody else is the ultimate domestic consumer of electricity. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment, or to devise some other Amendment to meet the case which we are trying to put.
    9.37 p.m.
    Sir G. ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) claimed some preference for the railways because they were big users of electricity.
    Mr. AMERY: I did not say that.
    Sir G. ELLIS: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon, but he said most distinctly that the railway was entitled to be considered because it was a large user of power.
    Mr. AMERY: I said that if the railways, as large users of power were given specially cheap terms, it need not necessarily involve loss to the board. I was simply answering the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and was not entering a plea for reduced terms at all. The thing with which the railways are most concerned is the simplification of the negotiations.
    Sir G. ELLIS: The point of my right hon. Friend is, in essence, that as a big user of power the railway is entitled to special treatment. If it were a big user at a time when other people were not demanding electricity there would be some ground for it, but if it were a claim for
    1702
    preference when other people were using it, the preference would be all the more unfair.
    9.39 p.m.
    Mr. A. C. REED: The supplying of the railway companies at special or preferential terms opens up a new problem altogether. I understand that the argument is that because the railway company, for example, wants electric current between London and Newcastle, it has to take its power from three or four stations. Does not that equally apply to many industries who have three or four branches? If the railway companies can have preferential terms, why should not other industries with three or four branches in the country be entitled to the same treatment? I am rather afraid that it opens the way to direct trading by the Central Electricity Board throughout the country. It is the beginning of a nationalised direct supply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friends on the Opposition benches agree with me and, therefore, I presume that I am right in my statement. I do not see the necessity for this, because there are certain selected stations everywhere supplying practically every area in the United Kingdom. These stations have been selected by the Central Electricity Board because of their cheapness in the production of electricity. It would be, and has been, a very simple matter for the railway companies, as well as other industries, to go to three or four sources of supply and get a combined price. I urge the Minister to agree to the deletion of this matter simply on the one principle that it is a very dangerous precedent. If you once give preference to the railway companies, you will have enormous pressure from other industries asking for the same privilege and for equal rights.
    I should like to have from the Minister the definition of a railway company. Is every colliery in South Wales which has a private railway of its own to be entitled to special treatment and if one colliery receives it, why should not all others? The wording of the Bill is simply "railway company." We think of the big passenger railway companies, admittedly, but I should like an explicit statement as to what is a railway company within the meaning of the Act? Has a colliery which has its own private railway, perhaps from the colliery to a port, the right to have this special privilege?
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Either one accepts the premises on which this Clause is based or one does not. If one does not, it is no good trying to alter this or that phrase in the Bill, because the details of this Clause can only be changed by sacrificing the main principle. I do not hope to carry conviction to those whose minds are closed on this subject. The argument has been set out in the most lucid language in the Weir report, and that argument will commend itself to some and not to others. Here you have two great parallel systems—the railway system on the one hand, and the electricity system on the other. Is it not reasonable that the railway companies, running parallel as they do in most instances to the grid system, will be able to make one single contract for their supplies at a price known in advance? My hon. Friend wishes to take out the reference to an agreed price. If you take out that reference and fail to establish any machinery by which the railways may know what their supplies are to cost them, you fall back on the existing system, which implies that the railways must make separate arrangements with every single authorised undertaker at each point along their line. It is just that system of which we desire to get rid thereby putting the railway companies in the position, in the national interests and if they desire to electrify, to make a single bargain.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and other hon. Members who have spoken seem to think it is surprising that a large purchaser should obtain a special price. Every authorised undertaker makes a special price for an exceptional customer. There is no doubt about that in the electrical industry as a whole, and I really fail to see why, whenever we come to deal with the Board, we should put it outside its capacity to deal upon the ordinary principles upon which every business must be conducted if it is to make a success of its enterprise. Of course, if hon. Members do not like the board, their attitude is understandable, but if you have these great national boards and entrust them with a task, it is really unfair to take from them the means by which they can discharge that task. The advantage to be brought by
    1704
    such a Clause as this was well known before the Weir Committee reported, and I think that one sentence in their earlier report on which the 1926 Act was based is the real answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. This is the sentence:
    "At the same time, a real demand for energy which might approximate to 20 per cent, of the whole national demand for other purpose would most favourably affect the national load factor and thus reduce still further the cost of energy."
    I submit to the Committee that that is a recognised principle of the industry, that by making a special price you do not, as suggested, involve the seller, in this case the grid, in any loss, but you give it the positive benefit, as any business man must know; otherwise no power company would operate on the very principle that is contested here. Either this great question of national policy appeals to hon. Members or it does not. I do sincerely appeal to the Committee. I have tried to be as conciliatory as I possibly could, and hon. Members have conducted the Debate in a reciprocal spirit, which I deeply appreciate. We have to stop this business at 10 o'clock, and if the Committee will not think me impertinent I should like to ask whether it would not be possible to get this Clause before that hour.
    9.46 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I recognise frankly the very conciliatory spirit of the Minister. As one who has taken a large part in the day's proceedings, I wish I could respond to his appeal, but there are still nearly four pages of Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with this Clause, and if the bargain made two nights ago is to be carried out we shall have to bring these proceedings to an end in 15 minutes from now. I do not think it would be fair either to Parliament or to any of the interests concerned to respond to the appeal. I rose, however, to ask a question. The Minister bas based his case not on my Amendment but on Clause 4. My Amendment is based on the assumption that Clause 2 becomes the law. The Minister says that if the railways are electrified they will take 20 per cent. of the electricity generated, thereby improving the power factor, and therefore they are entitled to make excep-

    1705
    tional bargains. That is guaranteed, because we have passed Clause 2. Why should the board make a bargain more exceptional when they are dealing direct than the bargain they would permit authorised distributors to make if they were dealing through them? We are not now dealing with the question of exceptional bargains; that is begging the question.
    I want to know why the board should be put in a favoured position over and above those who have built up this great industry, and who were there long before the board was thought of? I have no prejudice in saying that of the board. They are the newcomers. It was laid down in 1926 that they were not to be distributors, but they are going to be made distributors. If they become distributors, they should not become favoured distributors, entitled to rights which are denied to other authorised distributors, whether companies or municipalities. Let us suppose that a supply is going to be given to, say, a railway company in Hammersmith, which district is full of railway stations. If the board supplies the Hammersmith Corporation with electricity on specially favourable terms, and the Corporation pass that on to the Great Western Railway, who have a station in Hammersmith Broadway, on specially favourable terms, out of which Hammersmith gets nothing except a bare payment for the use of its transmission lines, which are brought into operation for that purpose, I see no reason why the Central Electricity Board should be entitled to go behind the back of the Hammersmith Corporation and quote the Great Western Railway Company lower basic rates than they quote to the Hammersmith Corporation. The sole purpose of my Amendment is to secure that there is not to be that form of differentiation. I say that with the profoundest respect to the Minister, whose handling of this discussion I admire. It is a most complicated and difficult matter, and, if I may say so, he has discharged his duties admirably. But I do not think that on this occasion he has answered in the slightest degree the argument that I put forward in my original speech.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. WEST: Some of the hon. Members who have been moving or supporting
    1706
    Amendments to-night have made the point or the excuse that they did so because they were trying to protect the poor domestic consumers. If that be true—I think the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) tried to make that point and gave us a lecture because we were not quick enough in the uptake to understand it as well as he does; and I confess that I am still slow, after his explanation—we are faced with the explanation of the Minister. The Minister has quoted a statement from the Weir Report, which was based upon the ideas of famous experts, who probably know as much about this question as the hon. Member for South-West Hull, and they gave quite a contrary opinion. One of their main points has been that if the railway companies are able to take very greatly increased loads from the national grid, the result will be, obviously, to bring about large scale economies, with the result that there will be lower prices to the domestic consumers. We are told by the experts that that is so, and on the other hand, we are told by the hon. Member for South-West Hull that the opposite will be the case.
    I believe the Weir Committee are a better authority than the hon. Member and his friends. In any event, I am not quite certain that those hon. Members who have been speaking in that vein have been concerned only with the interests of the poor domestic consumers. That old widow and orphan kind of argument has been done too often and too thoroughly for us to believe it. The truth is that this is not a question of the poor widow, or the poor orphan, or the poor domestic consumer. Those hon. Members are protecting, as well as they can, and they are doing it very efficiently and very assiduously, the vested interest for which they are concerned, and that alone. I believe that this Bill, although it does not go far enough, in this Clause will be of some benefit to the domestic consumer, in spite of what has been asserted, and we are, therefore, well advised to support it.
    9.52 p.m.
    Mr. A. C. REED: Can the Minister give a definition of a railway company in this Clause? If the term "railway company" applies to private railways it may raise very difficult questions.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will refer to the regulations of the Railways Act he will find a definition. This definition is incorporated in the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, which has to be read with this Bill. Does he want me to read out the definition?
    Mr. REED: No.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.53 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 5 to 12, and to insert:
    "Provided that no agreement shall be made under this sub-section for the supply of electricity by the Central Electricity Board to a railway company without the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the Electricity Commissioners shall not approve any such agreement unless notice of the application for the approval has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as they may direct and an opportunity has been given to any authorised undertakers who appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be affected of making representations thereon, and unless the Electricity Commissioners shall be satisfied that the receipts on income account in respect of the supply of electricity to be given by the board under that agreement shall, over a term of years to be fixed by the Electricity Commissioners (not exceeding five years), be sufficient to cover expenditure on income account incurred in giving such supply together with a proper proportion of the board's general expenses including interest and sinking fund charges with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow."
    The Amendment speaks for itself, and I shall not enlarge upon it. I should like to say that the argument of the Minister in regard to railway electrification is not quite fair to the Committee. There is not a single railway electrification scheme in the country hung up or in any way delayed for want of this kind of provision. We know perfectly well that the railways have been extraordinarily loth to adopt electric traction. The Southern Railway Company have one of the biggest electric systems in the world, with the electricity laws as they are. The Department knows perfectly well that, in spite of the Weir Report and in spite of every kind of influence, the railway companies here and there where they could do it have proceeded with electrification. The Southern has the largest system. The real opponents and the real obstructionists in regard to electrification are the members of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers, not from any profes-
    1708
    sional jealousy but because they are able to demonstrate that the Weir Report is founded on fallacies and that electrification is uneconomic.
    This railway business has been brought into the Bill merely as a camouflage to try and conceal the real object of the Bill. I do not believe that the railway companies are at all concerned about this Clause. Not one single case of electrification will be held up or prejudiced by the want of the Clause. I am not going to waste the time of the Committee in considering the various Amendments on the Paper. I have put them down, and if the Minister will consider them he will find that in general they do not in the least detract from the general intention of facilitating the railways in any case where they are genuinely handicapped, and are drawn with the intention of meeting the kind of difficulty which it is said to have existed in the case of the Southern Railway, although in one single case only. On Bills of this kind I beg him to allow us to consider them on their merits and not these irregular agreements, with which the Bill is concerned, covered up and camouflaged by a whole lot of hypocritical humbug about a lot of railway schemes which do not exist.
    9.57 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend has indicated that he does not propose to press his various Amendments. I understand that but for the circumstances which exist he would like to have amplified the language in which he has characterised the Bill. I sympathise with him, and I think he will certainly not misunderstand me when I thank him for being so helpful in regard to the other business with which the Committee wants to deal. I understand that he does not desire me to deal in detail with the terms of his Amendment. Obviously, it is a substitute for an agreed arrangement, and, if I had to go into the matter, I think I should show good reasons for preferring a plain agreement rather than his Amendment. I thank him for helping us to get on with the Bill.
    Sir J. NALL: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If I thought there was the least hope that the railways would go ahead with electrification I might have pressed the matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, at the end, to insert:
    "and that the authorised undertaker in whose area the supply is proposed to be taken is unwilling and not in a position to give the supply on those terms and prices."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It only remains for me to repeat my thanks to the hon. Member.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, to leave out "subject to the provisions of this Section."
    This Amendment raises the whole question of whether electricity which is supplied to railway companies for the purposes of traction and haulage may also be used for the driving of railway work-shops. On the Second Reading of the Bill I devoted some attention to this subject, and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) pointed out that my arguments were not quite sound, as the circumstances which I contemplated could only arise if the railway company was already receiving a supply for traction. I admit that I did over emphasise my argument. Hon. Members who have been concerned with this electricity Debate have endeavoured not to waste the time of the Committee. I understand that hon. Members opposite desire to enter upon another Debate, and I shall make my remarks as brief as possible in order that their Debate may commence as soon as possible. But if they desire to make it difficult for me then I shall make my speech last as long as circumstances demand. The Bill involves important considerations and those who have been putting forward serious Amendments, and who have also endeavoured to expedite the proceedings as much as possible, are entitled to some consideration. When we are trying to meet the convenience of hon. Members the minimum of courtesy might be extended.
    The Amendment is intended to deal with the whole question of the supply of electricity to railway manufacturing works, where locomotives are made and repaired, and carriages built, and any other manufacturing works of a railway company, which are clearly outside the normal sphere of railway electrification. Generally speaking these undertakings are supplied by the local electricity company or the municipality, which happens to be
    1710
    the authorised undertaker If general electrification comes along and, as a consequence, this particular line is taken away from the local supplier obviously that supplier will be gravely prejudiced because his distribution works and plant will be rendered partially idle, and the costs will have to be borne on the rest of the supply. Once again we come to the question that other consumers will be compelled to pay more for their electricity. In these circumstances, I suggest that if there is a supply to the manufacturing works of a railway company that supply ought only to be given subject to the same general restrictions which apply in the case where electricity is supplied for traction purposes. I think the supply for manufacturing works ought to be dealt with outside Clause 4, although there are cases where the one is incidental to the other. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to this point.
    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think the Committee will agree that my hon. Friend has put a most important argument in a very brief form. I do not in the least detract from the importance of that argument when I say that if the Committee is not prepared to come to a decision about it now, we must pass from it, and proceed to our other business. If, on the other hand, the Committee is prepared to come to a decision, so much the better and it will be a perfect end to a very amicable discussion. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the Board supplying a railway company directly except for traction purposes, and the effect of the Amendment if taken literally would be to prevent a railway company using electricity supplied for traction purposes or the lighting of railway carriages, for such nocuous purposes as heating and cooking. I do not think the Committee is prepared to take a course so unjustifiable.
    For the rest I assure the Committee that the proviso which requires the Minister's consent to the use of electricity for any other purpose is imported direct from Section 47 of the Act of 1926 which provides that where an authorised undertaker supplies electricity for traction purposes, the electricity may, with my consent, be used for other purposes. The House for some reason seems to have placed great reliance upon the common

    1711
    sense of the Minister of Transport. They felt that he would not reach a decision without taking all the circumstances into account, as indeed he is bound to do by the proviso, and giving an opportunity to any person who appears to him to be affected, of making representations on the matter. I appreciate the reluctance of the Committee to import these powers but if we are going to allow the Central Board to do what an authorised undertaker now does, it seems reasonable that we should allow the supply to be used in other ways, under the supervision of the Minister of Transport whom the House has already decided to be the proper authority to exercise such supervision. It is for the Committee to decide whether they will reject this Amendment now or prolong the discussion. I can only thank them sincerely for the spirit in which they have conducted all these discussions, and I am particularly grateful and I am sure the Government are to my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) for having been so constructive in his criticism instead of taking up an obstructive attitude.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In view of the Minister's statement and in order to facilitate business, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I shall put this proposal down again on the Report stage, after there has been an opportunity for further consideration of it by the Department and in the hope that having regard to the reasons why I have withdrawn, I may succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye and that he will select this Amendment when we come to the Report stage.
    10.9 p.m.
    Sir J. NALL: I hope that the Minister appreciates the main point of the objections which have been raised, and that, if they are put in a reasonable spirit and in a few Amendments on the Report stage, and explained to the House, the House will then be asked, quite shortly, to accept or reject them.
    Amendment negatived.
    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson].
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  DEPRESSED AREAS (DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee [Progress 3rd December].
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the initiation, organisation, prosecution and assistance of measures designed to facilitate the economic development and social improvement of the depressed areas; for the appointment of Commissioners for those purposes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of such sums, not in the aggregate exceeding in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the sum of two million pounds, as may be required to defray any expenses incurred by either of two Commissioners appointed under the said Act in initiating, organising, prosecuting, and assisting measures designed to facilitate the economic development and social improvement of the areas to which this Resolution applies, not including the provision of financial assistance by way of grant or loan to any local authority except for the purpose of contributing towards the cost of any works for which no specific grant is payable by any Government Department or towards the provision of small holdings or allotments; and

  (b) of such sums as may be required to defray any expenses incurred on behalf of the Commissioners by any other Government Department; and

  (c) of any increase in the amount of contributions payable to county councils by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under Section two of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, not exceeding the amount of any contributions made by the said Commissioners towards the provision of small holdings.

  The areas to which this Resolution applies are the following areas, that is to say: —
  Depressed Areas in England and Wales.

  The county borough of Gateshead;

  The county borough of Merthyr Tydfil;

  The county borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne;

  The county borough of South Shields;

  The county borough of Sunderland;

  The county borough of Tynemouth;

  The county borough of West Hartlepool;

  In the administrative county of Durham—

  The boroughs of Durham, Hartlepool, and Jarrow;

  1713

  The urban, districts of Annfield Plain, Barnard Castle, Benfieldside, Bishop Auckland, Blaydon, Brandon and Byshottles, Chester-le-Street. Consett, Crook, Felling, Hebburn, Hetton. Houghton-le-Spring, Leadgate, Ryton, Seaham Harbour, Shildon, Spennymoor, Stanhope, Stanley, Tanfield, Tow Law, Washington, Whickham, and Willington;

  The rural districts of Auckland, Barnard Castle, Chester-lo-Street, Durham, Easington, Hartlepool, Houghton-le-Spring, Lanchester, Sedgefield, South Shields, Sunderland, and Weardale;

  In the administrative county of Northumberland

  The borough of Wallsend;

  The urban districts of Longbenton, and Newburn;

  The rural district of Haltwhistle;

  In the administrative county of Cumberland—

  The boroughs of Whitehaven, and Workington;

  The urban districts of Cockermouth, and Maryport;

  The rural districts of Alston with Garrigill, Cockermouth, Ennerdale, Millom, and Wigton;

  In the administrative county of Mon-mouth—

  The urban districts of Abercarn, Abersychan, Abertillery, Bedwas and Machen, Bedwellty, Blaenavon, Ebbw Vale, Llantarnam, Llanfrechfa Upper, Mynyddislwyn, Nantyglo and Blaina, Panteg, Pontypool, Rhymney, Risca and Tredegar;

  The rural districts of Pontypool and Saint Mellons;

  In the administrative county of Glamorgan—

  The borough of Port Talbot;

  The urban districts of Aberdare, Bridgend, Caerphilly, Gelligaer, Glyncorrwg, Maesteg, Mountain Ash, Ogmore and Garw, Pontypridd and Rnondda;

  The rural districts of Cardiff, Cowbridge, Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre, Neath and Penybont;

  In the administrative county of Brecknock—

  The urban district of Brynmawr;

  The rural districts of Crickhowell and Vaynor and Penderyn;

  In the administrative county of Pembroke—

  The borough of Pembroke;

  Depressed Areas in Scotland.
  The counties of Dumbarton, Lanark (excluding the city of Glasgow), and Renfrew;
  The parishes of Ardrossan, Beith. Dairy, Dreghorn. Dunlop, Fenwick, Galston, Irvine, Kilbirnie, Kilmarnock, Kilmaurs, Kilwinning, Loudoun, Riccarton, Stevenston, and Stewarton, within the county of Ayr;
  The parishes of Falkirk, Grangemouth, Muiravonside, and Slamannan, within
  1714
  the county of Stirling so far as situated south of the London and North Eastern Railway lino from Castlecary to Linlithgow;
  The parishes of Bathgate, Ecclesmachen, Kirkliston, Livingston, Linlithgow, Torphichen, Uphall, and Whitburn, within the county of West Lothian so far as situated south of the London and North Eastern Railway line from Linlithgow to Ratho;
  The parishes of Kirknewton, Mid Calder and West Calder, within the county of Midlothian."
  10.10 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: Before the Committee proceed with the discussion of this Resolution I would like to call attention to the fact that from the number of Amendments on the Order Paper it would seem that there is a rather widespread misapprehension as to what can be done upon a Resolution of this kind. I think, therefore, it would be for the convenience of the Committee, if I were to say at once that, with the exception of the first two Amendments on the Order Paper—in line 9, to leave out "two million" and to insert "one million, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred" and in line 10, to leave out "either of two"—and the last but one—in line 68, to leave out from end to end of Resolution—they are all out of order. I have been asked to state a reason for that Ruling which I shall do quite shortly in this way. The Committee is aware of the very old-established rule that the House does not grant money except at the request of the Crown or, in other words, upon a Resolution which has the recommendation of the Crown, and only grants money when so asked for the purposes for which it is requested. We now have before us a Resolution with the King's Recommendation signified, in other words a request by the Crown for the grant of a certain amount of money for certain purposes. It is not within the competence of the Committee, either to increase the amount named in that Resolution or to extend the purposes for which the money is to be granted. For that reason, therefore, the Amendments, with the exceptions I have indicated, would be out of order, and the only course which hon. Members can adopt in regard to the points raised by those Amendments which are out of order, is, so far as it may be in order to do so, to discuss those points on the Resolution

  1715
  and to be guided by their own opinion on the subject as to whether they support the Resolution or oppose it.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. LAWSON: While thanking you, Sir Dennis, for your early guidance upon this matter, may I point out that Mr. Speaker while giving a definition such as you have just given also said in reference to this Money Resolution:
  "If I were asked for my opinion on the subject I should say that not only has the limit been reached but that it has been rather exceeded in the amount of detail which is put in a Money Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1934; col. 1236, Vol. 295.]
  May I ask if your Ruling means that we shall have a sort of Second Reading Debate in which we can express ourselves upon the Government's action in appending all these points to this Money Resolution and thus limiting the opportunity of the Committtee to put down Amendments which they desire to have discussed.
  10.14 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question which is before the Committee is the Resolution which appears on the Order Paper. If the hon. Member cares to describe a Debate on that Resolution as a kind of Second Reading Debate, he can do so, but what is before the Committee is the Resolution as a whole. The Amendments which are on the Order Paper may be moved in due course when the hon. Members whose names are attached to the Amendments are called. This is strictly the position: When an Amendment is called, the discussion is limited to that Amendment until the Amendment is disposed of, and then the original question of the Resolution is again before the Committee, unless and until another Amendment is called. Hon. Members will perhaps realise that I have stated the position shortly. The common practice is this: The Resolution is discussed as a whole. When it appears to the Chair that the discussion has reached a certain point, I will not say has drawn to a conclusion, he calls an hon. Member who he anticipates will move an Amendment. After that is done, the Amendment is dealt with, and when that is disposed of the original question which was before the Committee is put before the Committee again to be further debated if desired, or voted upon.
  Mr. LAWSON: I want at once to raise the issue of the manner in which the Government have treated the House in reference to this Resolution.
  Mr. JOHN WALLACE: On a point of Order. I may not have heard you correctly, but I understood you to say that only the first two Amendments and the last but one of the Amendments on the Order Paper are in order. I wish to ask whether the fourth Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, which deals with the inclusion of additional areas, is in order. It raises the question of an extension of the areas to which the Bill is to apply.
  The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is quite clearly out of order under the ruling which I have already given, as it would extend the areas in which the money is to be expended. The fact that hon. Members cannot move an Amendment in a certain sense docs not necessarily mean that they cannot raise the point in debate. Hon. Members may give as a reason for opposing the Resolution the fact that it does not include something which they would like to see included, although they cannot move it as an Amendment.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. LAWSON: May I now pursue the point I was about to make, that when the announcement was first made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to these depressed areas there was very great disappointmnt at the amount that was mentioned. We are well aware that, that amount having been put into the Money Resolution, we are almost powerless. There was indignation at that particular time, but I am sure the House did not expect that we were going to be cabin'd and cribb'd by having the areas definitely attached to the Money Resolution, so that we are almost powerless either to discuss the Money Resolution or to make Amendments to the Bill later on. That is a very real grievance. Members in all quarters of the House are interested in areas which are depressed, some of them almost derelict, but yet they are hindered from having those areas included for consideration in the Bill.
  Take the case of Middlesbrough. I think that of all the ironies, the worst is that Middlesbrough is left out of a Bill

  1717
  for dealing with depressed areas. Those of us who know the facts know that if there was a pioneer in drawing attention to this matter it was one of the hon. Members for Middlesbrough. I was very much surprised to find a reference to the county that I represent. I was amazed to find that the area bordering upon my own area is actually excluded from the Resolution. I refer, not to Stanley, which is included, but to West Stanley, which has been notorious as a depressed area and yet we are powerless to discuss it or to put down an Amendment with a view to including it in the Bill. We do not want to hinder the progress of the Bill, although we have expressed ourselves as to its definite limitations, but, the Government have shown not only that they are limiting the amount and the activities to some extent, but also that they are deliberately excluding discussion upon areas that really deserve consideration and by Members who deserve better treatment from the Government because of the support they have given them in the past.
  I am not arguing the question of precedent. I am putting the general principle, that the Government have set out to deal with the depressed areas and have not only excluded consideration of some depressed areas, but have deliberately, by naming the areas in this Resolution, taken a step for the purpose of suppressing consideration. On Monday last Mr. Speaker expressed himself in a way that I am sure very few Members have ever heard a Speaker express himself within our experience in this House. It is a very rare thing indeed for Mr. Speaker, when he is asked to express himself upon a Money Resolution, to do other than give a bare interpretation, but his words are on record, and they were:
  "If I were asked for my opinion on the subject, I should say that not only has the limit been reached, but that it has been rather exceeded in the amount of detail which is put in a Money Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1934; col. 1236; Vol. 295.]
  If I had been a Member of the Government responsible for that Money Resolution, I should have accepted that as a rebuke, taken counsel with the Members of the Cabinet, and withdrawn the Resolution for further consideration, so here to-night we make our protest on general grounds, and we hope the Committee will
  1718
  support that protest during these proceedings.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I wanted to question your Ruling on the earlier point, but I want now to know what is before the Committee at the moment and whether we are discussing the Financial Resolution or a point of Order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I could not allow a speech like that which has just been made on a point of Order.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to raise a point on your earlier Ruling. You said that your reason for refusing to allow the Committee to discuss certain Amendments bringing in other towns was that the Resolution was governed by precedent, that the recommendation given by the Crown in effect granted the money, and that no alteration could be made either increasing the sum or extending the use of the sum. I want to raise this point. There is no suggestion that the sum should be increased. All that is suggested now is that the sum so granted might be used in a wider area, and that there is nothing in the Bill or the Resolution that says that the commissioners are not to go outside their particular areas. I submit that, seeing that we are not asking for more money, and that the commissioners have power on occasion to go outside their areas, there is nothing wrong in the Committee discussing the extension of the area which the Resolution covers.
  The CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the hon. Member and ask him kindly to tell me where in the Resolution the commissioners can go outside these places?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On the Second Reading and in the Debate on the Address it was clearly laid down by the Chancellor and others that the commissioners may, if they find it necessary to take action in another area, go outside the areas selected for them. The Bill says:
  "The functions of the commissioners shall extend to the initiation, organisation, prosecution and assistance of measures outside the areas specified in the First Schedule to this Act in so far as they are satisfied that such measures will afford employment or occupation for substantial numbers of areas from those areas."

  1719
  The point is that the commissioners themselves have power to spend money outside the areas defined. We are not asking for increased money, for that is laid down in the most definite way; all that we are seeking is to argue that the money allocated should be spread in a wider fashion. I therefore submit that you, Sir Dennis, ought to revise your Ruling and allow a discussion on the question whether it is desirable to extend the areas and therefore the use of the money which Parliament has been good enough to grant.
  10.30 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: In the first place, may I point out to the hon. Member that I have given no Ruling whatever at present about limiting discussion?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: No, limiting the Amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN: The only Ruling I have given is one to limit the Amendments. I have before me the passage in the Bill to which the hon. Member referred, and what I should like to do is to try to reconcile the correctness of my Ruling with the correctness of the hon. Member's statement as to what is contained in Sub-section (5) of Clause of the Bill. The Resolution proposes to provide this money for certain purposes in connection with depressed areas, and then it defines those depressed areas. My Ruling was—and I must adhere to it—that those areas as defined in the Resolution cannot be extended; but I would point out to the hon. Member that the Resolution does not say that the money can be expended only in those areas. The Resolution limits the objects on which the money is to be spent to certain matters connected with the depressed areas. Then we must go to the Bill to find out the way in which it can be dealt with for the benefit of those particular areas. What the hon. Member says is perfectly true, that, under one Clause, the money may be spent outside those areas, but for the benefit of those areas, and that, he will realise, does not conflict with my Ruling.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I am not in any way seeking to challenge the Ruling which you have given, Sir Dennis, but I think we are entitled to consider
  1720
  the position in which that Ruling leaves lion. Members, particularly these who, like myself, supported the Bill upon Second Reading, because it was obvious to anybody—and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill would dispute the fact—that this Bill is in itself a skeleton which has afterwards to be clothed with flesh by the commissioners, by their action, and by the backing which the Government, and particularly the Treasury, are ready in future to give. Therefore, we are bound to take this Resolution, with the Bill which follows it, more or less upon trust, believing that it is going to be made into something really valuable. There is no assurance of that. in the Resolution or in the Bill itself, and we must be guided in our hopes very largely by the attitude of the Government to the Bill. We have had two indications of the attitude of the Government to the Bill which are not in a high degree reassuring. The first was the speech delivered by the Secretary of State for Scotland in reply to tile Second Reading, in which no single answer was given to any question asked by any Member in any part of the House, and that was a considerable shock to many of us. Another indication, which is more serious, because it is not merely the aberration of an individual, is that one finds that the Financial Resolution has been so framed as to make it practically impossible, when we conic to actual Amendments to the Bill, for Members who are interested in particular constituencies, or interested in general as to the scope of the Bill and the manner in which it is to he carried out, to alter that Bill for the better as it may seem to them. We are crippled from the beginning and crippled by the action of the Government.
  I would put this point to the Government. They rightly sent eminent gentlemen to the depressed areas to find out what the problem was and to report to them in order that they might be able to frame a Bill. I do not quarrel with that in the least—it was a very proper course—but there are other people who should be taken into consultation. Are not Members returned to this House from the depressed areas entitled to be taken into consultation? When we find that the form of the Financial Resolution prevents us, as Members for those

  1721
  depressed areas, from making those contributions to debate which we should have desired to make, it is bound to give the general impression that there was no intention to make this Bill such an effective Measure that it would stand Parliamentary criticism.
  The criticism of Parliament has been taken from it in the very first instance. If we pass this Resolution and are therefore bound to pass the Bill in the limited form to which the Resolution would tie us, we shall be putting on to the Statute Book something which the general sense of Parliament has not framed, and it will not be the work of Parliament. It will not even be the work of the Minister. It will be the work of the Parliamentary draftsmen, who follow the bad habit which has grown up and has been extended of framing resolutions in such a way that subsequent debate becomes a futility. I desire, not only on behalf of those who sit on these benches—I believe the feeling is widely held—to protest against what has happened, not merely as it affects the depressed areas—I am not going to say a word more about Middleshrough, but I am putting a point of general principle—but as it affects our responsibilities as Members of Parliament and the part which we ought to be able to play in relation to Measures of this kind. I wished well of this Bill, and I still wish well of it. I hoped well, but I hope less well now that I see the way in which it has been put before the House.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. J. WALLACE: I understood from the previous occupant of the Chair that upon this Amendment, other Amendments having been ruled out, of order, we might be allowed to mention areas which are not officially regarded as depressed. I therefore want to make one or two observations based upon the report of the Commissioner for Scotland. The voice of Scotland has not been heard very much so far in this Debate. I am naturally interested in my own division, and I make no apology for mentioning what is to my constituency a vital matter. On page 195 of the Reports of the Investigations into the Industrial Conditions in certain Depressed Areas appears the statement that among the districts examined were Cowdenbeath and Loch-
  1722
  gelly, in Fifeshire. On page 197, in paragraph 5, this passage appears:
  "In the area of Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly (Fifeshire) a special statistical examination was made of the villages of Donibristle and Lassodie, but it was found that their condition was closely related to that of the surrounding district. Hence further inquiries were not pursued."
  I fail to understand the decision at which the commissioner arrived after examining the unemployment condition of those two villages to refer to them simply as resembling the districts round about. They have no relation whatever to Cowdenbeath or Lochgelly, in Fifeshire. In Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly there is an insurable population of something like 15,500, and about 25 per cent. of the workers are unemployed. I cannot understand the process of reasoning followed by the commissioner that, made him say that further inquiries were, not pursued. Further inquiries are urgently needed in that district of Fifeshire. I know the position there, and the extent of the unemployment.
  Mr. MACMILLAN: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the Resolution is now before the House?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): There has never been an Amendment before the Committee. It is the Resolution.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: I want to follow up the point of Order which I understood was before the Committee—
  Mr. WALLACE: I understood that the Debate on the point of Order had concluded.
  Mr. LANSBURY: My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson)—who happens not to be in the Chamber at the moment—most certainly thought that he was speaking on the Money Resolution. My hon. Friend wanted to make a speech on the Resolution, and we were under the impression that he did so. Anyhow, he has got in his speech, even if he has done so in a roundabout manner. That, however, was our impression.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I heard the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr.

  1723
  Lawson) begin his remarks, and I was certainly under the impression that he was making a speech against the Resolution as a whole, taking as the basis of his argument that the Resolution was so drawn that it was undesirable that this Committee should agree to it. That was a speech on the Resolution, and not on the point of Order.
  Mr. BEVAN: On the point of Order. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), following the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), rose to a point of Order, and I think the Committee was under the impression that there was still some difficulty, although apparently some hon. Members who follow the Government like sheep cannot see it. Our difficulty is that we do not know what is going to be the extent of the Debate on the Money Resolution itself. I understand that Sir Dennis Herbert gave a Ruling in which he said that it was not proper for a private Member of the House to initiate expenditure. We understand that; there is no difficulty about it. We understand, further, that it is not proper for a private Member to add to the purposes on which the money is to be spent—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh, yes; that can be done on a Money Resolution.
  Mr. BEVAN: We are now discussing the extent of the area on which the same amount of money is to be spent. Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling, and some of us were anxious to find out what it meant. In the course of his Ruling he said that it was not proper for him to usurp the function of the Chairman of the Committee, and we are now seeking to find from the Chairman of the Committee what are the limits of the Debate upon which we are about to embark. Many of us hold the view that it is perfectly proper within the Standing Orders of the House for hon. Members in the course of this Debate on the Money Resolution to add to the areas included in the Resolution—
  Mr. WALLACE: Was the hon. Member in the House when I pointed that outs?
  Mr. BEVAN: I have been in the House all the time. When Mr. Speaker gave
  1724
  his Ruling, I endeavoured to get from him a more definite understanding as to what his Ruling was, and I am now endeavouring to follow up the matter with the Chairman of the Committee. Members of the House are faced with a very grave limitation as a consequence of the manner in which the Government's Resolution has been framed. All through the years there has been no definition of what a distressed area is. It is only now that we have a definition of a distressed area—
  Mr. MAXTON: You have not got it now.
  Mr. BEVAN: We have a list of what the Government consider to be distressed areas. Once this Resolution leaves the Committee, Members who represent what are really distressed areas will be debarred from raising their case in the House. The position that many of us think has been reached is that the Government have exceeded their powers in framing the Money Resolution and owe are making an appeal to you, Sir, to protect the rights of private Members against the Government and to give a Ruling that Members are entitled to move their Amendments on the Resolution including other areas than those contained in the Schedule. We are suggesting that, if you cannot do that, the Chair is not performing its function in defending the privileges of private Members. Hon. Members are treating the matter far too frivolously because when the Resolution is finished with there will be the most grave limitation upon debate, and Members will he substantially disfranchised and not able to represent their constituents. If they do not wish to represent their constituents, they had best leave the Chamber.
  Sir J. PYBUS: In order to represent a constituency, does one need to be impertinent to the Chair?
  Mr. BEVAN: At this time of the day hon. Members are in the habit—
  10.47 p.m.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rose to a point of Order. He has made his point quite clear and I am willing to reply to it. This is not the occasion for making a speech. I think the hon. Member was present when the Chairman gave his Ruling that it is the

  1725
  right of the Crown to ask for money from this House for a specific purpose, and it is not, in my power or in that of the House to put a limit on the discretion o of the Crown as to how far those purposes may be defined in the Resolution. In this case, the Crown was asked for a grant of £2,000,000 for certain specified areas and it is not for me to say whether the Crown has dealt substantially with the depressed areas or otherwise in selecting those areas. All that I am bound to hold, according to the Rules and Practice of the House, is that it is not within the competence of this Committee to add to those areas, but it is in the power of any hon. Member to argue that further areas should have been added and that that is a reason why the Committee should not pass this Resolution.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. BEVAN: Mr. Speaker said that in his opinion the Government were exceeding the limits of the Standing Orders in putting details into the Money Resolution. The details that the Government have put in are details which exclude certain areas which hon. Members conceive to be depressed. It is of no use to say that hon. Members have a right to make general speeches in the course of the Debate, but can never express themselves in the Division Lobby. That is an empty and futile right.
  Mr. MACMILLAN: As there seems to be some confusion, should I be in order in moving to report Progress in order to raise the whole question that follows from the Ruling given by the Chair?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not at this moment. The hon. Member for Dunfermline is in possession of the House.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I accept your Ruling, subject to other considerations, as being correct, but is it within the purview of the Chair to say that a Financial Resolution can define depressed areas? Unless these are depressed areas, the Chair has no right to allow the Motion to go forward. If they seek to use the money for areas not depressed, then they are breaking the Financial Resolution. I put it to you, Captain Bourne, that the Chair has power—I do not say duty, because you will exercise that—to step in and say that this Resolution goes far
  1726
  beyond what a Financial Resolution should, because it seeks to define depressed areas, when an area, may not be depressed at all. I ask that all the parts applicable to depressed areas should be declared entirely out of order. I submit that only a Bill or an Act of Parliament can do that. Your predecessor in the Chair ruled that by the practice and precedents. He said that under the practice and precedents in this House a Money Resolution could not take over the duties of a Bill. I submit that this is a break with precedents. I am not anxious about this Bill because I think it is useless, but I view this procedure as important, because the Resolution takes to itself the purpose of a Bill. A Financial Resolution should not say what a depressed area is: that is for the House and the Committee to say. I say that you, in your power and duty, which are great, ought to rule this Financial Resolution out of order, because it breaks with past precedents by seeking to define a matter in such a way as to overturn the power of the House of Commons in Committee. I put the point to you reasonably. You and I cannot say what is a depressed area. Money granted for depressed areas may not be used for depressed areas. That would be breaking the Financial Resolution. The question of defining these areas should be for the House of Commons to decide either in Committee or in full Session. I therefore suggest that you rule this Financial Resolution out of order as seeking to overturn precedent.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. ALBERY: It does seem to me that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Budhanan) certainly made a point to this extent that the Financial Resolution, as framed at present, can be read as a contradiction in terms. It should have been possible to frame a Resolution which would provide for the spending of money in certain defined districts which are depressed areas. If that had been done there could have been no difficulty as to the meaning of the Financial Resolution. In fact, the Resolution is put the other way round. A limited amount of money is limited to the use of certain depressed areas. The Resolution goes on to enumerate certain depressed areas, but; it is open to argument as to whether they are depressed areas or not.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. JANNER: May I ask you, Captain Bourne, to say, when you are replying on this particular point, what would be the position in the event of your giving an adverse decision with regard to any Amendments which may be raisesd on the Committee stage which go outside the scope of the amount allowed in the Financial Resolution? In the event of an Amendment being passed at that stage, would it be possible to have another Financial Resolution?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner), I think the Committee is well aware of the effect of a Financial Resolution and of the Committee stage of the Bill, and he can hardly expect me to give a Ruling upon Amendments which I have not yet seen. I would point out with regard to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) that the hon. Member for Gravesend took the correct course in a matter of this kind. Before this Resolution was brought before the Committee the matter was raised, and Mr. Speaker gave the Ruling to which the hon. Member has already referred, and which stated that, in his opinion, the practice of putting in details to this extent in a Financial Resolution was undesirable. But when further questioned Mr. Speaker replied that he could not hold that it was outside the Rules of the House, and he could not find that this Resolution transgresses the Rules of Order. By that Ruling I am bound, and I am bound to hold that it is not in my power to rule the Resolution out of order.
  10.58p.m.
  Sir J. PYRUS: On a point of Order. I understood you to say, Captain Bourne, that it was in order for hon. Members to refer to places which were not included in the area. At the time the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace) on a point of Order, my hon. Friend was referring to certain places in his constituency, in regard to which, I understood, he was quite in order. Is it now in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermlien to proceed with his speech?
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. WALLACE: I was waiting for your ruling, Captain Bourne, after tile interruption of my speech, which I should have concluded long ago but for the stormy passage raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said that Members who were not prepared to represent their constituencies should leave the Chamber. I was attempting, in my own way, to represent my constituency, when the hon. Member, quite properly from his own point of view, interrupted me. I can assure the hon. Member that every Member honestly desires to represent his constituency as efficiently as hon. Members opposite desire to represent theirs. I had no idea when I rose to speak that so much heat would be engendered in the Debate. I want to take hon. Members back to the homely Kingdom of Fife. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Gorbals into his erudite references to the Rules of Procedure governing Financial Resolutions, but I think I was on farily safe ground when I specifically asked your predecessor in the Chair whether I should be in order in speaking on this particular subject. I do seriously want to bring to the notice of the Minister who may reply the very serious industrial conditons which prevail in Fifeshire at the present time. I regard the excuse which has been given by the Commissioner as altogether inadequate in regard to his failing to pursue investigations further so far as Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly are concerned. It seems to me altogether inadequate, and I want to press very strongly the claims of that particular area, which has suffered so very severely from the depression which is common all over Scotland and is specially serious in the mining areas.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I should like, first, to say a few words of protest against the form of the Financial Resolution. I do not know whether hon. Members always realise that private Members are confined to the terms of a Financial Resolution and that the Government themselves are bound by the terms of the Financial Resolution. If we pass this Financial Resolution the Government will be unable to introduce any Amend-

  1729
  ment which extends the amount of money to be spent under the Bill or extends the areas to be dealt with. That seems to me to have a very serious effect on any debates that we may have at any time during the progress of the Bill. The Patronage Secretary referred to the general Debate that we might have on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." It may be that we may have a fairly general discussion on this Financial Resolution, but what is the use of hon. Members making appeals to the Government or of hon. Members representing different depressed areas putting various points, however well they may put them, if the Government are precluded by the form of this Resolution from responding to their appeals? If we pass this Financial Resolution it does not matter how cogent, may be the arguments put by hon. Members, no matter how overwhelming their reasons may be for some alteration in the Bill, we shall be unable to make any really important alteration. It follows that a Financial Resolution of this kind makes further debate on this Bill absolutely futile. It is an effective form of gagging debate in the House of Commons. This is simply another example among many that ire have had in the last year or two of the encroachments of the Executive. I hope that the Government will take notice of the expression of opinion in the Committee, and that we shall not again see a Financial Resolution of this kind on the Order Paper.
  In regard to the general question, it is true to say that there has not been in the present Parliament a Bill which has been received with such deep disappointment as the Depressed Areas Bill. I realise that the commissioners could not cover the whole of the ground, and no one expected them to do so. The Minister of Labour on the Second Reading said that what is proposed to be done was simply in the nature of an experiment, and I take it that he envisages a time when the Government will be able to extend the activities of the commissioners over a wider geographical area. But no machinery has been included in the Bill for such an extension in the future. The question was asked on the Second Reading, but no answer was given. The only way, if the Bill goes through in its present form, as it must if we pass the Financial Resolution,
  1730
  that the activities a the commissioners can be geographically extended is by means of fresh legislation. Can the Minister give us any indication how long he expects the early experimental stages to take and when he expects to come to the House of Commons and ask that the geographical areas should be extended? That is a. very important matter. Many hon. Members represent areas which, although they may not be the blackest spots in the country, nevertheless have a, high rate of unemployment, which has existed for a number of years. In my own constituency, while the average unemployment rate for the whole of Scotland is 23.7 the unemployment rate for October in Dundee was 26.6 per cent. But. what is more ominous than the actual figures is that this shows an increase of 1.9 per cent. on October of the year before.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: Do not the figures show that there has been a decrease in unemployment for the first nine months of this year as compared with the first nine months of last year; a continuous decrease in the number of unemployed?
  Mr. FOOT: In Dundee, as in other places, during the last few years the figures of unemployment have gone up and down. I drew a comparison between October of this year and October of last year.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: May I ask why he has picked out October as the only month of this year when unemployment has been greater than last year, when in every other month there has been a decrease?
  Mr. FOOT: I took the most recent figure I could find. I wished to give the House the most recent figure, but if I had known that the hon. Lady would ask for the figures for the last 12 months I would have procured them. As between October last year and October this year there has been an appreciable, though nut a great, increase. It is only possible if you are comparing fluctuations in employment to compare like with like and the same months in different years. In Dundee last October we had a percentage of 26.6. That is only 2 per cent. less than Lanarkshire, which is specifically referred to in the report of the Scottish commissioner. It is rather more than Cowdenbeath, with a percentage of 22.5, and I could name a good many other

  1731
  examples. I am not taking Dundee as one of the blackest spots in Scotland, but as a place which undoubtedly is depressed and where it is very unlikely that our principal industries in the near future will he able to reabsorb our unemployed. It is therefore an area which is deeply concerned with a Bill of this kind.
  I think it is a relevant question to put to the right hon. Gentleman as to when in the future we may expect to have provisions and activities of this sort extended to us. Many hon. Members could speak of similar places where unemployment is not so high as 40 or 50 per cent., but is still high enough to indicate prolonged and permanent depression. It matters a great deal to us to know how long this first experimental stage will last. I put down an Amendment, which I understand is not likely to be called, to give power to extend the area of the commissioners' activities. I was not asking that my own constituency or any particular place should be included in the operations of the Bill, but that places like Dundee and areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline should in future have leave to apply, either to the Minister himself, or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, or to the commissioners, and to show to their satisfaction either that the prolonged trade depression and unemployment in their area justify the activities of the commissioners being extended to them, or else that there are special problems in their area deserving the attention of the commissioners.
  The work of the commissioners, as I understand it, is not to be confined merely to buying land and promoting certain local activities; they have also to make recommendations. Although I am not enthusiastic about this Bill, and I do not think many hon. Members are, I do not think that will be the least valuable part of their functions. It seems to me that there are a certain number of questions which are at present nobody's business. When it is a question of organising the unemployed, that has to come under the Unemployment Assistance Board; when it is a question of organising employment, that comes under the Minister of Labour, through the agency of the Employment Exchanges; but there are certain questions which ought to be studied and upon which reports ought
  1732
  to be made from time to time which seem to me to fall between those two categories. May I give one example? In my own constituency the wages in the principal industry are regulated by a trade board, whose regulations lay it down that there shall be a certain wage paid up to the age of 18, but that on reaching 18 the lad shall receive a full man's wage. The result of that is that a good many employers, when a boy reaches 18, pay him off, and it is a frequent experience to find young men in their twenties who have worked from 14 to 18 years of age and who have since been for some years out of work.
  That is a very serious question in that district, and I think it can be paralleled in sonic other Scottish districts, and that is a question which it is nobody's business to study, but which might very well come under the purview of these commissioners. We have this problem and I think it is particularly suitable for study and recommendation by the commissioners, but as the Resolution and the Bill now stand, we cannot bring it to the notice of the commissioners. That is why I think the Resolution is far too closely drawn and the Bill is far too narrow, in that there is no machinery for expansion and no way in which an area outside the districts named in the Schedule will have leave to apply to the Minister or to the commissioners themselves. I am sure that that is one of the main defects of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that if to-night we were to defeat this Resolution that would not necessarily kill the Bill. It would then be for us to have a further King's Recommendation and for the Government to introduce a fresh Financial Resolution. I am one of those who voted in favour of the Bill, not because I thought it went far enough, not because I do not think it is a small and disappointing Measure, not even because my own constituency is not included, but because I do not think that that is any reason for refusing a small measure of relief to other districts which are hard hit. Although I voted for the Bill I propose to vote against the Resolution in the hope that the Government will introduce a fresh Resolution which may give some reality to our debates when we discuss the various Clauses of the Bill.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. MACMILLAN: I think it will be generally agreed that we find ourselves

  1733
  in a painful position at the beginning of this Debate. Unlike the last speaker I feel that this Bill is one of very great importance. I have never under-rated the immense value of the service which it is proposed to confer by the Clauses of the Bill, and it is for that reason that I deplore so much the situation in which we find ourselves, having regard to the Financial Resolution before us. I do not know whether at any stage in this Debate, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, you would be willing to accept a Motion to report Progress—a Motion which would be put forward, I say quite honestly and frankly, with a desire to help the Government out of a situation which seems to me not wholly acceptable to a majority of the House. What is the situation? I am glad to see that the de facto Leader of the House is present.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ought to inform the hon. Member that I would not agree at this moment to accept a Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. MACMILLAN: I am much obliged. Perhaps I can develop the argument on the Financial Resolution. We have this situation: A resolution is drawn which has called down upon it criticism from the Chair. I have not long been a Member of this House, it is only 10 years since I first came here, but I have never heard a Government of the day rebuked by the Chair in the way in which the Government were rebuked over the framing of this Resolution by Mr. Speaker two days ago. It is patent to the House from the Ruling given by your predecessor that you have with regret decided that although this Resoultion is strictly within the Rules of Order, it is not in conformity with the spirit of our proceedings, that it has stretched the whole character of our historic proceedings to a degree that has never been done before, and leads to a most regrettable precedent—the more regrettable because it deals, not with matters affecting the few but matters affecting vitally the vast mass of the most oppressed and most impoverished of our fellow-countrymen. I ask the Leader of the House to give some attention to our situation at this time. I speak from my heart. What is the position of the Bill? We say that this is going to be an immense relief, and has an immense future of value to these depressed areas. We hope to build upon
  1734
  it, not indeed a solution of these great underlying problems, which go far deeper and will need far more, but we hope will be an alleviation of the problems and difficulties caused by unemployment.
  If this is not an employment policy, at least it is a policy which we hope will bring to many quarters some alleviation of the worst results of unemployment. Then, we are told that we cannot raise in Debate with any chance of effective discussion the question: To which areas are these beneficent measures to be applied? We cannot raise it because the Resolution is so drawn, that an Amendment which would give to the commissioners themselves the right to raise it on future occasions would be ruled out of order. The field has been so narrowed that while we can discuss our own areas, while we can have the pleasure of making our case, and of appearing in the local papers, our speeches will be barren and unfertile because they can never be brought to the decision of a Division. We can make a general case upon the Resolution. We can enjoy the egotistical pleasure of describing the difficulties of our own constituents but we can never press the matter to an issue. Nor is there any machinery by which this Measure can ever be extended in its operation. By drawing this Financial Resolution in a manner quite out of accord with the spirit of the proceedings and traditions of the House, the Executive has precluded us from debating these matters. We have a situation in which not only are certain areas to have the disappointment of being ruled out of this Bill but they are not even to have the chance of hearing the reasons why they are ruled out. They have a double grievance, first that they are not included and secondly that they cannot be heard.
  What is the main function of this House apart from its legislative duty? It is that it should be a sounding board of the feelings of the people of this country and that there should be an opportunity of raising here those things about which we feel deeply. Having for ten years fought, successfully or unsuccessfully; at any rate continuously in an area of this character, I feel it a strange thing that we are now precluded from raising these matters. Why are we precluded? Because of the mere chance that the com-

  1735
  missioners selected these particular geographical areas for their reports. I would refer hon. Members to pages 69 and 70 of the report of the commissioner for the Durham area, where he gives the reasons why he decided not to extend his investigations outside Tees-side, Tyneside and Wearside. He gave three reasons, but the main reason was the time factor. He was asked to make a rapid survey. These matters he was told brooked no delay, and the Government asked for a speedy report, and consequently, he said, he would concentrate upon the worst part of the area and leave out great parts which would otherwise have been brought within his ambit.
  Therefore my protest is not against the Bill. I support the Bill, but the more I support the Bill the more anxious I feel that we should have an opportunity of deciding to what areas it should apply and whether the present areas have been rightly chosen. Surely the House ought to have the opportunity of debating that question. Is it to be the sole prerogative of the executive to frame a Financial Resolution? Is it alone going to decide this matter? We are put in the position of making a formal protest. We cannot go into the Lobby against the whole Resolution, and thereby deprive all areas alike of these benefits and we are unable to take any effective action in the House to extend the geographical areas. More than that, we are even precluded from introducing any machinery by which the Minister of Labour himself, on application from the commissioners, these benefits may be extended to other areas whose conditions may deteriorate. It is contrary to the traditions of the House and an abuse of the powers of the Executive—an abuse upon a matter which, above all matters, ought not to be hedged in and cribbed and cabined by the old mediaeval Rules of Order to which you, Sir, have rightly tied us, a matter which above all, should open wide the channels of discussion because it affects the poorest of the poor. On such a matter we are tied down by mediaeval Rules and not allowed even to raise matters upon which many of us feel more deeply than on any other matter in public life.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: I have tried on many occasions to explain why an hon. Member
  1736
  of the obvious talent and qualities of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) has not received greater notice by the Government of which he is a supporter, but the speech to which we have listened has given me an adequate explanation. The House must he amazed at what the hon. Member has just been saying. Why has this change taken place in his attitude? Is it because of the meeting of the Conservative party yesterday? Last week the hon. Member was referring to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government bench as a lot of disused slag heaps, and he referred to them in that connection in respect of this Bill. Now he feels so enthusiastic about the Bill that he wants it extended—
  Mr. MACMILLAN: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to my speech he will find that I was most careful to respond to the appeal of my right hon. Friend not to underrate the value of the Measure. I said it did not deal with a lot of greater matters, but I never threw the slightest doubt on the value of the Bill within the sphere within which it was intended to operate.
  Mr. BEVAN: We are to understand then, that the disused slag heaps have produced a valuable Measure. There is a Measure so valuable, so important, so pregnant with possibilities for the depressed areas of Great Britain, that its chief demerit consists in the fact that its virtues cannot be extended to other parts of the country. The Minister of Labour has indeed got an easy case to answer the Liberals and his friends the enemies inside the Conservative party. On the one hand, the Liberals say this Bill has very little merit at all. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees says it has such merit that he wants it extended to other parts which are now excluded. The hon. Member is always willing to wound but never prepared to strike. The same thing is true of the Liberals. I had some sympathy with them in the beginning, when we were discussing the Standing Orders, because it was obvious that the Government were straining the rules of procedure in order to save themselves from embarrassment, but hon. Members of the Liberal party voted for the Bill, and so did the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. One of the criticisms on the

  1737
  Second Reading of the Bill was that the commissioners had far too big a task in supervising the depressed areas of England, Scotland and Wales, but now it is said that the commissioners are so valuable that they ought to spread themselves over a still wider area.
  Mr. K. GRIFFITH: If the hon. Member is referring to me, in complaining of the task allotted to the commissioners—able though they may be—I suggested that they should have subordinates permanently stationed in various areas in order to assist them.
  Mr. BEVAN: But the hon. Member and the members of the Conservative party who are supporting the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees know quite well that those Amendments were expressly forbidden on the Committee stage, they knew they could not be raised, yet it was not until this evening—
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Perhaps the hon. Member was not in the House when it was stated that the Amendment raising this point would be in order.
  Mr. BEVAN: Yes, but it was known before this Debate that the Amendments to which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees has directed attention, put down with the object of extending the areas, were out of order. It was well known before the Second Reading of the Bill that they were out of order. The members of the Liberal party cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: How could it be known whether an Amendment was out of order before we had had the Financial Resolution?
  Mr. BEVAN: Because of Mr. Speaker's Ruling.
  Mr. FOOT: On the Second Reading of the Bill?
  Mr. JANNER: If the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was so certain that it would be out of order, why did he argue the question for such a long time?
  Mr. BEVAN: Because it is our duty, whenever there is what we consider to be a violation of procedure, to direct attention to it in the most definite possible
  1738
  manner, in order to avoid a repetition of it. The criticism of the Money Resolution which we have heard from hon. Members to-night should have led them into the Lobby against the Second Reading of the Bill, but they want the right to criticise the Government for substantial defects in the Bill and at the same time want to be able to go to the country and say they supported the Bill. Those with whom I am associated hold the view that there are very few virtues in the Bill at all, that £2,000,000 is a miserably inadequate sum to deal with the problems with which the depressed areas are confronted, and that that sum deliberately limits the commissioners to so narrow a field of activity that it is not worth the while of the House to vote it—and we represent depressed areas. On the Second Reading of the Bill we put proposals before the Minister to which we have had no reply. The Secretary of State for Scotland made no reply at all to the criticisms which had been advanced, but that did not deter hon. Members from going into the Lobby in support of the Government, unsatisfactory though the Debate had been. If hon. Members will read the Debate, they will see that it was one in which almost all the speakers were critical of the Government. Nevertheless, members of the Liberal party and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees and his friends were found in the Lobby, as usual, voting against the sentiments which they had expressed in the House.
  The position that my hon. Friends and myself take up is that all that can be accomplished by the expenditure of this £2,000,000 can already be accomplished within the powers that the Government possess. It is a part of our case that the Ministries of Health and of Labour, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, already have substantial powers which they could exercise to relieve the situation of the distressed areas, and that the expenditure of £2,000,000 is an attempt to divert the attention of the country from the main problem to which we are endeavouring to attract attention. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a proposition. I have had experience of local government administration. Since I was 21 I have been a member of a local authority, and it has been my unfortunate experience to be a member of a

  1739
  local authority in a distressed area. Over and over again, deputations have been sent to the Ministries of Health and of Labour asking for assistance for the area.
  There was one insuperable difficulty; it was impossible to discover any formula which would distinguish an area which was distressed from one which was not. Suggestion after suggestion was made. Some people said that the rate poundage of such an area was much higher than the average, but others could not agree to that, because, they said, the rate poundage might be high on account of the local authority being extravagant and having spent more money. Then it was suggested that the distinction was the low rateable value of the population, but the objection to that was that assessment committees have no uniform basis of assessment and that assessments are consequently lower in one part of the country than in another and have no reference to the poverty of the district. Another suggestion was that the distinction was based upon the birth-rate. All those factors were so complicated that not one of them could be relied upon as a means of isolating the problem of the distressed areas so that it could be tackled. The first need was to isolate the distressed areas from the rest.
  Then a formula was devised. I believe that the production of the formula was one of the most substantial achievements of the Government of 1925 to 1929. I always profoundly disagreed with the de-rating Acts, which were never necessarily a part of the rest of the proposal, but one formula was devised which had the effect of isolating the distressed areas, and that was the population formula. Ministry of Health officials, after years of investigation and representation, came to the conclusion that an area was distressed because of the existence of three factors (a) the high rate of unemployment; (b) the extent of unemployment; and (c) the birth-rate. They were able to use the formula and the rateable value per head of the population, because the Local Government Act, 1929, made it necessary for a uniform basis of assessment to be adopted throughout the country, so that an assessment committee in one part of the country, in assessing its property, did so in relation to the same set of values
  1740
  as an assessment committee in another part of the country.
  These factors afforded some sort of way in which a distressed area could be isolated, and that was a scientific proposition. I do not know of any student of local government who would disagree with it. Where it has been disagreed with is in this, that experience has gone to show that not sufficient regard is paid, in the weighting of the population formula, to the question of unemployment, and consequently there is an agitation in favour of additional weighting of the population formula in those areas where unemployment is extensive. That would give greater financial assistance to such areas, but it would necessitate the attraction of larger funds from the Exchequer, and the principal objection that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman have to it is that it would mean a greater expenditure of money on the distressed areas. But why is an area distressed? Because it has not as much money as other areas. If, therefore, the Government do not propose to spend any more money on those areas, they are not in any effective sense coming to the rescue of those areas at all. The provision of £2,000,000 to spend on providing expensive staffs to discuss relief work—charity work—is a mockery and a sham, and obscures the real character of the problem with which we are faced.
  The Government have abandoned that scientific way of classifying a distressed area. They do not say to themselves that a distressed area is one which is able to attract money under that formula, and an area is not distressed which receives no money under that formula. Have we not heard in this House complaints from Cheltenham, from Folkestone, from Blackpool, that under this scheme they have to provide money for the distressed areas? Did not the Minister of Health two years ago have to face in this House a revolt of the more prosperous areas because he dared to suggest reviving the population formula, under which some local government areas would be called upon to contribute to the distressed areas? An area is not distressed which would be called upon to make a contribution for the relief of other areas.
  There you have a definition. Why did not the Government proceed on the basis

  1741
  of that definition? It is objective; it is scientific; it makes no provision for the passions or prejudices of political parties; it does not depend upon the special feeling of Members in the House of Commons for this constituency or for that constituency; it is a formula which ideally expresses the character of the problem itself. Instead of that, they have drawn a purely arbitrary line. They have said that Ebbw Vale and Merthyr are distressed. That is entirely untrue. Middlesbrough and areas of Lancashire are distressed because they are able to draw money under the population formula. Why has not the Minister applied himself to the task in those terms? Because if the Government had faced this difficulty in a scientific way, if they had had the courage to face up to the policy they themselves devised, they would have to find larger sums of money for the distressed areas. So they have deliberately avoided a scientific policy because it would demand a far larger contribution from the Exchequer.
  I therefore say that the Money Resolution expresses the policy of the Government, which is that the commissioners should set to work to a little pioneer investigation into land cultivation schemes, a little self-help here and there, and those schemes that are found to be suitable shall be transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board and gradually the commissioners pass out of existence. But I warn those who represent distressed areas that if they part with this Resolution to-night they are doing something infinitely more damaging than not coming to the rescue of their own area. They are admitting a form of classifying distressed areas, which may permanently exclude their own areas from any consideration under future legislation. They are admitting a form of classification of a distressed area which no civil servant would dare to defend and which no student of local government would look at for two minutes. I do not say it to offend them, but supporters of the Government who represent distressed areas and who vote for this Resolution will be taking a step which may permanently debar their areas from having an opportunity of being considered by the Government in future.
  11.54 p.m.
  Commander COCHRANE: I wish to ask a question on a matter that was
  1742
  referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot). I think the limit of expenditure of this money outside the areas defined in the Resolution is quite clear, but I understood the hon. Member to carry the matter further and to say that in his view it would not be possible for the commissioners to examine and report upon conditions outside those areas. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a definite answer on the point, because it is of very great value that the commissioners should be able to examine the conditions in areas outside those that are strictly defined in the Resolution and make a report on points of importance that they find there.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: I feel that I cannot resist this opportunity of reminding several Members, who argued in the course of the Second Beading, of what they said about this £2,000,000 being merely a token Vote capable of unlimited expansion. I put it to Members, who complain that this has been interfered with by the Ruling from the Chair, that this £2,000,000 is no token but the final amount. I see the Minister shaking his head. I should be glad if he would explain how further sums can be ordered.
  Mr. STANLEY: I explained quite plainly that in the Bill there would be found how and when Estimates would be presented.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am not dealing with the area question, but the amount, which we were told just now could not be increased in any way. This £2,000,000 is the absolute limit of expenditure.
  Mr. STANLEY: I wish the hon. Member would not misrepresent me. The £2,000,000 is the limit of the action of the House in reference to this Money Resolution and the Bill as it passes, but it is expressly stated in the Bill that there may be paid into the fund further sums as Parliament from time to time may decide.
  Mr. MAXTON: But this Measure purports to be effective up to the year 1937. That is the time limit of the experiment, and £2,000,000 is the amount automatically being given so far as we know for the operation of the Bill. It may be that at some subsequent time before the expiry of the Bill in 1937 the Minister

  1743
  may come forward and ask for further amounts. Hon. Members when I was discussing this question last with them were under the impression that this £2,000,000 was granted for the time up to March, 1935, that that was to be the rate of expenditure—£2,000,000 for two months—with subsequent additions of proportionately greater amounts. Nothing of the kind. A three years' experiment with a £2,000,000 limit of expenditure is what we get in this Bill. That is what you are parting with to-night in this Money Resolution. Out of the kindness of his heart or the exigencies of the electoral situation, according to the strength of the agitation in the country, at some subsequent point the Minister may come forward and say further moneys are justified. Here to-night we are passing a Resolution for a three years' experiment to be financed by £2,000,000.
  I am sorry I cannot join with hon. Members who are asking for a wider definition of depressed areas. I would like to have some definition of depressed areas and agree with the fears expressed that we are defining something which is going to become a standard. It is defining for the operation and purposes of the Bill for three years, irrespective of what areas may have moved out of the depressed areas stage. Whatever changes may take place, it remains classified as a depressed area. I hoped that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire was going to rise to protest against describing as depressed an area where the retired war lords and successful merchant princes of Glasgow live. Certainly the residents would be annoyed to be classed in a depressed area. That is a matter which he will have to take up with them. Here we have to-night a definition that is going to govern the situation for three years. If an area is included to-night, whatever changes may take place in its trade during the three years, and whatever prosperity may come to it, it will still remain within the definition of a depressed area. Whatever may happen to the circumstances outside those areas, and however much conditions may worsen outside, such areas cannot be included within the definition of a depressed area. That is the three years duration.
  I do not want to argue for extensions of the areas at all. I am prepared to
  1744
  believe that if the £2,000,000 were concentrated in about half of one of the sub-sections of one of the areas, if the £2,000,000 were spent., say, in Merthyr Tydvil and the area immediately round about, conceivably the expenditure of that money and the activity of the commissioners might give us some experimental guide as to how to tackle the problem in other parts of the country. If it were more concentrated than it is to-day, the £2,000,000 might conceivably be regarded as a mere experiment with great possibilities of future development. But even extended to the limit it is just now in the areas in the proposed Schedules, I can only regard it as a very grave waste of public money which can bring absolutely no good to any depressed area and no added joy to any unemployed man. For these reasons, I associate myself very strongly with the feeling of resentment at the way the Financial Resolution has been drawn. When I have been in previous Parliaments and sitting on the other side of the House I have heard Ministers boast about how tightly they had drawn the Financial Resolution so as to trick the House of Commons out of its proper rights of discussion. It is regarded as cleverness in certain back rooms of Whitehall offices to get a form of Financial Resolution that will confine the Debate within the narrowest limits. It is a low kind of trickery. It is not clever. It is mean and underhand, and I am sorry indeed that the Minister of Labour, in the early part of his occupancy of the office, should have allowed himself—I am not accusing him of being the initiator of it—to be made the agency which conveyed such a trick to the House of Commons. He knows perfectly well that we are cribbed, cabined and confined in the discussion of the whole problem to-night, and the more so when we go on from the Committee. This has not usually been the way in which unemployment, debates have been brought before this House. The general attitude has been that this subject is deserving of the widest and fairest examination that the House can possibly give to it, and to bring this matter before us in a way which does us out of our rights and limits a full and adequate discussion, is not fair, clean sportsmanship.
  12 m.
  Mr. ALBERY: Fortunately my interest in the Resolution is a general one. I support the intentions of the Bill and would not willingly do anything to delay its progress either in Committee or in the House. Since I have been a Member I have taken some interest in financial procedure, and it is perfectly obvious to anyone that this Money Resolution has been drawn in a manner which is calculated to unfairly limit debate; a fact which is resented in many quarters. I say, without any disrespect to the Minister, for I do not believe it has been his immediate concern, that the Government, knowing full well that the way in which the Resolution has been drawn would certainly come up for debate, should have arranged for a representative of the Treasury to have been on the Front Bench. I saw the Lord President of the Council a little while ago, and while I make no point of his absence, I thought that possibly he was prepared to listen to the Debate and deal with this particular aspect of our business. In that case the absence of a representative of the Treasury would not have been of great importance. However, the duties of the right hon. Gentleman have called him in other directions, and we are debating this matter without any Treasury representative. And it will be noticed that the Resolution is in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In the circumstances All I can do is to appeal to the Minister and ask him to draw the attention of the Lord President to the matter and suggest that at some later date he will state his views on the procedure, about which complaint has been made to-night, and assure us that a different procedure will be followed in the future.
  There are several Amendments to the Resolution on the Order Paper, but I understand that not more than three or four are in order. Two of them stand in my name. It was extremely difficult, under the procedure which has been followed, to put down any Amendment at all. I do not attach much importance to the Amendments in my name. The first has to do with the appointment of the two commissioners. The first observation I have to make is that it is a clear example of the misuse of a Financial Resolution. It is a pure piece of machinery, and there is no excuse for
  1746
  putting it in the Resolution. The second observation I have to make is that it may prove to be detrimental to the Minister of Labour. Under the Bill we may provide further funds after the experiment has been tried and the Minister might find it desirable to appoint another commissioner. That presumably would not be rendered easier by the fact that it has limited the Resolution. If it is thought that there is anything in the argument I have put forward I shall be pleased to move my Amendment when the time comes.
  There is another Amendment in my name, and to my Scottish friends in all parts of the House I make my apologies for having put it on the Paper. I assure them that it has only been done because, as far as I could see at the time, there was no other way of raising the question I had in my mind—the question of the limitation of areas. Possibly my anxiety on that account was misplaced, because several hon. Members have managed to make a substantial contribution to the subject. I apologise if I have been the cause, or apparently the cause, of some confusion with the business of the Committee, and I certainly have no desire to keep them up later than is necessary.
  12.6 a.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member wish to move his Amendment?
  Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. Before the hon. Member's Amendment can be considered there is one standing on the Paper before it in my name.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring, I presume, to an Amendment in his name on the Paper. He has not risen in the course of the Debate, I understand. If he had done so he would have been called.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Further to that point of Order. Is it your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, that in a Debate in which there has been a lot of general discussion an hon. Member who has no knowledge that an Amendment is going to be called loses his right to move it because he does not rise, but that an hon. Member with a later Amendment who rises to take part in the general debate can move his Amendment? Does the hon. Member who does not rise to take part in the general Debate lose his right to move an Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a most unfortunate misapprehension of the Ruling I gave as to the general procedure on these Resolutions. Amendments which are put down to these Resolutions are not called. If hon. Members have Amendments on the Paper in their names and rise to speak they have an opportunity of moving their Amendments. It is perfectly true that if the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) moved his Amendment now, as it refers to a later part of the Resolution than that of the hon. Member for Spennymoor, it would cut out the Amendment of the hon. Member for Spennymoor. That, I am afraid, is due to an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Spennymoor. It is due to the fact that the hon. Member did not rise and therefore was not called. I do not think that any Member of the Committee would wish to cut out legitimate discussion on questions of this kind on any technical ground, but so far as it concerns the Amendment of the hon. Member for Spennymoor that is merely an Amendment to reduce the amount. It is the usual custom and practice of the Chair to refuse to select such an Amendment. I regarded it as a sort of notice on his part that he desired to speak on the Resolution. Had the hon. Member risen, he would have been called. I said just now that his Amendment would have been cut out but I did not realise then that it was an Amendment which would not be selected. The position therefore is that the hon. Member for Gravesend is in possession of the Committee and, if he moves his Amendment, the Committee will proceed to dispose of it in one way or another. When that Amendment has been disposed of, the Resolution will again be before the Committee and if the hon. Member for Spennymoor rises, he will no doubt have an opportunity of making his speech.
  12.11 a.m.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I think we are all labouring under a misapprehension, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Gravesend, and I understood that he only mentioned his Amendment in order to save time. He resumed his seat without moving the Amendment. I not only used my ears, but I was looking at the hon.
  1748
  Member, and he had resumed his seat when you, Sir Dennis, asked him whether be moved his Amendment or not. We all took it for granted that he did not move anything; that he simply spoke on the general question and made a few remarks about his Amendment in order to save time later. I took it to mean that he imagined that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) would be moved and that afterwards he would formally move his own Amendment. Of course, Sir Dennis, if you rule that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor is out of order, that is another matter, but if it is in order, then I claim, with great respect, that, the hon. Member for Gravesend, not having moved his Amendment, my hon. Friend is within his rights in asking that his Amendment should be called and discussed.
  12.13 a.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman seems, again, to be under a misapprehension as to what I said. I did not say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was out of order. What I said was that it would not be selected, but I regarded it as an indication that the hon. Member wished to speak. Consequently, if the hon. Member had risen he would have been called. Frankly, I do not think there is any reason why I should not meet the wishes of the Committee generally and of every Member who is taking part in this discussion, without involving any hardship upon anybody. When the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) was concluding his speech I asked him whether he wished to move his Amendment then, because he had intimated in his speech that he desired to do so at some time or other. I realised that he was apparently under the same misapprehension as others and thought that his Amendment would be called. That, as I have explained, is not the practice on these occasions, and, although it is competent for an hon. Member to speak more than once in Committee, again it is not the practice on these occasions to call on an hon. Member a second time without special reason. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Gravesend was on his feet, I thought, if he wished to move his

  1749
  Amendment at all, he ought to move it then, particularly as he had explained it. I repeat, however, that the fact of his moving his Amendment will not deprive the hon. Member for Spennymoor of an opportunity of addressing the Committee. As soon as the Amendment has been disposed of the original Resolution will again be before the House in the same unfettered way as before.
  Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. When you explained to the Committee which Amendments you were going to accept, I understood that you said you were going to select the first two Amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. They were very carefully chosen words that I used in my Ruling. I did not say anything about selecting Amendments. What I said was that certain Amendments were out of order. There was nothing whatever in my Ruling to indicate that I intended to call or not to call any Amendment which was not out of order. As I have already stated, Amendments may be moved when the hon. Members whose names are attached to them are called. They will then have an opportunity of moving their Amendments if they choose to do so.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I happen to know that the hon. Member for Spennymoor was under the impression that his Amendment was to be selected, and he has refrained from speaking because he was under the impression that he would have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do my best to meet bon. Members, and the course I propose to adopt will give the hon. Member for Spennymoor an opportunity. While I do my best to assist hon. Members I cannot be expected on every occasion to save them from misapprehension.
  12.17 a.m.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I move the Motion on a definite and specific point. I feel that the Committee has got into such a state that we misunderstand one another in a most extraordinary way. I am speaking within the knowledge of hon. Members who were
  1750
  in the House at the time you made your statement. We most definitely understood you to say that there were certain Amendments which you were going to call—two in the name of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) and one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Will he allow me to intervene for a moment? I have just seen the proof of my Ruling from the official reporter. There is no question whatever that the words I used were that with certain exceptions, which I mentioned, all the other Amendments were out of order. There was no mention of selecting or not selecting any Amendments.
  Mr. BUCHANAN rose—
  The CHAIRMAN: Order. We must preserve a little order in discussion. The right hon. Gentleman was addressing the Committee and I asked him to give way for a moment to enable me to correct one matter which he had raised in his speech. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way, he is in possession of the Floor.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want to prevent my hon. Friend from putting his point, but however your Ruling was put, Sir Dennis, we understood that when you made your statement you were giving us the course of the discussion. You pointed out that we could have a general discussion and that those whose Amendments were out of order would be able to make their case with regard to the matters about which they wished to move, and then you went on to tell us about the Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Gravesend and my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor. Whether or not the actual words were used, you certainly conveyed, I think, to most people in the House, and I will put it to the hon. Member for Gravesend that he was under the impression, that his two Amendments would be called, from the statement made by you, Sir, and we were certainly under the impression that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor would also be called. I think it is extremely unfortunate that that should be the case, and I want to protest very strongly against the dictum of the Chairman, who rather

  1751
  rebuked us, or perhaps "rebuked" is too strong a word, and I should say he suggested that if hon. Members did not know what they should do, it was nobody's fault but their own. We knew very well that there was going to be a, general discussion, and my hon. Friend, when he thought that was exhausted, would have risen, and the hon. Member for Gravesend definitely did not ride to move any Amendment. He rose to take part in the discussion which was then under way. I do not think my hon. Friends here or anyone else in the Chamber need to be educated either by the Chairman or by anyone else as to the Rules of Procedure. We are not going to sit here and allow people, whoever they are, to rebuke us or to suggest to the House or to a Committee of the House that we are not capable of understanding the procedure of this place.
  I think, Sir Dennis, the best thing for us to do is to go home and let the Government reconsider the position in the light of the discussion that has taken place among the members of their own party. I want to be allowed to say to those who have challenged this Resolution that it was challenged by the hon. Member for Gravesend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on Monday, that it has been on the Paper for nearly a week, and that all of us must have known how tightly it was drawn. We, at any rate, knew, and the whole question of the manner in which it was drawn was raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend on Monday, before the Second Reading, when Mr. Speaker gave his Ruling and made the statement which has been quoted this evening. In these circumstances, I do not think hon. Members who voted for the Second Reading, knowing that the Money Resolution was drafted in that way, have any cause of complaint tonight, and we on this side are certainly taking the same position as we have taken right through. We thought the Resolution was too narrow and that the proposals in the Bill were too paltry.
  12.25 a.m.
  Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I have been waiting to rise to a point of Order for a considerable time. I understood the Chairman to rule that I was in possession of the
  1752
  Committee. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman is not on a point of Order, I maintain that I have the right to move my Amendment.
  12.26 a.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that my attempt to meet Members of the Committee is only getting me into greater difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman has risen to move to report Progress, and, in doing so, he has referred to a discussion which has been going on in regard to Procedure. Therefore, I think I ought to say a word or two on that as far as my conduct personally is concerned. I want to say definitely that I had not the slightest intention of administering a rebuke to the right hon. Gentleman's party or to any hon. Member. It is true that he withdrew that word, but I had not the slightest intention of casting any slur or reflection whatever on the right hon. Gentleman or his friends. But I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymor (Mr. Batey) himself confessed that he was under a misapprehension as to the usual procedure in regard to the Amendments on the Order Paper. If he had risen, he would have been called, but I understand that he did not rise because he was under that misapprehension. That being so, I could not foresee his misapprehension, and I could not tell the reason why he did not rise. I have already said several times, and may I repeat, that if the course which I suggested were adopted, and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) moved his Amendment, it would still not shut out an opportunity for the hon. Member for Spennymoor to address the Committee. In these circumstances, I venture to suggest that nothing I have said will interfere in any way with what hon. Members wish to do so far as it is in order.
  12.28 a.m.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have been stopped twice in my remarks to hear various explanations and homilies addressed to myself. I want to say, quite frankly, that I have no wish to pursue a controversy with the Chair in any circumstances, but I do object very strongly to hon. Members and other people giving us these sort of back-handed suggestions and compliments to the effect that we are very inexperienced, that we do not know, and so on. I am, however, willing to

  1753
  accept your explanation, Sir Dennis, and, if I have said anything that would insinuate that I thought you were not doing what a Chairman should do to treat us fairly, I take it back without any reservation. With your permission, I shall stick to my Motion to report Progress, and I will try to continue where I left off, although I am not sure I remember the point with which I was dealing. I have sat here to-night, as I very often sit here, and listened to hon. Gentlemen. We have heard great protestations about this Money Resolution. I repeat that the Resolution was on the Order Paper a week ago. No one should have been ignorant of what that Resolution did and what was the purport of it. The question of the tightness of the Resolution was raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) with Mr. Speaker on Monday and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) backed that up. The result was that Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling which has been quoted once or twice to-night. My point is that those who to-night say that this Money Resolution is one that ought to be withdrawn should have voted with us on Monday night.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: I am sure there must be a misapprehension. If the right hon. Gentleman will look back, he will see that there was an Amendment down. It was the Amendment on which there was a vote, but when the Second Reading was put there was no vote.
  Mr. LANSBURY: If we neglected our duty in not voting against the Second Reading, we voted for our Amendment and put on record our opinions on the Bill, which I believe are shared by many hon. Members. You cannot vote for a Bill, and then on the Money Resolution which supplies the means of applying that Bill say that that Money Resolution ought to be withdrawn. It is all very fine making these curious speeches. I do not say that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) is not as genuine in his desire to help the unemployed as I hope I am myself. What I cannot understand is why, with the opinions he expresses, he continues to support this Money Resolution.
  Mr. MACMILLAN: Because I want the Bill.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It is an extraordinary thing. The hon. Member wants the Bill which this Money Resolution does not permit of being operated in a decent manner. If he will vote with us to-night, I shall feel he is really living up to his speeches. I understood the hon. Member to say that we ought to report Progress an hour or two ago. Surely he will be still more in favour of doing it now? I hope all the rest of the hon. Gentlemen who are not in the Government will support us in the Lobby. I have not been able to consult sonic of my friends, but I am making an offer to the Government. If they will withdraw this Money Resolution and consult the hon. Member for Stockton and satisfy him and the other critics, we will help to get the new Money Resolution through after eleven o'clock one night next week and so not waste any time.
  Mr. STANLEY: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I may point out that he has already made this offer to get this Money Resolution through to-night.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but as far as we are concerned we should go on with our opposition to the Government. We are quite prepared to stay just as long as the Committee wants to stay to-night. There is going to be no grumbling from us as to how long we stay. I am trying to help the members of the late "Y.M.C.A." to live up to their virtuous resolutions. I do not like to see them becoming hardened sinners too quickly. I know that all of us get on to the slippery slope of party expediency and get to the bottom very quickly, but I want to save the hon. Member for Stockton and to arrest his downward course. To-night I am trying to do that.
  I could have made dozens of speeches about this Bill, because everything it contains has been tried. When I listened to the hon. Member for Stockton, I did not know where he had been living all these years. He talked about these great experiments that are going to be tried now and the hopes he had of one of them concerned with men working on the land. Thirty years ago I was at it in the East End. Fifty years ago General Booth brought out a great scheme for "Darkest England", and he raised

  1755
  £100,000 and proved that men could cultivate the land. We do not need to prove it again now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that has not much to do with reporting Progress.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will you allow me to give my reasons why I want to report Progress? I want to report Progress in order to give the Government a chance to bring in a better Money Resolution. All over the House there are great complaints that this Money Resolution does not deal with the problem of the unemployed in an adequate manner. I was pointing out, as one reason why we should report Progress, that part of the inadequacy lies in the fact that the money is to be used for experiments which have already been tried for the last: fifty years. I think that is relevant, with all respect. A further fact is that General Booth, the Church Army and the Society of Friends have demonstrated already what men can do. What a trumpery thing it is for the Government to come forward and say that they need to get experience as to how to deal with the men who are unemployed. I remember that in one of the three days' Debate on this subject it was said that the money that is to be allocated is to be used partly to help the philanthropic societies who look after the unemployed in one way or another.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that on a Motion to report Progress it is not in order to discuss the general Resolution.
  Mr. LANSBURY: No, but I wanted to give my reasons why this Money Resolution should be taken back. One reason is that the Government are exploiting the generosity of the public and are affecting the work of good men and women who are helping the unemployed. For myself—and in this I only speak for myself—I cannot stand by and see men just forced to stand in the streets with nowhere to go and nothing to do. I have helped, and shall go on helping in my own district and elsewhere, the people who are trying to make their conditions a little more tolerable, but that is not the business of the Government. The business of the
  1756
  Government is to take this thing in hand in a thoroughly efficient manner and to do the job themselves. This Money Resolution that they have brought forward does nothing of the kind. It is to be spent in assisting philanthropic people doing what the Government ought themselves to do entirely.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue that argument any longer. Opposition to what is proposed in the Money Resolution is not a ground for reporting Progress. The rule is definite that when a Motion is made to report Progress any arguments on that Motion must be confined strictly to the Motion and the reasons for reporting Progress.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I want to report Progress in order to give the Government time to reconsider the Money Resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to argue the main principles of opposition to the Resolution.
  Mr. LANSBURY: But I am allowed, surely, to give some reasons why the Government should take the Resolution back. Otherwise, there is no point in my asking the Committee to report Progress.
  The CHAIRMAN: If it is merely a question of asking the Government to take the Resolution back, that covers the whole of the Resolution. The Motion to report Progress must not be made just for the purpose of opposing the Resolution.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, so that the Government should have time to amend it in the direction which their own supporters wish it to be amended. I understand from the speeches which I have heard to-night that a large number of Members of the Committee would like to amend the Money Resolution. Under the Rules of Order that is impossible. Therefore, I am asking to report Progress rather than ask hon. Members to vote against the Resolution and thus defeat the Government on a very important Measure. I am asking that we shall adopt a more reasonable method, and that is to report Progress to enable

  1757
  the Government to have time to consider whether it is not possible to meet the objections that have been raised to this Money Resolution to-night. I hope I have made that clear. In furtherance of that, I am desirous of saying that the direction in which right hon. and hon. Members want it amended has been shown in the reasons which they have already given. I should like to put my reasons in addition. The main reason, if you will allow me to say so, is that the Government should bring up a bigger sum of money in the Resolution and that they should extend the scope of expenditure so that the great British nation in dealing with unemployment should rely on public funds and not on public charity.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, in the first part of his remarks, was good enough to express—very handsomely, if I may say so—his regret if he made any undue reflection on the Chair. I thank him very much for what he said. In thanking him, I should perhaps say that if anything that I said was what he referred to as in the nature of backhanded slaps or insinuations, they were not addressed to the Opposition or to any particular party in the House or to any individual Members, but to the Members of the Committee as a whole, and that, if there were any Members of the Committee to whom it applied in particular, it was the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr.
  Albery) quite as much as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).
  Mr. BUCHANAN rose—
  The CHAIRMAN: I propose to put the Question.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I was going to ask if you would not allow me to recall that during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition you constantly interrupted him by pointing out that he was not speaking to the Motion. In view of that fact, I thought a speech which tried to keep within those reasons might be allowed.
  The CHAIRMAN: Order.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: If you will allow me, I was going to point out that there is a case so far not presented.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Rules of the House are quite definite that when an hon. Member moves to report Progress the Chair has a right to put the Motion without Debate.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: After one speech.
  The CHAIRMAN: Directly it is moved. It is not moved until the mover has resumed his seat. He has now done so.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 136.

  Division No. 11.]

  AYES.

  [12.46 a.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)

  Maxton, James

  Banfield, John William

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Batey, Joseph

  Janner, Barnett

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

  Buchanan, George.

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Lawson, John James

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Daggar, George

  Leonard, William

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Stephen Owen

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Dobble, William

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  Wilmot, John

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Mabane, William

  Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Balley, Eric Alfred George

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Bateman, A. L.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Belt, Sir Alfred L.

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Apsley, Lord

  Boulton, W. W.

  Burnett, John George

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Assheton, Ralph

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

  Carver, Major William H.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Christle, James Archibald

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Salmon, Sir Isldore

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Salt, Edward W.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Curry, A. C.

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Slater, John

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Soper, Richard

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Magnay, Thomas

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Spens, William Patrick

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Gluckstein, Louis Haile

  Munro, Patrick

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

  North, Edward T.

  Thompson, Sir Luke

  Graves, Marjorie

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Grimston, R. V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

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

  Pearson, William G.

  Tree, Ronald

  Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

  Penny, Sir George

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Petherick, M.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Pybus, Sir John

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Radfard, E. A.

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  White, Henry Graham

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Womersley, Sir Walter

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Remer, John R.

  Knight, Holford

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Rickards, George William

  Sir Victor Warrender and

  Leckie, J. A.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Commander Southby.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. ALBERY rose—
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) spoke in the general discussion and resumed his seat. He rose to take part in the general discussion, and when he was called there were a number of Members who rose to continue the general discussion. I wish to ask whether it is in order for a Member to be called upon to rise and move an Amendment when there are other Members who have a prior right to take part.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) was in possession of the Floor of the Committee at the moment of interruption. I asked him a question, and he was answering that question when a point of Order arose.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The question asked of the hon. Member was "Is the hon. Member moving his Amendment?" The hon. Member rose to say that he would and that put him in possession of the Floor, but he resumed his seat, and we have the prior right.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Albery—
  Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I was here sitting all the time. That was due to the decision you gave at the beginning of the Committee stage to-night. From the start I was sitting here waiting to be called.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that point as to any misapprehension is disposed of as a result of the Motion to report Progress which was put to the Committee. I must really ask hon. Members to adhere to the practice when carrying on ordinary Debate. An hon. Member who is called upon by the Chair should be treated as being in possession of the Committee. I have pointed out that if the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has missed his opportunity for a speech it will still be competent for him to speak later. I have also pointed out what seems to be obvious, that if the Debate is to be conducted in an orderly manner and with as little delay as possible the best thing for me to do is to call upon the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery).
  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order—
  The CHAIRMAN: There comes a time when, having given a Ruling on a point

  1761
  of Order, I must ask that my Ruling should be accepted. Although I am always willing to listen to special objections, it is impossible to allow protracted debate on a Ruling from the Chair.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I put a question? The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) resumed his seat after having taken part in the general discussion, and if his Amendment is to be called in order the first Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. I stated definitely that it was not my intention to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).
  Mr. ALBERY: I beg to move, in line 10, to leave out "either of two."
  The only effect is to leave open the question of the number of commissioners who may be appointed.
  12.59 a.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I am glad to have the opportunity of addressing the Committee on a subject we started a few hours ago. We have strayed a little since then. At the moment I am not prepared to make a reply on the general Debate, but only on the Amendment. As I shall explain, regarding the Resolution as a whole, I am extremely anxious to meet the Committee in any way possible. It is to be clearly understood that in accepting this Amendment I am not accepting the principle involved in it when it is raised in the Bill, but for the purpose of reducing the restrictive effect of this Resolution I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Original Question, as amended, again proposed.
  1.0 a.m.
  Mr. BATEY: I propose now to ask the attention of the Committee to the purpose of the Money Resolution which is to give £2,000,000 to assist the distressed areas. I wish to move that the sum of £2,000,000 be reduced by £100,000.
  The CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. Gentleman to realise that his Amendment is not selected and that when he rose in his place to speak I called on him to speak on the Main Question, not to move his Amendment.
  Mr. BATEY: I do not object to that because I deliver the same speech. The only purpose in my putting down an Amendment was to use the Parliamentary method of asking for less in order to get more. It is not because I think that the Government are giving too much, for in my opinion the £2,000,000 which they propose to give is as shabby a proposal as the Government could make. It is shabby, for hon. Members will remember that only yesterday the House passed a Resolution to give £12,000,000 to the shipowners. That was a Resolution to give a handful of shipowners £12,000,000, when in the distressed areas we are dealing with no less than 300,000 men, women and children. The Government one day give large sums of money to a handful of people and the next day they come and offer 300,000 working men, women and children £2,000,000. I want to submit why this is a shabby proposal on the part of the. Government. Only last week Members on the other side of the House were asking that the Government should raise £100,000,000 as a loan for the purpose of building more aeroplanes. If that can be justified, then the Government would be more than justified in raising that amount for the distressed areas.
  I want to submit that £2,000,000 would not be sufficient for the North-East Coast alone. We have seen how the Government have restricted certain areas and brought in additional areas in this Money Resolution and have enlarged the North-East area. One of the commissioners reported that in Durham there were 147,000 men unemployed, and now the area has been enlarged. I want to submit that on the North-East Coast alone they are entitled to far more than £2,000,000. This sum of money spread over all the distressed areas will not have the least effect on the unemployed, and I would ask the Minister to tell us in his reply on what basis the Government arrived at that figure. It seems to me that they must have taken each area into consideration and also the number of unemployed, and so on, and then arrived at the figure of £2,000,000. It is very difficult for one to imagine the reasons that have led the Government to select this small figure. We have also to keep in mind that this money will be provided and controlled by the Treasury. Members have complained that their areas have

  1763
  been kept out of the Bill and the Money Resolution, and I believe that they would not have been kept out but for the smallness of the amount. Only trifling work can be done with this amount.
  The Minister of Labour based his case when we were dealing with this matter on Second Reading on two things: first, the lay-out of the neighbourhood, and, second, the utilisation of the land. If that be all the commissioners are going to do in the distressed areas, they are not going to do very much. I want the Minister to tell us about the lay-out of the neighbourhood. We have been told before of the need for beautifying the distressed areas for the purpose of attracting new industries there. I have here a picture of unemployed men removing and levelling what we call pit heaps, and what I believe are called slag heaps in other districts. There was this photograph in one of the northern newspapers yesterday, and it shows these unemployed men levelling that area and removing these pit heaps and beautifying the place. It says that that work was being done by voluntary labour, paid only by transitional payment. I hope that the Minister, in being so strong about the lay-out of the neighbourhood, is not going to have the neighbourhood beautified and these heaps removed by voluntary labour. I claim that the men who do this work of beautifying the district and removing these hideous sights are entitled to far more than transitional payment. They are entitled to trade union rates. I hope it is not the intention to do this thing cheaply on such lines. Cheapness is marked all over the Governmemnt's proposal. If it be the Government's intention to do this work in the depressed areas by cheap labour, instead of paying trade union rates of wages, then the Minister will find in these areas as much opposition as it is possible for us to give. This amount of money granted by the Treasury decides the machinery to be used in doing this work. Cheapness is typical of the Government's policy both in regard to this Money Resolution and to the Bill.
  Their proposal is to do this work through two commissioners. I am glad that the Minister has removed that from the Money Resolution, but it still remains in the Bill that there should be only two
  1764
  commissioners—one for Scotland and one for Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland and Wales. I submit that it is beyond the power of any one man to look after such important districts as those. If there was one lesson that we learned from the War, it was that the human material was beyond the power of one man to deal with. No one man—I do not care how clever he is—can deal with these four areas successfully. The Government may be getting the commissioners cheaply but I do not say one word in regard to either of the commissioners. Seeing that they have undertaken the work, I regard both of them as public-spirited men and as brave men to face such a task; but I do say that there is not much credit to the Government in getting them to work for nothing. The Government got them as cheap as they possibly could—cheaper than they could buy them at Woolworths. The Government seem to want everything done as cheaply as possible. If you want work done in the depressed areas, which are situated so far apart, there should be more than two commissioners. There should be more than one commissioner for England.
  In advocating more commissioners, one remembers that of late years there has been quite an epidemic of commissioners. I remember that when we sat on the other side of the House, every week either the Prime Minister or some other Minister came down to the House and made a statement that the Government-had decided to set up a Committee. I remember the laughter that there used to be against us from hon. Members opposite. Fun was poked at the Labour Government because they were continually setting up Committees. Now we have gone from Committees to commissioners. We seem to be setting up commissions nearly every week. Whether we have one or more commissioners, those commissioners cannot do anything effective unless they are supplied with money. The only thing that will help the distressed areas is money. If the Government are going to treat the depressed areas in this mean, shabby way, then there is no hope in the appointment of one or more commissioners of any effective work. It is because of that, because I believe that the Government have raised expectations among the people in the depressed areas that they would be prepared to find suffi-

  1765
  cient money to do something useful in those areas, and because they have failed and one feels that the whole of these proposals are simply a hoax on the unemployed, that I oppose this Resolution to-night.
  1.18 a.m.
  Mr. MAGNAY: It has been very interesting to one who represents—I am sorry to say—the first borough named in the Schedule, the County Borough of Gateshead, to listen to this Debate to-night. It is a curious anomaly, as it seems to me, that those who disagree vehemently with this Bill, yet want to have a share in the benefits that accrue from it. I have heard some hon. Members say that there should be other districts included, and the Amendments put down are quite definite that this or that place should be added. It is not a thing to be proud of. I wish to God I was not representing a depressed area. I am longing and hoping that the result of this procedure and the benefits which will, in my opinion, accrue from this Bill, will put my constituency out of the depresesd area schedule altogether. I think it should be sufficient to anyone who desires to see their constituency included in the Schedule to thank Providence that this need not apply to their area. I wish it were otherwise as regards my own. There came to England a man from God whose name was John Wesley, and who laid it down as a great statement that it was the duty of those who were followers not to go to those who needed them but to those who needed them most. That was his working plan of action. That is precisely what the Government are doing. They are going, not to those who need them, but to those who need them most. I think they are very wise in doing so. As I see the Bill, this is not, as has been said, a distribution of charity at all. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) talks about there being 140,000 people to have this £2,000,000 as if it were going to be distributed among them.
  Mr. BATEY: I was not suggesting such a silly thing as that.
  Mr. MAGNAY: I am sorry the hon. Member did not make himself clear, as his usual wont is. It is not a distribution of charity at all, but a fillip to idustry. I see it working that way. I have been
  1766
  trying to do something under it already. If I have any luck, this is what will happen in Gateshead. There will be a site surveyed, and the commissioner has power under this Bill to buy that site, level it, and make it a place where you can induce people to come and put up a factory. There will be a quay wall, and I have already seen the Tyne Commissioners about doing the necessary dredging. That is the type of work that can be done, and that is what we can expect from this Bill.
  Mr. CURRY: Is not the hon. Member aware that under this Bill these commissioners are particularly debarred from doing anything which the local authorities can do now under the present arrangements?
  Mr. MAGNAY: I have good reason for thinking that that is not a correct view. I am taking my chances in that direction. I think the best way is not to stand up here and make objection to these proposals, but to get at the commissioner and make his work feasible. I was bred in an old-fashioned way, and, when I had a good turn done me, I said "thank you" for it. I take this as a token payment from the Government. I understand that there is £2,000,000 in this current financial year to be spent in the way best suited for the districts. Parliament has power to increase it in due course. At any rate, I think that we should stop this carping criticism and get down to tin tacks and to business, and suggest ways and means whereby we can make the scheme workable. I am going to try and do that, and I suggest that the Committee should get down to business and support the Government in their beneficent work.
  1.24 a.m.
  Mr. JANNER: I endeavoured earlier in the evening to try and take part in the Debate, and I believe it ought not to be impossible to consider the advisability of withdrawing the Resolution even now. We have heard arguments against it from all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), in a few exciting moments, or rather an excitable few moments, levelled accusations against those sitting on these benches, and said that we had supported the Second Reading of the Bill whereas we knew very well that the Financial

  1767
  Resolution would not enable us to carry out those matters we were particularly concerned about. He himself and his colleagues had argued for a very long time that it was possible within the confines of the Resolution to have an extension to other areas and to deal with other matters. We are, indeed, of opinion that the Resolution could very easily have been removed and amended, and we could then have had another Resolution on the Paper. I put it in all seriousness to the Minister that he has placed us in a very invidious position. Those of us who really do hope that this may be an experiment in a direction that will have very important results are being placed in an invidious position in that a Resolution has been placed on the Paper which the Minister is not prepared to remove, which makes it impossible for us to support him, and which makes it clear that what we have intended at the time that we supported the Second Reading will now become impracticable and impossible of achievement.
  We were told that we should have ample opportunity to discuss various points of amendment which we considered necessary in the Bill itself at this stage. Although we can say that we consider there are distressed areas, or that there may be distressed areas in the future, or—to satisfy the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), who is so perturbed about representing a distressed area—that an area that is now a distressed area may come out of that category, there is no provision whereby any district can be brought into this Bill as and when it becomes a distressed area, nor any provision by which an area at present a distressed area can be taken outside the confines of the Bill. We had an interesting example to-night of how quickly circumstances can change in a district. There was an argument between the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) and the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) on the question of what ratio of unemployment existed in Dundee, and because the senior Member quoted one month the junior Member immediately said that the month before things were different. Suppose that, instead of things improving in Dundee, the junior Member for Dundee found that her constituents would not
  1768
  be in a position to derive any benefits from the Measure. That is a very serious matter indeed, and we regard it as such, particularly because we have not had replies to points that have been raised by some of our own Members. May I quote once more the statement made by the Civil Lord of Admiralty on this very point:
  "The primary consideration, in view of the urgent nature of the problem, appeared to he to reduce the field of survey to the smallest dimension which considerations of homogeneity would permit."
  It is perfectly clear that the commissioners themselves, in order to get a homgeneous ruling, chose certain areas, but that they felt that there must be other areas which ought to be given an opportunity of participating in any assistance that might be forthcoming. It may be thought that it is a peculiar thing for a Member not representing a constituency within these safeguards to speak in this Debate. But I am not at all sure that my constituents in Wapping are not suffering from distress through not having an interchange of trade in respect of grain, and that they will not complain at not having an opportunity to participate in this Measure. I have, unfortunately, had the opportunity of seeing what is happening in South Wales for many years, and seeing it from an angle which even many Members who sit for these constituencies have not had an opportunity of seeing it. Many men and women who live in these areas have revealed the whole of their minds and thoughts to me. In my view, and I believe in the view of most people who live in these areas and in areas which do not come within the definition given here, the limitation should not be of such a nature as to deprive us of the opportunity of getting as extensive help as can be given by the country as a whole to the depressed areas. I would like an assurance that the £2,000,000 is not the "be all" and "end all" of the matter.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: Can the hon. Member assist some of us on these benches? We have not had a general reply from the Government. Will he tell us from what benefits these areas which are not included in the Bill are excluded, because we are not able to find out what the benefits are likely to be.
  Mr. JANNER: I think that on a matter of this serious gravity we should not deal with it in that way at all. My hon. Friend is not right in dealing with the matter in that way. Everything that can be got is of some value. That is why I am making my appeal that the Government should extend it. We do not want to deter the Government from doing anything in the way of help. We are anxious that they should do as much as they can. We are anxious that the Government should not limit themselves. That is why I make my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has already seen one point raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). It is true that he has not accepted the fact that there shall be more than two commissioners, but he has assisted the hon. Member for Gravesend by giving him an opportunity on the Committee stage of urging that we shall not confine it to two commissioners. We are asking that the Government should not confine us in this Resolution, so that we may be able to ask for that to which we think we are legitimately entitled. I should like an assurance that it is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that the £2,000,000 given in this Financial Resolution is only for this financial year and that, when the financial year is over, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared, if the necessity arises, to bring forward a further Financial Resolution—that that will be possible, within the confines of the Bill itself, and that a new Bill will not be necessary—in other words, that we shall know that the proviso in the Bill is not something merely put in so as to make people imagine that more can be paid when the Government know that it cannot. That is the appeal I am making to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to assure him, and I want the Labour party to understand, that we as Liberals are not prepared to obstruct something that is of value, even if it is of small value.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Why did you leave the Government?
  Mr. JANNER: We are anxious to assist, but where we find that the Measure that we are assisting is being hampered by Resolutions of this kind we must put our position to the right hon. Gentleman.
  1.38 a.m.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: I think that we as a Committee should be grateful that the Resolution has in words been so strictly drawn. I have noticed that hon. Members spend hours, days and weeks discussing unemployment and distress in general, but, if they would put their hands on their hearts, they would confess that they have been singularly unfertile in useful solutions for the trouble afflicting the country. The fact that we are asked to confine ourselves to something definite and operative should be a satisfaction to those who have talked much and produced little. The Bill is not offered as a solution for unemployment. We are asked to vote funds for a social experiment, and, if it succeeds, it will be a political ferment of incalculable force to help. On the other hand, should it fail, we shall in 1936 have the courageous men who have attempted the experiment and who will report faithfully that they could do nothing. The Committee will then have to try, without pain and resentment, to make another and more useful experiment. We should not criticise. We have before our eyes in the OFFICIAL REPORT the record of our own futility. We have heard hon. Members pour the vials of their wrath on the Minister's head and those who poured out the most stinging rebukes thought that they were pouring out the balm of Gilead. The Minister may say:
  "Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
  But—why did you throw a slag heap' in the wheel?"
  I only want to put one question which arises out of the words in Clause 1, Sub-section (5). I wish to ask the Minister if the functions to initiate, organise and prosecute measures with regard to the unemployed can be exercised in a compulsory way. If they can be prosecuted in a compulsory way, then the prosecution of these measures needs some more consideration later on in Committee on the Bill. Further on one sees that these commissioners will be able to finance industrial measures outside the depressed areas, and there will be migration of substantial numbers of persons from those depressed areas. The movement of large bodies of persons either voluntarily or by compulsion gives rise to a biological problem of some complexity and affects the nerves, habits and

  1771
  health of numbers of them who have been used for years to one environment; and I think that is a matter that we should consider very closely. I would like the Minister's assurance that the implications behind this scheme have already been closely examined. If we are to move large bodies of human beings the problem of houses, education and religion will have to be considered, and these cannot come within the terms of the £2,000,000 voted in this Resolution. I would also like to ask if those who are to be moved will be separated from their kin? If children are to be moved, will the Minister act in loco parentis and will he provide careful supervision in the places to which they are moved, and will the House be assured that, if through necessity children are taken away from their homes, they will have such care and supervision that the Minister will be proud to report it to the House from year to year?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Mr. Buchanan.
  Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order. What is the method of calling on speakers in the general Debate. I think we ought to go round before a man is called a second time.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have not spoken.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question as to who catches my eye is a matter for my discretion.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I must protest against the statement of my hon. Friend, for I have not spoken before.
  Mr. TINKER: If the hon. Gentleman has not spoken before, then I am mistaken, but has he not been on his feet several time during the Debate?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, I rose to points of Order, but not so often as Members of the hon. Member's own Front Bench, and I am quite within my rights as a Member of Parliament in doing that. I want now to raise one or two points in connection with this Resolution. I want to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), which I think is one of the most important points of the Resolution. I have read the Debates since the matter first came before the notice of the House.
  1772
  If you read the Debates, you will see that it was clearly understood that the £2,000,000 was only to the end of the financial year. As I read the Bill, that is not strictly correct, and it is not a fair way of putting it. It has been published abroad that the £2,000,000 is only to the end of the year, and then the Government can add to the sum. What is the position as I see it according to the Rules of the House? We are discussing not merely a Government Bill but a Bill that must be taken in conjunction with the Rules of the House. What has happened already in the case of the Mines Bill? If a sum is to be added to the sure provided under the Act, it must have a financial Resolution. If the Government will consult not only their officials but those in this House I think they will find that I am right. If I am correct, that means that all you are now providing is £2,000,000 unless Parliament sees fit to alter that amount, and it is only provided so long as Parliament thinks fit. If Members think that the additional sums will come in the Estimates automatically, I think they are mistaken for what will be required will be a completely new financial Resolution.
  The hon. Gentleman for Gateshead (Mr Magnay) gibed at us for wishing other places to be included in the Resolution. Some Members have wished that their towns would be included, but I would oppose Glasgow being included in the Resolution at all. I will tell you why The hon. Gentleman for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) made a telling point in this respect. In this Bill the commissioners have power to see that men are employed, but I think in no case will they get trade union wages, and the commissioners have no responsibility to the House of Commons. One of them is a great employer and the other, the Commissioner for Scotland, I see at one time was chairman of the Mental Deficiency Board at Edinburgh. It means handing over to two men the power to smash trade union methods. Whether Glasgow is governed either by the Labour party or their predecessors, I would sooner see the unemployed under the care of the town council than under the care of outside commissioners. I see here the gravest menace to trades union wages and standards. I see unlimited power given into the commissioners' hands.

  1773
  This is one of the most insidious Measures. It is difficult to oppose £2,000,000 even if it is not going to one's own constituency, when some other poor devil is getting it, but behind this proposal is the fact that this sum is to be used in an insidious fashion and in some cases in a semi-charity-mongering fashion to reduce the standards of life of the great masses of the people. What kind of method has been used in choosing the towns to be regarded as depressed areas? I take Scotland, and I see the Secretary for Scotland sitting there. Anybody who knows Scotland will regard the whole thing as a joke. Who picked out these towns? It is said that the commissioners are two able men. If the commissioners picked these towns as being dpressed areas, they should be locked up. Take Scotland. Gorbals is out. What is the comparison between such places as Stewarton, Dundee and other places? Where is the sense? We are told it is a good Bill, but in its main essentials it is daft. It is just bunk and boloney. The depressed area is being defined. Look at what is says:
  "The parishes … so far as situated south of the London and North Eastern Railway line."
  If the railway had run another way, some parishes would have been in, but as the line runs the other way they are out. Imagine the sense of making the depressed areas regulated in the same way as our divisions are regulated. For the sake of convenience the railway lines may be used as a mark that people know, and we make them the boundary lines of divisions, but how can you say that if you are on one side of the railway line you are depressed and if you jump across to the other side you are not depressed. The only railways which rival those of Scotland in the matter of twists and turns are those of Wales, and here we are to have this method adopted. The parishes of Ardrossan are included in the list, and the whole of Lanarkshire, except Glasgow. It includes residential places where lords live. In my division there has been nothing but depression ever since the War, but Gorbals is to be out. By what lines are you guided? The Bill is to be operated by two unpaid commissioners who are to look after it and to set people to work. It is not that. It is a device of the Prime Minister
  1774
  and several of his colleagues. It is typical of the Prime Minister. Examine the thing candidly and without heat. A lot of time has been spent in the last few years in denouncing the Labour Govment. Do not forget that the Prime Minister was the head of that Government and learned everything he knew from it. He comes along and appoints these commissioners. I say it is a most disgraceful thing to promise things that you have no intention of doing. There has been talk of pensions at sixty. You would not promise pensions at sixty unless you mean to give them. I say that behind this Bill there is just the same kind of holding out promises that you are not going to fulfil. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) spoke about his constituency. Are the hon. Member and other hon. Members to go slinking up to the unpaid commissioners? It shows what the House of Commons is being reduced to. They will go to the commissioner and say "Please, sir, I have a scheme for my division."
  Mr. MAGNAY: I am sure the hon. Member does not intend that seriously. I have never slunk up to any man in my life, and I never will. If that be his habit, it is not mine.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That is what you are asking us to do. That is what you must do, as I see it, whether you like it or not. I see people going up to the commissioner and saying: "I have a scheme. I have got something for my division that I want done. Will you see me about it." The commissioner can see you if he likes, but he does not need to do so. You are out, and he is in. He is not a Minister of the Crown who has to come to the House of Commons where you can charge him. He may say: "You are a nuisance. I do not want to listen. Stay out." You have to go cap in hand and ask for something for your division.
  Mr. MAGNAY: It is members of the Labour party who stand for that.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Whose duty is it to beautify the towns? It is the duty of the town council. It is not for us to go to some unpaid commissioners and ask for it. If the towns of Glasgow and Gateshead are not beautiful now and new schemes are wanted, the town council

  1775
  should have the management and capacity to see what is needed and go to the proper department about it. They can go to their Member of Parliament and say: "You might raise this with the proper authorities in the proper place and have it done." Instead of that, we have now to go searching for some kind of scheme. I think the Minister of Labour's scheme is most insulting. If you know a scheme is needed, you should not wait until these two commissioners are appointed. The job should be got on with now and at once. Two commissioners are appointed, of whom most of us know nothing—two men who are to have the power to employ men under any kind of conditions and in any way they like and to have unlimited power. For my part, I consider the whole Financial Resolution is misleading the Committee.
  The House of Commons should be told definitely and directly what I think is the correct thing, namely, that it needs a new Financial Resolution, that this does not come in the Estimates but is a regular thing added. The whole scheme is badly based. I am glad that my city is not in it. I do not want the commissioners to come into Glasgow and be mucking about. There are enough people already interfering with the unemployed. I say to the Minister that his method of bringing in the Resolution is not creditable. It is not a Parliamentary way of doing business. Indeed, the worst thing of ail is that it will set Member against Member in the House of Commons. There is a sum of money voted. Say you double it. You can multiply it by four and make it £8,000,000. What happens? I try to get £1,000,000 for Glasgow, and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. D. Adams) tries to get something for Poplar. Other Members try to get something for the north-east coast, and each of us tries to solve the proplem of poverty in each of our places at the expense of someone else. Then hon. Members go out and say: "I am a smarter Member of Parliament than the other because I was able to blackmail the Minister before him." The hon. Member for Gateshead laughs. If this scheme goes through, he will say: "I was able to blackmail the Minister more effectively than any other man." Instead of being able to get something for Glasgow, Lancashire, the north-east coast, or London, we should be passing
  1776
  legislation for the unemployed which would operate communally and for the general mass of our people. This scramble will be degrading to the House of Commons and to the unemployed themselves.
  2.4 a.m.
  Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: It is far too late in the night to attempt to answer the extraordinary charges that have just been made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). It is possible that he and his friends may be taking the right view of this Measure when it is in operation, but to me it seems a completely distorted view. The Minister is a man whom we all respect for his courage and straightforwardness. He comes to the House with a great record and tradition of public service. He has told us already precisely what is intended and has given us, if not a pledge, something very nearly approaching a pledge, that this £2,000,000 is only a beginning and will, in fact, be extended as and when necessary. I personally accept that statement in complete good faith. I regret exceedingly that some hon. Members who have known him longer than I have should doubt his word.
  Mr. JANNER: It is not a question of doubting his word at all. No one doubts his word. The question is whether his intentions, although they may be good, can be implemented within the confines of this Bill.
  Mr. STEWART: I am sure the hon. Member is not following what I am saying. I was referring specifically to the £2,000,000.
  Mr. JANNER: So was I.
  Mr. STEWART: The hon. Member is entitled to voice his view. I accept the word of the Government implicitly that this is a beginning, not an end, and that it will be extended.
  Mr. MAXTON: This is the issue. It is the beginning so far as this Bill is concerned, apart from the Minister's statement and so forth. So far as this Bill is concerned, the £2,000,000 is the beginning and the end.
  Mr. STEWART: Technically, the hon. Member is correct. No one denies it, but you must see a little more than the

  1777
  technique of the Bill. What is behind it? I am perfectly satisfied that there is a determination behind it to put at the disposal of these commissioners all the funds needed for carrying out their work. I ask the Minister to answer a couple of questions. This scheme we are discussing is in two parts: first, the amount to be allotted; and, second, the areas in which it is to be spent. Now, the first is a temporary measure, as I see it. I do not attach a great deal of importance to that. But the second part, dealing with the areas in which the money is to be spent, is a permanent part. I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that by the form of the Resolution this part cannot be altered or changed in any way, in any circumstances, until the end of two years. If I am wrong, I shall be delighted to know it. It makes some of us who are supporters of the Government a little doubtful about the Bill. As the Resolution stands, we are prohibited from suggesting any alteration whatever. That is an extraordinary step for a British House of Commons to take.
  Are we right in saying that we are going to be prevented from suggesting any change at all? If that be so, then we are not only disfranchised, as an hon. Member has already said, but we are doing the very thing that the Lord President of the Council a few days ago warned the country not to do. That was in a great speech on freedom, in which he said that freedom was the breath of our lives. He upheld British democratic institutions and this House as the place where we expressed the will of our constituents. Here, whole areas are excluded from representation. It is very serious. It is not much good turning to what the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is going to do by abolishing constitutional methods if an audience says "What about Part II of this Money Resolution which prevented you making an appeal for your constituents?" I can speak with every freedom on this matter, for I have no axe to grind. My constituency is not a depressed area. It is the principle with which I am concerned, and it really is a very important principle. I am so much concerned that I voted with the Leader of the Opposition—the first time I ever did vote with him—to report Progress, because I resent any inroad on the rights and privileges and duties of
  1778
  Members of Parliament. I do not like to find myself voting against the Government I was elected to support, but I was elected, first of all, as a free member in a free institution, and to defend British constitutional methods. As I see this Money Resolution, it, is not a free Measure. You are tying us hand and foot. If it be right, and there are good grounds for making this inroad on Parliamentary privilege, then let the Minister tell us what they are.
  The Minister has the support of all of us on this side for the general objects of his policy, and I am most anxious that the Bill should succeed. I am afraid, however, that unless something is done it will be impossible for it to succeed to the extent we want, as the hands not only of Members of Parliament but of the Minister himself will be tied. I have taken the opportunity to explain my action in the vote that I gave a few minutes ago. As a loyal supporter of the Government, I invite the Minister to explain the position.
  2.13 a.m.
  Mr. TINKER: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I should have liked to have got Lancashire, and when that county was included, to have had the money increased. That is the reason I say that the £2,000,000 is not enough. The commissioners are given power to initiate schemes of work such as dealing with slag heaps. Is the Minister guiding the commissioners in any way in regard to payment? Unless something is done by the Committee with regard to payment, those payments will savour of charity. We shall be having the men working at rates much lower than those to which we think they are entitled. The result will be that we shall have dissatisfaction all round. A little while ago we had an attempt at Leigh to clean up passages. The stuff was left at the sides and, later, the relieving committee attempted to get men to remove it. It was work that should have been paid for at trade union rates. They asked that it should be removed at relief rates. An outcry was raised and the matter was brought to the attention of the House of Commons. I arranged a meeting with the Minister of Health. He used his influence, with the result that that kind of work was stopped. The work under the commissioners should be

  1779
  paid at the outset at trade union rates. We thought that it was unfair to leave the work to which I have referred uncompleted and then to get it regarded as relief work.
  I am afraid that in this scheme the commissioners, with a limited amount of money and trying to do their work to please the Government, may attempt to make the money go as far as they can. Two million pounds spread over 300,000 is not going very far. The Minister told us in his speech on Monday that the outcome of these schemes would probably govern larger schemes of the Government. We are doing this as an experiment for the purpose, later on if it succeeds, of extending it to other places. I am anxious to start the scheme off properly. I believe in Socialism, and I know that we can only attain that gradually. I am going to take all that makes for Socialism. I want these schemes to be on a recognised footing. All schemes by the commissioners should be paid at a fair rate. Unless we start off in that way, it is possible that the Government, whatever may be their intention, may meet with strong opposition. I would advise the Minister to exercise the powers he has and to tell the commissioners that when they are making schemes of work they should see that the men are treated properly.
  Many things will have to be done in the derelict areas. We have to clear up the mess left by the industrial magnates. May I ask the Government to prepare against such things in the future; to see that such things are not created in the future as they have been created in the past. People who are getting the wealth from the land should do their duty and see that the land is left in something like decency before they leave the neighbourhood. The derelict areas have been largely created because such people have not done their duty. If they had done their duty, there would have been none of these graveyards. There would have been no need to talk of trade union rates for clearing these slag heaps away. I want the Government to try and prevent these things arising in the future. It is, I think, going to be a comprehensive Measure, and the commissioners will have the power to advise the Government what should be done. In conclusion, I want to advise the Government to try as early as
  1780
  possible to increase the grant. I am not sure as to the length of time it covers and I would ask the Minister to tell us that when he replies as there is some misunderstanding. Two million pounds cannot go very far, and, if it has to cover any length of time, I can see the failure of the whole scheme. This is a subsidy to poor people, and I would appeal to the Government not to be niggardly in giving to people who are in need.
  2.21 a.m.
  Mr. STANLEY: I hope hon. Members will not think that I am trying to gag them by replying at such an early hour after such a short Debate. I confess I am in some difficulty, because the Debate has followed a curious course. It has been like the triangular duel described in Midshipman Easy. The hon. and gallant Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) and some of his colleagues in the Liberal party have fired at me, and then the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) have fired back on him, and the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) has fired back on everyone whom he had a chance of hitting. For the last four hours of the Debate, I have been almost exempt from criticism altogether.
  Let me deal at once with the main point. I think the only real issue in this Debate, and the one on which hon. Members concentrated until a certain divergence, is the inclusion in this Financial Resolution of the areas to which the Bill is to apply. Unlike many Members who have spoken this evening, I cannot claim to be an expert in the Procedure of the House. I must say that to my mind the object of a Money Resolution is to specify the objects for which the money is to be spent, and I certainly did not realise that hon. Gentlemen would have felt that this was going to restrict its character. Apart from the question of precedents, the real thing is: have hon. Members suffered some real deprivation, and are they really prevented from being able to do some useful work on this Bill? I would suggest that there will not be any deprivation of any right which can be exercised with utility. I think that Members will agree with me, even if they differ from myscheme for a definition of the distressed areas, which is a purely arbitrary inclu-

  1781
  sion of the areas envisaged by the Commissioners with a view to having experiments in those areas, that the worst thing would be to add haphazardly to the scheme. That, I think, would be the worst of all possible courses, and I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was quite right in saying that there is no alternative between this arbitrary definition of mine, which is adopted both for speed and coherence, and some new definition for the depressed towns and villages to be applied all over the country. Therefore hon. Gentlemen are really having the chance on the Financial Resolution of doing the only useful thing of saying whether this method is the right one or not. If they do not think it is the right one, it is clear that there is no alternative but to substitute some new definition and re-cast the whole thing. I do suggest that hon. Members are not deprived of their challenge in principle to this definition.
  I shall try and deal with some of the many points that have been raised in the Debate, but hon. Gentlemen, I am sure. will excuse me if I do not follow some of the wider points which have been dealt with in the many speeches that we have already had on the subject and which indeed will also be raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. I will confine myself at this hour to some of the more narrow detailed points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) asked why there was no machinery in the Bill for the extension of these experiments if they are successful. I think the answer is that if and when anything the Commissioners do proves to be successful and it is wished to adopt it as a nation-wide scheme, it is quite clear that the Commissioners are not the machinery to extend the scheme to the rest of the country. That can be done, perhaps through the Unemployment Assistance Board or some Development Board. I think the machinery is proper for carrying out experiments, but is not the machinery to extend these experiments on a nation-wide scale. An hon. Gentleman behind me asked if the Commissioners could examine and report on areas outside their own. There is no statutory duty upon them to do so, but I have no doubt they will be at all times willing to assist the Government by dealing with matters even outside their areas.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Under the terms of the Financial Resolution and the Bill, will they have power to extend any part of the funds at their disposal on outside areas?
  Mr. STANLEY: I do not know that it is worth while dealing to-night with the question of finance. Twice in the last few weeks I have made perfectly definite, categorical statements as to what the finance is to be. Hon. Members who want to ignore my statement can hardly be convinced by my repeating it a third time. Let me make it quite clear, as I did only two days ago. The idea of the financial arrangement is that the Commissioners shall start off with enough money to make it quite certain that they will be enabled to undertake any experiment and Work which they think is necessary, and that thereafter, as and when the Government and Parliament think that more money should be given to them, that will be done. There will be no need for a Financial Resolution, for it will be on the Estimates in the ordinary way. Hon. Members opposite are the last people who should complain about a thing of that kind. I have heard nothing from them but that the £2,000,000 will be wasted, that there will be nothing for the Commissioners to do, and that we might just as well throw the money down the sink. Surely, then, they are the last people to suggest that it is not a prudent thing to start off with a fund sufficient to see that the Commissioners are able to undertake at once whatever they can do, without fear of financial stringency, and that then we should judge from the success of their initial work how much more they require, and it will be given them.
  Mr. LOGAN: Do I take it that that may be done at the end of four months?
  Mr. STANLEY: There is no question of date in this at all. They have £2,000,000 to spend, and we do not know how fast or how slowly it will be spent, but when they are in need of more money, whatever the time may be, then, if the Government and Parliament approve, they will, in the normal course, have more money put into their hands.
  Mr. LOGAN: It has been stated explicitly in debate to-night that it would be for two years. As I read the Bill, at the expiration of four months it may

  1783
  be possible that the sum may have been used. Do I understand the Minister to say that, if it becomes necessary, this application may then be made to the House, and that it is not necessarily a matter of years.
  Mr. STANLEY: I think the position is clear. I know hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are not going to believe me whatever I say.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: There is no need to be offensive about it.
  Mr. MAXTON: I ask the Minister to mention anything which has been said up to now which justifies him in saying that.
  Mr. STANLEY: I did not mean that the hon. Gentleman would disbelieve me personally or suggest that I was telling a lie, but only that he did not believe that in fact it was going to be done The hon. Member said there was going to be £2,000,000 and no more.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I have listened to the Minister rather carefully, and, as I understand him, when this money has been spent, if the Government consider it necessary and the House approves, there will be more money, but the governing factor is whether the Government agrees that more money should be spent in this way. The right hon. Gentleman is not making a promise, I know, but that is the point I want cleared up.
  Mr. STANLEY: Clearly, one of the factors which will decide it is how this £2,000,000 will be spent.. It is quite clear that nobody is going to be expected to give a pledge of that kind until we see how the experiment goes. I am sure the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will realise that I was not meaning that be had expressed disbelief in me personally, but he did definitely express the belief that, in fact, there would somehow or other be no more than £2,000,000.
  Mr. MAXTON: I interrupted because of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that nothing he could say would convince hon. Members below the Gangway. That was a quite unjustified remark. There is no section in this House but would resent, as I resented, his remark that no statement he made would convince us.
  Mr. STANLEY: I assure the hon. Member that if I said anything offensive to him personally, it was quite unintended. The fact is that I have made this explanation several times already, and the hon. Member has shown in the course of the Debate that he was convinced that no more money than £2,000,000 would be forthcoming.
  Mr. MAXTON: That is the statement that you have just made.
  Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) raised the question of whether the number of Commissioners could be increased. It is, of course, the intention of the Commissioner for England to have a resident representative in each of the areas which he covers. I think hon. Members will agree that for the settlement of the general questions of policy in London and for consultations with Government Departments it is much better to have the whole of these areas co-operating under a single chief rather than have the different areas under different people, each having to go up to London to carry on his own negotiations and to make his own inquiries. But there will be in each area a resident representative of the Commissioner who will be constantly in touch with local opinion and local needs.
  Mr. CURRY: Have those representatives yet been appointed, because it has been stated by a supporter of the Government to-night that he has already been put in touch with the representative of his area and got certain promises? Is that so?
  Mr. STANLEY: I understand the representative for the North-east coast has already been appointed.
  Mr. BATEY: Where does he reside?
  Mr. STANLEY: I could not say at the moment.
  Mr. CURRY: Would the Minister please tell us, because some of us are wondering about it. Are the supporters of the Government in the North-east area being given access to this gentleman before any of us on this side of the House?
  Mr. LAWSON: Who is the gentleman who has been appointed for the Northeast area?
  Mr. STANLEY: As soon as I have a complete list of these representatives and their addresses, I will give the hon. Member an answer.
  Mr. MAXTON: In the "Sporting News"?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the "Sporting Chronicle" has it?
  Mr. STANLEY: I will certainly make every effort to see that all Members start fair. I think that the only other point is that which was raised by the hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan).
  Mr. BATEY: What about trade union wages?
  Mr. STANLEY: Yes. As the hon. Member for Spennymoor knows, the Commissioners are under the general control of the Minister of Labour, and I can assure him that I will keep the closest watch on all these schemes, and it is my desire to see that in no way should trade union conditions be upset.
  Mr. LANSBURY: This is one of the things which the Chairman's Ruling prevented my raising earlier. Are the men who are going to be put to work on schemes of improvement to be paid trade union wages and work trade union hours, or are they to be paid partly by their unemployment pay and just a few shillings in addition? What we want to know is whether all men engaged on work will be engaged under ordinary normal conditions and paid trade union wages and have trade union conditions.
  Mr. STANLEY: It seems to me that I might answer that question by way of two examples. One thing that a Commissioner may do is, for example, to take a slag heap for purposes of converting it
  into a site to be used for a factory. Either he is successful or he is not in passing the site on to some industrial concern. In that kind of case the people employed should be looked on as doing normal work for whatever the normal wage may be. At the other end of the scale might be the desire of the people themselves in the locality, perhaps a village, to make an amenity for themselves—a football ground or whatever it may be. The Commissioner would be perfectly entitled to say: "I will help you by buying the site or giving tools or advancing money, but the method by which you carry out the work is your own affair and not mine." I think the right hon. Member will see that there is a real difference between the two types of work, because in one case it is work and in the other it is assistance.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I will have to argue that to-morrow, because I think there is very great doubt about it.
  Mr. STANLEY: This is very important. As a matter of fact, I did not mean to refer to it to-night, because it is directly raised by an Amendment on the Bill to-morrow. The only other point is that raised by the hon. Member for Mile End. He asked if there was any compulsion under this scheme. The only compulsion is the power for compulsory acquisition of land. There is no other compulsion whatever. I hope that with those explanations the Committee will now be ready to come to a decision.
  Mr. MOLSON: There is one point that has not been dealt with, that of the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), that in drawing this Resolution so tightly the Government have not only prevented private Members from trying to extend or modify the Bill, but also the Minister from having any flexibility.
  Question, as amended, put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 30.

  Division No. 12.]

  AYES.

  [2.46 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir Gaorge E. W.

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

  Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Crossley, A. C.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

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

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Davies, Maj-Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Assheton, Ralph

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Burnett, John George

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Balley, Eric Alfred George

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Belt, Sir Alfred L.

  Christle, James Archibald

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Gledhill, Gilbert

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Spens, William Patrick

  Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Graves, Marjorle

  Munro, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  North, Edward T.

  Strauss, Edward A.

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

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Pearson, William G.

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Penny, Sir George

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

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

  Petherick, M.

  Thompson, Sir Luke

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Pybus, Sir John

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Radford, E. A.

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Tree, Ronald

  Kerr, Lieut. Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Ramebotham, Herwald

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Leckle, J. A.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Leech. Dr. J. W.

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Rickards, George William

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeur

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)

  Loftus, pierce C.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Mabane, William

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Womersley, Sir Walter

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Salmon, Sir Isldore

  McLean. Major Sir Alan

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Commander Southby and Dr.

  Magnay, Thomas

  Slater, John

  Morris-Jones.

  Mannlngham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Soper, Richard

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Maxton, James

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Batey, Joseph

  Janner, Barnett

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Buchanan, George

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Daggar, George

  Leonard, William

  White, Henry Graham

  Davies, Stephen Owen

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Dobble, William

  Lunn, William

  Edwards, Charles

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

  Resolution agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient—
  (1) For the purpose of helping the owners of vessels registered in the United Kingdom to compete with foreign shipping in receipt of subsidies from foreign Governments, to authorise the Board of Trade upon recommendations made by an advisory committee to pay subsidies in respect of tramp voyages or parts of tramp voyages carried out in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding in the aggregate two million pounds for the purpose of paying such subsidies and any expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Board of Trade in connection therewith:
  Provided that—

  (a) such subsidies shall be payable only in respect of voyages, or parts of voyages, carried out by vessels to which this Resolution applies, being vessels
  1788
  registered in the United Kingdom which have been British ships since the first day of January, ninteen hundred and thirty-four or, in the case of vessels completed after that date, since they were completed, and being, in the case of vessels completed after that date, vessels which were built in the United Kingdom;

  (b) no such subsidy shall be payable in respect of any voyage, or part of a voyage, if in the opinion of the said advisory committee the voyage was undertaken without due regard to the necessity for co-operation between the owners of British vessels in furthering the purpose for which such subsidies are authorised by this Resolution;

  (2) To provide—

  (a) for the making, within two years after the passing of any Act for giving effect to this Resolution, to persons qualified under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to own British ships, of advances not exceeding in all ten million pounds out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for the purpose of enabling them to build or modernise vessels in accordance with proposals approved by the Board of Trade, so, however, that no such proposals shall be

  1789
  so approved unless the proposals provide

  (i) for the building or modernisation of vessels to which this Resolution applies (not being vessels constructed or adapted to carry more than twelve passengers) which are, were, or will be, as the case may be, employed in the carriage of commercial cargoes and not employed mainly in voyages between ports within the United Kingdom, Irish Free State, Isle of Man, and Channel Islands, or in maintaining regular services between such ports and ports in the continent of Europe between the River Elbe and Brest inclusive;

  (ii) for the demolition of such vessels as aforesaid in the proper tion of two gross tons to be demolished for every gross ton of the vessels to be built, and of one gross ton to be demolished for every gross ton of the vessels to be modernised:

  (iii) that the vessels to be demolished will not, without the consent of the Board of Trade, be demolished outside the United Kingdom, and that the vessels to be built or modernised will be built or modernised in Great Britain;

  (b) for enabling the Treasury to borrow under Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, for the purpose of providing for such advances;

  (c) for the application to the redemption of debt of sums received by way of interest on or repayment of such advances.

  (3) To provide for the repeal of Section eighteen of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926.
  (4) To provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
  The vessels to which this Resolution applies are all ships which are neither fishing vessels nor constructed or adapted for the carriage
  1790
  of liquid cargoes in bulk nor so constructed or adapted that the space insulated for the carriage of special cargoes is in excess either of fifty thousand cubic feet or of 10 per cent. of the total space available for cargo; and in this Resolution the expression "tramp voyage" means a voyage in the course of which all the cargo carried is carried under charter party, but does not include any voyage during any part of which more than twelve passengers are carried."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Runciman, Mr. Duff Cooper, and Dr. Burgin.

  BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) [MONEY].

    BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) BILL,
    "to make provision for the granting of financial assistance to the owners of ships registered in the United Kingdom in respect of tramp voyages carried out during the year nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and to persons qualified to be owners of British ships in respect of proposals for the improvement of merchant shipping fleets; to provide for the repeal of section eighteen of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Four Minutes before Three o'Clock a.m.