Commons Sitting of 8 February 1934

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Mr. GROVES: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 170,000 persons against the increasing practice of vivisection.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Cardiff Corporation Bill,
To be read a Second time upon Tuseday next.
Church House (Westminster) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

EXCHEQUER GRANTS (SCOTLAND).
Address for
"Return of Exchequer Grants provisionally estimated to be payable to county councils and town councils of large burghs in Scotland under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, for the first and second grant periods, showing particulars of the weighted population as provisionally estimated for the first and second fixed grant periods."—[Mr. Guy.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE BOOKS (PERSONS OVER 65).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, as a result of men being deprived of their insurance cards on reaching the age of 65 years they are compelled to produce birth certificates to prospective employers; and whether he will consider the propriety of permitting these insured persons to retain their cards?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): Employed persons on attaining 65 are not deprived of their
    1276
    Unemployment Insurance books; they get a special form of book, which is necessary for the purpose of the reduced contributions which then become payable. I am not quite sure what the difficulty is which the hon. Member has in mind, but, if he will be good enough to communicate with me, I will go into it.

    SEASONAL WORKERS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims of seasonal workers which have been admitted as fulfilling the statutory conditions in Blackpool in each of the last two years?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Statistics are not available regarding the number of seasonal workers at Blackpool whose claims have been admitted by the Insurance Officer. Of the cases referred by the Insurance Officer to the Blackpool Court of Referees under Regulation 2 of the Anomalies Regulations, 745 were allowed in 1932 and 328 in 1933. These figures may include some cases, for which separate figures are not available, which were allowed on the ground that the applicants were not seasonal workers within the meaning of the Regulation.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of his undertaking to consider any hard cases affecting seasonal workers under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931, he will consider cases affecting particular types of workers in the aggregate, or whether his offer only applies to individual cases?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The Regulations can only deal with types of case and I am prepared to consider either particular types of case or individual cases as illustrating a type of case.

    BENEFIT (ECONOMY CUT).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour the cost of restoring the 10 per cent. cut to the unemployed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The restoration of the reduction in rates of benefit made in October, 1931, would, on the basis of finance assumed for the Unemployment Bill, increase the amount of benefit estimated to be payable by about £5,700,000. This figure does not include transitional payments.

    CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour the cost of raising the weekly payment for children by one shilling?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The cost of raising the allowance in respect of dependent children from 2s. to 3s. per week would, on the basis of finance assumed for the Unemployment Bill, increase the amount of benefit estimated to be payable by about £1,700,000. This figure does not include transitional payments.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Would it not be more convenient to the House and to the country if the right hon. Gentleman gave figures which did include transitional payments so that we might know what would be the real cost involved by such a measure?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question down, and, if I can give him the information, I will.

    BUILDING INDUSTRY (WAGES).
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Labour what percentage the present rates of wages, respectively, of a bricklayer, a builder's labourer, and a painter bear to the rates in 1914; and at what point, should the cost of living increase, will an increase in rates of wages be due under the prevailing agreement between the employers' and the workers' organisations?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have prepared a detailed reply to this question which, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The percentage increase in rates of wages in the building industry since 1914 varies considerably in different areas and complete information on the subject is not available.
    The rates of wages of bricklayers, painters and labourers, as agreed upon between organisations of employers and workpeople in the London area*, at August, 1914, and February, 1934, are shown below:

    August,

    February,

    1914.

    1934.

    Bricklayers

    …

    11½d.

    1s. 7d.

    Painters

    …

    9½d. and 10d. †

    1s. 6d.

    Labourers

    …

    8d.

    1s. 2¼d.

    The normal hours of labour were 50 per week for 35 weeks and 44 for 17 weeks in 1914, and are 44 all the year round at the present time.
    I understand that the terms of the Agreement of the National Joint Council for the Building Industry in England and Wales do not require the Council to give a decision to increase the present standard rates of wages until the average of the cost of living index figures during the period January to December inclusive exceeds 45½.
    * The rates quoted apply at both dates to an area within a radius of 12 miles of Charing Cross. At February, 1934, the rates agreed upon for an area between 12 and 15 miles of Charing Cross are ½d. per hour lower for bricklayers and painters, and ¼d. per hour lower for labourers.
    † These rates were agreed upon between the London Association of Master Decorators and the Trade Union concerned. There was no agreement between the London Master Builders' Association and the Trade Union.

    FOREIGN ARTISTES (ENTRY PERMITS).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Minister of Labour the number of permits for foreign artistes to enter this country for the purpose of taking part in the preparation of films in the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, respectivcely, stating the names of the various firms at whose instance these permits have been issued and the number of artistes applied for by each firm?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of permits issued by my Department in respect of foreign artistes for film production was 53 in 1931, 20 in 1932, and 38 in 1933. In addition, 12 artistes who were admitted without permit during these three years were allowed to take up this work. The figures do not include artistes admitted for theatrical and similar work who were also allowed to take film engagements. In regard to the second part of the question, I do not think it would be right to publish the names of employers to whom permits have been issued.

    SUICIDE, HAMPSTEAD.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSONasked the Minister of Health if he will cause full inquiries to be made into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs. Gwendoline Hickley, of Bolton Road, Hampstead, who committed suicide owing to starvation?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have perused the Press reports on this most distressing case and have already made full inquiries into it. According to the information supplied to me, the facts are that Mr. Hickley was insured against unemployment under the Insurance Industry Special Scheme, which is administered by the Insurance Unemployment Board. He had been in receipt of benefit under that scheme at the rate of 32s. a week up to 6th January last, when his right to benefit was exhausted. His application for transitional payments under the scheme was assessed at 14s. 6d. by the claims officer of the board, subject to a right of appeal to its appeals committee. An appeal was lodged by him on 17th January and is at present before the committee. No application for public assistance has been made by Mr. Hickley.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great criticisms are made of the insurance industry special scheme in regard to the administration of transitional payments, and that considerable uneasiness is being caused throughout the country by this very distressing case?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In reply to my hon. Friend, I should make it clear that the insurance industry special scheme has contracted out of the Act and is not under the administration of any Government Department. The tragedy in this case was that there was no application to the public assistance committee.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: What Minister can I ask for information about this particular scheme, or how can I get information about it?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I should think any question of the sort my hon. Friend has in mind would go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but I should make it clear that, according to my understanding, the Ministry of Labour have no responsibility for the
    1280
    administration of the scheme. Its responsibility is confined under the Act to the appointment of the board.
    Mr. BATEY: As officers of the Ministry of Health complain when a public assistance committee pays too much under the means test, will the right hon. Gentleman not ask the public assistance committee in this case why it reduced this man's benefit to such a low figure?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is under a complete misunderstanding. There was no application to the public assistance committee in this case at all. I have said that the tragedy in the case was that there was no application to the public assistance committee.

    COTTON INDUSTRY (AGREEMENTS).
    Sir H. SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make any statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the introduction of legislation to make agreements, which have been entered into by organisations of employers and employed in the cotton trade or in other industries, obligatory upon all engaged in the industry concerned?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the right hon. Member is aware, joint representations have recently been made to me on this subject by the representatives of the employers' and operatives' organisations in the Manufacturing Section of the cotton industry. No decision has yet been reached by the Government, but I can assure the right hon. Member that the matter is receiving the most careful consideration.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter is one of great urgency in view of the present conditions in Lancashire?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes. I am very much aware of the importance of this matter, and I am keeping in close touch with the question.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to when he will be able to announce a decision on this matter?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am afraid that at the moment I cannot say more than I

    1281
    have said, but I can assure the hon. Member, as I have assured the right hon. Gentleman, that I am very cognisant of the importance of this matter.
    Major PROCTERasked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes at an early date to give legislative effect to the more-looms-per-weaver agreements; and if he will give instructions to the Employment Exchanges that operatives who refuse to accept work in violation of such agreements will not lose their unemployment pay?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: On the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). As to the second part of the question the question whether unemployment benefit is payable in given circumstances can only be decided by the statutory authorities.
    Major PROCTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men and women who refuse to work where these agreements are violated lose their unemployment pay? Is it not possible for him to give instructions that where agreements have been violated—agreements made with his approval—these men and women should not be penalised for keeping their part of the bargain?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am aware of what the hon. and gallant Member has indicated in the first part of his supplementary question, but with regard to the second part I have no power whatever to give instructions to the statutory authorities.

    DEBTS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the committee which he appointed to investigate the law relating to debt in this country is likely to issue its report?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I understand that the committee have not yet completed the taking of evidence, but that they hope to be in a position to report before very long.

    FRANCHISE (LIMITED COMPANIES).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of limited companies and the amount paid by them in taxes and rates, he will consider the introduction of legislation to amend the Representation of the People Act by granting a Parliamentary and local government vote in respect of any hereditament occupied by a limited company?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the 18th December last.

    CRIMINAL TRIALS (PROCEDURE).
    Major JESSONasked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation to give examining justices the power to ask accused persons charged with indictable offences whether they plead guilty or not guilty, and thereby in pleas of guilty obviating the necessity and expense of transporting witnesses to the subsequent trial?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Parliament did not approve of this proposal when it was considered in 1925, and I do not see my way to introduce legislation for this purpose.

    MAGISTRATES' CLERKS.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Home Secretary how many magistrates' clerks there are in England and Wales; and how many of these are in private practice?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There are no official figures, but I understand that there are about 850 justices' clerks, of whom about 50 are whole-time officers, the remainder being free to engage in private practice.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the magistrates' clerk is in private practice most persons appearing before the court are actual or potential clients; and does he consider this in the best interests of justice?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not express an opinion on that, but quite obviously there are different circumstances. In some cases it is full-time employment; in others it is not.

    INFLAMMABLE CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that 35 mm. inflammable cinematograph films about 1½ inches wide are manufactured for professional purposes and sold in toy shops without restriction or warning as to the danger connected with such films; and whether he will take action in this matter?
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the sale by retail shops of inflammable film for use in home-cinema apparatus; is he aware that serious accidents have occurred to children who have had access to such inflammable films in their homes; and will he take steps to prevent the continuance of this?
    Dr. HOWITTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that dangerously inflammable cinematograph film is being sold without restriction in this country and can be purchased even by children; and whether he will take immediate steps to prevent the sale of such dangerous articles?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the film which is being supplied with some of the toy cinema projectors is of standard size and highly inflammable. Three accidents with this type of machine and film have been brought to my notice. In November last representations were made by the Home Office to the traders concerned and they agred to issue with each machine and box of film sold a notice warning purchasers to take suitable precautions in handling the film. Similar action was taken with firms known to be advertising film for sale. I have no power of control over the sale of inflammable film, but I am making inquiry as to what further action can be taken to prevent risk of accident with these toys.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time inquire as to whether the persons who manufacture these inflammable films have carried out their promise to give notice to purchasers of the dangers involved if they use such films?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    DANGEROUS DRUGS.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Home Secretary whether he has appointed any inspectors to supervise the sale of drugs of the barbituric group; and whether he is satisfied that power exists under the existing law to prevent the increasing sale of these dangerous drugs?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Pharmacy and Poisons Acts contain no provision for the appointment of Government Inspectors. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt) on the 1st instant. I have no reason, as at present advised, to suppose that the powers of control of the sale of poisons conferred by the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, will not prove adequate for this purpose.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the alleged increase in the number of addicts, and to the undoubted increase in fatalities due to the use of these drugs?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, all that information has come to me, and I hope that the new regulations under the Act will be effective.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Major MILLSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that offers of help in locating springs and supplies of water throughout the country have been made by the Society of British Dowsers; and whether he proposes to avail himself of any such offer in cases of local shortage of water or to pass on to local authorities the information that such help is freely offered?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the local authorities are primarily responsible for the technical methods adopted in carrying out schemes of water supply, and on the information before me, I do not think it would be useful that I should recommend the employment by them of dowsers.
    Major MILLS: Has my right hon. Friend appreciated, in saying he will not bring this offer to the notice of the local authorities, that the more regular way

    1285
    of finding water by geological survey is expensive and takes a long time, whereas the dowsers—I must plead not guilty to practising that art myself—do find water at shallow depths, where it would be most readily available in the shortage envisaged in the coming months.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The considerations which the hon. Member refers to and the evidence on the subject are within the knowledge of local authorities.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the Minister say what a dowser is?
    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Health how many, and which, rural district councils have reported a serious shortage of water since last May?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The Ministry have since last May received information of serious shortage of water from 44 rural district councils. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LEVY: Do I understand from that reply that of the 519 rural councils in the country only 44 are suffering from a water shortage?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir; I do not think anything of the kind can be implied by what I stated in my reply to the question.
    Following are the details:

    County and Rural District (and Parishes).

    Berks.—Bradfield (Beenham, Bucklebury and Burghfield).

    Buckingham—Amersham (Amersham and Chesham Bois); Wycombe (Bledlow, Hughenden and Princes Risboro').

    Cambridge—Linton (Horseheath and Shudy Camps).

    Chester—Nantwich (Bickerton); Tarvin (Broxton and Burwardsley).

    Derby—Ashbourne.

    Dorset—Wareham and Purbeck.

    Essex—Chelmsford (Stock); Lexden and Winstree (Great Horkesley and Layer Breton); Rochford (Ashingdon).

    Kent—Romney Marsh (Dymchurch).

    Lincoln (Holland)—Boston.

    Lincoln (Kesteven)—South Kesteven.

    Lincoln (Lindsey)—Sibsey; Welton (Faldingworth and Friesthorpe).

    Northumberland—Castle Ward (Stamfordham in the Parish of Heugh, and Stannington).

    Oxford—Chipping Norton (Wootton and other places): Witney (Bampton, Brize Norton and Northleigh).

    Salop—Drayton (Woore).

    Somerset—Bath; Bridgwater.

    Southampton—Alton; Andover (Vernham's Dean); Droxford; Petersfield (Froxfield).

    Suffolk (East)—East Stow.

    1286

    Surrey—Godstone (Copthorne in the Parish of Burstow).

    Sussex (East)—Ticehurst.

    Sussex (West)—Chichester; Midhurst (Harting Village).

    Warwick—Southam (Stockton).

    Wilts—Ramsbury; Warminster (Upton Scudamore).

    Worcester—Evesham (Beckford).

    York (East Riding)—Bridlington; Norton (Duggleby); Riccall.

    York (North Riding)—Helmsley; Thirsk.

    York (West Riding)—Knaresborough; Wharfedale.

    Denbigh—Ruthin (Llanrhaiadr).

    Pembroke—Narberth (Saundersfoot in the Parish of Saint Issells).

    INSULIN.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that insulin was the discovery of a Government official, he will take steps to prevent its manufacture except in Government laboratories?
    Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. and gallant Friend has, I think, been misinformed. Insulin was first prepared at Toronto University in 1922 by Dr. F. G. Banting and others. It is manufactured in this country under licences granted under the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1925, subject to compliance with the regulations made under the Act.
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is any made by the Government?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think not, but in order to give a certain reply I should like notice of the question.
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I hope to raise the matter shortly on a Motion for the Adjournment.

    HOP-PICKERS' ACCOMMODATION, WORCESTERSHIRE AND HEREFORDSHIRE.
    Mr. ALAN TODDasked the Minister of Health (1) if he is now in a position to give the names of the farms in Herefordshire and Worcestershire complained of in a recent report of the Staffordshire county council's education committee dealing with the conditions in the hopfields in Worcestershire and Herefordshire;
    (2) if he can give the names of those members, representing the Staffordshire council's education committee, who recently investigated the conditions in

    1287
    the hopfields in Worcestershire and Herefordshire;
    (3) if he can give an assurance that he will bring pressure to bear on local authorities in Worcestershire and Herefordshire in order that he may be satisfied that conditions in the hopfields are such that hop-pickers may reasonably be able to take their children to the hopfields without injury to their health or morals?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that I have not yet received sufficient information from the Staffordshire County Council to enable the farms complained of to be identified. The answer to the second question is in the negative. With regard to the third question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to his questions on this subject last Thursday. As soon as I have received the information necessary to identify the farms the matter will be taken up.
    Mr. TODD: Why cannot I have an answer to my second question, regarding the names of the deputation?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Because the information is not known to me and has not been supplied to me.
    Mr. TODD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman obtain it for me?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I do not think an inquiry as to the names of particular councillors who have taken part in a particular work on behalf of a local authority would be a proper or appropriate question for the Minister to ask.

    STERILISATION.
    Wing-Commander JAMESasked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations upon research in the Report of the Departmental Committee upon Sterilisation?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am in consultation through the Board of Control with the Medical Research Council and the Registrar-General as to the best course of action.

  EDUCATION.

    COLLEGE TRAINED TEACHERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Educa-
    1288
    tion the number of teachers who left training colleges in July last; and the number to date that have failed to obtain employment as teachers?
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many pupils left the training colleges in July last and how many of them have secured employment?
    Mr. ERNEST EVANSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many men and women teachers, respectively, left the training colleges and university training departments in 1933; and how many of those men and women, respectively, have up to the present failed to obtain employment as teachers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): 2,835 men and 5,769 women left the training colleges and university training departments in July last. Of these, according to the returns received from the colleges and training departments, 2,142 men and 4,747 women were reported, as at 31st December last, as having obtained teaching posts, and 555 men and 895 women had not then secured employment as teachers. In the case of the remaining 138 men and 127 women no information is available, but it can be assumed that some of these have in fact secured employment.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is any effort being made by the Government to provide regular employment for these young people?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes, the matter is under careful consideration.

    NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.
    Sir JOHN HASLAMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if, seeing the saving to local rates effected by non-provided schools, he will consider the advisability of introducing a Measure to give him powers to make proportionate monetary grants towards the cost of erecting and equipping new schools by religious bodies in the new housing areas?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Sir J. HASLAM: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his Noble

    1289
    Friend to the beneficial effect of these non-provided schools on the community, and the hardship on the schools if they are compulsorily closed by a Government Department owing to the moving of population?

  HOUSING.

    MOYNE REPORT.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health if he can now state if it is his intention to propose legislation to implement any of the recommendations of the Moyne Report?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir.

    FINANCIAL PROVISIONS ACT.
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the number of conferences that local authorities in the Greater London region have held with representatives of the building industry for discussion of the new scheme of guarantees under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, in pursuance of the instructions contained in his Circular 1334?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 23rd November last.
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health the number of progress Returns he has received from local authorities in England and Wales in respect of their operations under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, and also the number of houses in respect of which guarantees have been given by local authorities under this Act, up to 31st December, 1933?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave to a similar question from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on 1st February.

    TOWN PLANNING, LONDON.
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the desirability of using his powers under Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to constitute, by order, an executive regional committee for Greater London, in order that an operative master plan for the region may be prepared as soon as possible?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The Greater London Regional Planning Committee has been recently reconstituted. Its functions are primarily advisory; but in certain circumstances executive, in connection with the preparation of planning schemes under powers which may be conferred upon it by any of its constituent authorities. The powers to which the hon. and gallant Member refers can be exercised by me only on request. No request for their exercise has been made. A regional committee with full executive powers could not be successfully established, except in response to a substantially unanimous demand from the local authorities.
    Major NATHAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to seek a request from those who consider the conferring on the regional committee of executive powers unnecessary, and, if unsuccessful, by what means does he contemplate securing an operative master plan for London?
    Sir H. YOUNG: On the administrative scene the possibility of the formation of such committees is always under discussion.

    DEMOLITION ORDERS.
    Mr. BOULTONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, in the case of four small houses in Sheffield valued at £400 for probate and upon which death duties had been paid, the owners have, within 18 months of paying such duty, been ordered to demolish the same property as valueless; and will he consider giving local authorities more definite guidance in connection with demolition orders, with a view to obviating hardships that are being experienced under these orders?
    Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has not previously been called to this case. Demolition orders cannot have been made on the ground that the houses were valueless but because they were in the view of the local authority, and of the County Court if an appeal was made, unfit for human habitation and not capable at reasonable expense of being rendered fit.

    BUILDING COSTS AND RENT.
    Sir F. FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the latest average price of an unsubsidised, three-bedroomed, non-parlour house, respectively, in London, in

    1291
    the provinces, and in rural areas, and the economical rental in each case?
    Sir H. YOUNG: There is no information that would enable me to give any average figure but the total cost of such a house as my hon. Friend describes should not exceed £400 near London or £360 in provincial districts, whether urban or rural. The economic rental, excluding rates, of such houses depends upon the actual cost, including cost of borrowing, but on the basis of a loan at 3½ per cent. for 60 years, should be approximately 8s. 3d. and 7s. 8d. per week respectively.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is not the figure of £360 excessive, seeing that unsubsidised houses are being built in my village for £280; and is not the price very often down to that figure or even lower?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In many cases a house of the sort to which the hon. and gallant Member refers can be constructed at less than the figure given by me. Since I cannot get an average figure—for the reasons I have mentioned—in caution, the only figure I can give is a figure which is the upward limit.
    Mr. LEVY: Does that price include adequate provision of water?

    STATISTICS.
    Miss CAZALETasked the Minister of Health how many houses to be let at a rent of 10s. a week or less have been built by private enterprise and by local authorities, respectively, since the passing of the Housing Act, 1933?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As I do not obtain returns as to rents, I cannot give my hon. Friend precise statistical information, but between the 1st May and 31st December, 1933, local authorities and private enterprise erected 35,561 houses with the aid of subsidy, the great majority of which would fall within the rental limit she mentions. During the half year ended 30th September, 1933, local authorities and private enterprise erected 76,185 small houses without subsidy, of which it is estimated that about 17½ per cent. or 13,300 were let, and about 40 per cent. or 31,000 were houses with a rateable value below £13 (£20 in London).
    Miss CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that at the present time a sufficient number of these lower-
    1292
    rented houses is being built to meet necessary requirements?
    Sir H. YOUNG: At the present time there is no doubt the demand for small houses to let, at the rents under consideration, is being adequately met.
    Mrs. COPELAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will do all he can to encourage private enterprise in industrial areas, so that we can have these low-rental houses which we have not at present got in the area I represent?
    Sir H. YOUNG: It is undoubtedly most important to obtain the best possible results, and efforts are being made for that purpose.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health the numbers of houses at present under construction and approved for building, respectively, under Section 2 (1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Local authorities have submitted to me proposals for giving guarantees under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, in respect of 17,300 houses. I cannot give the actual number now under construction, and as regards the arrangements made by local authorities with builders, I cannot usefully add to the information given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on the 1st February.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health which local authorities have submitted schemes, respectively, for building unsubdised houses and houses subsidised from the rates only under the 1924 and 1925 Housing Acts; in which instances the approval of the Minister has been granted or withheld or is under consideration; and the number and size of houses in each scheme?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The number of local authorities whose proposals for building without subsidy have been approved since May last is 53. I am sending the hon. Member a list of these authorities, with the number and size of the houses included in their proposals. Local authorities do not normally inform me to what extent, if any, they propose to subsidise their houses from the rates. I am afraid it would be impracticable to

    1293
    supply the particulars asked for in respect of proposals of this kind which have been under consideration but have not received approval.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to provide that the wife of an insured person shall be entitled to pension at the same time as her husband, providing she is not less than 55 years of age, and that not less than five years have elapsed since the marriage?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The financial and other difficulties involved in the proposal are such as to render it impracticable in present circumstances.

    CODEX SINAITICUS (PURCHASE).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister how the trustees of the British Museum were enabled to purchase the Codex Sinaiticus in anticipation of the necessary subscriptions from the public?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am glad to have this opportunity to correct and amplify the reply which I gave on the spur of the moment to a supplementary question put to me by my hon. Friend last Thursday. The purchase price of the Codex was paid from the Purchase Fund of the British Museum; and as only £7,000 was at the time available in that fund, the balance of the sum required was temporarily advanced to it by the Treasury out of the Civil Contingencies Fund.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Museum, during the current financial year, only received some £15,000 for purchases by way of grant from the Government; and, if this amount is to be mortgaged for years to come, in order to pay back this £100,000, less subscriptions, etc., does it not mean that the British Museum will have no funds for some time to come, to pay for other purchases?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is on the assumption that the balance required has not been raised. The British Museum trustees are fully confident that it will be raised.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Seeing that there is no Parliamentary sanction for the expenditure which the Government contemplate, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the matter ought to be brought before the House of Commons before July next which is, we are informed, the date when the Supplementary Estimate will be presented?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My advice from the Treasury is that everything which has been done has been perfectly in order.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prevailing feeling is that the Government would have been far better employed in restoring the cuts, than in making this purchase?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I want to make it perfectly clear that, so far as I can ascertain, the feeling is that the Government would have been very shortsighted, if they had not given facilities for the acquisition by this country of such a possession as this.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the case that private subscribers are not showing that enthusiasm for this acquisition which was anticipated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My report to-day is that the experience of the collection of this subscription is more hopeful of final success than any previous attempt made by the British Museum to appeal to the general public to support a subscription of this kind.
    Sir W. DAVISON: What arrangements have been made to make it clear that the £100,000 to be spent by the Russian Government in this country is in addition to sums which they normally spend here?

    RATING (COTTON MILLS).
    Major PROCTERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain Lancashire municipalities are considering the advisability of removing idle cotton mills from the benefits of the De-rating Act on the ground that such empty mills are warehouses for the machinery contained therein; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have not received any representations on the subject to

    1295
    which my hon. Friend refers. The assessment of hereditaments for rating purposes is a matter for the local Rating and Assessment Authorities in the first instance, with the right of appeal to the Courts by any person aggrieved at their decision. I have no jurisdiction in the matter.
    Major PROCTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that until the Government take their tardy but inevitable action against the Japanese competition which has closed up these mills, he will make some representations or give some sort of advice to the municipalities, that on no account is machinery to be removed from these mills, simply because they are going to have to pay rates?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I shall certainly give full consideration to the hon. Member's question.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: With samples in front of us of the kind I have here, is there any need to worry as to what is going to happen? Does not this show what the Japanese are doing? The cotton mills of Lancashire will be closed down all right unless something is done.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    COUNTY CRICKET CLUBS (TAXATION).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid in the last financial year in Entertainments Duty and Income Tax, respectively, by the various county cricket clubs?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the information for which he asks.
    Mr. MAXTON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us why?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Because the information is not in my possession under these headings.
    Mr. MAXTON: As this matter is of some considerable importance, is it impossible for the hon. Gentleman's Department to inform the House as to where the Entertainments Duty is borne according to the different categories of entertainment?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, it is impossible, because some of the tax is levied by stamps. I think I have already explained to the House the difficulty that there is.
    Mr. EVERARD: Would it not be possible for my hon. Friend to say how the Income Tax is paid by these clubs?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am afraid that I cannot, although I am as anxious as I can be to help my hon. Friend.

    EXCHANGE EQUALISATION FUND.
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can make any statement with regard to the position of the Exchange Equalisation Fund?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not clear what kind of statement my hon. Friend has in mind. If he has in mind the financial position of the fund, it has been explained in debate on several occasions that my right hon. Friend cannot undertake to publish such information for reasons of public interest. If he has in mind the purpose of the Exchange Equalisation Fund, it is, as has been frequently stated, to correct temporary fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling and not to create an artificial value for sterling.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Can my hon. Friend say whether there still remains a profit on the fund, as there is considerable anxiety about it?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No. I have indicated that it would not be in the public interest to make any statement about this matter.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Is it correct for me to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated on at least one occasion that there was a profit on the fund, and, therefore, cannot the same statement or the reverse be made now?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. Friend has in mind the occasion when my right hon. Friend asked the House to increase the appropriation for this purpose. He did then say that there was no loss on the fund.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does that remain true? Can the hon. Gentleman go the length of assuring us that the fund is still there?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, the fund is still there.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the net trading loss of the Manchester Hippodrome and Ardwick Empire, Limited, for the last financial year amounted to £4,224 16s. 9d., while the Entertainments Duty paid by them was £16,581 12s. 3d.; and whether steps will be taken to review the incidence of the Entertainments Duty in connection with the forthcoming Budget in view of the fact that it is collected at present whether the place of entertainment makes a profit or a loss?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have noted the information given by my hon. Friend in the first part of the question. As to the latter part, my right hon. Friend cannot be expected to anticipate his Budget statement.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, with a view to some relief being given, the serious loss and consequent unemployment now being caused in the theatrical industry?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind all that my hon. Friend has said.

    INCOME TAX.
    Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reduction on the fixed debt charge between 1920 and the present financial year; what is the rate of Income Tax in the £ which this saving represents; and what is the actual reduction in Income Tax in the £ since 1920?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total amount charged against revenue on account of National Debt services, excluding Sinking Fund, in the financial year 1920 exceeded the fixed debt charge provision in 1933 by £104,331,756. My hon. and gallant Friend will find particulars of the net produce per penny of Income Tax in past years in the annual reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue published from time to time. In 1920 the standard rate of Income Tax was 6s. in the £, with Super-tax rising to a maximum of 6s. The present standard rate of Income Tax is 5s., with Surtax rising to a maximum of 8s. 3d. in addition.
    Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: Arising out of the first part of the answer, is not the saving of £104,000,000 largely made at the expense of the Income Taxpaying class?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would rather my hon. and gallant Friend drew his own deductions.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MARKET SUPPLY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture what remuneration, if any, is being paid to the members of the Market Supply Committee?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): No remuneration is at present being paid to the members of the Market Supply Committee.

    ARGENTINE MEAT (IMPORTS).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will considerably reduce the quota of meat allocated to the Argentine in order to help the British farmer?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Provision for substantial and progressive reductions in imports of frozen meat from foreign countries, including the Argentine, during the period January, 1933, to June, 1934, is made in the Ottawa Agreements, and for the maintenance of the rate of reduction then attained for the remainder of the five-year period covered by the Agreements. In the case of chilled beef from foreign countries, the quantities agreed at Ottawa have been subject to emergency reductions in each quarter since the end of 1932, amounting on the average to about 10 per cent. over the 12 months. The conditions of the meat market are being kept under constant review and the Government will continue, as hitherto, to take such steps as they consider desirable and practicable to meet the needs of the situation.
    Mr. PERKINS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price that the farmer is now receiving is appreciably lower than it was two years ago, before the Government took office, and is he entirely satisfied with this?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I would not say that I am entirely satisfied or indeed satisfied at all with the present situation, but we must take such steps as we consider desirable and practical to meet it.
    Mr. PERKINS: But when does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take these steps?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have taken a good many fairly drastic steps already.

    MARKET-GARDENING.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Agriculture what further steps he is taking to foster the development of our market-gardening trade for the supply of vegetables and fruit to large towns to replace those at present coming from without the Empire?
    Mr. ELLIOT: There is no doubt that growers of fruit and vegetables in this country realise and are taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by the reduction of imports, consequent on the imposition of tariffs on horticultural produce. The Ministry is giving all the assistance in its power by such means as the promotion of research, the provision of technical advice, and the institution of schemes for grading and marking under the National Mark. I shall, of course, be happy to consider any specific suggestion of my hon. Friend as to means by which I can help further.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Is my right hon. Friend making any arrangements to grant loans to help market-gardening in other ways than the research of which he has spoken?
    Mr. ELLIOT: There are certain provisions for the granting of credit facilities, but in my experience, if the enterprises are likely to be remunerative, there is no great difficulty in getting credit facilities by the usual means.
    Mr. MARTIN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had at least one scheme put up to him? Does he not think he is missing an opportunity of dealing with unemployment in certain areas in a drastic way, and will he consider other schemes?

    SUGAR INDUSTRY
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to make a statement with regard to the future of the sugar industry, having regard to the announcement in the House of Commons on the 27th July last?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The present position is as follows: A draft scheme for regulating the marketing of sugar in Great Britain under the Agricultural Marketing Acts has now been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself on behalf of the General Committee of the United Kingdom Sugar Industry, and I understand that beet growers have in course of preparation a scheme for the marketing of sugar beet. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) on 1st February, the legislation referred to in my answer of 27th July last will, I hope, be introduced at an early date. An announcement regarding the appointment of the proposed committee of inquiry will, I hope, be made fairly soon.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May we expect to have the Bill before Easter?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I can give no assurance as to time.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of posts established as the result of the Agricultural Marketing Acts; and the number of these posts carrying a salary of £500 a year or more?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The addition which has been made to the Ministry's staff for the purpose of carrying out duties under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931–1933, including work in connection with committees set up in accordance with the provisions of these Acts, is approximately 65, including clerks, typists and messengers. Of these posts 13 carry an inclusive salary (i.e., inclusive of bonus) of £500 or more.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to the number of posts not in the Ministry set up under these Acts?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Oh no, Sir.

    CHEMICAL DEFENCE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the total number of the staff of the chemical warfare department for the following years, 1925, 1930, and 1933?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The total number of staff on the approved establishment of the Chemical Defence Research Department on 1st April, 1925, 1930 and 1933 was 480, 553 and 502 respectively.

  AVIATION.

    IMPERIAL AIR SERVICES (ITALIAN TERRITORY).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the visit to Rome of the Secretary of State for Air and certain officials of Imperial Airways?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to similar questions by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), yesterday.

    ACCIDENTS (PYLONS AND CABLES).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of people killed or injured in British machines as a result of collisions with wireless masts, high-tension cables, or other high obstacles?
    Captain A. HUDSON: During the last five years there have been two such accidents to civil aircraft flying in this country, these involving injuries to two persons in all.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IRON ORE (IMPORTS).
    Captain CRAWFORD BROWNEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the quantity of iron ore imported into this country in 1933 from the Dominions and Colonies for the purpose of manufacture into pig-iron;
    (2) the quantity of iron ore imported into this country from abroad suitable for the manufacture of pig-iron in the year 1933; and how much iron ore of British or home production was used for the same purpose in that period?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The total imports of iron ore into the
    1302
    United Kingdom during 1933 amounted to 2,706,668 tons, of which 41,968 tons were consigned from British countries. I am unable to state how much British or home produced ore was used solely in the manufacture of pig-iron.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many iron workers in England who are working on short time and who could easily produce far more iron ore so that the amount imported could be reduced?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of the facts, but the hon. Member's deduction does not necessarily follow.

    FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS, QUOTAS).
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a White Paper regarding the recent and present negotiations with the French Government on the question of tariffs and restrictions?
    Dr. BURGIN: Statements regarding the course of these discussions have been made and will be made in future as may be necessary. My right hon. Friend does not think that the issue of a White Paper is called for, at any rate at the present stage.

    FOOD IMPORTS.
    Dr. HOWITTasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of food supplies imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries and from British countries, respectively, during the year 1933; and what was the percentage of each and of United Kingdom production in relation to the consumption in this country?
    Dr. BURGIN: The value of the retained imports of food and drink, including living animals for food and feeding-stuffs for animals, amounted, in 1933, to £317,400,000, but the proportions consigned from British and from foreign countries cannot yet be stated. Particulars of the extent to which home produce and imports from British and foreign countries contribute to our total food supplies are not available in respect of any recent year, but for the period 1924–25–1927–28 it was estimated that home production represented 39·3 per cent., net imports from British countries 21·6 per cent., and net imports from foreign countries 39·1 per cent. of the total.

    TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. STOURTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the foreign Powers with whom trade agreements are at present being negotiated?
    Dr. BURGIN: Negotiations are at present proceeding with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Soviet Union.
    Mr. STOURTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say which of these agreements will be ready for signature within a month?
    Dr. BURGIN: It is very difficult when you are negotiating to set yourself to a time. I would prefer to tell the House that no time is lost in concluding any agreement which is thought to be advantageous.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is there any prospect of opening up arrangements with any other first-class Powers?
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, there are several prospects of opening up arrangements. The original question was as to the countries with which agreements were being negotiated. That is a later stage to opening up negotiations.

    COTTON TRADE (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance he proposes to give to the cotton trade conference with Japan to help in the presentation of our case for the recovery of trade?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I am not aware what assistance my hon. Friend has in mind, but the Colonial Office keeps in close touch with the Board of Trade on all these matters and will be happy to furnish any available information and to consider any suggestion which may be put before it on behalf of the cotton industry.
    Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask whether joint action with any other country has been taken in this matter?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am afraid I should require to have notice of that question.
    Captain FULLER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this Conference has yet started?

  SCOTLAND.

    POSTAL SERVICES, GATESIDE, FIFE.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that much dissatisfaction still exists in regard to the postal services in Gateside, Fife; and if, in view of the demand of local residents for a better service, he will cause further inquiries to be made?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The postal services in Gateside appear to be giving satisfaction generally, but an increase in the amount of correspondence has caused some slight delay in the postal delivery in a portion of the district. Adjustments have now been carried out which will, I hope, remove the difficulty.
    Mr. STEWART: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that much the same answer was given to me in July of last year and again in August, and that the dissatisfaction felt then persists to-day in a still greater degree; and in these circumstances will he not accede to my request for a special inquiry?
    Sir E. BENNETT: The statement of the hon. Member does not agree with the information I have received from other sources to the effect that dissatisfaction has practically disappeared as a result of recent improvements in the local postal services.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me in those circumstances to submit to him the names of people who are still dissatisfied?
    Sir E. BENNETT: If the hon. Gentleman will send me any more information I will be glad to go into it.

    REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH (STAFF REORGANISATION).
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether steps have now been taken to carry out the staff reorganisation in the Register House, Edinburgh, and to recruit the additional staff necessary to cope with the arrears of work?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am glad to say that a scheme of revision of the staff of the Register House, Edinburgh, has been agreed with the representatives of the staff and has been put into operation. Fifteen recruits to the second class of clerks have been entered as from the 1st January to fill vacancies and to provide additional assistance in the Record Office, and I am satisfied that with this increase of staff the arrears of work in the Sasines Office will be gradually overtaken and progress made in the task of renovating and classifying the older records in the basement of the Record Office.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING (GEAR FORFEITURE).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that on 2nd December, 1932, a conviction was recorded at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for illegal trawling, and that the Sheriff Substitute, having ordered the gear not to be confiscated, was subsequently advised by the officers of the Scottish Fishery Board that under the fishery laws of Scotland he was compelled to confiscate the gear, and ordered its confiscation; that on 27th December, 1933, three convictions were recorded at Banff Sheriff Court for illegal fishing with seine net within the three-mile limit and showing no fishing signals, and that the Sheriff Substitute ordered the gear not to be confiscated; and whether the Fishery Board proposes to take uniform action in such cases?
    Mr. SKELTON: The convictions referred to in the two parts of the question were under different Acts. On conviction for illegal trawling forfeiture of gear is automatic. On conviction for illegal fishing with seine net, forfeiture of gear is in the discretion of the Sheriff. I may add that no advice was tendered to the Sheriff by officers of the Fishery Board for Scotland, but that his attention was drawn to the terms of the Statute by the Procurator Fiscal who prosecuted. There is, therefore, no question of disconformity of action by the Fishery Board.
    Mr. BURNETT: May I ask whether it is not the case that in the Act of 1895 the wording of Section 9 and Section 10 is identical in the ease of the seine net fishers and the trawlers—the net may be seized and destroyed?
    Mr. SKELTON: That question will have to be put down.

    HOUSING, DUNDEE.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, in May, 1933, his Department received an application from the Dundee Town Council for permission to erect a larger proportion of two-roomed houses than 25 per cent., and the application was refused; that since then the application has been renewed by the town council; and whether there is now any change in the circumstances that would justify a reversal of the decision previously given?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the renewed application which the corporation have submitted is at present under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any announcement on the matter.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Have the Department received resolutions of protest from representative organisations in Dundee against the town council's renewed application?
    Mr. SKELTON: I believe that is the case, but before giving a definite answer I shall have to inquire.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Will there be an inquiry into the matter by the hon. Gentleman's Department before a decision is made?
    Mr. SKELTON: Very full consideration will be given to it and all the relevant circumstances will be taken into account.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Will my hon. Friend call the attention of the Dundee local authority to the building of smaller three-roomed houses which could be let at a rental very little in excess of two-roomed houses?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have already done something in that regard and will do more if possible.

    ABERDEEN MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that he does not intend to bring the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, before this House for approval, in view of the increased charges

    1307
    which it will entail for the supply of milk to hospitals and similar institutions?
    Mr. SKELTON: I cannot give the assurance asked for. My hon. Friend is mistaken in stating that the scheme entails increased charges for the supply of milk to hospitals and similar institutions. The scheme, in fact, provides that the Board may fix the price of milk for charitable purposes and to public institutions at a lower level than the ordinary standard price.
    Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that the present contract price is 1s. 2d. and the price under the scheme is 1s. 6½d., possibly?
    Mr. SKELTON: The scheme is not yet in full operation, and I do not think the final decision of the Board can be anticipated, but the facts are as I have stated.
    Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that all classes of retailers are compelled to sell at the same price, and are not allowed to give a discount or "divi"?
    Mr. SKELTON: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    OIL EXTRACTION (RIVER POLLUTION).
    Major HILLSasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the highly polluting character of the effluents derived from the processes intended to be subsidised by the Hydro-carbon Oils Production Bill, and having regard to the damage caused to rivers and streams by a similarly subsidised industry, he intends to propose any and what safeguards for ensuring adequate treatment of such effluents; and whether subsidies will be withheld where such treatment is absent?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Processes for the production of motor spirit from coal, etc., have been in operation in many parts of this country in a very large number of works for many years. No new problem has therefore been created by the Government's proposals for a guaranteed preference. The question of river pollution is not one which comes within the jurisdiction of my Department, but I understand that legislation on the subject already exists and has been effectively used in
    1308
    the past. As no grants are payable under the Bill no question of withholding payment arises.

    MINING ASSOCIATION (CORRESPONDENCE AND NEGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Secretary for Mines what negotiations or correspondence have taken place between his Department and the Mining Association of Great Britain during the past two years; and the subjects on which the correspondence or negotiations took place?
    Mr. E. BROWN: My Department is frequently in communication with the Mining Association as also with the Miners' Federation, either officially or informally, on all important subjects relating to the mining industry, but the number of communications which pass is so great that I do not think the work involved in presenting to the House a complete list of them would be justified by its value to Members. If the hon. Member has any particular matter in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. GRAHAM: If there have been so many communications and negotiations during the last three years, it seems rather peculiar, does it not, that we cannot be given the dates at which these negotiations took place and the dates at which correspondence passed?
    Mr. BROWN: I have not said that I am unable to give them. I am saying that the number is so great that the work involved in presenting them to the House would not be justified by their value to hon. Members.

    BRITISH COLONIES (UNITED STATES CURRENCY).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the devaluation by the United States of its gold dollar, what steps he proposes to take to protect the currency of British Honduras, British Guiana, and other British Colonies in which the United States gold dollar is at present legal tender?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: United States gold coins are legal tender in the West Indian Colonies, British Guiana and

    1309
    British Honduras, but they have not been in effective circulation for many years except in the remoter parts of British Guiana. The value of such coins in present circumstances depends on their bullion content and has not therefore been affected by the recent monetary action in the United States. My hon. and gallant Friend will, however, be interested to know that it is proposed shortly to take a convenient opportunity of demonetising United States coins in the West Indian Colonies generally. British Honduras currency is in a special position in relation to the currency of the United States and the situation there has been watched carefully. In the rest of the Colonies referred to the currency is in no way linked to the United States paper currency, and accordingly no special action is required to safeguard their currency interests.

    FOREIGN NAVIES (PROPELLING MACHINERY).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any developments in high-pressure and super-heat but reduced-weight machinery are taking place in the propelling machinery of any foreign navy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Developments on these lines are proceeding in most foreign navies, but nothing of outstanding importance has so far come to notice.
    Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask whether we still retain our pre-eminence in this respect?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Well, Sir, we have a destroyer which is utilising boilers at 500 lbs. pressure and 750 degrees Fahrenheit and a smaller fuel consumption has been obtained at full power than has yet been achieved in any warship.

    CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY (FINANCIAL FACILITIES).
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to ask a question of which I have given private notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the House will regret to see that the Chancellor is not in his place, which is owing to illness;
    1310
    we hope that it will be of only a very temporary character. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any further statement regarding the negotiations for a merger of the North Atlantic fleets of the Cunard and White Star Lines; and whether the proposals of the Government for affording financial facilities for the completion of the suspended Cunard liner will shortly be laid before the House?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will convey to my right hon. Friend the kind expressions of the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend is indisposed to-day with lumbago. The answer to the question is: Yes, Sir, a formal agreement, conditional upon the necessary consents and the passing of legislation by Parliament, has now been entered into between the Cunard Steamship Company, the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company and the Treasury to give effect to the arrangements referred to in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) on 13th December last. My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce the necessary legislation shortly; and in the meantime, in order that the House may be aware of the nature of the proposals, I have arranged that the agreement shall be published this afternoon in the form of a Command Paper.
    Mr KIRKWOOD: Would it not be possible for some provisional financial arrangement to be made with these companies, so that they need not further delay the resumption of work, but start once more, during these winter months; for this is a matter affecting from 9,000 to 10,000 men all over the country, who are continuing their weary wait, and who must be rapidly losing all hope?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have indicated to the hon. Member that we are still awaiting certain consents, and I do not think that there will be any undue delay. In any event, I am glad to be able to count upon the assistance of the hon. Member and his friends in getting the legislation through as rapidly as possible.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of whether it is the intention to lay down a second Cunarder?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Power is taken in the legislation and in the agreements to give assistance in the laying down of a sister ship or ships, but no commitments in that regard are undertaken.
    SIR N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I suggest that the sister ship should be given to the Tyne, where the "Mauretania" was built?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week and also how far he proposes to ask the House to go to-night, in the event of the Motion being carried?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer the second question first. It is proposed to take, according to the announcement of last Thursday, the first and second items on the Order Paper to-day, namely, the British Hydrocarbon Oils Production Bill, and the Mining Industry (Welfare
Fund) Bill, and also the Money Resolution on Rural Water Supplies.
Regarding the business for next week:
Monday and Tuesday: Unemployment Bill, Committee, Fifth and Sixth allotted days.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Consideration of Motions to approve the Cattle (Import Regulation) Order, 1933, Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1934, Additional Import Duties (No. 23) Order, 1933, and the Amendments to the Hops Marketing Scheme, 1932.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
Motion made, and Question put,
"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.]
The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 40.

Division No. 91.]

AYES.

[3.57 p.m.

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

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

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Albery, Irving James

Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Clarry, Reginald George

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Clayton, Sir Christopher

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

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gledhill, Gilbert

Apsley, Lord

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Conant, R. J. E.

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Balniel, Lord

Cooke, Douglas

Goff, Sir Park

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cooper, A. Duff

Gower, Sir Robert

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Copeland, Ida

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

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Granville, Edgar

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Craven-Ellis, William

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Bernays, Robert

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

Grigg, Sir Edward

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Cross, R. H.

Grimston, R. V.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Crossley, A. C.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Blindell, James

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Boothby, Robert John Graham

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Bossom, A. C.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Boulton, W. W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Denville, Alfred

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hanbury, Cecil

Brass, Captain Sir William

Dickie, John P.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Doran, Edward

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Harbord, Arthur

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

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

Hartland, George A.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Dunglass, Lord

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

Browne, Captain A. C.

Edge, Sir William

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Buchan, John

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile

Elmley, Viscount

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Burnett, John George

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Hornby, Frank

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Horobin, Ian M.

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Carver, Major William H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fermoy, Lord

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Fox, Sir Gifford

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Jamieson, Douglas

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

North, Edward T.

Soper, Richard

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Nunn, William

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Peake, Captain Osbert

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Ker, J. Campbell

Pearson, William G.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Peat, Charles U.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Knight, Holford

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Petherick, M.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

Stevenson, James

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

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

Leckie, J. A.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Stones, James

Lees-Jones, John

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Storey, Samuel

Levy, Thomas

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Lewis, Oswald

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Strauss, Edward A.

Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)

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

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Llewellin, Major John J.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Rankin, Robert

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

Summersby, Charles H.

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Mabane, William

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Tate, Mavis Constance

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

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

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

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Thorp, Linton Theodore

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

McKie, John Hamilton

Ross, Ronald D.

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Tree, Ronald

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Runge, Norah Cecil

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Maitland, Adam

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

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

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

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

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Martin, Thomas B.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Wayland, Sir William A.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Weymouth, Viscount

Milne, Charles

Savery, Samuel Servington

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Selley, Harry R.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Womersley, Walter James

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

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.

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

Moss, Captain H. J.

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

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Somerset, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Somervell, Sir Donald

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Attlee, Clement Richard

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Owen, Major Goronwy

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

Grundy, Thomas W.

Paling, Wilfred

Cape, Thomas

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parkinson, John Allen

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

Price, Gabriel

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Harris, Sir Percy

Rea, Walter Russell

Curry, A. C.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Dobble, William

Lunn, William

White, Henry Graham

Edwards, Charles

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Mainwaring, William Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I wish to raise an urgent matter of Privilege affecting the dignity of this House. I desire to draw attention, in particular, to the fact that, contrary to the custom of Parliament and the dignity of this House, an Address has been presented to His Majesty from another place asking for
1314
His Majesty's assent to new legislation affecting the Constitution of Parliament and the relationships of the two Houses. I should like to ask whether I should be in Order in moving that a special Committee of Privileges be set up immediately to inquire into this matter, and to ask that this Motion be treated as urgent, action having already been taken on the Motion passed in another place.
Mr. SPEAKER: The question I have to decide is whether the question of Privilege really arises. The hon. Member only gave me notice of his intention to raise this question just before the House assembled. It has, therefore, been quite impossible for me in the time to decide where a prima facie case of Privilege exists. At first sight the answer would appear to me to be in the negative. I will give the hon. Member a considered reply on Monday.
Sir A. BAILLIE: I apologise for only having brought this matter to your attention at such short notice, but it is laid down in Sir Thomas Erskine May, page 264, that
"a Privilege matter may also be brought forward without notice, before the commencement of public business, and is considered immediately, on the assumption that the matter is brought forward without delay, and that its immediate consideration is essential to the dignity of the House."
As regards the question of Privilege, the only occasion on which I can find that this matter was raised was as far back as the reign of Charles II in 1666—on 24th January, 1666—and it was then admitted that, although the other place asserted their liberty to petition His Majesty separately on anything warranted by law, they agreed they must not do so on anything which was introductive of a new law. On another date in January of that year, the Commons laid down grounds for objecting to the separate petitions being presented to His Majesty from another place. I will not weary the House with all of these reasons, but there is one specific one—
Mr. SPEAKER: It is unnecessary for the hon. Member to give precedents. I make no complaint that he did not raise this question before. I said that he had not done so, so as to justify me in not being able to give him a considered reply. I can assure him that my not doing so will not in any way prejudice him in having fulfilled the conditions by raising the question of Privilege at the earliest possible moment. The very questions which he is now raising and submitting to the House are those to which I will have to give consideration between now and Monday, when I will give him a reply as to whether a prima facie case of Privilege exists.
Sir A. BAILLIE: I thank you very much, Sir, for your reply. Might I ask on what occasion it will be in order for me to raise this question again?
Mr. SPEAKER: After Questions on Monday.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL,
"to make permanent certain temporary enactments relating to the relief of the poor in Scotland and to make further provision with regard to such relief," presented by Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Licensing (Standardisation of Hours) Bill): Miss Pickford: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hamer Russell.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Major Astor, Mr. Batey, Major Braithwaite, Colonel Burton, Mr. Chorlton, Mr. Colman, Mr. Elliston, Viscount. Elmley, Lord Fermoy, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Greene, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Harbord, Major Harvey, Sir John Haslam, Captain Arthur Hope, Mr. Hornby, Mr. Janner, Major Jesson, Sir Joseph Lamb, Sir Alfred Law, Captain Loder, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Macmillan, Brigadier-General Makins, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Murray-Philipson, Mr. Peat, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Potter, Mr. Purbrick, Miss Rathbone, Mr. Reed, Colonel Ropner, Mrs. Runge, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Tom Smith, Miss Ward, Sir William Wayland, and Sir Arnold Wilson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BRITISH HYDROCARBON OILS PRODUCTION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.7 p.m.
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill arises from an announcement made by the Prime Minister on 17th July last that the Government had decided to give a preference of not less than 4d. per gallon on oil derived from certain indigenous products, coal, peat, shale and the derivatives thereof. On 25th July we had a Debate on the Mines Department Estimates which was practically a Second Reading of this Bill. I think, therefore, that I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I take the general principles there debated for granted, and content myself to-day, first of all, with informing the House what has happened since the announcement was made, analysing the Bill and giving the House such information as I have as to how the suggestions then made are working out in practice.
  As points arise in the subsequent Debate, by the leave of the House and your leave, Sir, I will take the opportunity to reply to such points in addition to those put in the Debate of 25th July. This Bill, as the House knows, arises from the Prime Minister's announcement, and I think I may say that its purpose seemed to be generally approved. By that, I mean to say that hydrogenation and low temperature carbonisation of coal in order to obtain oil has in past years been the staff of all political parties. They have all desired something to be done in the matter, and, as I said in the Debate on 25th July, it seemed to me that the objections were not so much to the purpose of the announced policy, as, first of all, to the method adopted, and, secondly, some Members expressed some dubiety about the finance that might or might not be involved thereon.
  It is not very often that, following a Government announcement of policy, the Minister responsible for that policy is
  1334
  able to report quick results, but in the present case this Bill, which is designed to give legislative effect to the decision of the Government, has already brought certain striking results. Immediately following the Government announcement, Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. issued an official statement that they proposed to proceed at once with the steps which were necessary for the erection of a plant at Billingham. This plant was designed to produce 100,000 tons, or 30,000,000 gallons, of motor spirit by the hydrogenation of coal. Secondly, provisional figures have just become available which indicate a fairly substantial increase in the quantity of benzol obtained last year from gas works and coke ovens. Thirdly, there was some increase in the quantity of motor spirit obtained from shale oil, and the same is true of low temperature carbonisation processes. The Chairman of Low Temperature Carbonisation, Ltd. has recently announced that it is the intention of his company to erect two further plants, and this decision is partly due to the increased demand for oil products obtained in that process. These developments, I think, will be viewed by the House with satisfaction.
  Now may I analyse the Bill which is before us this afternoon. It is a Bill which is, of course, in its three Clauses complicated in form, although it is simple in essence. Clause 1 provides for a preerence for home produced light oils, that is for light hydrocarbon oils manufactured in the United Kingdom from coal, shale, or peat indigenous to the United Kingdom, or from products produced from those substances, and the preference will not be less than 4d. per gallon. Clause 1 (2) defines "preference" and hon. Members will find a double definition. First "preference" is defined as the amount of the Customs duty payable on light hydrocarbon oils if no Excise duty is payable; and, secondly, as the difference between such Customs duty and any Excise duty, if an Excise duty is payable. By adopting the definition of "light hydrocarbon oils" prescribed by Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1928, the preference is limited to what is popularly known as motor spirit. Clause 2 provides for information. It gives the Board of Trade power to collect information relating to the quantities of light oils produced, and

  1335
  the types and quantities of the materials used. This will enable the Mines Department to secure information which will enable it to follow the degree of development of all processes to which the guarantee applies. The second Sub-section of Clause 2 is the usual provision to safeguard the disclosure of information relating to individual undertakings.
  Clause 3 is the short Title and the duration. Here I have to trouble the House with an explanation of a formula. The formula is the relation of a rate to a date. It covers the period during which the preference will continue. As the House will remember, the Prime Minister announced that it would be for a period of 10 years from 1st April, 1934, but if the preference in any period after 1st April, 1935, exceeded 4d. a gallon, the period of 10 years would be reduced by the equivalent of the excess. The Clause, therefore, provides that the preference will continue until 31st March, 1944, with a proviso which deals with the reduction of the period if the preference exceeds 4d. a gallon. The period is to be reduced by adjustment if that excess preference occurs in respect of the half-year beginning 1st April, 1935, and each subsequent half year.
  On the basis of 4d. a gallon, the total preference during the period 1st April, 1935, to 31st March, 1944, is 36 "pence-years." I remember my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) complaining to the House once that the Ministry of Labour produced a Bill concerned with "man-years," and said he did not like these hybrids, and I agreed with him. I remember that he pointed out that a man might be in a boat which was very leaky, and he might be baling out so many pints an hour, but that, although he might achieve a most impressive total of pint-hours, yet the boat might sink. I am, therefore, sorry to trouble the House with a formula based on a hybrid, but, as the formula is concerned with the relation of a rate to a date, I do not see how it could be avoided. Perhaps I might put it in this way. It means nine years at the rate of 4d., and the proviso sets out the method of assessing the preference every half-year, in order that it may be terminated when it has amounted to a total of 36 pence-years. In working out
  1336
  the details of the proposal it was considered desirable for practical reasons to review the position each half-year, and the Bill provides, in the last proviso to Clause 3, for the full amount of the preference announced.
  Turning to the formula, it sounds complicated but is really simple. A formula is a kind of jargon; it is a method of language used by experts to make simple things sound mysterious. In this case it sounds complicated because it is elastic. The points that I want to put before the House are these: First of all, the Government is always in control of the formula. The preference may be 8d. for 4½ years, or 4d. for nine years from the 1st April, 1935, or for 10 years from the 1st April, 1934, or for some intermediate period, as the circumstances demand. If the Customs duty is lowered, or an Excise duty is levied, or both are operative, then the period will be shorter or longer according to the amount of the preference, whether that be 8d., or 6d., or 4d., in terms of the total pence-years; but in the end, whatever the particular rate of duty, Customs or Excise, may be in any particular half-year, the full preference of 36 pence-years must in the end work out.
  Perhaps I may give the House one or two illustrations. The Treasury will calculate, to three places of decimals—I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) that the Treasury are looking after the national interests in this matter—as soon as possible after the 30th September, 1935, and at the end of each succeeding half-year, the amount of the preference during the half-year then ended; and if the amount of the preference exceeds 4d. per gallon, the period of the preference will be reduced by 46 days, that is to say, one-quarter of a half-year, for each 1d. of excess and at the same rate for any fraction of 1d. excess. Hon. Members who do the multiplication will find that on that basis the year works out at 368 days, but they will also find that if they try any other figure they will not get as near to 365 as 368 is. The relation will be that for each extra 1d. of preference in each half-year the period will be reduced by 46 days. When the figure has been worked out, the reduction of the period will be made formally by Order.

  1337
  Let me give one or two examples. If the import duty of 8d. per gallon remains in force during the half-year from the 1st April to the 30th September, 1935, and no Excise duty is imposed, the preference will be 8d. per gallon, that is to say, an excess of 4d. over the guarantee. The Treasury will thereupon by Order announce that the period will be reduced by four times 46, that is to say, 184 days, and will accordingly expire on the 29th September, 1943. Again, supposing that during the next six months the import duty is reduced on the 1st December, 1935, that is to say, two months after the half-year starts, to 7d. per gallon, and an Excise duty of 1d. per gallon is imposed on the same day, the average rate of preference will then be calculated to three places of decimals, and the result will be 6.666 pence. This, as hon. Members will see, is an excess of 2.666d. over the 4d., and the period of the guarantee will accordingly be reduced by 2.666 times 46, or 123 days, and the date of expiry will be brought forward from 29th September, 1943, to 29th May, 1943. This procedure will be continued until the equivalent of 36 pence-years has been granted.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is a special department to be set up to make these calculations?
  Mr. BROWN: I think that, if my hon. Friend will follow this in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that it is by no means as complicated as it looks. At the end of the period a certificate will be issued by the Treasury to that effect. May I put it in another way? Taking the same example, and supposing that on the 1st December, 1935, the import duty is reduced to 7d. per gallon and an Excise duty of 1d. per gallon is imposed on the same day, the preference will then have been two months at 8d., that is to say, 16d., and four months at 6d., that is to say, 24d., or a total of 40d., and if hon. Members will divide the 40d. by six they will arrive at the same figure. I may say, however, that the actual calculations will not be done by months, but by days. The House will realise that the basis of the formula is a preference of 4d., and the period in relation to that basis is 46 days for every 1d. of preference; so that, taking the tax of 8d. per gallon which is in existence now, and the preference of 4d., it means that, if the tax remains
  1338
  at 8d. the period will be 4½ years, whereas if, whether by reduction of the tax or by the imposition of an Excise duty, the preference is reduced to 4d., then the period of the preference of 4d. will be nine years.
  Mr. MOLSON: Has the Government Actuary checked all these figures?
  Mr. BROWN: I do not think there will be any need for that. My hon. Friend may rest assured that this has been checked, and that it carries out to three places of decimals the undertaking which was given; and that is the basis on which the operations to which I have referred will go forward.
  Mr. LAWSON: It is going to be 9d. for 4d.
  Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is not displaying quite his usual accuracy in saying that. It is nine years at 4d., or 4½ years at 8d.
  Mr. LAWSON: It sounds like 9d. for 4d.
  Mr. BROWN: Perhaps I ought to say that it is nine years at 4d., or 4½ years at 8d., or any intermediate period related to any particular rate of preference. Let me make one other point. Let me call hon. Members' attention to the last part of Clause 3, which provides that
  "This Act shall continue in operation until it is certified by the Treasury that the preference thereby provided for has been equivalent to fourpence per gallon for nine years, and shall expire upon such a certificate being given."
  That is the proviso to which I have referred, making it quite sure that the preference shall operate for the full 36 pence-years. Let me give the House one or two more facts. As the House is aware, in anticipation of this Measure there has been an outstanding development in the proposal to erect a plant at Billingham. Billingham is, of course, in one of the most distressed of our areas. Plant is to be erected there for the manufacture of motor spirit by the hydrogenation of coal, and the House will expect me to give the most recent particulars. At the end of January the number of men employed at Billingham or by manufacturers engaged directly on the manufacture of the Billingham hydrogenation plant was 10,400, and I understand that the peak employment has not

  1339
  yet been reached. Up to the same date the orders placed for machinery and equipment amounted in value to £1,100,000, of which £360,000 represented the value of orders placed on the North-East Coast. Already between £500,000 and £600,000 has been spent by Imperial Chemical Industries directly, and by outside manufacturers; and between now and the spring of next year, when it is hoped that the plant will be completed, further large sums will be paid out in wages and for equipment. A large proportion of the money spent is aiding the iron and steel industry, and therefore, of course, the coal industry. Good progress has been made on the site, and the actual erection of the plant has begun. Those who were so concerned to stress the potential loss to the Exchequer which the preference involves will perhaps be willing to take note of these particulars, and bear in mind the fact that, as a result, a substantial sum will have been placed to the credit side of the account before any loss to the Exchequer can possibly arise.
  I stated on the 25th July that there was every indication that the consumption of petrol in this country during 1933 would show a substantial increase over that in 1932—itself a record year. The final figures are not yet available, but it may be stated now that the increase will be not less than three times the quantity of motor spirit which the Billingham plant is designed to produce annually. Those who are making calculations without regard to all the facts might note this. I believe that the announcement of the 17th July last, quiet though it was, may well prove to have been one of historic importance. I see that a Motion for the rejection of the Bill has been put down, but that relates, I understand, not so much to the purpose as to the method adopted. I will only add one thing to what I was able to say on that subject on the 25th July. It is that calling for control in this matter is one thing, that coining a slogan is another thing, but that carrying out negotiations to a practical conclusion is a very different thing. In my judgment, if the policy outlined in the Motion for rejection had been adopted, no Minister would have stood at this Box to announce this very important development.
  Mr. BATEY: Of course he would.
  Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is always quite sure about this matter, but I have given my opinion as to what would be the position if that policy were adopted. If the point is further alluded to, I shall be able to give other facts in addition to those which I have already given. I only lay stress on this point at the moment, that the method that we have adopted has not been any direct subvention from the Exchequer at all. Those who are trying to draw comparisons between one and the other are basing them on a fallacious foundation. It gives those who have planned ahead in this great development an assurance that they will have this preference of at least 4d. for nine years, and on that basis they are prepared to go forward. I do not believe, in the light of the public expressions of opinion which have been made since the announcement of 17th July and the Debate of 25th July, that this House will do other than give an overwhelming majority for the carrying out of this policy. I have great pleasure in moving the Second Reading of the Bill which, like the announcement, might quite well become historic.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, realising that the coal-mining industry and any developments therefrom are a national interest, declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which fails to ensure through public ownership and control that the researches of science shall benefit the community and not be exploited for private profit."
  I feel sure that everyone, like myself, understands the Minister's explanation of his Bill. He must have lived with hydrocarbons for the last six months to be able to deal with that very complicated formula. We are talking about hydrogenation and low temperature carbonisation, and we might go on to pulverisation and colloidal fuel. I can understand anyone who has lived, as the hon. Gentleman has lived, with those terms for the last two or three years being able to explain the formula as he has done. This may be described as a small Bill, but it is a very important one, because in it there is the possibility of laying the foundation of a very important industry. We on this side are concerned to see that the founda-

  1341
  tion shall be well and truly laid. The Minister for Mines has said, not only to-day but previously, that if my friends sat on that side of the House they would not have the very great pleasure of introducing a scheme of this kind. We think we should have had not only the pleasure but the very great honour of laying the foundation for this new industry upon a very much sounder basis. The hon. Gentleman did not to-day, nor did he on 25th July, deal with any agreement or arrangement between the Government and Imperial Chemical Industries Limited. Are we to understand that there is no agreement outside the promise of the preference which is contained in the Bill, and that Imperial Chemical Industries are to go on in their own way under the shelter of this preference? Is there any agreement as to future developments? Can the output, if the industry is successful, exceed 30,000,000 gallons per annum for each of the nine years during the time that the preference is in existence, or the four and a half years if the preference continues at 8d.?
  Then, if there is an understanding that the industry can be developed, and a very large increase in the commodity can be produced from coal, additional plant will be required? Is there any understanding as to where these plants are to be placed? Is that a matter to be decided by Imperial Chemical Industries without thought of the distress or the difficulties with which the coal industry is confronted? Then we might ask about the price of petrol. It is reported that petrol can be produced from coal by this process at something like 7d. a gallon. That is the figure that has been talked about for some time and I think the figure that appeared in the Press. The price of petrol at the Thames side has been low for the last two or three years, but in 1927 it was even higher than the price at which it is estimated it can be produced from coal by this process. Is there any understanding between the Government and the Company which is going to develop this process that, in the event of the price of petrol increasing, the preference shall be reduced?
  I think the Bill is understood by every Member in the House. We had what may be regarded as a Second Reading speech on it when the announcement was made in July. We on this side are defi-
  1342
  nitely of the opinion that the basis of a very important industry is now being laid. As far back as 1925 the Lord President of the Council, referring to the production of oil from coal, said:
  "The time has not come yet when a commercial process has been successfully devised. It will come. It may come soon, it may be in a few years, but it is as certain as that we are standing and sitting in this House this afternoon that what has proved successful in the laboratory will be proved successful commercially, and, when that day comes, although what is discovered in the laboratories must be the common property of the science of the whole world, yet it will give to this country probably the greatest push forward and development that it has had since the discovery of steam."
  That is not the prophecy of one who can be described as a wild man. We know how careful the right hon. Gentleman is in choosing his words, and we know that he does not often prophesy, but not only has this phophecy come from him, but reference is made in the report of the Samuel Commission to the possibility of this development. The National Power and Fuel Committee, appointed by the then Conservative Government, reported in 1928 that we were getting near the time when this development was likely to take place and that the country ought to be made independent of the increasing importation of fuel. The development has taken place to a very much greater extent in Germany than in this country. We read in a report in the "Times" in December that they are producing 100,000 tons of oil from coal, very largely as the result of this process, and are laying down plans for increasing that amount by something like four times. That indicates that the attitude adopted by my hon. Friends and myself is a correct one. The Minister referred to the fact that during last year there had been an increase in the output of benzol and oil from low temperature plant and that there had been an increase in the amount of petrol used in the country. The increase in the amount of petrol motor spirit is startling. He gave figures in July to the effect that in 1927 the amount of motor spirit imported was about 680,000,000 gallons. Last year it had increased to nearly 1,100,000,000 gallons. For the first time in the country's history it can rightly be said that more than 2,000,000,000 gallons of oil of all kinds were imported, and that is competing day by day with the home-produced fuel

  1343
  on which the country has been so dependent for a number of years.
  The tendency is that the dependence upon oil is going to increase considerably. The number of motor cars is increasing year by year. The proportion of new shipping using oil is very much larger. Last year something like 70 per cent. of the new shipping constructed was oil-and not coal-consuming. During the last three or four months we have frequently heard the wish expressed that we should build more and larger aeroplanes, and in that direction there is going to be a considerable extension. Motor vehicles, ships and aeroplanes are dependent upon imported oil. The coal industry has to watch very carefully the development that is taking place on the railways. They consume something like 13,000,000 tons of coal a year. Last year the consumption was down to about 11,500,000 tons. I saw a report of the speech by Sir John Cadman some time ago that, if the railways were turned over to oil-electric engines, the power which it now takes from 11,500,000 to 12,000,000 tons of coal to produce can be produced with something like 1,500,000 tons of oil. If oil is going to be used to the extent that we think it is, and if oil can be produced from coal, we say that the coal in this country should be used for the purpose. Although there has been this increase in the use of oil, there has been a further decline in the production of coal in this country during the past year. The coal produced during last year was about 2,000,000 tons less than it was the year before, and the actual consumption of coal in this country was down by 1,500,000 tons.
  I do not intend to go into the economics of this process. The hon. Member rightly said that as far as we were concerned, although we wanted to see the process established, we thought that the method of approach by the Government was wrong. Here is an opportunity, in our opinion, for this new industry to be definitely linked up to coal, and the whole of the benefit likely to accrue from the development of this industry should come back to the mining industry. The Bill proves that neither the Government nor the mineowners will have anything to do with the organising of the production of oil from coal under this process. All the Government are to do is to maintain a ringed fence, in the shape of an import
  1344
  duty within which private enterprise is left to act as it chooses. That is the understanding or agreement of the Government with Imperial Chemical Industries, who, I take it, will, when given this guarantee, develop the process only if they can make a profit out of it. We are told that the development which will take place will represent a very small increase of those who will be permanently employed. We were very pleased to hear the Secretary for Mines announce the fact that at the present time there are something like 10,000 persons employed on the whole of the necessary work for the purpose of the construction of this process, and that when the process is in full swing something like 350,000 tons of coal will be required, representing the output of a fairly large colliery. Every addition to the volume of employment is in itself very welcome, especially to the coal industry.
  As has been said, our criticism of the scheme is not based upon the small effect upon unemployment but upon the completely wrong approach to the whole subject. The Government by their action recognise the possibility of producing motor spirit and oils of various kinds from coal by these modern methods. We are definitely of the opinion that such processes will not stay where they are, but will extend and produce more and more of these commodities which are so vital to the nation. We believe that new industries will develop from the method of treating coal. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the plant at Billingham is to be established in a depressed area—a coalfield which has suffered very considerably as a result of the falling off in the demand for coal and through loss in the export market. I hope that the plant will be as near the coalfield as possible. I do not know the situation of Billingham and how near it is to the coalfield proper. We see the possibility to serve the depressed areas in this country by the development of these plants, and if they are put into these areas work will be created for people who have almost given up in despair. The establishment of these works will, in a small way, compensate for the loss of work at the collieries by the falling off in the use of coal.
  As far as we can see, it is not the intention of the Mines Department or the Government to do anything to ensure the

  1345
  development of this industry upon planned lines. There is nothing in the Bill to safeguard the interests of the coal industry or the public. It should be common ground among all parties that the nation cannot afford to allow a new industry such as this to grow up in a higgledy-piggledy sort of manner with its path strewn with blunders and chaos. One would have thought that there had been sufficient experience in the last 20 years to have prevented a repetition of what was given to us, for instance, in the electrical industry, but the Government have not learnt their lesson and are quite prepared for another industry to develop in the same manner as did not only the electrical industry but the coal industry. Our Amendment calls for the treatment of coal to be organised under public control in order to link it definitely with the coal industry. When the Secretary for Mines introduced the Bill this afternoon he referred, as he did on 25th July last, to the fact that if a Socialist Government had been in power in this country they would not, he almost indicated, be allowed to introduce a scheme of this kind.
  Mr. E. BROWN indicated dissent.
  Mr. HALL: That was the impression which the hon. Member gave me. On 25th July he indicated that it would not be an easy matter for a Socialist Government to get agreement on this matter.
  Mr. BROWN: On those lines.
  Mr. HALL: He said that
  "the main process in which the country is interested was not invented in this country, and it might not have been as easy as hon. Members opposite suggest to get an agreement as to joint control, joint ownership, or joint working of the process."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1933; col. 2494, Vol. 280.]
  Upon what does the hon. Member base that opinion? Is he aware that it was the Government of 1927 which assisted in approving of the process in this country? I understand that the Government of this country at that time had the opportunity of purchasing the process and the rights for the exploitation of the process in this country, and it was only as a result of the spending of a considerable sum of money by Brunner, Mond & Co. at that time that that firm were able to control not only the British rights but the British Empire rights, and
  1346
  from 1928 up to the present time the control has been in their hands. The hon. Member has not given any information to the House as to how or who makes up the international company to which he refers. I take it that he was referring to the International Hydrogenation Patents, Ltd. Have the Government taken the trouble to ascertain the nature of the agreement between the Imperial Chemical Industries and this international company? How far can the international company interfere with the process in this country? Is it a company made up of other companies similar to Imperial Chemical Industries, who are anxious to exploit this process of producing oil from coal? Perhaps the hon. Member can give us an answer? Or does he know that two out of the four partners in this company are the Shell Mex Oil Co. and the Standard Oil Co.? These two companies control the largest oil companies in the world, and, as far as we know, seeing that the oil market in this country is the second largest in the world, it is questionable whether—and I want to qualify it—if this international company has anything in the nature of control over this process in this country, very much progress will be made. That is one of the things about which we on this side of the House are somewhat concerned. The hon. Member is not quite justified in inferring that the only Government who could introduce a scheme of this kind and lay the basis for the development of the process is a government such as the Conservative Government of which he is a member.
  As a nation nature has provided us with an abundance of coal which is of excellent quality and well placed, and we have been using it very badly in the past. For some years past, difficult as the task has been, there is no doubt that progress in fuel research has been made, and I pay my tribute to the men who have worked in connection with the Fuel Research Station. They are among the most competent scientists and technicians that we have in this country. I think that if they had been given an opportunity, not only would they have desired to make tests at the Fuel Research Station but they would have been as interested in the development of this process as they would have been in making the tests. They would have been as

  1347
  keenly interested in the laying down of the basis for a new industry as were those technicians employed by private enterprise. Motor spirit can be produced from coal. The test is not only whether it can be produced, but whether it is a satisfactory fuel. The Secretary for Mines and Members of the House know that it has been proved by tests made by the Admiralty in fuel oil produced from coal, that a satisfactory fuel can be produced. In regard to petrol or aerial spirit used in aeroplanes by the Royal Air Force, it is said that they get results from petrol produced from coal equal to the results of petrol produced from oil taken from the oil wells. We say definitely that if this can be done, there is no reason in the world why there could not be a very much greater expansion than is provided for in the Bill which is before us this afternoon. We complain that the mine-owners of this country have not interested themselves in this matter as much as they should do. I do not wish to emphasise the point, but I was very interested in reading a speech which was delivered by no less a fuel authority than Sir John Cadman at the Institute of Fuel in October of last year. He said:
  "It appears to me, moreover, that the coal industry under-rates the merits of the fuel it produces, and I believe that the present and future of coal would be very different if that industry had adopted a different attitude. I hope I may be excused from labouring this point to which I have already alluded, but it seems to be fundamental. In the past, and, to a great extent, even in the present, the coal industry has concerned itself solely with the production of coal and its sale in the solid mass at the pit-head. Thereafter, the industry ceases generally to be interested in its product; and it too often happens that whatever scientific or commercial progress the coal industry makes results not from anticipation of the needs of customers, but from pressure by them to compel the industry to adapt its products to their requirements."
  Take the case of hydrogenation:
  "Whatever the merits of that process may be, it is surely a matter of the first interest to the coal industry that it should be tested. Instead, however, of the testing being done by coalowners, it is the chemical industry which has adopted hydrogenation; and, if that process should succeed, it will no doubt be the chemical industry which would mainly benefit. Again, coal will have lost an opportunity."
  1348
  Speaking at Cardiff, recently, he said:
  "The hydrogenation of coal, if successful, could only benefit the people who were operating the process. The coal industry virtually gave away its coal to such secondary industries, and could not, therefore, derive much benefit from such activities as hydrogenation."
  That is the position. The Government have employed experts of the highest technical qualifications to deal with this matter. In our opinion they should have had the necessary imagination to set the work on foot. We claim that this development should be so planned that the treatment of coal should be linked up with the production of coal. That is not alone the view of those who sit on this side of the House. I read with considerable interest a statement which appeared in a newspaper which certainly does not usually advocate the points of view of those who sit on this side of the House, "The Sunday Times," just after the announcement was made by the Prime Minister in July, in a statement written by "Scrutator," followed exactly the same lines:
  "The ideal would he that those who undergo the physical moil and danger of extracting the coal should also enjoy some of the reflected warmth from the more profitable by-products. The whole process from the hewing of coal to the manufacture of petrol should ideally be one trade, whose profits are equally diffused throughout."
  That is our case. The steady increase in the importation of foreign oil to this country is taking away the livelihood of some of the best of our people. For over 10 years the population in our mining areas have suffered from terrible unemployment. In some districts, especially in South Wales, the conditions are becoming worse. We do not suggest that if all the oil and petrol used in this country were produced from coal, that that would be an end of the difficulties with which the coal industry is confronted; it would not, but it certainly would give a fillip to the coal industry. It would revitalise the industry at a time when it requires it, and it would give hope to the men who are employed or unemployed and the women and children who are so dependent upon the coal industry.
  Anything that can be done to assist the great coal industry should be done. Our complaint is that it is to be developed not in the interests of the coal industry but in the interests of Imperial

  1349
  Chemical Industries, Limited. They are getting a preference and they will get the profit if the process proves successful. In our Amendment we ask for a thorough planning of this great fuel and power industry. The Secretary for Mines, on the 25th July, said that if the miners had a plan why did they not submit it. The miners did submit their plan for dealing with this matter to the Samuel Commission. They laid the basis for the planning of the power-producing industries of the country. That is where we on this side of the House stand in connection with the question, and it is for those reasons that I move the Amendment.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. MALLALIEU: I am afraid that I cannot compete either with the charm of manner or with the lucidity of expression with which the Secretary for the Mines Department treated the House when he introduced the Bill. I hope, however, at a later stage to be able to compete with some of his logic. He divided 40 pence by six months with an agility which is characteristic of him. With that, again, I cannot compete, but I have this merit that, at least, I shall be very short. The proposal which underlies this Bill is most attractive, namely, to produce much-needed and much-consumed fuel, petrol, from what is the greatest potential source of our national wealth, coal. At this particular moment it is about the most attractive proposal that could be put before the eyes of our fellow countrymen, because the last few years of depression in the coal industry have made them fear that the future of that industry is by no means secure and that, therefore, the greatness of a country based upon it is by no means secure.
  When the proposals were first brought before the country anyone who dared to question their wisdom was looked upon rather as an enemy to the country in some quarters, indeed, almost treated with that hysteria which is generally reserved for those who differ from the majority in times of war. But I think that people have been waking up to the dangers which underlie the proposals. I will not put the word any higher than that at the moment. There have been welcome signs that people are more alive now to the dangers underlying the proposal. Obviously, if it can be carried
  1350
  out at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable time any scheme which would set on its feet a new industry in this country and which would give renewed prosperity to the coal industry and render us independent of other countries for a fuel which is just as essential to our industries as it is to our Fleet, no sane man would object to an experiment being set on foot which had that for its object. So obvious, indeed, are the advantages which would flow from a scheme of that sort, if successful, that it behoves Members of the House of Commons to examine with the very greatest care all the available data, in order to be quite certain that our hopes in this matter have not carried us away and led us into thinking that we need not make any prudent study of, or take warning from, what available data there is.
  It was truly said in a leading article on this subject in the "Times" newspaper on the 29th January of this year:
  "At the same time the disquieting reflection arises that almost exactly the same considerations prevailed, and the same hopes were entertained, when the experiment of growing beet sugar was launched in 1924, The course and the cost of that experiment must not be repeated, and the years of the operation of the original scheme ought to be used to make sure that, when the trial period is over, the taxpayer will not be faced with the alternatives of continuing unaltered a scheme which by that time may involve a very much higher subvention or of allowing a considerable new industry to perish."
  That goes to the very root of the whole matter, and we in the House of Commons should scrutinise very carefully all the ascertained facts. As the Secretary for the Mines Department has set it before us, the proposal is that there should be a preference of not less than 4d. a gallon on light hydrocarbon oils produced from indigenous coal, shale or peat. The present position is that all imported petrol pays a duty of 8d. a gallon. I do not think it is unfair to go further and to draw the conclusion from these facts that every gallon of petrol produced in this country will, therefore, involve the Exchequer in a loss of 8d. so long as there is no countervailing Excise duty. No limit has been set on the amount of petrol which can take advantage of this proposal, but there is a limit as to the time, which the Secretary for Mines was at some pains to describe by means of figures. Apparently, the

  1351
  Government have in view directly one hydrogenation plant, though, of course, I suppose they would not object if any other plant sprang into existence.
  The one plant is that of Imperial Chemical Industries at Billingham, from which it is proposed to produce 100,000 tons of petrol per annum, which is equivalent to 30,000,000 gallons. Thirty million gallons of petrol at 8d. a gallon will mean a loss to the Exchequer of £1,000,000 per annum. That is the loss which the Exchequer will, prima facie, suffer. That is the burden which will be placed upon the taxpayer. I know that there are certain offsets to this loss, because assuming that all the miners put into work under the scheme—I do not deny that there will be some—came from the unemployed, the Government's contribution in respect of unemployment pay would be saved; but I am afraid that when we have put such items to the credit side we shall not get the £1,000,000 loss appreciably lower. It is estimated that the plant at Billingham will find employment for 1,280 men in the course of the year. I am not dealing with the number of men who will be taken on to erect the plant but merely with the men who will be necessary to work the plant when once it is erected. That plant, requiring some 350,000 tons of coal a year will, I suppose, be able to employ 1,200 miners, since the average output of a miner is generally supposed to be 300 tons of coal a year. Therefore, we come to this rather arresting conclusion that the Exchequer will be spending—
  Mr. E. BROWN indicated dissent.
  Mr. MALLALIEU: The Secretary for the Mines Department shakes his head. It is strictly true that we shall not be spending, but the taxpayer will have a direct burden put upon his shoulders of £1,000,000 per annum, and it seems to me that that comes to pretty much the same thing as saying that the taxpayer is going to spend £1,000,000 a year. That £1,000,000 is being spent in order to put 2,480 men into employment, or rather more than £400 per year per man; an exceedingly high figure. It is a coincidence that this figure is almost the same as the amount of the burden put upon the taxpayer at one time by the sugar-beet experiment. It is another sinister similarity between these proposals and
  1352
  the beet-sugar proposals of ill fame. Again, if all the petrol consumed in this country is to be produced, then, on the present basis of calculation—which I should like the hon. Member to criticise at a later stage if it is incorrect—the loss to the Exchequer would be no less than £35,000,000 per annum, and the amount of coal consumed about two and a-half weeks' output of the British industry. I can think of several ways in which unemployed men might be put into work in or about the coalfields; for instance, they might all be put into the mines to bring out coal which could be burned in dumps at the pit-heads. The only question the House would have to decide is, is it a remunerative expenditure, is it the sort of thing which benefits the nation as a whole. That is what we have to consider here.
  As to the actual cost of the production of oil by the method of hydrogenation, the latest estimate I have is that it is about 5d. per gallon, and to that you must add a sum covering interest upon capital and depreciation. If 5 per cent. is allowed for interest on capital and 5 per cent. on half the plant for depreciation and 10 per cent. on the rest—no one will consider that outrageous—it would add another 3d. to the 5d. at which we have already arrived, which gives us the figure of 8d. per gallon at the works. In 1933 the average c.i.f. price of imported petrol was slightly under 4d. per gallon, so that the minimum preference of 4d. mooted in the Bill is one which is never likely to come into operation, because petrol could not be produced commercially if that were the only preference granted. The Government will therefore be tempted, if not compelled, to maintain the preference at a higher level, to the great detriment of oil users in this country who would otherwise benefit from a reduction in the duty. I should have thought that the German experience in hydrogenation would have rendered the Government chary of experimenting on this line in this country. Hydrogenation has been going on in Germany for many years and even now the production of petrol estimated for 1933 is less than the amount which it is proposed to produce in this country under this scheme. If it had been commercially successful in Germany surely the results would have been much more satisfactory as German producers of petrol by hydrogenation enjoy a preference of 9d. per gallon at par and

  1353
  other advantages, such as reduced railway freights, and one further immense advantage, in that they use for the main part lignite, which at 3s. per ton compares very favourably with 13s. 8d. per ton which British producers will have to spend on their raw material, coal. I know that more lignite than coal is required to produce a given amount of petrol, but allowing for that it appears that the raw material of German producers is much less expensive than will be the raw material of English producers. Germany also more than any other is a country which can turn chemistry to commercial success, but there is no ground in the German experience for believing that the experiment here will prove that petrol can be produced on a commercial basis.
  I submit that in this matter the Government are being a little too clever. They believe that as they can alter man-made laws with their tremendous majority they can also alter natural laws. They are like King Canute, attempting to alter fundamental laws which are not susceptible of alteration by any human agency. The President of the Board of Trade did his little quota towards the destruction of a very promising line of progress at the World Economic Conference, by his statement that whatever anyone else did this country would have nothing to do with public works. It seems that the only works of which the right hon. Gentleman was thinking were remunerative works, and that if only works are unremunerative enough the Government are prepared to give them a chance. What a pity it is that the Department of Mines is no longer dominated by the spirit of Cromwell. They have substituted for Cromwell's common sense the spirit of poor stupid Canute. The only hope for the commercial success of hydrogenation in this country is a substantial rise in the price of petrol imported. What chance is there of that? Oil is more plentiful to-day than ever; there is more oil in sight than ever in the history of the world so that an exhaustion of world supplies need not be considered by anyone who is now living.
  Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: Can the hon. Member give us any figures, to show the known sources of oil supplies in the world, and how long they will last?
  Mr. MALLALIEU: I have no figures, but my information is that there is abso-
  1354
  lutely no prospect that in the near future the oil supplies will become embarrassingly small.
  Sir A. BAILLIE: Surely the fact is that it is impossible for any geologist or anybody else to forecast the oil resources of the world. It is no good saying that they will last 10 or 20 years; no geologist knows.
  Mr. MALLALIEU: We have to make the best of what knowledge we have, and I am told that it will be a considerable time before we need fear any shortage. There are also economic reasons why hydrogenation cannot be a success in this country. Consider what you have to do. To obtain oil in the normal manner all you have to do is to bore a hole in the earth and the oil gushes out. Here you have to go through three expensive processes. The coal has to be mined and crushed and then made into a paste. You have to heat it under pressure, make your hydrogen, put it into a reaction chamber; all very expensive processes. How can this cumbersome and inefficient method be expected to compete with the simplicity of the other and more natural method? We on these benches do not wish to appear to be giving countenance to the Amendment that has been moved. We have no sympathy with nationalisation as such, but we do think that no Government which was not hysterically nationalist or else entirely oblivious to economic good sense, or to both, could countenance for one moment the underlying proposals of this Measure, which are in the nature of encouraging senseless inefficiency and a waste of national wealth and effort.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. CONANT: Not being a great mathematician I could not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu). He claims that the Bill will be extremely expensive but recognises the need for the development of our own fuel resources. He suggests that the best method of doing this is to immediately remove the Customs Duty upon imported fuel. I do not agree. I think that the protection which has been given, and which will be given by this Bill, will secure some development of one very useful fuel in this country. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in his interesting speech expressed a different

  1355
  point of view. He expressed a desire to secure the development of our own fuel resources. There are not many hon. Members who do not agree as to the urgency for developing the fuel resources of this country. When we have become dependent to such an amazing extent for our fuel upon others, there are few people with any sense of responsibility who can afford to disregard the effects which must follow, not only upon our requirements for defence but also the ultimate effect on British industries. The only objection the official Opposition have is really a question of the method, and I listened most carefully to the hon. Member for Aberdare to find out what was their alternative suggestion. I recognise that there was no need for him to put forward any alternative, he is entitled to criticise without doing so, but nevertheless the Amendment for rejection does suggest an alternative and I had hoped that he would have told us something about it.
  It is all very well to speak in vague language. Does the hon. Member opposite suggest that the Government ought to take over from the shareholders of Imperial Chemical Industries, and other fuel producing concerns, the right to produce fuel and petrol? If so, is it proposed that compensation should be paid, and on what basis? If that is the case, one ought to remember that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan)—I think it was he—expressed the view in July that this experiment would very likely lose money. Surely if the taxpayers of the country are to be compelled to take over a concern which, in the view of those who advocate its taking over, is going to lose money, the taxpayers ought to have some say in the matter? Surely it is better that those people who have voluntarily taken a risk, who have lent their savings in order that research may be carried out and in order that this experiment may be conducted, should be allowed to take that risk rather than that the community as a whole should be compelled to do so, whether they wish it or not?
  Let me say a few words about the Bill as it affects my constituency. Both hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition Benches rather assume that the Bill is going to affect Imperial
  1356
  Chemical Industries alone and confers a monopoly upon them. That, of course, is not the case. Imperial Chemical Industries is a very large concern, but it is only one of a great many concerns which are going to be affected by a stimulus to the production of oil. In my constituency a great deal of benzole is produced from coal, and this process will be directly assisted by the provisions of the Bill and the guarantee of a preference. While the Bill guarantees a preference to the production of petrol it also seems to me to assist the production of all other forms of British fuel, because in effect it guarantees a minimum Customs duty of 4d. per gallon on imported oil; it guarantees the difference of 4d. between Customs and Excise duty for nine years from next April, and the effect will be that the Customs duty must be at least 4d. Therefore it seems to me that the production of all fuels in this country will indirectly be assisted.
  Of course there are many other fuels that can be developed in this country from coal. It would be most unwise now to attempt to say what will be the most economical and the most efficient fuel for British industries in the future. Personally I hold the view that oil produced from coal will not be the fuel of the future. Production is expensive and elaborate. I do not know whether hon. Members know that there is an oil well in this country, not far from my constituency. It was sunk in 1918 and is still producing oil. Therefore, while I agree that this production of oil from coal is very well worth stimulating for many years to come, I do not believe this fuel is necessarily going to be the most efficient fuel for British industry in the future. My view is that coal gas is much more likely to be the fuel of the time to come. Great developments have been going on in the last few years. In my constituency heavy motor cars are now being driven by coal gas. Owing to the fact that a new kind of steel has been developed which can contain coal gas under pressure, it is now possible to carry sufficient gas for a range of 70 to 80 miles. It has, I believe, a great future before it.
  While the Bill undoubtedly assists all home produced fuels, it guarantees to oil a difference of 4d. between the Excise and the Customs Duty, but gives no such guarantee to gas or other fuels. I hope,

  1357
  therefore, that other methods may be found to stimulate the production of coal gas. It is too early yet to discriminate as to what is to be the fuel of the future. I hope that this Bill will be regarded, not as an end in itself of the fuel legislation of this country, but as a first step towards securing some measure of independence in the matter of fuel supplies for industry.
  5.37 p.m.
  Major OWEN: I have no intention of covering the ground which I covered in an earlier speech on this subject. I shall confine my remarks to a very small compass. I am in full agreement with what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) has said with regard to this expensive method of producing petrol from coal, and I have very serious doubts in my mind as to whether the method will prove commercially profitable. There are one or two things I want to say regarding the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). He stated that oil was the greatest competitor that coal had had to contend with in recent years. That statement is frequently made by those who are anxious to see a resuscitation of the coal industry. But the statement requires very close examination. I have been looking into the matter, and I find that instead of taking away the livelihood of many of our best people, as the hon. Member for Aberdare said, the truth is that the advent of the petrol age has helped the coal industry during the most distressing years of its history. Ever since the War the use of petrol in this country has increased to a very great extent. In 1920 the consumption of petrol was only 181,000,000 gallons. In 1932 it had risen to 1,075,000,000 gallons. That is a big rise. In that era it is quite true that the production of coal went down very considerably, but my contention is that coal production would have decreased very much more had it not been for the help obtained from the petrol industry.
  Take some of the figures that I have been able to get. Since 1918, 425 tankers have been built in the United Kingdom, requiring 1,876,000 tons of steel. In addition, storage and general service tanks have been erected here and have also been sent abroad for the purpose of this
  1358
  industry. At a moderate estimate that has taken up another 1,000,000 tons of steel. Then there are pipe lines and well casings. They required a minimum of 500,000 tons. The refineries, the steel required on the fields and for distribution purposes, rail and road tank cars, tin plates for home and abroad, and kerb-side pumps have required a minimum of 6,000,000 tons of steel. Then take the new industry which has arisen as a result of the petrol era—the motor industry. At a very low computation the motor industry has used at least 4,000,000 tons of steel during that period. If we take all the other items in connection with the petrol industry, the machinery that is required in all directions, we can easily add another 25 per cent. But for the moment I prefer to leave that out of consideration, and the quantities of steel that I have mentioned as having been required for the purposes of this industry amount to a total of 13,375,000 tons of steel.
  I know that there is in these days a great deal of discussion as to how many tons of coal are required to produce a ton of steel. It is said that as a result of the better utilisation of coal we can now produce a ton of steel with two-and-a-half tons of coal. But that is only the raw steel. A further one-and-a-half tons is a very moderate estimate of what is required in order to fabricate that steel into articles required for this industry. We can therefore fairly take four tons as being the amount of coal used for every ton of the 13,375,000 tons of steel. That gives a total of coal directly used in connection with this industry in the last 15 years of 53,500,000 tons, and an average of 3,570,000 tons of coal. The consumption of petrol for the same period just exceeded 21,000,000 tons, or an average per annum of 1.4 millions.
  It is clear, therefore, that during the last 15 years every ton of petrol used in this country has demanded the consumption of 2½ tons of British coal. Instead of proving a handicap to the coal industry, the petrol industry has been its greatest ally during a period of severe depression. Let me give as an example the sort of thing that really has happened. As we go around the country we see petrol pumps all over the place. I wonder how many Members of this

  1359
  House know the number of those pumps. There are over 100,000. In the production of each one of those there has been used a ton of coal and five hundred-weight of steel, and employment has been given to four other artisans. At no time has the petrol industry decreased employment. Rather has it improved it.
  Mr. G. HALL: It is not usual for two Members who sit on the Front Opposition Bench to interrupt one another, though they may disagree privately amongst themselves. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not taken into consideration the displacement of coal by fuel oil. He has given some figures regarding tankers and pipes and that kind of thing, but if he will look further he will see that there has been a loss of bunkers and of the coal export trade from this country. The loss of these markets to the coal industry really outdid all the figures which the hon. Member has quoted.
  Major OWEN: I am very glad my hon. Friend has interrupted me on that point because I wish to give him a few figures in regard to it. No one realises better than I do that there has been a great decrease in coal exports in the last few years. There has also been a decrease in coal for bunkers. I am prepared to admit that in 1914 coal was used by 96.6 per cent. of the world's shipping and oil by only 3.4 per cent., whereas, in 1933, coal was used by 54.6 of the world's shipping and oil by 45.4 per cent. But here is my point. In 1929 the amount of coal shipped as bunkers in foreign-going steamers was 16,394,000 tons and in 1932 that figure had declined to 14,209,000 tons. Those are the figures of the Secretary for Mines.
  Mr. HALL: Has the hon. and gallant Member the figures for 1930?
  Major OWEN: Yes, in that year coal for bunkers was 21,030,000 tons. As I say, in 1932 that figure had decreased to 14,209,000 tons. But I am making the comparison with the year 1929 for a definite purpose. It was during those years that the great depression in trade and industry took place. What was the record in regard to oil bunkers in that period? In 1929, 1,000,000 tons of oil
  1360
  were shipped as bunkers in foreign-going steamers and, in 1932, only 739,000 tons were shipped. Coal bunkers in that period declined by 13 per cent. while oil bunkers decreased by 26 per cent. so that the actual decrease in the consumption of oil bunkers was twice the decrease in the consumption of coal bunkers.
  Mr. CLARRY: Will the hon. and gallant Member give us figures to show what is the oil equivalent to a ton of coal? He is giving us coal tonnage and is then dealing with oil tonnage without explaining how the figures are to be related to each other for purposes of comparison.
  Major OWEN: About two tons of coal would be equivalent to one ton of oil, so that the competition in that respect has been really very small. According to the Coal Utilisation Society themselves, oil has only displaced 2,250,000 tons of coal in this country but the drop in the consumption of coal, even in the home consumption of coal, has been 34,000,000 tons. Therefore the effect on the coal industry has not been due to the petrol era but to other causes which the coal industry will have to put right for themselves. We know that during the War coal was produced in places where it had not been produced before. Then there is the development of hydro-electrical power in Italy and Scandinavia which has displaced our coal and, where we used to export 4,000,000 tons of coal to Russia we are now only exporting 1,000,000 tons or practically none.
  Here we have a huge plant being erected at Billingham and supported—whatever the Secretary for Mines may say—by what is equivalent to a subsidy from the Treasury. We build this plant when actually the end of the petrol era is in sight. In 1928 at Olympia there were only two motor vehicles which used heavy oil. The rest were driven by petrol. In the last exhibition at Olympia there were 3,000 motor vehicles driven by heavy oil. Gradually, all over the country, the light oil driven engine is being displaced by the heavy oil engine of the Diesel type, but here we are to-day calmly voting for 4½ years a sum of at least £1,000,000—because that is what it will amount to if these people are able to produce what they say they can produce. So far, they have only been working on a small plant which consumes

  1361
  about 10 to 20 tons of coal. There is no certainty that it is going to prove possible to produce a 100,000 tons of petrol when they proceed to work on a large scale. They cannot tell us themselves. The chief experts of Imperial Chemical Industries cannot to-day give any guarantee that they will produce 100,000 tons of petrol by means of the plant which is being established.
  Let us consider one other point. I notice that one of the members of the Coal Utilisation Society said the other day that you can get out of coal everything necessary for fuel purposes. But there is one thing which you cannot get out of it and that is lubricating oil. I understand that our Air Force is seeking all over the world for an oil that can produce a satisfactory lubricating oil to be used in our aeroplanes. The Secretary for Mines might convey to the Air Ministry a message to the effect that there is a Colony belonging to the British Empire which is named Trinidad; that that Colony produces oil in a natural state and that that oil has been proved to contain about 25 per cent. of excellent lubricating oil. Yet we are told that we have to go to Russia to get oil for our aeroplanes. We are told that there is no oil in the British Empire. There is, but it has never received any encouragement. We know that one of the leading oil companies of this country is bringing oil from a foreign country, in South America, and putting up a refinery, not to produce petrol but to produce lubricating oil. If the Government really want good lubricating oil they can find it within the confines of the British Empire.
  I feel as Sir John Cadman said the other day in an address at Cardiff that there is no use turning black diamonds into white elephants. I fear that is what is going to happen in this case. We are putting up a white elephant at Billingham. Even if we produced in this country the whole of the petrol consumed in this country in one year it would only give employment to about 50,000 miners. What is that compared with the 300,000 who have been out of work for years? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare does not care what expense is involved so long as he puts one man into employment but that is not how we ought to regard it. We ought to con-
  1362
  sider what it costs to put a man into employment and, if we can keep—as we do—seven families of four members each on the amount which it would cost to put one of these men into employment at Billingham, then I think we ought to look for a better way of employing our people than this extravagant and fantastic scheme.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. RAIKES: I rise to support this scheme. I think that the Secretary for Mines is making a definite effort by this Bill to assist the development of a young industry—a young industry which is very largely dependent upon the old and somewhat unhappy coal industry—and also to assist in making this country more self-supporting. I have listened to the various arguments advanced on the other side and I am interested to note that there is a great gulf between the Labour party and the Liberal party in regard to this matter. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) did not oppose the principle of the Bill itself. He opposed it mainly on the ground that it was not setting up some form of monopoly. The Labour party talk of Government experiments in matters of this kind but the trouble is that one never knows beforehand whether a scheme is going to be successful or not. If you work a scheme from the start on the lines of nationalisation, and if it fails, the State, of course, has to bear the whole burden. On the other hand, if you work it on the lines of providing a minimum of the taxpayers' money to assist the scheme at the outset, then, in the event of failure, there is a minimum loss to the taxpayer. If, on the other hand, the scheme is successful and assists employment you do not grudge a certain degree of profit to those who have been prepared to develop the scheme and who have used their wisdom in so doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beet sugar."] The case of beet sugar admittedly is one in which we were singularly unsuccessful.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) quoted a certain part of a certain leading article which appeared in the "Times" newspaper on this subject and which, he said, went to the root of the matter. But he did not add that that leading article supported the scheme as a whole and that all there was in it by way of criticism was a warning to the Government to be careful. It asked the Govern-

  1363
  ment to try to steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis—on the one hand not to desert the industry, on the other hand not to involve the taxpayer in too heavy a sum in the future. If that is "going to the root of the matter," then I think the scheme still remains fairly safe as an experiment in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member opposite. He went on to picture the Government sitting by the waterside like Canute of old but I would remind him that Canute followed the old Liberal policy of "wait and see." The Government to-day are experimenting and dealing with new suggestions. That is the difference between the Tory mentality and the Liberal mentality but that, of course, is merely a matter of opinion.
  There is one further point on which I should like to touch, and that is in regard to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen), who made great play with the fact that petrol had helped the coal trade during difficult years. That may be so, but it cuts both ways. In part, of course, oil has displaced coal, and in part petrol has stimulated the use of coal, but we are seeking to make oil help the coal trade more than it does to-day and to avoid as far as we can the difficulties of the past by using home-produced oil extracted from British coal instead of imported oil for commercial purposes. I suggest that you are not injuring the production of petrol but merely harnessing it to help the coal trade completely instead of only to a partial degree.
  No one yet has raised the problem of national defence, but there again I suggest that it is an advantage if you can become as self-supporting in your oil supplies as possible, in view of the possibility at some time of being engaged in war. It might be suggested that it is very easy, if there is a danger of war, to purchase large quantities of cheap oil from outside and store it. So you can, but, on the other hand, supposing you approach a critical state of affairs and feel that you may want to increase your oil supplies for defensive purposes, and suddenly you start buying large quantities of oil in the open market, that will be just the thing to increase the anxiety and perhaps to turn a doubtful crisis into a first-rate crisis, because people will say that Great Britain is obviously preparing for war.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member surely realises that we have at the present moment very large supplies of oil in the country, or at any rate, if we have not, we ought to have. I do not think there is any question about that, and it is surely an axiom of our naval policy to see that there are permanently in this country sufficient stocks of oil to maintain the fleet under any conditions for a very considerable period of time.
  Mr. RAIKES: I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but at the same time in a certain memorandum that was sent to Members of this House criticising the present scheme, it was laid down as an argument, I think I am correct in saying, that you could buy large quantities of foreign oil and store them up if there was any danger of a shortage in regard to oil for defensive purposes. It is because I have heard that argument raised, both upstairs and in the Memorandum, in favour of purchasing further quantities of foreign oil, that I feel justified in using the alternative argument that you would be far safer if you had a plant so that you could develop still further your supplies of oil.
  Beyond that, supposing you drive the whole problem of cheapness to its logical conclusion, which my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches do, although my hon. Friends on the Labour benches do not, and that is why some of us who are Tories have a good deal more in common with many of the arguments that we hear from the official Opposition, because we believe the official Opposition understand to some extent the producer's point of view. The mere argument of cheapness, that whatever happens you must sacrifice everything in order to get the cheapest possible commodity, envisages all the time that the consumer is a consumer and that he is not a producer as well. I think we have all learned in the course of the last few years that the consumer is in fact also a producer, and however cheap your goods may be, if you get those goods too cheap, it is apt to displace the producer at home, who reaches the stage where it is impossible for him to purchase things, however cheap they may be, because he is out of work and has not the wages with which to purchase anything at all. That is why I feel in favour of this Bill. Even if it means indirectly that the producer may be obliged, through taxation, to find something towards fostering this new in-

  1365
  dustry, it is far better to go on those lines than simply to say that to-day we can get cheaper oil abroad, so we will not consider the development of an industry which we hope will give employment in the subsidiary trades and in the coal trade.
  In regard to the coal trade itself, we have had many figures given to us, particularly by the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon, pointing out how the production of coal has fallen, and fallen since the War, through causes that are unlikely to be able to be checked, and that we are unlikely to be able to get back many of our export markets and our home market to the same degree as formerly. Unfortunately, I would remind my hon. Friends opposite, the general strike taught a good many household consumers to be far more economical in the use of coal than they had been. It may be that although the iron and steel trade is picking up, and that that will do something to increase coal production, we are likely to be definitely down, and if the coal trade is not to collapse still further we must be prepared to experiment with any measures that are likely gradually to make it possible to secure greater employment in the coal industry than there is at the present time. There is nothing more disheartening than the way in which one finds populations gradually losing their work through the collapse of collieries, and not only losing their work, but losing all the capital invested in their own houses, subsidiary trades, shops, and so on, that have been built up around a great mining community. We may not be able to save it all, but I think the Government are right to try to check this continual decline and to find methods by which you can put more men into work in the coal trade, so as to save great communities which are drifting down from drifting still further.
  My last word is this: If there is one thing which ought to be considered more than all else, it is that, although the Government are prepared to make it possible for these experiments to be made, that should not be made an excuse, when the trial period is over, for great vested interests to shelter themselves for ever behind the great wall of protection and at the same time pay profits to themselves. That has got to be watched, but bearing in mind that that is watched and
  1366
  that the interests of the consumer and of the nation as a whole are protected, I welcome this Bill and wish it all success.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: The Debate has taken a curious form, because we find ourselves enjoying the opposition to the Bill while we do not agree with it. Two speakers have said that they are going to vote against the Government, and yet they criticise both points of view that we put forward. They criticise our support of this method of producing oil in this country, and they criticise us because we want to socialise the industry. Really, they will be in a very difficult position in this matter in following us in the Lobby. We have to justify ourselves on the two points, because we agree with the Government in regard to producing oil from coal, and one can give reasons for that which I think will satisfy an assembly such as this.
  Let me give some figures in regard to world power. In 1913 90 per cent. of power production came direct from coal and 10 per cent. from other sources, but at the present time less than 70 per cent. of the world's power comes from coal and over 30 per cent. from other sources. It is true that coal is losing the attraction it formerly had. Take the production of coal. We occupied in 1913 a pre-eminent position in this matter. We produced 287,000,000 tons of coal, but in 1932 our production had fallen to 209,000,000 tons, a reduction of 78,000,000 tons. It may be argued that other coal-producing countries have fallen also, and that is quite true, but not to the same extent as we have, and we find that in that interval oil fuel has been imported amounting now to 1,260,000 tons, which is a far higher proportion than ever came in before. It is supplanting the use of coal. We also find that in the coal industry there has been a decline in employment from 1,200,000 to 800,000, a decline of over 400,000 men. Something must be done to find out the reason for this, and it is certain that political reasons have lost us some of our coal trade. Take, for instance, the Irish Free State. In 1931 they had from us 2,424,699 tons of coal, but that has fallen this year to 1,255,472 tons.
  The main reason is the change in producing power, and consequently we on these benches must try to find out how we can meet that situation. I am satis-

  1367
  fied more than ever that we have to turn to the most scientific forms of production, and I believe that it is in the way of producing oil from coal that we shall find a solution of the problem. That is admitted on these benches. We cannot look on and allow imported oil fuel to come into this country and supplant the use of coal without taking some action to try to prevent it, or seeing if we cannot find some means by which we can get from our coal supplies the motive power that is necessary to carry on the means of production. That is why we support the Government in their first attempt at securing the utilisation of our coal resources in the way of producing oil fuel. Where we differ from the Government is in handing the work over to private enterprise. We think that the lessons of the past ought to warn the Government that that is not the way to do it.
  Mention has been made—I only make a passing reference to it—of sugar beet, and every speaker attacking the Government uses sugar beet as an illustration of the Government's failure in this direction, but we object, believing, as we do, that oil must be produced from coal and that that is going to be the thing of the future, to the Government handing over the means of producing it or giving the preference to private enterprise to do it. We say to the Government that now is the time, if ever, for the Government to take control of all this kind of thing. We have had a Fuel Research Board. The Government put that in hand and found the money for that purpose, and we say that now is the time for the Government to take over the control of the means of producing the oil that we require. In place of that they think of putting a preference on and giving to private concerns the idea that they must go on producing this oil.
  I cannot imagine how, later on, when this plant is put up for the purpose of producing oil, the Government, having given the invitation to these people to set up this plant can turn aside. It may be all very well to say, "We are just giving the idea to them. If they are not able to carry on after the period of the preference and are not able to make it a financial proposition, we will withdraw whatever support we have given." That would be an impossible proposition, and
  1368
  the industry would be justified in saying, "We were led on by the Government. It was a venture and the Government gave us sanction to go on with it. We have made a tremendous outlay in plant which has not matured, as it ought to have done. The preference given has not been enough. Are you willing that these poor shareholders should lose all their money?" I cannot imagine any Government being so hard as to say that they must lose all their money. Although I believe in the socialisation of the means of life, I would have some sympathy with them if I thought the industry was being led on in that way.
  I warn the Government that it is not right to invite these people to spend huge sums of money in putting up plant by the offer that for a certain time they will be watched over by the Government, and that in the end they will be cast aside. That is not a fair proposition. If this process is worth tackling at all as I believe it is, the Government ought to take over the whole control. Hon. Members on the other side have asked if it is worth while spending all this money. I believe that it is. Anything that will improve the technique of the coalmining industry is worth spending money on, but I want the Government to have control of it. I do not want it to be left in private hands. Hon. Members have asked us if it is possible for the Government to make it a success. I believe that it is, for it would have the backing of the State and be carried on by men who understand the work. I always claim when advocating Socialism that the same men, the same experts who now have charge of industrial processes, would, under the control of the Government, give the same ability and the same attention as they are giving to private concerns now.
  Mr. CAPORN: Under the Hastings resolutions the industries would have to be run by 50 per cent. Socialists and 50 per cent. trade unionists, and no experts at all.
  Mr. TINKER: I am not clear to what the hon. Member is referring, but under Socialism there will be 100 per cent. experts. It is often objected that men would have no drive if there were no gain attached to their work, but I believe we are getting beyond that. The State stands for greater things than gain,

  1369
  and the people who work for the State will not betray it. Human nature will respond to the call if given the opportunity. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that in the method proposed in this Measure they have departed entirely from what is recognised as private enterprise pure and simple. I remember a Debate in 1923 on the question of Socialism, when the late Lord Melchett, then Sir Alfred Mond, argued that private enterprise could only survive if it was carried on by its own resources and initiative. The Government are departing from that in this proposal, for they are giving private enterprise protection and a preference, and helping them in what I claim is a national concern.
  We agree with the Government that the time has come when the State must take some action in the scientific production of power from coal, seeing that we are failing in the world markets for coal, because development is now in that direction. We are satisfied that development must go along those lines, but we argue that the Government ought not to hand over to private enterprise the means of exploiting it. It should be vested in the Government. We were asked whether we would buy these people out. We would, for we do not believe in confiscation.
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
  Mr. BOOTHBY: What about the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)?
  Mr. TINKER: I challenge that suggestion, and I hope that hon. Members who follow me will, if they can, quote from any Member of the Labour party to show that that party stands for confiscation. I have followed all their resolutions and they have agreed that there should not be confiscation, and that whatever industry is taken over should be paid for according to an expert valuation. If we took over plant that was in operation, we should pay the price that was laid upon it. The people who will get the preference under this Measure will set up costly plant, and the time will come when the State will have to take it over. We shall then have to pay them all the money they have invested in the industry, and probably by the time the State takes it over the industry will have made immense fortunes in the exploitation of
  1370
  public needs. We ask that the State should undertake this enterprise before it is too late. We put our case in two ways. We agree, in the first place, with the Government in the method of producing oil from coal, for we think that it is essential for us to recover our position. We then, however, depart from the Government, for we consider that this process should be undertaken under the control of the Government so that whatever benefit accrues should go to the State.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. DICKIE: I do not propose to follow the Secretary for Mines in his pursuit of the recurring decimal nor into the formula, the meaning of which, I take it, is now clear to the House. Some calculations have been made across the Floor of the House which I confess, even at the risk of being accused of stupidity, I am unable to follow. As a representative of a mining constituency, and as a Member who on more than one occasion has criticised severely the general policy of the Government on the mining industry, I desire to extend to the Government my cordial congratulations on the introduction of this Measure. The production of oil from coal has been the vision, and the hope and expectation of those engaged in the mining industry for many years. The advantages to be derived from the successful exploitation of any of the processes—I say any of the processes on account of what has been said in the Debate and about which I sall say a word later—are so manifold and far-reaching in their effect upon our economic life, that they can hardly be exaggerated. They have been so admirably stated in both the last Debate and this that I do not propose to weary the House with a repetition of them. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) that one caution is necessary; we must not expect too much in the way of an improvement in direct employment in the mining industry at once from these proposals, but in the slump of the depression in the industry we are grateful for the smallest mercy. The amount of raw coal required in these processes will doubtless be a very considerable help to the industry.
  Reference has been made by more than one speaker to the other effects of these proposals, and I attach enormous import-

  1371
  ance to the advantages that are to be derived in the production of oil by the ancillary trades, such as transport, from the elimination of our almost complete dependence on foreign supplies, and particularly from the effect of the production of this oil on the balance of payments in international trade. Those who are opposed to the proposals of the Government continually refer to them as if the Government were setting up a mopopoly. They talk about the Imperial Chemical Industries as if they alone were concerned, and as if hydrogenation were the only process. The proposals of the Government give the right to anyone to conduct any process—hydrogenation, high temperature carbonisation, or low temperature carbonisation. It is open to any individual or group of individuals, to any company or association of individuals, to combine and to take advantage of the preference which has been given by the Government. I expect to open the paper some morning and find in the City columns a prospectus issued by a new company—shall we say, Batey, Lawson and Cripps—for the extraction of oil from coal by their well-known hot-air process. It is open to anybody to associate and utilise any process they like in order to take advantage of the opportunity given them by the Government.
  The hon. Member for Aberdare, in a little cross-talk with the Secretary for Mines, referred to the fact that the Socialist Government had not introduced proposals of this character. It is difficult to understand why they did not, at any rate, attempt something on these lines. I remember that in the Socialist Parliament of 1924, Mr. Frank Hodges, then secretary of the Miners' Federation, made his maiden speech on this subject, and the amount of knowledge which has accumulated since gave a golden opportunity to the Socialist Government of 1929 to embark on some experiment of this character, but nothing was done.
  Mr. TINKER: We were dependent on the Liberal party for a majority, and where would the Liberal party have been found on a question of Socialism?
  Mr. DICKIE: We are thoroughly accustomed to that kind of answer. There is nothing in that answer to justify the Socialist Government having not even laid proposals on the Table of this House.
  1372
  If they had had any serious desire to help the mining industry in this direction, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for them to produce proposals and submit them to the judgment of this House.
  Next, I wish to say a word on the Amendment. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite approve of the object of this Bill, but dislike the method. They demand public ownership and public control. They continually ask for that, and, like the small boy in the advertisement, I suppose they will not be happy until they get it. But they forget one thing which we on these benches are determined not to forget. Some of us have had experience of public ownership and public control in the mining industry. We had State control of the mining industry, practically nationalisation, during the War and in the period after the War, and the result was so disastrous that I, for one, have no desire ever to see it introduced again.
  The result here was the same as it has been in every part of the world where the nationalisation of a competitive industry has been tried. There was the same waste, the same mismanagement, the same uneconomic production. It was carried to such an extent in the mining industry here that while the number of men in the industry increased by 97,000, the production of coal declined by no less than 47,000,000 tons a year. That is what happened during the virtual nationalisation of the mines, and the loss became so colossal that even the Coalition Government of that period, which was accustomed to spending £7,000,000 a day, could not stand up against it. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), then Prime Minister, was forced to decontrol the mines, because they were losing money for the State at the rate of no less than £5,000,000 per month.
  Even now we have a form of State control, but it is control without any State responsibility, and while I admit that some measure of State control is essential in this basic industry, I believe that not only has it already gone too far but that in some ways it has gone in the wrong direction. I feel that what the industry needs to-day is not more State control but less, and a little greater freedom. I would commend to hon. and right hon. Members opposite a very informative

  1373
  article which appeared recently in the columns of one of our greatest London newspapers, by one of the greatest authorities on the mining industry in this country. After a very able analysis of the situation in the industry, the article ended with a condemnation of the artificial restrictions which are imposed on the industry by the Act of 1930, and the writer concluded with this reference to nationalisation:
  "What are the remedies for the declining market? They must be considered under two headings, economic and scientific. There are two economic alternatives, the unshackling of private enterprise by the removal of the artificial restrictions which impede freedom of action and of expansion, or nationalisation of the mines. There is no half way. I regard nationalisation as a leap in the dark, and my own firm belief is that the hope of the coal trade lies in the removal of artificial barriers to control and expansion and in the intensification of technical research. To the need for scientific salvation there is neither argument nor alternative."
  That is the judgment of one of the greatest authorities in the mining industry, Sir Richard Redmayne. For the edification of hon. and right hon. Members opposite I will add that the newspaper in which the article appeared is one in which very useful and informative articles on labour and industrial conditions are frequently to be found, the "Daily Herald." I submit to the House that we cannot afford this leap in the dark, and also that this authoritative announcement effectually disposes of the argument so far as the whole of the industry is concerned, and I submit that if it applies to the whole of the industry it is applicable to this part of it. There is neither merit nor substance in this Amendment, and I regard it as merely a face-saving device on the part of the Opposition. So far as I am able to see, the method adopted by the Government is not only a vastly superior one to that which is proposed by the Opposition, but is the only method whereby the State can insure that in this sphere of industrial activity it will get the best results from the efficiency, enterprise and capacity of its individual citizens; and for that reason, and for others, I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Measure.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. LEWIS: The two questions most debated this afternoon have been, first,
  1374
  the importance of finding new uses for our coal, and, second, whether this Bill is a good method of attaining that object. I suppose it would be true to say that our rise to industrial greatness was very largely due to the use which we made of our coal resources, and that it would probably be equally true to say that our future industrial greatness very largely depends upon the uses to which we put our coal resources in the years to come. Other countries have developed alternative sources of energy—oil obtained from wells, for example, or electric current obtained from water power; but for us coal still remains by far the most important potential source of energy, with the difference that, owing to the developments of applied science, the old methods of using that coal no longer serve their purpose. For modern industrial purposes it would seem to be necessary to convert the latent energy in that coal into some other form before it is used—either into gas, electric current or oil. The Bill is concerned with one method of conversion, the extraction of light oil from coal. Having listened to the whole of the Debate, I think I am justified in saying that a very large majority of hon. Members, comprising most shades of opinion, are agreed that the object in itself is a highly desirable one.
  The Bill seeks to attain that object by means of a protective duty. Though I sit on this side of the House, I am not one of those who are prepared to make extravagant claims as to the benefits of protective duties. I have always held the view that the best that can be said for any protective duty is that it is a necessary evil. The House will observe that this particular duty is qualified in two ways, being limited in amount and limited in time. The Secretary for Mines has given us a series of calculations to show exactly how it will work out but it is sufficient for us now to remember that, whatever happens, 10 years is the extreme limit during which the duty can be applied. Having regard to the object of the Bill and to present day circumstances I hardly expected any objection to the Bill on the ground of Protection only, even from hon. Members who follow the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) whose views on these tariff questions are, if I may say so with respect,

  1375
  almost of more interest to an antiquarian than to anyone concerned with present-day problems.
  I must confess that I was never prepared for the speech which we had from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), because he used a most surprising argument. He told us that if an article is produced in this country and, in consequence, a similar article is not imported, and the duty on that imported article is not received, that it is the same thing as placing a burden of that amount on the taxpayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to see that I have interpreted his view correctly. If we place a burden on the taxpayer by producing an article in this country which might have been imported from abroad, and would have paid duty, what a colossal burden the hon. Member and his Free Trade friends would seek to impose on the taxpayers of this country by doing away with import duties altogether. I never expected to hear, at any rate from the lips of a Free Trader, such an argument used in this country.
  When we consider the conclusion at which he arrived, which was—if I heard him correctly—that a burden of £1,000,000 would, in certain circumstances, be placed, as a result of this Bill, upon the taxpayer, in order that, roughly, 2,500 extra persons might be employed, it seemed to me that that was equally false. The purpose of the Bill is not, by forgoing a duty for a given period, to place a certain number of people into employment, but to assist in establishing a new industry, with all the implications that follow from that. If the object of the Bill be achieved and a new industry be started, neither the hon. Member for Colne Valley nor any other hon. Member can estimate the benefits that will ultimately accrue from the foregoing of that £1,000,000.
  The question of the advantage or disadvantage of a protective duty as such, has been discussed by only one or two hon. Members; the principal objection and attack upon the Bill has taken the form of an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), but which was moved by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). I shall not be doing those
  1376
  who support that Amendment an injustice by saying that the real purport of it is that, in their view, the wrong people would get the benefit of the Bill. Let us consider for a moment who will, in fact, get the benefit of the protection proposed in the Bill. First of all there are the workers who will be employed directly, in the industry itself. They will get an advantage. Secondly, there are the workers who will be employed in ancillary trades, for example, in the construction of the works, and so forth. Thirdly, there are the workers employed in the coal mines. Only after all those have received the benefit of employment through this experiment, will the question of profit arise. When the question of profit does arise, some three-quarters of that profit will go to those whose brains and capital made the enterprise possible and successful, and somewhere about one-quarter will go to the State which, under our present Income Tax law, is a sort of sleeping partner in all the industries of the country. If those considerations be borne in mind, it can hardly be said that the proposal put before us by the Secretary for Mines is in any way an anti-social one, so far as the question raised by the Amendment is concerned, namely, as to who will get the benefit of the protection.
  An alternative is proposed in the Amendment. We are told that the proper way to achieve the object set out in the Bill is by means of public ownership and control. However strong a case can be made out for the control, direct or indirect, by some public body, of an industry which has reached a highly developed stage and which is of a monopolistic character, as for example a gas works or a tramway undertaking, similar arguments cannot be brought forward to justify control by the State of an industry which is young, experimental and highly competitive. When the hon. Member for Aberdare expresses the fear that under the Bill the industry would grow up in what he described as a higgledy-piggledy fashion, the answer is that under the scheme proposed in the Amendment the industry would never grow up at all. We need only consider the type of mind and the kind of ability which make for success in the public service to see that that must be so. In the public service, if a man can only

  1377
  avoid making mistakes, seniority will do the rest for him in due time. That is the extreme opposite of the qualities which the successful entrepreneur must possess.
  It cannot seriously be challenged that of all industries the nationalisation of which might be contemplated, this is the kind of industry for which nationalisation would be least suitable. Therefore, in my view, the Bill is desirable, first, because of the object which it sets out to achieve, the encouragement of one process for converting the latent energy of coal; secondly, because of the very moderate price which the Government propose to pay for the benefit which they hope to achieve, which is a protective duty severely limited in amount and in time; and, thirdly, because the only alternative that has been placed before us is that of State ownership and control, for which the industry in question is perhaps less fitted than almost any other industry.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. CAPE: I listened to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), and some parts of his speech were very instructive and helpful, but the dissertation which he gave us upon the morality of the human race was rather disappointing. According to what he believes, there is not the slightest shadow of hope of realising the nationalisation of industry, any more than there was three or four hundred years ago. It seems also that he has come to the conclusion that the human race are simply out for gain in everything they do. I understand from the constitution of this House that we are not likely to get any Socialistic legislation from hon. Members on the Government Benches, but I have a respect for my colleagues in every part of the House, and I know that they do many things for which they know perfectly well that there will be no gain, so far as personal wealth is concerned.
  In regard to the Bill, it has already been pointed out by my hon. Friends that we are not really opposed to its general principle as regard the utilisation of coal, but because it puts an entirely new industry, which ought to be a flourishing one, under the control of private enterprise alone. It cannot be denied, and I do not think the Secretary for Mines will deny it, that the Government during the
  1378
  last 10 or 12 years, or probably longer, have spent a large amount of public money upon research work in order to find out as far as possible how coal could be utilised for the extraction of oil and a variety of chemicals. Every worker in the experimental station has been giving the best of which he was capable in the effort to find out something that would be of benefit to the State. We have gone a long way in the direction of finding out what can be done with coal, and have reached the stage where the process can become a commercial undertaking. Now we are simply handing it over for exploitation by private enterprise. Some people have big ideas as to what can be done in regard to the utilisation of coal, and a good many of them believe that there will be more employment as a result. I am a little doubtful about that. A few additional miners may be employed, but I do not think that this scheme will afford any relief to some of the badly hit mining districts, such as that from which I come.
  I cannot see that the Bill will do much in the direction of increasing the wages of the miners. Under these protection proposals, I do not see how they can get it. They will be the chaps who will produce the fundamental article for the extraction of oil, but the wages of the miners in this country depend upon the revenue derived from the selling price of the raw coal. In many districts where low temperature carbonisation plant exists, the plant very often belongs to the coalowners, who sell their own coal to themselves, with the result that that is included when calculations are made at the end of a given period in order to find out what revenue there is for wages. An aggregation is taken of all such activities, and wages are paid upon the result. Therefore, if I could see in this Bill some hope that some of the grist would go to those who are responsible for producing the necessary article, much as I believe in the Socialisation of industry and in the State control of mines, I should have to give serious consideration to what such a proposal would mean to my own neighbourhood. Knowing that I live in a capitalistic age and under capitalistic conditions might lead me to have a better opinion of the Bill than I have at the present moment.
  I want to impress upon the House the point made by my hon. Friend the Mem-

  1379
  ber for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). This preference is to be given to this company in the shape of a preference of 4d. a gallon for nine years. I put it to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines that whatever Government may be in power at the end of that period, if this company gets this preference and there are signs of the industry going up, the Government cannot let the company down. We shall therefore eventually find that industry getting a considerable amount of State aid in less than 10 years' time. In those circumstances my hon. Friends will have no hesitation in going into the Lobby against the Bill, and I shall have no objection to voting for the Amendment.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I should like to put one or two specific questions to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, but before I do that I want to say one word about the principle, or lack of principle, underlying this Bill and the Amendment which has been moved to it by the official Socialist Opposition. For a long time past successive Governments have been legislating in regard to industry in a most haphazard manner. They interfere, now here, now there, for a reason that may seem good to them at any particular moment but on no principle and on no specific terms which could be laid down to apply to industry as a whole. I feel that when we are considering a Measure of this kind we should make an urgent appeal to the Government to reconsider the whole question of the relationship between the State and industry in the modern age.
  We are in a terrible muddle at the present moment on both sides of the House. We hear a great deal about Socialisation from the official Socialist Opposition. They are always talking about the Socialisation of industry. I have been invited to go down and debate at the Oxford Union with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on that topic, and the motion upon which we are asked to speak is:
  "That the application of modern Socialism would not be a good thing in this country."
  I wrote saying that if anybody could tell me what modern Socialism was, I might be able to debate that issue. I do not,
  1380
  however, believe that anybody knows. I would remind hon. Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House that they disagree with one another in regard to these questions. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), for example, holds views which differ sharply from those of some of his colleagues. The Prime Minister himself is, I suppose, still a Socialist—whether modern or not, I do not know—but I have been investigating some of his recent observations upon the subject of economics, and I find that perhaps the clearest and most forcible piece of guidance which he has given to the people of this country during the last 10 years was when he told us that as at present organised the capitalist system was breaking down, and was bound to break down, because of its own inherent defects. That is the view of the Prime Minister now, and that is also the view of many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. But the Conservative party is in almost as great a confusion as hon. Members opposite. Instead of socialisation, we talk about plans. But what is to be planned, how it is to be planned, and who is to plan it, I do not feel sure at all.
  I want to plead with the Government to consider whether it is not possible, before long to give us some guiding principles in this matter of the relationship between the State and industry, and to tell us roughly for what purpose and at what time they think it necessary to intervene in the affairs of an industry. Some hon. Members of my own party have been pleading for the return of complete individualism in the coal industry. For my own part, I do not believe that can ever come again. I do not believe that this House or any Government in this country would ever permit the coalowners to engage once again in a suicidal race of price-cutting—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I should like to express my profound gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) for so substantially increasing the size of my audience. In self-defence I would say to any hon. Member who may have just come in that I was addressing the largest audience that has been ad-

  1381
  dressed by any speaker in the course of the afternoon except the Secretary for Mines himself. There have never been more than half a dozen hon. Members here.
  I was appealing to the Secretary for Mines to appeal in his turn to the Prime Minister to lay down some guiding principles in this matter of the relationship between the State and industry. The real complaint at the present moment in the country as a whole against the present Government is that they have now no theme of any sort or kind in dealing with these large and vitally important matters concerning industries like coal-mining and agriculture; that, like many of their predecessors, they are actuated in a haphazard sort of way, and act on no particular set of principles. I would appeal to my hon. Friend to invite the Prime Minister, for our guidance, to lay down in general terms his industrial and economic policy and the principles which in the future are going to actuate it.
  Take this particular Measure. I do not think that any hon. Member of this House can feel quite satisfied, after what has been said, that it is altogether an advisable thing to subsidise the production, by the process of hydrogenation, of oil from coal. Whatever the Secretary for Mines may say, you cannot get away from the fact that it is a plain, straightforward subsidy, and the path of direct subsidies to individual industries is a perilous path to tread. I do not feel sufficiently confident that the scheme is a bad one to vote against the Bill, but I think that it is a dangerous precedent. The Secretary for Mines, in his opening remarks, admirable and lucid as they were, gave us no principle with which to justify the importance of this step.
  I want to ask the Secretary for Mines this direct question. Is he quite satisfied that fuel oil from coal is going to be the main fuel, or even an important fuel, of the future? Is gas or pulverised coal not perhaps going to be more important? If he is not quite sure, has he any right to come down to this House and ask for a substantial subsidy for this process? I will put a further direct question to the Secretary for Mines: Is it a fact that fuel oil costs 8d. a gallon to produce from coal, including interest und depreciation, by this process of hydrogenation? I believe that to be true,
  1382
  and, if it is a fact, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that fuel oil at the ports costs 4d., and is there more accessible for the general consumer of fuel. I do not think, therefore, that a guarantee of 4d. a gallon would be likely to make this a commercial proposition. I have had some carefully-prepared figures submitted to me which go to prove that it will cost 8d. per gallon to produce petrol by these elaborate and expensive methods, and I doubt whether, even with the subsidy, it will prove in the long run to be a commercial proposition.
  The cost to the public of producing 100,000 tons of this oil will be £1,000,000 sterling. If we deduct a maximum of £120,000 for unemployment insurance benefit, it will cost the British public, through the Treasury, about £900,000, or £9 per ton, to produce this fuel. I do not think that the figures can be challenged; they have been very carefully worked out. Assuming that you can produce 100,000 tons at Billingham, only £245,000 of the subsidy will be used on the production of coal, which is half a day's employment throughout the whole year for the whole coal industry. You would do more good to the coal industry, and it would be cheaper to buy the coal outright and burn it as fuel. This scheme will cost £350 for every man employed directly. That is the estimate I have been able to work out as a result of the most careful inquiries during the past 10 days. I beg the hon. Gentleman earnestly to address himself to these actual figures of the production of fuel oil from coal by this process. We have to ask ourselves, can we at this moment, when we are refusing to raise the dependent children's allowance by one shilling, when we are refusing to make any concessions in the cuts to the unemployed, the teachers or anybody else, justify to our constituencies an expenditure by way of a subsidy to this particular industry which will cost about £350 in respect of every man employed? If these figures are true, I submit that they are very serious figures indeed. I cannot conscientiously vote against this Bill, because I cannot tell in my own mind whether what the Secretary for Mines said in his opening speech will not turn out to be true: that this is an historic date, that the Bill is the foundation of a new development in the coal industry, and that fuel oil from coal will prove to be

  1383
  the fuel of the country. On the other hand, I very much doubt whether the available evidence is sufficient to justify the Government and the Secretary for Mines in the serious step that they are asking the House to take under the very stringent financial conditions of the present time.
  I would ask a final question. If the scheme does not prove to be self-supporting, will it stop? We have an appalling precedent in the beet-sugar industry, which we were told over and over again would prove to be one of the great new industries. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, when he introduced the beet-sugar subsidy, said that it was an historic date for the House and for the country. Historic it at once proved to be, but not quite in the sense in which he meant it. We do not want to be landed with another historic beet-sugar subsidy, and we should ask for future reference that, if we vote for this Bill, we shall have the categorical assurance of the appropriate Minister that if the scheme proves not to be a commercial proposition—which, as the evidence shows, is quite likely to happen—it will in fact stop. Under private enterprise and the capitalist system, the only test is, does it pay? If it does not, the State is not justified in any circumstances in continuing to give it a subsidy. From that point of view, I appreciate the argument of the Socialist party, and ask my hon. Friend to give us that assurance.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. BROWN: The categorical statement which my hon. Friend has just made might in turn be applied in Aberdeen in terms of oats, and I am wondering whether in that case my hon. Friend would use in his constituency the same argument in the same way. This Debate has been very interesting. It has ranged around four or five main points, the principal one of which, of course, is contained in the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who has worked very hard at this problem and taken a great interest in it, whether he was in office or out of office. I am not quite sure, after the speeches of his colleagues, whether he proposes to carry the Amendment to a Division or not, because it seemed to me that at one moment he was hot and at
  1384
  another cold. The issue is this, that while we are told in the Amendment that we ought not to pass this Bill because it
  "fails to ensure through public ownership and control that the researches of science shall benefit the community and not be exploited for private profit,"
  we are not told what that means. This is a slogan, just as the word of which my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) is so fond, namely, "planning," is a slogan. The problem with all slogans is that they leave out too much. You can talk on platforms in terms of slogans; you can write articles in terms of slogans; but, when you come to deal with complicated and difficult practical problems on the ground, the slogan, while it may serve as a general guide, will not help you to solve the practical difficulties of the problem, and the answer is the same to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen as it is to the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  I would beg my hon. Friend to do me the honour of reading what I said on the 25th July. I do not know whether he was present at the beginning of the Debate to-day, but, if he was, he will remember that I excused myself from repeating to the House what had already been said in a previous Debate. I then dealt fully with the general issues involved and the principles underlying the policy, and, in a sentence or two at the end of what must be a brief speech, I will try to sum them up again. With regard to the wider issue, I will convey to the Prime Minister what my hon. Friend has said. He could not expect me, in connection with a narrow issue of this kind, on a Bill dealing with one subject, to debate the whole question. On the 25th July the hon. Member for Aberdare and myself were both agreed that this ought to be done, and, indeed, the miners are agreed that this ought to be done—for they speak about it with two voices also. Let me prove my words. The Miners' Federation have passed resolutions about this matter. They first of all said:
  "While welcoming the decision to encourage the production of oil from British coal (a proposal which has long been advocated by the Federation), this Executive deplores the effect of the Government's proposal in so far as the 10 years' guarantee is granting a private monopoly and leaves the development of the new industry to separate private concerns with conflicting processes, policies and claims."

  1385
  That was on the 21st July. But since then, on the 22nd September, the National Executive of the Federation, by a substantial majority, adopted the following resolution as its policy, that is to say, its latest policy:
  "The Miners' Federation of Great Britain views with great concern the increasing use of imported oil and petrol to the displacement of British coal, and urges our members, and especially miners' Members of Parliament, to use every effort to increase the use of coal as against the importation of foreign oil and petrol, not only as a means to the greater use of raw coal, but, in addition, to assist the development of processes to produce oil and petrol from British coal."
  There is no word there of national control; it is a categorical statement of policy, the policy
  "to assist the development of processes to produce oil and petrol from British coal."
  I ventured to state in July, and I have repeated to-day, my belief that, if the policy outlined in the Amendment had been continued by the Labour party, there would have been no Minister standing at this Box to announce successful operations, at least with regard to hydrogenation. The House will have noticed that the hon. Member for Aberdare, with great charm and skill and in his usual cool and able way, gave us a very fine survey of the situation, but, as regards his policy, he contented himself with saying that it had been outlined. I have searched the whole of the published records available to me for any detailed outline, and have only found one, with which I will venture to trouble the House. This is an extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Tom Johnston, the Lord Privy Seal in the late Labour Government, at Bannockburn. It may be found in the "Iron and Coal Trades Review" for 30th October, 1931. In that speech he said this:
  "The Labour Government had been negotiating with Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, on the subject. The Government proposed that a public utility corporation should be formed, with the Government holding the majority of the shares and appointing the majority of the directors, and Imperial Chemical Industries bringing in their technical knowledge and skill. When the Labour Government left office, negotiations were still going on."
  That is not quite the same thing as the Amendment which has been moved to-day. The proposal then was that a public utility corporation should be formed, in which the Government would
  1386
  not be able to take the risk of a preference. Despite the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen, I hold the view that this is not a subsidy in the strict sense of the word. It does not seem to have occurred to any hon. Member who has stressed the point of the preference—not even to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu)—that we have been giving a preference to all home-produced motor spirit from the moment that we imposed the first Petrol Duty of 4d. a gallon. Whether the duty has been 4d. or whether it has been 8d., every gallon of spirit produced from shale, every gallon of benzol, every gallon of spirit produced from peat or by low temperature carbonisation—40,000,000 gallons per annum on the average over the whole period—has had a preference, and no Member of this House in any party, as far as my examination of the records goes, has ever raised a word of protest against that. If I were to make up my financial balance sheet on the same principles as are adopted in oil propaganda and in some of the calculations which have been given to us by those who have outdone even the oil propagandists, I could easily make up a balance sheet to prove that, in the first year or two of the preference, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, by adopting certain Excise duties, make a profit on this operation. I would not do that—
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement that a preference has been granted on oil produced in this country, may I ask how it is that no profit has ever been made on such production, and that the low temperature carbonisation undertakings have never paid a dividend?
  Mr. BROWN: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. He will find, if he looks further into the matter, that the gas and coke oven companies have produced 30,000,000 gallons of benzol per annum, and, when he appreciates that fact, I think he will not be inclined so hastily to make a statement in those terms. The fact is that all our home-produced spirit from the beginning has had an effective preference, and not even the most—I was going to say—hysterical Free Trader, either in this House or outside, has raised any word of objection to it.
  Mr. MALLALIEU: Did not the hon. Gentleman himself object at the time?
  Mr. BROWN: I think my hon. Friend's memory is lacking. I did not make any protest against the preference. I may have made a protest against the taxation of raw materials in the early stages, but that is another issue altogether. I think my memory will be found to be more accurate than that of my hon. Friend. The issue between ourselves and the Labour party is this: They think that there should be some undefined method of public ownership and public control of what, after all, are mainly the results of the researches of private enterprise. The hon. Member talks about handing over the results of research to private enterprise. I do not wish to under-estimate the work of the Fuel Research Board at Greenwich, but the great bulk of the chemical research which is involved in the successful solution of these problems is not Government work, but the work of successful private enterprise. We are not handing over anything at all, and I fail to understand how that argument can be put forward in the constituencies in face of the fact that for 20 years or more members of the Labour party in this country have held out hopes to the miners of the country that one of the great methods of reversing the tendency of recent years towards a decline in coal production would be the successful production of oil from coal.
  It is only natural, in view of the new process of hydrogenation, that the Debate should have turned mainly on the operations of Imperial Chemical Industries at Billingham, but this Bill does not propose a monopoly to anyone. If there is a monopoly, it is only a monoply due to the operation of the patents which are in the hands of people who have acquired them either by their technical skill or by the normal commercial process. Anyone in this country who produces motor spirit from coal, from shale, from peat, or from any derivative of those indigenous products, is entitled to the benefit of this preference from 1st April, 1935.
  It is not for me to answer the question of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen as to the future of oil, gas, the low temperature carbonisation of coal, or the high temperature carbonisation of coal.
  1388
  I remember too well the prophecies that were made by experts, on the coming of electricity, as to the effects of electricity upon gas, to fall into so simple and easy a trap as making a prophecy of that kind. But I would say to my hon. Friend, to the House, and to the country that this problem has been technically solved to the satisfaction of the Government's technical advisers, and this great firm is ready to go forward, having taken the process from the laboratory stage to the commercial stage. I remember that cost figures like 26d. per gallon were frequently quoted in the early stages of the process. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen now quotes the figure of 8d., and he asks me what figure I would suggest. I would say 7d. The House will understand that there is all the difference as regards cost of production between the laboratory stage and the stage of the 15-ton a day plant which has been working at Billingham, and again between that and a large-scale plant. It has been found, during the work that has been done on this problem, that the small plant shows considerable reductions in costs as compared with the laboratory stage. Is it not reasonable to conclude that when they get, as they hope to do by the 1st April of next year, this 500-ton a day plant working, they will discover savings in cost of production which may bring the cost per gallon below the figure of 7d. to a figure which I will not venture now to mention?
  This is a great step forward. It is a step which cannot be judged in nicely calculated terms, although we have tried to deal with it by means of the rate and date ratio according to which we are working. It is one thing to draw up a general policy, but it is quite another thing to apply it to one particular item in the balance sheet. I suggest, to those who have been throwing about the figure of £1,000,000, that they might go back to the statement made by the Treasury on behalf of the Government. Whether the figure be £100,000 or £1,000,000, I have never used the word "cost" in connection with this matter. It is not a question of cost. A subsidy means a direct subvention from the taxpayer, but this is not a subsidy; it is a preference. The preference will be absolutely in the control of the Government under this

  1389
  Bill, if the House passes it through all its stages.
  The industry now, whether it be the low temperature carbonisation side, the benzol, shale, or any other side, or the hydrogenation process, has the assurance from 1st April, 1935, of a preference of 8d. for four and a-half years or 4d. for the nine years. When hon. Members make their next balance-sheet, they should pursue their researches and see what they can find to put on the credit side. I will give them the Treasury analysis of the factors that ought to be considered in trying to measure the finance of the matter.
  "It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of any loss of revenue under the proposed guarantee, as this will depend on a number of uncertain factors, including the extent to which home-produced motor spirit displaces imported spirit, the quantity of spirit produced, the amount of preference and the length of the period over which the guarantee extends. As regards the cost to the Exchequer, further considerations, such as the relief of the burden of unemployment, have to be taken into account."
  Coal to the extent of 350,000 tons annually will be required, which will give additional employment to miners from 1st April next. This is not in the air. It is not in a Socialist resolution. It is not in the Amendment. It is now being prepared at Billingham, and if the hon. Member likes to go there next week, he will see the steel going up. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) will not deny it.
  Mr. HICKS: The hon. Gentleman means April, 1935, and not next April.
  Mr. BROWN: It is estimated that the plant will be working by the spring of 1935. There is already direct and indirect employment for 10,400 men, and it is expected that the peak will be reached in a couple of months' time, which will bring it up to 12,000. That means a saving of unemployment pay of £200,000, with £900,000 in respect of temporary employment during the construction period. I am not putting this forward as my own opinion. I am only suggesting to those who are trying to draw up this one-sided balance-sheet that there is another side to it. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) wishes the spirit of "Cromwell" were still sitting here as Secretary for Mines. He suggests that I am Canute. If Cromwell were still
  1390
  sitting here, as he was 18 months ago, he might by this time be standing here as Canute. The hon. Member was a little disingenuous. He entertained the House with a quotation from the "Times," but he might have started it three lines earlier. In fairness to the "Times" and the House I will begin the quotation where it ought to have begun. It was a warning:
  "No Government that found that so promising an experiment could be launched at so small a cost would have been justified in preventing it."
  That is our case. I confidently ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN: We have had a very interesting Debate and many ingenuous speeches have been made. I can easily understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to our Amendment—I know he does not like Socialism—and I can easily understand the energy with which he has defended the proposals embodied in the Bill. The time for his attack on Socialist proposals, equally with the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie), in his passionate advocacy of private enterprise, is ill chosen. Does the hon. Member forget that we have 2,500,000 unemployed? Is he aware of the poverty of great masses of people, and can he in face of those facts seriously and conscientiously eulogise private enterprise? That applies in the same way to the defence of private enterprise by the Secretary for Mines in his reference to our Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) made one of the most ingenious speeches of all with his very elaborate argument that petrol was the friend of coal and had in no way done it any harm. He could make a case along those lines by suggesting that petrol is complementary to coal probably in the early stages of the process. When the steamship first came it was complementary to the sailing ship, but finally, for all practical purposes, it swept it from the seas. Petrol may in these early stages be complementary to coal, but it does not follow that in the long run it may more effectively displace it than the steamship has displaced the sailing ship. The argument was a very ingenuous one. I do not know if it

  1391
  convinced the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson), but it was not all convincing to me.
  I have risen to make a point which has only been referred to in one speech, that of the hon. Member for South East Essex (Mr. Raikes). I cannot understand the Bill unless I look at it against the background of possible war. I think the chances of it being of any great benefit to the mining community are very remote indeed. I do not think it is going to find work for very many miners for a long time to come. I do not think that is the dominating motive. I can easily understand the Secretary for Mines pressing that point, but even he has not held out any hope of any large number of miners being found work. The hon. Member for South East Essex stressed the vital necessity in certain circumstances of home supplies of oil. I have heard no argument which convinces me that that is not one of the primary purposes of the Bill, and, if that is the real reason, our Amendment ought to be accepted, and the supply ought to be under public and not private control. There is a strange relationship in my mind between this Bill and the Dyestuffs Bill, which continues the principle of only allowing dyestuffs to come into the country under licence. The purpose of that legislation was to build up a dyestuffs industry for defensive and not for commercial and industrial reasons. In criticising that Bill some weeks ago, I said the Government had no right to continue to protect the dyestuffs industry, which was now part of an international combine if the reason for setting up the industry was primarily defensive. I am going to say the same about this Bill. I cannot understand the fondness of the Government for Imperial Chemical Industries, which is an international combine.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Why did the Labour Government approach Imperial Chemical Industries?
  Mr. C. BROWN: I was not a member of the Labour Government, and I am entitled to criticise even their attitude, and I shall do so. International combines know nothing about patriotism. The one thing they are concerned about is profit. The background of this Bill is possible war, and it is completely wrong
  1392
  for the Government to introduce a Bill giving protection to an international combine which in this instance is going to get oil from coal which is likely to be used in certain eventualities; that is, if we are at war. Why should you put the control of this thing in the hands of an international combine? I shall have no hesitation whatever in voting for the Amendment, because, if you do anything along these lines at all, you ought to do it under social control and not place the matter in the hands of an international combine.
  Sir JOHN PYBUS: As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) is out of the House for a moment, I should like to say that I heard the whole of his speech, and a very small portion of it, quite an aside, was as to the importance of producing oil within the country in time of war. I hope the hon. Member will not allow the House and the country to think that the main motive of his speech was primarily concerned with that aspect. It was that he wished an important scientific experiment to be carried on and thoroughly tested out.
  Mr. C. BROWN: I thought I made it quite clear by saying that the only Member who had referred to the matter that I wanted to stress was the hon. Member for South-East Essex. I said no more about his speech than that nor did I intend to convey anything else.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: I was interested in the two speeches of the Secretary for Mines. He put a lot more fire into the second speech than into the first. He evidently thought this was really a very important Bill. He called it historic, and said it was a step forward. Every mother considers that her child is the best. The Secretary for Mines was introducing the Bill of the century. We have an historic Bill. I am rather sorry for the Secretary for Mines that the first Measure he has introduced should be this Bill, because in my opinion it is not worth a tinker's curse. The Minister in his second speech stated that in July the Miners' Federation passed a resolution in favour of the public control of the process of the extraction of oil from coal, but that you could not read such a qualification

  1393
  into the September resolution. That resolution simply stated that they wanted more coal to be used and oil to be extracted from coal. It did not in the least take away the position stated in July, and they still stood for the public ownership of the extraction of oil from coal. Every mining Member in this House and the members of the Miners' Federation Executive, and I might say almost every member of the Miners' Federation, stand for the nationalisation of the process. It seems as though the Minister cannot stand at that Box unless he throws at us the argument, "If it had depended upon you we should not have been in the position of coming to an arrangement for the extraction of oil from coal." There is no question that if Labour had occupied the benches opposite, a Labour Secretary for Mines would not have been allowed to have introduced such a Bill as the one before the House, and we should not have come to an arrangement with a private undertaking like Imperial Chemical Industries. We should have gone in for the starting of the new industry under State enterprise. If we could not have done so we should have let the matter alone.
  I would remind the Minister that the National Government always seem to forget that they are faced with a gigantic problem in the mining industy, not merely an economic but a human problem. At least 4,000,000 men, women and children in the mining industry need something to be done for them. They want more employment, better wages, clothes, food, and houses, and the Government say to the people in the distressed areas where men and women are starving, "Do not worry, we will give you a 4d. tax." The Government offer a 4d. tax in order to feed the miners and their families. They do not even come up to the level of Woolworths by offering 6d. I admit that we are indebted to the scientists, who have done their work extremely well. They have taken a piece of coal and have shown that it is possible to extract far more than heat—valuable by-products. But what have the Government done? The Government now come forward with something which they say is a solution of the problem of unemployment in the mining industry. They say: "This is our contribution." What can it do to solve unemployment in the mining industry if all that their proposal means
  1394
  is a 4d. tax? That is the extent to which the Government are prepared to go in their proposal to try and help the mining industry. The Bill means very little. The Government cannot bind any future Government. They may talk about a 4d. tax for nine years or for five years, but another Government coming into office need not be bound by what the present Government are doing. The National Government have not been bound by decisions of the previous Government, and another Government need not be bound by the decisions of the present Government.
  The Government say, "We will guarantee to Imperial Chemical Industries a 4d. tax for 10 years or for five years." But it is well known—a blind man can almost see it—that is will be impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the present tax below 8d. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer and any future Chancellor of the Exchequer will need the revenue which comes from the taxation of oil, and he will stick to the tax in order to retain his revenue, We who have been in the House for some years know that a Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly opposed to the drink trade could not do without the revenue which comes from the drink trade. He would have to be prepared to continue the tax upon strong drink in order to obtain his revenue, and the same may be said of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or of any other Chancellor of the Exchequer. The 8d. tax is on now, and it will be on next year and in 10 years' time whether Imperial Chemical Industries start this new process or not. I admit that there are big possibilities in the hydrogenation process, and will go further and say that one of the remedies for the solution of the troubles in the coal industry lies in the extraction of oil from coal. At the same time, I have no hesitation in saying that the Government are starting on entirely wrong lines because the new industry is being put into private hands and is being started independently of the coal mines.
  Labour Members for many years have been urging upon one Government after another that this process ought to have been developed, but we have always had in our minds its development in connection with our present coal pits. We desired it to be started at our coal pits, and not a long way from them. We

  1395
  believed that if we could get the new process started in connection with the collieries the revenue from the oil would help to make up the miners' wages fund and so guarantee to the miners better wages, just as in the North of England the revenue which came from coke used to go into the wages fund and provide better wages for the miners. We desired that the new process should be developed at the collieries so that the revenue from oil could be of some benefit to the miners.
  The new process is to be started at Billingham. The Minister says that be believes that the cost will be 7d. per gallon, but it is well known that they are to start on the understanding that they will be able to get coal at not more than 13s. 8d. per ton; they believe that they can make a commercial success of the undertaking provided that they are able to get coal at that price. According to a statement of the Ministry of Mines the average selling price of coal in this country in September was 13s. 9d. per ton, and it means that Imperial Chemical Industries expect to get coal cheaper than the
  average price in order to carry on this new undertaking. Miners' wages are low enough at the present time, and if the new industry is to be started on such lines it will mean reduced wages for the miners.
  I am strongly in favour of the Amendment, which means Socialism. When the Prime Minister was at Seaham recently he met a deputation and was reported to have said, "Why do not you people preach Socialism which is the only way." I am going to accept his advice and intend to preach Socialism whenever I have a chance. This is a Socialist resolution. Private enterprise has completely failed to do the very things that we require, namely, to give employment and decent wages in order that people may live. Seeing that private enterprise has failed in the past, we do not want this new industry to start in private hands. Therefore, we submit our Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 43.

  Division No. 92.]

  AYES.

  [8.0 p.m.

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Albery, Irving James

  Craven-Ellis, William

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Apsley, Lord

  Crossley, A. C.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Hartland, George A.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

  Curry, A. C.

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Dickie, John P.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

  Balniel, Lord

  Dixey, Arthur C. N.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

  Benn. Sir Arthur Shirley

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

  Hornby, Frank

  Blindell, James

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Boulton, W. W.

  Edge, Sir William

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Jennings, Roland

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

  Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

  Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Burghley, Lord

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Burnett, John George

  Fleming, Edward Lascelies

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Lees-Jones, John

  Carver, Major William H.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Levy, Thomas

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gault, Lieut.-Col, A. Hamilton

  Lewis, Oswald

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

  Gluckstein, Louis Halie

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Clarke, Frank

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

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

  Clayton, Sir Christopher

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Greene, William P. C.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Conant, R. J. E.

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

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Grigg, Sir Edward

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Pybus, Sir Percy John

  Spens, William Patrick

  Magnay, Thomas

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Stevenson, James

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

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

  Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)

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

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

  Stones. James

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

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Remer, John R.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Milne, Charles

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Nall, Sir Joseph

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Tree, Ronald

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  North, Edward T.

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Nunn, William

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

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

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Peake Captain Osbert

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Pearson, William G.

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Penny, Sir George

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace

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

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Somervell, Sir Donald

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Petherick, M.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

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

  Soper, Richard

  Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Sir Victor Warrender and Captain Austin Hudson.

  NOES.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Maxton, James.

  Batey, Joseph

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Grunoy, Thomas W.

  Paling, Wilfred

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

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Buchanan, George

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Price, Gabriel

  Cape, Thomas

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

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cove, William G.

  Kirkwood, David

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lawson, John James

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

  Daggar, George

  Lunn, William

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Edwards, Charles

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  White, Henry Graham

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Mallalieu, Edward Lanceiot

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

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

  MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  There is a similarity between this Bill and the Bill that we have just passed, in that they are both concerned with a rate and a date. Otherwise, there is no connection. I will make clear the circumstances which led to the introduction of the Bill. In 1931 Mr. Shinwell, then Secretary for Mines, on behalf of the Labour Government was proceeding with his Bill to extend the levy for five years,
  1398
  but there was very grave difference of opinion in the industry about two things, first, the amount of the levy, and, secondly, its duration. That difference of opinion also became acute in Standing Committee Cupstairs. The miners took the view that the levy should remain at one penny and the owners thought that it should come down to one farthing or perhaps one-eighth of a penny. It was recognised by Mr. Shinwell that in the economic condition of the industry there was a case to be examined, and it was a grave case. I will read Mr. Shinwell's words later.
  The late Sir Donald Maclean had made a suggestion that between the penny on the one hand and the farthing or one-eighth of a penny on the other a compromise might be arrived at, and that compromise became the compromise of the majority of the Welfare Inquiry Com-

  1399
  mittee's report, and is embodied in this Bill. Sir Donald made a speech, to the terms of which I may refer later if necessary, and suggested that a compromise might be accepted, but Mr. Shinwell could not accept it. Speaking in Standing Committee C, on the 24th March, 1931, Mr. Shinwell said:
  "I would say to my hon. Friends, and particularly to those who represent mining constituencies and are interested in the mining industry, that there is a case for very careful consideration of the whole question of administration, the amount of the fund, and, more particularly, whether the fund should be of a permanent or of a temporary character. I could expand my remarks considerably on that head were it necessary to do so, because I have very decided views about it. It appears to me, if I may say this in passing, that if you have to deal with a fund of a permanent character, for one thing you do not require to impose the same amount of levy, and it is possible to reduce it; and, moreover, you can plan ahead, having the assurance that the fund at no time is likely to be thrown out of gear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 24th March, 1931; cols. 565–6.]
  That statement preceded his announcement that he was willing to appoint a committee of inquiry to go into the question at issue, into the records of the fund, its administration, the condition of the industry with regard to the amount of the levy and cognate matters. That committee had the great advantage of the chairmanship of the late Lord Chelmsford, whose passing hon. Members much regret. He rendered great public service, and one of his last public services was the chairmanship of the committee of inquiry. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that for many years he was chairman of the Welfare Fund Committee, and it was under his chairmanship that much of the beneficent work of the fund was accomplished. It also had the advantage of the presence of three hon. Members of this House, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine), who doubtless will be able to give us their own views on the matter.
  Let me, as briefly as I can, outline the material facts regarding the record of the fund. The Miners' Welfare Fund was originally constituted under Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920,
  1400
  which provided for a levy of one penny on every ton of coal produced. The levy is collected by the Mines Department, and I assure hon. Members that if it is disagreeable to impose taxes it is sometimes much more disagreeable to have to collect them. It is not so easy to collect them as is sometimes assumed. The duty of allocating the money is left to the Miners Welfare Committee, which is appointed by the Board of Trade with representatives from both sides of the
  industry. The levy was originally imposed for five years, and was extended by the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act, 1925, for another five years, and again extended for a similar period by the Act of 1931. The present Bill extends the period of the levy for 20 years from 1932, when the Report was written, until 1951 inclusive. That is the meaning of the 16 years; it is 16 years plus five years, or altogether a period of 21 years from the beginning of 1931.
  Just a passing reference to another Act, which is not germane to our discussions but which imposed a levy in regard to pithead baths. In 1926 the Conservative Government in Part III of the Mining Industry Act imposed a new levy upon coal royalty owners of 1s. in the £ on the annual value of mineral rents, and the money produced by this levy is specifically earmarked for the provision of pithead baths until the Board of Trade otherwise decides. The total amount raised, including interest, by both these levies was in December last about £13,850,000.
  Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. Member give the figures separately?
  Mr. BROWN: I have not got them separately, but I can get them in a moment. This is, of course, a domestic concern of the coal industry. It is a tax imposed on the industry by Parliament for the purposes of the industry and no public money is involved. There is general agreement as to the great work done by the Central Welfare Committee and the District Advisory Committees. There is no question whatever that the work they have done has made a wonderful difference to our mining villages since 1920. It is one of the great pieces of social reform of our time. I have the figures separately now, and I may just as well

  1401
  give them. The output levy has raised £11,314,889, and the interest has been £1,151,659. The royalty levy has raised £1,383,000; a total of roughly £13,850,000. The question of an alteration arose in regard to the rate of the duty and the date of its duration, and the inquiry committee which considered the matter took into consideration the grave economic condition of the industry. I do not want to be polemical but I say that if the condition of the industry was grave in 1931, grave enough for the Labour Government to set up a Committee to inquire into the matter thoroughly, how much more grave is it now when we have completed the worst year the trade has known for many years.
  There are really grave reasons behind the introduction of the Bill. Let me try to make three things quite clear. First, that the recommendation of the majority of the inquiry committee was that the levy should be reduced from 1d. per ton on output to ½d., and that the period should be extended for 20 years. With that recommendation the hon. Member opposite did not agree, nor did his colleague on the committee; the mine-owners' representative wanted to go further the other way. However, the general body of opinion, including the chairman, made that recommendation. The second recommendation was this. There have been certain technical difficulties in the administration of the fund for certain particular purposes of welfare, and those who have been administering them were never quite sure whether they were statutory or not. They have been desirable and generally agreed upon; no one has objected and they have been operated from the beginning of the fund. The inquiry committee recommended that they should be made statutory so that in future there would be no doubt as to their legality. That recommendation is adopted in the Bill.
  The third recommendation was this. While the district committees which aid the Central Welfare Committee by initiating ideas have had four-fifths of the fund at their disposal, the Central Welfare Committee have always had control. The Chelmsford Committee, therefore, recommended that the committees should remain, but, in view of the reduction in the output levy, that it should no longer be divided as it has been divided, that
  1402
  is, one-fifth for general purposes and four-fifths to be used in the districts, but that the money should be consolidated in the hands of the Central Welfare Committee, although the district committees should continue. The Government have not seen their way to agree with that recommendation of the committee. We have produced our own solution, which I will endeavour to explain to the House.
  It is generally agreed that the outstanding remaining purpose to be fulfilled is the provision of pithead baths. They have worked a revolution wherever they have been adopted, and the extremely able staff of the Central Welfare Committee has been able to prepare new designs and improve constantly, until those who have seen the recent baths will agree that they are indeed a wonderful social production. It is agreed that their interests should be safeguarded. That is one of the reasons which led the Chelmsford Committee to suggest that there should be no longer a division as between one-fifth and four-fifths to general purposes and the districts respectively. They also thought that the interests of research should be safeguarded, and if hon. Members will look at a reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) last Tuesday they will find a complete analysis as to how the money has been spent on research. A great deal of this research work has been done in connection with health and safety—especially safety, the testing of wire ropes and things of that kind—and it has proved to be of the utmost value to the mining community.
  The Bill provides three things: The levy from 1932 shall be at the rate of a halfpenny a ton and shall continue until 1951, that is 20 years at a halfpenny instead of four years at a penny. The district committees shall remain in operation and shall not see their funds consolidated, but the interests of the pithead baths on the one hand and of research on the other shall be safeguarded by the statutory allocation of certain sums to both those purposes. There is to be a definite programme of pithead baths for 20 years. That will absorb £375,000 per annum. Since £196,000 came from the royalty levy last year the balance will come from the output levy. In order that research shall continue in an adequate way

  1403
  £20,000 definitely is to be allocated to that purpose each year. Therefore before any division is made between the central committee and the districts the programme of pithead baths and research will be safeguarded. There will be £375,000 for the one purpose and £20,000 for the other. That will be a statutory allocation before any division is made.
  Mr. G. MACDONALD: Is that a definite single lump sum?
  Mr. BROWN: No, it is an annual sum, £20,000 for research and £375,000 for baths. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the extension of the period of the output levy to 20 years, as recommended by the committee of inquiry. Clause 2 provides for the reduction of the levy from a penny to a halfpenny a ton, from and including the levy in respect of the output of 1932. The committee of inquiry's recommendation that it should start from that period is being carried out and made legal by the Bill. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 2 make the necessary provision for the collection of the levy partly in view of the retrospective effect of Subsection (1). Clause 3, I understand, presents some difficulty. Take first Subsection (1). The effect of it is to bring such things as canteens within the scope of the pithead baths scheme. Canteens have proved to be a very popular, almost an indispensable, adjunct of pithead baths. Where they have been provided it has been at the expense of district funds, sometimes with other help. If hon. Members will turn to Section 17 of the Act of 1926 they will find the words:
  "Accommodation and facilities for taking baths and drying clothes."
  It is proposed to bring canteens within the scope of that Section. It will be remembered that one of the recommendations of the Chelmsford Committee for amendment of the fund was that the existing statutory division of the proceeds of the output levy into general and district funds should be done away with, and that the Miners' Welfare Central Committee should have complete discretion in the matter. Let me give their reason for that. They recommended this, not because they under-estimated the value of the work of the district committees, but because they thought a re-
  1404
  duction of the output levy from a penny to a halfpenny would not leave enough money available under the old system to provide for the pithead baths programme without trenching on the districts funds. It was that which was our problem, and it is on that point that we find a solution in the Bill.
  The committee regarded the pithead baths programme as by far the most important object of expenditure in the future, and they did not want to risk any interference with it as a result of opposition from individual districts. We found, when we came to discuss the committee's recommendations, that there was very strong, if not unanimous, opposition on the part of the district committees, both of the owners and of the men, to the abolition of the statutory provision as to the division of the output levy referred to above. Up and down the country everywhere there was one plaint, "Do not leave us with merely advisory powers. Do not take away the four-fifths of whatever sum is left if you decide to cut the levy down to a halfpenny." The Government felt it was necessary to seek an alternative solution: of course there is a widely felt opinion in the industry on other grounds against the abolition of the district funds. I do not think that anything that has happened in the last 20 years has made for more good will in the industry than the operations of the district committees.
  Look then at Sub-section (2). It requires the welfare committee to set aside each year at the outset such sums from the current output levy as will raise the total sum available for pithead baths expenditure in that year to £375,000. That is for 20 years, coinciding with the period of the levy, and it is sufficient to ensure that the full pithead baths programme will synchronise with the lifetime of the levy and be completed within the 20 years. A similar provision is proposed with regard to research expenditure, for which an annual sum of £20,000 is to be set aside. That is on a slightly different basis from the baths expenditure. The £20,000 is not intended to supply all the requirements of research. It will be possible out of the residue of the central fund, after these allocations have been made, to make up the research contributions to the necessary annual amount without exhausting the general fund. The

  1405
  research fund has also the advantage of an endowment fund of £259,000 and annual interest comes from that. After these initial earmarkings, the balance will continue to be divided as before—one-fifth to the central fund, and four-fifths to the districts. This solution carries out the intention of the inquiry committee, that is to say, it makes further specific provision for pit head baths expenditure; it also maintains the district committees and provides funds for welfare work in the districts. Hon. Members may ask to what sum will this amount? I have prepared some figures and I shall be glad to give any hon. Member from any district the figure for his own district, that is to say a rough estimate of what would happen after the division had been made, in the case of a particular welfare committee. This would be too large a document to print in answer to a question, but if any hon. Member expresses a wish for detailed information I will see what I can do to meet him.
  The total effect is as follows. The provisional statement of estimated receipts for 1934, and the appropriation thereof to the district and central funds and the baths and research funds respectively, shows the following. Output levy for 1933, £430,000; appropriation for these two purposes £216,000, leaving a balance of £214,000. The royalties welfare levy is £179,000. That is entirely for baths. Interest on investments is approximately £43,000, a total of £652,000. The residue to be divided among the districts on this basis will be £171,200, plus interest £31,500, a total of £202,700. That will leave the central fund with £42,800, which is the one-fifth, plus a sum of £11,500 interest on investments or, altogether, £54,300. Of the total of £652,000 the district fund will get £202,700 and the central fund £74,300. Then, taking the baths fund you get £196,000 the appropriation from the output levy, plus £179,000, the result of the royalties welfare levy, making a sum of £375,000 earmarked for that fund. The research fund receives £20,000.
  The district funds may have some additions to that. If the output goes up they will be increased. If the ouput goes up and therefore the royalties levy goes up, a smaller sum will have to be appropriated each year to make up the baths
  1406
  fund to £375,000 that being a fixed sum. What we have to find out of the output levy is only a sum sufficient each year to bring the fund up to £375,000. The committee's report was based on an output of 200,000,000 tons. Our calculations are based on an output of 210,000,000 tons. If the output goes up, the levy goes up and the district funds and, of course, the central fund will benefit. I am happy to say that the prospects just now are a little better than they have been. I will not prophesy but I think I may be able to show at the end of this year the first increase that we have seen for three years. At any rate I hope so, and the district fund will not only have the sums I have indicated on this basis, but any additional sums due to rising output plus a further additional sum because of the smaller allocation necessary for the baths fund if the royalty levy rises to more than £179,000. They will further have the interest on their own sums added to that.
  Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 is to give effect to the third of the committee's recommendations and to bring within the scope of the welfare fund certain classes of persons about whose eligibility there has been some doubt in the past. Hon. Members will see that this Sub-section is declaratory and that it is retrospective in effect. If things have been done in days gone by the legality of which is dubious this declaration will make them legal. It also declares that education as well as technical mining instruction, as provided for specifically in the original Act, shall be brought within the legal scope of the Measure. As regards the classes of persons to be included paragraph (a) brings ex-miners within the scope of the fund.
  "Persons who have ceased to be employed as such workers by reason of age or disability."
  Mr. MANDER: Would that include pensions?
  Mr. BROWN: No. Paragraph (b) of the Sub-section covers unemployed miners and (c) the dependants of such workers. We had the curious technical position previously that if a miner became unemployed, technically he could be refused permission to play in the welfare football team or even on the football ground, and, if there was a dance in the welfare hall, a miner's daughter might not be allowed

  1407
  to go there with her miner sweetheart or brother. I do not say, of course, that such cases actually arose, but technically I believe that was the legal position, and the point is now made clear by the Sub-section. The effect of these proposals is to interpret the original definition of the scope of the fund and its allocation. The question of non-vocational education, which I have already mentioned, is dealt with by the words "the education of such workers." That legalises what has in fact been the practice but does not go any further.
  I think I have now covered all the provisions of the Bill, and I hope I have made them clear. If not, I may, with the leave of the House, reply at the end of this discussion to any general case which is put up, or to any specific points which hon. Members may raise. I can assure the House that we disagreed with the committee of inquiry only after grave deliberation. They worked hard and long, as indeed the issues warranted, but we felt that if the district committees were to continue to operate it would be impossible to take away the four-fifths. We have tried to secure the maximum benefit from the output levy in the present economic condition of the industry. We have made it clear that this is not a five-year programme. It is a long-term programme which will enable the committees, whether district or central, to plan welfare work on ampler lines than they have been able to do up to the present and with better perspective. I hope the House will agree that we have done our very best to meet the main demands of welfare, consistent with the recommendations of the inquiry committee and that the case recognised by Mr. Shinwell in 1931 is indeed a grave case. Before I sit down, let me say that I understand I led the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) to believe that it would not cover pensions. I understand that that is not so.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. G. MACDONALD: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I should like to make a protest on behalf of the Opposition against this Bill being brought in at this time to-night. We think that that very fact goes to show
  1408
  that the Government do not consider the Miners' Welfare Fund as of any great importance, otherwise they would have made far better provision for the Debate on this Bill. I want to associate the Opposition with the very well deserved tribute paid by the Secretary for Mines to the late Lord Chelmsford. We on this side also appreciate what he did for the Welfare Fund, and we on the committee of inquiry all realise that had it not been for his patience and his great tact, no report could have been submitted. There was never a committee of inquiry where the differences were so deep as on this committee. I remember well the last meeting of the committee, and had it not been for Lord Chelmsford, we should have submitted five separate reports to the Secretary for Mines, but Lord Chelmsford insisted on more agreement, and he succeeded in getting more agreement, with the result that we only got roughly four different reports.
  I did not quite agree with the Secretary for Mines in regard to the setting up of that committee. He tried to impress on the House that it was set up because Mr. Shinwell had realised the gravity of the situation. But that is not quite correct. What actually happened was this: The Liberal party of those days, as usual, placed the Labour Government in a difficulty, and we understood that if we did not agree to a committee of inquiry, they would not support the penny. They told us that not only on the Floor of the House, but several times in Committee, with the result that, in order to get the penny, to which we thought we were entitled, we compromised, and the Secretary for Mines of those days agreed to appoint a committee of inquiry, not because he thought it was necessary, but because he was yielding to Liberal pressure, a thing that was done many times during that Parliament.
  With regard to the Minister's speech, I say quite frankly that he has given us a very lucid explanation of a rather difficult problem, and he has removed from our minds one or two doubts. We thought, in the first place, that this Bill was going to abolish district funds, but he has made it quite clear that it does not. We also thought the Bill did not make it possible for pensions to be supplemented out of the welfare fund. We, on this side, now take it for granted that district funds are not to be abolished,

  1409
  and that pensions or superannuation schemes can be supplemented out of the welfare fund; and in so far as that is made clear, it removes some of our initial objections to the Bill.
  We object to the retrospective character of the Bill. I have not been in this House very long, but I have been here sufficiently long to realise that Ministers have generally stood up and strenuously resisted any suggestion of retrospective legislation, especially if it concerned workmen in the mining industry. We were told that that was impossible, but here we have the Government themselves bringing forward retrospective legislation, and when the Minister tries to use the committee of inquiry as a justification, let me remind him that it was never the intention of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that this should operate in this way. It is true that he signed that report, but I am certain he never intended that this should operate in the way it has done. Therefore, the Minister has not got the majority of the committee behind this recommendation. We resisted it there. We felt that whatever was to happen to the fund, it must start from the date of the passing of the Act here. In Lancashire throughout 1933 I find that we have made deductions of a penny per ton for welfare purposes. Now we are told there is going to be a refund to the mine-owners in Lancashire because of this Bill, and I want to make our protest against the retrospective character of the Bill.
  We oppose the reduction of the levy. First of all, it both restricts and retards welfare work, and there can be no justification for that. In fact, I feel that my colleagues on the committee were not very consistent themselves in supporting that proposal. Throughout this document they stress the need for welfare work in every direction. They tell us times out of number that this ought to be done, that that ought to be done, and that the other ought to be done. I will refer only to two things, and I will take two short paragraphs from the report. I will take, first, indoor recreation and social intercourse. We are told by the committee on page 26 of their report:
  "We consider that there should be adequate facilities for indoor recreation and social intercourse at every place where an appreciable number of miners live, before the intentions of the 1920 Act in respect of these matters can be said to have been
  1410
  met, and it is clear that there is still a good deal of work to be done in this direction."
  They then go forward and say, with regard to boys' clubs, on page 30:
  "We should like to see boys' clubs established all over the coalfields."
  About a month ago His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester paid a visit to Lancashire and went right through Lancashire with the sole purpose of advocating the establishment of boys' clubs. He tried to persuade us members of the welfare committee in Lancashire that it was essential, yet here we have the Government coming forward and making it impossible. The House must realise that this Bill is the end of all welfare work in general. His Royal Highness advocated very strenuously that we in Lancashire should support the establishment of boys' clubs, but this will make it impossible. Then the committee again pronounced very definitely that they thought much needed to be done in regard to outdoor recreation. They state on page 32:
  "There would appear, therefore, to be a good deal yet to be done in respect of outdoor recreation, though we feel that the purposes of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, cannot be said to have been met as long as there is not some provision, with due regard to local needs and existing local facilities, for outdoor recreation in every mining community of appreciable size, both for children and adults."
  That again stresses the need for welfare work, and at the end of those sittings it is surprising that any member of that committee could suggest that we should reduce the levy from a penny to a halfpenny and handicap every piece of work that we suggested wanted doing. However, it was done. We are told that pithead baths are very important and that this Bill makes very special provision for them, and that we ought to remember that. We, on this side, have been sufficiently long connected with the mining industry to realise the value of pithead baths. We have never minimised their value, but we are not going to support a Bill which, though making special provision for a baths fund, does it at the expense of general welfare. We are told that the royalty levy does not bring in sufficient to provide baths. If the Government treat this question as an item in costs, and say that it is our duty to reduce those costs, we think this is

  1411
  the last item, apart from wages, that ought to be reduced.
  When I go through the various items of costs I find some startling figures. I will take the Lancashire figures for 1931 and 1932, the last complete years, and give three items. The figure for "other materials and stores consumed" in 1931 was 10.47d. and in 1932 10.99d., an increase of over ½d. The remuneration of directors took 3.28d. per ton in 1931 and 3.47d. in 1932. For some unknown reason that figure went up nearly ¼d. Wagon charges increased from 7.06d. to 7.43d., an increase of a ½d. It is interesting that the wagon earnings decreased from 4.88d. in 1931 to 4.53d. in 1932. The earning capacity went down, but the cost went up. All these items are far more costly items than welfare, yet the Government do not say a single word to the owners and ask them to make reductions in these heavy items. The Government do not say to them, "Before we agree to them you must reduce every item to its lowest minimum." Instead of that, they try to reduce the costs of the mining industry by saving a ½d. on welfare. I remember when Evan Williams gave evidence before us, and I am sure he will not forget the cross-examination of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). He told us that this welfare levy had been a cause of collieries finding it difficult to continue. When he was asked if he thought that royalties were a heavy item and whether there should be a reduction there and when he was asked if he would agree to a penny a ton on royalties in order to safeguard the Welfare Fund, he edged in his reply.
  We say that the Welfare Fund ought not to be used to save the royalty levy. If the royalty levy at the present figure of 5 per cent. is not sufficient to make adequate provision for pithead baths, we say that it should be doubled or trebled. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) mentioned this matter in his report of 1925 on page 209. Speaking of the royalty owners and pithead baths, he said:
  "In view of the fact that their income from royalties is largely dependent upon the labour of the miners, it is legitimate to require them to join in the measures which are regarded as necessary for the miners' well-being. A mineral owner has a moral obligation to aid the well-being of the
  1412
  population that works his minerals, in the same way that a landowner has a moral obligation towards the population that works on his estate."
  They recommended a 5 per cent. levy on royalties. If experience has proved that that levy is insufficient, our contention is that there is no case for reducing the welfare levy first and then allocating a definite sum from that reduced levy for bath purposes, thereby saving the royalty levy and at the same time crippling general welfare work. We say that if the Government found it difficult to deal with pithead baths in the way they think baths ought to be dealt with, their clear duty was not to place pithead baths on the Welfare Fund, but to increase the royalty levy and secure sufficient money from that source so that the industry would not be handicapped in any way. We can only come to one conclusion, namely, that the reason that the Government took this course was that they are not prepared to stand up to the mineral owners. They prefer to rob the miners and their dependants of the little welfare which they have enjoyed and which they ought to enjoy.
  We had some genuine uneasiness as to whether this Bill makes clear the question of pensions. We looked through the Bill from beginning to end and found that the provisions are not sufficiently enlarged to provide pensions. We are, therefore, relying entirely on the Minister's statement on that question so that if, for instance, we in Lancashire, with a balance of £180,000, feel it necessary to allocate all or any of that to pensions or superannuation purposes, there is nothing in this Bill to prevent us.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Let me make that quite clear. I said that after the Bill is passed there will be nothing legally to prevent an allocation of the output levy to pensions. That is a different thing because, as the hon. Member knows, the over-riding power in this matter, whatever the district, lies with the Central Committee.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Does this Bill make any difference as regards the position of pensions from what existed previously?
  Mr. BROWN: The point is that when the Bill is passed there will be no difference except that it is clear in this Bill that legally there is nothing to prevent

  1413
  the use of the output levy for pensions. The over-riding power and authority with regard to the allocation of this levy still is with the Central Committee.
  Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: A year ago I asked my hon. Friend a question as to whether some of the Miners' Welfare Fund could be applied to the Northumberland Miners' Relief Fund, and the reply was that it would be ultra vires. Will the same apply to an allocation for pensions?
  Mr. MANDER rose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I would remind hon. Members that this is a Second Reading Debate.
  Mr. MACDONALD: We had the impression on this side of the House from the Minister's statement that pensions would be a proper object for this fund. Now he tells us that the position is exactly as it was prior to the Bill being brought in. It was then legally quite a proper object, but the Central Welfare Committee for ten years had resisted it. They may resist it in future, but this Bill does not say whether they shall or shall not. We protest that the Bill does not make it definite and legal in the sense that the Central Welfare Committee has no right to resist it. It is legal to provide convalescent homes and recreation grounds, and we think that the Bill ought to make it clear to the Central Committee that they have no more right to resist allocations for pension purposes than they have to resist allocations for miners' convalescent homes. There should be no dubiety on the question. We in Lancashire have not spent a penny except on miners' convalescent homes, our purpose being to get a good nucleus for pensions for a superannuation fund. Some time ago a private Member's Bill was brought in to allocate a part of the money standing to the credit of the Welfare Fund to pensions. I find that was supported by seven Liberals of varying colour and one Conservative. Our position is that the Bill now before the House ought to make it definite that pensions do come within its scope. The only question of importance to us is the allocation of the fund. The Minister appeared to tell us, when interpreting Sub-section (3) of Clause 3, that the definitions there constitute an improvement for us. Miners' homes are definitely provided for, but what earthly
  1414
  good is that when the Bill itself has so reduced the money for general welfare purposes that no miners' home can be built?
  On no ground can a case be made out for this Bill. Only a person opposed to miners' welfare in general can support the Measure. Miners' welfare in general cannot be carried on by the Bill. We are told that there is an allocation of £170,000 among 25 districts, and that therefore general welfare work can go on, but we say that the fund as now constituted does not provide adequately for the future needs of welfare work in any district, though the needs are great. If more hon. Members knew the conditions in mining districts and realised the drabness of mining life they would appreciate the need for welfare work. It is granted that since 1920 much has been done, but more remains to be done, and it cannot be done with a levy of only one halfpenny per ton. The fact that the Bill extends the duration of the fund for 16 years is, to us, an advantage, because before the end of 16 years we on this side of the House will sit on the opposite side, with a great majority behind us, and we can then deal with the Miners' Welfare Fund. But, for the moment, let us make it clear that we oppose this Bill because it retards and restricts welfare work, because it deals with one of the items that ought not to be dealt with—except last—as an item of cost, and because it does not make it possible for any district where owners and men agree to make provision for a superannuation scheme or a pension fund.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. MILNE: This Bill makes provision for payments out of the Welfare Fund for the purposes of research. I have read the report of the Departmental Committee and listened to the speech of the Secretary for Mines, and I am still completely at a loss to understand why any money whatever should be taken from the Welfare Fund for this purpose. I know I shall be told that the object is a statutory one, and that the research is strictly confined to research for safety purposes. I do not suggest for a moment that research should be discontinued, quite the reverse. In order to secure the safety of the men working underground the expenditure cannot be on too liberal a scale. But when I look at this report I find that the Committee tell us there is

  1415
  an immense amount of work still to be done. Apparently the work is starved for want of money. The Committee go on to tell us that in Germany, in America and, I think, also in France, a great deal more in spent on research than is expended in this country, and I ask the question, Why place this burden on the Welfare Fund?
  The Welfare Fund is in chronic financial difficulty. I think I am right in saying that since its establishment 14 years ago an immense sum, amounting, if I mistake not, to something like £750,000, has been appropriated from the fund for this purpose. When I look again at this report I find that it is accompanied by a minority report, and I see that Mr. Alfred Smith expresses a view which I am bound to say seems suspiciously like common sense. He says that in his view the purpose of research is not one which ought to come within the purview of such a scheme as miners' welfare. The State already recognises its duty in this respect. The State has established and maintains a brigade of inspectors, and in addition to that the Treasury has, for a number of years, made an annual grant. Though it is a meagre grant of £1,750, pitifully inadequate, one values it because it is a species of token payment. It is an admission that the State recognises its liabilities in this matter. I congratulate the Secretary for Mines on having secured the continuance of this annual grant, but why does he not ask for more? How can be justify these proposals? Why pillage the Miners' Fund?
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I should like to congratulate the Secretary for Mines on the somewhat unique achievement of introducing two Bills on one day, and doing it with the clarity and precision which characterise all his speeches in this House. I listened very closely to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), but I thought he seemed to cast a somewhat unworthy reflection upon one of his own party who was Minister for Mines and a Member of this House. My conception of the Labour party is not that of a body of Members who could be domineered over by the Liberal party. He has told us that what the Liberal party said to
  1416
  Mr. Shinwell was: "Stand and deliver," and that Mr. Shinwell immediately went on his knees and said he was sorry he had spoken. That is not borne out by this report, where Mr. Shinwell clearly says that he appointed this Departmental Committee to find out.
  "what remains to he done, and whether the scope of the fund and the existing machinery for its administration as defined in that Section and as developed in practice are satisfactory for the future."
  I have no doubt the statement of Mr. Shinwell was well considered and wholly unrelated to the Liberal party, who, I think cannot be blamed at any time for exercising any undue influence in this House. I was very much in agreement with my hon. Friend regarding the retrospective effect of this legislation. We are informed that now there is a statutory obligation for the continuance of the Welfare Fund for 16 years from this date, but I am at a loss to understand how to regard that as reliable, because at the present time there is statutory obligation for the fund to be continued at the old rate until the end of 1935. While I quite understand that this very unfortunate matter must be considered in relation to the state of the industry, I am extremely sorry that the proposed legislation is to be retrospective.
  I know something about the depressed condition of the coal-mining industry, and I think that hon. Members of the Labour party cannot leave that fact out of their calculations. Even making full allowance for that, I do not like to feel that there is any possibility of going back upon the promise which was made that the same rate would continue until the end of 1935. The beneficent results of the Welfare Fund are known to us all. Several quotations bearing upon that have been given to us. As one who represents very important coalfields in Fife-shire, I should like to point out that, however liberal is the provision that may have been made for the future, the result of the cut of 50 per cent. will have a very startling effect upon Fifeshire, because it is a very drastic reduction. So far as Fifeshire is concerned, the estimated sum will be reduced from £24,000 to £8,000. That is a very serious matter.
  So far as the work which has been outlined is concerned, I do not think that those who are connected with the administration of the Welfare Fund had

  1417
  any idea of legislation of a retrospective character coming along in the near future. The consequence is that they had made provisions for various schemes, but not having the benefit of the 1d. per ton from 1932, they adjusted their programmes and arrangements were made which will have to be cancelled. I regard that as very unfortunate. I do not know what may happen to this Bill in Committee, or what changes the Minister may agree to, but I hope that it is not too late for the retrospective element to be reconsidered.
  I have referred in a sentence to the depressed condition of the industry. We know about that at first hand in Scotland. About a week ago I listened to a broadcast on the question of the coal trade, given by one of the greatest living authorities upon coal mining, Mr. C. C. Reid, director of the Fife Coal Company. If the facts are as he stated, they have a most direct relation to a reconsideration of the amounts which should be paid for this Welfare Fund. It was very striking to hear in this broadcast that Scotland in 1880 produced 20,000,000 tons of coal and employed 75,000 people. Those figures were doubled in 1913, but after 1926, the year of the great coal stoppage, the downward trend began. To-day in Scotland, production of coal has fallen tremendously. It is now down to 28,000,000 tons, and the number of people employed is 85,000, as compared with 140,000 in 1913. These are very serious facts, and they cannot be overlooked in connection with the contribution required from the mineowners towards the fund.
  Associated with those facts was the startling statement made by Mr. Reid that the whole of the coal produced in Scotland for the last six years has been produced at a loss of approximately 4d. per ton. In dealing with the subject which we have under discussion, the disastrous state of the coal trade has to be taken into account, but I wish to be fair to the miners, than whom there is no finer body of working men in our country. We know what the result of the Welfare Fund has been, and how much still remains to be done. One has only to read the Report to have an indication from the Members of the Committee themselves of the great possibilities of the future in relation to
  1418
  this fund. For that reason, and whatever decision may be ultimately reached regarding the amount per ton to be paid by the mineowners, I hope that the retrospective element will be reconsidered. I will listen with very great interest indeed to the reply of the Secretary for Mines.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. T. SMITH: The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) congratulated the Minister on introducing two Bills upon the same day. That may be unique, but I thought I detected in the attitude of the Minister a change in regard to this Bill, as compared with that in which he moved the first Bill earlier in the day. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill dealing with hydrocarbon oil, the Minister rather suggested that the process with which it dealt would increase the output of coal in this country, and with that I agree to some extent. When he dealt with the financial results of the second Bill, I noticed that he calculated the output as something in the region of 206,000,000 tons.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I think I said 210,000,000.
  Mr. SMITH: I think I am right in saying that calculation each year is based more or less upon output being something like stabilised around that amount. The Secretary for Mines started off by saying what is now almost the usual thing when a Bill is being introduced; he referred to what the Labour Government did from 1929 to 1931. We have been accused of having done nothing, but when an Act of Parliament which was passed by the Labour Government comes up for discussion, the National Government justify their action by what we did or omitted to do. It was said that the then Secretary for Mines agreed to the appointment of this committee. That is true, but it is also fair to say that there was a real reason why Mr. Shinwell should have agreed to that. As the House will remember, this Bill was hotly debated upstairs, and one hon. Member who sits opposite me, together with Colonel Lane Fox, who was then Member for Barkston Ash, told the Committee quite clearly and definitely that they were not prepared to agree to the continuance of the 1d. per ton. I remember that Committee very clearly. We were told that

  1419
  the coalowners were prepared to agree to the continuance of a farthing a ton; we were told by Conservative Members that they themselves were prepared to agree to a halfpenny a ton, and we were also told that unless we agreed to a committee, the passage of the Third Reading of the Bill would not be a very smooth one. In those days, of course, we were in a minority. My personal opinion, which I expressed at that time, was that it would have been far better for Mr. Shinwell to challenge the Committee on the continuance of the penny than to concede the appointment of the committee.
  Captain PEAKE: You did not trust your friends.
  Mr. SMITH: It was not so much a question of trusting our friends as one of strategy. I think I can speak the mind of the hon. and gallant Member opposite by saying that if he had had to decide between the continuance of the penny per ton for another period and voting for the reduction of that penny per ton, he would have had no difficulty in choosing, because politically he would have known that he would be doing something which he would regret, and, secondly, because the hon. and gallant Member himself knows how valuable this penny per ton has been to the miners in the various coalfields.
  Although it is true that the committee was appointed, we must not take it for granted that everything a committee reports is the best possible thing. We remember the appointment of the Commission that originally started the penny per ton. The Sankey Commission of that period held a very thorough investigation into the conditions in the mining industry, both industrial and social, and the nation was so astounded in 1919 at the bad conditions in the various mining districts that it accepted whole-heartedly the idea of a penny per ton being levied for welfare purposes. No one in this House will disagree with me when I say that this welfare fund has been almost a magic penny per ton. My only regret with regard to it is that it was not in operation when I was a lad working in the pit. In those days there were scarcely any facilities for anything apart from going to your work and from it. The houses were bad and there was no
  1420
  recreation. That penny has made a wonderful difference. Some districts have concentrated on the recreation side: they have laid down bowling-greens, cricket-pitches and playing-fields for children, and have done wonderfully good work. Others have gone in for convalescent homes; in Yorkshire, while we have not a home the size of the one at Blackpool, or one so nicely situated as the home at Tallygowen in South Wales, we have put in at Scarborough and other places convalescent homes worthy of all the effort that has been put into them.
  While we quite agree that there has been a tremendous amount of good work done by this penny, we on this side of the House are not satisfied that there is a real reason for the reduction to a halfpenny. When the penny was first put on, it was calculated to bring in £1,000,000 per year with an output of 240,000,000 tons. The output has now fallen to between 200,000,000 and 210,000,000 tons, and there has been a loss of revenue to the Welfare Fund from that fact alone. Now, although you are going to extend the operation of the levy, you are going to reduce the revenue by half. We on this side of the House are not prepared to agree to that. We say that the work is not yet completed; there is still plenty of work that needs doing in the various mining districts. There is plenty of welfare work that needs doing in the Lancashire coalfields which we think warrants us in asking for the continuance of the penny.
  There is another side to this penny. The Secretary for Mines did not make the position quite clear with regard to the use of some portion of this levy for giving pensions to aged miners. I wish the committee had brought in a unanimous report on the lines of the evidence submitted by the Miners' Federation, in which I believe they advocated not a reduction of the penny to a halfpenny, but an increase of twopence per ton. The House will agree with me when I say that conditions in the mining industry are very different to-day from what they were some years ago. You have a large number of people who have been discharged between the ages of 55 and 65 and who, on account of reaching that age and also of the machinery which has developed, have got the impression that the mining industry will never absorb them again.

  1421
  We feel that the mining industry ought to be in a position to assist aged miners. Never forget that most of these men started in the mines at a very early age; they have worked nowhere else but in that industry; they have reached the age of 60 and are cast on one side. We think that is wrong. We think we ought to have the money to provide a decent pension scheme for these men. I am not trying to say that even the extra halfpenny would give us all that we need for that purpose, but in these days every little bit helps.
  Giving credit where credit is due, there are some colliery owners in this country who are big enough and wise enough to try to institute pension schemes for their own collieries, and I should be the first to congratulate them, as I always have done, on the work that they are doing. Consider the position of a man who leaves work at 65 years of age. If that man and his wife can be guaranteed 30s. per week for 52 weeks in the year, with the knowledge that it is going to be there as long as they live, that man is quite content. He is happier than if he had to go down the pit three or four days in some weeks and then come home with less than 30s. There are some colliery companies who have endeavoured to do it, and all credit must be given to them. I only wish, and I only hope, that those hon. Members who are attached to colliery enterprises will keep in mind, until we get the State to accept the responsibility for aged workers generally, those colliery works which have done their best to establish pension schemes for all their employés. It is very necessary and worthy work.
  Let me conclude by saying that I hope the Secretary for Mines will not misunderstand us when I say that we are bound to oppose this Bill. We feel that its provisions are inadequate; we feel that there is still plenty of work that needs doing in many colliery districts, and we feel that we are justified in asking for the continuance of the penny. When we hear so much about the economic position of the industry, we have to bear one or two things in mind. It is perfectly true that to-day the mining industry is in a bad way, but it is also true to say that in pre-War days, in 1913, when there was no welfare work, when there was scarcely a pit in the country with baths,
  1422
  it was making a profit of 1s. 5½d. to 1s. 6d. per ton. Even though we hear from the coalowners about how badly the industry is doing in these days, we still remember that, when they were making a handsome profit in pre-War days, they never went out of their way to admit it or to do general welfare work.
  From the point of view of pithead baths, it is true that we have made a big step forward. I remember the agitation in the early days for pithead baths. I remember with what jubilation we saw in 1911 that this House had provided, in Section 77 of the Act of that year, for the possibility of pits getting baths. I remember that in those days many miners were not favourable to baths, and some of us who are now on these benches had to face a great deal of criticism from the older men, who honestly and sincerely believed that baths were detrimental to health. One has to bear in mind the nature of the occupation. Men went down the pit, and had to strip; they had to take off everything but a pair of short drawers. They had to work hard, and there were men who honestly believed that, if they came out of a hot mine into the cold air and went into a bath, it might tend to give them a chill. I am pleased to say that to-day that idea is non-existent in the mining industry. But Section 77 was never put into operation, because the House put a maximum sum to be paid by miners for the upkeep of the baths.
  With the coming of the voluntary welfare scheme and the tax on mining royalties, pithead baths have been put up more rapidly during the last two or three years than ever before, and the Secretary for Mines was not exaggerating when he said that the latest kind of bath erected is almost a wonder. I have seen a good many of them. I am bound to say that they meet a real need, and they are appreciated, not merely by the men, but by the women. Many of us remember when we used to have to come home in our pit dirt, and, in houses that had no baths, get the dirt off as best we could in order to attend a meeting of a public body; and we know the amount of work that the women had to do owing to the dirt that the men brought in from the pit. I have heard many miners' wives almost bless the time when their

  1423
  husbands could leave the dirt at the pit, and from that angle I do not think the Secretary for Mines was exaggerating.
  We are, perhaps, one of the most backward European countries in regard to this matter of providing baths. I hope hon. Members will not misunderstand me when I say that. I have seen pithead baths in other countries long before we had pithead baths in this country. Indeed, in Germany, I remember going into Krupp's pit at Essen and watching with admiration the men coming out of the pit, getting washed, and going home clean; but at that time, 10 years ago, we had very few pithead baths in this country. We think that more progress should be made with regard to baths. I estimate that every pit that needs a bath will not get it inside the next 25 years; indeed, I think that at one time it was calculated in the Mines Department that it would take 35 years to give every pit decent washing accommodation. Personally, I think that the provision of baths ought not to be dependent on this levy of ½d. per ton; I think that the matter ought to be distinct from the general welfare work. It is because we know that there is still work to be done in the coalfield that we believe that the cutting down of the amount of the levy is a mistake, and we shall endeavour to the best of our ability and opportunity, as the rules of the House and the rules of Committee procedure permit, to get the House and the Committee to accept our point of view. While appreciating all that has been done in the welfare sense, we feel, knowing what still remains to be done, that the House ought to continue the 1d. a ton, and, therefore, we are bound to oppose the Bill.
  9.41 p.m.
  Captain PEAKE: I cannot quarrel with the provisions of this Bill; it represents very closely the views which I advocated to the Standing Committee in 1931; but I am a little hurt by the disclosure by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) of the reasons which moved Mr. Shinwell to appoint this Departmental Committee of inquiry. I followed the late Sir Donald Maclean in appealing to Mr. Shinwell at that time to try to settle this question by agreement. The miners were standing out for the full
  1424
  1d. per ton, while the owners were standing out for ¼d., and I remember suggesting that they might very well split the difference and fix the levy at ⅝d. per ton. I made an earnest appeal to Mr. Shinwell on those lines, and I must confess that I did not know until to-day that it was not on account of my appeal, but on account of the fact that Mr. Shinwell could not trust his colleagues on the Liberal benches, that the Departmental Committee was appointed. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) saying during the proceedings that, if it came to a vote on the question of the 1d., he would unhesitatingly vote for the whole 1d., and, therefore, if something else was being said last year, it is very difficult to understand.
  The first criticism that is made is in regard to the reduction of the amount of the levy. When I saw the personnel of this committee, the last thing I expected was that they would recommend this reduction, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton had onnounced that he was in favour of the 1d., and I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Ince was a member of the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation—I understand that he is so no longer—and there was also Mr. Alf. Smith representing the miners. Therefore, it did not appear to me to be very likely that there would be a majority report in favour of a reduction to ½d. I should like to compliment my hon. Friend opposite on having the courage, on going more closely into the facts, to signing a report advocating the smaller amount.
  It is too late now to re-open the merits of the expenditure of the Miners Welfare Fund, but I would like, in justification of the figure of ½d. a ton, to refer to the minority report of Mr. Alf. Smith, of the Miners' Federation. Mr. Alf. Smith, in that report, recommended that the fund should continue indefinitely at the same rate, namely, 1d. per ton, and that the Act of 1920 should be amended so that, where districts were desirous that their contributions should be used to supplement any pension scheme, that should be allowed. In his second paragraph he said:
  "In the event of pension schemes not being allowed, I recommend that the out put levy shall be reduced from 1st January, 1933, by a ½d. a ton."
  Mr. G. MACDONALD: The case put by the Miners' Federation itself was 2d. a ton.
  Captain PEAKE: I quite accept that. I am now quoting from the minority report of the official representative of the miners upon this departmental committee. Everyone has the greatest sympathy with this question of pensions for aged miners, but you have to consider the cost. We are fortunate in having in this report an estimate by the Government Actuary of the cost of pensions of only 10s. a week at the age of 60, and you see that, as more and more miners come into pension rights, the figure reaches approximately £4,000,000 a year. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite would advocate a smaller pension than 10s., and the cost would work out at 5d. upon every ton of coal or, in terms of wages, 2s. 6d. per week for every man employed. I do not see much possibility at present of getting a general scheme of miners' pensions adopted. There are individual collieries where miners' pensions are given, but it is obviously impossible for a general fund, to which all miners and all owners contribute, to allocate money towards pensions of miners employed only at individual collieries. If you are going to have an allocation towards pensions at all, it has to be through a general scheme covering at least the whole district; otherwise, it is extremely unfair.
  I think it is an admirable thing that the levy is stabilised for 20 years. It will enable the committees to plan in advance and it will stabilise welfare work. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is providing definitely for a fixed sum annually for the provision of pithead baths, which have been rather too much neglected by the welfare committees. They have collected in all over 11 years £13,000,000, out of which only £2,500,000 has been spent upon pithead baths; that is to say, only an average of £220,000 a year. I am very glad that my hon. Friend is going to push on this work at a far greater rate in the future than it has been carried on in the past. This fund has brought the two sides of the industry together in a way that they have never been brought together before. It has even influenced the tone of the Debates in this House on mining questions. We do not seem to have quite the same bitterness that we used to have three or
  1426
  five years ago, and I hope, even although hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby against the Bill, the work in the districts will continue uninterrupted and with as good a spirit in the future as in the past.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. MANDER: I think the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) was a little hazy in his historical memory of the events of the last Parliament when he attempted to throw the blame for the appointment of this Committee on the Liberal party. My recollection—and it has been corrected by what we have heard to-night—is that it was due in large part to appeals made by the Conservative party and to threats of Tory obstruction that he finally gave way and consented to the appointment of the Committee. I have no doubt the hon. Member finds it very convenient to have a Liberal party at hand which he can blame for all his misdeeds and shortcomings. As a member of the Committee, I spent a very happy two years going into all the work that has been done by the Welfare Fund, and I was able to see the magnificent work of a social, human kind that is done to bring many things into the lives of the miners which they ought to have had before but which the owners had entirely failed to provide on their own account. Travelling, as we did, throughout Cannock Chase and other areas, seeing the many magnificent schemes that had been laid out there, and seeing the provision that had been made, starting with the children right up to old age, one could not help being immensely impressed with the wonderful results coming from the establishment of the Welfare Fund and desiring to see it continue for as long a period as possible and in as effective a form as one possibly could.
  I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid to the Chairman of the Committee. The fund owes an immense debt to the work that he did for so many years, and I am sure he was an inspiration to us and a most kindly guide throughout all our difficulties and difference in so far as they may have existed. This Bill is the result of the recommendations of that Committee, but I cannot regard it as an acceptance of those recommendations. Two main points are recommended: first of all, the ½d. reduction and then the abolition of the district funds.

  1427
  The hon. Member for Ince signed this recommendation and omitted to include it in his dissenting minority report, and must, therefore, be held to be fully in accord with it.
  Mr. MACDONALD: I had better read ray own reservation.
  "The receipts from such a levy, even at the reduced rate of a ½d., would be sufficient to make it unnecessary to abandon district funds."
  Mr. MANDER: I do not think that is quite good enough. The hon. Member said:
  "While fully appreciating the reasons, as set out in the Report, which prompted the majority of the Committee to make these recommendations, I am unable to accept the first, and it would be necessary to make the third more comprehensive to meet with my approval."
  He says nothing whatever about the second, which deals with the district committees. I do not wish to say a word in criticism of the admirable work done by those committees, which are non-statutory and voluntary committees. Employers and employed have come together and have thrashed out many admirable schemes for their particular districts. They have done work which is beyond praise, but it was inevitable, as they were to a very large extent limited by the circumstances of their existence and their position, that they should only be able, in formulating their plans, to envisage their own particular coalfield. They had no expert advice. They had their own very excellent ideas, but they were limited in the way I have described.
  We thought that, arising out of the circumstances of the case, and for no other reason, it was desirable that all the schemes throughout the country should be surveyed from one centre, and that the advice and experience available at headquarters should be placed more fully at the disposal of the committees in different parts of the country. I am sure that the existing system is uneconomic. It is not as effective and as efficient as it should be, and we look forward to a position in which you will still have the inestimable services of the district committees in an advisory capacity working sympathetically and in a friendly way with headquarters and availing themselves of the expert advice which
  1428
  every month is becoming more widely used. At the same time, I fully recognise that, having existed for a number of years, certain vested interests have grown up in these committees. People on both sides have become accustomed to carrying out this kind of work, and, human nature being what it is, they are very reluctant to give it up. I regret, all the same, that this recommendation of ours was not accepted, because I think that it would have made for the more efficient management of the funds which are available.
  In this connection I attach enormous importance to one of the recommendations which we made, and that is, the establishment of paid organisers in different districts. I know that this may be misunderstood and not be popular, but in these days of increasing leisure it is becoming clearer to us all the time that you need expert advice. We do not wish to send superior people into the coalfields to tell the miners what they have to do and how they have to do it. But we want people who know the coalfields and who have been specially trained in the kind of work going on under the Welfare Fund to advise those who are doing the work on the spot. I feel that we must pay special attention to one matter. A very large sum of money—I think about £8,000,000—has now been spent on these various schemes, and there is no existing organisation for seeing that they are kept going. There is a danger of some of them lapsing and falling into disuse altogether, because there is no one on the spot keeping up the interest and seeing that the funds necessary for keeping the schemes going are made available. All who are experienced in welfare work outside the mining industry know that you want someone to help very busy people who have other work to do, and keep them up to scratch and, in a friendly and human way, to continue incentive and interest. Also you want them to plan out the future.
  With regard to the recommendation about the reduction of the fund to a halfpenny, I was astonished to hear the Secretary for Mines say to-night—and what I understand to be the case—that, whereas up to the present time anything in the nature of pensions has been illegal, yet the Bill for the first time

  1429
  will make pensions legal. There is no question at all about it, if one studies the words carefully in Sub-section (3) of Clause 3:
  "purposes connected with the social wellbeing …. persons who have ceased to be employed as such workers by reason of age or disability."
  That, for the first time, makes it possible for the Central Miners' Welfare Fund, if they think fit, to promote schemes of pensions. We did not recommend that pensions should be brought into effect, and if I had thought for one moment that the Government would have brought in a Bill making it possible to use the fund for pensions schemes, I should not even temporarily have consented to a ½d. reduction, because it is perfectly fantastic. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) dealt with the question, and there is no need for me to repeat it. He pointed out what an enormous sum of money would be required to build up any pension scheme on a pension basis. No one is more anxious than I am to see a pensions' scheme in the mining industry, and it is essential that this should be brought into existence; but it really is not fair to tie it up to a scheme of this kind. The amount of pension that you could give out of this fund would be very small, and would inevitably take away some of the money which should be used for the main schemes of social welfare, which would not otherwise be provided.
  On those two grounds, I feel very strongly that, while we want a pension scheme, it would be most unwise to permit any diversion of the Miners' Welfare Fund to such a purpose. I am interested to note, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the miners' representative on the committee, Mr. Alf Smith, entirely agreed with that view, and only consented to the ½d., as I did, because it was understood that pensions were to be excluded. As a signatory of the Report, I should also like to say that we never contemplated for a moment that there would be any retrospective legislation, and that the 1d. would be calculated until such time as an Act was passed reducing it to a ½d. With regard to the reduction of the fund to a ½d., there is no doubt that when you take everything into consideration, in-
  1430
  cluding the very poor state of the mining industry, there was a case for a general compromise to get an agreed report for a reduction to a ½d. for a period, provided we excluded pensions.
  I would point out, as attention has not been called to this phase in the Debate to-night, that in dealing with this question the committee say that the ½d. reduction should take place, and, if and when the financial state of the industry permits, the amount should be increased. I attach very great importance to that fact. It was not put in simply as a gesture. It was seriously intended, and I very much regret that the Bill does not include any provision by which the Secretary for Mines for the time being, if he thinks the state of the industry permits it, can by using an order to come before this House, raise it again to the sum of 1d. I propose if the Measure receives its Second Reading to move in Committee a Clause which will make it possible again to raise the levy to 1d. when prosperity returns, without having to go through the procedure of a Bill in this House, and all the delay and difficulties which such a proceeding means. We signed the report in December, 1932, and it is now February, 1934.
  We have been told a good deal by Members of the Government in the last few months—and no doubt my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines has not failed to play his part—of the wonderful success of their efforts in reviving the trade and industry of this country. I think that the country is begining to get a little tired of this continual patting of themselves on the back. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot go round the country saying: "Look how wonderfully we have revived the industries of this country," and then come to this House and say: "This particular industry is in such a poverty-stricken state, even after two years of our incomparable administration, that we are obliged to ask for a reduction of the levy to one-halfpenny." My hon. Friend has almost persuaded me that the mining industry, under his vigorous administration, has reached such a state that the halfpenny might be restored. I do not know that he has entirely done that, but certainly he has tended in that direction.
  As a signatory of the report I am very disappointed to see the Bill in its present form. I am unable to vote for it, because

  1431
  I do not consider that it is in any adequate manner an acceptance of our recommendations. First of all, the district funds which we desired to see abolished are not going to be abolished and the reduction of the levy to one-halfpenny is going to take place under circumstances which we never contemplated. If, as we know now, pensions are to be included in the scheme in the future, there should be no reduction of the levy. Therefore, on that point the Government have failed to accept the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee.
  10.7 p.m.
  Lord APSLEY: The difficulty that I find in supporting the Bill is that, while the contribution of the colliery owners to the Welfare Fund is being reduced to one-halfpenny a ton, the contribution of the royalty owners to pit-head baths is being left exactly at the same figure. I cannot understand why, in equity, that should be the case. I do not mean to imply that the royalty owners whom I have met and known are not agreeable to provide needy contributions to this very excellent work in regard to pit-head baths. We had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on the subject of baths. There was difficulty at the start with the older miners, who did not wish to have baths, while the younger miners were not quite certain, and I think the controversy is not yet settled, so far as the actual effects of the baths on influenza, cold and other epidemics are concerned; but there is a growing feeling and a growing wish for these baths. They are in every way beneficial so far as the comfort and well-being, I will not say the health, of the miners is concerned.
  The royalty owners are only too proud to have been able to subscribe their portion to this great work, but in equity I think hon. Members will agree with me that there is no justification for such a levy in their case. An hon. Member might write a book, a firm of publishers might publish it, and the author would look forward to drawing royalties on the sales for years to come, if the book proved successful. It would be a gamble.
  Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: He would have written the book.
  Lord APSLEY: Yes, but there his work ends. After that the hundreds or thousands of volumes which the public might demand would entail work by day and night standing at the printing presses, work of sub-editing and the rest of it. All that would be part of the publisher's work. The writing would be the work of the author while the work of publishing would be that of the publisher. Exactly the same argument applies in regard to royalty owners. If hon. Members will only look into the history of the mines of this country, and the romance of their origin, they will know that in almost every case it was the royalty owner who started the mine. Nobody believed him. He may have said that he had been told there was coal on the land, or that some friend had told him there was coal or iron. He believed it, and backed his opinion and gambled. In many cases he lost and his family was ruined by the attempt to develop a mine where the seam turned out not to be a sufficiently good proposition. But when the royalty owner succeeded, naturally he hoped to receive a reward. That was the impulse that led to the development of our mines.
  There is a body of opinion in favour of the nationalisation of royalties. I should like those who are in favour of that idea to know exactly what takes place in Australia. Since the Government there took possession of all royalties, mineral development, with the exception of coal, which is only a fraction of what it might be, has been practically at a standstill. I have travelled over the country and seen deposits of coal, iron and some of the new metals and minerals in sight, lying in the ground, with nobody to develop them. There is no incentive to develop them. The Government will not do it. No Government department is going to start a highly speculative enterprise which may result in failure. No Government department will take the risk of doing such a thing. It is the individual who does it, and he either wins or loses.
  That is the part that the royalty owner has played in this country. He has played the same part as the author of a book. If it is a good book he succeeds, but if it is a bad one he loses his money. The same with the royalty owner. In

  1433
  equity only, I say nothing about humanity, there is no real reason why the royalty owners should contribute to a Miners' Welfare Fund any more than there would be reason for an author to contribute a tax to the Government out of his royalties to pay for reading rooms or wireless sets for employés of publishers. So far as humanity is concerned I am sure that every royalty owner is only too willing to play his part in helping the well-being of the miners who are working on land which is his, but they have a right to say that other parties should pay a fair proportion. If the royalty owners have to pay the same proportion as before, why should not the colliery owners continue their proportion, too?
  Judging from my own experience in other matters, I think it would be advisable if the men themselves paid a small contribution, however small. I have found that where the men pay something they have a feeling of ownership of anything that is provided, a feeling that it is theirs, and they are proud of it. They get more benefit from it, whether it may be a sports club, baths or anything else, if they have contributed something towards it. Once there is a feeling of ownership among the men they become more interested in it. A small contribution, therefore, would be a benefit not only to the men but to the various undertakings of the Welfare Fund.
  There is one further point that I should like to make, and that is, that if the royalty owners are to continue to pay the same proportion as before, some concession ought to be made to them in regard to Income Tax and Surtax. Possibly hon. Members have not realised that the money that the royalty owners pay to the fund is not allowed to be deducted from Income Tax and Surtax. I cannot see why that should be the case. It should be made a statutory condition that any money that is paid in any form of taxation should be allowed to be deducted from Income Tax and Surtax. This is not money which the royalty owners themselves ever see. They are glad to pay it, so long as it is devoted to a good purpose, but why should the onus be placed upon them of paying Income Tax and Surtax on money which is expended on behalf of the Miners' Welfare Fund and also on money which is devoted to the Mineral Royalties' tax of 1s. in the pound.
  1434
  If that matter could be righted it would be only justice. If not, I honestly confess that from the point of view of the royalty owners I find it very difficult to support a Bill which is in favour of the colliery owners and does not consider the royalty owners.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: I have been listening to the Debate expecting that an hon. Member from some part of the House would explain that the deduction in the levy is made really in the interests of the coal miners. Whenever any reactionary proposal is brought forward we are told that it is in the interests of the workers engaged in the industry, and I have been expecting someone to trot out that contention this evening, but so far no hon. Member has had the impudence to say it. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) seemed to argue that the reduction of the levy from one penny to one halfpenny is in the interests of the Welfare Fund, that it would be better off with one halfpenny than with a penny. I may be suffering from a disability from which other hon. Members are immune, but that is what I gathered from his speech.
  Mr. MANDER: The hon. Member was not listening; he was talking to his friends.
  Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member said that he hoped the activities of the Welfare Fund would go forward with undiminished vigour. I heard that fall from his lips. How the Welfare Fund is going to go forward with undiminished vigour when half its blood is drained away I do not know. The hon. Member, of course, made a typical Liberal speech. We could not gather whether he was supporting or opposing the Bill. What we know is that he went to the committee as one who was supposed to be a champion of the Welfare Levy Fund, and was used there by the Conservatives as a decoy duck. Now, apparently, he is a plucked pigeon. The truth is that the difficulties in which we are now are the direct consequence of the reactionary mood which came over the Liberal party towards the end of the last Parliament. In mining legislation the Liberal party became most reactionary and we are now getting the full benefit of the panic into which they got. They were able to turn out the Government whenever they

  1435
  wished, and while the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was urging the Government to the most extreme measures his followers were pulling the other way. In order to avoid an unpleasant situation the then Minister of Mines, Mr. Shinwell, resorted to the strategy of setting up a committee, but Mr. Shinwell took the protestations of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton at their face value and put him on the committee thinking that he would be a champion of the penny.
  Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand that the Secretary for Mines in the Labour Government endeavoured to pack the Committee?
  Mr. BEVAN: In precisely the same way as every Government packs a Committee. All my complaint is that he packed it unwisely. He made the mistake of appointing my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton on the Committee.
  Mr. MANDER: Did he not also make the mistake of putting on the Committee Mr. Alf Smith as the Miners' representative?
  Mr. BEVAN: There is no doubt at all about that. I have not the least hesitation in saying that the appointment of Mr. Alf Smith on the Committee was a first-class blunder. It will be observed, on the other hand, that the Miners' Federation gave evidence to the Committee making it quite clear that the miners stood for a 1d. levy and dissociated themselves from the report of Mr. Alf Smith. My point, however, is that Ministers in future will never want to rely upon these cardboard men who are painted to resemble iron, and who, whenever it comes to the firing line, will always quail and let them down.
  Sir J. PYBUS: Does the hon. Member not equally censure Mr. Shinwell?
  Mr. BEVAN: I have already said that the conclusion we must come to is that Mr. Shinwell, as the Minister for Mines, having the best interests of the miners at heart, was favourable to continuing the 1d., but he was faced with a Parliamentary situation in which he had at that moment to dodge the issue. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that. He tried to defend the miners from a re-
  1436
  actionary House of Commons. The complexion of the House of Commons has now changed and there is no one here now who, by strategy or dodging or in any other way, will save the miners. That is the position. What we have to discuss here is whether this House is going to protect the miner or the coalowner. No one has dared to suggest till now that this reduction from a 1d. to a ½d. is in the interest of the miners, but we have had the speech of a coalowner to tell us that the reduction is in the interest of the coalowner, and as this is a coalownrs' Parliament Members will go into the Lobby, of course, and vote for the Bill.
  Whenever a commission or committee is appointed hon. Members quote the findings as though they possessed Papal infallibility. That is a point of view which is making me tired. The duty of a commission is to collect and classify information in a form in which it is easily acceptable. A member of a commission is no more able to make a sound judgment on the evidence than is a Member of Parliament who has access to the same evidence. I am entirely unmoved by the fact that any commission came to a certain conclusion. The members of a commission must buttress their conclusions by evidence and facts. If they do not so buttress their conclusions they leave me entirely unmoved, and they ought to leave Members of this House unmoved, unless we are to abrogate our functions as Members of Parliament. I ask hon. Members to address themselves to the fact, not that the commission recommended a reduction from 1d. to ½d., but to the reasons advanced for the reduction. I suggest, that if they read the report they will see that the reasons for the reduction are inadequate.
  I sat on a welfare committee for many years and I have an intimate personal knowledge of the local administration of this fund. When I know that the South Wales district committee have had schemes for many years aggregating £176,000 and had only at the last ascertainment £8,000 to distribute, I find it difficult to believe hon. Members when they say that the purposes for which the fund was set up have been achieved. Think of the circumstances in the mining industry. It is the districts where these industries are situated which have to pay the highest price for industrial activities.

  1437
  The steel industry and the coal industry in Great Britain have made veritable industrial hells of almost all the places where they are situated. Yet a very large proportion of the wealth of this country has been produced in those centres, in South Wales, in the industrial parts of Lancashire and Scotland, the North-East Coast, Durham, and Northumberland. Look at Lancashire!
  Sir JOHN HASLAM: What is wrong with Lancashire?
  Mr. BEVAN: I can only say that some parts of Lancashire are excellent places to get away from. You cannot move me to enthusiasm for some parts of Lancashire. I know far lovelier parts of Great Britain.
  Sir J. HASLAM: I do not.
  Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member's aesthetic sense has given way under his environment in Lancashire. I would ask hon. Members to visualize the circumstances in these mining villages. If this was necessary in 1921 it is even more necessary now. In 1920 and 1921 and for a few years afterwards, unemployment in the mining industry was comparatively small, but now we have over 300,000 unemployed. In these villages the men are hanging about the streets and have nowhere else to go except the local welfare centre. Their homes are very often unpleasant in the extreme; indeed, I could say harder things than that. We have never caught up with the industrial revolution. We have never got rid of the legacy of bad housing from the industrial revolution. We were starting to deal with it in many of the mining districts, but just as the local authorities were becoming more enlightened and were creating more amenities, unemployment overtook them. Their financial resources have been gravely reduced and the process of improvement has been arrested. Surely this is a moment at which money for amenities in the industrial areas is required more than ever. If any hon. Member will come to my district he will see hundreds nay thousands of men of all ages from 14 to 50, and even up to 70, walking about the streets in the harsh winter climate with nowhere to go except the billiard room or the library, or the games room of the welfare institute. Many of the institutes are
  1438
  miserably inadequate and in debt. We had hoped that if a Bill were brought in to deal with the Welfare Fund, even if the fund could not be increased, the things upon which it could be spent would be increased. These men are caught up there, they cannot escape, they cannot go somewhere else, they do not live on the borders of cities. They live 20 or 30 miles away from the nearest cities, where the public libraries and museums and picture galleries are. They cannot get at them, and I would therefore urge hon. Members to look upon this question with a little more sympathy than has been evidenced in some quarters to-night. I would also ask hon. Members to realise that the reduction from a penny to a halfpenny is not necessary in the interests of the coalowners themselves. No one can prove that this halfpenny per ton gravely embarrasses the mining industry. Nobody has the cheek to put that out. It certainly does not embarrass one owner as against another, because they all equally have to bear it. It no more embarrasses the mining industry than the 10d. per week for unemployment benefit embarrasses them. It bears equally upon all, so that each competitor is in the same position as his fellow. The only point that could be made is that it increases the price of a ton of coal by a halfpenny or by a penny, but are we to be promised that if this halfpenny is taken off, the coalowners will reduce the price of coal by a halfpenny per ton? Do we understand that?
  Mr. MARTIN: What about the deficiency payment?
  Mr. BEVAN: The deficiency payment is largely the fiction of an agreement. A coalowner can be making a rate of profit higher than the average rate of profit returned on capital, and still show a deficit. This business of the deficit has nothing to do with the economics of the industry. If the coalowners themselves are not embarrassed in competition one with another, because they all have to bear it, and if the argument advanced is that this increases the price of coal to a level where they cannot sell the same quantity in competition with gas or oil, do we therefore understand that the Secretary for Mines has a guarantee from the coalowners that if this Bill is passed, the coalowners will reduce the price of

  1439
  coal by a halfpenny per ton? I would like him to answer that question. Do we understand that the coalowners claim that these charges increase the average price to a point where the same quantity cannot be sold?
  I would like the Secretary for Mines to tell us if that is so. I will sit down for him to answer. He does not answer. If consequently the reduction is not going to be passed on in the price of coal, it is a halfpenny per ton for the coalowner's pocket. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the ascertainments?"] The ascertainments go to show that the coalowners have failed to make up their profits to the extent of 15 per cent. of standard wages, but they still make profits in many cases. All that I want hon. Members to admit is that this is a Bill to take a halfpenny per ton from the welfare of the miners in order to increase the owners' profits by a halfpenny per ton. As long as that is admitted, I do not mind. Then we are clearly on the ground that this House of Commons, having to choose between the welfare of the miner and the welfare of the coalowner, chooses the welfare of the coalowner.
  Sir A. BAILLIE: In order to clarify my position in regard to the welfare of the miner and of the owner, I should like to say that in my particular village in Scotland the Miners' Welfare Fund has been devoted entirely to building a cinema theatre, which has no reading room or any other facilities of that kind, and at which a miner, if he goes, pays exactly the same as I do. I merely ask for my own information whether the miner in my district has benefited by the erection of a cinema theatre.
  Mr. BEVAN: It may be that he benefits because there was no cinema in the village before. That has happened in many cases. It has happened in quite a number of cases also that a cinema has been established for the purpose of providing revenues for the maintenance of the institute. Many of the district committees favour the development of commercial enterprises in connection with their institute, because they provide adequate funds for its maintenance. The miners cannot afford to buy books in any large quantity or equip rest rooms and games rooms, so they have to have billiard rooms and cinemas in order to provide
  1440
  funds for the maintenance of the other facilities.
  Sir A. BAILLIE: It does amount to a subsidised cinema, however.
  Mr. BEVAN: So we are coming to understand that this is a Bill not only in the interests of the coalowner but in the interests of private enterprise in general. It is a Bill to support the cinema proprietor as well as the coalowner. The fact is, however, that instead of the profits of the cinema going to the cinema proprietor, they go to provide books for the miner.
  Sir A. BAILLIE: That would be all right if the miner got the books, but he does not get them.
  Mr. BEVAN: The workmen in the hon. Member's village would be only too delighted if the district fund gave them a grant to attach a library and games room on to the cinema building. In many instances they have not been able to do it. I have known instances where an institute has been set up and could not be maintained because of lack of funds, and where it would have been better if a cinema had been built first and an institute afterwards. These, however, are committee points, and if hon. Members want to amend the Bill in that respect they can easily do so. That is no reason for reducing the welfare levy to one halfpenny. It is only a reason for modifying the administration of the fund. It is not a reason for reducing the money at the disposal of the fund. Hon. Members should realise that if this Bill goes through it will practically destroy the welfare fund. It will work out at £8,000 per district, for general welfare purposes; £202,000 per year among 25 districts. To all intents and purposes the General Welfare Fund will disappear. In this Bill £175,000 a year is being taken for pithead baths. That is a staggering proposition. Pithead baths ought to have been provided in Great Britain, as on the continent, at the expense of the owners years ago. We are the most backward country in Europe in that respect.
  We had a speech to-night from a royalty owner in which he spoke of the romance of royalty owners. His speech was a romance, for it had nothing to do with the facts. There are coalowners

  1441
  who have accumulated vast fortunes by destroying every vestige of beauty in the valleys of South Wales, and who, instead of spending their money on rebuilding the townships and the country which they have destroyed, gain a reputation for benevolence by doing settlement work in the East End of London. There are families of royalty owners and coalowners who do not live in the places they have uglified, and when we argue that such places ought to be improved by the expenditure of more money they come to the House with a mean, miserable Bill to take away from the miners the funds they have been using to make their lives a little brighter—for which the miners, as an hon. Friend reminds me, pay.
  This Bill is part of the redemption of the promises made to men who went to France in 1914. They were made as a consequence of the Report of the Sankey Commission. Indeed, the industrial workers of Great Britain generally were promised that if they played their part during the War they would receive their reward afterwards. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made moving speeches, at a time when he represented Tories as well as Liberals, in which he said he was going to create a land fit for heroes to live in. He made speeches in this House to justify the welfare levy on the ground that during the War the miners had done their duty like patriots, and that the very least we could do was to try to repair the ravages which wealth-building has made in the mining districts. Some things have been done in that direction, but now you are going back on our promises and dishonouring our pledges. You extracted from the miners at that time the most devoted heroism and said you would give this in return. You are now taking it away by this mean and miserable device. Only those men and women who have not been brought up in a mining village could be guilty of doing it. Only those who live away from the industrial areas upon which they depend for their fortunes could do a dastardly trick of this description.
  Hon. Members astonish me when they support a mean action of this kind. These amenities make all the difference between tolerableness and hell for many of our own people. Men have been thrown out of the mining industry at 45 and 50 years
  1442
  of age, with no prospect of work there or anywhere else. The only comfort they have is to go and smoke a pipe and play a game of chess or draughts or billiards, or read a book, in the welfare room. The young people have little else. If the House cannot come to the rescue of the mining industry, is it too much to ask that it should not do a mean thing like this to the miners? I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House whether they would not feel a little bit more decent and a bit better if they went home this evening after having rejected this Bill? If they give the Bill a Second Reading they ought not to feel very recent people, because they are only making more despairing, more drab and more grey the lives of a community who have been dealt hard blows in the course of the last 15 or 20 years. The miners of Great Britain do the most hazardous work in the most unpleasant and disagreeable conditions. They live in the most unpleasant and disagreeable districts, and they are among the worst paid of the industrial population. They deserve better treatment at the hands of their country than they are getting, and it is a mean, dishonourable and un-English thing to come to this House and take a halfpenny which is doing some little to make their lives more tolerable.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I hope that the House will now be ready to come to a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I want to answer one or two of the questions that have been put to me.
  Mr. COVE: Take the Bill back. We do not like it.
  Mr. BROWN: I said that I intended to answer one or two of the questions. The first point is about the pension fund, and it was put to me by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). In the original Act the legal difficulty was not because of the fund, but because of the definition of the word "workers," and the problems arising out of that definition to which the Committee have very clearly made reference, caused us to redefine "workers." It is the result of that redefinition of "workers" and not because of any specific provision in the Bill that I made the answer that pensions cannot be excluded as one of the objects of the Bill. "Workers" are redefined here. Hon. Members will understand that the

  1443
  Committee has complete control as to the decision. If hon. Members will turn to page 61 of the report of the Departmental Inquiry of 1931 they will see the following:
  "Our view on this point is that miners' welfare in the sense in which that expression is generally understood and the question of superannuation are two distinct matters that should not be confused or brought together in the same scheme. The fund was set up to provide welfare facilities for miners; a great deal of evidence has been submitted to us to show how much still requires to be done to make these facilities complete, and, until they are complete, we do not think that any part of the fund should be allowed to be diverted from its original purpose. This is not to say that we do not fully sympathise with the desire for superannuation schemes, but we think that if such schemes are to be provided by means of a levy it should be a special levy, particularly imposed and ear-marked for that purpose."
  Later on, the same paragraph says this:
  "Had we received evidence that there was a general desire on both sides of the industry for the Miners' Welfare Fund to be used to provide pensions, we should have had to regard this as evidence that the present work of the fund had been largely done, but even this would not have altered our view that as a matter of principle a Welfare Fund and a Pensions Fund are different things and should he kept separate, and in actual fact the evidence we received showed—"
  I hope that the House will take notice of these words—
  "definite opposition to the proposals on the part of the owners, no universal feeling about it on the workmen's side (though certain districts strongly favoured it) and much to indicate that if pensions were provided from the fund it could only be at the expense of other important welfare work."
  I think that that makes it quite clear that the Bill does not specifically alter the situation. It is in the definition of "workers" that the legal position is altered. I want to say a word about the point raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace). He raised the question of retrospective legislation. He is under some misunderstanding. It is only retrospective in one regard. Nobody who watched the passage of the Bill of 1931, or who has listened to the varying accounts of the Committee stage being given to the House by hon. Members of different parties during the present Debate, would have imagined that the Bill went through with the idea that the penny
  1444
  was for five years without qualification. It was for five years subject to the appointment of the committee of inquiry set up by the Labour Government. What the committee recommended was that, beginning with the 1932 levy, it should be ½d. It is only a matter of practical difficulty that has delayed the Bill until now. An announcement was made as soon as the Government had studied the report with the evidence and made up its mind, and heard representations about the matter. As soon as that was done the announcement was made, and it was made quite clear that legislation would be introduced and the position made regular and statutory. So, in the sense of five years, there was no retrospective legislation.
  Mr. J. WALLACE: Am I wrong in stating, as I did in my speech, that there was statutory authority for paying the penny per ton to the end of 1935?
  Mr. BROWN: Yes, there was, of course, and there is now, until this legislation is passed. But the Government have made it perfectly clear by the announcement of their intention eight months ago, and this legislation is the result. It was only the practical difficulty that caused the delay. I think the House would be interested in the explanations that have been given of Mr. Shinwell's mind both as regards the setting up of the committee and the appointments to the committee. I can only say that the impression left on my mind is that when Mr. Shinwell reads the verbatim report of the speeches in this Debate, he will say, "Save me from my friends! I will go further, and point out that I gave the House a quotation from his original speech in the Committee stage not with any polemical idea, because I have tried in dealing with this matter not to raise party points, but because this is real history. My hon. Friend in his quiet and impressive way, and my hon. Friend in his more vigorous and rhetorical way, both said the same thing. The Labour Members passed it to the Liberals below the Gangway. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, who said that we must not have it both ways, and he, who seems to think that he has a monopoly of having it both ways, passes it on to the Conservative party. Hon. Members must not take it in that way. We do not take it from the hon. Member for Normanton

  1445
  (Mr. T. Smith) or the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) as though they were the only exponents of Mr. Shinwell's mind, of his tactics, of his methods of appointing committees, or otherwise. I have already quoted from his speech on the Committee stage of the Bill; I will now quote the speech he made when he had got through the Committee stage, on the Third Reading of the Bill before the House. Hon. Members on the Opposition side will give Mr. Shinwell credit for telling the House of Commons then what he really thought. After joining in the tributes which had been paid to the Welfare Fund, he said:
  "I was anxious that the activities of the fund should not be arrested. At the same time, several hon. Members were apprehensive regarding the scope and administration of the fund and expressed doubts as to whether it was desirable in the interests of the industry, particularly having regard to the economic position, to raise, as they described it, so large a sum of money in any given year. I responded to the mild criticism that was offered, and I believe succeeded in convincing the Committee that to interfere with the finance of the fund at this stage would throw the scheme out of gear, and would not only be resented by the mining community but would not be in accordance with the wishes of the House when the Act was passed. At the same time, I share the apprehensions of hon. Members regarding the future of the fund. For that reason, I promised to conduct an investigation by means of a committee to be set up, and to ensure that the committee would report as quickly as possible."
  Nothing could be clearer than that. Then I will leave it to the judgment of the House and the judgment of any fair-minded man the question of who correctly represents what Mr. Shinwell actually said to the House. My answer is that that arose from the facts of the industry, from the facts of the ascertainments, from the fact of representations, from the fact of the strong division of opinion in the industry—[Interruption.] The hon. Member is very found of making rhetorical suggestions, but this Bill is objected to as strongly by the owners, because they think the ½d. is too much and the period of 20 years too long, as it is by hon. Members opposite because they think the ½d. is too little and the period too short. I come now to Mr. Shinwell's apprehensions, which he expressed in Committee and on the Third Reading, and which were borne out by the evidence given before the committee, the report of the committee, and the
  1446
  facts of the ascertainments in the present economic state of the industry. If Mr. Shinwell was entitled to feel apprehension in 1931, is not a Minister of Mines entitled, after the worst year that the industry has known in post-War times, to feel apprehensions about the economic state of the industry now, and to say that this is a reasonable proposal having regard to the state of the industry?
  Mr. G. MACDONALD: May I ask what objection the Government have to asking for an increased contribution from the royalty owners?
  Mr. BROWN: The answer is that, as my hon. Friend knows, that is a separate issue, which is defined in terms of a separate Act, and, as a member of the Welfare Committee, my hon. Friend knows that that was outside the committee's terms of reference. We are dealing with the situation arising there, and my hon. Friend has heard one Member of the House express an entirely different opinion from the royalty owners' point of view. Only one other material point has been raised. It is said that general welfare work will stop, but that again, of course, is just rhetoric. With the sums that I have indicated to the House, plus the interest available, this Bill does three things. It provides a 20-year programme and £375,000 a year for pithead baths, while £20,000 is allocated under the Bill for research, plus £12,400 which is the interest on the Endowment Fund of £259,000, plus £1,750 from the Exchequer, plus such other contributions as the Central Welfare Committee might feel inclined to make out of their share of the residue, and the residue, plus the interest and other sums, will amount to roughly £250,000 a year for 20 years, or £5,000,000 in all.
  Mr. JOHN: Did not the hon. Gentleman say it was £202,000?
  Mr. BROWN: Certainly, but I pointed out that, taking interest and other sums, it is roughly true to say that the amount would average about £250,000 a year for 20 years, or £5,000,000 in all, to be spent on general welfare work. No thoughtful man on any side of the industry would do anything to cripple welfare work. Mr. Shinwell's speeches prove that he felt apprehensions, and his Committee's report showed that those apprehensions were well founded having regard to the

  1447
  state of the industry. I can claim to-night that the Government have done their very utmost to produce a fair solution of the problem, and, in doing so, to safeguard every interest of this great and beneficent fund.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. CURRY: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made a speech of great power and force which I am sure had a great effect on all who heard it, but I feel that, when he sees the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will regret the way he opened that wonderful discourse, because he told us that, when the Labour party were faced with a situation they dodged it and then proceeded to appoint a committee which the Minister deliberately packed and then complained that the evidence that had been submitted had been considered rather more on its merits than they had anticipated. He will allow me, as an admirer of his, to say I think he would render greater service to his party even than he does if he had omitted that allusion to a previous Parliament. As a newcomer to the House I think things are improving as we go along. The Minister has given us a very interesting and illuminating speech, but he left me rather dissatisfied with the explanation as to why the proposals of this Bill are retrospective. The fact, as I understand it, remains that there was a statutory duty resting upon the Department to collect this levy up to the present time, and it is to me rather a disconcerting thing if the executive anticipate the sanction of Parliament in this way. It is very dangerous to anticipate that events are going to go along and leave duties unperformed for as long a time as two years in the hope that you will be able to put yourself right by subsequent legislation. I think that method deserves the strongest protest. It is a violation of our constitutional practice and it should not be allowed to pass without the very strongest protest by His Majesty's Commons.
  I want to examine what the Bill really does. I can speak at first hand of some of the work which the Welfare Fund has enabled to be done, because I have lived all my life in a mining district and have moved about among the homes of the miners. When I am faced with a Bill that
  1448
  deprives the fund of a portion of its revenues, I feel that we should not forget the tremendously good work which has been done in the last 10 years and which is now to be curtailed. I would direct attention to a passage in the committee's report:
  "We have made it clear in the preceding chapters that there is still a very considerable amount to be done before the great work which was instituted by the Mining Industry Act of 1920 can be said to have been carried out with a reasonable degree of completeness."
  If the work that was then visualised cannot be carried out, it is obvious that, if this Bill passes, the further work that was anticipated will never be attempted. Speaking of the reduction of the levy, they say:
  "This will mean a considerable restriction in the welfare facilities provided in many directions and the delaying of the provision required in some places for a good many years."
  It requires a lot of argument to take the responsibility of passing this Bill in the face of the general laudation which this work has received to-night. Even the Minister in making out his case that the industry was very seriously situated overlooked the fact that unemployment in the mining industry within the last two years has decreased. I understand that there are fewer miners unemployed than was the case in 1932 when this committee reported.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: The reduction was temporary.
  Mr. CURRY: According to the Ministry of Labour records, it was reported in January, 1934, 207,000 insured persons were wholly unemployed, and 54,000 temporarily stopped, and that in December, 1932, the numbers were 238,000 and 66,000 respectively. I think that that bears out my point.
  Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out to the hon. Member that those figures depend upon the relation of the regularly employed to those who are only partially employed or temporarily stopped, and the calculation should be made with that reservation. If he will join an examination of the comparison of the number of shifts worked with those figures he will see the reason for that.
  Mr. CURRY: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but if it be true that the in-

  1449
  dustry is worse now than it was in 1932, I cannot understand his previous statement in which he said that things would be better this year than during the last few years.
  Mr. E. BROWN: If the hon. Member would look at the figures which relate to the men on the colliery books, he will find that there is an increase of 3,500.
  Mr. CURRY: If we cannot accept figures given by the Minister in questions, I cannot base myself on a higher authority. My general point against the Bill can be briefly stated. Quite apart from reducing the amount of levy, the time has come when we must widen the scope of the fund. There are all sorts of things which need doing, if the mining areas of the country are to be brought up to anything like modern requirements. Those of us who are personally connected with these industries cannot forget that in these post-War days we have to make up a leeway of a 100 years of neglect. That is the plain, simple position.
  There is a lot of talk about pensions, and I do not really know what is the position. As far as I understand the Bill, the Central Fund will be empowered legally to contribute to pensions schemes, but it will be practically disabled for want of money. I think that that is a fair statement of what is being done. In the County of Durham—there are hon. Members above the Gangway who can bear me out—a superannuation fund was started by voluntary effort of the miners themselves. Having subscribed for years out of their hard earned wages, thousands of them are to-day left without a pension for which they have paid. There is no community in the country which has developed its social consciousness to look after the aged in the way the mining community has. If the scope of the fund is being widened in order to give the committee statutory power to contribute to this sort of thing, it is merely a mockery of suffering to deprive the committee of the ability to exercise that privilege.
  When the Minister made the statement to-night about the power of the committee to contribute to pensions, he did not appreciate what would be the result of such a rule The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) told us that in Lancashire they were refusing to spend
  1450
  on ordinary welfare work in order to develop or accumulate a nucleus out of which to start a pensions fund. In the old days when proposals came forward, the Central Committee were enabled to say: "We have not the power; it is ultra vires." In future they will be unable to say that, and the pressure from the district committees for pensions out of the Fund will not only retard but will prevent the general welfare work that has been going on. If we are to visualise the Welfare Fund administering the pension needs, then the proposal should not be to reduce the levy but to increase it in order to produce a practical scheme. The fund was started, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said, as the result of the Sankey Report, which has been a matter of high controversy with us who carry on public work in the mining areas. We know the Sankey Reports, six or seven of them, almost word for word.
  The main Sankey report was issued at a time when the whole of the industry was a mass of discontent, and the discontent grew; certainly it was not allayed up to 1926, when the great stoppage came. Since then, a new temper seems to have come into the mining industry. The men and their leaders have struggled and striven to create a condition and a temper which will enable peace within the industry to be maintained, and I think it is politically unwise at a time when everything is quiet and everybody wants peace in the industry, to take back 50 per cent. of the most valuable concession which has ever been given to the industry; a concession which was given at the height of discontent. On grounds of practical interest the Bill cannot be substantiated. On grounds of political wisdom, it must stand condemned, and I appeal to the Minister, even now, to take back the Bill and have another discussion with those who are concerned. The Bill will leave behind it in the mining fields a tremendous sense of disappointment and grievance. For the practical use that the Bill is, it is no good contemplating the trouble, disappointment and suffering which it would entail.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. PALING: The one outstanding feature of the Debate has been that there has not been a single whole-hearted supporter of the Bill, including even the

  1451
  Minister and one of the signatories of the report. When the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was speaking I was hoping to hear some good reasons why the penny should be reduced to a halfpenny but I did not hear one, and the hon. Member signed the majority report in favour of the reduction.
  Mr. MANDER: The Bill does not accept the recommendation of the Committee.
  Mr. PALING: I am afraid that I cannot follow his correction. The Secretary for Mines is also half-hearted in his support of the Bill—I have heard him support other things much more vigorously—and I am wondering whether it is possible for him to withdraw the Measure and bring forward something much better. The Secretary for Mines argued that the Bill was justified on the report of the Committee of Inquiry. I have read the report. It gives a clear and definite statement of all that has been done, but the last thing it does is to provide good reasons for reducing the levy to ½d. It says:
  "It would be possible to spend money almost indefinitely before it could be said that the social well-being, recreation and conditions of living of the mining community had been exhaustively provided for in every conceivable direction."
  That is not a bad start. It goes on to discuss the facilities which are supposed to be provided for outdoor recreation and social activities, and says:
  "We find, however, that four districts have had no buildings of this kind from the fund, and a fifth only one, while the evidence we receive from 16 other districts, excluding some of the larger, showed that about 100 of their mining communities of varying sizes have as yet received no grant from the fund for any recreational purpose, about 100 more no grant for the purpose of indoor recreation or meetings."
  I leave that and come to the provision of institutes and billiard halls, and it must be remembered that the levy was intended to provide for the women and children as well. In this connection the committee say:
  "In so far as women are concerned there has been no provision whatever up to the present, and if any provision is to be made it must be made out of moneys provided in the fund."
  Also in reference to institutes and halls it says:
  1452
  "No doubt in a large proportion of the institutes and halls social entertainments of various kinds are frequently organised for both sexes, but so far as their daily use is concerned many of them have no place which women can be expected to use, nor are they encouraged or desired to do so."
  In regard to the younger generation, and this is one of the main features, the Committee says:
  "We believe, moreover, that more important than anything else is the provision of the right kind of welfare facilities for the coming generation. Little has hitherto been done in this direction apart from the provision of playing grounds for the very small children."
  As to outdoor recreation it says:
  "Altogether about 630 different places have had grants for outdoor recreation purposes, many of them, however, too limited facilities which cannot be said to have met the local needs."
  Another important feature is that one of the main things for which it was intended to provide was the health and well-being of the miners, and their health particularly. Among other things they expressly encouraged district committees to spend money on such things at convalescent homes, and on hospitals too. But the amount that has been spent is small in comparison with what the Committee thinks ought to be spent. For instance the Report states:
  "But in eight districts no convalescent facilities are being provided from the fund."
  It has been estimated that in the districts which have provided convalescent home facilities from the fund, whether ticket schemes or otherwise, the proportion of men employed who have obtained admission varies from 1.9 in Ayrshire to 1 in 56 in South Wales. The number of accidents in mines is tremendous. I have never seen any evidence in this respect, but I do not think it is wrong to state that probably the mining community, not only the men but their wives, need convalescent facilities more than any other community in the country. In spite of that need, little has been done, as is indicated in the Committee's own Report. The Report states:
  "In view of this, the facilities already offered in most districts which provide any at all seem reasonably complete, for only in the two Yorkshire districts, Durham, South Staffordshire and South Wales, is the chance of each worker getting admission to a home less than once in 19 years."

  1453
  There is only provision now to provide one chance in 19 years, and they state that this may be considered reasonably complete compared with the lack of facilities everywhere else. If there are empty beds in the homes it is not because there are not people to occupy them. One of the difficulties is getting the wherewithal to go—the clothes and money.
  Then there is the question of research. It has been stated that a greater amount is to be taken out of the halfpenny than was taken out of the penny in the past for research purposes. I am not against research. The report states:
  "The money expended on health and safety research in this country is even at the present time less per man employed in the industry than that expended in the United States, Germany or France."
  But in view of the fact that more money is to be spent out of the halfpenny than out of the penny, it means that the amount left for recreational facilities is very small indeed.
  Next there is the question of trained leaders. The report states that every community ought to have its trained leader to help it to make the best use of its leisure hours. If our people are provided with the facilities and with a little money, they know how to spend their time. It is not necessary to train them in the use of leisure. I am afraid that what is in mind is training the miners, as the soldiers were trained to do the goose-step, and to try to regiment them into being glorified boy scouts and that kind of thing. There is another suggestion here—and this also has to come out of the halfpenny. It is that there should be about 15 trained people employed as organisers. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was in favour of that, and said that these people could go to the districts and help to co-ordinate the work. I was on the South Yorkshire Welfare Committee and am still a member of the local welfare committee in my own district. We never found any difficulty in that respect. If there were any difficulties about planning or architecture, or anything of that kind, we always had at our disposal the help of the central authority in London. My experience shows that there is no necessity whatever for these 15 people, or for paying £15,000 in salaries. This again,
  1454
  as I say, has to come out of the halfpenny, where nothing previously came out of the penny, in that respect.
  Lastly, we come to what I think is the real reason for the reduction. If we take the evidence given in the report we must come to the conclusion that the committee more or less say: "We agree that good work has been done, but much more remains to be done, and some of the work that remains is urgent and necessary, and in order to enable us to get on with it we propose that the money available should be cut down by 50 per cent." That sums up the committee's report. Then they state, towards the end of their report, that the reduction of the levy, for the present at all events, should give appreciable relief to the finances of the industry. I very much question whether that matter comes within their terms of reference. They were asked to look into the work of the welfare committees and not into the question of whether the industry could afford to pay for it or not. But, having said that much further work is necessary, and that there is work for the penny levy, they boldly and definitely state, as the main reason for a reduction, that the finances of the industry are in a parlous state. I ask the Secretary for Mines to look into the question of whether these people have not exceeded their terms of reference and whether they are in order at all in making any such recommendation.
  In view of what the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for describing as his rather half-hearted support of his own Bill, I wish to suggest to him that perhaps he will find it possible, after what has been said, to take it back. I ask him to remember that the miners have come through a very tough time in the last 10 years. Our wages have been reduced to the minimum and have been there for years and seem likely to stay there for some time. Our hours have been increased. Our local standards at nearly every pit in the country have been attacked and in many cases broken down. At Geneva only a few months ago, where we hoped to secure an Hours Convention, our National Government played a big part in spoiling that Convention. A few weeks ago we came to the Government with the modest request that a National Wages Board should be set up, and we met with something in the nature

  1455
  of a refusal. This is the sixth thing we are asked to give up—the facilities that have been provided and the money that has been so well spent—in face of the fact that so much remains to be done. I ask the Minister of Mines to keep these things in mind, as well as what his own people have said about this Bill to-night, and their attitude towards it, and to see whether he cannot withdraw it and let the penny remain.
  11.31 p.m.
  Mr. MOLSON: I apologise for speaking so late, but I have sat through the whole Debate, and this is the only way of indicating that even the most faithful supporters of the Government will at last insist on making their voices heard on nights when the Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended. With regard to what has fallen from the last speaker, there has never been at any time any undertaking that the Miners' Welfare Fund should exist for all time. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made a very great point in his eloquent speech that this was somewhat going back on a bargain that had been made with the miners. There was never any undertaking at all except that there should be a levy for a period of five years. That period has already been extended for a further period of time, and is now being extended for a period of 20 years. I think it is unfortunate that those who claim to represent the miners should make claims which are entirely devoid of any substance and justice.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: There certainly was no explicit promise made, but it was said that this levy was introduced in order to remove from the mining villages certain conditions which were regarded as blots. Those conditions still remain, and until they are wiped out the promise remains undischarged.
  Mr. MOLSON: Any statement as general as that cannot be brought forward as an argument against this Bill. The whole of the evidence in the report—as is known to those of us who live and work in mining areas—is that a very great deal of work has been done by this fund in the past, and it may be said that in many parts of the country, like South Yorkshire, the bulk of what it was intended that the fund should do has
  1456
  already been done. As far as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) is concerned, he referred to this report as showing that the money had been well spent. The fact that there is at present in Lancashire, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), no less than £180,000 unspent, and the fact that in the general administration of the fund by the district committees, there is in the whole of Chapter 16 of the report most extraordinary evidence of inefficiency and waste, show that there is not now the urgent need for expenditure upon these welfare works that there was 10 years ago, and that there was urgent need for the appointment of a committee to go into the whole matter and to investigate the administration of the fund.
  One of the recommendations of the Committee was that the district fund should be done away with and that the whole of the proceeds of the penny or halfpenny should be paid into the central fund. I am glad that the Government, finding that the opinion of the industry is, I think, almost unanimous upon this subject—I think it is in my part of the country—have decided not to accept that recommendation. I think the recommendation was put forward for another reason, and that was in order to obtain greater control over the expenditure of money. It has been largely because the district committees were not guided by expert advice and because the Central Council had not a skilled organisation to enable it to check the proposals that were put before it from the localities, that so much money has been wasted. I am sorry that in his final speech the Secretary for Mines was not able to tell us whether the various other recommendations of the Committee which do not require legislation but which have a great bearing upon the way in which the fund is to be administered in future, and whether the recommendations for greater centralisation are going to be carried out.
  Mr. E. BROWN: That is in the discretion of the Central Welfare Committee after their consideration of the Report.
  Mr. MOLSON: There are two respects, although I support the Bill as a whole, in which I hope the Secretary for Mines will be prepared to accept amendments.

  1457
  The first is with regard to the question of pensions. I confess that I still do not fully understand exactly what the position is to be. There was a very weighty recommendation from the whole of the Committee, except the hon. Member for Ince, who said that in their view the Welfare Fund had been established for certain welfare purposes, and that it should not be extended to pensions. I think that if the actual proceeds of the fund are going to be diminished to put upon it some charge which has not been on it in the past, it is of very doubtful wisdom.
  There is also the question of the reduction of the levy. The hon. Gentleman has explained that the Government made it clear some time ago that it was their intention, if the Committee recommended a reduction in the levy, that it should take place soon. It seems to me that from a legal point of view and also from the point of view of this House, it is not possible for us to take the view that the Government should announce in advance
  that it intends to make some change in the law. It is for us to take the view that until the Government have come to us and obtained our assent to a change of that kind the old law must obtain and remain in force. So, while generally approving of this Bill, not with enthusiasm, because no one desires the fund should be diminished, but recognising the grave position of the coal mining industry at the present time, and seeing that there is not now the same urgent need for expenditure upon welfare schemes that there was in the past, I support the Bill. On the Committee stage, however, I should certainly vote in favour of Amendments which will prevent it from being retrospective and which will, in the matter of pensions, eliminate all possibility of any of the diminished fund being used for that purpose.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 49.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

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

  Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

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

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Albery, Irving James

  Fleming, Edward Lascelles

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Apsley, Lord

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Balniel, Lord

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Penny, Sir George

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Bateman, A. L.

  Graves, Marjorie

  Petherick, M.

  Blindell, James

  Greene, William P. C.

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

  Boulton, W. W.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Harbord, Arthur

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

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Hartland, George A.

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Totnes)

  Remer, John R.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Burghley, Lord

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

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Hornby, Frank

  Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)

  Burnett, John George

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

  Salmon, Sir Isldore

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Craven-Ellis, William

  Levy, Thomas

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

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

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

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

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Somervell, Sir Donald

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

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonel

  Mabane, William

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

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

  Spens, William Patrick

  Dunglass, Lord

  McCorquodale M. S.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Edmondson, Major A. J

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

  Stones, James

  Elmley, Viscount

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Storey, Samuel

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

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

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

  Tree, Ronald

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

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

  George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Batey, Joseph

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Milner, Major James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Owen, Major Goronwy

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

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

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Cape, Thomas

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Paling, Wilfred

  Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, Gabriel

  Curry, A. C.

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Daggar, George

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Janner, Barnett

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Dickie, John P.

  Jennings, Roland

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dobbie, William

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on. T.)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lawson, John James

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Lunn, William

  White, Henry Graham

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Magnay, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Minister of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland, respectively, to make contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the expenses to be incurred by local authorities in providing or improving supplies of water in rural localities, such contributions not to exceed, in the case of the Minister of Health, one million pounds and, in the case of the Department of Health for Scotland, one hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred pounds." (King's Recommendation signified.) [Sir H. Young.]
  11.49 p.m.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I hope that even at this late hour the Committee will feel that it is able to take this stage of the next Order on the Paper which leads to a Bill which is shortly to be introduced. The Money Resolution to which I refer and which I am now putting before the Committee, provides for a sum of up to £1,000,000 to be placed at the disposal of the Government through the Ministry of Health for the assistance of rural water supplies. The reasons why I venture to ask the
  1460
  Committee to take it to-night, perhaps without due consideration, are two. In the first place, because it is a Resolution leading to a Bill and we shall shortly have an opportunity of dealing with the whole question raised by the Bill, and dealing with it much more fully than it could be dealt with under the rules of order that apply to a Money Resolution. In the second place, as this is a comparatively formal stage, it may perhaps be in accordance with the wishes of the Committee to get it out of the way, because the time factor is of some importance in this matter, and we are very anxious to make a start, if we can get the Bill, with the work in question before the drier months come on later in the year.
  The Committee will, of course, require to know what is being done at the present time, so perhaps I may give such explanation as is appropriate in view of the lateness of the hour. The purpose of the Resolution is to put £1,000,000 at the disposal of the Government, not all necessarily, of course, in a single year, to be used for the purpose of assisting local authorities to undertake water schemes in rural areas. It is contemplated that the administration of these grants should not in any way supersede the arrangements made by the Act of 1929, under which the county councils and county district councils can assist parishes in providing themselves with a water supply, but that it should be, as it were, a supplement to those arrangements. In other words, it would still be a condition of these grants that county councils and

  1461
  county district councils should make reasonable contributions in accordance with circumstances towards the expenses of the scheme, and then the grant will come in to cover that margin which has to be covered in order to make the scheme a practical one for the local authorities concerned. Of course, it is contemplated in the first place that the proper charges shall be made to the consumer; that will be a first entry in the account on the credit side against the costs of the scheme.
  As regards the way in which these grants will be used, a word of explanation is necessary. The Committee will have seen from the White Paper which was published on the subject, and which deals with it very fully, that the grants shall be paid over in the form of lump sums on capital account. That is the form which the subsidy will take, and I think it is at once the most convenient, the simplest and the most intelligible form, three considerations which are all very important in dealing with financial transactions of this kind. Powers are reserved, for making periodical payments in exceptional cases, because in several cases the local authority will be buying its water by periodical payments, so that this will be the more appropriate form.
  Those are the principal matters which the Committee will require to have explained to them as regards the nature of the Financial Resolution and the outline of the financial scheme, which are appropriate to the consideration of the present Resolution. All such interesting wider issues as may arise in connection with the matter may be more conveniently considered at a later stage. I hope under those conditions that the Committee will be able now to give assent to this preliminary stage of the Measure.
  11.54 p.m.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think there is much point in keeping the Committee at this hour of the night. I under-
  1462
  stand that there will be an opportunity at a more reasonable hour to debate the principles of the Measure, and therefore I do not propose to comment upon it to-night. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that we are reserving, so to speak, what we have to say until the Second Reading. In those circumstances, we are prepared to let the right hon. Gentleman have his Money Resolution.
  11.55 p.m.
  Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I respectfully concur in what has been said from the two Front Benches above the Gangway with regard to reserving discussion of this matter for another and more convenient stage. I would only add that the reason why I think it is desirable to give the Government this stage straight away is because, as the Minister has said, he wants in every way he can to expedite the presentation of the Bill, so that the matter may be considered in a practical way and real progress made. There is great interest and fairly considerable activity in this matter in the localities, and the sooner the House can make it possible to deal with it, so that the localities may really know where they are and be able to get their schemes going, the better it will be for all concerned.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.