Commons Sitting of 10 June 1937

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gosport Water Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Glasgow Streets Sewers and Buildings Consolidation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CATERING TRADES.
  Rear-Admiral Sir MurraySueter asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the shortage of waiters and skilled workers in the catering trades, he will confer with the President of the Board of Education with a view to supplementing the Park Royal facilities by training for these occupations, in the elementary schools, young persons of both sexes who are physically unfitted for adult employment in heavier work, and so obviate the necessity for admitting foreign labour?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): To meet the demand for certain classes of workers in the catering trades, training facilities for young men and women are provided at a number of centres in addition to Park Royal and, if a larger number of suitable applicants could be obtained from areas of heavy unemployment, additional facilities would be provided. I understand that it is not possible to provide vocational courses at elementary schools, but I will consult my Noble Friend about the possibility and desirability of providing additional facilities for vocational training under the regulations for further education.
  Mr. Leslie: Is it not the case that the low wages and long hours in the catering trade account for the present shortage?
  Mr. Butler: I am not aware that that is the sole reason. I have said that if there was a further demand, further facilities would be provided for this training.
  Mr. T. Williams: Is there a trade board for the catering trade, and, if not, will the hon. Gentleman not look into the possibility of remedying the present shortage by making that provision?
  Mr. Butler: I understand that there is no board for the catering trade. I will certainly take into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the catering industry, particularly in this city, in the big shops, there is a continual flow of girls because they will not stand the terms of employment for more than a few weeks?
  Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether the conferences now being held at his request between the employers and trade unions with reference to labour conditions in the distributive trades will include the examination of the sweated conditions in the catering trade; and, if not, will he take steps to have the catering trades dealt with on the same lines?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I do not think it would be advisable to enlarge the very wide field already covered by the discussions to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last Labour Government they decided on this question that a High Court decision was given in favour of a trade board for the catering industry, and will he, therefore, not ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the whole position in view of the sweating conditions in this industry?
  Mr. Butler: That raises a broader question, and, as I said in my reply, it is not considered advisable to enlarge the very wide field already covered by the discussion.
  Mr. Davidson: Have we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour is going to act with the catering industry as he is at present acting with the 40-hour week?
  Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Labour whether he is thinking out a policy by which to reduce the number of juvenile

  1927
  entrants into blind-alley employment in Lancashire and West Yorkshire by diverting into training schools suitable youths to become skilled workers in the catering trades in the South of England to meet the unfilled demand by those trades offering permanent employment to skilled labour and to replace foreign labour?
  Mr. Butler: The Government's policy already includes provision for the training of juveniles and youths in the catering trades. Under the Juvenile Transference Scheme attention is called to these opportunities for training, which of course are entirely voluntary, and the provision made is regulated by the supply of candidates.
  Mr. Liddall: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, notwithstanding the suggestion put forward this afternoon, there are many lucrative posts to be had in the catering trade; and what useful purpose does he think the Opposition serves by constantly suggesting that things are not right whenever a suggestion or proposal is made—
  Hon. Members: Speech!
  Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was an attempt made to get a trade board for the catering trade because the conditions were so bad, and that the catering trade opposed the matter and went to the High Court; and why should the Ministry train people for an industry that cannot take proper care of its employés?
  Mr. Butler: The Ministry of Labour is always keen to offer employment where good employment is to be found.
  Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the catering trade will never get satisfactory employés unless it gives satisfactory conditions?

  HOURS OF WORK.
  Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that the index of industrial production for the first quarter of 1937 shows an increase of 18 per cent. over the level of,1930, whereas the increase in the employment level in the same period is only 12 per cent., whether he will take steps to secure a general reduction in working hours so as to deal effectively with the problem
  1928
  of the displacement of labour revealed by these figures?
  Mr. Butler: In the opinion of my right hon. Friend the adjustment of working hours can be most advantageously effected through the joint machinery of employers and trade unions in the various industries. The complexity of the problem is illustrated by the fact that the increase in average output per head to which the hon. Member refers, and which no doubt led to displacement of labour in some directions, was accompanied by an addition of over 1,500,000 to the number of the insured persons in employment.
  Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that it is now admitted by the hon. Gentle man's Department that there is a serious problem of displacement of labour, is the continued opposition of the Ministry of Labour and the Government to any international reduction of hours compatible with the solving of this great problem?
  Mr. Butler: The Minister naturally wishes to consider this problem from every aspect, including the international aspect.
  Mr. T. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the mechanisation of coal mines has increased the volume of labour?
  Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Labour how many conferences at Geneva and elsewhere have been held in the past six years at which representatives of the Government have attended when the question of hours of labour has been discussed; and whether such representatives have ever supported a reduction proposal?
  Mr. Butler: The British Government have been represented at all the important conferences on the question of hours of labour at Geneva and elsewhere during the past six years, and have consistently endeavoured by constructive efforts to secure practical improvements in the position of workpeople. The answer to the second part of the question is "Yes, Sir."
  Mr. Leach: Is it true that the Minister of Labour is staying behind at Geneva because his record is so bad that he dare not face the House?
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour the reasons why the British Gov-

  1929
  ernment delegate voted, on 5th June, at the International Labour Office at Geneva, against sending the report on hours of work in the printing and chemical trades to the competent committee with instructions to prepare a report with a view to the adoption of a draft convention during the present session?
  Mr. Butler: Under the standing orders of the International Labour Conference the proceedings with regard to these draft conventions would be limited to the preparation of a questionnaire in order to elicit full information on which further action could be based. The issue on which the vote was taken was whether these standing orders should be suspended in order that the conference might proceed to the preparation of draft conventions at the present session. The vote of the British Government delegate on this occasion was one on procedure and was in full accordance with the general policy previously stated to the House.
  Mr. Mander: Is it the case that in spite of the obstruction of the British Government the resolutions were carried?
  Mr. Butler: The resolutions were certainly carried, but the hon. Member does not realise that the committee were voting only on a question of procedure.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRAINING.
    Sir M. Sueterasked the Minister of Labour whether, as there are 1,500,000 persons on the unemployed registers and at the same time a shortage of skilled labour in some trades, he will request the trades unions to assist him to select and arrange for the special training of suitable persons among the unemployed so as to meet the demand for skilled labour and thereby add to the numbers of wage earners?
    Mr. Butler: I will bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Louis Smith: Seeing that in a majority of trades, when employment is found for one skilled man, one or more unskilled men also find employment, does not my hon. Friend consider that a matter of paramount importance?
    Mr. Butler: It is clearly a question of paramount importance.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Labour under what conditions men previously employed as engineers are accepted under the Ministry's scheme for trainees, and specifically what age limit, if any, and/or period of absence from the trade is considered a barrier to acceptance?
    Mr. Butler: The admission of skilled engineering workers to Government training centres is ordinarily limited to men under 45 years of age who have served an apprenticeship of not less than four years or have had comparable workshop experience and who have not been absent from the industry for more than four years, and require a short course of training to become acquainted with modern processes.
    Mr. Burke: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that engineers who merely require a course of reconditioning to accustom them to modern methods will not be debarred because after that course as skilled craftsmen they would require full trade union rates of pay?
    Mr. Butler: I will see that the hon. Member's point receives consideration.
    Mr. McGovern: If the age is being limited to 45, will the hon. Gentleman impress on the Government the necessity of introducing old age pensions for these men?
    Mr. Butler: In my original answer I said that the age limit was ordinarily 45.

    WALES.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that Wales is the only part of the Kingdom that shows a reduction in the number in employment in 1936 as compared with 1935, what special steps the Government propose to take to deal with the provision of new employment in Wales?
    Mr. Butler: The various measures now in operation for this purpose and the additional measures to be undertaken were fully dealt with in the Debate on the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937.
    Mr. Griffiths: Have representations been made to the Department recently that, in spite of all the efforts made by the Minister, there are still 140,000 unemployed in this very narrow industrial belt, and will not the Government give con-

    1931
    sideration to making some special efforts more than the efforts which have already been made?
    Mr. Butler: I realise the problem in South Wales, but I think we should give the new provisions in the latest Act every opportunity for effecting an improvement.

    TRAINING CENTRE, LEICESTER.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now in training at the centre in Gipsy Lane, Leicester, and their average age; and the number of trainees that have passed from there to employment to the latest date?
    Mr. Butler: There were 331 men in training at the Leicester Government training centre on 31st May, and their average age was between 23 and 24 years. Three hundred and fifty-four men have passed into employment from the centre since it was opened in July, 1936—representing 96 per cent. of those who completed the course.
    Mr. Lyons: While thanking my hon. Friend for that very satisfactory result, may I ask him whether he can give the total number that can be accommodated at that centre and, moreover, the sources and parts of the country from which the present occupants have been drawn?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. and learned Friend should put that question down.

    SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORK.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many farms are likely to be short-handed this summer owing to shortage of casual labour for haymaking and hoeing; and whether he proposes to take any special steps to encourage unemployed persons in urban areas to take advantage of such employment in the country during the summer months?
    Mr. Butler: There are difficulties in the way of employing townsmen, unused to work on the land, for short spells of seasonal agricultural work. The Employment Exchanges, however, take and will continue to take all practicable steps to bring to the notice of suitable persons, in urban and other areas, vacancies notified for agricultural employment in districts where sufficient workers are not available locally.

    JUVENILES (TRANSFERENCE).
    Mr. Whitleyasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that boys at present employed in the North are being transferred to the South with the assistance of the Employment Exchanges; and will he have inquiries made into the matter?
    Mr. Butler: The facilities of the juvenile transference scheme are available only to boys and girls registered at the Exchanges as unemployed, and I know of no cases of boys transferred to the South under the scheme who were already in employment in their home area. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. Whiteley: I will give the hon. Gentleman those particulars.

    ABBEYDALE EXCHANGE, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. Boultonasked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons for the proposed closing of the Abbeydale, Sheffield, Employment Exchange; and how many claims are now dealt with at this exchange?
    Mr. Butler: This office was opened in 1932 to meet an emergency when the premises of the main Sheffield Exchange were inadequate, and it is now being closed because the new main premises can deal with the Abbeydale claimants satisfactorily. The number of claims to benefit and applications for unemployment assistance at the latest available date at Abbeydale was 1,731.
    Mr. L. Smith: Will my hon. Friend consider granting the same facilities now given to long-distance claimants to those living three miles or more from the exchange which they will now have to use?
    Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider any representations made to me by my hon. Friend.

    BENEFIT (TAXI-CAB DRIVERS).
    Mr. Ammonasked the Minister of Labour the conditions under which taximeter-cab drivers in training learning London are entitled to draw benefit at the Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. Butler: The chief requirements are that the applicant shall be unemployed and available for work. Whether a particular applicant fulfils the conditions is a matter for determination by

    1933
    the independent statutory authorities. I may add that my right hon. Friend is making inquiries into the case referred to in the hon. Member's question of 3rd June and will write to him in the course of the next few days.

    TRANSFEREES, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men transferred from Newcastle-upon-Tyne recently to work on aerodromes in Gloucestershire; whether the men are still at work; and, if not, why these men returned home?
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Minister of Labour how many men from the Newcastle-upon-Tyne district have been transferred for aerodrome construction in Gloucestershire; and whether any complaints have been received as to their accommodation?
    Mr. Butler: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Members as soon as possible.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of those on the register on 24th May who had been out of work one year and over?
    Mr. Butler: At 24th May, 1937, there were approximately 314,000 claimants for benefit and applicants for unemployment allowances on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain who had been continuously on the registers for 12 months or more; this total includes about 36,000 persons who would not have been so included under the arrangement existing prior to the Second Appointed Day for unemployment assistance on 1st April. Corresponding figures are not available for persons on the registers who were not applying for benefit or allowances. A proportion of these persons will have had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each, during the period of continuous registration.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of those unemployed who were previously registering are now drawing Poor Law relief?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware that there has been a steady decline in those unemployed
    1934
    for a period of more than a year if you exclude those who have been transferred after the Second Appointed Day.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a steady increase in Poor Law relief in the country?
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Department satisfied that these 314,000 are people willing and able to work, in view of the charges that have been made against this class?
    Mr. Butler: I am sure that the Government are always ready to try to find employment for everyone of these persons.

    SPECIAL AREAS RECONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of aplications made to the Special Areas Reconstruction Association for financial assistance to establish new industries in South Wales and Monmouthshire; the number granted; and similar information for England and Scotland?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures for which he asks in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    Out of the total number of loans (namely 74) so far approved by the Association the figures for loans to new industries are:—

    Applications for loans to new industries.

    Applications approved.*

    South Wales

    45

    9

    Durham & Tyne-side.

    72

    17

    Cumberland

    15

    6

    Scotland

    14

    4

    Total

    146

    36

    * A number of applications in addition to those approved are still under consideration.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    "S"-GRADE CLERKS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether there is any redundancy of "S"-grade clerks in England; and whether he contemplates transferring

    1935
    a large number of them to Scotland and Wales, thereby displacing temporary grade clerks in those areas?
    Mr. Butler: There are redundant "S" class clerks in the Employment Exchange service in England, but there is at present no proposal to transfer any of them to Scotland or Wales.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Scottish Exchanges there is a very definite opinion that there is going to be a large transfer of "S"-grade clerks, and will he, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, give a definite denial to that?
    Mr. Butler: I think I gave it in my answer. The number of "S"-grade clerks redundant is under 200.

    INLAND REVENUE (NEW ENTRANTS, PAY).
    Mr. Kellyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with further reference to the pay of new entrants to the Inland Revenue Department, he can now give an undertaking that new entrant tax officers in the Inland Revenue Department will be conditioned to the scale of pay agreed between the Board of Inland Revenue and the Association of Officers of Taxes in 1934 until such time as a new scale is either agreed between the parties or awarded by the arbitration tribunal?
    Major Procterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue will not stay their hands in regard to imposing reduced scales of pay upon new entrant tax officers pending the decision of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal on the matter?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given on 7th June to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith). The whole question is going before the Arbitration Tribunal, and in the circumstances I see no reason to intervene.
    Mr. Kelly: Why has there been some alteration made while this matter is under the consideration of the Arbitration Tribunal?
    Sir J. Simon: I think the material thing to remember is that if, as the result of
    1936
    negotiation or arbitration, scales of pay more favourable in the early years than those of the general clerical class are awarded, new entrants will get the benefit of any improvement as from the date of their entry into the Civil Service The adjustment will be made.
    Mr. Kellyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that the dispute on the pay of new entrant tax officers is to be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal, he will have regard to the view of the court in a previous comparable case (Industrial Court Award No. 1,211) and bring new entrants into the Department on the salary scales previously agreed between the Board of Inland Revenue and the association in 1934, until such time as the tribunal has adjudicated on the dispute?
    Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8th June to the hon. Member for the Farnworth Division of Lancaster (Mr. Rowson), to which I do not think I can usefully add anything.

  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  Mr. Lyonsasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made by the committee appointed to consider the question of annual paid holidays and the number of sittings to date?
  Mr. Butler: The committee have held three sittings and have taken evidence from the Ministry of Labour, the Trades Union Congress General Council, and from Mr. Comyns Carr, K.C. Further sittings are arranged for 'r 5th, 22nd, and 29th June.
  Mr. Lyons: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is anticipated that the report of that committee will be published before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess?
  Mr. Butler: I am unable to give the date at present, but we must allow the committee to continue with the progress which it is now making.

  ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT PERMITS).
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the number of permits issued by his Department to enable German citizens

  1937
  to enter this country for the purpose of taking up employment, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
  Mr. Butler: The number of permits issued during the 12 months ended 31st May, 1937, for the employment of German nationals was 3,164.
  Mr. Day: Are there any time limits in the granting of these permits?
  Mr. Butler: Yes. Each individual case is treated on its merits, and there are time limits.
  Mr. Day: How many Germans are there in the country at the present time?
  Mr. Petherick: Does this represent any departure from the previous policy of the Government, namely, very strict control of immigration and strong discouragement of it while there is a large number of unemployed still in this country?
  Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has correctly represented the Government policy in this matter.
  Mr. Davidson: Are permits issued on behalf of households which have German domestics where there are no English or British domestics employed?
  Mr. Butler: There are permits issued in respect of domestic servants, and they form a considerable portion of the total.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not also a fact that special sympathy is shown to applications coming from refugees who have been driven out of their own countries?

  ASIATIC LABOUR (CONFERENCE).
  Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Labour who will be the representatives of India and of the British Colonies and Dependencies in Asia at the meeting, under the auspices of the International Labour Office, called to examine the proposed organisation of an advisory tripartite conference of Asiatic countries; and what is to be the scope of the conference?
  Mr. Butler: A meeting to consider this subject was held this week and adjourned until next week without reaching a decision. It was attended by the delegates representing the Government of India, by the Indian members of the employers' and workers' delegations to
  1938
  the International Labour Conference, and Mr. Leggett, one of the British Government delegates also attended.

  STEEPLECHASE JOCKEYS (INJURIES, GRANT).
  Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many steeplechase jockeys benefited during the past season from the grant made by the Racecourse Betting Control Board to enable the National Hunt Committee to pay increased weekly allowances to professional riders who are injured while riding races?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am informed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board that the number of jockeys who benefited during the last season from the grant referred to was 135.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: How much money was involved in this grant, and is it intended to continue it?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think it is intended to continue the grant. The amount of the grant to the National Hunt Committee was £4,000.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the rates of compensation paid to injured workers?

  DANGEROUS PREMISES, FINSBURY.
  Mr. Woodsasked the Home Secretary the number of police employed, and the cost entailed, in diverting traffic into by-roads consequent upon the demolition of a building at the junction of Rosebery Avenue and Tysoe Street, in the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury, which had begun to collapse and had become a danger to the public; and by whom such costs will be borne?
  Mr. Lloyd: From 5 p.m. on 31st May to 8.30 p.m. on 1st June five constables were engaged during the day time and two during the night in regulating traffic at this junction. The men concerned were temporarily diverted from other duties and no additional cost was entailed.
  Mr. Woodsasked the Minister of Health, for what length of time the building at the junction of Rosebery Avenue

  1939
  and Tysoe Street, in the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury, which has had to be declared unsafe and caused considerable inconvenience to the public, was allowed to remain a danger to the public; how long previously had any steps been taken, either on behalf of the owner or by any inspector, to ascertain the condition of the property; and whether any steps have been taken to afford the tenants of the adjoining premises, who were removed during the night at great personal inconvenience, protection formerly enjoyed by them under the Increase of Rents Acts?
  The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I understand from the London County Council, who are the responsible authority in the matter under Part X of the London Building Act, 1930, that the District Surveyor first became apprehensive of the condition of the unoccupied premises known as 9–11, Tysoe Street, on the 10th April, and communicated with the owners, who decided to demolish the buildings. I understand also that alternative accommodation has been provided for the tenants of the adjoining property by the owners, but I am not aware of the exact arrangements made.
  Mr. Woods: In view of the number of cases in which there has been collapse of buildings endangering human life, is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate inspection, especially of buildings of the kind referred to, which have been boarded up for 10 or 15 years, so that the defect is revealed only when the boarding is removed?
  Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member will appreciate that I have no jurisdiction in this matter. It is one in certain respects for the London County Council. If the hon. Member would like me to call the attention of the Council to any particular case I shall be glad to take it up with them, and I know they will give it attention.

  PRISON SERVICE.
  Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary what shortage of staff exists at Wandsworth and other prisons; what steps are being taken to increase the staffs; whether he is aware that candidates of good moral character and physical fitness are being rejected by the
  1940
  Prison Department because of their failure to answer psychological questions; and whether he is satisfied that the prison officers' rate of pay of from 50s. to 70s. per week and emoluments attracts candidates with a sufficient standard of education?
  Mr. Lloyd: There is no shortage of staff at Wandsworth or other prisons, and my right hon. Friend is not aware of any ground for increasing the present established staff. Vacancies in the staff arise from time to time owing to retirement, transfers, etc., and at present there are three such vacancies at Wandsworth Prison and 40 vacancies for male officers in 36 other establishments. These vacancies are filled from training classes held periodically for probationary officers, but prison governors have authority to employ temporary officers pending permanent appointments being made. There are 42 probationers undergoing training at present. Candidates, before being selected for training, are interviewed and have to pass a medical examination and an educational test: this consists, in addition to the writing of a passage from dictation, of questions devised to test the general level of intelligence of candidates. There is at present no lack of candidates who attain the required standard.
  Mr. McEntee: May I ask whether governors of prisons generally refuse to exercise their power to fill casual vacancies, and that such vacancies remain open for long periods?
  Mr. Lloyd: That depends on the discretion of the governor.
  Mr. Thorne: Do these men have their tempers properly tested before they are appointed?

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent case of brutal assault on a young girl in which the judge at Leicester Assizes regretted that he had no power to order whipping; and will he draw the attention of the Committee on Corporal Punishment to the facts of this case.
  Mr. Lloyd: I have seen press reports to the effect stated in the first part of the

  1941
  question. It will be the duty of the Committee to take account of all considerations relevant to their inquiry, including such considerations as are raised by the case in question.
  Sir A. Knox: But does.not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be rather useful for the Home Office to draw the attention of the committee to this case, on the chance that they may not have seen it?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have no doubt that the committee will investigate the considerations raised in this class of case.
  Mr. Thurtle: Will the Home Office consider taking powers to permit magistrates to order compulsory surgical operation in cases of this kind?
  Sir Frank Sanderson: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is a type of case in which sterilisation might be of considerable advantage?

  JURIES' VERDICTS.
  Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary on how many occasions during the last 10 years juries in English criminal law courts have returned a verdict of "Not proven," which is commonly used in Scottish law; and will he consider introducing amending legislation in England so as to make the necessary change in our existing laws in order to enable such a verdict to become part of the law of England?
  Mr. Lloyd: As the Scots verdict "Not proven" does not exist in the English criminal law. I am unable to answer the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Is not this one of the many cases in which England might be very well advised to copy Scotland?
  Sir John Ganzoni: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that on one occasion, at any rate, a jury in England in a criminal trial did find a verdict of "Not proven"?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, there was one such case. The foreman of the jury was a Scotswoman. The judge ordered that a verdict of "Not guilty" should be entered in that case.

  HOUSING.

    SUBSIDY.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in a number of cases where subsidies were paid in respect of houses built under the Housing Act, 1923, the builders are alleged to have received the subsidy on condition that they sold the houses outright, including the land, for prices not exceeding £600 per house, and to have violated that condition by taking annual chief rents or ground rents in addition to the capital payment of £600; whether he has inquired or will inquire into these matters; and whether he will take steps to secure that such rents be remitted and all payments returned to the purchasers or that the subsidies be refunded?
    Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the circumstances referred to and have been in communication with the local authority concerned. I am advised that I have no power to secure the remission of the annual chief rents to the purchasers, but I am considering the question of the extent to which Exchequer contributions must be withdrawn in respect of the cases where there has been a breach of the conditions of the grant.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the men who obtained these houses under the subsidy were ex-service men, and will he give special consideration to the matter in view of the circumstances in which they found themselves at that time?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes. This is a very regrettable case. As I daresay the hon. Member knows, the conditions which I suggested were not fulfilled, and I regret that I have no power to deal further with the matter.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that before these agreements were arrived at,the sanction of the Ministry of Health had to be obtained?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, and sanction was given under certain conditions which, I regret to say, were apparently not completed so far as these particular contracts were concerned.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to revive the housing subsidy in order to enable local authorities to provide houses

    1943
    for people who cannot be accommodated under the slum-clearance and overcrowding schemes?
    Sir K. Wood: I am satisfied that the energies of local authorities and the available resources of the building industry will be fully occupied for some time to come in dealing with the more urgent problem of housing for slum clearance and the abatement of overcrowding, for which substantial Exchequer subsidies are already available.
    Mr. Whiteley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very long list of people who are still waiting for houses, and whom these two schemes will not accommodate for a long time to come; and will he not take this very important fact into consideration as early as possible?
    Sir K. Wood: I would ask the hon. Member to read what I said about this matter on the Estimates. I am asking the local authorities to concentrate as much as possible on slum clearance and overcrowding at the present time.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that in many areas in this country the local authorities are still dealing in rotation with applications that were made in 1931 and 1932 for council houses; and is he aware, further, that slum clearance will not solve the question of shortage of houses?

    GROUND RENTS (PURCHASE).
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether under all the agreements made under the Housing Act, 1923, a ground rent has been allowed to be paid; or whether, whereas a perpetual ground rent is fixed in some areas, in others house purchasers can purchase the freehold for a sum equivalent to a 20 years' chief rent?
    Sir K. Wood: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I am advised that in the absence of any provision in the contract for sale dealing with this matter, the question of the terms on which the ground rent can be redeemed would be a matter for negotiation.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that under the Act of 1923 agreements were arrived at which stated that the houses should be sold lock, stock and barrel, including the land, and if that is so, have there not been breaches of that Act in Stafford, Torquay and other districts?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not aware of those cases. As the hon. Member knows, the Ministry, in communication with local authorities, suggested these conditions. The only case I have in mind is the one referred to by the hon. Member in his earlier question, and there, unfortunately, the conditions suggested were apparently not properly imposed.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the difficulties of the position, will the Minister give this matter his personal attention?
    Sir K. Wood: Certainly I will, and if the hon. Member will see me I will go into it fully with him.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the Minister do all he can to assist Socialists to become owners of their houses, with the land?

    RURAL AREAS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health how many rural district councils in England and Wales have made application to the Rural Housing Committee for Exchequer grants in respect of new housing accommodation required for the abatement of overcrowding among the agricultural population under the terms of Section 108 of the Housing Act, 1936; and the number and amounts of the grants approved by him under that Section up to the end of April, 1937?
    Sir K. Wood: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Applications have been received from 55 Rural District Councils and, up to 30th April, 1937, the Minister, acting on the recommendations of the Rural Housing Committee, had undertaken to make the following Exchequer contributions, payable annually for 40 years in respect of each house:

    Number of Houses.

    Contribution per House.

    £

    s.

    d.

    3

    2

    10

    0

    90

    5

    0

    0

    29

    5

    10

    0

    2

    6

    0

    0

    22

    7

    0

    0

    12

    7

    10

    0

    477

    8

    0

    0

    635

    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health the number of complaints received, during the three years ended to the last convenient date, that administrative bodies have failed to exercise their powers under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926; and the number of labourers' cottages that have been improved and reconditioned under this Act during the same period?
    Sir K. Wood: Complaints have from time to time been received that insufficient use has been made of these Acts, but I have no record of the exact number. Steps have recently been taken to secure wider publicity for the grants available which will, it is hoped, result in a marked increase in the number of cottages improved. The number of cottages in respect of which local authorities have undertaken to grant assistance increased during the three years ended 3ist March, 1937, from 7,807 to 14,207.
    Mr. Day: Will the Minister consider the desirability of impressing upon local authorities to exercise their powers under this Act?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Member will be good enough to study the Debates on the Ministry of Health Estimates a day or two ago, he will see that the matter was fully dealt with then.
    Mr. T. Johnston: Has the Minister's attention been called to a report of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Housing, published last week, in which the administration of this Act is described as a gross waste of public money? Will he assure himself that similar misapplication of public funds is not being made in England?
    Sir K. Wood: I understand that the report dealt only with Scotland, and I
    1946
    know of no such condemnation so far as England is concerned.
    Mr. Johnston: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to give me an assurance that a similar waste of public money is not being made in England?
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a most valuable Act for the rural workers?
    Sir K. Wood: I would like to state at once that I am not aware of any such position, so far as this country is concerned. I am most anxious that local authorities should take all steps they can under this Act.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman set up a committee to investigate the whole question?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I think we will leave Scotland to look after its own affairs.

    SLUM CLEARANCE, SHEFFIELD (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. L. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain small shopkeepers in Sheffield have suffered considerable loss of business as a result of slum-clearance schemes which have led to the houses of their customers being demolished; and what amounts have been paid by way of compensation to such small shopkeepers in Sheffield on this account during the past two years?
    Sir K. Wood: I understand that the Corporation had up to 3ist March last paid allowances in respect of trade disturbance in 245 out of the total of 282 claims submitted to them, the total amount of the allowances so paid being £8,270. I have no reason to suppose that the Corporation are not adequately exercising their discretionary powers to make allowances, but if my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind and will send me particulars, I shall be glad to make further inquiries.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much compensation the Sheffield City Council paid in connection with their rehousing work?
    Sir K. Wood: That is beyond this question a long way.

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the high percentage of overcrowding in the county of Durham and other distressed areas, he will take steps to secure an increase of the present limit of the Exchequer contribution, so as to enable distressed areas to carry out a long delayed and much needed programme of rehousing?
    Sir K. Wood: I have no reason to suppose that progress within the available resources of the building industry is being impeded in the Special Areas. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that as regards the County of Durham, the services of the North Eastern Housing Association are available to local authorities in the Special Area to assist them in carrying out their programmes on terms which do not involve a charge on local rates.
    Mr. Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that overcrowding is not confined to slum property, and that authorities in the poverty-stricken areas might be assisted if the full maximum of £5 were granted in each case? Does not the Minister agree?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but they have a very ready means of dealing with this matter with the aid of this association, which is already doing such good work.
    Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county council would carry out the work, and that at the present time the county council has the highest percentage of overcrowding for counties?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I hope that the county council will proceed with this matter, but I would like to press upon the hon. Gentleman and anyone else who may be interested in this matter, the point that here is this association ready and willing to give valuable assistance.
    Sir A. Knox: It not the worst case of overcrowding the House of Commons?

  NATIONAL PARKS.
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health when he will be in a position to make a statement with regard to the Government's policy concerning national parks, following on the resolution passed by this House on 9th December and subsequent representations?
  Sir K. Wood: The Government are continuing to take all action practicable under existing powers to secure the objects aimed at in the resolution. While I am not yet in a position to make a further statement, I shall, if the hon. Member so desires, be happy to discuss the matter with those interested.

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Health the total number of able-bodied unemployed receiving public assistance through the public assistance committees in England and Wales?
  Sir K. Wood: Statistical information in the exact form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but the average number of persons (excluding dependants) ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation who were in receipt of out-relief in April, 1937, on account of unemployment was approximately 28,500.
  Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that under the 1934 Act all able-bodied unemployed come under the care of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and can he say why so many are dependent upon public assistance committees?
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Do not these figures disclose that the Unemployment Assistance Board are rejecting large numbers of applications from the able-bodied unemployed?
  Sir K. Wood: I am not aware of that but I will look into the matter if the hon. Member will give me any cases.
  Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the increased cost of public assistance committees due to dental treatment and the provision of artificial dentures to persons in receipt of allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board; and whether he is prepared to arrange for such cost to be met by the board and thus relieve the local public assistance committees of what should be a national charge?
  Sir K. Wood: I have received a communication from one local authority on this matter. I am advised that under the Unemployment Assistance Act the board have no power to defray the cost of dental treatment.
  Mr. Whiteley: Do I understand that the public assistance committees will still have to bear the burden of these additional costs?
  Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir; the provision of medical benefits remains the responsibility of the local authorities under the Act.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Cannot the Unemployment Assistance Board grant dentures under the "pots and pans" Clause?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Health whether the Basque children who recently reached this country had been vaccinated and inoculated before their arrival, and, if so, against what diseases were they vaccinated or inoculated; and when were these operations performed?
    Sir K. Wood: So far as I am aware, no special measures of vaccination or inoculation were taken before the children's arrival in this country, but approximately 50 per cent. were found on examination to have been vaccinated against smallpox. I understand that a first inoculation against typhoid has now been given to nearly all the children in the camp at North Stoneham.
    Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the permission of the parents for these operations had been obtained?
    Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Minister of Health how many Spanish refugee children have been admitted into this country; and how many cases of typhoid or suspected typhoid have occurred amongst them?
    Sir K. Wood: According to the information with which I have been supplied, 3,881 children arrived at the camp at North Stoneham on 23rd and 24th May. Six cases of typhoid, including one not finally diagnosed, and one of paratyphoid, have occurred amongst them. Three children are at present under observation for this disease.
    Sir A. Southby: In view of the risk of the spread of this disease, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that
    1950
    none of these children will be allowed to move to other parts of the country until they have undergone the full quarantine?
    Miss Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that the arrangements in regard to quarantine have been most admirably carried out by the voluntary service of doctors?
    Sir K. Wood: The responsibility for the conduct of this matter rests with the voluntary committee. I think everyone will agree that my Department have given all the advice and assistance that can be given in this matter, and we shall continue to do so. So far as the question of removal of children is concerned, I am anxious myself, subject to satisfactory medical conditions, that these children shall leave the camp as soon as reasonably practicable and possible. Any assistance that my medical officers can give to medical officers in districts where they may have to go, in order to ensure safety, so far as health is concerned, will be given.
    Sir J. Lamb: Will the medical officers of health be informed before the arrangements are made to transfer these children?
    Sir K. Wood: Oh, yes, Sir. It is obviously a very important responsibility on the local medical officers of health.
    Sir John Haslam: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of these children have already been removed from the camp and that some of them are in my own constituency? Have the necessary steps been taken between the Ministry of Health and the local authorities to make sure that the children are fit to be removed?
    Sir K. Wood: The matter is one for the local authority in the area and the medical officer concerned. From my own knowledge and observation I believe that the medical officers in the districts are fully alive to the need for properly carrying out their duties.
    Mr. Davidson: Would the Minister arrange for a supply of tabloids to hon. Members opposite who are afraid of infection?

    SURGICAL APPLIANCES (POOR PERSONS).
    Mr. E. Straussasked the Minister of Health whether he will inquire as to the probable cost to the State of the provision, free of cost, of surgical

    1951
    appliances to all poor persons whose need thereof is certified by a qualified medical practitioner?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I do not think I should be justified in making the inquiry suggested. I would point out that local authorities have powers to render assistance in appropriate cases.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that annual subscribers to the Surgical Aid Society are inundated with requests for surgical aid letters from poor people who have been ordered surgical appliances, and will he draw the attention of local authorities to the fact that they can exercise powers to assist in the provision of the surgical appliances that these poor people need?
    Sir K. Wood: I think that the local authorities are aware of their powers. If the hon. Gentleman will send me any cases which he has specially in mind, I will take the matter up with the authorities?

    REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITIES.
    Mr. Chorltonasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the work of the new committee set up to co-ordinate the regional water committees; and whether such committees will report regularly to the central committee?
    Sir K. Wood: The Central Advisory Water Committee are actively engaged on their work, which includes the consideration of the functions of regional water committees and their relationship with the central committee.
    Mr. Chorlton: Will the regional water committees report regularly to this new committee?
    Sir K. Wood: I am making inquiries. As my hon. Friend knows, the central committee has only just been set up. I should say, "Yes."
    Mr. Chorltonasked the Minister of Health whether he can report the progress made with the regional water authorities; whether the work they carried out was reported in any way; and, if so, could such reports be published?
    Sir K. Wood: I am informed that surveys of needs and resources have been made or are nearing completion for all
    1952
    committees. Reports of the committees are made to their constituent authorities and it is for them to decide whether the reports should be published.
    Mr. Chorltonasked the Minister of Health whether the whole of the country has now been divided up into regional water authorities?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The question whether and, if so, for what areas further committees should be appointed is being considered by the Central Water Advisory Committee.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Health whether he can now say whether the court of inquiry have come to any settlement in connection with the fees to be charged by the doctors when boys and girls become employed after leaving school; and whether the Government intend bringing in a Bill to deal with the matter?
  Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. The court of inquiry which was asked to consider the doctors' capitation fee to be paid as from January next for all insured persons entitled to medical benefit, on the assumption that employed juveniles would then be included, has reported in favour of the present rate of nine shillings per annum. I shall introduce the necessary Bill as soon as Parliamentary business permits.
  Mr. Thorne: Is it in consequence of their powerful organisation that the doctors have got all that they wanted?
  Sir K. Wood: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to consult the doctors.
  Major Procterasked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the Additional Benefits Amendment Regulations, 1937, he can say what steps have been taken by him to obtain agreement between the sight-testing opticians and the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board with regard to the question of sight testing in connection with ophthalmic benefit?
  Sir K. Wood: Repeated attempts have been made to obtain agreement between the different schools of thought on the subject referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I have myself received representative deputations from both sides. Unfortunately, it was not possible for any agreement to be arrived at.

  MEMBERS' SALARIES.
  Sir Assheton Pownallasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the proposed increase in Members' salaries, he will consider the compulsory deduction of, say, £10 per annum to form the basis of a pension fund for ex-Members?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion raises considerations which cannot be dealt with satisfactorily within the limits of a question and answer. I cannot anticipate the ruling of the Chair, but it is possible that the Debate on the Resolution which it is proposed to move in regard to Members' salaries may afford a suitable opportunity for discussing conditions which hon. Members may wish to attach to the proposed increase.
  Mr. Bellenger: When is this Debate likely to take place?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question at the moment.

  MINISTERS (PRIVATE PRACTICE AS SOLICITORS).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make a statement with reference to the practice to be followed by members of his Government, both inside and outside the Cabinet, who are solicitors, in the matter of private practice?
  The Prime Minister: I have carefully considered the views expressed on this subject in the course of the Debate in the House on 3rd June last, and I concur in the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The rule laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1906 has since been followed by successive Prime Ministers, and will be followed by myself. This rule, however, applies only to directorships, and the hon. Member's question refers to solicitors in private practice, whose position formed the subject of the discussion in the House already referred to. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be unreasonable to require that a solicitor, on becoming a member of the Government, should dissolve his partnership or should be obliged to allow his annual practising certificate to lapse. On the other hand, he should,
  1954
  in accordance with the principle underlying Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's rule, cease to carry on the daily routine work of the firm or to take any active part in its ordinary business, although he should not be precluded from continuing to advise in matters of family trusts, guardianships, and similar cases. A certain amount of discretion must be allowed, since it is impossible to cover every conceivable case in any rule, but I am satisfied that under the conditions I have laid down every reasonable requirement of propriety will be fulfilled.
  Mr. Mander: Does that apply to Ministers both inside and outside the Cabinet?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

  REARMAMENT POLICY.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether it is still the view of His Majesty's Government that its rearmament policy will in no way lessen the efforts of His Majesty's Government to secure world peace?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that on Sunday last, in a public speech, Herr Hitler stated that he had been informed by an English statesman that His Majesty's Government would only be in a position to work for peace when this country had,become again strongly rearmed; and may I ask, in view of the Prime Minister's answer this afternoon, whether any Member of His Majesty's Government has recently been in communication with Herr Hitler on this matter, and, if not, whether the Prime Minister will take steps to convey to Herr Hitler the desirability of securing information on the policy of His Majesty's Government—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now putting as a supplementary question something which was disallowed in the original question that he handed in. He cannot do that.

  LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.
  Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when the Royal Commission will be set up to inquire into the

  1955
  location and extension of industry with a view to securing a more even distribution of production; and whether he will now give the terms of reference and the names of the persons who will be appointed to serve on such Commission?
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Location of Industry; and the terms of reference?
  The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject, but I hope to do so shortly.
  Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very grave concern in the Special Areas at the delay in setting up this Commission, and the fact that nothing is being done to deal with the question of the location of industry?
  Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is two months since it was announced that this Commission was to be set up; and, in view of the urgency of this question, can he not expedite it?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.
  Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he said the same thing last week?

  FOREIGN LOANS.
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to stimulate a revival of international trade with a view to maintaining industrial activity in this country when the rearmament programme is completed; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of a gradual relaxation of the present absolute prohibition of foreign issues?
  Sir J. Simon: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, it would be a misapprehension to suppose that there is an absolute prohibition on foreign issues. As my hon. Friend will see from the terms of reference of the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee, which were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 7th April, 1936, special
  1956
  consideration is given to sterling issues on behalf of any borrower where the proceeds are calculated mainly to produce direct benefit to British industry.
  Mr. Boothby: In view of the fact that His Majesty's Government do not at present feel that we are financially strong enough to resume international lending on a large scale, are not the suggestions which have been made recently that we are suffering from a surplus of gold rather ridiculous?
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not the case that, if foreign investments are extended much further, it may have a detrimental effect on finance for British industry?
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to increasing the volume of international trade, he will review the present activities of the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee and the terms of reference under which it works, and, if necessary, change them?
  Sir J. Simon: The usefulness of this Committee was the subject of an answer by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister on 25th February last, and I would refer my hon. Friend to this answer.
  Mr. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the latter part of my question, as to whether he will consider the Committee's terms of reference in the light of the conditions from time to time, and keep them under review?
  Sir J. Simon: These matters are always being kept under review. As the hon. Member knows, many factors have to be considered, and I can assure him that they are constantly under consideration. I think that, if he will refresh his memory by looking at the terms of reference, he will find that the terms of reference themselves provide for a very proper latitude.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in the view of his advisers, the stabilisation of world currencies is necessary before a settlement of the American War Debt is possible; and what are the essential conditions aimed at before stabilisation can take effect;

  1957
  (2) whether payment of war debts owing by France and other allies, and reparation by Germany to Great Britain will be demanded as a condition of our renewal of war debt payments to the United States of America?
  Sir J. Simon: Discussions in regard to the British War Debt to the United States of America would have to take into account all relevant factors, including those connected with Inter-Allied War Debts and Reparations and those connected with the relationship between the pound sterling and other currencies. As regards the conditions of a return to stabilisation on a gold standard, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to him on 3rd June.
  Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of advising all those interested to wipe out all the War debts and start with a clean slate?
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the American war debt owing by this country to the United States of America is attributable to loans, services, and goods, respectively?
  Sir J. Simon: Of the total expenditure incurred by His Majesty's Government in the United States after the date of the entry of the United States into the War, about 87 per cent. was attributable to goods, about 12 per cent. to interest on and repayment of loans, and under z per cent. to services. About 56 per cent. of this total expenditure was covered by the advances from the United States Treasury, and the balance out of our own resources, reimbursements by Allies, and other methods.

  BRITISH MONETARY POLICY.
  Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to ease the gold difficulties, he will reduce further the paper cover held against the note issue, by replacing the;£200,000,000 of fiduciary paper with gold coin and bullion from the Exchange Equalisation Account until the whole of the note issue has been covered by gold at 85s. per ounce, pending revaluation?
  Sir J. Simon: It is not necessary to consider this proposal at the present time.
  Mr. Mabaneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government to use the Exchange Equalisation Account solely to prevent short-term fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling, and not to maintain a fixed sterling value for gold?
  Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the operations of the Exchange Equalisation Fund have been confined, and will be confined, to the purpose of correcting temporary fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling?
  Sir J. Simon: The Exchange Equalisation Account is used for checking undue fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling and not for the purpose of maintaining a fixed sterling value for gold.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of the Tripartite Agreement preclude the United States Government from altering the parity price of gold without prior consultation with the Governments of Great Britain and France?
  Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my predecessor gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen East (Mr. Boothby) on 13th April last.

  DOG AND MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES (REMINDERS).
  Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether arrangements can be made for reminders to be issued by local taxation authorities in respect of the renewal of dog licences and motor-driving licences in the same way as reminders are issued in connection with the payment of wireless licences?
  Sir J. Simon: The issue of reminders as regards dog licences is a matter for the local authorities in the first place to whom the licence duty accrues. In the case of motor driving licences, I am informed that, following a request made by the Minister of Transport last year, the majority of authorities now issue reminders, and the remainder will commence issue within the next month.
  Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing similar reminders

  1959
  in respect of dog licences, in view of the hardship that sometimes arises in connection with them?
  Sir J. Simon: As I said in my original answer, the issue of reminders in that case is primarily a matter for the local authorities, but I will consider whether anything can be done.
  Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the number of dog licences now equals the number of birth certificates?

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. Dreweasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of claims for rebate of Income Tax that he has received from farmers in respect of farm losses in each of the last five years?
  Sir J. Simon: I am not in a position to say how many claims in respect of farm losses have been received. The farmer may claim not only in respect of loss but also in respect of the profits of the year falling short of the amount of the

  1932–33.

  1933–34.

  1934–35.

  1935–36.

  1936–37.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  England

  …

  …

  13,194

  19,798

  22,924

  51,154

  61,311

  Scotland

  …

  …

  1,528

  5,432

  7,355

  5,428

  7,775

  Northern Ireland

  …

  …

  85

  348

  136

  154

  311

  Total

  …

  …

  14,807

  25,578

  30,415

  56,736

  69,397

  NEW TAX PROPOSALS.
  Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the desirability that there should be the fullest consultation with British industrial interests before the details of the new tax to substitute the National Defence Contribution are announced, and of the fact that it will not be necessary for this tax to produce anything but a negligible revenue during the current year, he will consider the desirability of postponing its introduction altogether until the Budget of 1938?
  Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. The consultations which I am having with representatives of industry will not necessitate any postponement of my proposals. The Prime Minister has already stated that I hope to be able to table the necessary Resolution next week.
  Schedule B Assessment, and the number of claims of both classes was 21,500 for the year 1932–33, 22,000 for the year 1933–34, 20,100 for the year 1934–35 and 18,200 for the year 1935–36. Figures for 1936–37 are not yet available.
  Mr. Keelingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what total sum has been allowed in discounts on payment of Income Tax in advance during the last five years; and whether he can estimate what further sum would have been payable during that period but for the statutory rule that application for the discount must be made at the time of payment?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As the answer to the first part of the question involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the second part, I regret that I have no information.
  Following is the answer:
  The total amount of discount allowed during the past five years was £196,933, made up as follows:

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Leslieasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, owing to the inadequate allowance paid to old people by way of pensions, there are in the county of Durham 6,170 men and 4,137 women on old age pensions with 937 dependants who have their pensions supplemented from public assistance to the extent of £203,980 per annum, equal to a county rate of 1s. 8d. in the pound; and whether in view of this burden on local rates, the Government will consider the desirability of increasing old age pensions to an adequate amount?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams).
  Mr. Leslie: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it fair that poor districts should have to bear this additional burden while rich communities escape? Is not this a case for equalisation of rates?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot add to the answers that I gave beyond pointing out that, in dealing with the figures of the country as a whole, I was unable to accept the view put forward by the hon. Member.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of Royal Commissions and Committees which have been set up during the life of this Parliament and the subjects which they were appointed to consider?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Two Royal Commissions and 31 other Commissions and Committees have been appointed during the present Parliament. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the subjects which they were appointed to consider.
  Following are the particulars:
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (excluding Standing, Statutory and Advisory Committees, Departmental Committees composed exclusively of Officials and Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence) which have been set up during the life of the present Parliament and the subjects which they were appointed to consider.
  Name of Commission or Committee, Object of Inquiry, Date of Appointment and Remarks.
  Safety in Mines (Royal Commission):
  To inquire whether the safety and health of mine workers can be better ensured by extending or modifying the principles or general provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or the arrangements for its administration.—December, 1935.
  Marriage Laws (Scotland):
  To inquire into and report upon the law of Scotland relating to the constitution of marriage and to recommend what changes, if any, are desirable.—December, 1935.—Reported December, 1936.
  Farm Workers in Scotland:
  To examine the existing system of employment and remuneration of farm workers; and to report whether any action is desirable for regulating the remuneration or the conditions of employment of these workers.—January, 1936.—Reported June, 1936.
  Name of Commission or Committee, Object of Inquiry, Date of Appointment and Remarks.
  Employment of Young Persons in Unregulated Occupation:
  To inquire into the hours of employment of young persons under 18 years of age (not being subject to the provisions as to hours of employment contained in the Shops Act, 1934, or the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901) and to advise whether it may be desirable in the interests of the young persons concerned to regulate such employment.—January, 1936.—Reported January, 1937.
  Police Clothing (Scotland):
  To consider the possibility and expediency of arrangements being made for the pooling of contracts for police clothing of standard material and design and to report.—January, 1936.—Reported January, 1937.
  Child Adoption:
  To inquire into the methods pursued by adoption societies or other agencies engaged in arranging for the adoption of children and to report whether any, and if so what, measures should be taken in the public interest to supervise or control their activities.—January, 1936.
  Compulsory Insurance:
  To consider and report whether any, and if so what, changes in the existing law relating to the carrying on of the business of insurance are desirable in the light of statutory provisions relating to compulsory insurance against third party risks and by employers against liability to their workmen.—February, 1936.
  Structural Precautions against Air Attack:
  To consider and report as to the nature of material damage likely to result from the dropping of bombs during hostile air attack, and on the extent to which it might be possible to apply protective measures to buildings and provide structural protection for occupants of buildings.—February, 1936.
  Circuit Towns:
  To review the present distribution of Assize facilities, and report whether any further town should be added to those already visited, or any town at present visited should be omitted.—March, 1936.—Reported July, 1936.
  Quarter Sessions:
  To consider and report what functions, not at present within the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, should be included in that jurisdiction

  (a) under existing circumstances;

  (b) if and when it is enacted that all Chairmen of Quarter Sessions shall be legally qualified.

  —March, 1936.—Reported July, 1936.
  Shorthand Writers (Supreme Court):
  To consider the technical and administrative problems involved in the establishment of a system for taking an official shorthand note in the Supreme Court, and to report in what manner they can best be solved.—March, 1936.—Reported July, 1936.
  Name of Commission or Committee, Object of Inquiry, Date of Appointment and Remarks.
  Fixed Trusts:
  To inquire into Fixed Trusts in all their aspects, and to report what action, if any, is desirable in the public interest.—March, 1936.—Reported July, 1936.
  British Films:
  To consider the position of British films, having in mind the approaching expiry of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, and to advise whether any, and if so what, measures are still required in the public interest to promote the production, renting and exhibition of such films.—March, 1936.—Reported November, 1936.
  Mui-tsai:
  To investigate and report on the whole question of mui-tsai in Hong Kong and Malaya.—March, 1936.—Reported January, 1937.
  Insurance of Ships:
  To inquire into the present system of insuring hulls of vessels in the light of recent judicial comments on the insured values of ships for total loss, and to report whether any change of practice is desirable and possible.—April, 1936.—Reported December, 1936.
  Re-habilitation of Persons injured by Accidents:
  To inquire into the arrangements at present in operation with a view to the restoration of the working capacity of persons injured by accidents and to report as to what improvements or developments are desirable.—April, 1936.—Interim Report May, 1937.
  Poor Persons—Court Facilities (Scotland):
  To inquire into and report upon the existing law and practice regulating the facilities available to poor persons appearing as parties before the Civil Courts and as accused persons before the Criminal Courts, and the provision at present made there under for the representation of such persons by Counsel and Agents.—May, 1936.—Reported March, 1937.
  Uniform of Chief Constables:
  To inquire into and report upon the subject of the uniform of Chief Constables of Counties and Boroughs in England and Wales.—May, 1936.
  Road Transport:
  To examine the present position in regard to the regulation of wages and conditions of service of persons employed in connection with the carriage of goods by road and to make recommendations as to the action which it is desirable to take—July, 1936.—Reported April, 1937.
  Metropolitan Police Court District—Summary Jurisdiction:
  To inquire into the exercise of summary jurisdiction in the Metropolitan Police Court District including the distribution of work among the various Metropolitan Police Courts and the Juvenile Courts and the allocation of functions to these Courts and the Petty Sessional Courts respectively, and to report what changes, if any, are required.—July, 1936.
  Name of Commission or Committee, Object of Inquiry, Date of Appointment and Remarks.
  Palestine (Royal Commission):
  To ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbance which broke out in Palestine in the middle of April; to inquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to the obligations of the Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented; and if the commission is satisfied that any such grievances are well founded, to make recommendations for their removal and for the prevention of their recurrence.—August, 1936.
  Veterinary Education:
  To review the facilities available for veterinary education in Great Britain in relation to the probable future demand for qualified veterinary surgeons and to report thereon, and in particular to make recommendations as to the provision which should be made from public funds in the five years 1937–42 in aid of the maintenance expenses of institutions providing veterinary education.—November, 1936.
  Scottish Administrative Arrangements:
  To inquire into and report upon the duties of the Scottish Office and other Scottish Administrative Departments under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the distribution of those duties between Departments, the position of the Departments in relation to each other and to the Secretary of State, and the arrangements under which liaison is maintained between Edinburgh and London, in the conduct of public business; and to recommend what changes. if any, should be made, keeping in view the prospective concentration of Departments in one building in Edinburgh.—November, 1936.
  Share-pushing:
  To consider the operations commonly known as share-pushing and share-hawking and similar activities and to report, what, if any, action is desirable.—December, 1936.
  Firedamp Detector Regulations:
  To inquire into the working of the Coal Mines General Regulations (Firedamp Detector), 1935, and to make recommendations.—December, 1936.
  Examinations for Engineers:
  To consider the present system under which candidates for Certificates as Engineers in merchant ships are examined by the Board of Trade.—January, 1937.
  Night Baking:
  To inquire into the effects likely to ensue

  (1) to those engaged in the bread baking and flour confectionery industry, and

  (2) to the public,

  in the event of the abolition by legislation of the practice of night baking now prevalent in the industry; and to consider and report whether or not such legislation would be desirable.—February, 1937.
  Name of Commission or Committee, Object of Inquiry, Date of Appointment and Remarks.
  Cardroom Workers (Respiratory Illness Compensation):
  To consider and report whether an equitable and workable scheme can be devised for providing compensation in the case of persons who, after employment for a substantial period in cardrooms or certain other dusty parts of cotton spinning mills, become or have become disabled by respiratory illness as indicated in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Dust in Cardrooms.—March, 5937.
  Holidays with Pay:
  To investigate the extent to which holidays with pay are given to employed work-people, and the possibility of extending the provision of such holidays by statutory enactment or otherwise, and to make recommendations.—March, 5937.
  Abortion:
  To inquire into the prevalence of abortion, and the present law relating thereto, and to consider what steps can be taken by more effective enforcement of the law or otherwise to secure the reduction of maternal mortality and morbidity arising from this cause.—May, 1937.
  Army Officers (Shortage of):
  To inquire into the causes of the present shortage of officers in the Army and to recommend measures to remedy it, and also to consider whether the present system of promotion from the ranks is working satisfactorily and whether it can be extended.—May, 1937.
  Corporal Punishment:
  To consider the question of corporal punishment in the penal systems of England and Wales and Scotland; to review the law and practice relating to the use of this method of punishment by Juvenile Courts, by other Courts and as a penalty for certain offences committed by prisoners; and to report what changes are necessary or desirable.—May, 1937.
  Rent Restrictions Acts:
  To inquire into and report upon the present working of the Acts and to advise what steps should be taken to continue or terminate or amend these Acts.—May, 1937.

  AGRICULTURE.

    GRASS-DRYING.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government in order to obviate delay, are prepared to grant financial assistance to farmers for the purchase of grass-drying plants?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): No, Sir. As I indicated in the course of the Debate on Monday last, I am satisfied that the development of grass-drying is proceeding as rapidly as
    1966
    the state of our present knowledge of the system justifies.
    Mr. De la Bère: How does the right hon. Gentleman think these farmers, who are financially destitute, can buy these plants if no financial aid is forthcoming from the Government?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

    PIGS.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been any noticeable rise or fall in the average price obtained for pigs in Great Britain since the breakdown of the pig marketing scheme; and by what date he will be able to announce his decision with regard to the various proposals put forward for continuing this scheme on an amended basis?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The contract system for the supply of bacon pigs to factories ceased to be fully operative at the end of December, 1936. Between that month and May, 1937, the average price of bacon pigs at representative markets in England and Wales declined from 12s. 11d. to 12s. 1d. per score. The average price of pork pigs declined in the same period from 14s. 9d. to 12s. 8d. per score. As to the second part of the question, I hope to be able to make a statement before the House rises for the summer Recess.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the producer able to make a profit at these prices?
    Mr. Morrison: That depends upon his costs of production, which vary in some cases.

  CYMMER COLLIERY (EXPLOSION).
  Mr. Daggar(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any information regarding the explosion at Cymmer pit, Porth, in the Rhondda Valley in which two men were killed and four seriously injured?
  The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I regret to inform the House that two men were killed and four injured at Cymmer Colliery, Porth, as a result of breathing afterdamp produced by an explosion which took place in the early hours of Tuesday morning. I understand that none of the men involved

  1967
  were burned. At the time of the accident the six men were engaged in preparing a site for the construction of a new stopping in the neighbourhood of a suspected heating. Investigations by His Majesty's inspectors are proceeding. The House will, I know, join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with the families and friends of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident.
  Mr. Daggar: Will there be an inquiry into the cause of the explosion?
  Captain Crookshank: I cannot say today. As I have just told the hon. Member, investigations are proceeding. I will await their result first.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state the business for next week, and also what he proposes to take in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended to-night?
The Prime Minister: Monday:—Supply, Committee [12th Allotted Day], Board of Education Estimate.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: —Report stage of the Factories Bill. If
the Report stage is concluded at a reasonable hour on Thursday, the Third Reading of the Bill will be moved.
Friday:—Supply, Committee [9th Allotted Day, Second Part], Ministry of Health Estimate.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
I propose to move to report Progress on the Finance Bill somewhere about half-past seven this evening, and then to take the Scottish Bills Nos. 2 to 5 on the Order Paper. I hope to be able to take all this business to-night, and the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended for that purpose. It is not the intention of the Government to keep the House sitting unduly late.
Mr. Short: Will the Home Office have all their Amendments to the Factories Bill on the Paper by Tuesday?
The Prime Minister indicated assent.
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, 245; Noes, 111.

Division No. 211.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Asland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Cary, R. A.

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Duggan, H. J.

Albery, Sir Irving

Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Dunglass, Lord

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

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Channon, H.

Etliston, Capt. G. S.

Apsley, Lord

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Elmley, Viscount

Aske, Sir R. W.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Emery, J. F.

Assheton, R.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Emmott, C. E. G. C

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Beauchamp, Sir B. G.

Cox, H. B. T.

Fildes, Sir H.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Cranborne, Viscount

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Furness, S. N.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Critchley, A.

Ganzoni, Sir J.

Bernays, R. H.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Crooke, J. S.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Bird, Sir R. B.

Crookshank, Capt. H F. C.

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

Gluckstein, L. H.

Blair, Sir R.

Cross, R. H.

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Crossley, A. C.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Bossom, A. C.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Grimston, R. V.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Dawson, Sir P.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

De Chair, S. S.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Bullock, Capt. M.

De la Bère, R.

Guy, J. C. M.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Denman, Ron. R. D.

Hannah, I. C.

Caine, G. R. Hall.

Denville, Alfred

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Doland, G. F.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Cartland, J. R. H,

Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

Hartington, Marquess of

Carver, Major W. H.

Drewe, C.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Solley, H. R.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Moreing, A. C.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Higgs, W. F.

Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Holdsworth, H.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

Holmes, J. S.

Morrison, Rt. Han. W. S. (Cirencester)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Munro, P.

Stourton, Major Hon, J. J.

Horsbrugh, Florenee

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Strauss, E. A. (Southward, N.)

Hewitt, Dr. A. B

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

O'Neill, Rt. Han. Sir Hugh

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

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

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Joel, D. J. B.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Patrick, C. M.

Tate, Mavis C.

Keeling, E. H.

Peake, O.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Peat, C. U.

Touche, G. C.

Kimball, L.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Train, Sir J.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Petherick, M.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Pilkington, R.

Turton, R. H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Wakefield, W. W.

Latham, Sir P.

Porritt, R. W.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Procter, Major H. A.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Lees-Jones, J.

Ramsbotham, H.

Warrender, Sir V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Watt, G. S. H.

Lewis, O.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Wayland, Sir W. A

Liddall, W. S.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Lindsay, K. M.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Wells, S. R.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Lloyd, G. W.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Loftus, P. C.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Lyons, A. M.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wise, A. R.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

McKie, J. H.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Wragg, H.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Salmon, Sir I.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Samuel, M. R. A.

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

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Markham, S. F.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Sandys, E. D.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Scott, Lord William

NOES.

Adams, D. (Corsett)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Montague, F.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

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

Adamson, W. M.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Muff, G.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Naylor, T. E.

Ammon, C. G.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Paling, W.

Barnes, A. J.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Parker, J.

Barr, J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Parkinson, J. A.

Batey, J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Bellenger, F. J.

Hopkin, D.

Pritt, D. N.

Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Riley, B.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Ritson, J.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

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

Cape, T.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sanders, W. S.

Charleton, H. C.

Kelly, W. T.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Cluse, W. S.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Sexton. T. M.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Kirby, B. V.

Short, A.

Cooks, F. S.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Silverman, S. S.

Daggar, G.

Lathan, G.

Simpson, F. B.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leach, W.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lee, F.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Leonard, W.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Day, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dobbie, W.

Lunn, W.

Stephen, C.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Ede, J. C.

McEntee, V. La T.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McGhee, H. G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

McGovern, J.

Thorne, W.

Gallacher, W.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Thurtle, E.

Gardner, B. W.

Mander, G. Ie M.

Tinker, J. J.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Marshall, F.

Viant, S. P.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A.

Maxton, J.

Walker, J,

Watkins, F. C.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Watson, W. MeL.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Welsh, J. C.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Westwood, J.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Whiteley, W.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

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

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CULAG (LOCHINVER) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MAIDENHEAD WATER) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SEVENOAKS WATER) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TONBRIDGE WATER) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  SHEPPEY WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th June].
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 12.—(Allowance for depreciation of mills, factories, etc.)
  4.2 p.m.
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 12, line 14, to leave out "actual," and to insert "replacement."
  Sub-section (3) proposes, as regards premises to which it applies, that depreciation shall be an amount equal to r per cent. of the actual cost of any buildings to the person carrying on the trade, and not to the replacement cost. This would work out very unequally in the case of similar buildings. There have been great fluctuations in the cost of building since 1914. There may be two buildings exactly similar in size and used for the same purpose, one built before the War and one built after the War, and by the wording of this Clause they might be very badly penalised. Depreciation should equal the cost at the time of repair and not the cost at the time of erection. Take a building acquired many years ago, or a group of buildings such as those acquired by the Port of London Authority in 1908 from the London dock companies. It would be almost impossible to put a cost on an individual house. Is it reasonable that allowances should vary according to the price at the time of acquiring. Buildings to which Sub-section (2) applies are to have a depreciation allowance of one-sixth of the cost or one-fifth of the net value. Those values are not original costs but current costs. That is the whole burden of the point that I wish to make and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept the Amendment I hope he will at any rate give a reassuring explanation.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: I feel in some doubt about the Amendment, because it might cut both ways. Anyone who erected a building in 1920 would be worse off if he were now put on a replacement basis. The whole argument of my hon. and gallant Friend was based on the
  1988
  buildings. I am not certain whether we are discussing buildings alone or buildings and certain of their contents. Therefore in considering the Amendment we must know what the word "building" is interpreted to mean, whether it is the actual cost of the building or the actual cost of the building and of plant and machinery inside it. My hon. and gallant Friend will notice the proviso in line 19, which says:
  "Provided that no non-rateable machinery within the meaning of section twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1936, shall be deemed to form part of a building for the purpose of this subsection."
  If non-rateable machinery is left out, by implication rateable machinery is part of the word "building." I notice that on the Paper there is an Amendment in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the word "building" is to include also the site. Therefore we have to judge the Amendment not merely having regard to replacement of the actual building but the replacement of the building and the plant and machinery in it which is not loose plant, as well as the site. I am inclined to think that on balance the ordinary trader might be better off if we stand by the words of the Clause rather than the words of the Amendment. Whichever we do, there will from time to flute be those who complain of injustice. Some people will do a little too well and some not as well as they ought to do. It is open to question whether from the point of view of the ordinary manufacturer or trader the word "actual" is not better than "replacement." I say that having regard to certain communications from experts in these matters, indicating that the word "buildings" goes beyond the mere shell and includes the rateable machinery.
  4.8 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): In order to answer this Amendment it will be necessary to say a word on the purpose of the Clause. The primary object of the Clause is to prevent an abuse of an existing allowance, but not in any way to detract from its proper value. The allowance was granted on account of the special depreciation of premises due to vibration caused by power machinery, and has been in operation since 1918. It is not measured directly by the effect of the depreciation on the life of the premises, but takes the form of a deduction, in the

  1989
  computation of profits for Schedule D purposes of one-sixth of the gross annual value of the premises as computed for the purpose of Income Tax Schedule A. Some owners have tended to inflate the gross annual value in order to increase the amount of the allowance. The Clause meets this by fixing the amount of the allowance, in the case of premises that are assessable under Schedule A, at one-sixth of the gross Schedule A value or at a given fraction of the rating value, whichever is the less.
  In the case of premises not assessable under Schedule A, for example such concerns as gas works, coal mines, and premises abroad, it has hitherto been necessary to compute a notional gross Schedule A value. This has given rise to some difficulties and it is provided that in the case of such premises the allowance shall be an amount equal to 1 per cent. of the capital cost of the premises. The present cost to the Exchequer of the allowance is some £1,500,000, and it is not intended to detract from that allowance; but in fairness to the revenue and to the great majority of owners who are operating fairly we wish to put a stop to undue inflation.
  Having said that I can deal with the point raised by the Amendment. First of all the Amendment suggests that we should leave out the word "actual" and insert the word "replacement." Subsection (3) of the Clause provides a measure, by reference to cost, for an allowance to the trader for the special depreciation caused by the operation of machinery. The cost to which regard is properly paid for this purpose is the actual cost of the existing buildings to the trader and not the estimated cost of replacing those buildings now or in the future. The allowance given for wear and tear of plant and the machinery is given by reference to the actual cost of the plant and machinery to the trader and not by reference to replacement costs. We could not accept an Amendment which in our view would change the basis of this allowance altogether.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has raised the issue of what exactly is meant by "buildings." The Committee will see that on the Paper there is an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make
  1990
  this point absolutely clear—the cost of the building by reference to which an allowance for depreciation is made, in the case of premises not assessed for tax under Schedule A, and electricity works and brickworks, will include the site and the building. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Croydon, have written to us on this subject and when we looked into it there seemed to be a little doubt as to what was the definition of "building." We are, therefore, making it quite plain what is included in the term.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Rateable machinery is included?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, and the site as well as the buildings.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, after "building" to insert "(including the site thereof)".
  It is not necessary, I think, to add more, as I dealt with this point on the last Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  4.13 p.m.
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, at the end, to insert
  "or of any other building which forms part of the premises and the depreciation of which is substantially increased by the operation of machinery so worked."
  It may be said that this point is already covered, that the depreciation allowance under Sub-section (3) is limited to buildings wholly or mainly operating machinery, worked by steam, electricity, motor or any other mechanical power. But dock and harbour authorities may have buildings not wholly or mainly used for operating machinery, such as transit sheds, heavy goods lifts, roof cranes, band conveyors and even railways through the buildings. They may not be described as machinery within the meaning of the Clause and it is for the purpose of getting some clarification that I move the Amendment.
  4.14 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This Amendment involves some extension of the deduction. Under Sub-section (3) the deduction was to be of an amount equal to the capital cost only of buildings containing and used wholly or mainly for

  1991
  the purpose of operating machinery. The extent to which a building not containing power machinery may be subject to a substantial increase of depreciation owing to vibration and the operation of power machinery elsewhere is a question of fact and one that clearly can give rise to difference of opinion. On the whole, therefore, having considered my hon. Friend's Amendment, we are inclined to think that the question does deserve to be looked into further. We want to be sure that there is no hardship inflicted by the change we are making. It is not our desire to take away from this allowance, but simply to avoid abuse. I do not think that the Amendment would be satisfactory as it stands, but in order to ensure that the point which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind is fully considered, I should like him to withdraw the Amendment and we will consider whether the point can be met by an Amendment on the Report stage.
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of the Minister's promise to investigate the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.16 p.m.
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 13, line 38, at the end, to insert:
  "(e) Where any premises are held by the occupier thereof on a lease granted for a term exceeding fifty years, such premises shall be deemed to be owned by the occupier."
  The Amendment relates to all classes of premises to which Clause 12 applies. It is not limited to mills, factories or other similar premises owned by the person carrying on the trade. It will be seen from lines 32 and 33 of the Clause, on page 11 that depreciation allowance for Income Tax purposes is only conceded in respect of a mill or factory or similar premises owned by the person carrying on the trade. I submit that that restriction would work very unfairly to harbour authorities or to traders who hold considerable property on long leases. The Amendment is to provide that where the lease is for at least 50 years the lessee shall come within the terms of the Clause. Sub-section (5) begins:
  "For the purpose of this Section."
  1992
  The only effect of the Amendment would be to give the occupier of the premises leased for 50 years or a longer period equivalent rights with the owner.
  4.17 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: My hon. and gallant Friend has put forward a point which, again, is worthy of consideration. It is intended that the deduction should go to the benefit of the person on whom actually falls the cost of making good the depreciation that occurs through shaking or vibration by machinery. In the ordinary case that person is the owner, and it is for that reason that the Clause is confined to premises owned by persons carrying on the trade. It is not, however, intended to exclude and it has not been the practice in the past to exclude—
  Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords' Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Civil List Act, 1937.

2. Diseases of Fish Act, 1937.

3. Sheep Stocks Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1937.

4. Magdalen Hospital Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1937.

5. Poor's Allotments in Walton-upon-Thames Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1937.

6. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

7. London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

8. Johnstone Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

9. Grangemouth Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

10. Great Western Railway Act, 1937.

11. Sheffield Corporation Act, 1937.

12. Southern Railway Act, 1937.

13. Wandsworth and District Gas Act, 1937.

14. Burgess Hill Water Act, 1937.

15. West Ham Corporation Act, 1937.

16. Mansfield District Traction Act, 1937.

1993

17. Folkestone Pier and Lift Act, 1937.

18. Barnsley Corporation Act, 1937.

19. East Anglesey Gas Act, 1937.

20. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Act, 1937.

21. Grimsby Corporation (Grimsby Cleethorpes and District Water, etc.) Act, 1937.

22. Berkshire County Council Act, 1937.

FINANCE BILL.
Again considered in Committee.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
4.33 P.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I was pointing out that the allowance in question should go to the person who actually pays the cost of any depreciation resulting from the vibration of machinery. That person is normally the owner of the property, but it is not intended to exclude one who has a long lease and who is responsible for making good any such depreciation. I do not think the Amendment is quite satisfactory in form, but my right hon. Friend will examine the point before the Report stage. We appreciate that it is a point of substance, and our desire is that the present practice should be continued.
Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of the undertaking given I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Continuance of allowance for repairs under 13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 14, s. 28. 25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 24.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
4.34 P.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The Clause is not opposed, but I think I had better say a word as to its purpose and effect. It deals with the assessment of property for Income Tax under Schedule A and extends the provisions of the present law for another five years. As the Committee knows, the assessment of property for Income Tax under Schedule A represents,
1994
broadly speaking, the rental payable to a landlord who himself undertakes the cost of repairs. In order, therefore, to arrive at the net income enjoyed under the property it is necessary to subtract a figure representing the expenses incurred for the repair and maintenance of the property. In 1894 the allowance for repairs was a flat rate allowance fixed in respect of houses and buildings at one-sixth of the gross assessment. You take the gross assessment, divide by six and treat the five-sixths which are left as being the net income. It was pointed out that in some cases the cost of repairs was more than one-sixth, and therefore provision was made in 1923 that a larger figure might be substituted, a scale ranging from one-fourth to one-sixth being introduced for a period of years. That is what we propose to continue for another five years. From the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not know whether it is a favourable arrangement, because the taxpayer gets one-sixth subtracted now, although in fact in his case the repairs might be less than one-sixth, but it would be quite impracticable in every single case for inquiry to be made as to how much the repairs had cost. They would be endless, would cost a great deal and would take a great deal of time, whereas one of the most important things is to get your tax paid at the proper time. This is a provision which has been repeated in previous Finance Bills, and I suggest that we should continue the practice for another five years. It has worked quite fairly to the taxpayer.
4.37 P.m.
Mr. Bellenger: Although I am not opposing the Clause, I think the Committee might be interested to hear a little more about repairs and allowances. It is true that allowances for repairs are deducted from the gross assessment when the demand is made for the tax at the beginning of the year, but during the last year or so, by virtue of the Finance Act of 1930 or 1931, gross assessments under Schedule A, at any rate in the case of London property, have been considerably increased, and they now bear no relation to the rateable value which used to be accepted as a basis for Schedule A tax. In view of this large increase in the gross assessment under Schedule A, the allowances for repairs,

1995
which we are asked to stereotype for another five years, will have to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The time is coming when, owing to the remarkable increase in gross assessments, and also in the increase in the cost of repairs, the taxpayer should have an increase of the allowance under Schedule A. With regard to the actual cost of repairs, the situation at present is that although the taxpayer is automatically allowed this reduction when the demand is made, if be can prove that he has expended more than the statutory allowance on repairs he can make a claim for the repayment of the excess, but, unfortunately, that is spread over a period of five years. That is also a matter which wants looking into. There is also a large amount of leasehold property in London which will come to an end in the next 15 or 20 years, and the cost of repairs during the last few years is considerably higher owing to the dilapidations which have accrued, and freeholders taking the opportunity of seeing that repairs are carried out as the lease comes to an end. I hope when representations are made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will take a sympathetic view of the case, which, I am sure, is bound to be put before him sooner or later.
Sir William Davison: There is one small point in this Clause, in line 3—the words "and which." It is rather an inelegant phrase. It seems to me that the second "which" is not required. The Clause would read quite well without it. It would read in this way:
"Section twenty-eight of the Finance Act, 1923 (which relates to the allowance for repairs and was continued in force by section twenty-four of the Finance Act, 1935."
I think the second "which" might be omitted.
Sir J. Simon: When the hon. Member commenced to charge me with having perpetrated an "and which" I got thoroughly alarmed. No doubt there are cases in which it should not be used, but in this case I do not think the rules of grammar are being offended. At the same time I am delighted to find that the hon. Member, like myself, is somewhat of a purist in these matters. I always like the language of a Statute to be as free as possible of such phrases, but I
1996
expect the draftsmen will be able to adduce many Clauses in which "which" and "and which" are to be found.
4.43 P.m.
Mr. A. V. Alexander: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I recognise that there is considerable difficulty in dealing with such matters. It would be unreasonable to ask in the case of the ordinary householder that he should be able to make a claim oftener than five years for small sums for repairs, but when you deal with large buildings it seems rather objectionable that the owner should have to wait for five years in order to prove to the revenue authorities that his expenditure is much higher than the statutory allowance. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter and see if he can reduce the period.
Sir J. Simon: I will certainly bear in mind what has been said, but I think probably the Committee will consider that the best thing to do is to continue this provision for another five years.

CLAUSE 14.—(Amendment as to allowance in respect of earned income of wives.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
4.46 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This Clause corrects a minor anomaly created by the Superannuation Act, 1935. That Act enabled a civil servant on retiring to surrender part of his pension in return for a pension to his wife. Pensions are earned income, and the wife's pension would fall to be regarded as earned income. Where the wife has an earned income, the husband's personal allowance of £180 is increased by four-fifths of that earned income, subject to a maximum of £45. This additional allowance is given, broadly, on the ground that where income is earned by the wife, her work takes her away from household duties and that the expenses of the household are thereby increased. That is the reason for that allowance. The additional benefit is clearly not justified where the husband's own income has merely been divided and one part transferred to his wife.

1997
I should add that any pension received by the wife in respect of her own past services in an office or employment is unaffected by the Clause. It will continue to rank as earned income of the wife and the additional personal allowance in respect of a wife's earned income will be made. One other point is that even where the pension payable to the wife is in respect of her husband's past services, it will continue to be treated as earned income of the wife for purposes other than Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1920. The husband will thus be able to claim the ordinary earned income allowance in respect of it. In other words—since that explanation is rather technical—if the husband surrenders part of his pension in return for a pension to his wife, he can still obtain an earned income allowance in respect of the combined pension, and the Clause merely prevents him from obtaining an increased personal allowance. The point mainly affects civil servants and has been discussed with, and is perfectly understood by, the civil servants concerned.

CLAUSE 15.—(Charge of national defence contribution.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
4.49 P.m.
Sir J. Simon: This is the first of the Clauses, which are 13 or 14 in number, in Part 111 of the Bill headed "National Defence Contribution." As the Committee knows, an announcement was made by the Prime Minister before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill was carried that the Government did not propose to persist in the scheme contained in this Part of the Bill, but that we should put forward an alternative proposal, conveniently described by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) as a simpler tax with a larger yield. Therefore, I do not invite the Committee to accept Clause 15 and the following Clauses, and we must take whatever is the proper process for removing them from the Bill.
I announced at Question Time to-day —and the same thing was said by the Prime Minister earlier in the week—that I hope to be in a position to table the Resolution for discussion in Committee of Ways and Means in the course of next
1998
week. That will give hon. Members and the public outside an opportunity to consider its terms, which, of course, will be general, and as soon as we have got the approval of the Committee and the authority which is necessary for introducing new Clauses into the Bill, the proposals will be put down in the form of new Clauses. That, I think, is the better procedure. If I were to adopt the other procedure, and ask for the Committee to be set up on the day following in order that I might verbally explain the proposals and only produce the text of the Resolution at the end of my speech, there would certainly be some advantages in that. course in that the explanation would go with the text; but still, I think that it would be better for hon. Members to have time to consider the Resolution, and therefore I think we shall save time and get on better if I put the terms of the Financial Resolution on the Paper first. That I am prepared to do.
Perhaps I may be allowed to add one observation. As the Committee knows, and as my right hon. Friend opposite who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows, the terms of any Financial Resolution are always rather more general than the ultimate effect of the Clauses proposed. There are cases, I think, in which the Committee desires that that should be so. I have no desire to put down the terms of the Resolution in such tight language as unduly to cripple discussion—I think myself the better way is to make the Resolution rather wider and looser—but if I do that it follows that I cannot in the Resolution state the necessary exceptions and qualifications which we should have to discuss when we come to introduce the Clauses.
Therefore, I hope that that will be borne in mind, because I think it would not be reasonable, fair or in the public interests that anybody should regard the terms of the Financial Resolution as though those terms in themselves contained the whole explanation with any necessary qualifications that will have to be made. The substituted tax will be as simple as possible, and although, of course, there must be some qualifications and exceptions, I hope what I have said now will prevent there being any misapprehension of what may be called the preliminary discussion which will take place on the day when we take the Financial Resolution in Committee of Ways

1999
and Means. It is not for me to move to omit the Clause, but when the question is put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I shall vote "No," and I trust there may be other hon. Members who will do the same.
4.53 P.m.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that some time fairly early next week he will put on the Order Paper a Financial Resolution, that we shall then have some time before the question is actually discussed next week or the following week, and that when that time comes, the right hon. Gentleman in Committee will move the Financial Resolution. I take it that then he will be able to give us a detailed explanation of what the Money Resolution is intended to cover. I say that because the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not be able on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to go into details; but I take it that when he comes to explain the Money Resolution, we shall know the scope of the new tax which he proposes. Of course, the alternative method would be to issue a White Paper, at the same time as the Money Resolution, explaining what the tax will do. If that were done, we should not be in the position of having to deal at once with the proposal of which we shall have had only a rough outline in the first instance. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider that alternative method. He will remember that in the case of the Budget, the usual practice at the present time is to allow approximately 24 hours to elapse after the details of the Chancellor's proposals have been explained before the House is called upon to debate them. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to follow a similar practice on this occasion—
Sir J. Simon Sir J. Simon indicated dissent.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to follow that practice, and therefore I suggest that as we have heard to-day that the Financial Resolution is to be in rather wide and general terms, it would be an advantage to hon. Members to have rather more details as to the precise proposals of the Government in sufficient time for them to be prepared to debate the proposals when they are brought forward in the first instance.
4.56 p.m.
Colonel Gretton: Would it not be the ordinary course, when the Financial Resolution is passed, to put the new Clauses on the Paper and leave them there for several days before they are moved in order that they might be examined in detail by hon. Members interested in them? Hon. Members would then have an opportunity of considering the structure of the Clauses and analysing them in their own way. Provisions relating to taxation are always highly technical, and although it is far from my desire to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would in any way mislead the House in his explanations, there are details in these matters which require careful examination by experts. Therefore, I suggest that the convenient course would be that the Clauses should be placed on the Order Paper as soon as the Financial Resolution is passed, and that hon. Members should have some days in which carefully to examine them.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: I wish to support the plea made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider whether it would not be possible to issue a White Paper at the same time as he tables the Money Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he intended the Money Resolution to be as wide as possible—and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee thoroughly approve of that course—so that the discussions subsequently can be made as wide as possible. At the same time, a wide Resolution unaccompanied by any explanation might once again lead people to form false ideas about the intentions of the Government. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires as much as we all do to avoid uncertainty, and to avoid more of the scares and panics that have been going on recently. I think there is a real danger, if there is a wide Financial Resolution, that it would convey to certain mentalities in the City, who are only too prepared to receive any alarming news at the present moment with gusto, that the Government's intentions are worse than they will subsequently turn out to be. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider issuing a White Paper giving at least a general

2001
explanation of the proposals of the Government at the same time as the Financial Resolution is tabled.
4.58 p.m.
Sir Stafford Cripps: The Committee seems at the moment to be more concerned with the birth of the next child than with the death of the last, and it seems that in a case of this kind, where one is witnessing compulsory infanticide, some rather more elaborate funeral oration should be staged. This is a case which illustrates very well two matters with regard to Budget procedure. Firstly, it shows that a suggestion which is made without any preliminary discussion or inquiry, owing to the high degree of secrecy which is now necessary apparently concerning Budget propositions, is very liable to lead astray the people at the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It is a very extraordinary incident that the main feature of the Budget of this year, which was put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech as the great invention which he and the Treasury had made with a view to solving the extremely difficult problem of collecting sufficient money to pay for their rearmament programme, should have turned out to be the one which met with almost universal opprobrium throughout the country.
There were those, of course, in the City of London who did not like it, because it would have made them "cough up" their profits. There were others who thought the general appearance of the child so ugly that it was incapable of taking its place in a civilised system of taxation at all—that indeed it suffered for many of the most serious disabilities which had marked previous forms of taxation. But perhaps the most significant fact of all is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been forced, by his own proper master, to withdraw this tax upon which he or rather his predecessor placed such great reliance. It seems to illustrate—and it is worth while drawing attention to the illustration—the enormous power of finance and the City of London as regards the legislation of this country. Supposing this had been a tax which was attacked, on the same basis, from this side of the Committee, because it brought an incidence of hardship and unfair taxation upon the poorer
2002
people of the country. I do not think there would have been the slightest chance of securing its withdrawal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The reason why he has withdrawn this tax is because those with great financial and industrial interests have been able to influence the back-benchers on his side of the House to revolt against this type of taxation and the revolt is based upon the fear that in a time of very high profits, those concerned may not be able to retain such a large proportion of those profits as they would like to retain.
As far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned, we should be only too delighted to see any tax which took away that large increment of profits from those who are making them, particularly as a result of artificial conditions stimulated by the increase of armaments building, which has extended beyond the armament industries into many other industries in the country to-day. We agree that this tax was so unfortunately arranged as to its incidence, its machinery and its administration that it would probably be too clumsy a weapon to achieve that which we desire, but we do not support the deletion of this Clause on the basis that we do not desire to see any such taxation imposed.
Mr. Boothby: How can the hon, and learned Gentleman advance the argument of profits when he knows and everybody knows that in the new proposals the Chancellor is going to take away more profits from industry in this country than he proposed to take under the original proposal?
Sir S. Cripps: Personally, I shall wait until I see that done. It is not at all certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be forced to withdraw the new proposal also. I took the liberty when I spoke on the Budget, of telling the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this proposal would never get into the final draft of the Finance Bill. I said it would go and it has gone or is going at the moment. The new Clauses may suffer the same fate when they are put forward, although I imagine that on this occasion the appropriate midwife has been brought in for the birth of the new child, namely, the City of London. Perhaps, having been brought in at the birth of this child, she will not do as she did on the last occasion and when the child is born insist upon the parent killing it.
5.5 p.m.
Major Hills: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) cannot be aware of what occurred in the House of Commons. This tax was disapproved of by all parties. It had only two friends, one being the hon. and learned Gentleman himself and the other the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Gallacher). No one attacked it more fiercely than the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and it is foolish, therefore, to say that it was opposed only by wealthy people who feared that their dividends were going to be affected.
Sir S. Cripps: I did not say that it was opposed only by such people. What I said was that if it had not been opposed by such people, it would not have been withdrawn.
Major Hills: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it was mainly if not wholly opposed by such people. But in fact is was opposed by all sections of opinion in the House of Commons and it would have been opposed, whatever the City of London or the so-called wealthy shareholders had done in the matter. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is disappointed about this tax. I think he welcomed it as a Socialistic scheme of taxation and approved of it for that reason, and it is for that reason that I am very glad that it has now been withdrawn. I would add, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has already reminded the Committee, that more money is to be taken from these shareholders under the new proposals. The new taxation is to produce £25,000,000 instead of round about £11,000,000 and thus it will be twice as hard on those people whom the hon. and learned Gentleman is so anxious to get at. I hope, therefore, that the new tax proposals will be supported by him.
May I say a few words to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of procedure? I should like to see the new Clauses as it were spring fully-grown from the Chancellor's head, but I suppose that is impossible. But I do fear lest uncertainty may arise between the appearance of the Financial Resolution and the publication of the Clauses which are to carry that Resolution into effect. I suppose it would not be possible to arrange that we
2004
should have both the Resolution and the actual Clauses. It would be preferable and would give rise to less disturbance if something of that kind could be done. A large part of the trouble in connection with the National Defence Contribution was due to the uncertainty which existed between the date of the Financial Resolution and the time when the actual Clauses were produced. I am very anxious that that state of uncertainty should not be repeated on this occasion.
5.9 P.m.
Sir J. Simon: I wish to make plain to the Committee the procedure which I propose to follow. I begin by replying to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). Of course, the new Clauses will go down on the Paper as new Clauses for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and there must be proper time after those Clauses have been put down to enable the text of the Clauses to be considered before the Committee resume for the purpose of discussing them, and, as I hope, adding them to the Bill. But my right hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that all these new Clauses will be put down in time to allow of their consideration by hon. Members. It will be recognised, of course, as I think my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) recognised, that the new Clauses cannot go down on the Paper until after the Financial Resolution. I should not think that it would be in accordance with practice, and I doubt whether it would be constitutional to publish the Clauses until after authority had been obtained from the Committee, for introducing Clauses dealing with this subject-matter into the Finance Bill.
That was what I meant and all I meant when I said that the Financial Resolution must be rather wider than the actual set of Clauses. I did not say, as somebody inaccurately repeated, that the Resolution should be made as wide as possible. That indeed, would be a useless form of resolution. The Resolution will be addressed to the proposals which I am going to make but naturally it will be in more general terms than the Clauses themselves in which the details will be worked out and I have just reminded the Committee that those Clauses will be put down on the Paper so that hon. Members may consider them before

2005
being called upon to deal with them in Committee. I do not think, at present, that the publication of a White Paper which I have already very carefully considered would necessarily be the best course to follow. I will consider the suggestion again as it has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. PethickLawrence), but I think the Committee will agree that it is in accordance with a good tradition that any explanation of the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to a tax should be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. If we once started the practice of bringing out White Papers it might lead to difficulties. Such a paper would have to be textually accurate in every detail, or it would lead to misunderstanding and thus, in effect, you would be printing new Clauses before you had received authority to introduce any new Clauses at all. I am sure that with the good sense which is always exercised about these matters we can avoid any misunderstanding in regard to these proposals.
The procedure, therefore, will be this: I hope early next week to be able to put down on the Paper the Financial Resolution. I do not suggest that we shall be able to discuss it the moment it appears on the Paper. I think it will be found that we shall want a little time in which to consider its terms, but I think we should have a rather general Debate upon it as soon as possible. As I have explained, and as hon. Members realise, the new Clauses will work out in detail what is more generally expressed in the Financial Resolution. When I have explained, during the Debate on the Financial Resolution in some detail—in fact in great detail—exactly what is the scheme which I propose, then if the Committee give me the authority, as I trust they will, I shall without delay put the actual Clauses on the Paper. I think that is the proper course and will meet what I believe to be the general wish of the Committee.
As regards the Clauses which are now being omitted from the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has, not unnaturally and acting quite within his rights, taken the opportunity of making some observations about the proposal
2006
which is being withdrawn. For my own part, I have come here not to praise Caesar, but to bury him, and to show why the Committee should not add these Clauses to the Bill. I do not think any advantage is to be gained at this stage by arguing as to the exact degree of merit of the scheme which is being withdrawn and I should deprecate discussing in advance the supposed merits—though I hope those merits will, in due course, be generally recognised—of the new scheme which I am about to propose. But the hon. and learned Gentleman was pleased to talk about the Government having listened to its proper master, meaning by that, certain financial interests. May I suggest to him that that sort of talk is better reserved for audiences other than the House of Commons? As a matter of fact the Leader of the Opposition used very different language when the Prime Minister announced that, in view of the opinion expressed in different parts of the House, the Government did not propose to proceed further with these proposals. The Leader of the Opposition then declared:
"We are here in a democratic assembly, and it is just as well that we should record that we have a Government which is responsive to the will of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1937; col. 926, Vol. 324.]
I forget whether the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the speech which he made on the subject of the National Defence Contribution, liked it or criticised it. I have a recollection that he raised some objections to it, but apparently, now that it is dead, he is devoted to it. I am afraid we are not able to oblige him by resurrecting that particular proposal, and I trust very much that when he sees the new proposal he will consider it with his usual candour and give it his unusual blessing.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I share with the right hon. Gentleman a failure to understand the attitude of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to-day, because I desire to welcome the withdrawal of this tax and the renewal of the ancient alliance between the City of London and the democratic forces in this House. Historians differ greatly as to whether our powers to control taxation and generally to ensure the liberties of the subject are more due to the steady support given to this House during the

2007
seventeenth century by the City of London than to the prowess of the soldiers of Oliver Cromwell. I think it is generally believed that, but for the fact that during those troublous years, the very closest alliance did exist between the City of London and this House, our liberties would not have been achieved. Who was it who received Pym, Hampden, Holles, Haselrig, and Strode on the day when Charles I came down to arrest them? The City of London. Whose trainbands were they which marched to the relief of Gloucester, as recorded on the panel on the wall leading to another place? The City of London's. Who was it who recently said that the National Defence Contribution, or N.D.C., had another meaning: No D—, I may not say the word in your presence, Sir Dennis, Contributions to the Tory party funds if they persisted in this tax? Could the analogy be more complete?
I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend would have recognised that we have now re-established between this side of the Committee and the City of London those relationships which ought never to have been broken, and we can only hope that in future there will be no repetition of 1931. I thank the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) for speaking this afternoon about scares that are received there "with gusto." I am quite sure he will use his moderating influence in future to ensure that the alliance between the City of London and this House shall be on the democratic side of the House and that the slanders that have sometimes been uttered against the City during the recent past will not be repeated, because he will be responsible for the good behaviour of the City of London.
But there is another and still more important phase of recent politics which has been caused by this tax, a tax which has been spoken of to-day as if its parent were the present Prime Minister, but there are many hon. Members who will recall a speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), in which he claimed that he advocated this tax last year and that a year before its birth he gave it its appropriate name. I saw him in the House just now and drew his attention to the fact that his poor child was to be
2008
hit on the head this afternoon and removed from mortal view, and I understand that he cannot undertake the anguish of attending the Committee to see such treatment accorded to it. But still more serious has been the effect when we realise how he had managed 12 months before to predict the line that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this year. We all anticipated, when the Government was reformed with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer at its head, that the hon. Member for Huddersfield would find his place in the Government. In fact, I understand that it was only as recently as Tuesday night of this week that at a meeting of his friends in this House he was reconciled to the fact that for a few more months, until the next General Election, he will have to reside below the Gangway. He should have realised that it is not by constructive proposals that hon. Members opposite get promoted to the Treasury Bench, but rather that if he had indulged in the sort of general abuse which has been showered by the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) upon all our proposals, he might now be occupying the position which the hon. Member for North Bristol at present—I have no doubt, in the mind of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, somewhat inadequately—fills.
We have been promised that there shall be a new child born, this time without doubtful paternity. My hon, and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol wanted a midwife. I do not know how she would perform the operation that was suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). This apparently is to be some form of miraculous birth, with no period of gestation, but produced by the thought of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only say that probably, if it was produced from his thought, it might be a very different child from the one that the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon anticipates. But however that may be, I am sure of this, after the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), that this new child is likely to have as hostile a reception, unless it meets with the very particular favour of certain very interested quarters, as was accorded to the late child. Finally, I am bound to say that it seems to me that the epitaph that should be written over this tax is

2009
the one that was written over a day-old child who was buried in a rural cemetery:
"If I was so soon to be done for,
I wonder what I was begun for."
5.23 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I maintain, despite anything that may have been said from any side of the Committee, with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), that the withdrawal of this tax was the result of the propaganda of, and the threats that were made by, the City of London, by the big financiers. Do not let us forget that the one-time Member for Hillhead, who has now been rewarded for his labours, speaking from the same place as the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who spoke a few moments ago, uttered very definite threats in this House, and everyone knew, when the City of London was on the rampage, when Member after Member on the Tory side got up to speak for the City of London and attacked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if he was not prepared to withdraw the tax, there was not the slightest possibility of his entering No. 10, Downing Street. We knew that at the time, and I drew his attention to the fact that if he stood firm, that was one of the prices he would possibly have to pay, but I urged that he should face them up and fight them. Then to come here and talk—no matter who says it—about the Government bowing to the democratic will of this House!
It is not the only time that the democratic will of this House has been expressed. We have had discussions here on the family means test, and not one voice was raised in support of the means test as it now operates, but have the Government bowed to the democratic will of the House? There is not a Member, except the most hard-faced and flinty-hearted, who would dare to get up in this House or in the country and oppose an increase in the old age pensions. What is all this nonsense about bowing to the democratic will of the country? There is not a constituency in the country where you could gather intelligent men and women, especially of the working classes and smaller professional people, which would not give support to this tax. The great masses of the people would support the tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it, and there is no question of any democratic will of the House
2010
or of the country in the withdrawal of this tax.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to bury, not to praise, the National Defence Contribution, but if it had not been for the voice of the City of London, he would have been standing at that Box, not burying, but praising. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now the Prime Minister, started off by praising it. The present Chancellor, who is now burying it, put up such a nice case for it a fortnight ago, before the full fury of the torrent was let loose, but as soon as he sat down the barrage got going, and now he comes to carry through the burial. But in burying this tax the Government and the Tory party are preparing the way for a bigger burial, a greater burial. They are preparing the way for the burial of their National Government and of the gang that is behind the National Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "And of the Communist party."] Who threw that brick? It was the authentic voice of the City, the voice that will support the withdrawal of the tax against the wealthy classes of this country, but will always be raised to impose taxes or hardships or worse on the masses of the people. That is that voice. You can tell the sound of it.
I want to protest against the withdrawal of this tax. I want to declare, before this Committee and before the country, that it is not the democratic will of the people of this country that is being responded to, and it is not the democratic will of this House that is being responded to. It is fear of the big financiers; and I warn my hon. Friends on this side not to give any countenance to this idea of the democratic pressure of this House having been accepted by the Government. I warn them that the same City of London, the same bankers who came down to Downing Street and laid down the law in 1931, have now come and laid down the law in 1937 to the National Government, and they have not got to take an easy view of what that means, because before very long those benches are going to be swept clean, and then they will be filled—
Mr. Boothby: What with?
Mr. Gallacher: —by men and women representing the great masses of the people of this country, not the men and

2011
women who misrepresent them. From them there comes no feeling of indignation or of humanity for the mass of suffering that goes on in the constituencies. Now and then we have a platonic reference to poor people in the constituencies. We never get indignation expressed like the indignation which was aroused over this tax. Everyone jumped up to speak against it. How often do they jump up in indignation when it is a question of old age pensions or working conditions?
Sir William Wayland: Will the hon. Member explain why his side objected to the tax?
Mr. Gallacher: I am not prepared to explain why certain Members on the Front Bench opposed the tax, but I know many Members on this side who are opposed to its withdrawal. I want to warn Members on this side that when they occupy those benches an attempt will be made to exploit the democratic will as meaning the will of the City of London and to get them to stand for the City of London. If the City can make such a rage about a small tax like this, what will they do when we put real taxes on them, as one day we will? I want Members on this side to understand that there is no question of the democratic will but of the big financiers determined to control the Government and prevent the Government doing anything that can in any way interfere with their power or their privileges. I want them to prepare themselves against the day when they will have to make serious inroads into the power and privileges of the financiers as a preliminary to putting them out of business altogether.
5.33 P.m.
Sir W. DavisonThere can be no better testimony to the democratic patience of this House than the way the Committee have quietly and with self-restraint listened to the Communist gentleman who has just spoken. [Interruption.] I welcome it. I am not complaining about it, but I say it is a great testimony to the democracy and the fairness of this House that the Committee listened to that speech with such patience and silence. The hon. Gentleman knows nothing of the democracy of the Members of this House, none of whom would be here but for the votes of the working people behind them.
2012
I desire to protest not only against the hon. Gentleman's speech, but against the innuendo of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that this tax with withdrawn at the instance of the City of London.
I welcome the testimony which has been given by members of the Socialist party as to the democratic character of the City of London. The City has always stood up for democracy and what is best in the interests of democracy. It has not stood up for its own pocket, as has been suggested, but has from the beginning of these discussions said that it was not only prepared to find the money required, but was prepared to find a larger sum. That is the position to-day, and I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking the City at its word and that it will be asked to find a larger sum than was originally proposed. What the City of London objected to, for the reason that it is a democratic body and has the interests of the country at heart more than the interests of any particular class or individual, was that this tax would work unfairly, would be unequal in its incidence, and would not hit alike all classes and sections of the community. It is absurd to say that the opposition to it was a ramp of financiers. I do not suppose that hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite can be said to support City financiers, but on the day when the Budget was introduced they themselves suggested that this tax was inequitable and unsuitable.
The real moral to be drawn, and it is useful moral in these days when we have so much dictatorial powers in governments, is that this old House of Commons has still great power over the most powerful Government of the day. It was because, without any consultation with any-section of the community, the House of Commons generally felt that this tax was inequitable, that the House said that it should not go through. Although we have one of the most powerful Governments that have ever existed in this country, although we have just appointed one of the most popular Prime Ministers, the House of Commons, representing the people, having said that it did not think this tax was equitable, the Government rightly—and added to their stature in doing so—bowed to the will of the House and withdrew the tax. Not only have

2013
the Government added lustre to themselves by the withdrawal of the tax, but the moral to be drawn and remembered is the power, influence and might of the House of Commons when it makes up its mind in any particular direction.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Dingle Foot: I am sure that the speech to which we have just listened will give the greatest pleasure to the working classes of South Kensington. I rise to protest against the idea, which has been stated so often from the other side, that in this business in some way, to use the words of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), the Government have added lustre to their reputation. The House of Commons finds itself to-day in a situation which, I imagine, must be without precedent in our Parliamentary history. We all of us, with one or two exceptions, rejoiced over at the withdrawal of this tax, but this ought to be said. What can we think of the efficiency of a Government which brings forward a tax which cannot stand up to criticism for even a few days? We want to realise before we allow these Clauses to be withdrawn that they are the principal feature of this year's Budget, and that the greatest credit was claimed for their invention when the Finance Bill was first introduced. I would remind the Committee of what was said in a most glowing peroration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 31st May, when he referred to the stupendous effort that we as a nation were making and said:
"In this stupendous effort we have the admiration and sympathy of the world. I present this Finance Bill to the House as the instrument by the help of which we may discharge this task and fulfil our destiny."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May; Vol. 324, col. 712.]
Practically the whole of the instrument is gone, and I would only like to express the hope that when next the Chancellor of the Exchequer publishes for the edification of his followers a collected volume of his speeches he will include the speech that he made on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
5.39 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) scarcely put this matter into its proper proportions. He is no doubt aware that the total amount of money to be raised this year by the Finance Bill is over £860,000,000,
2014
and the amount that was to be raised by this tax is approximately one-fiftieth of that total. When the hon. Member, in order to suit the purposes of his speech, says that the greater part of the Finance Bill has gone because of the change to be made in this tax, I ask him to bear these figures in mind.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Clauses 16 to 28 ordered to be left out of the Bill.

CLAUSE 29.—(Provisions as to permanent annual charge for the National Debt.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
5.42 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This Clause is identical to a similar Clause in last year's Bill. It contains provisions required to give effect to the policy announced in the Chancellor's Budget speech. That policy was fully stated and discussed.
Clauses 3o to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Repeal of Stamp Duties on certain honours and dignities.)
5.43 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I beg to move, in page 30, line 33, at the end, to insert:
"or upon any docket, or warrant under the sign manual of His Majesty, relating to any such grant, letters patent or warrant of precedence."
This Clause relates to the abolition of fees in connection with honours and dignities. The Amendment deals with certain ancillary documents on which Stamp Duty is charged. The duty is only 10s., but in conformity with the principle which guided the removal of the fees chargeable, we have decided that this Amendment should be made in order to remove the small amount payable on these documents.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think that anyone on this side has any objection to the Amendment, but we would like to know why it was not foreseen. It seems to me that if the intention of the Government was to remit all these duties they could surely have foreseen this duty, and so have prevented us going through the process of carrying an Amendment.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The right hon. Gentleman raises a small point. The Stamp Duties involved are very small. Inasmuch as they will continue to exist in other cases it was thought, when the Bill was prepared, that they might be left to be dealt with more comprehensively in the light of the report of the committee which is dealing with the matter. It appeared to us, however, that as these duties are charged specifically on documents used in connection with the grant of honours, we should include them in the Clause instead of waiting for the report of the committee which is dealing with the question. There is no mystery behind it.
5.45 p.m.
Sir Percy Harris: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to tell us what loss of revenue we are likely to suffer from this new departure. Did these fees bring in any considerable revenue? I agree that in the case of some of the lower and minor orders it is rather hard that they should be taxed when they are honoured by the Crown, but in the case of dukes, marquesses and earls, it is not unreasonable that they should make a small contribution to the national revenue in return for the dignities bestowed upon them.
The Chairman: The hon. Baronet ought to raise that point on the question of the Clause standing part. It is outside the terms of this Amendment. I must ask the Committee to address themselves to the Amendment alone.
5.46 p.m.
Sir S. Cripps: Could not other Stamp Duties which are still levied have been included in the Amendment? I think there is a Stamp Duty chargeable upon the appointment of a member of the Bar as King's Counsel, and is there any reason why that charge should continue as these other charges are to be withdrawn? If honours are to be dealt with in an Act of Parliament, could not they all be dealt with upon the same basis? I think the appointment of a Judge probably carries a Stamp Duty, although I am not certain about that.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I think that point would be better dealt with on the question of the Clause standing part of the Bill. I imagine the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring not only to the
2016
small point of duties on documents, but to the Stamp Duties generally.
Sir S. Cripps: Certainly. They could have been added to this Amendment, and I am asking why they have not been added.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sir S. Cripps: May I repeat my question?
5.48 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This Clause carries into effect the decision which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th May. The Committee will remember that in October of last year a committee was set up to inquire into the fees and duties payable on the grant of honours and dignities by the Crown, and its report, Cmd. Paper 5450, has, I have no doubt, been read by hon. Members. It is following on that report that this Clause has been introduced. The hon. and learned Member brought in other points which, no doubt, are of interest, but the purpose of the Clause is to give effect to the recommendations in that report. I was asked by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) what loss of revenue would result from this concession. It is estimated that it will amount to between£2,000 and £3,000 a year.
Mr. Foot: Could we know exactly what fees are paid in the cases mentioned in the Clause?
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. Member's thirst for information is one which I am happy to be able to assuage. I cannot give him all the details, but here are some to be going on with. The payments vary from some £350 in the case of a dukedom to £100 in the case of a baronetcy. A duty of £30 is payable in cases where the honour of knighthood is conferred by letters patent. We thought, as the Committee thought, that the collection of these sums was a somewhat archaic survival, and it was decided to remit the duties.
5 50 p.m.
Mr. Mander: I cannot help thinking that something further ought to be said on this subject. We all know that Members of this House and others are from

2017
time to time recommended to receive honours, and we realise that they thoroughly deserve them; their merits are outstanding. I am alluding there to a special class of case, in which there is no reason why the recipient of honours should be called upon to pay these heavy fees; but we all must have in mind that there are other persons who receive honours for no ostensible reason whatever; it is exceedingly difficult to appreciate why they have been picked out. I am not disclosing any secrets, but, to be quite frank, there are cases where these honours are recommended, I will not say because of, but coincident with, concurrently with, substantial contributions to party funds, or contributions to objects of public interest throughout the country, to hospitals or universities or things of that kind—and those, perhaps, stand in a class apart—but I submit that there are some cases in which it would be quite proper that the State should receive some recognition in the form of these fees.
There are members of the community who are desperately anxious to receive these honours, whether knighthoods, baronetcies or peerages, and if they have no outstanding personal recommendations I think they ought to be made to pay for them, not only make payments to their party funds but make a payment to the State as well. I can see no reason why persons in that, possibly very restricted, category but a category well known to us all—let us have no pretence about it—should be let off these fees. In the debate yesterday a good deal of use was made of the term "humbug." There is a good deal of "humbug" about the bestowal of these honours, and I am just calling attention to certain cases in regard to which I think the Government are very lax if they reject a source of revenue.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: There is a small and limited point which I have in mind, but nevertheless it is of some importance to clear up a misunderstanding which exists. The Financial Secretary has referred to the total loss of revenue as amounting to between £2,000 and £3,000 a year, but I have always understood from revelations in the Press that the price of a barony was something in the region of £50,000, and that the price of a
2018
baronetcy or a knighthood was a very substantial sum, and I cannot follow the small figure—
The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting on to something which has nothing to do with Stamp Duties.
5.53 P.m.
Mr. Alexander: I have one question about the yield of the Stamp Duties which I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer. There is no other Clause in the Bill dealing with Stamp Duties. A few weeks ago I gave to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer particulars of an alleged widespread evasion of Stamp Duties in the City—
The Chairman: I am afraid that argument will not succeed here. The Stamp Duties before us are the Stamp Duties on certain honours and dignities.
Mr. Alexander: I am asking how we can seek to recoup the Treasury for losses on this kind of thing when there are widespread evasions elsewhere.
The Chairman: I am afraid that will not do.
Mr. Riley: Can we be told whether it has been the custom in the past to remit the payments of these duties in numerous cases? Has that practice been growing in recent years? I should like to know whether all persons who receive these distinctions pay the fees.
5.55 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Colville: So far as my information goes all have been required to pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "No "] I cannot without notice give any details to the hon. Member, but I think there has been no general relaxation of the provisions as to the payments of these duties.
Clauses 34 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to relief in respect of losses.)
For the purposes of Section thirty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1918 (which relates to relief in respect of certain losses), the amount of a loss sustained in a trade shall, in all cases, he computed in like manner as the profits or gains arising or accruing from the trade are computed under the rules applicable to Case I of Schedule D:
Provided that, where relief is claimed by virtue of this Section in respect of a loss sustained in a trade which consists wholly or partly in dealing in securities, Section ten

2019
of this Act shall apply, for the purpose of computing the amount of the loss, as if Subsection (5) thereof were omitted therefrom.—[Sir J. Simon.]
Brought up, and read the First time. 5.56 p.m.
Sir J. Simon: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with an Income Tax point, not a very easy one to follow, but one which it is right to deal with because at present there is an anomalous situation which we ought to cure. The Clause is designed to remedy an omission in the existing law, with regard to cases where a person who has sustained a loss in trade and seeks repayment, against that loss, of the Income Tax which was borne upon other income, for example interest or dividends on rents. Then there is the case of a financial concern dealing either wholly or partly in securities. The unintended operation of the present law is that such a firm cannot claim adjustment of its liability on the same lines as other trading concerns can. The peculiarity of a financial concern is that the dividends or interest arising from investments belonging to the concern form part of its trading receipts. If an ordinary private citizen has an investment the situation is different from that of a financial concern whose business consists in dealing in securities, because in the latter case the securities are the stock in trade of the business, and the income from those securities is part of the trading revenue.
It follows from that that a financial concern cannot be said to have sustained a loss in its trade unless there is a loss resulting after taking into account the income from securities. Therefore, it is in a different position from other taxpayers, who can make a claim for loss, if a loss has arisen, without taking into account the income from securities. Suppose there is a total profit of 100,000 from securities and that the result of the other financial activities of the concern reveals a loss of £25,000; the true profit is, of course, £75,000. Under the existing law, the concern pays tax on the £100,000 because there is no loss sustained by the trade as a whole, but a profit. That is a matter which ought to be put right. There have been two possible remedies. The first is that the financial concern could carry forward its loss and set it off against the profits directly assessable to taxation, but that is an ineffective relief. It has
2020
proved illusory because the profits have tended to remain at a level below the total income from investments.
The second remedy is that the concern, in so far as it pays out interest on deposits might be regarded as paying this out of fixed investment income. There are cases where you are entitled to claim that the payment you are making is paid out of a taxed fund. There may be circumstances in which an adjustment has been allowed on those lines, but in other cases such relief is not available. This point was considered by the Macmillan Committee, and was included in the draft Income Tax Bill which the Committee prepared. The Committee met the point by providing that the losses on which relief is to be allowable should be computed without taking taxed income into account in any case. The proposed Clause gives effect to the change recommended by the Macmillan Committee, expressing the recommendation in proper drafting language. I have no doubt that the Clause is justified. It is a relieving Measure and is better than the existing law for the reasons which I have tried to explain. At present there is an injustice to one kind of taxpayer, who is entitled to be put into the position of being dealt with as others are dealt with. The cost to the Revenue would be negligible. The relief allowable to financial concerns under the Clause would coincide, except in a few cases with the relief which is already allowed by reference to deposit interest. I commend the proposed new Clause to the Committee in the hope that I have made these complicated matters as clear as possible.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. Alexander: It is always interesting to listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking upon a matter in which his very great experience comes to his aid, and explaining things to the House. I almost felt, as I listened to him, that he was once more briefed, at a suitable fee, to explain the intricacies of some obscure Income Tax point. I felt at the same time that, however brilliant he may be in that regard, it is a little unfair to many lay minds that we should be faced with a new Clause of this kind which was put on the Paper only last night, and which it is therefore difficult for us to follow. The right hon. Gentleman has assured us that, in the long run, the revenue will not suffer materially by the change pro-

2021
posed in the new Clause, but I am not sure that that is the real position. I feel that the special additional allowances now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to help the process of combination and integration of corporate bodies, in order to include people in rather less favourable circumstances.
If I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright, he said that this was a case in which a person interested in financial income would not get this kind of relief, but would be taxed on both sides. Where there were corporate bodies receiving a net return from an investment, the assessment at the present time always worked fairly. I speak on these matters not without some experience. If I were speaking solely from the point of view of the movement with which I am connected I should welcome the Chancellor's proposed new Clause, but when one looks at it with a sense of public duty it is evident that it would be better to let corporate bodies that want all the privileges and legal protection of a corporation stand upon their own footing, and not to give them special relief of this kind. I may not have followed quite the whole of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr.Pethick-Lawrence) will want to challenge this proposed new Clause, but even though we do not vote against it, I want the Chancellor—
Sir J. Simon: I do not know how it has happened that longer notice has not been given. I am sorry, because this is a complicated matter. I heard the right hon. Gentleman speak as though this Clause would operate to the relief of the corporate body and not of a partnership or of individuals, but that is not so. I have just inquired. I did not think it could be so, from the terms of the Clause. It depends upon the kind of concern—not that any special adjustment has to be made for a corporate body. The reason is that, when you take a financial concern whose business is the buying and selling of securities, under the general law the interest earned by. the securities is treated as part of the ordinary trading income, Schedule D, whereas with any other person, or, for that matter, any other corporation, whose business is not that of buying and selling securities, the interest from securities is not taxed as
2022
part and parcel of their trading income. This is a purely technical point. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the point does not turn upon the distinction between corporate bodies and individuals. I apologise for interrupting him, but I thought it well to get the point clear.
Mr. Alexander: I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to have the chance of reading the statement of the Chancellor in cold print before I am asked to give a vote upon the proposed new Clause, which is very far-reaching in its effect. If it is not so, I cannot understand the position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this matter has been actually investigated at length by the Macmillan Committee. What has been taking place in the meantime? I do not quite grasp the situation. If the Chancellor were prepared not to press this new Clause to-night and would give us an opportunity to study it at length, we might be in a position to give a considered judgment upon it if it were brought forward upon the Report stage. If we found, after careful examination, that it met our views, we should be prepared to agree to it. If it be pressed now, I am afraid we should have to divide against it.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. Bellenger: As far as possible I want to elucidate the real object of the proposed new Clause. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his legal skill and knowledge, was under considerable difficulty himself, as was evident to the Committee, in explaining the Clause. Am I right in assuming that the Clause affects only the class of company affected by Clause 10, to which this new Clause refers? Do I understand that dividends accruing to ordinary trading companies come into their profit and loss account in gross form? While on the opposite side of the account are debited legitimate charges either for collecting those dividends or for carrying on the business of the trading concern; that the complete profit and loss account is made up, on the credit side, of profits from trade plus gross dividends received, and on the other side, naturally, trading expenses and that the net profit then becomes subject to Schedule D.
Do I understand that this Clause refers to financial trading concerns which, as

2023
it were, throw the whole of the dividends on to one side of the account and set off on the other side of the account legitimate trading expenses, so that the net result is the figure under Schedule D? If that be the purpose of the Clause, it would be interesting if the Chancellor would say whether the example I have given is correct, and it would probably enable the Committee to arrive at a better understanding of the Clause. I support the plea which has been made by my right hon. Friend that, as this is a very complicated Clause, and at present very few Members of the Committee can follow it, we should have a further opportunity of considering it, perhaps on Report.
6.17 p.m.
Sir J. Simon: I must say that I think the request made by the right hon. Gentleman is, in the circumstances, quite reasonable. I am satisfied in my own mind that, when there has been time to examine the terms of the Clause, it will be seen that it is as I have described it. If I may say so, I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), as far as I can follow the example which he has given at very short notice, is right, but it is not for me to say. I think, however, it is quite right that there should be no failure on my part to give a proper length of time for the study of a complicated Clause. I have made inquiries, and understand that no difficulty is likely to follow from such a course. We want the Clause, but I am very glad to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and accordingly I ask leave now to withdraw the Clause and I shall put it down for the Report stage. That will not only give an opportunity to hon. Gentlemen opposite to study the Clause, but to myself into the bargain to become more confident of my ground, and I hope we shall be able to add the Clause to the Bill by general consent. I think that this would be a fair course to follow.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Lees-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has with great tact and skill withdrawn himself from a situation in which the Government ought not to have allowed themselves to be placed. The point I am raising might equally be raised by hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, as well as by those on this side. Surely no one on either side of the Com-
2024
mittee wishes to be put in a position of automatically passing a new Clause which obviously we must all pass without knowing what we are voting about. The Government have, for some reason or other, proposed to put the Committee in that position, and we have not had any explanation why a Clause like this should have been put down only last night, thus placing the Committee and the Government in a position which certainly does not reflect any credit on the Government in having to beat this retreat. Obviously the Government have acted upon advice, and very bad advice. I raise the point because the remark was made to me the other day, and it may be true, that it is the general opinion of Government Departments that they can get away with anything in the House of Commons to-day. This is an example. There is plenty of opportunity. The Clause could have been put down to-night, and then we should have had days in which to see it on the Order Paper. Why should it have been put down last night in order that it might be discussed to-day? The Government have rightly withdrawn from an impossible position, but, although they have withdrawn, we nevertheless protest, not only on behalf of the Opposition, but on behalf of the House of Commons as a whole, at the putting down of the Clause in this way.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of tea duty.)
(1) The customs duty chargeable on tea shall cease to be charged.
(2) This Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.—[Mr. Watkins.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Watkins: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This subject has been discussed many times during the history of the House of Commons. I believe that the Tea Duty was originally imposed in the reign of William and Mary, and I have no doubt that from then till now Opposition speakers have urged the Government to decrease or abolish it. I would like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to realise that the Tea Duty is a relic of olden times. It existed when glass was

2025
taxed to prevent the sunlight and daylight from going into people's homes. We have got rid of that, but the Tea Duty still remains. In looking up the Debates on this matter, I find that other Members who, like myself, have been called upon to move the abolition of the Tea Duty, have always apologised on the ground that they have had nothing fresh to say; but I think that, if one is urging a self-evident proposition, it is always extremely difficult to find anything original to say about it, and this, indeed, seems to me to be a proposal which on the surface carries its own recommendation.
The Tea Duty was abolished by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget of 1929, and we are very disappointed that it was ever reintroduced, as it was reintroduced, by the present Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1932. The arguments in favour of the abolition of the Tea Duty are quite simple. First of all, it violates the first principle of just and fair taxation in that it does not lay burdens upon people according to their ability to pay; and, secondly, it is a tax that hits the very poor most severely of all. Tea has become the most usual beverage in this country, and I suppose it is true to say that, the smaller the amount of money spent on food in a family, the higher is the percentage of that amount that is spent on tea. The highest percentage of the family budgets of the poorest people is spent on tea. Among poor people the monotonous meal, the bread and something of which most meals consist in poor homes, is sought to be varied by a cup of tea. Poor people drink tea, not merely at tea-time, but at every meal during the day from breakfast till suppor, if they are fortunate enough to get them. Miners take tea down into the ground; engine-drivers have tea on the footplate; office girls have tea in the office; in every phase of working-class life tea plays a very important part. I suggest to the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they should abolish this tax on a most essential part of the dietary of working-class people.
When we urge this from time to time—and it has been urged annually in recent years—if the yield of the tax is high,
2026
the Chancellor says he would have difficulty in finding that sum of money from any other source of revenue; while if the yield is low, he opposes the proposal by saying that it is too small to matter. Between the two the duty is kept on, and the tea drinkers of the country are obliged to pay it. It does not involve a great deal of money in this particular Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now considering what proposals he is going to bring forward to take the place of the National Defence Contribution proposals which he has abandoned. If, in framing his new proposals, he can increase them in order to yield a sum that would cover the abolition of the Tea Duty, it would give very great satisfaction on these benches and, I am certain, very great satisfaction throughout the whole country.
If it is urged that it is necessary for the Tea Duty to be in existence because of the Imperial Preference involved, that difficulty can easily be got over by allowing Empire tea to come in free of duty, and placing a very small duty on tea that comes from China and other places outside the Empire. For the reasons that the tax is a burden on people who are least able to pay it, that it is a burden upon poor people, and that people are now finding a difficulty in meeting the cost of food on account of the rapid increase in the cost of living, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take this tax off tea. If it is urged, as it may be urged, that it is only a matter of a penny or two a week in working-class homes, I would like Members of the Committee to realise—it is a tragedy, but it is true—that there are numbers of families in this land of ours to-day to whom a penny or two means something. It is difficult for more fortunate people to realise that, but there are homes where even a penny or two makes a difference, and, if only for the sake of those homes, I would ask the Chancellor to remove this tax and give us tea in future free from duty.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Leonard: I desire to associate myself with this Motion, because it conforms to my general desire to see a reduction in indirect taxation. I also have perused the Debates that took place on this matter last year, and I did so particularly to see what had been said on the other side of the House as to why this tax should continue. I found a continual reiteration

2027
from the other side that the tax was desirable from the point of view of allowing even the poorest to recognise their connection with defence and the wellbeing of the country. I wonder at that being put forward, because obviously, if you want to allow people to feel pride in anything, you have to make them conscious of the fact that they are taking part in it, and you should not impose a tax that is in any way applied in order to allow people to feel their pride of place by paying a tax.
I doubt whether the payment of a tax creates pride. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is intimately associated with a journal that comes to us pretty regularly, and in it the Income Tax payer definitely shows signs, not of pride, but of anger at the calls that are made upon him. I noticed that last year it gave a great deal of space to advertising a book which had as its intention the taking advantage of the alleged ineptitude of the officials, and thereby rendering the essential difficulties of tax gathering even more substantial than they are. That does not sound as if they were very proud of paying the taxes. Why, then, should this be put forward as it is? It does not give the poor a sporting chance, because the wealthy people are able to practice evasion, but the poor must pay for every pound of tea that they buy. It is a means of taxing those who earn too little, and must therefore spend everything that they earn for the advantage of those who earn more than they spend or can spend in some cases, and from that point of view it is by no means a just tax. Great appreciation was expressed in 1929 when the tax was removed, and it was only reimposed in 1932 because we were deemed to be in the midst of a great national difficulty, and it was looked upon as an emergency measure. It was not the only emergency imposition that was put on, but it is about the only one that is left. Last year we saw an addition to the tax, and we are now paying 6d. on foreign and 4d. on Dominion or Colonial tea. We are paying a duty of nearly 33 per cent. on the wholesale price before blending.
From time to time the wholesale price fluctuates. On the 5th instant the "Grocer" quotes an increase on nearly all grades of tea from 2d. to 3d. per 1b. If we want guidance as to retail prices,
2028
the Ministry of Labour figures show that on 1st May the average was 2s. 2d. as against 2s. on the same date last year, so that you have a combination of a heavy tax added to restriction of supplies, because we were told last year that foreign and British growers had come together, and there is an international tea scheme Quality has to he considered, and there can be no doubt that in the conditions that we have endeavoured to portray there is a tendency for people to go to the cheaper grades notwithstanding the 2d. preference given to Colonial tea. In addition, there are certain trade practices the result of which is that customers, in the main working class customers, are paying 6d. on all tea. This means that customers are being forced through this process to subsidise Colonial tea through increases that should go to the Treasury. I agree with my hon. Friend that the tax is not equitable at all. It would be more just in its incidence if it were ad valorem. The poorest people, buying the cheapest tea, pay as much as the rich buying the very best. To repeal the duty would help to balance the domestic budget, and the country would be much more happy if we spent as much time in trying to balance the domestic budget as we do in trying to balance the national budget. This is a boom year and this is the time at which we should do it. The Inland Revenue Commission Report says that there are 824 millionaires or persons with incomes exceeding £30,000 per year, and that is an increase of 49 in a year. We are certainly in a boom period with regard to millionaires. There is also an increase of 2,000 in the year in the number of persons with incomes of £2,000 a year and upwards. There is an avenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explore to get what he might lose by repealing the duty.
6.36 p.m.
Colonel Ropner: There is a certain fallacy in the arguments used by hon. Members opposite when they assume that only indirect taxation is paid by the poor and only direct taxation by the rich. It is self evident that the rich pay a certain proportion of indirect taxation, although it is true that in the case of the poor indirect taxation bears a higher proportion to the whole of the taxation that they pay. In many cases they pay no direct taxation at all, and it is very largely because direct taxation is extremely high

2029
that in the case of the rich the proportion of indirect taxation that they pay is very small. But it really is not fair, when discussing the whole question of taxation, to pick out one particular indirect tax and say that it presses more heavily upon the poor than upon the rich. It is true, no doubt, that the tea tax falls more heavily upon the poor, but that is not the whole of the picture, and we must go over the whole range of taxation before we can say whether one particular tax is good or not. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that the real question to which they should devote themselves is the proportion of direct to indirect taxation over the whole field of taxation. I hope the Chancellor will resist this Clause, but that does not mean that I shall not always be ready to closely examine the proportion and incidence of direct and indirect taxation taken as a whole.
6.39 p.m.
Mr. Riley: I believe that on all sides of the House for many years past there has been a general desire to bring the tax on tea to an end. In 1929 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was delighted to be able to abolish it, as he thought for ever. Its abolition has been attempted from time to time by all parties in the House. When the War broke out, the tax stood at 5d. In 1915 it was raised to 8d. and in 1920 to a shilling a 1b. In the Budget of 1922, 4d. was knocked off, though it is true that the reduction was accompanied by Is. off the Income Tax. In 1924 the late Lord Snowden reduced it to 4d. and expressed regret that he could not wipe it out altogether. Following Lord Snowden came the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. May I recall what he said in wiping it out altogether:
"There is no other comfort which enters so largely into the budget of the cottage home or the still humbler budgets of the old, the weak, and the poor. There has been a tax on tea ever since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and I am glad to think that the reign of His Majesty King George V will witness the total, immediate and, I believe, final abolition."
And while the bubbling and loud hissing urn
"throws out a steaming column, and the cups that cheer but not inebriate wait on each,
So let us welcome peaceful evening in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1929; col. 64, Vol. 227.]
2030
Now in 1937 it is George VI, and the Tea Tax is 6d. for foreign and 4d. for the Empire product. No doubt, it will be said that we have to consider the menace of war and the expense of defence, but I believe all enlightened people want to see the great mass of consumers of tea, including the poorest of the population, have that luxury without a sense of taxation.
There is also attached to the duty two features which are indefensible. In the first place, the duty is a fixed tax. It means that the poorest purchaser of tea, whether the unemployed workman, the aged widow or the pensioner who can only afford to buy the cheapest possible quality of tea, has to pay the same amount of duty per 1b. as is paid by the richest millionaire. There is a second consideration—that the duty is not needed for trade protection. Tea is not a commodity which competes with any other home products. The duty is not required to protect home industry, but is purely for revenue purposes. I submit to the Committee that, with the resources which are now available in this country, as evidenced by the enormous sum that we are raising for defence purposes, it is not a legitimate kind of public policy to continue a duty which is not needed by the trade, but which is imposing hardship on the public. I associate myself with my colleagues in asking the Committee and the Government to take their courage in their hands, and, in this year of growing prosperity, revert back to 1929, and once more abolish the Tea Duty.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Tinker: I wish to associate myself with my colleagues in making a plea from these benches for the repeal of the Tea Duty. I remember that last year a great attempt was made to resist the duty. We were told that it was a question of getting the poorer classes to pay something towards the armament schemes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not respond to our appeal. Unfortunately, this is one of those forms of indirect taxation, the effect of which is very difficult for the Government to realise. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) argued that the rich pay their proper contribution, but, surely, he must realise the position of the poor in regard to the Tea Duty. The richer classes can obtain other forms of

2031
liquid refreshment besides tea, but tea is the staple liquid diet of the poorer classes. There is tea at every meal time. There is no question of a change for them. Therefore, the incidence of the duty on tea hits that class much harder than it does the rich. Hon. Members opposite may say that a duty of 6d. and 4d. a 1b. spread over so many cups of tea does not mean very much—that it is almost infinitesimal. But I would ask them to review the position and think what it means to many poor families. To the old age pensioners, man and wife with a pound a week, and in some cases only Dos. a week, who have to eke out their money, even a copper is a lot.
Last night we discussed a Clause which gave something to the people who could well afford to pay more. The Male Servants Tax was repealed last night. I asked what it meant, and I was told that it did not mean very much—a matter of £126,000 a year. If the Government can make a relaxation for the very rich people who alone benefit by the repeal of that tax, surely we may ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this case to view the matter in the same light. He should turn his attention to this class. We are trying to get something for a suffering class which is very much in need of some relief at the present time. We have been arguing on these benches, although we have not yet been able to get the Government to realise the truth of the argument, that the cost of living has gone up and to take off this duty would be the means of checking the rise in some slight way. I know that we can find the money in other directions. I gathered from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it is quite easy to get another £5,000,000 from the City of London with regard to the new Profits Tax. If that is so, and money is so easy to get from these people who are willing to give another £5,000,000 because of the change in the Profits Tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can very well afford to forego the Tea Duty and balance the amount in another direction. An hon. Member opposite said that they had been returned as Members of Parliament by working-class votes. I do not deny that; many hon. Members opposite would not be here but for the folly of the working class in voting for them.
Mr. Denville: Not in every case.
Mr. Tinker: It is the folly of the working class people in returning hon. Members whom I see before me and behind me. Here is an opportunity for hon. Members opposite to tell the country at the next Election that they repealed the Tea Duty. I hope that they will accept the opportunity and so bring relief to the poorer classes.
6.50 p.m.
Sir W. Wayland: The last two hon. Members who spoke rather overstated their case. If they had spoken truly, in pleading that the working classes were suffering, they would have taken into account the fact that when the working man drinks a pint and a half of beer, he is paying more in taxation than his wife when she buys a 1b. of tea. That is where the injustice comes in. The average working class family probably consumes about half a 1b. of tea per week, and that would mean an addition in taxation of 2d. Surely, that is not very much to ask them to pay as their share of taxation. I have always pleaded that where the working man is wronged is in having to pay such a heavy duty, not only upon his beer, but upon his tobacco as well. He really pays considerably more than he should be paying in indirect taxation considering the amount of his wage, but when you come to the question of tea and sugar I certainly do not think that anyone pays more than his share, and I refer to the working classes as well as to the middle classes, who probably drink just as much, and perhaps more, tea than the working classes.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. David Adams: It is the duty of Members who come from the poorer districts of the country whenever the question of indirect taxation crops up, to do their best to try to persuade The Government to show mercy to the depressed classes of the community. Obviously, we are an extremely illogical nation. The admission on the part of the country generally that there is grave malnutrition is still in its infancy, and when it is generally admitted and recognised that this is a serious problem, which ought to engage the attention of all Governments and of the community generally, then, there will be a move made towards relieving the pressure on the lowest-paid members of the community, and in no direction could this be done

2033
more successfully than by the removal of indirect taxation. Is there anything more illogical than the attitude of this Government and previous Governments in making appeals to the local authorities of the country to use their resources in providing cheap or free milk for the depressed section of the community on the one hand, and, through the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, imposing taxation especially upon this identical class?
There have long been upon the food of the people of this country indirect taxes which ought to be removed, and the recognition of that new responsibility in connection with malnutrition will mean that Parliament must turn their attention in the direction of the removal of these taxes. If the duty, as has been stated, were upon the value of the tea, an ad valorem duty, it would be much more just, but to charge it upon weight merely means that the consumers of the more costly teas are bearing identically the same burden as the poorer section of the community who have to drink the cheaper kinds of tea. There is this distinction, that the rich cannot only afford to pay the duty, but the prices of the better quality teas are frequently so high that the duty is not passed on to the consumers. The poorer section of the community not only pay the duty, but they often have to pay a substantial amount in addition. I am advised that in some cases it amounts to an addition of 50 per cent. in actual cost to the poor consumer. Tea has become one of the prime and essential food beverages of the poor. It forms part of the ingredients of every meal, not only of adults but of children. Anyone who is accustomed, as I am, to visit the homes of the poor will see a continual supply of tea available, particularly in miners' homes. Where the membership of the family is large—and one at least of my colleagues is a member of a family of 17—the Committee will realise how great the consumption must be in a family of that description where the wage-income is invariably low.
I ask, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should seriously consider what a magnificent gesture it would be if he were to say that here is an opportunity of amending this tax by making it an ad valorem duty, or of abolishing it altogether. I must confess
2034
surprise when reading the Finance Bill to find that the tax on tea was to be continued. It is generally admitted that the new Defence proposals are bound to result in a rise in the cost of living, and here is an opportunity for the new Chancellor to distinguish himself above all others except the Chancellor who was in office in 1929.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Kingsley Griffith: There have not been many speeches made in favour of retaining the duty, and I should like to answer one of them. It is no good the hon. Member below me trying to play off one form of taxation against another, and saying that the working man already pays too much for his tobacco and beer, and therefore it does not matter if he pays too much for his tea. That is a curious argument. The hon. Member also seemed to be trying to play off the working man against his wife, by saying that she does not have to pay as much on her tea as her husband has to pay on his beer. That is the wrong way of dealing with these liquids. Tea is the food of the working man just as much as it is of his wife and family, and if any justice is to be done to the family as a whole in the reduction of indirect taxation, the way to do it is through this tax.
Sir W. Wayland: The hon. Member referred to tea as food. I believe tea is a stimulant, but beer is a food.
Mr. Griffith: I hope that both are, but I am not going into that scientific question. I was using the word "food" in its obvious sense, that tea is an article of consumption that has become a necessity. I would ask the Chancellor to reflect whether the yield from this tax is really worth the irritating effects it produces. There is a good deal in the psychology of taxation, and it is not worth while putting on something that is resented out of all proportion to its yield. I would like to see the standard of living in this country maintained, and not depressed, and this duty, which drives people to use inferior classes of tea, does depress the standard of living. I want people to get decent stuff and be able to cultivate tastes of their own, and not by arbitrary methods of taxation to be driven to inferior classes of an article of consumption which means a great deal in their lives.
7.4 P.m.
Mr. T. Smith: I am hopeful that the Committee is going to pass this new Clause. We have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer who has a long connection with a political party that used to say, "No taxes on the breakfast table." I think I could pick out a few speeches of his against this tax. Surely he is not going to shed all his beliefs on the acceptance of office. We are hopeful that he is going to live up to his past reputation. I hope he will tell us the yield of this tax. We heard a good deal of discussion on the National Defence Contribution about a simpler and bigger yield. I do not think there is any doubt that in the last few years indirect taxation has increased more than direct taxation. I would like to suggest to the Committee a way in which the ordinary housewife might be given a lesson in politics. I have listened to Conservative Members demanding that eggs from foreign countries should bear on them a statement of their origin. Why should we not have a little slip on the various things that are sold telling the housewife what taxation she is paying on them? If that were done the women would have some questions to ask of Conservative Members. There is nothing in this Bill giving any reduction to the indirect taxpayer, and the repeal of this duty would be a gesture in the right direction. To-day the cost of living is higher than it was 12 months ago, and Minister after Minister refuses to do anything to increase the purchasing power of the people, or to reduce the cost of living. I appeal to the Chancellor to live up to his past reputation and accept this new Clause.
7.9 p.m.
Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member has made an appeal to me, and I can assure him that there is nothing a new Chancellor would more gladly do than spread the benefits of his administration all round and make everybody happy. But I do not think his good-tempered criticism was entirely apt. He pointed to the fact that this Budget does not reduce indirect taxation, but if we are to look at the thing fairly and as a whole we must observe a little more than that. It has been an almost constant practice, in Budget after Budget, when it has been necessary to raise more money, to seek to fill the gap both by increasing some form, or finding some new form, of direct
2036
taxation, and by increasing some form of indirect taxation. Just as it would be wrong to try to raise the additional money merely by using the instrument of indirect taxation, so as a rule it has been thought unnatural to seek to get the whole of the increased money from direct taxation.
In this Finance Bill we have departed from what has been the common practice. There has been an additional sum of money to be found. We have not hesitated to find some of it by direct taxation, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to mark that this is a Budget which, in spite of there being extra sums to raise, does not attempt to raise any portion by increasing indirect taxation. That is a consideration that should be borne in mind. No doubt at this moment in the various by-elections the conduct of the Government is being loudly explained and proclaimed. Permit me to invite any of my colleagues who happen to have engagements in the by-elections to make this simple statement in their addresses—that this country this year has to raise a large sum in new taxation, and that this Government has done what in recent times is most unusual, and almost without parallel, and is raising the whole of it by the method of direct taxation, and is not seeking to increase indirect taxation at all. If a fair statement is made to the electors nobody can leave out a reference to that remarkable fact.
I do not think there is any high economic principle which can settle the proportion of direct and indirect taxation. I rather suspect the pundits who would find some formula which could be applied in all cases and without regard to circumstances. When the Prime Minister introduced his Budget and he had announced certain changes which he was making in direct taxation I am certain that there was on the part of hon. Members opposite a feeling, I will not say of relief, or of astonishment or grief, but rather of distress, revealed in their demeanour, because they were certain that they would soon be able to attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having increased indirect taxation.
Mr. George Griffiths: That is a wrong summing up.
Sir J. Simon: I only ask that the facts which I have stated should be

2037
thoroughly borne in mind, and should be made a topic in the addresses which hon. Members will be making to those who are particularly interested in the by-elections.
My answer to the mover of the new Clause is very simple. The revenue which the Tea Duty will raise is revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot give away. I have heard one hon. Member ask how much it is. The cost to the Exchequer of accepting the new Clause and wiping out the existing Tea Duty this year, as far as can be estimated, would be close upon £7,000,000—£6,750,000, to be exact. There was forestalment before this year's Budget, which shows that some people thought that the Tea Duty was going to be raised. It is estimated that £7,750,000 would be lost in a full normal year. That is something which in the present circumstances the Treasury cannot afford to lose.
The duty on tea, which has been sanctioned by a long line of Chancellors of the Exchequer belonging to all parties in the State, is a duty which I cannot give myself the pleasure of dispensing with in the present year. It is, of course, right that hon. Members should raise this question, which is a very important one. They raise it every year, and it has been raised by them with sincerity. The only time when the Labour party is in any difficulty on this subject is when they are in office. The records of the House show that when the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with a similar Amendment on the subject of the Tea Duty, it became his painful duty to do what I am doing now. That was the moment when the embarrassment of hon. Members opposite arose. Do not let hon. Members think that I am reproaching them. When I had the pleasure of sitting with my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite, and when I was in that happy position of comparative irresponsibility, I joined my voice and gave my vote for the repeal of the Tea Duty, without any regard to the balancing of the Budget. I admit myself as one of those who took that course.
Mr. Watkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee which Member it was on the Government Benches of that day who urged the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the Tea Duty?
Mr. David Adams: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not overlooking the fact that the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer was not imposing import duties, which add to indirect taxation?
Sir J. Simon: It is a most futile proceeding to take extracts from past Debates, but I was about to observe that Mr. Snowden, as he then was, when the question came forward, said:
"You cannot reduce the Tea Duty alone without following precedent and destroying the important relations which exist between the Tea Duty and the duties on coffee, cocoa, chocolate and chicory."
There is a great deal of force in an observation made by one hon. Member, that we cannot treat this matter as if we were dealing with tea and nothing else. Tobacco, liquors, and other things have to be considered in the general scheme. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) said, it is necessary to survey the whole field. For my part, I give an answer which is not in the least affected by what anybody may have said, myself included, in previous Debates. I simply say that as Chancellor of the Exchequer I am invited by this new Clause to cut out from the proceeds of the Finance Bill a sum of money amounting, roughly, to £7,000,000, and I cannot do so, and neither could any other Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Every time that the Finance Bill is discussed we have this subject before us. Nobody would be better pleased than I if I could in any direction reduce this duty or any indirect taxation. But let us recognise and rejoice in the fact that at a time when increased revenue has to be found, this Government is not attempting to increase the burden of indirect taxation. That is a fact which is not recognised as it should be. I do not think that there is any other answer which anyone in my position and with my responsibility could give. One hon. Member said that, with one exception, this duty had been imposed ever since the time of Queen Elizabeth. I might observe that the exception was due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It is not a practical proposition at this time to make such a concession and it would not be right to do so.
Reference has been made to "the cup that cheers but does not inebriate, "but

2039
when one looks at this question, one has to have regard also to the cup that inebriates as well as the cup that does not inebriate. I am reminded that when Sam Weller visited the Fleet Prison he came across a gentleman there who was in very reduced circumstances and was smoking. The poor man said to Sam Weller: "Tobacco is food and drink to me." Weller remarked that it would be a very good thing if it was washing, too. This hardy annual comes before us every year and is argued with great sincerity and with impressive argument, but, none the less, I am compelled with equal sincerity to say that I cannot make the concession.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Alexander: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen in his answer to link up this question with the by-election campaigns. After listening to him, I can say confidently that there is nothing which my hon. Friends on these benches will welcome more than to examine his speech to-night in some detail on the by-election platforms, because although it has been full of clever phrases, it has really missed the whole point of the financial situation. It is no answer to the overwhelming case which my hon. Friend put up in regard to tea for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the.Government are very good boys this year, and that in face of the heavy commitments which they have undertaken in regard to armaments they have not increased indirect taxation. That is no answer. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been at the Treasury long enough to examine the figures in complete detail, he will know that the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in drafting the Budget for this year, knew perfectly well that he was increasing indirect taxation for the current year even before he produced his Budget. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not mind if we point out this fact on the election platforms.
For example, the Government have been forced by their agricultural friends to continue the largesse to the farmers. This year we shall have to pay ¾d. a 1b. extra taxation on our meat in order to provide the subsidy. Is not that an increase of indirect taxation? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will oblige us before we come to debate the later Clause, where we shall be dealing with the whole question of the repeal of duties
2040
upon imported food-stuffs, by looking at the prices of some of the food-stuffs which have risen in the last two or three months. He will then see what is the real basis of our criticism and what the policy of the Prime Minister means in this regard.
That is not the only answer to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about indirect taxation. He speaks as though the Government are to be congratulated on not having increased the duty on tea or the duty on beer, at which he was apparently hinting. Having undertaken such huge commitments in regard to armaments they are not raising what ought to be raised in the year from direct taxation, but are proceeding to borrow £400,000,000, spread over four or five years. So far from that procedure not having any effect upon the living standard of the people, it is having a very considerable effect. The whole policy of the Government in not meeting their proper obligation in regard to direct taxation but resorting to borrowing, means that they are raising the price level to such an extent that every one of the existing duties on the people's food becomes more burdensome than before.
As regards tea, I happen to know that the Food Council at this moment are so concerned about the rise in the price of common tea, which four years ago was selling at 6d. a 1b., and is now is. 3d. to 1s. 4d., and also about the general rise in the price of tea, that they are instituting immediate and specific inquiries in regard to the prices of this very important commodity to the working classes. In the face of these facts the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to realise that we are not asking for anything unreasonable in regard to this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is any insuperable difficulty in removing most of the maximum duty of 6d. or the preferential duty of 4d. he would relieve us by promising between now and the Report stage to make some concession. The large increase in commodity prices to-day is putting far too large a burden on the working classes, and in a period of rising prices a tax of this kind becomes more repressive. We have a perfectly good case in asking for the acceptance of the new Clause or some concession, and unless he can give us some hope in that direction we shall certainly

2041
divide now, and the right hon. Gentleman will certainly hear all about it on the election platform.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. Foot: In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was giving his followers some hints for the by-election, of which I think they may stand in considerable need, and has preened himself on the fact that he was a member of a Government which in this financial year was not imposing more direct
taxation, I hope that when his followers do address the electors in the various constituencies they will not forget to remind them that he is also a member of a Government which has imposed more direct taxation than any Government in recent years.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committeee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 185.

Division No. 212.]

AYES.

[7.31 p.m.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Pritt, D. N.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Riley, B.

Ammon, C. G.

Holdsworth, H.

Ritson, J.

Barr, J,

Hopkin, D,

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

Bellenger, F. J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Rowson, G.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Sanders, W. S.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Cape, T.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Sexton, T. M.

Chater, D.

Kelly, W. T.

Short, A.

Cluse, W. S.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lathan, G.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cooks, F. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cove, W. G.

Leach, W.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Lee, F.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Daggar, G

Leonard, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leslie, J. R.

Stephen, C.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Logan, D. G.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lunn, W.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Dobbie, W.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McGhee, H. G.

Thurtle, E.

Ede, J. C.

MacLaren, A.

Tinker, J. J.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Maclean, N.

Viant, S. P.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Marshall, F.

Walkden, A. G.

Foot, D. M.

Mathers, G.

Walker, J.

Frankel, D.

Maxton, J.

Watkins, F. G,

Gallacher, W.

Messer, F.

Watson, W. McL.

Gardner, B. W.

Milner, Major J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Montague, F.

Welsh, J. C.

Gibbins, J.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Westwood, J.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

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

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Muff, G.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Naylor, t. E.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Oliver, G. H.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Paling, W.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Parker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Harris, Sir P. A.

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Price, M. P.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Crowley, A. C.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Cartland, J. R. H.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Albery, Sir Irving

Carver, Major W. H.

Culverwell, C. T.

Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

Davison, Sir W. H.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Donman, Hon. R. D.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Denville, Alfred

Apsley, Lord

Channon, H.

Doland, G. F.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Drewe, C.

Balniel, Lord

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

Duggan, H. J.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. O. J.

Dunglass, Lord

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Eastwood, J. F.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Boulton, W. W.

Cox, H. B. T.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Cranborne, Viscount

Emery, J. F.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Crooke, J. S.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Bull, B. B.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Cross, R. H.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Furness, S. N.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Ganzoni, Sir J.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Selley, H. R.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsoy and Otley)

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Glookstein, L. H.

McKie, J. H.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Goodman, Col. A. W.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Spene. W. P.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Gridle, Sir A. B.

Markham, S. F.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Guy, J. C. M.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Hannah, I. C.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Harvey, Sir G.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswiek)

Tasker, Sir R. 1.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Tate, Mavis C.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Higgs, W. F.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H- H.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Touche, G. C.

Holmes, J. S.

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

Train, Sir J.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Horsbrugh, Florense

Peat, C. U.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Perkins, W. R. D.

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Joel, D. J. B.

Procter, Major H. A.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

Radford, E. A.

Watt, G. S. H.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Wayland, Sir W. A

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Ramsbotham, H.

Wells, S. R.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Law, R. K. (Hall, S.W.)

Rayner, Major R. H.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Leckie, J. A.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Wise, A. R.

Lees-Jones, J.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Leighton, Major B. E. p.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wragg, H.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Loftus, P. C.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Loval-Fraser, J. A.

Salmon, Sir I.

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Crimston

Lyons, A. M.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [Lords.]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.43 P.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This matter has been the subject of a certain amount of controversy and discussion for several years in Scotland. The history of measures for wage regulation in agriculture dates back to the Corn Production Act, 1917. That Act imposed regulations on wages. This was incidental to its main purpose of corn production, but wages machinery, once set up, has repeatedly reappeared as an important feature in our social schemes. In that Act there was a certain machinery
2044
for Scotland which consisted of 12 district committees and a central board. The scheme was abolished by the Corn Production Repeal Act, 1921, and it is perhaps not inappropriate that it was introduced in this House just after the Government's proposal for safeguarding oats and barley had been introduced. The Act gave the argicultural Department permissive power to secure the continuance of local joint committees. Both employers and employed in Scotland rejected the idea.
In 1924 an Agricultural Wages Regulation Act was introduced for England and Wales, but Scotland was excluded at the desire of employers and employed. Later there was a movement towards the establishment of some form of collective bargaining, of conciliation machinery which should really be effective. In 1934 and 1935 efforts were made in this direction and a scheme was prepared. It was accepted by the Central Executive of Farmers and Farm Servants, but it failed to commend itself to the majority of the branches of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland.

2045
The agricultural workers then represented to the Secretary of State that in such circumstances the only course was a statutory regulation. Consequently, a Committee of Inquiry was set up under Lord Caithness, and it reported unanimously in favour of some measure of wage regulation in Scotland. The Bill follows closely, though not completely, the report of the Caithness Committee. I think the reason the Scottish agricultural workers did not in the first instance desire to be brought within the scope of these statutory wage-regulating boards was that they believed that they themselves, through their organisation, could negotiate directly with the employers and secure better terms; but it is true that during the period of the agricultural depression it appeared that the Agricultural Wages Boards and Committees in England were stabilising the situation to a much greater extent than was the case North of the Border. The average minimum rate in England during the period 1926–31 was 31s. 8d. per week; by 1933, it fell to 30s. 6½d., and then rose again to 31s. 10d. in 1935. The House will see that the lowest point reached was only a 3 per cent. reduction during a period when agricultural prices had fallen by 29 per cent. and the cost of living by 18 per cent. The fall was greater in Scotland, and in some instances very much greater.
It seemed plain to the industry that the statutory machinery of the Wages Act had sheltered the agricultural worker in England and Wales from the worst effects of the depression, and had provided him with an element of stability. I think it has been evident to all farsighted people that this element of stability was operating in the interests not of one section of the industry only but in the interests of the industry as a whole. Without regulation, the result of the depression would certainly have been that wages would have fallen further, that there would have been a greater exodus of the best type of workers from agriculture, and the destruction of the remaining incentives to young men of the countryside to take up farming. After a period when wages would have fallen very severely, there would have been a period in which they would have risen even more steeply, but many of the skilled workers would have been driven from the
2046
land. I think that everyone agrees that in England and Wales the operation of the board in the stabilisation of wages was an operation which was beneficial to the whole industry and not merely to the employers' section of it.
Turning to the Bill, hon. Members will want to know what is the proposed machinery. There will be some 12 district committees, each comprising representatives of employers and workers in equal numbers, with an independent chairman. Each committee will be free to choose its own chairman, and will decide on an appropriate minimum rate for its own district. When decided upon, that minimum rate will be statutory. The committee will be free to set a time limit for the operation of such rate or not, and it will be free to cancel such rate at any time. It will be able, under the very wide powers in Clause 2 of the Bill, to deal specially with any special area. It will be able to deal with special classes of workers in the district, and to fix rates varying according to whether the employment is by the day, the week, the month, or by other periods. The committee will be able to deal specially and individually with the case of infirm workers. It will also determine what benefits may be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of payment in cash, the value at which they are to be reckoned, and the extent to which they may be so reckoned.
The function of the Agricultural Wages Board will be to ratify by a formal order the decisions of the committees which fix the minimum rates and—this is an important point—to act in the place of a committee when for any reason a committee fails to fix a rate. If hon. Members will look at this provision, they will see that the representatives of either side could stultify the whole scheme by absenting themselves from the committee, thereby vetoing the actions of the committee, and making it impossible for the committee to fix a rate. H that were to happen, the central Wages Board would have the power to act in its place. Similar arrangements have worked well in England. The Central Board has not been called upon to act for a committee in default, although I have known cases where, if there had not been a Central Board, that difficulty might well have arisen.

2047
Hon. Members opposite and deputations from one side or the other have made various representations to me, and it might be convenient to the House if I dealt very briefly with some of those representations. It has been suggested, for instance, that the Agricultural Wages Board should be given greater powers than those included in the Bill, and that it should have authority to vary the rates fixed by the district committees, or to direct the committees to reconsider their decisions when these seem to the Board to be unsatisfactory. I have considered that point, but it seems to me that the balance of advantage lies in leaving the decisions with the committees. It is essential that the committees should work with the knowledge of their responsibilities, and it is very desirable that the whole of these decisions should not be committed to some central body to settle, but should be settled in the localities, which is where the knowledge is really centred. I think it is also fair to say that in exceptional cases, where it is plain that a committee has overlooked some important consideration or where some new consideration has arisen between the giving of the final decision and the issue of the formal order, power is taken in the Bill, under Clause 6, for the Department to direct the committee to reconsider its decision. I think that is as far as we ought to go in this direction, although of course I shall be happy to listen to arguments on that point.
The suggestion has been made—and I think it is a very helpful one—that some ruling should be given in regard to benefits in kind. Benefits in kind are a very important element in agricultural wages in Scotland, and the suggestion is that the committees should be given some guidance in regard to the general principles which should govern the values which they are required by the Bill to place on such benefits. I understand that the agricultural workers' organisation and their leaders attach a good deal of importance to that matter. I am glad to accept that suggestion; it will be incorporated in the regulations, and it may be necessary to move some Amendment to the Bill on that account. It has further been suggested to me that in cases of prosecution there should be laid on the employer the onus of proving that he has in fact paid the
2048
minimum rate of wages. That suggestion raises considerable difficulties which I do not need to stress in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but I can assure my hon. Friends opposite that it has been fully considered.
I may be told that as agriculture is looking up and wages are rising, there is no need for this statutory machinery. On a short view, that may be true, but agriculture has had its ups and downs in the past, and although we hope that it will be on the upward slope for years to come, we have had experience enough to show that unless we make some provision for bad times in good times, it is doubly difficult to make provision for them when they come. Therefore, I think it is easier to deal with this Measure now, and I hope and believe that I shall have the good will and co-operation of both sides of the industry. There is another very important reason for introducing this Bill now. Already there are signs and portents of a shortage of agricultural labourers. It will not be enough that agricultural wages should stand where they are. Some movement of agricultural wages is bound to take place, and it is better that it should take place as part of an organised and regulated process of negotiations, where both sides meet and discuss the matter round a table, than in a sporadic form, leading to all sorts of bitterness and ill-feeling.
I believe that as industry in the North gets into its stride, there is danger of that shortage growing rather than diminishing. I believe that the existence of stable rates of wages will contribute to what we all desire, namely, the maintenance of an adequate staff for the service of the land. I have not argued, as I think I might have done, that the Government are fully justified in introducing wages machinery, because this House has taken a great deal of interest in agricultural problems and has on many occasions done its best to give assistance to the farmers and producers. It has been rightly said that what has been done for agriculture has been clone for agriculture as a whole, and not for the farmers alone, and that part of any benefits which have accrued should have passed on to the workers in the shape of increased wages. I have not argued that case because I have not found that it is disputed in any responsible quarter, although there is, of

2049
course, plenty of dispute as to the value of the benefits. But apart from the good employers, there are undoubtedly in every industry bad cases, and there is a lack of accepted standards. There is an imperative need from the farmer's own point of view to fill up the ranks of those who are working on the land.
On all those grounds, I submit that the times demand a change. It is interesting that this Bill, when debated in another place, met with no opposition on those grounds. Although there were those who said that the Bill was not necessary, there was none who denied that assistance to the industry meant that Parliament must look at the interests of the industry as a whole and do its utmost to see that all shared in any benefits that were going. This is in essence a machinery Bill, and it depends upon the goodwill, the courage and power of organisation of those who will have to work it; but I have no doubt that both sides can and will import into this system the same friendliness and comradeship which have, in the main, marked the relations of masters and men in Scottish agriculture.
7.59 P.m.
Mr. T. Johnston: I rise on behalf of my hon. Friends on these Benches to give the purpose and general outline of this Bill a hearty welcome, although we shall have occasion to criticise specific proposals and details in the Bill and shall seek to amend certain Clauses in Committee. In my view, this is one of the very few Measures of the present Parliament which will almost certainly bring ascertainable and measurable benefits to the peasantry of Scotland. Once a year, at Burns suppers, we hear much sentimental rhetoric about the "Cottar's Saturday Night." Now we are doing something to better the conditions of the class from which the greatest of all Scotsmen sprang, the class which is the pith and the marrow of our nation.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, in 1924 the then Labour Government introduced a Measure very similar to this giving powers for the fixation and regulation of wages and conditions in agriculture in England and Scotland. At that time, as the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out, both employers and employés in Scotland, though for different reasons, desired that Scotland should be left outside the scope of that Measure. In the Bill as introduced more power was
2050
given to the Central Wages Board than is conferred by the Bill now before us, and probably because of those powers given to the Central Wages Board to meet cases of recalcitrant and reactionary local committees, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends then saw fit to vote against the Second Reading of that Bill. Subsequently, the Bill was amended in Committee to meet their wishes. They and their friends on the Liberal benches being in a majority, Mr. Noel-Buxton, as he then was, had perforce to yield, and the amended Bill was given a unanimous Third Reading.
When that Measure came into operation it had some remarkable results. Looking up the early reports of the agricultural wages tribunal, I find that in the very first month after the Act became operative, £849 of unpaid or withheld wages were restored to agricultural workers in England and Wales. By means of district committees average wages were fixed, according to the wages payable by the best farmers, the most active and willing farmers, in a district, and not according to the standard of the worst farmers. The Act succeeded in the first year in raising the average wage in England and Wales from 28s. a week including perquisites to 31s. 6d. a week. But averages do not disclose the whole benefit that accrued from the Act. Some wages were 21s. a week and the increases in some instances were as high as 5s. 6d. per week. Half-holidays or overtime allowances in lieu of half-holidays were secured. As I shall show presently, there is only one county in Scotland to-day where the farm-workers have secured a half-holiday, and that is Ayrshire.
In the first year of the 1924 Act in England and Wales extra payments were secured for farm workers who tended animals, and extra wages were secured for harvest time, while perquisites were given a definite value and included in the wages. The value of board and lodging was fixed at about 15s. per individual, and cottage rents were fixed at a value of from 25. to 4s. a week. In some instances in Scotland to-day they are fixed at 6s. and 7s., and even as high as 8s. a week. Women workers also enjoyed benefits from these statutory regulations in England, and the average wage in England for women workers all round was fixed at 5d. an hour. Then we had the amazing spectacle, to which the right hon. Gentleman

2051
referred, though he did not elaborate the point, of agricultural wages in England and Wales rising or remaining steady, while agricultural wages in Scotland were falling. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor appointed a committee of inquiry which was presided over by Lord Caithness. On that committee there were two farmers, two representatives of the farm-workers and an economist, and they arrived at a unanimous finding. The Caithness Committee found that since 1930 agricultural wages in Scotland had fallen by as much as 8s. a week, at a time when they were either rising or remaining stationary in England and Wales.
As I have pointed out, it is only in Ayrshire to-day that there is a half-holiday for agricultural workers. In Dumfries and Galloway to-day overtime is paid at the will of the farmer. There are variations in wages in Scotland to-day for the same work, for the production of the same article, of as much as 10s. a week. There are variations in the cash values of perquisites, and the agricultural industry is still outwith the benefits of the Truck Acts. In England and Wales, the Caithness Committee pointed out, agricultural wages were higher by from 4s. to 7s. a week than they were in Scotland. In Scotland there are cases known to the Caithness Committee—I do not say it is a general practice—where farmers deliberately delay until the last moment at the hiring fairs, before hiring their employés for the next six months, in order that the employés, in a state of desperation, may accept very low wages. We also find in Scotland a great deal of shifting of labour at the ends of hiring terms. The men who are paid these miserable wages live, in the main, in houses of the kind referred to in that alarming report which was issued last week. We find that 70 per cent, to 75 per cent. of farm workers in Scotland are estimated to be living in dwellings not fit for habitation. These farm workers naturally move very frequently at the term periods. Sometimes they do so in order to get a holiday. The only way in which they can get a holiday is to shift from one employer to another at the end of six months. One bad result, educationally, follows from that practice. Ploughmen with families move frequently to the detriment of the education of their children. In once case mentioned by the Caithness
2052
Committee, a head-master reported that out of 123 pupils in a school only one had been there from the age of five years. All the others had been on the move.
Some of my hon. Friends will probably refer to the rotten housing conditions in certain areas, but I do not stress that point now. I do say, however, that agriculture to-day is a sweated industry, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Government on trying to do something, at long last, to level up the conditions, to help the bottom dog and to achieve a state of affairs in which the present average wage of the good farmers in an area, will become the minimum wage in that area, and we shall no longer have wages being paid at such miserable rates as those reported upon by the Caithness Committee. This Bill, like all trade board Bills, is designed to curb the worst forms of sweating. It proposes to level up wages and conditions to those which are now acceptable to the good farmers in a district, and no one can complain of that proposal.
I come now to some points of criticism. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with us when we take exception to the fact that in the operative Clauses of the Bill it is the Department of Agriculture for Scotland which is to have power, and not the Secretary of State. In the corresponding English Measure, it is specifically stated that the responsibility is to be that of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. In this Scottish Bill the Department is substituted for the Minister. I know that in the Reorganisation of Offices Act, 1928, when we were transferring powers from Boards in Scotland, to Departments, it was enacted that the Departments could be sued, that they could hold lands, that they were to have seals of their own, that they could conduct operations of their own and enter into contracts, that they could sue and be sued. All this is like the beginning of the Fascist State. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, as he said recently in connection with another Bill, that the Department must accept his general directions. That is true. At any rate, it is specifically stated in the Act of 1928 that he must appoint the officers. But while they may accept his general directions, what we are now doing is providing an amorphous body with powers,

2053
by Statute, to deal not with mere routine questions, but with vital matters affecting the lives, the health and the wellbeing of great masses of the people of Scotland.
I object and shall continue to object, to that procedure. My hon. Friends and I intend to offer the most determined opposition to the provision which is being inserted in Measure after Measure affecting Scotland, giving these powers to the Department. We believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who can be shot at in this House, who is a public representative, and who is supposed to answer for every detail of administration, ought to be mentioned in these Measures, and the word "Department" taken out of them. More than that I will not say at this moment, but on the Committee stage I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us somewhat on this matter.
In Clause 2, Sub-section (3), the right hon. Gentleman has provided, and I congratulate him on it, that there shall be a general regulation sent out by the Department or the Central Wages Committee fixing the values of milk, meals, potatoes, coal, house-rent, and so on, that are to be included in farm servants' wages, and that is highly desirable. It is provided for in England, and I, for one, could not understand why it was being kept out of the Scottish Bill. The Central Wages Committee will issue regulations to the local committees guiding them in fixing fair and reasonable values—for example, that milk shall be valued only at wholesale prices in the district, not at retail prices, that potatoes shall be the same, that housing shall be valued only at what it is in the valuation roll, and things like that; at any rate, a general instruction given to see that there is fair play and that there are not wide variations as there have been in the past and as is the case now.
What is the position now? The standard weekly wage in 1936 in the county of Aberdeen was 29s. 3d., but there were many below that figure. It rose to 395. in my own county, which is, I believe, the highest in Scotland, and there is obviously no excuse whatever for farmers paying a difference amounting to as much as 10s. a week in wages for the same class of employment at the same time in Scotland. The perquisites, according to the Caithness Committee, vary in value
2054
from 3s. 3d. in the Stewartry, which is the lowest I can find, to 12s. in the Rhinns, both in the South of Scotland, and there is no justification for that. The reductions in cash wages since 1930 show very considerable variations also.
Now I come to Clause 6, and here I speak subject to correction. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was inadvisable to interfere with the local wages committees, and then he said, "Oh, but there will be cases where you must interfere," but it is to be the Department that is to do it. In Clause 6 it is the Department which may direct the committee to reconsider any minimum rate. Why should it not be the Central Wages Board? I do not understand that, but we shall probably hear later from the Lord Advocate what the reason is. If we look at Clause 4, we find that claims for the payment of piece-work rates are to be treated as civil debt cases, but in the English Act—and the Lord Advocate might help us here, for I have gone over it with a toothcomb—I see the word "summarily" used. That word is dropped out of this Clause, and I wonder whether that is unintentional or whether there is a legal reason for it. In Clause 7 we come to a matter which the right hon. Gentleman said he would consider, arising after a local committee has fixed the rate of wages. Suppose a reactionary farmer dodges and, instead of paying 35s., for instance, pays only 31s. or 30s. What we ask for here, and what is in the English Act is:
"In any proceedings against a person under this Section it shall lie with the person to prove that he is paying wages not less than the minimum rate."
The onus at present, if you please, is on the poor farm servant to prove that the farmer does not underpay him, and we say that if it is right and proper in England that the onus of proof should be on the employer, and that the employer should be compelled to produce receipt books, papers, and documents to the law courts or to the inspectors, it is equally right and proper that the onus of proof should be on the employers in Scotland. I go farther and say that unless we can get that Clause in the Bill—and I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he will consider it—a very great amount of the benefit otherwise possible under this Bill will be rendered completely nugatory. In Clause 7, Sub-section (3) there is a

2055
point probably for the Committee stage. I see that there are to be penalties applicable for 18 months immediately preceding the period of six months before the misdemeanour is committed. Does that mean that there are to be no proceedings under this Measure until it has been in operation for two years? We will have this out in Committee, but as the Clause now stands it looks as if there can be no prosecution until the Measure has been in operation for two years, and I know lawyers who take that view.
Turning to the Schedule, page 12, lines 10 to 12, we find that the Department may appoint two independent members of a local committee. Why? The farmers on the Caithness Committee did not want them, the farm workers certainly do not want them, Lord Caithness does not want them, and the economist does not want them, yet here they are stuck in like currants in a pudding, and nobody knows why. Obviously, if it is right and proper that the knowledgeable people in the district, knowing all the local circumstances, knowing what the farmers are paying and ought to pay, will meet together and fix rates, why should representatives of the Department come in? Indeed, I venture to prophesy that these representatives of the Department will get all the ill-will locally thrown at them.
But in spite of these objections and small points of criticism, I welcome this Bill. It will certainly raise the wages and improve the conditions of the lower paid rural workers up to the levels of the wages paid and the conditions observed by the good farmers in the areas. It will tend, as the right hon. Gentleman quite properly said, to keep our people more settled on the soil. There will be less vagrancy in employment and fewer term flittings. It will curb the sweater and the cheat. All the decent, public-spirited farmers will welcome it. The decent farmers in my own area object to reactionary neighbours paying 5s. or 7s. less than they themselves are paying. It may be that as a result of this and other measures which we hope to get we shall come to a realisation of the vision of Langland, the priest of the Malvern Hills where, he said nearly four centuries ago in his "Piers Ploughman," he saw beggars who
2056
"would only eat bread of the finest wheat and drink of the best and brownest ale,"
and labourers
"who had nothing to live upon but their hands,"
refused to dine upon herbs.
"No penny ale would content them nor a piece of bacon nor anything but fresh meat or fish, fried or baked, and that, too, hot or double hot lest their stomachs should be dulled."
They live, many of our peasants and rural workers, in rotten houses. They have no social amenities. They have miserable wages. They live in many ditsricts under systems of political and economic terrorism, and this Measure, upon which I congratulate the Government, is a definite attempt to improve the living conditions of the peasantry of Scotland and to bring comfort, concord and happiness, perhaps in our day and generation, to the common ways of men where that comfort, concord and happiness are not now.
8.27 p.m.
Sir Archibald Sinclair: I could not help feeling sorry that there were so few hon. Members present to hear the interesting speech in which the Secretary of State introduced this Measure and the eloquent oration in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) extended a welcome to it. I also wish to welcome it, and I agree with both the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that it represents a big step forward in the solution of one of the most important social problems in Scotland. All over the rural districts of Scotland, as indeed in England and Wales, public opinion is perturbed by the urgency of the problem of rural depopulation, of people leaving the country districts empty and flocking to the towns. The Committee, from whose report the right hon. Gentleman has just made several quotations, gives some of the most important reasons for this decline in the rural population of Scotland.
They mention, first, low wages, and I am sure they regard it as the most important cause. That is the problem with which this Bill directly deals. They put bad housing as the second most important cause of depopulation. I agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the vital importnace of tackling that question in the rural districts of Scotland. Hon. Members will remember that in the last Parliament, when the Housing Act, 1935, was before us, my hon. Friends and

2057
I and hon. Members above the Gangway urged that it would have no relation to the problem in rural Scotland, and that it would not help to solve it. The Secretary of State promised in the Grand Committee upstairs to appoint a committee, one of whose first tasks would be to tackle the rural housing problem. They have just reported in the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and it fully bears out the view which we expressed when that Housing Act was before us. When we are considering the position of farm servants in Scotland and the importance of improving their status and the amenities of their lives, a Measure like the present Bill is important, but it is almost equally important to have a Measure which will help to solve the housing problem in the rural districts.
The next cause of depopulation which the Caithness Committee mentioned is lack of leisure. They then mention educational difficulties in the rural areas to one aspect of which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. Then the committee mentions, although not in the particular passage from which I am quoting, lack of social amenities. A good deal has been done in recent years to improve the social amenities of the rural districts. The improvement in the roads, the growth of motor transport, the fact that many of these young men possess a motor bicycle, and nearly all of the rest possess a push bicycle, has resulted in a great improvement in the social amenities of the countryside. There are not only rural institutes for the women, but private clubs and societies created by the people themselves which do a great deal to make more agreeable than in the past the life of the farm servant. Nevertheless I cannot help thinking that a great deal more might be done. I hope that under the Physical Training and Recreation Bill there will be a great effort to multiply the number of playing fields and recreation facilities in the country districts, and that in those and other ways social amenities in the countryside will be greatly improved.
The Caithness Committee rightly says that low wages is the most important of all the aspects of this problem. It is for that reason that I welcome this Bill. Nobody in Scotland, as the Secretary of State said, was anxious to have this compulsory scheme of wages regulations. For a great many years voluntary regulation
2058
of wages in Scotland has worked well. Even in the depths of the slump, when wages sank very low, the Scottish Farm Servants' Union asked for no more than a voluntary scheme. I remember raising this question of farm servants' wages in the Debate on the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in 1934. The Secretary of State then told me that they were considering this scheme for the Voluntary Wages Boards. Unfortunately, the farmers did not take it up, and in those circumstances I am sure the Government will have the support of the whole House and of public opinion generally in Scotland in bringing forward this Measure.
Not only are wages low, but there are many anomalies with which it is important to deal. Casting my mind over the farms of which I have personal knowledge, I would say that on the great majority of farms the farm servants are considerately and even generously treated by the farmers, but as the right hon. Member for Stirling said, the considerate and generous employers do not like to see the practices of the inconsiderate and ungenerous employers which go on around them, and I believe there will be strong support even among farmers for a Measure of this kind. I would particularly draw attention to the importance of making sure that these committees will have power to deal not only with the standard rates of wages but also with anomalies in regard to such matters as perquisites. The Secretary of State indicated that he would consider favourably the question of giving the committees power to attach a fixed value to perquisites, and that is a matter of real and urgent importance. Not merely does the value of perquisites vary enormously as between one district and another, but even within a single district, indeed within a single county, it varies enormously from farm to farm. No doubt the system of voluntary agreements really began to break down only at the bottom of the slump, when the farmers themselves were hard hit and were driving harder bargains than in the old days, and when the position of the farm servant threatened by unemployment was weaker than it used to be; but at any rate the result has been that in some cases the value of the perquisite is added to the cash wages whereas in other cases, even where the

2059
man has been hired at the same time, it is deducted.
I went into a case two or three years ago and got the facts confirmed. The normal wage then being paid in Caithness was £40 in cash and perquisites, including meal at 17s. a bowl. On one farm the worker had to buy the meal at 17s. a bowl, and therefore it was a deduction from his wages instead of being an addition to it. Therefore, I attach great importance to the proposal that perquisites should be brought within the purview of the wages committees. In other cases it will be found that undesirable obligations have been placed upon a worker, who is afraid that if he does not accept the job on the terms on which it is offered, he will not get a job at all. In one case a man who already had a very large family was compelled to accept another man as a boarder and his house became overcrowded. There is also the question of the late hiring, to which the right hon. Member referred. In a certain hiring market, after hiring had started at the figure of £45 cash wage, one or two farmers spread a rumour that the rate had fallen to £30, and a number of farm servants, thinking they would lose the chance of a job, accepted employment at £33 and £35 cash wage. That shows the necessity, in these exceptional times, of having some machinery for regulating wages. At the same time I should like to ask the Secretary of State how the system will work in a county like Caithness, where, unfortunately, there is no organisation among the farm servants. What will be done in a case like that—because Caithness is not the only county to see that they are properly and adequately represented by independent men on these wages committees?
The right hon. Member for Stirling offered a number of criticisms which, as he made clear in the concluding passages of his speech, did not weaken his general attitude of welcome to the Bill, and the House seemed to listen to them with a good deal of sympathy; but there was one criticism on a rather important point —not important directly from the point of view of the welfare of agricultural workers—but a constitutional point, on which I do not quite agree with him. He attached very great importance to the fact that by the operative Clauses of the
2060
Bill it was the Department that was made responsible for operating the Measure and not the Secretary of State. He said that the Department must, of course, accept the general direction of the Secretary of State, because he appoints the officials, but he objected to powers being given to the Department instead of to the Secretary of State. I shall be interested to hear it argued out in the Scottish Grand Committee, but I do not believe there is any substance in that objection.
The Secretary of State is solely responsible. He is responsible to this House for every act of the Department and for every omission of the Department to act. If a duty is laid upon the Department and we have reason to believe that it is not carrying out that duty, we can challenge the Secretary of State across the Floor of the House. Whether he or the Department is named in the Bill it is he who is responsible for everything which the Department does or leaves undone. I do not think it makes any difference to the power of the House over the Department whether the Department or the Secretary of State is named. I strongly object to powers being given to the Department which infringe the rights either of this House or the Courts of Law, because it may have the effect of preventing us from holding the Secretary of State responsible for his acts if we give him the powers to legislate by Orders and Regulations without proper supervision by this House. But I do not think that point arises on this Bill, and it seems to me that we are left with complete control over the operation of this Measure.
Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State. Can he tell me why, in the case of the Herring Fishery Board Act, the Secretary of State is specifically made responsible, and in this Bill he is not?
Sir A. Sinclair: I neither was Secretary of State for Scotland when the Herring Board Bill was introduced, nor am I Secretary of State for Scotland at the present moment, and I cannot say what motives there were. No doubt the Secretary of State, who I hope will reply, will be able to tell us. It is an interesting point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, why in one Bill we have the Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned and in another the Department. I am sure, at the same

2061
time, that there is not a great deal of substance in the point, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland is solely responsible to this House for everything that his Departments do, or fail to do. We shall, at any rate, have to hold him responsible for the working of this Bill. Having said that, I associate myself with everything else said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I join with him in welcoming this useful Measure.
8.46 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is a happy augury of the Secretary of State's term of office that his first important Measure should meet with such universal acceptance and should have such excellent objects in view. We all welcome it. I want merely to add my voice to the voices of others who have spoken. In the East of Scotland we have, in our farm servants, about the finest body of men to be found in any part of the country. Hon. Members might say that that statement applies to other parts of Scotland as well. It is essential that these men be retained on the land. Prices of labour and wages in most other industries are rising at a considerable rate. Therefore, to maintain farm wages at the present rate will not keep the men on the land. I see no alternative to a considerable rise in the wages of farm servants. This Measure seems a method of attaining that desirable end.
I agree with much of what has already been said. Good farmers in all parts of Scotland will welcome this Measure. Bad farmers will regret it, of course, but they are men for whom we need not be specially concerned. They degrade their great industry and they bring unrest and suffering to many homes. No branch of farmers is less thought of by their fellows than these same unsatisfactory farmers. Good farmers are prepared to pay good wages, and I think they will regard this Measure as a good one. That is all I propose to say. The points which I had noted have already been covered. I believe that the Measure will be accepted with good will.
One point about which I am rather anxious was mentioned. In the East of Fife, the farm 'servants' union scarcely exists. How is it proposed to obtain the number of representatives required? I was at a meeting of ploughmen there, a
2062
week or two ago, when the Bill was discussed, and that point was put to me with considerable force by the men. They said: "How are you to pick us, because there are only 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of us in the union?" I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the success of his first Measure, and I hope it will be the forerunner of many more that will be equally acceptable.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. James Brown: Like the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) I want to join in the chorus of universal approval which has been given to the Bill. Whatever it may do, the Bill will be regarded as a step forward, and I think we can look forward to the farm workers' union being dealt with better than it has been dealt with in the past. I was wondering whether wages could be stabilised all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not possible to fix benefits at a uniform rate, and it might therefore be just as difficult to fix a uniform rate of wages, because everyone knows that there are great differences in farming
"from Maidenkirk to John o'Groat's."
I agree with the hon. Member for East Fife that there is not a finer body of men than our farm servants to be found in any part of the country, and it would be a pity if anything should be left undone to prevent them leaving the land. Wages already vary very much from Aberdeen to Stirlingshire. The wages figures that we have been able to get have been average figures. We know that in some districts wages are comparatively decent and in others they are low, but the average figure does not give us a true picture of conditions in many of the districts in the country. There are low wages in one part of a county and better wages in another part of the county. I take it that it would not be possible to fix a uniform rate of wages for the whole of Scotland, but I hope that it might be possible to fix a uniform rate for a county. It is important that everybody should be encouraged to take an interest in higher wages, as wages certainly look, on the face of it, to be the principal thing.
After all, I am not sure that other things, besides lower wages, do not send a man off the land. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has already

2063
mentioned housing. I represent a constituency of the most arid farming in the whole of Scotland, with extensive sheep farming. We have very early potato farming, besides a great number of mixed dairy farms. I can speak with some little authority upon farming and upon the differences in the various districts, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that housing is a very sore point in many districts. I do not altogether agree with him that wages are paramount. If you have bad conditions all over a district you drive your people off the land in spite of anything you do —especially the women, who usually rule the men. It is essential to have good housing wherever farm workers are employed. It is one of the things we ought to have, because there will then be less likelihood of farm workers moving at term time, as they now do.
Another thing that is against us is the difficulty, in many of our rural parts, particularly in South Ayrshire, and I believe also in the Stewartry of Galloway and other districts, of getting our children educated. In districts where there are only very few people, great difficulty is experienced in getting our educational system carried out. These conditions and bad housing will drive our people away from the land just as readily, and possibly more readily, even than lower wages. On every count we want housing to be improved, and we want facilities for our children's education. We want to keep our men on the land if we possibly can, and the only way in which that can be done is by giving them better conditions than they have at present. Surely it is worth the while of any government to keep these men and women on the land. They are very fine people, and, if it is necessary to look after the other grades of workers in Scotland and elsewhere, it is even more necessary to look after our agricultural workers, and to see to it that they have such conditions as will keep them there and not lead them to go to other districts so often as they do now. Therefore, I am very glad that this Bill is before the House with a certainty of passing, and I trust that the few criticisms of it that have been made will be replied to and, if possible, met.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston)
2064
that it would be very much better if the Minister were substituted for the Department. I am not sure that some of us do not attach a sort of sinister idea to the Department, but at any rate I do not see any reason why we in Scotland should differ from England, unless it be that, as my right hon. Friend says; they are trying to introduce a sort of Fascist system for Scotland that does not apply to the sister country. Many people would like to make Scotland a province, but we are still a country, and we have still a very fine body of people on the land. We want to keep them there. I trust that these criticisms will be met fairly, and that everything possible will be done, as I am sure the Secretary of State and all concerned with him are anxious to do, to keep our people there, so that we may still have those peasants who were the backbone of Scotland. Many people attach great importance to big business. Big business we might be able to do without, but we cannot do without our people on the land, and surely our past experiences, both in time of war and otherwise, should lead us to the conclusion that whatever it is possible to do for our farm workers ought to be done for them, and done at the very earliest possible moment.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Maxton: I do not rise to oppose this Measure, though I cannot say that I feel any very strong enthusiasm for it. The hon. Member for East Fire (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that wages in the industrial field are rising very rapidly. I wish he had cited some instances, because frankly, beyond the rise in Cabinet Ministers' salaries, and a threatened rise in the salaries of Members of Parliament, I do not know of any substantial increases of wages that have taken place in recent. times. The assumption in all the speeches that have been made about this Bill is that it is a Measure to raise agricultural workers' wages, but it is not; it is a Bill to fix agricultural workers' wages, and in certain circumstances it has happened in the English system that wages have actually been reduced. All that is being done here is to set up a machinery for the fixing of wages throughout the various areas in Scotland, and whether the Measure will be a success or not from the agricultural workers' point of view depends solely upon whether it will, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, stimulate the development of trade unionism among

2065
the agricultural workers, or whether it will take away from them the desire to organise that presently exists among them.
If it makes trade unionism in agricultural circles in Scotland a more vital and militant force than it has been in the past, it is conceivable that this machinery may produce good results; but if it makes farm workers say that they do not need to worry about joining their trade union now that there is this machine of the State for fixing their wages, with a benevolent Minister at its head upon whom they can rely, then, in my view, the result of this legislation will be very disastrous indeed. This House cannot say which of those two results will ensue from the passing of the Measure, but it will be for all of us here, at least on this side of the House, to try to encourage the development of trade unionism among agricultural workers in Scotland to the fullest possible extent. The success or failure of the Measure in England has depended to a very large extent on the calibre and character of the inspectors appointed to go round and see whether the agreements are being operated or not. I am not certain, but I think that, when the Secretary of State for Scotland was at the Ministry of Agriculture, one of the economy measures was to cut down the number of inspectors engaged in agricultural wages inspection—
Mr. Elliot Mr. Elliot indicated dissent.
Mr. Maxton: At any rate, that was done, and protests to the right hon. Gentleman failed to get the men who had been cut off reinstated. I remember that quite distinctly. They cut off certain inspectors, and it was a notable fact that the inspectors who were cut off under the economy campaign were the inspectors who had been most assiduous in carrying out their duty and bringing farmers to heel. Many hon. Members above the Gangway will know, if not personally, at least by reputation, Mr. Alec Smillie, the son of the great Scottish trade union leader who was a Member of this House. He was appointed one of the inspectors under the English Agricultural Wages Board. When the economy campaign came along, and it was decided in the interests of economy that some of these inspectors should be dispensed with, he was one of the first to go. His sympathies were all with the men's side of
2066
things. He was assiduous in tracing out the farmers who were evading the operation of the Act, and no representations that were made subsequently were sufficient to secure his re-employment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the nature of the inspecting staff that he proposes to have set up under the Bill, how the men for that staff are to be recruited, and whether they are to have something in the nature of security of tenure which will save them from victimisation in the event of their operating too strenuously in the interest of the agricultural workers? I do not propose to vote against the Second Reading—in Committee probably I shall have one or two suggestions for amendment to make —but these are, in my view, the conditions which will make for success or non-success, namely, what the reaction of the agricultural workers themselves will be to the Measure when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
9.7 P.m.
Mr. Kennedy: I almost hesitate to address the House in view of the chorus of qualified approval and welcome that has been accorded to the Measure. I welcome it in the sense that I think statutory regulation of farm worker's wages is preferable to the old anarchy that prevailed in the industry, but I am by no means satisfied that this Bill, which is a machinery Bill, gives us the means of achieving what I should like to see realised. In my judgment it fails to express adequate valuation of the status of the agricultural worker. He should not be regarded as an unskilled worker. He is engaged in what all of us on this side regard as our greatest national industry. It is an industry without which we could not live. In spite of that fact, the agricultural worker is a sweated worker, and he has been regarded very largely as an unskilled worker, mainly I think on account of the fact that the main current of our national life until recently has been industrial and urban, and not agricultural. I hope we all realise that this is 1937 and not 1837, and that we have passed the stage when we can afford to regard agriculture as an unskilled industry. The agricultural worker to-day is not a manual worker, as he used to be. You have the machine, the engine, the tractor. In spite of that, though the

2067
agricultural worker is a machine operative in great part, for all practical purposes he is outside the scope of the Truck Acts and outside the whole of the benefits available under the Agriculture Acts.
I shall try to express what I regard as the main defects of the Measure. Clause 2 (6) relates to the employment of mental and physical defectives at lower rates than the standard fixed, and that provision is not only condoned but it is encouraged. I hope sincerely that that part of the Bill will not be allowed to stand. After all, mental deficiency is a relative term, and so is physical deficiency. I can easily see the possibility of danger to the industrial state of the agricultural worker if farmers are to be encouraged to employ those who may be regarded as physically or mentally defective instead of employing workers who are mentally and physically fit. Clause 2 (7) says:
"In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation."
The concluding words of that Sub-section expresses what I dislike in the Measure, the idea that agriculture is more or less an industry of secondary import and that the agricultural worker is an unskilled labourer. Other defects that I see relate to the general comparison that we can see between the attitude that the Bill expresses towards the agricultural worker and the ordinary industrial worker.
Very largely I agree with the last speaker that the wages of the Scottish agricultural workers would have been very much higher than they are to-day if they had realised the necessity of organised effort in order to increase their wages. Not a halfpenny of increase has ever be made to their wages in the past as a gift from above. They have had to fight for all that they have got and, if they want to get more, they will have to realise that it is the duty of every one of them, in order to give the Bill its full effect, to join their appropriate trade union and fight for their own hand. We shall have no difficulty in making up our minds that the industry is sweated. The average wage in Aberdeenshire is 29s. 3d.
2068
a week for a married man, and in that sum is included 10s. 3d. covering the perquisites or benefits that come to the worker through his employment, so that the standard rate in what I regard as our greatest agricultural county works out at 19s. a week. That is a sweated wage, and I hope that the machinery of this Bill, when operated, will enable the worker to get something more approaching a measure of justice than that denotes.
I come now to another point of comparison between the agricultural worker and other industrial workers in the matter of workmen's compensation. The total accident benefit which an agricultural worker's widow can get in case of fatal accident is £300 under the existing law, but the factory worker's widow, on the other hand, may receive a maximum of £2,000. That difference ought to be wiped out. There is no protection of life or limb or health of the agricultural worker comparable with that found in the Factory Acts for the ordinary industrial worker, and I sincerely hope that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills will apply its mind to the matter of the hours of labour of agricultural workers. All the provisions of the Bill, in my judgment, can easily be evaded if the Bill is not strengthened. While I offer these words of kindly criticism of the Measure, I can promise the Secretary of State that, when the Bill goes to Committee, he will have to face the criticism and amend the Bill, if he is to give those of us on this side of the House the Bill that we desire.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. Welsh: I do not want to add any dissension to the words of praise which the Bill has received when even the elements are thundering their praise on the right hon. Gentleman but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), I am of the opinion that there are some things in the Bill which should be improved. Wages have been discussed, and I do not think that any Member on any side of the House would care to get up and justify the wages that are being paid to the agricultural worker in Scotland. If any hon. Member read the report on the rural housing of Scotland, which was issued recently, he certainly would not give credit to those who have provided the housing conditions for the rural workers. These are the things

2069
which are most important in the lives of the people, not only good houses, but houses that will provide at least some of the amenities enjoyed by the industrial and other workers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) mentioned that it was not only the men who were discontented with the countryside but also their womenfolk. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) pointed out how great improvements had come into the lives of the womenfolk in recent years as a result of rural institutes and such like things. All these we welcome, but more will be required. He also mentioned that some of the men had now motor cycles and pedal cycles, which enabled them to get farther afield for recreation, amusement and entertainment. Why should not they have these things in the districts? If we do not get them in the districts we shall go on denuding the countryside of the population.
It has been said that life does not consist of mere material things, but they form the basis of life, and until we get these things we shall not see the improvement that we all desire to see. When we come to the Committee stage, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman there will be very strong opposition to some of the things in the Bill, and we shall seek to improve it. Since Members of all parties in the House welcome the broad outline of the Bill, I hope that the same spirit will prevail in the Committee and that we shall bend our energies to bring about improvements in it, so as to increase the benefits and the advantages which the rural worker ought to have as a result of the triumph of science and organisation that has come to industry as a whole. But housing is an important factor, especially when one considers that 42 per cent. of the rural houses in the county from which I come are definitely stated to be uninhabitable. The right hon. Gentleman knows the district of which I am speaking. At the moment we have many good farmers in it who do a lot for the workers, but we have also many of the other description.
I shall give a case in point. One cottage, not 50 yards from my own place, has been condemned for 40 years. You can see, on a starry night, the stars through the roof. Rain comes in, and
2070
the ploughman says that there is water in the house when it rains. He gets the snow also when it snows. In that two-apartment house there are five adults and five juveniles, and it is only within recent weeks that a waterspout has been put near the place. They had had to go a quarter of a mile to a farm for water for domestic purposes. Under these conditions, how can one expect women to be content in the countryside? I could name any number of instances. The present one will serve my purpose, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares, I can give him quite a number of cases in which, I believe, his influence, if it were used, would go a long way towards bringing about an improvement in the conditions of the people in the particular district.
9.24 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) speak about the fine body of men in Fife. I had one or two of them at a meeting the other night, and they told me a terrible story about the conditions in Fife—long hours, low wages, appalling housing and impositions of all kinds that made life almost unbearable. This Bill is an attempt to stop the rot in the countryside. The decline in the agricultural population is the big and serious problem which confronts the Government and the country as a whole. This attempt will not be successful. It is good that there should be a determined effort to raise the wages of the farm workers from their present low level, and it is good. that the Clauses of this Bill should be operated, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, the most important factor will be the strength of the organisation of the agricultural workers; and when the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was speaking to the ploughmen and they drew attention to this problem and said that the union was only 5 per cent. strong, he ought to have advised them to make it 100 per cent. strong.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did.
Mr. Gallacher: Then just carry on the good work and get 100 per cent. and the problem will be solved, because it is obvious, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) said, there are many ways of evasion. Various means can be taken by the bad farmer, as he is called,

2071
to enable him to get a big advantage over the other farmer. Attention has rightly been drawn to the question of housing—long hours, bad housing and low wages. This deals with wages and hours, but surely it will be only a start. Most of the houses are tied houses. This makes the position impossible for the farm worker. We should have big schemes of State subsidised houses built by the local authorities instead of each farm labourer being in a miserable cottage such as was described by the hon. Member for Bothwell {Mr. Welsh). If the workers had council houses they would feel that they were independent of the farmer, as far as housing was concerned, and you could put a stop entirely to the migration that goes on.
While I shall do my utmost in the areas to assist in getting the farm labourers organised and to ensure that the greatest attention is given to the strengthening of the committees which are forecast in this Bill, and while I shall do what I can in the Standing Committee to strengthen certain Clauses—I shall certainly support the right hon. Member for Western Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in the suggestions which he made for amending the Bill—I am quite certain that the Bill will not stop the decline in the agricultural population in Scotland, and that along with this Bill there will have to be a Bill dealing in a comrehensive way with housing conditions.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. Barr: I might say that the introduction of this Bill fulfils what has been almost a lifelong ambition with me, that some such Measure should come to Scotland, and so I join my words in the chorus of praise to the Secretary of State. But when my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh) speaks of the thunder as giving its blessing, lest the right hon. Gentleman or his Government should be exalted above measure, because of this one particular bright episode, I wish to assure them that the Lord is not in the thunder. As stated in the Caithness Report, there are great fluctuations of wages among farm servants in Scotland and some of these wages are very low, not only really, but comparatively, with the wages paid even on neighbouring farms. This fact is attributable in some small degree to the hiring system, and
2072
also to the housing shortage. As a member of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Industrial and Rural Classes in Scotland, I may say that we had one instance of how the housing shortage operates in this regard. At the fair in Aberdeen, a man with a large family was being engaged and he asked the farmer if he thought the accommodation would be sufficient. The farmer assured him that it would. When the man arrived he found that there was nothing save a "but" and a "ben." He resolved that it was quite impossible for him to house his family there in decency, and he refused to ratify the agreement. Because of that he was haled before the sheriff court and fined 50s. for a breach of contract. That shows how men are driven because of the housing shortage and the poor housing that is provided, to accept a very low wage so that they may not be without a roof over their head.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) raised the question of whether this Bill will in effect raise wages. I think that we have considerable evidence that it will tend to raise wages, and also to prevent a fall in wages. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) gave some illustrations of the early workings of the 1924 Act, namely, that in the first year the average had been raised for England from 28s. to 31s. 6d., and in individual cases the rise was very much greater. I remember just before the War when the wages paid in Oxfordshire were only 14s., and now the average in England is over 30s. I think that I might take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the testimony given on page 29 of the Caithness Report. It says:
"It is obvious that owing to the existence of statutory regulations the worker in England has been protected from the severe fall in wages which his fellow worker has suffered in Scotland, and as an example of the measure of this protection it was pointed out to us that there is at present a difference of from 4s. to 7s. in the total weekly remuneration of married ploughmen engaged in comparable work in neighbouring counties situated on opposite sides of the border."
We look forward to an improvement in regard to hours and overtime in Scotland. In some respects there was a very distinct punctuality in regard to the opening and closing of work in Scotland.

2073
On the farm where I was brought up we closed punctually at 6 o'clock in the evening. A big bell rang from Fenwick Church tower, which could be heard from two to two and a half miles away, and there was a great desire on the part of the farmer that work should not close before six, and on the part of the workmen that they should not work after six. I remember that on one occasion when my father was getting the reaping machine turned in for a new swathe of corn, the main workman was cocking his ears to hear whether the bell had sounded. My father said: "No, it is not ringing yet, jimmy," and the reply was: "It will be ringing before we are at the other end of the swathe." There was punctuality in that regard, but not at certain other times, particularly harvest time, when there was sometimes all-night carting. I always relish an all-night sitting here, and I do not know which I have relished better—an all-night sitting or all-night carting. There is less need in the country now for overtime because of mechanisation and the speeding up of processes. The report reveals that in many cases there is no payment for overtime at harvest and other times. I would call attention to the following words in the report on page 23:
"In the case of Dumfriesshire and Gallo-nay, for example, we were informed that in addition to the ten-hour day"—
That itself should give us food for reflection, that when we are agitating for a 40-hour week, there is still this 10-hour day in agriculture. My idea is, and it is in line with what fell from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), that agriculture should be brought into line in these matters and not be counted as something that has different wages and different hours. The report continues:
"It is the common practice during harvest and hay time for men to work overtime without payment, amounting to anything up to 60 to 100 hours."
That, surely, is a desperate state of affairs, and I am glad that such a matter as that will be under the purview of the boards. Robert Burns has been referred to and his reference to something that was applicable to the fields in which he laboured is applicable to-day:
"We labour soon, we labour late,
To feed the titled knave, man;
And a' the comfort we're to get,
Is that ayont the grave, man."
2074
We have evidence to-day that we are going to give them something of added comfort this side of the grave.
Another difficulty is in the wide variety of conditions. I understand that an effort is to be made on the part of the Minister and his Department to give as far as possible some measure of uniformity. The boards will also deal with the question of holidays. From the report I gather, indeed I know, that there are large tracts of the country where no half-holiday is given, even on the Saturday. There is nothing in the way of a continuous holiday. There is a holiday perhaps on New Year's Day, or on the day of the annual hiring. In my time on a farm there was a sort of conviction that people in the country did not need holidays. My father was a farmer, and for the greater part of his life he made it his boast that he had never had but one night out of his own house. I gather from the evidence given in the report that there is little demand among farm servants for holidays. If that statement be true, I should consider it the greatest condemnation of the present system. They do not know what a holiday is, and therefore they do not have the relish for it. It is in line with the kind of evidence that was given by Mr. Rothney, who was, I think, at one time secretary of the Farm Servants' Union in Scotland. When he was pressed by the Royal Commission on Housing in regard to the proposal to introduce baths into rural houses, and was asked whether it was true that the farm servants did not want baths, he replied that they were a little troubled about the matter because they had never seen the thing, and did not know how it might work out.
I should like to make reference to the perquisites, or benefits in kind. Some receive less and some more than they can use. As the system exists at present, it tends to obscure the true level of wages, and I am glad that it is to be put on a cash basis. May I refer to one or two of the objections to the scheme which are indicated in the report? One objection is that this scheme is unnecessary because better times are coming, and there is a rise going on. On the other hand, it is suggested that it would be better to wait until agriculture has so much improved that it can afford this charge. Those objections cancel out each other. At any rate, it is the old cry that the time to

2075
build the house has not yet come. One further objection I find referred to in the report is that the scheme may cause detriment to the best workmen who might tend to get only the minimum wage. That is an objection as old as the trade union movement itself. The good workman should not be seeking his appreciation always in the form of cash, and I trust that a result of the Bill will not be to stabilise the minimum wage as the standard wage beyond which no one can rise. I find a delightful argument repeated as to the friendly relations that obtained between master and servant in the days when there was no such regulated system as this. I am glad that the Caithness report says:
"We do not attach any weight to this view."
Special reference is made to the farm where only one servant is employed—the farmer and his man, and you can hardly say which is which. My opinion is that a relationship like that tends to prejudice any opposition to a wrong or to the lowering of wages. There are some very beautiful companionships of that kind, but there comes a time when a quarrel takes place. What then? I am sure the Secretary of State will relish the little story that I am about to tell. My grandfather, who was a farmer, had a farm servant and they had worked together for 50 years, not in his case, but on another farm. One day a quarrel arose between the two and the farmer said: "I think we shall need a change at the term." The farm servant replied: "Man, I would be awfully sorry to see you leaving the place." I think, all the same, that relationships of that kind, however beautiful they may be, should be safeguarded by the kind of regulations we are seeking to make.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. We have had a reference to Robert Burns. There were three things that Robert Burns desired for the peasantry, and I think that this Bill in a small degree will help to give them these three blessings—health, peace and sweet content. I do not want the content to be too sweet, I do not want them to be satisfied with this Measure, to be too contented, but the Bill, I think, will help to bring these three blessings to the peasant and, therefore, I will close with those beautiful words in the "Cottar's Saturday Night":
2076
"O Scotia! my dear, my native soil!
For whom my warmest wish to Heaven is sent!
Long may thy hardy sons of rustic toil
Be blest with health, and peace, and sweet content!"
9.47 P.m.
Mr. Watson: I should not have intervened in the Debate at all, but I must inquire why there should be so much silence from the other side of the House. We are discussing a matter of first-class importance to the farm servants of Scotland, and the supporters of the Government who come from Scotland mainly represent agricultural constituencies. This is an opportunity which I should have thought they would have seized for impressing upon the people of Scotland the fact that they really welcome a Measure which will be of some advantage to the farm servants in Scotland. I hope, however, that my remark will not prolong the Debate unduly, but I cannot help noticing that up to the moment, apart from the speech of the Secretary of State, the only Member supporting the Government who has spoken is the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). That is an extraordinary silence. I hope it is not because of the probability of the Farm Servants' Union in Scotland getting a little bit of assistance in the way of organisation as a result of the passing of the Bill. It is supposed to be a joint effort of agriculturists and agricultural workers in Scotland to set up machinery for the regulation of wages and conditions, and I think hon. Members on the other side ought to have shown more enthusiasm for the Bill than they have, because they ought to be as anxious as we are for a proper understanding and proper working between agriculturists and agricultural workers.
The agricultural workers in Scotland have been a downtrodden race up to the present; they have been paid low wages and are working under the worst conditions in any country. This Measure, which I welcome, is an endeavour on the part of the Government to improve their wages and working conditions, and I hope that the few criticisms which have been offered and the suggestions which have been made will be carefully considered by the Government. I welcome particularly the assurance of the Secretary of State that as far as perquisites are concerned an endeavour will be made to

2077
regularise or stabilise them. The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet us on that important point. I hope also that in Committee he will give sympathetic consideration to the other points which have been stressed, particularly to the evidence the farmer may produce to any inspector who comes along, that he is paying the minimum wage or the wage agreed upon by the committee. I hope this point will be conceded by the Secretary of State, as well as the other points which have been mentioned. If so, he will get his Measure through the Scottish Standing Committee without much difficulty. Up to the moment, the Secretary of State has been very successful in piloting his Bills through the Committee. He has been able to create a very good atmosphere, and I hope that the same atmosphere will be present when this Bill comes before the Committee. I hope we shall find the Secretary of State willing to make the Bill as good a Measure as it can be made for Scottish farm servants, so that something effective may be done to improve their status and conditions.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) might lead to a delay in our proceedings, which I should deprecate all the more because I can give him an assurance on behalf of all Members on this side of the House that it is not through any lack of desire to see the Measure passed or to any lack of sympathy with the farm servants that they have refrained from taking part in the Debate. I think it is a little unfortunate on the part of the hon. Member to drag so strongly-scented a red herring across the trail of what I hope will be the end of the Debate. May I say in the words of another poet:
"They also serve who only stand and wait."
Or sit and wait, in this case. It is not always the case that a multitude of eloquent speeches is the most rapid way of securing the passage of a Bill. We have been more than complimented by the reception of the Bill; indeed, the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) said that the Heavens, although they 'may thunder in comment on the Bill, were not making Amendment points, because the Lord was not in the thunder. I could
2078
not help wondering whether he was intending to deputise for higher affairs when he came to us in the unaccustomed role of the still small voice. All I can say is that no Minister could complain of the reception the Bill has had, and I hope we shall be able to close the discussion and pass to the Committee stage, which in fact is the appropriate theatre for a discussion of most of the points which have been raised. I do not see eye to eye with the right lion. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) on the question whether Department means Minister or a Soviet organisation, or whether it is a mere fashion of speech. I do not take that view. I do not think there is the slightest difference, whether the wording refers to the Department or to the Minister. In any case it would be out of place to pursue that matter further now, and it can be dealt with, if it is raised, in the Committee upstairs. I am certain of this, that if any Secretary of State for Scotland tried to defend his own action on the ground that it was done by the Department and not by himself, he would receive very short shrift from the other Scottish Members on the Floor of the House.
Another point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was why the word "summarily" was dropped out of Clause 6. I am informed by the Lord Advocate that the insertion of that word would not make any difference. It would be a little difficult for me, as Secretary of State, if whenever there was a difference between the wording of the English Bill and the Scottish Bill, we had to insert the form of words of the English Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also asked, with reference to prosecutions and repayments, whether the provision in the Bill meant that no prosecution could take place until the Measure had been in operation for 18 months. I am advised that that would not be the case. The terms are exactly the same as in the English Bill, under which numerous prosecutions took place as soon as it was on the Statute Book. The Bill begins to operate the moment it comes into force and orders are made under it.
With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the two independent members who may be appointed to a local committee, all I can say is that there might be cases in

2079
Scotland where the presence of a third party would be of advantage. There might be cases in which it would be an advantage to have the weight of the decision diverted from the two main persons to the argument. I shall certainly consider that point, together with the other matters that have been raised. I shall not refer further to the question of the onus of proof, since I addressed some remarks to the House on that matter in my opening speech and said that it is one of the subjects which I have under consideration. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to go further than that at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) raised a question of the representative person, and asked how he was to be chosen. Hon. Members will see from the Schedule to the Bill that the representative persons are to be chosen either by nomination or by election, and that the actual method is to be prescribed by regulations made under the Schedule. The method will have to suit the very varying circumstances of the various counties in Scotland, and of course the House will have an opportunity of reviewing these matters on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Indeed, I was a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman ask why it should be the Department and not the Wages Board which calls upon a local committee to vary a decision. I should have thought that that was exactly the sort of decision which would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, because the Department, that is to say, the Minister, can be shot at in the House if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends disapprove of any action of the Minister in such a case, and that would not always be so in the case of actions of the board.
I think I have dealt with the main points that were raised. It is true, as was said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), that everything depends upon the spirit in which the Bill is worked. It is also true that our ideas as to the spirit in which the
2080
Bill should be worked differ a little on this side from those of hon. Members opposite. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite said that he hoped that the employés would realise that it was the duty of every one of them to join a union and fight for their rights with all their might. All I can say is that if similar advice were given to the farmers, there would be vigorous complaints from hon. Members opposite. I hope that the spirit of sweet reasonableness will prevail, as indeed I am sure it will. I think it is probable that when the representatives meet each other face to face they will find that they have more in common than they have separating them and more to gain by agreement than by disagreement.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the inspectorate?"]—I hope very much to be able to prove to the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee that the inspectors will be selected absolutely impartially and that they will be guarded against any form of victimisation. I think that the experience which hon. Members have had of certain appointments which I have made will indicate that at any rate, for my part, I am not in any way biased against those who might have held opposite views to my own. The task of the inspectorate must be to gain the confidence of all classes, and not merely that of the employers, in the inspections which they carry out. It will be my object to secure that. I do not wish to prolong the Debate any further, and therefore I will resume my seat, hoping that it will not be necessary for any other hon. Member to continue the Debate.
Mr. J. Brown: Can the Minister give us any indication as to whether the wage will be uniform?
Mr. Elliot: I think the purpose of the Bill is that the wage will be determined by the districts, and it will not be possible to fix one wage which will be applicable at once to Caithness-shire, Stirling-shire and Ayrshire, for instance.

PUBLIC RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
PUBLIC RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 12.—(Disposal of documents not to be preserved by the keeper.)
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out "that Department or authority," and to insert:
  "the Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament for the Department or the local authority, as the case may be".
  I do not propose to detain the House for many minutes on this Amendment, but it relates to a point which was discussed upstairs and is one of which the Secretary of State is fully cognisant. In raising the point again to-night, I must say that I am most dissatisfied with the light-hearted way in which the Secretary of State has dealt with this matter. I know that I have the sympathy of my hon. Friends behind me, but I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to take an interest in the matter. It may appear to be a trivial point, but in essence it is this. By the Act of 1928 the old boards were transformed into the Departments, and these Departments still maintain something in the nature of a separate identity. They can sue and be sued in the law courts. They may, and in fact do, take decisions without consulting the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the Committee upstairs I mentioned, as an example, a well-known case, that of the Fishery Board for Scotland, which issued regulations for Firth of Forth. The Secretary of State was not favourable to those regulations, and opposed them. A costly inquiry had to be held. I do not know how many hundreds of pounds it cost the State—
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: And the fishermen.
  Mr. Johnston: —and I should very much like to know. In that case, there was a more or less independent board, or at least a board pretending to be independent. It is quite true, as the Lord Advocate said, that it is under the general direction of the Secretary of State. I put it to the House that it is highly undesirable by Statute even to give the appearance of conferring on a Department powers which may lead that Department
  2082
  to take action without the knowledge, consent or approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State suggests that there is nothing in the point, that for "Department" we must read "Secretary of State" and that it is all one. Then why do his draftsmen deliberately go out of their way to put in the word "Department" in these Scottish Bills when in analogous English Measures it is specifically stated that the Minister has the power. In this case the power is given to the Department to destroy documents which are not considered to be of great historical value. Who is to decide? The Department. True, the Secretary of State is to draft the regulations, under which the Department acts, but no documents are to be destroyed thereafter, without the consent of the Department.
  I submit that there is a highly interesting constitutional principle involved here. We have seen what happens on the Continent. This is how the corporate State begins. More and more power is taken away from Parliament and in the end you get something in the nature of Fascism or Nazi-ism. I ask the House of Commons to set its face like flint against any further statutory powers of this kind being given to any Department. As far as my hon. Friends and I can, we shall insist on the Secretary of State for Scotland being designated in every Scottish Measure as having the power. If he chooses to devolve his power to officers or to a Department, well and good, but for this House to say that it is the Department which is to have the power is something to which we are not prepared to assent. Unless we get a more sympathetic answer from the Government on this point than we have received hitherto, we propose to divide the House on this Amendment, and on every occasion when the Parliamentary draftsmen present us with this kind of thing in Scottish Measures—which is not included in English Measures—we shall raise the question, and if we do not get satisfactory answers we shall continue in our opposition.
  10.9 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his argument linked up this Amendment with a discussion which took place on the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading a few minutes ago. I would draw attention to the fact that the question raised by this Amendment is a

  2083
  different and a wider question. This is a United Kingdom Bill, as far as the application of this Clause is concerned. It is not a Scottish Bill, and the Government Department referred to in Clause 12, for which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends desire to substitute "the Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament for the Department" is a United Kingdom Department or any Department, whether English, Scottish or United Kingdom. I have gone carefully into this matter since the Committee stage in order to verify the realities of the proposition which has been submitted.
  The difficulty which would be created by this proposal is this: In a United Kingdom Statute we are not approaching this problem as a new problem. The slate is not clean. There is a host of statutory provisions of recent date in which powers, duties and responsibilities are conferred sometimes upon "a Department" or "Departments," sometimes upon "Government Departments," sometimes upon "public Departments," or other phrases of that kind, in a context which makes it abundantly plain that the power or responsibility is conferred, in those words, upon the responsible Minister of that Department. I think the House knows that, except in one or two instances to which I shall come in a moment, the Department has no separate existence. It is not a constitutional entity recognised in law as distinct from the Minister or Ministers responsible for its activities. The difficulty is this: If in this United Kingdom Statute we were to introduce for the first time a variation in the formula which use has sanctioned, nothing is more certain than this—and I speak for the moment as a lawyer—the first opportunity would be seized of suggesting to the courts, and the courts would readily accept the suggestion, that when Parliament varied the form, some distinction was intended to be drawn between the language used in this Act and the language used in other Acts.
  The result of giving effect to the Amendment would not merely be to raise doubt as to what is meant in this Measure when it becomes an Act, but to raise doubt as to what is meant in a half-a-score of Acts which have passed in the last few years. That is not an imaginary difficulty. I am sure my professional brethren will bear me out when I say that there
  2084
  is nothing more dangerous than to vary a recognised formula in an Act of Parliament. The courts are fully justified in saying "Parliament does not vary a formula without having a definite intention, and we must discover what it is."
  Mr. Garro Jones: Has not the formula already been varied, and are there not a number of cases where the Minister is specified by name? Therefore, we shall not be creating any new precedents by this proposal but only clarifying the matter.
  The Lord Advocate: I think that where one particular Government Department is in question, the practice of the Parliamentary draftsman for a great many years past has been to name the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the,. Minister of Agriculture, or whoever it may be, but where several Departments are concerned it has invariably or practically invariably been the practice within recent years to refer to the Department. I have noted 10 cases within the last 10 or 12 years where the phrases that I gave a few moments ago were used—"the Department," "the Government Department," or "the public Department"—where you are not concerned with the precise functions of a specific Minister who can be named. In this Clause we are dealing generally with the disposal of records relating to any Government Department, not any particular Government Department, and in that context the phrase which use has sanctioned in the drafting of an Act of Parliament is "the Department," meaning thereby not some unknown corporate body or unincorporated body, but the entity which is represented in this House or in another place by a responsible Minister of the Crown. Accordingly I would say that this Amendment is not only unnecessary, but that it would, for the reasons I have indicated, be positively mischievous.
  As regards the particular Scottish point, the Act of 1928, the Reorganisation of Offices Act, did crease real legal entities of certain Scottish Departments. That was a stage in the transition from the old Scottish system of boards to the system, which has been common in England for a much longer time, of a Minister with a Department operating under that Minister; and I think the House is aware that a Committee is now sitting on the

  2085
  various problems concerned with the reorganisation of the Scottish Office, as a result of which I have very little doubt that this particular problem will be drawn attention to and an opportunity given, for all I know, of solving it by the appropriate method of a comprehensive revision of the relationship of these various Departments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I beg the House not to fall into the error, as it seems to me it would be, of attempting to deal with this difficulty, not by that comprehensive method, but by the much more dangerous method of varying the formula and thereby creating difficulties.
  Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman mind addressing himself to the point that I made by way of an interruption of the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair)? Is it not the case that two years, or it may be a year, ago the Herring Industry Board specifically said that it shall be the Secretary of State for Scotland? This Bill varies that. The Secretary of State for Scotland is specified in one Bill, but you have it in another Bill "the Department." Why?
  The Lord Advocate: I am not sure that it is wholly germane to the point, but the answer is that the Herring Industry Board was not answerable to any of the Scottish Departments under any Statute, and, therefore, the only central organisation to which it could be made answerable was the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was the simple drafting explanation of the difference.
  Mr. Johnston: But you varied it?
  The Lord Advocate: We varied it deliberately because of that fact. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the correct method of dealing with the admitted anomaly which at present exists under the Act of 1928 is by an amending Act which will deal with the whole situation and not by, if I may so put it, tinkering with the matter in individual Statutes and creating 10 new difficulties for every one difficulty that you remove.
  Sir A. Sinclair: The Lord Advocate has drawn a distinction between the Departments in England and those in Scotland. He has said that those in Scotland are in fact legal entities, but I would remind
  2086
  him—and I am sure I know the answer, but I want him to state it—that in fact none of these Scottish Departments, although they are entities, can do anything or fail, to do anything without engaging the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and that we have the right here to challenge the Secretary of State on any act or any omission of those Scottish Departments.
  The Lord Advocate: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Act of 1928 created the independent entities which, in the words of the Statute should "act under the control and direction of the Secretary of State." There is an infinite variety in the theoretical basis of all our Government Departments. We have the Army Council, the Board of Trade, the First Commissioner of Works, and so on. There are all sorts of minor Departments, but, broadly speaking, the Scottish Departments were recently created as separate legal entities under the control and direction of the Secretary of State. The English Departments are not responsible to one Secretary of State, but each has a Minister responsible for it.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 14.—(Interpretation.)
  10.22 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 22 to 24.
  This Amendment and those that follow fall to be considered together. Their purpose is really a drafting one to bring the provisions of the Bill in this Clause into line with the fact that justice of the peace records are now brought within the scope of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 7, line 30, at the end, insert:
  "the expression 'court records' includes the records of the High Court of Justiciary, the records of the Court of Session, sheriff court records, and justice of the peace records "
  In line 33, after "record," insert "or is or is not a justice of the peace record." —[The Lord Advocate.]
  10.23 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  I do not think that more than a word is necessary from me in commending this Bill to the House for Third Reading.

  2087
  From its introduction its critics and friends alike have devoted themselves whole-heartedly to the task of endeavouring to widen its scope and to improve its machinery. My right hon. Friend and I are more than grateful for the many suggestions which came from different parts of the House, to many of which we were able to give effect by Amendments in Committee. In particular, we have now extended the Bill to include justice of the peace records. We have had added to its machinery the device of the advisory council, and we have introduced much more elaborate mechanism for the disposal of records. I think that the Bill now affords a solid and satisfactory foundation for working out in detail the record policy for Scotland, which I outlined in an earlier stage of the discussions. I would venture to hope that the interest which has been aroused by this Measure, both inside the House and outside, will not evaporate with the passing of the Bill, but will be maintained and reinforced as the work which the Bill renders possible is carried into execution in the Register House, Edinburgh.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A remarkable distinction about this Bill is that it is a purely Scottish Measure. By a somewhat curious anomaly it is not uncommon in our deliberations to find a United Kingdom Bill referring almost entirely to purely Scottish matters and a purely Scottish Bill referring to United Kingdom matters. It will be, I think, for the convenience of the local authorities and their officers who will have to work under the provisions of this Statute that the Scottish Superannuation schemes should be brought together in a single Scottish Bill. This Measure could have been presented as a long-drawn-out and complicated application Clause in the English Bill which will be before the House for its Second Reading to-morrow,
2088
but I think it is better draftsmanship and a more workmanlike job to put all the Scottish provisions together and to make of it one Scottish Bill which will, no doubt, proceed pari passu with the English Bill which the House will consider to-morrow, and I can see no harm in the Scottish Bill getting in first.
I think we can dispense with any long discussion on the Bill at this stage, since an opportunity will arise for discussing the general principles to-morrow on the English Bill. But in spite of the fact that every Scottish Member is a Member of the Scottish Standing Committee, to which this Bill will go, and will there be able to take part in the discussion of it, I think it will be as well that I should say a few words on the general principle underlying the Measure. The Bill is a comprehensive one. It amends the existing statutory provisions and also consolidates them, and in that respect it will be of great convenience to the local authorities of Scotland and the many officers affected by the Measure. The main new proposal to which the Bill, if passed, will give effect is that superannuation should be compulsory in the case of all whole-time officers of local authorities in Scotland. By "whole-time" we mean those categories of employé who mean local government service their career. The term embraces the administrative and professional officers, and also the clerical staff, from among whom the more import ant posts are normally filled.
According to the latest returns over 10,000 persons, that is to say about 70 per cent. of those officers, are at present covered by schemes which have been voluntarily adopted by local authorities under the Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, and by local Acts. The remaining 30 per cent. will be covered under this Bill, and they number about 4,400. So this is a Measure of some importance. Local authorities will retain the discretion they already possess to superannuate their other employés, but the machinery for bringing them into superannuation will be simplified, and their position will be improved in certain respects. All past service will be reckonable for superannuation, and periods of unemployment, and absences on sick leave involving reduction of pay, will be ignored.

2089
There are two separate Scottish points to which I should like to draw attention. In the first place, it is proposed that the minimum number of officers to be covered by a scheme should be 50. Under the English Bill the minimum number is l00. It is desirable for actuarial reasons to have as large a number of people covered by a scheme as possible, but the smallness of many Scottish authorities when compared with those in England makes it necessary, if we are to get a workable arrangement, to have a smaller minimum number. It will be generally agreed throughout the House that the number of small Scottish authorities is very much greater than the number of small English authorities. In the second place, we make provision in the Bill for local authorities to act jointly in cases where they have not themselves a sufficient number of employés to make a separate scheme. All the small towns have fewer than 5o whole-time officers in their employment, so, for this purpose of this Bill, they will be used as employés of the county councils.
Those were the two specific points in which the Bill differs from the English Measure. No doubt Amendments will be moved, and in some cases carried, when the two Bills pass through the Committee, and therefore I am anxious that the Scottish Bill should be under consideration at the same time as the English Bill. Otherwise there is a danger of Amendments previously carried to one Bill not being included in the other. It is proposed to fix a day from which the Bill will operate. That appointed day is 16th May, 1939. With those few words of explanation, it should be possible for the House to let us have the Bill.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Westwood; Scottish Members on this side of the House welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland that we are to have a separate Bill dealing with superannuation for Scotland. That will enable us to get the details before us in the Scottish Standing Committee in order to deal with a subject which is of importance to local authorities as well as to those employed by local authorities. We have been told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Bill is comprehensive; our complaint is that it is not comprehensive enough. It makes provision onlyfor officers of local authorities and still leaves it optional
2090
for the local authorities to bring their ordinary employés within their schemes. I have been a member of two local authorities which took advantage of the 1922 Act, the old Fife Education Committee and the Kirkcaldy Town Council, of which I am now a member. In both those cases the authorities took advantage of the Act of Parliament, which left it optional for them to provide superannuation for their employés. We brought within the scope of our schemes all our employés, from the janitor to the clerk of the education authority in one case, and, in the case of Kirkcaldy Town Council, from the lowest paid workman to the highest official of the Town Clerk's Department. The complaint which we have on this side of the House is that the Bill makes compulsory the provision of superannuation for the officials but leaves it optional to the local authorities to bring in their wage earners, or the servants, as they are referred to in the Bill.
One or two points in the Bill will require further consideration in Committee. Let us first of all examine the history of superannuation in its application to Scotland. It has applied only since the 1922 Act, and very few authorities, speaking comparatively, have taken advantage of the optional Clause. I think I am speaking on behalf of local authorities when I say that that fact is not because local authorities do not desire to provide a superannuation scheme either for their officials or for the wage earners, bit because the 1922 Act made no financial provision to enable local authorities to bring in their superannuation schemes. Exactly the same may be said of the so-called comprehensive Bill now before us. It definitely imposes compulsorily a new charge upon local authorities. In the past, it was optional for them to provide superannuation for their employés. When this Bill is placed on the Statute Book it will be compulsory for them to provide superannuation for their officials; yet no financial provision is made by the State to assist local authorities to meet these new financial obligations. Negotiations were carried out with at least three of the representative local authorities before the Bill was introduced. I happened to be in the fortunate position of receiving, not only the secret memorandum dealing with electricity organisation,

2091
but also this secret Superannuation Bill. Both came into my hands, not as a Member of the House of Commons, but because I happened also to be a member of the negotiating bodies which had to deal with these particular proposals.
As regards superannuation, communications were sent to the Convention of Royal Burghs, and it is true that they are accepting the provisions of the Bill; but the Convention of Royal Burghs, good as its work may be, is sometimes influenced too much by the official side, because at least 50 per cent. of those who constitute it are themselves officials of local authorities, whom they have pledged to compulsory superannuation for officials, while they have left it optional for local authorities to provide superannuation for their employés. The officials do not always argue the case of the employés, or even the case of the local authorities, and I question whether the Superannuation Bill which was submitted for consideration was ever placed before a single local authority in Scotland. As I have said, it met with the approval of the officials who were going to be provided for, but they were not prepared to put up a fight to bring in the low-paid workers and the ordinary servants of the local authorities. I think these facts ought to be kept in mind when the Bill reaches its Committee stage. Superannuation is necessary for a free and good working arrangement in connection with local government. You can only get the greatest efficiency if your officials and employés have security, and that can best be secured, so far as the principle we are discussing is concerned, by the provision of a proper superannuation scheme. Today there are many anomalies. In some instances there is a superannuation scheme for certain sections of the employés of a local authority, while for other sections of the same authority there is no scheme.
I asked for a return from the late Sir Godfrey Collins, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, of the number of authorities in Scotland that had provided superannuation schemes for their employés. One of the authorities mentioned was the authority of Fife. The authority of Fife has not provided a scheme for all its employés, but only carries on a scheme to which effect was given by the old
2092
education authority, and which was carried on by the Fife County Council when it took over the old education authority's responsibility. But within three days of my receiving that answer the Fife County Council itself turned down a superannuation scheme for its other employés. In Fife, therefore, we have this anomalous position, that a janitor working under the education authority is provided with a superannuation scheme, while a janitor working in a library under the Fife County Council has no superannuation scheme. Nobody can justify an anomaly of that kind, but it is typical of the anomalies that exist in Fife at the present time.
There is one other particular weakness in the Bill to which I would draw the special attention of the Secretary of State. There is to be a 5 per cent. contribution from all employés who are brought within a scheme of superannuation, irrespective of whether they are officials with £800 or £1,000 a year, or poor janitors or street workers with only £3 a week. I think this is wrong. It would be a wise thing to have a slightly lower contribution from the low wage earner, and the argument for that I shall be able to give when the Bill reaches Committee. I suggest 5 per cent. for the official but only 4⅙ per cent. for the low wage earner. The officials are going to get a far larger amount out of the superannuation fund because they get it on their highest salary, whereas the ordinary worker has the same wages for 20 or 30 years. Generally speaking, we on this side welcome the principle contained in the Bill. We shall not divide against it but we shall do our best in Committee to make it a still better and more workable Bill than it is at present.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. Foot: We on this side of the House also welcome the Bill. As is shown by the Memorandum issued with it, something like 12,000 out of some 16,000 whole-time officers are already covered by authorities which either have a local Act scheme or have adopted the Act of 1922, and in our view it is high time that superannuation for local government officers was made universal. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that it is a matter for regret that it has not been found possible in drafting the Bill to bring in servants and part-time officers, but it seems to me, that, even as

2093
far as they are concerned, the Bill represents an advance, because by Clause 3 (2, b) it is provided that persons may be included in the scheme who are servants or part-time officers of a local authority and who
"belong to a class or description authority have by a statutory specified as a class or description the members of, or persons falling within, to be contributory employees."
I take that to mean that any local authority can bring in part-time officers and servants by a simple resolution. I think that, certainly in some districts, that has not been the case up to now. Under Clause 12 (4) it is provided that contributory employés shall be entitled, on payment of a sum of money, to reckon the whole of their non-contributory service. I think that is an extremely valuable provision which will be greatly appreciated by those concerned. It is made clear that the Bill covers every whole-time officer. I think that is also a valuable provision, because it means that there is to be no distinction, as far as superannuation is concerned, between the permanent and the temporary officer. It has happened in some cases in the past that a local authority may have drawn a distinction between one class of officer and another by making a certain category temporary officers, simply appointing them from year to year, and in that way keeping them outside the boundaries of its superannuation scheme. Under the Bill as I read it, that will not be possible in future and every officer whose employment is other than merely casual will come within the benefit of the superannuation scheme.
It seems to me that the chief recommendation of the Bill lies not so much in the advantage that it will bring to the officers concerned as in the advantage that it is going to bring to the public service in the localities, because at any rate it means that there is going to be far greater mobility in the local government service than there has been in the past. We have up to now, under the 1922 Act and under local Acts both in Scotland and in England, had a system under which some local authorities have a scheme and others have not, and the schemes were not always the same. The inevitable result was to restrict the movement of officers from the service of one authority to the service of another. An
2094
officer was always afraid and reluctant to go from an authority which had a superannuation scheme to an authority which had not, because of the risk of losing his superannuation rights, to which he had made probably considerable payments over a large number of years. I think that that has been a considerable hindrance in the development of the local government service, and the provisions in this Bill, particularly those for transfer values, will, I think, obviate that difficulty in the future. For these reasons, we who sit in this part of the House welcome the Bill and hope that it will speedily pass into law.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
10.46 p.m.
Mr. Westwood: I hope that we shall have some explanation from the Government side of the House of this Bill. We have gone part of the way on Scottish Bills and have given our support, and it only proves that, with a good working team on both sides of the House, we can at least get something done for Scotland. It is obvious that we ought to have some explanation of this particular Bill. I understand that it is a consolidating Bill. Those who are responsible for the initiation of this work will definitely welcome a Bill which seeks to consolidate the various Acts particularly dealing with children and young persons in Scotland. There are one or two points in connection with which I am not sure whether it will be possible, even in the Scottish Standing Committee, to move the necessary Amendments. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows all the difficulties which have been facing local authorities in the setting up of these juvenile courts, which are very necessary in the administration of justice and in the interests of trying to save young persons from being branded as criminals, when, in many instances, it is merely a

2095
misdemeanour which has brought them before the courts.
I understand that at the present time there are only three juvenile courts under the Children and Young Persons Acts already in operation in the whole of Scotland. Difficulties have been created, because it was understood that no provision had been made for the payment of the expenses of these courts. In another place, that matter was finally disposed of last Monday, and now there is definitely a House of Lords decision as far as the Fife case is concerned. Not only is there need for consolidation, but if we are to make effective the operation of the Children and Young Persons Acts in Scotland there will have to be some provision to enable local authorities to meet the necessary expense. My coin-plaint on this Bill, which deals with consolidation, is similar to that on the preceding Bill. New duties are being cast upon the local authorities and no financial provision is made for the purpose of enabling them to carry out those duties. I should like to know whether it will be possible, even on a consolidating Bill of this nature, when we reach the Scottish Standing Committee, to move an Amendment which is suggested by the County Councils Association, which would enable these courts to be set up more rapidly than has been the case in the past. The Amendment I would suggest—and I want to know whether it could be considered in Committee after this Bill has passed its Second Reading in this House—is that there should be an addition to Subsection (7) of Clause 101 as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing Sub-section of this Section the local authority shall not be liable for any part of the expenses of juvenile courts "
Those of us who are responsible for administration are desperately anxious to assist in the good work that could be carried out by giving effect to the Sections of the Children and Young Persons Acts that enable us to set up these juvenile courts, and would like the expenses of the courts to be borne by the State instead of wholly by local authorities, as is the case at the present time. I trust that we may be able to get some guidance and information from the Lord Advocate. We welcome the consolidation on this side and there will be no opposition.
10.50 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: In saying, as the hon. Member did, that this was a Consolidation Bill, he really answered the question that he subsequently put. All that is contained in this Bill is provisions, not all the provisions but the relevant provisions, relating to persons under 18 years contained in four Statutes—one in 1910, one in 1928, one in 1932 and certain provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1936. As the House is probably aware, the Bill has been submitted to the Joint Committee of both Houses on Consolidation Bills, who have reported their opinion that the Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law of Scotland. It is not for me to indicate, even by way of an estimate, what would or would not be in order on a subsequent stage of the Bill, but having regard to the limited nature and purpose of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will see for himself the difficulty of framing an Amendment to this Measure in relation to the case which was decided this week and to which he referred. Whether that question should or should not be dealt with in a further Measure is another question which I have not considered and have no authority to speak on. So far as this Measure is concerned, I present it to the House as one which puts the existing law in a convenient form without introducing any change, and as such I submit that it be now given a Second Reading.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Captain Dugdale.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Harrogate Gas Company, which was presented on the 22nd day of April, and published, he approved subject to the following modifications:
Clause 4, page 2, line 22, leave out 'city of Leeds and of the.'
First Schedule, page 9, leave out lines 9 to 11."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade

2097
under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Northampton Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 6th day of May and published, he approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

PRIVILEGES.
Ordered, That Earl Winterton be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Mr. Churchill be added to the Committee.—[Captain Dugdale.]
ESTIMATES.
Ordered, That Mr. Munro be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates and that Commander Sir Archibald Southby be added to the Committee.—[Captain Dugdale.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
Ordered, That Lieut.-Colonel Kerr be discharged from the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports and that. Mr. George Morrison be added to the Committee.—[Captain Dugdale.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

RURAL HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Dugdale.]
10. 55 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I want to draw attention to the report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee on Rural Housing. I raise the matter because the answer that was given to me a few days ago seemed to show that the Secretary of State did not appreciate sufficiently the seriousness of the report nor the gravity of the situation in our country which it revealed. It is a very remarkable document. It was prepared by a committee appointed by this Government and cannot, therefore, be regarded as an unduly Socialistic or Labour body. It was a thoroughly representative committee; and its findings were unanimous. The report of the sub-committee was accepted in toto by the general committee and is
2098
drafted in such a form as to be perfectly clear to all of us. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) described it as an alarming document. I think it is entitled to the adjective "sensational," because it contains perhaps the most serious indictment of housing conditions that I have ever read. I would invite the House to consider a few of the findings of the report as to facts. I do not propose to mention any of the recommendations because of the lateness of the hour. I pick out a summary of their findings.
"With the exception of the subsidy provided by the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, the subsidies for the erection of houses for general needs which were available from 1919 to 1933 were inadequately used by county councils of rural counties and, in the absence of any direct subsidy for the purpose, county councils of rural counties are unable at present to erect houses for the general needs of rural workers."
"With few exceptions, county councils are not carrying out adequately their duty of inspecting the working-class houses in their districts.
"The standard applied by most county councils in determining whether a house is defective is too low."
They give many examples.
"County councils of rural counties are not making sufficient use of their power to demolish or close unfit houses.
The number of houses which are being built to replace unfit houses in rural counties is inadequate, and the county councils of these counties have grossly under-estimated the numbers of houses required for this purpose.
The method of approaching owners informally to get them to carry out repairs of improvements sometimes leads to inexcusable delays and evasion.
County councils are not carrying out their duties to secure the repair or improvement of defective houses.
No real attack is being made on the problem of overcrowding in rural areas."
They draw attention to the great and urgent need of big regional water and drainage schemes. They say:
"In the administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts there has been a grave waste of public money."
Speaking of housing in villages they say:
"In most rural counties little or nothing is being done to replace unfit houses or to put an end to overcrowding in villages and hamlets.
There is a serious shortage of houses in rural areas for the general needs of the rural population."
As regards farm servants they say:
"A very large number of farm servants' houses are defective and in general no section

2099
of the population is compelled to live in such consistently bad housing conditions as farm servants.
The housing of unmarried farm workers is even more unsatisfactory than that of married workers."
I will not read more. There is a passage in the report relating to investigations made into a number of parishes. The result of that investigation, the findings of which the Committee entirely accept, shows that 75 per cent. of the houses visited there, and which they regard as typical throughout Scotland, are unfit for human habitation. These are most serious facts and reveal a state of affairs which must shock the most complacent person. I raise the matter now in order to ask this straight question of my right hon. Friend. What is to be done with this sensational report? It cannot be allowed to lie on the desks of the Scottish Office, to be leisurely passed from Department to Department until at some future date legislation of some kind emerges. It demands immediate, urgent and exceptional examination, and inasmuch as it makes very serious charges against county councils it seems to justify calling a special conference of representatives of county councils without any delay—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Dugdale.]
Mr. Stewart: The Secretary of State has already distinguished himself, has in fact endeared himself in the short time he has been at the Scottish Office to the Scottish people, by the deep interest and sympathy he has taken in housing conditions. He has demanded of local authorities a new effort, and I am going to appeal to his sympathy and understanding to obtain from him an undertaking that very urgent attention will be paid to this very grave document.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I should like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member about this report, and to take this opportunity once again of insisting that if the question of the decline of population in country districts is to be dealt with the one great outstanding question is that of
2100
housing for the rural population. Any one who represents a rural area in Scotland—it matters not in what district it is—can see conditions of housing and sanitation which would not be tolerated in any urban district. If the Minister wants to do the biggest job that any man can do for Scotland he will immediately accept the recommendations which have been made and call a conference of county councils in Scotland, discuss measures that have to be taken and proceed as speedily as possible with a Measure which will embody the important features of the report and introduce into Scotland a housing scheme for rural areas which will put an end for ever to the terrible conditions which exist.
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Elliot: I am sure we are grateful to the hon. Member for taking the earliest opportunity of raising what he rightly calls the very important report on rural housing in Scotland. I welcome the report. It raises matters of great interest and is couched in vigorous language. It would not be in order for me to discuss several of its recomendations because they involve legislation, but may I say that I have given the report close consideration ever since it came into my hands? I have, however, had to consider it in conjunction with the general housing position. We have had Debates on the subject of housing in Scotland before, notably on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess last year, when the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and other hon. Members raised the question of urban housing. There is only one point on which I would make any criticism of the findings of this committee, and it is when it says that there is no class of persons which is compelled to live in such consistently bad conditions as the Scottish farm workers. I see on the benches opposite the Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I myself sit for a constituency which contains the dockside quarters of Glasgow. In those two constituencies alone, not to mention the constituency of the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr), we could find examples of housing conditions which I venture to say are altogether worse even than the worst of the conditions which have been brought out in connection with rural housing.
Mr. Gallacher: What about water and sanitation?
Mr. Elliot: I assure the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that when there are human beings piled up in flats one upon the other, there are conditions of sanitation which no rural area can possibly equal. I do not need to refer to the findings of the inquiries into slum clearance schemes, or the houses which have not yet been cleared under such schemes. The Under-Secretary of State himself, in going round some houses in Glasgow, came upon conditions which are so frequently found of choked-up water closets, one, two or three storeys up, with the sewage running down the stairs into the houses below, polluting everything there. No single-storey house could compete in horror with the conditions which one finds in the piled-up castles of misery whch the slum areas of our great cities in Scotland represent. They arc unfit for human habitation. I do not deny the grave conditions of rural housing. I do not deny that there is a lack of water, a lack of food storage places, a lack of almost everything in many of the rural cottages; but there is one thing which is not the same as in the towns, and it is that in the country there is God's sunshine and fresh air. There are areas in the towns where those great fundamental goods are denied to many people.
Mr. Mathers: They have to go outside to get the fresh air and sunlight. It does not get in.
Mr. Elliot: If they can get fresh air and sunlight by opening the door and steping out, they are in places which are very different from some of the streets in my constituency, in Dundee or in Coatbridge. There are areas where they have to walk a mile or further before they can get anything like the fresh air which the people get in a rural area by opening the door and stepping outside. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) said that the conditions of rural housing call for most urgent consideration and action; but these conditions must be considered in conjunction with the general housing situation in Scotland, which is one of the scandals of the twentieth century. I would put it as high as that. When one-third of the population of Scotland is living without separate water closets, the situation is one which no Secretary of State and no Member of this House can observe with any sort of complacency or equanimity
2102
Very much depends, and must depend, upon the amount of effort which the building industry can put forth to remedy these conditions. I made it my first task on entering this office to get into touch with the building industry, with which I am now in negotiation—I hope the negotiations will reach a successful issue—about the rate at which they think the building industry, employers and employés can remove this scandal from Scotland. One cannot concentrate either on the country or on the town alone; one must advance upon both together. The rural slum is as great a disgrace as the urban slum, but not greater; and if we were to concentrate all our efforts upon it we should concentrate our efforts wrongly. We must, as I say, advance upon both. I am not taking a light view of this matter, nor are my officers. The Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health is a man known for one of the most valuable reports on rural housing ever compiled. It was compiled for the English county of which he was then chief medical officer, and his interest in and initiative with regard to rural housing are well known, and certainly weighed with me very much in making the appointment which I did make. I hope for great assistance from his initiative and expert knowledge in dealing with this problem.
I do not, however, intend to leave the matter wholly to my officers. Some of the recommendations in the report call for administrative action and as far as they are concerned, I am in general agreement with the report. I feel sure that the county councils will also desire to make the improvements in administration which the Committee recommend. With that object, I propose at an early date to communicate with the county councils on the subject of the report and to ask them to take administrative action under the Housing (Scotland) and Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, in advance of any legislation which may be introduced to carry out the Committee's recommendations.
It is gratifying to find so large a measure of agreement that most valuable work has been done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, and it is interesting that, in spite of reservations, the Committee as a whole have come down on the side of the further extension of those Acts. It is true that they also propose a new subsidy to the county councils for

2103
the erection of new houses, but that involves legislative proposals which it would not be in order to discuss now. Furthermore, I do not think it would be possible from mere considerations of time, to pass yet another Housing Bill this Session. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on my right, and I am reinforced by the ominous movements of his head. But, as I say, administration is our sphere and in administration, as regards getting in touch with the county councils, calling their attention to the action which it is for them to take and helping them, if possible, in any action which they may take, I shall certainly not be lacking. I am in active negotiation with the building industry. Two of the chief officers of the Building Trade Union, Mr. Coppock and Mr. Hicks, are at present in Geneva, but they are to visit Scotland immediately upon their return and I hope that we shall be able to get a final decision upon the amount of labour which can be applied to this urgent problem. As I say it is a decision which will materially affect the rate at which we can deal with this scandal.
The Housing (Rural Workers) Acts do not expire until 24th June, 1938, and up to that date local authorities may receive applications for assistance. There is no sign of any falling off in the amount of work done under the Acts, and even though legislation extending the Acts will not be passed until the spring of 1938, there is no reason why there should he any decline in the amount of work which is being done. I want to keep the swing on the job. I want to be sure that we continue to renovate the rural cottages at a rate as great as and greater than the rate at which we have been proceeding so far. The number of dwellings in respect of which county and town councils in Scotland have received applications for assistance is roughly 30,000 and applications made to county councils cover about 27,000 of these. In the same time the
2104
number of applications made to English local authorities, with 10 times our population, was about 20,000–30,000 in Scotland and 20,000 for the whole of England. Certainly the interest in rural housing in Scotland is keen, and as for the accomplishment, the number of dwellings on which work has been completed is 23,000 for the whole of Scotland, as compared with 11,800 for England. So that twice the number of houses have been renewed and repaired in Scotland under the Rural Workers (Housing) Acts as for the whole of England, which is a long way above 11/80ths or any other proportion. which has ever been suggested. The importance of that lies in this, that even though the report says that some half of these houses which have been done up and renewed under the Acts have not been brought up to a fully satisfactory standard, yet that also means that half of them have been brought up to a fully satisfactory standard, and the other half have certainly been greatly improved, and even the half which have been brought up to a fully satisfactory standard are more than the numbers which have been done up and renewed in the whole of England.
I do not deny that the housing conditions in rural Scotland are very defective and will need the utmost good will and work, from my officers, from local authorities' officials, from Ministers of the Crown, and from Members on all sides of the House, both in the House and when they go to their constituencies. I trust I may rely upon their efforts from a non-party point of view in this non-party problem, and I, for my part. will promise that I will do my best in seconding any efforts that are put forward.
Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.