Sitting of 22 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Londonderry Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Calthorpe Estate Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
Maidenhead Gas Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Sligo Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Fifty-fourth detailed Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1017 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1915. Vol. IV. Part III. Prices and Supplies of Grain, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Soft Fruits (Sales) (Amendment) Order, 1918; Joint Food Control Committees' Constitution
1428
(Amendment) Order, 1918; and Meat (Rationing) Order, 1918, General Licence; made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    COMMERCIAL FIRMS (OWNERSHIP).
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade why Henry Wambach, a man of enemy origin, was a few months ago allowed to acquire an iron foundry and old-established tallow-melting business at Ipswich disposed of by a man liable for military service; and was the licence of the Board of Trade necessary before the purchase could be carried through?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I have no information as to the purchase of the business referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, but I am having inquiry made, and will inform him of the result.
    Major NEWMAN: Could I get an answer to the last part of my question as to no licence being necessary?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I have no information on that now.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade to whom the various branches of the casing industry of the enemy-owned firm of Bruno Schulze and Company, a business lately wound up by the Board of Trade, have been disposed; and is he able to say that none of these branches have been allowed to pass into the hands of either naturalised or un-naturalised enemy aliens?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The business at Sudbury has not yet been sold The business at Birmingham has, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, subject to certain requirements being complied with, been sold to Henry Edward Smith. The business at Hols-worthy has been sold to Frederick Jeffery. Both of these purchasers are natural-born British subjects.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that H. E. Smith is, as a fact, the son-in-law of Bruno Schulze, and that this is simply a pass-over?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes; I was made aware of that this morning when I saw this question.

    INDIA.

      ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Army Regulations lay down that officers who entered the Army before 1st July, 1881, who accepted the 1886 leave rules, and are residing out of India until retirement are sanctioned leave pay until such retirement, and that the Income Tax Commissioners are not conceding to those officers the concession granted under Section 31 (b) of the Finance Act of 1916; that the officers in question are entitled to this concession as leave pay is reckoned as full pay; and will he take steps to safeguard the interests of these officers of the Indian Army, and to obtain a refund of the arrears of Income Tax cut from them in excess?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The officers in question, though they receive pay at leave rates, if they elect to reside out of India, are not on leave, but are unemployed officers so far as the Indian Army is concerned. I cannot, therefore, move the Treasury, with whom the decision rests, to treat these officers as though they were on leave.

      NORTH-WEST FRONTIER MEDAL.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the operations on the North-West Frontier of India were concerned with Mohmund and Mahsud local tribesmen and not with any of the countries against whom we are fighting in the great War, he will reconsider the decision to deal with these operations as part of the great War, and sanction the immediate grant to the troops concerned of the Indian Frontier Medal, as is usual in such cases?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The question is being further considered by the War Office and the India Office.

      ARMY COMMISSIONS (INDIANS).
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India what are now the
      1430
      regulations as to Indian citizens obtaining the King's commission in the Indian Army?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The King's Commission will be granted to Indians under four categories:

      (1) A certain number of substantive King's commissions in the Indian Army to selected Indian officers who have specially distinguished themselves in the present War.

      (2) A certain number of King's commissions conferring honorary rank in the Indian Army to selected Indian officers who have rendered distinguished service not necessarily during the present War, and who, owing to age or lack of educational qualifications are not eligible for substantive King's commissions. Such honorary commissions will carry with them special advantages in respect of pay and pension.

      (3) A certain number of temporary but substantive King's commissions in the Indian Army to selected candidates nominated partly from civil life and partly from Army.

      (4) A certain number of King's commissions to Indians on qualifying as cadets at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. For this purpose ten Indian gentlemen will be nominated annually during the War for cadetships.

      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that answer mean that Indian students in this country will be able to get temporary commissions, or will they be debarred unless they go to Sandhurst—under the third head?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Under the third head they will be nominated in India.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Even if they have obtained the qualifications in this country by being at Oxford or Cambridge they will be eligible for commissions?
      Mr. MONTAGU: No commissions will be given without adequate training.
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: Is there any provision for the military training of these officers, or candidates for that rank, in India as well as in England?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir. No substantive commissions will be granted to anybody without adequate training. It is intended to provide that adequate training under Category 3 in India.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it impossible for Indians to get into officers' training schools in this country?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I would rather not go into the details of the Regulations in answer to questions because I have not them before me, but I will lay the Regulations in due course upon the Table of the House.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then we may-take it that this decision is a victory for those who consider that Indians are not fit to go into officers training schools in this country?
      Mr. MONTAGU: No, I think the answer I have given shows that commissions are going to be given to efficient soldiers, subject to His Majesty's approval.

      REFORMS (SECRETARY OF STATE'S REPORT).
      Mr. DENMANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that each month's delay in granting constitutional reforms to India adds to the difficulties of granting them and diminishes their value when granted, he will allow an early discussion of the Secretary of State's Report?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I cannot add anything on this subject to the answer I gave on the 10th instant to the hon. Baronet the Member for West Denbighshire.
      Mr. DENMAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the continued neglect of Indian subjects by this House has a very bad effect in India, and while it is recognised that the Government can give no immediate reply, would not a Debate in this House give valuable ventilation to the whole subject?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is a matter of opinion. In the first place time is very limited and I do not wish to give up time unless it is necessary. Then the subject is really a very complicated one and one must have time to study the documents.
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: Does that answer cover the case of a Debate on the Indian Budget, and does the right hon. Gentleman wish to convey the impression that he desires to shelve this Report and the urgent questions connected with it?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope my answer did not convey that impression. It was certainly not what I intended. Everyone
      1432
      recognises the importance of this subject. I have myself tried to look at this Report, but I could not attempt to deal with it now. I think the same thing is true of all the members of the Government and I fancy it would be true of most Members of the House of Commons.
      Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not absolutely necessary to receive opinions from all parts of India, which must take some time to reach this country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think there need be much discussion in question and answer on this subject. I have already said if I found there was a general desire in the House to have it discussed, I would find time. As a matter of fact I think nothing would be gained by discussing it before the Recess.
      Mr. ROBERTS: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already received a formal request for a discussion on the Indian Budget, and has it been granted?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think I have received such a request.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Has the official Opposition asked for a day?
      Mr. GULLAND: I made a representation to the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot) asking for a day.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt what the hon. Gentleman says is true. Very likely it came to me, but I have forgotten if it be so. It is a question of time.
      Mr. ROBERTS: Is it not really neglecting India that we cannot spare a single day?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think to make that suggestion is itself to do the evil which the hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid. There is no such feeling in any part of the House. It is a question of the general arrangement of the Business of the House.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      PARCELS FOE HOLLAND.
      Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what, restrictions have been imposed, and, if so, why, upon the sending of money and parcels to British prisoners of war interned in Holland?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I asked the hon. Gentleman to postpone this question till Thursday.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: I understood the hon. Gentleman asked me to postpone it till Lord Newton returned. I understand he has returned.
      Mr. HOPE: I wrote a letter to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: I am sorry I have not received it.
      Mr. HOPE: I hope to confer with Lord Newton to-morrow morning.

      MERCHANT SEAMEN (REPATRIATION).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that merchant seamen detained in Germany at the outbreak of War as civilian prisoners are being asked by the Prisoners of War Department to refund the cost of their repatriation to this country; whether he is aware that Chief Engineer Spencer has been asked by that Department to refund 100 florins advanced by His Majesty's Minister at The Hague for his fare from Rotterdam; and whether this is a usual practice?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: On the general practice, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for York on the 16th instant. I am inquiring as to the case of Chief Engineer Spencer.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of his reply his Department is actually asking these men, who are obviously destitute, when they come back to this country to refund the money? I have in my possession copy of a letter asking Chief Engineer Spencer to do so.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement.
      Mr. HOGGE: I have a letter in my possession——
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have a good many things in my possession.
      Mr. HOGGE: I asked a question with regard to a man, a prisoner of war, who has been returned to this country by the British Government. The answer to the question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers me says that it is not the practice to ask for the money. This man has been destitute and has been asked for the money. I am asking the right hon. Gen-
      1434
      tleman whether the Treasury will refrain from sending these letters to returned prisoners of war asking them to return the money.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member evidently did not hear the last part of my reply. I said I would look into the case.

      BASIS OF EXCHANGE.
      Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister upon what basis the exchange of prisoners is to be effected under the provisional agreement recently concluded at The Hague; whether its terms will be laid before Parliament before it is ratified by the Government; and whether any, and, if so, what, opportunity will be given to the House of Commons of discussing it before the Recess?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I should prefer to make no statement until the Cabinet has been able to consider the terms of the agreement. As regards the second part of the question, I can make no promise that the agreement will be laid upon the Table before it has been ratified. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think that there would be any advantage in discussing this question in present circumstances.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Cabinet will consider this question before the Recess?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly. We shall consider it within the next few days.

    ASSISTANT FOREIGN SECRETARY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the appointment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin as Assistant Foreign Secretary is accompanied by any increase or advancement in his status, salary, or authority; whether the Assistant Foreign Secretary will now become the final authority in any matters which were previously controlled by the Secretary of State; and whether those specific acts which required the personal authority or action of a Secretary of State can now be performed by the Assistant Secretary of State?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except as regards salary. With regard to the second part

    1435
    of the question, the answer is also in the affirmative, subject to my general supervision. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Has the constitutional or legal position of the Under-Secretary been under the notice of the Law Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No; though I believe the legal aspect of this change was very carefully considered.

    RUSSIA.

      CO-OPERATION WITH ALLIES.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the present military operations on the Murman Coast, Russia can be now deemed to have again joined the Allies against the Central Powers?
      Mr. BALFOUR: There is no change in the position.

    FINLAND (MONARCHY).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the proposal to establish a monarchy in Finland; and whether, in view of the proposed monarchy being probably under German influence, the Allies, or any of them, are taking any action?
    Mr. BALFOUR: As far as my information goes, the present Finnish Government are bent on securing the adoption of a monarchial Constitution. The Constitution which the Finns may think proper to adopt is no concern of ours. But we have repeatedly warned the Finnish Government of the ill consequences which must ensue if they allow their country to be dominated by German influence.
    Mr. KING: Is the recent news—which seems rather more encouraging from our point of view—confirmed, namely, that they have dropped the Bill in their Riksdag to have a monarchy set up?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have received no information as yet upon that point.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the sum of £4,054,653, stated, in
    1436
    the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, 1889, Cd. 9150, at page 351, to be the amount of tithe rent-charge in England and Wales in the year 1887, represents the value of the tithe rent-charge at par or at the value of £100 tithe rent-charge as determined for that year and, if the latter, what that value was; and whether there is any later information regarding the amount of tithe rent-charge?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The sum named is the par value of tithe rent-charge as originally apportioned on land in England and Wales. In reply to the last part of the question, allowing, on the one hand, for additions by the conversion of corn rents into tithe rent-charge, and, on the other hand, for deductions through extinguishment by redemption, merger, exchange for land, and conversions of tithe rent-charge into the 4 per cent. rent-charge imposed under the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, 1886, the net amount of variable tithe rent-charge payable was £3,993,179 in 1887 and is £3,678,675 at the present time, the values of these amounts, as varied in accordance with the septennial corn price averages being £3,491,720 and £4,016,985, respectively.

    SMALL HOLDING COLONY, HOLBEACH.
    Major PEELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state, in regard to the colony at Holbeach, in the county of Holland now being established under The Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916, its extent in acreage, the terms on which it has been acquired, the number of holdings into which it is divided, the description of the tenants, and the terms of their tenancy?
    Sir R. WINFREY: This estate, comprising 1,000 acres, has been acquired from the Crown on a lease for ninety-nine years from 11th October, 1917, at a rental of £1,623 per annum. It is proposed to divide the colony into holdings of about 10 acres, but, owing to the fact that the Board have only been in possession for nine months, and that the settlers have to serve a period of probation, only five have so far become actual tenants—at least ten more are being admitted as tenants at Michaelmas. These are all ex-Service men who have served during

    1437
    the present War, and the land is being let to them at the rate of £40 per annum for the fully equipped 10–acre holding, with house and buildings.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      ADVANCES (GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE).
      Major PEELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture to what extent the agricultural community has availed itself of the arrangements concluded last year between the county agricultural executive committees, the banks, and the Board of Agriculture whereby purchasers of any requirement for food production may obtain advances repayable under Government guarantee?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The number of approved applications up to the 30th June, 1918, was, approximately, 750, and the amount comprised in those applications about £60,000. It is not known how much of this has actually been borrowed, but it is probably not less than nine-tenths.
      Major PEEL: Can the hon. Gentleman state what is the full extent of the guarantee, and is there any limit to the amount guaranteed?
      Sir R. WINFREY: Do you mean the maximum amount?
      Major PEEL: Yes.
      Sir R. WINFREY: I am afraid I could not say without notice. I will let the hon. and gallant Member know.

      SALMON FISHING (SOLWAY).
      Mr. GULLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now considered if under the Defence of the Realm Acts he has power to extend the Solway salmon fishing for a fortnight; and what steps does he propose to take?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am waiting a report from the Fishery Board as to the extension proposed. The question of powers which do not exist at present would be taken up if and when it is decided that action in the direction suggested by my right hon. Friend should be taken.
      Mr. GULLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have an early reply?
      Mr. MUNRO: I do.

      SWINE MARKET (DUBLIN).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether any measures have been taken to provide a scale for the swine market in Dublin?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): Swine are sold in a section of the Cattle Market, Prussia Street, Dublin. Two weighing machines have been provided at the market. One of the machines is situate near the section of the market at which swine are sold, and is available for the weighing of pigs. Inquiry will be made as to the question whether additional weighing facilities should be made available.

      DESTRUCTION OF CROPS, TIREE.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has any report from the Board of Agriculture to the effect that on the farm of Balephetrish, in Tiree, the tenant's shepherd and the local policeman deliberately herded the tenant's sheep on to the crops planted by the cottars; that in this way the grain has been rendered useless for human food; that it is the expressed intention of these men to repeat their action with the growing potatoes; and whether he will inform the Food Controller of this destruction of growing crops or take action himself, in order to prosecute under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for such destruction?
      Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Reports which I have received lend no support to the allegation as to the local policeman. As regards the shepherd's action, where crops have been sown on grazing land without fencing, movements of cattle and sheep in the neighbourhood of the crops may, of course, be represented as wilful destruction of crops. The reports which I have received do not, however, indicate any expressed intention to destroy human food. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland is negotiating with the farmer, and I am hopeful that an agreement may be reached.
      Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the representative of the Board of Agriculture who went down to the island?
      Mr. MUNRO: Yes.
      Colonel YATE: Do sheep cat potato tops?
      Mr. MUNRO: I must ask for notice.

      CURED HERRINGS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how many thousands of barrels of cured herrings imported from Iceland and Norway are lying at the ports of this country; and what proportion of these stocks are in danger of becoming unfit for human food?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): At the end of last month there were in the hands of the Ministry of Food about 130,000 barrels of cured herring which had been imported from Iceland and Norway by the Ministry of Blockade. While there is no danger of these herrings becoming unfit for food in the immediate future, the question of any ultimate loss depends upon the demand for pickled herrings during the coming winter.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. WHYTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can announce his proposals for the distribution of the 1918 potato crop?
      Major ASTOR: The scheme of distribution of the 1918 potato crop has not yet been finally settled, but it is hoped shortly to make an announcement on the subject.
      Mr. WHYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman nee that the interests of Scotland in this matter receive full consideration, as in the previous scheme those interests were not fully considered?

      GERMAN PRISONERS (TOBACCO AND DRINK RATIONS).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are strict Regulations against presents of food, drink, or tobacco being given by citizens of this country to Germans interned or imprisoned in this country; if so, whether these Regulations have been in existence since the beginning of the War; and whether any cases of such presents having been conveyed to Germans are known to the Home Office, together with the names of the donors?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): Strict regulations as regards
      1440
      the introduction of intoxicating liquor into internment camps under Home Office control have always been in force, and from time to time, as articles of food and tobacco have come to be rationed for the general population, regulations have been made fixing the allowances for the camps and forbidding their being introduced from this country in excess of the allowances. I have no knowledge of any cases of the kind indicated in the last paragraph of the question.

    RECONSTRUCTION.

      APPRENTICES.
      Colonel YATEasked the Minister of Reconstruction what steps are being taken to help apprentices, whose training has been interrupted by the War, to continue their training after the War, so that they may become skilled workmen?
      The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The Ministry of Reconstruction and the Ministry of Labour have had the question of apprentices whose training has been interrupted by the War under investigation for some time, and their proposals are now under the consideration of the Departments concerned.
      Colonel YATE: What is meant by consideration? Is anything ever going to be done?
      Dr. ADDISON: We are considering definite proposals.
      Colonel YATE: When will they be issued?
      Dr. ADDISON: That I cannot say at the moment.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Minister of Reconstruction (1) whether he is proposing, under the title of a proposed Ministry of Health, to abolish the National Health Commissioners for Wales; will he consult the representatives from Wales and Monmouth before introducing such legislative schemes; (2) if he has printed a scheme for a so-called Ministry of Health which deals with the position of the National Health Commissioners for Scotland and removes them from the present position of independence of any other Scottish Department; and will he take the opinion of the Members from Scotland before tabling such proposals?
    Dr. ADDISON: The proposals for the establishment of a Ministry of Health stand referred to the Home Affairs Committee of the War Cabinet, and I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon Friend the Home Secretary on the 10th July.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is it not a fact that the printed scheme, which has been circulated to one Member of this House and denied to the House, does involve the interference with or abolition of these national institutions; and may I press for an answer as to whether Members from either Wales or Scotland ought not to know something about these proposals before they go any further?
    Dr. ADDISON: There was one Member of the House on the Committee whom I consulted. I also conferred with certain Scottish and Welsh Members on the subject.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Ministry of Health Bill would by no means be an uncontentious measure?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of that.

    HAIRMYRES SANATORIUM.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland, as President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that in connection with the Hairmyres Sanatorium, at East Kilbride, the Middle Ward District Committee are refusing to repay to the contractors advances which they have paid to their workmen under Award 1260, Building Trade, Scotland, so that sums which the contractors were instructed by that award to pay are being withheld from them by the owners of the property; and, if so, will he say whether his Department, under whose authority this building has been erected, sanctions this action?
    Mr. MUNRO: This matter has not been brought to the notice of the Board either by the district committee or by the contractors, though the Board understand that correspondence on the subject has recently passed between the district committee and the contractors. The matter, however, is not one in which I have any authority to interfere.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Admiralty took action in
    1442
    similar circumstances, and will not the Local Government Board for Scotland do the same?
    Mr. MUNRO: I cannot answer for the Admiralty. I am quite satisfied that I have no right to intervene.

    ALIENS.

      COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any arrangement has been made by which the Committee of Inquiry to be set up under Clause 1, Sub-section (3), of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill will continue the arrangement for Scotland whereby a Special Committee for that country, under a president of high judicial Scottish experience, will act as was the case in dealing formerly with aliens?
      Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Naturalisation being an Imperial matter, it is thought better that questions of denaturalisation should be dealt with by one Committee for the whole of the United Kingdom. The claims of Scotland to be represented on that Committee will not be forgotten.
      Mr. WATT: Is there any reason why the old system that formerly obtained should be done away with, and did not the two Committee system give satisfaction?
      Mr. BRACE: That is a different matter altogether.

      CONTROLLED MUNITION ESTABLISHMENTS.
      Sir J. WALTONasked the Minister of Munitions whether there are any unnaturalised enemy aliens in charge of controlled establishments and, if so, how many; and what are their names and locations?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Five unnaturalised enemy aliens, one of whom is a Czech, are acting as managers or supervisers in controlled establishments; three in Sheffield, one in Cardiff, and one in London. One of these men is a specialist in the manufacture of optical glass; one is engaged by a firm of wire rope manufacturers, and three by firms producing steel. Their names are Bielstein, Kayser, Poffart, Emmrich, and Lamm.
      Sir J. WALTON: May I ask whether Adolf Sgonina was not recently, if he is not at present, the manager of the Flottman Engineering Company, Limited, of Cardiff; and whether the Ministry of Munitions will take immediate steps to dispense with the services of at any rate several of the alien enemies whom the hon. Gentleman has indicated?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not recognise the name of the first gentleman whom my hon. Friend mentioned as being on my list. If he will give me particulars, I will have inquiries made.
      Sir J. WALTON: I shall be pleased to give all the information.
      Mr. ROCH: Will the position of these gentlemen be regularised by their being naturalised, as they seem to be essential to the Ministry of Munitions?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: As to that, I will have inquiries made. I should like to say, in reference to the general question put by my hon. Friend (Sir J. Walton), that each of these men had his case examined by the Advisory Committee of the Home Office, and it was held by the Committee that they were doing work of such importance that their skill was necessary to the nation.
      Sir J. WALTON: Will their certificates be re-examined under the Bill we have just passed?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: That is a question for the Home Office.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: As these people are making munitions for use against Germany, is it not likely that they will not be welcomed in Germany after the War?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: That is very likely to be the fact.
      Major BOWDEN: Will they be welcome in Sheffield?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: We are advised that they are doing work in Sheffield that they are competant to do and which it is very difficult to get other men to do.
      Major BOWDEN: Cannot you get Englishmen to do it?
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions how many aliens of enemy birth, naturalised or not, are at present employed at the British Thomson-Houston works; and are any of these aliens in positions of authority?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I am advised that no unnaturalised aliens of enemy birth are employed at the British Thomson-Houston works. A naturalised British subject of German origin has been employed by the firm for twenty-two years. He now holds a position in connection with the factory cost accounting. I am informed that he was denaturalised by the Bavarian Government in 1897, and became a naturalised British subject in 1909. He has lived in this country for twenty-seven years, and is married to a French woman.

      WAR OFFICE APPOINTMENT.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement as to the circumstances in which Krahn was appointed to a confidential post under the War Office, and the date of his appointment?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): This man was engaged on the 16th April, 1917, for employment as a clerk in a subordinate capacity in a record office. It is the invariable practice to obtain two references, and there is no reason to doubt that these were obtained in this case. At the time, however, it was the practice to destroy references after the clerk had served a satisfactory period of probation.
      Commander BELLAIRS: What was considered a satisfactory period of probation after which the references were not required?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The references were not required after a period of six months.

      CIVIL SERVANTS (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
      Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to require an oath of allegiance from every person who enters the Civil Service of the Crown?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative, and it will apply to established Civil servants in all Government offices.
      Mr. ROCH: What form will it take?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is a system in force already. No doubt it will be the same.
      Colonel McCALMONT: Will existing Civil servants be called upon to take the oath?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: This question only applies to those who come in in future.
      Colonel McCALMONT: No oath is to be applied to those who are in it now?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite a different question, which I have not considered.

    MUNITIONS.
      THREATENED STRIKE.

        STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.
        Colonel W. THORNE(by Private, Notice) asked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been drawn to a leaderette in to-day's "Chronicle" in connection with the threatened strike of munition workers, which alleges that a certain firm at Coventry posted a notice worded in such a way as to create an impression that the district rate of wages was to be destroyed; if he is aware that Mr. John Hill, the General Secretary of the Boilermakers'. Society, has stated that the action taken by the Ministry of Munitions in restricting the powers of certain firms to freely engage workmen is a considerable extension of the proposals made by the Ministry in June last which the Trade Union Advisory Committee could not accept; and if he will make a statement on the whole position?
        The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Churchill): My attention has been drawn to the terms of the notice referred to by my hon. Friend. The notice is not official, and the Ministry of Munitions is not responsible for its wording. It appears to be an inaccurate summary of instructions issued by the Ministry of Munitions, and only to have been posted, according to my present information, in the works of a single firm in Coventry. There is, of course, no question of any reduction in the district rates of wages. Steps have been taken to make this clear.
        I may mention that there is at the present time an unsatisfied demand for skilled men to the extent of between 50,000 and 60,000 for whom war work could immediately be found. Skilled men, therefore, have an enormous choice of employment open to them, and this is not appreciably affected by the fact that, in the present scarcity of skilled labour, we cannot allow firms who already have more than their proper share to add to their staffs.
        1446
        With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have seen the statement referred to by Mr. John Hill, the general secretary of the Boilermakers' Society. The action taken by the Ministry of Munitions is no extension of the proposals made in June last. On the contrary, it was clearly foreshadowed by me as one of the safeguards contingent upon the abolition of the leaving certificate as far back as 15th August last year. Perhaps I may read to the House the actual words I used:
        "What is called poaching, or potential poaching, by employers of any fluid labour can be prevented by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I shall hold myself free to utilise that."
        I do not wish to say that what has taken place in the firms upon which we placed the embargo constitutes poaching. Poaching should properly be defined as bribing men away from other firms. I do not make that accusation at all, but over-staffing and the readiness to exaggerate over-staffing belongs rather to the realm of potential poaching, and is, therefore, entirely covered by the statement I made nearly a year ago.
        All these proposals, both for engaging additional war munitions volunteers, and for restricting over-staffing by certain firms, were fully explained to the Trade Union Advisory Committee at several meetings in April last. The Trade Union Advisory Committee were not asked to take responsibility which properly belongs to the Government, and I have never sought to throw an unfair burden upon them. At the same time, it is right to say that the result of those conferences led all who were present to the conviction that trade unionists and the workmen generally throughout the country were resolute to repair the damage which the military disasters of March last had caused, and to support the national cause by every means in their power, and especially by liberating men and making munitions. To that conviction we still adhere with the utmost confidence.
        Colonel THORNE: What efforts are being made to avoid this awful calamity? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, so far as the executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers are concerned, they have deprecated the action taken?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I know that every effort has been made by responsible

        1447
        trade union leaders to remove the misunderstanding, and I am in close touch and consultation with them.
        Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps for the immediate removal of all persons of German origin from any Department of the Ministry?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I really do not think that has anything to do with the question.
        Sir H. DALZIEL: I am sorry you do not.
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope that matter will not be mixed up with this entirely different, complicated, and delicate question.
        Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it true that there are persons of German origin in important positions in the Labour Department of the Ministry?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I must adhere to what I said, that it has nothing to do with this. I understand that a Committee is about to be set up for the purpose of examining this very question, and I will not in any circumstances prejudice the status of individuals whose cases can be reviewed by a properly constituted and competent tribunal.
        Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot the Ministry deal with individual cases of alleged over-staffing with skilled men without issuing a general declaration likely to cause unrest all over the country?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think we have issued a general declaration. A letter has been sent to certain firms telling them that they have got enough, and must not engage more skilled men.
        Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Why is it that these Labour questions are not dealt with by the Labour Ministry, especially constituted for the purpose?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very large question, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise that there is no more anxious or thankless task than this work of the Ministry of Munitions. It would be much easier and a less thankless task if we could transfer all these difficulties en bloc to another Department and simply criticise any difficulties they get—and which are largely inherited—in the present situation. But at the present time I am responsible for the welfare of the great mass of munition workers, on whom we
        1448
        depend for our output, and I do not think, looking back over the year, that we have any reason to be dissatisfied.
        Colonel THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that men wanting to leave any particular firm are free to choose any employment they like, with the exception of a certain number of firms who have more skilled men than they require, while there is a shortage in other parts of the country?
        Mr. CHURCHILL: That is the exact position. It is hardly possible to sum it up more cogently than my hon. Friend has done. Only he might have added that the number of firms which are subject to the embargo are an infinitesimal part of the number of firms open for free engagement.

        INVENTIONS.
        Captain WRIGHTasked the Minister of Munitions whether the invention of a retort for the low temperature distillation of oil from cannel and other cognate substances is of no interest to the Government?
        Mr. KELLAWAY: A good retort for the low temperature distillation of oil from cannel and other cognate substances would be of interest to the Government. But regard must be had to the difficulties of erecting new retorts on any large scale, and to the fact that sufficient retorts are already available to deal satisfactorily with all the cannel which is obtainable.
        Captain WRIGHTasked the Minister of Munitions (1) with whom it lies to allow any individual attached to a Department other than the Inventions Department to apply for a patent of an invention similar to, though an improvement on, an invention brought to the Ministry by an inventor—to the head of the Department of the Ministry concerned, or to the Parliamentary head of the Ministry; (2) who decides, when permission is unrestrictedly given to an official of the Ministry to apply for a patent, whether the invention is of interest to the Government and is or is not based upon information supplied to the Department officially; and, when restricted permission is given, what are the restrictions and the circumstances in which such restricted permission is given?
        Mr. KELLAWAY: The decision in these cases rests with the head of the Department concerned, who has full cognisance of the circumstances and exercises his

        1449
        judgment as to the propriety or otherwise of a patent being taken out by an individual in his Department. When the invention is deemed to be of value to the Government, the right of user by the Government or its assignment to the Secretary of State is insisted on.
        Captain WRIGHT: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances in which Mr. Bradley, an official of the Ministry, was allowed by the head of his department to apply for a patent for a low-temperature retort?
        Mr. KELLAWAY: I have already had inquiries made on that question put by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I have not been able to find anything improper in what was then done.

        IRON ORE, ALLARGUE, BANFFSHIRE.
        Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has done anything to exploit the iron ore discovered in the hill of Allargue, in Banffshire; is he aware that analyses show that the percentage of manganese in this ore is as high as any found in any other part of the world; and will he say whether this source of supply of the wants of his Department in war-time is to be ignored?
        Mr. KELLAWAY: This discovery had not previously been brought to my notice. I shall be glad to receive the fullest available particulars, with a view to an investigation by one of the mining engineers of the Ministry.

    TRANSIT OF TURF (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what arrangements have been made for the transit of turf to Dublin city and for it being sold at a fair price?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Midland Great Western Railway Company hope to be in a position to give facilities for the carriage to Dublin of any quantities of turf that may be offered to them for conveyance. Thirteen boats on the Grand Canal are used for the carriage of turf to Dublin, and the boats on the Royal Canal would, no doubt, be available for the traffic. The price of turf has not been controlled yet, but this question is under consideration.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary for Scotland, with regard to the expenditure of £10,832 incurred on and connected with the establishment of eleven small holdings on the Middlebank estate, in Perthshire, of which, approximately, half will be repayable by a loan annuity, whether any provision has been made for the repayment of the other half or any part of it, and how much is regarded as outlay which will not be repaid; and if he will state what is the aggregate of the purchase money paid by these eleven small landholders to the owner of the estate for the purchase of their holdings?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The irrecoverable expenditure incurred by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland amounts to £5,214. The Board were not parties to the sale of these holdings, but I understand that the purchase money aggregated to about £5,750.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Mr. BOOTHask the President of the Local Government Board whether the medical officers of his Department have reported that 1,000 babies a week are dying because a new Government Department is not formed to take over the duties of the Local Government Board and to continue its labours under the title of a Ministry of Health; and, if so, will he state on what grounds this calculation has been made?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): No such report has been made by the medical officer of the Local Government Board. The conception of the statement as to the saving of 1,000 babies' lives a week is probably to be found in a Report on Child Mortality under five years of age, dated March, 1917, in which the medical officer stated that it is well within the range of administrative action, by means of improved housing and sanitary administration, better medical and nursing care, and a higher standard of conduct through educational measures, to reduce child mortality within the next few years to one-half of its present amount.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a spurious agitation has

    1451
    sprung up on this suggestion, and it has been repeatedly made, that if the Department were reorganised it would save a thousand babies a week?
    Mr. FISHER: I am aware of an agitation, of which I fully approve, to do everything that is possible, both by legislation and administration, to reduce the infant mortality, which is so prejudicial to the future of this country.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any doubt that improved administration and legislation would decrease the number of children who die, whether it is a thousand a week or not?
    Mr. FISHER: I am quite certain, and I have often stated, that improved administration, coupled with judicious legislation, will undoubtedly lead to the result which we all desire, namely, a diminution in infant mortality.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will mere juggling with the Department, calling it by another name, save any babies' lives?
    Mr. FISHER: No; juggling will never save lives.

    ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
    Mr. GULL ANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now consulted the Treasury as to the cost of the new electoral registers; and whether these will be sold at lower prices than those named in the recent Order in Council?
    Mr. FISHER: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and understand that the prices set out in the Order in Council represent the actual cost of printing and paper, and that no charge for setting the type is included. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not at present see his way to make any reduction in the prescribed fees.

    STANDING COMMITTEE ON HOME AFFAIRS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will explain the authority and powers of the Cabinet or Committee for Home Business, presided over by the Home Secretary; whether its decisions are submitted to and may be revised by the War Cabinet; whether, specially,
    1452
    legislation submitted to this House is decided on by the Home Cabinet; and whether administrative decisions on civil matters, especially the policy regarding aliens, is in the exclusive province of the Home Cabinet?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Standing Committee of Home Affairs has been appointed to consider domestic questions which require the co-operation of more than one Department, or are of such importance that they would otherwise call for the consideration of the War Cabinet. Its decisions are circulated to, and may be revised by, the War Cabinet. The policy regarding aliens was decided by the War Cabinet.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to state the increases in separation allowances for wives, dependants, and the dependants of apprentices?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I expect that this announcement will be made on Thursday next.
      Mr. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will say why, according to Army Form W3268, separation allowance to the wife or other dependant of a soldier reported missing ceases after thirty weekly payments have been made from the date the payee is notified of the fact; and whether a pension or gratuity then is automatically paid or has a claim to pension to be approved before payment is made?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Regulations in question, and a note showing the procedure in issuing pension or gratuity.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (SAILORS AND SOLDIERS).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister if he will consider legislation or the modification of existing Treasury restrictions so as to enable, by increasing their powers of borrowing, county councils to take advantage of the numerous sales

    1453
    of land now taking place throughout the country and to provide holdings for such sailors and soldiers who on discharge may desire to return and settle on the land?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 12th ultimo to the hon. Member for Tavistock, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (WOMEN CANDIDATES).
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister the result of the conference on the question of the admission of women to this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is still under consideration.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In view of the importance of this matter and the desirability of its being settled before a General Election takes place, can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps will be taken to expedite a decision?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this aspect of the question is entirely a matter of what is the law? It is now being examined by the Law Officers.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to answer a question on the subject before the Adjournment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I hope within a week.
    Mr. ROCH: Will any opinion of the Law Officers settle the matter? If it is a matter of law, will it not have to be determined by the Courts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That may be so, but it would be an advantage to have the opinion of the Law Officers as to what the law is.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is there any doubt what their opinion will be?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Unless there was a doubt it would not have been submitted to them.

    BANKING AMALGAMATIONS.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether his attention has been directed to the cohesion
    1454
    of capital interests by means of banking amalgamations; and whether the Government propose to take measures to prevent the establishment of a monopolistic money trust; (2) whether he is aware that individuals may object to subscribe to War Loans if they are placed at the mercy of large financial organisations with respect to credit and overdrafts for business purposes; and whether some of the dividends paid by banks interested in limiting competition will be turned to the discharge of war debt or of cheapening credit?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are fully alive to the necessity of preventing the establishment of a money trust, and carefully considered the recent amalgamations before agreeing to them. I do not think the proposal in the hon. Member's second question is either necessary or desirable.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to afford an opportunity of discussing this matter, in view of its great importance, and will he facilitate a Debate on the Vote of Credit?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think this would be a very suitable subject for discussion on the Vote of Credit, and I should certainly offer no objection to it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Ministry of Reconstruction considered the future of banking in this country in the light of these amalgamations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole subject of credit facilities after the War is being considered.
    Mr. FIELD: Are we to understand that no future amalgamations will be allowed until they are examined by this Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the House knows, a Committee was set up to report on the general subject, and they recommended that an Advisory Committee should be established to give advice to the Government Department. This Committee has been set up, and the amalgamations that are taking place have been on their advice and after further consideration by the President of the Board of Trade and myself.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that it would be in order to discuss this subject on the Vote of Credit; and if it should appear that it is not in

    1455
    order, will he provide some other opportunity, or indicate some other opportunity, for the discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a question of time. Possibly the Adjournment Motion would be sufficient if the Vote of Credit is not available.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the considerable number of amalgamations of banks which have been approved by the Committee recently set up, what, if any, stipulations have been imposed upon the amalgamated banks as a condition of approval by the Committee for facilities to be afforded by the banks to provincial and local enterprise and for powers of provincial and local directors and managers to make advances for such enterprise without reference to the central amalgamated management?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee required the proposers of each amalgamation to justify their scheme with reference to the public interest, and obtained assurances from them that very few, if any, of the existing branches of the banks would be closed. No specific conditions were attached as to the powers of local directors and managers.

    WAR AIMS COMMITTEE (PAMPHLETS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Joint Patronage Secretary to the Treasury how much money has been spent by the War Aims Committee on buying and circulating pamphlets which do not refer to the War or the conditions of peace; what authority the Committee has to undertake such expenditure; and whether all pamphlets, leaflets, and other publications published at the expense, for the purposes, or with financial aid, of the War Aims Committee will in future be clearly imprinted as emanating from the Committee?
    Colonel SANDERS (Treasurer of the Household): No pamphlets which do not refer to the War or the conditions of peace are issued by the War Aims Committee. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Is not the pamphlet by Lord Grey of Falloden being circulated by the War Aims Committee, and has that
    1456
    pamphlet not been declared by the Home Office to have nothing to do with the War or with terms of peace?
    Colonel SANDERS: I must refer the hon. Member to the Home Office.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WOMEN TEACHERS).
    Mr. MARTINasked the President of the Board of Education whether the women teachers in their dispute with the London County Council as to salaries have the right to demand arbitration; and, if they have not such right, will he introduce legislation giving it to them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend is not aware that the teachers have any legal right to claim arbitration on the questions in dispute, and he has no assurance that the establishment of a general system of arbitration, which would presumably have to be obligatory both upon teachers on the one side and the school authorities on the other, would be welcomed by the bodies concerned.
    Mr. ROCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer this question to the Committee which is considering women's wages?
    Mr. MARTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the women teachers of London are contemplating a general strike?
    Mr. LEWIS: In view of the fact that a full meeting of the London County Council will be held to-morrow to consider a petition from teachers, I would venture to deprecate any further discussion at this moment.

    HOUSING (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether arrangements are being made to ensure that Ireland shall receive the same financial assistance and provision of materials for housing as will be given in Great Britain?
    Mr. SHORTT: As already stated in a reply to a question of the hon. Member on the subject on 11th April last, it is intended that Ireland shall participate in any measures submitted to Parliament for the improvement of housing conditions.

    1457
    The requirements for building materials in Ireland are dealt with by the Departments concerned in the same way as in Great Britain.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is there any Committee considering this question in Ireland, which is a very pressing one?
    Mr. SHORTT: Not in Ireland.
    Mr. FIELD: Why not?

    PALESTINE (HEALTH OF TROOPS).
    Mr. FERENSasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that a considerable number of soldiers suffering from Bilharzia contracted in Palestine are being detained in Egypt; is he aware that the chance of their throwing off this disease is not nearly so probable in Egypt as it would be at home; and will he take steps to have these men brought to England?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am in communication with the military authorities in Egypt regarding this question, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    GENERAL STAFF (PROMOTIONS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Undersecretary for War whether he is taking any steps and, if so, what steps to accelerate promotion to the General Staff and to the higher commands of officers of the Territorial Force and of the New Army in view of the fact of the success of such officers in the field of action?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Selection for promotion on the General Staff and higher commands is made from a general list composed of all officers, including those of the Territorial Force and the New Army. Selection is made on the individual merits of each case.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst the Territorial officers that their claims are overlooked?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that I am aware of that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman share that view?

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      UNREGISTERED DENTIST.
      Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of unregistered, dentists of over forty-eight years of age are being called up; and if he will see that these men, who are men of experience in their profession, should be allowed to serve in the Army in their own profession?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Only registered dentists are eligible for commissions as dental surgeons, but unregistered dentists can be utilised as dental mechanics when their medical categories preclude their enlistment into combatant units.
      Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the military value of these men of fifty is very small, while their value at their own special work is considerable?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have told my hon. Friend, we are utilising their services as dental mechanics.

      YOUNG SOLDIERS.
      Mr. HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason why the French Government does not consider it advisable, even at this crisis of the War, to employ lads under nineteen in the fighting line; and will he say how lads under nineteen with only three months' training compare with lads of nineteen with six months' training from the point of view of fighting efficiency?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the latter part, it is obvious that the comparison is in favour of the lad with the longer training, but I would remind my hon. Friend that no lads are sent overseas until they are sufficiently trained to take their place in the firing line. In no case is the period of training less than fourteen weeks, and in a great many instances it is five months.
      Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that three months' training of a lad of nineteen will make him fit for the front line trenches? Will he inquire from the French Government why that Government, with its many years'

      1459
      experience of Conscription, has not thought it a good thing to take boys under nineteen?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech in April, explained the circumstances in which the Government were compelled to make the change.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is it a fact that the French Government do not consider it advisable to employ lads under nineteen in the fighting line?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot answer definitely offhand, but I am quite willing to answer definitely if my right hon. Friend will put down a question.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Has not this question been asked before, and do not the emergency conditions to which the Prime Minister referred apply to the French equally as to our own Army?
      Mr. HARRIS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state——
      Mr. SPEAKER: We have got a great number of questions on the Paper.
      Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement which was not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

    METROPOLITAN SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that since the inauguration in 1915 of the force of special constables the duties of the men have been increased, owing to a reduction in the number of regular police; that in some weeks a man will lose three nights' rest and still have to attend to his work during the day; that although the time on duty is only four hours, as the men have to parade half an hour before, and it is usually half an hour after finishing duty that the men are released, the time really extend beyond the four hours, and considerably so where a man resides some distance away; and whether he will consider the possibility of ameliorating these conditions?
    Mr. BRACE: It is true that the nature of the duties to be performed by the special constables has changed since the
    1460
    force was constituted in 1914, and they have become more varied and responsible; but members of the force are, as a rule, not required to perform more than one turn of duty of four hours every three days. In those cases where it has been necessary to exceed the limit of four hours the duties have been performed, so far as the Commissioner is aware, with willingness and zeal. Every effort is made, with due regard to the varying conditions of different localities, to prevent any waste of time and to make the duty as little burdensome as possible.

    CLEANERS (NEW SCOTLAND YARD).
    Major BOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the men cleaners employed at Scotland Yard receive a war bonus of 14s. per week and women cleaners a war bonus of 9s. per week, and that the the men and women cleaners engaged at police stations receive a war bonus of 8s. and 4s. respectively; and will he state why this distinction is made, seeing that they have to do the same kind of work?
    Mr. BRACE: The cleaners at New Scotland Yard are on the permanent establishment, whereas those serving at police stations are employed in a temporary capacity, many of them being only part-time workers. In view of recent increases awarded by the Conciliation Board to persons temporarily employed in the Civil Service, it is proposed to reconsider the amount of the war bonus payable to the station cleaners.
    Major BOWDEN: When considering this bonus, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the whole-timers and bring up their bonus so that it shall be equivalent to that of the Scotland Yard cleaners?
    Mr. BRACE: The whole question shall be considered.

    ANIMAL DISEASES (RESEARCH LABORATORY).
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the new laboratory of the Board at Weybridge for research in animals' diseases and for the immunisation of animals from native and tropical diseases, which was projected and started in 1913 with a

    1461
    Grant from the Development Fund, has been completed; whether any scientific investigations are yet conducted there; if so, into what diseases and with what result; whether any work in preventive medicine is undertaken, particularly with reference to the export of British livestock; whether the staff has been depleted by recruiting for the Army; if so, what steps are being taken to obviate any interruption of the work of the laboratory; and whether he can make a statement on the progress and prospect of the scheme?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I am glad to say that the Board's laboratory at Addlestone, near Weybridge, is now practically completed, and that already several scientific investigations have been undertaken there. The chief of these are in regard to louping-ill and the poisoning of cattle by ragwort and by bracken Useful results have been obtained in all of them, especially in regard to louping-ill, a disease which has for many years placed a heavy burden on sheep farmers in various parts of the United Kingdom. Its cause and the method of its spread have been discovered, and it seems quite possible that the remedial measures necessary will be such as can be carried out without the need for restrictions on the movement of sheep. As regards preventive medicines, the laboratory prepares and sends out anti-swine-fever serum at the rate of about 6,000 doses per month, and anti-abortion vaccine at the rate of about 1,700 doses per month. The best methods for immunising British live stock against tropical diseases before export are also continuously under consideration, and I understand that good progress has been made in this study. The laboratory staff has been depleted by recruiting for the veterinary services of the Army, and it is feared that some of the work may have to be suspended if any further men are taken for military service. In reply to the last part of the question, I am of opinion that the laboratory, which as the House may remember owes its existence mainly to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, is doing excellent work, and, as regards the future, will play a considerable part in agricultural reconstruction. I cannot now make a detailed statement of progress and prospects, but I will consider whether one should not be prepared and printed in the Board's Journal, or as a separate leaflet.

    CROSS-CHANNEL TRANSPORTS.
    Mr. PETO(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 14th November last an assurance was given by the Transport Department of the Ministry of Shipping to the navigating and engineer officers of twenty-four cross-Channel transports, running from Southampton, that the question of their remuneration, about which they had made representations, would be specially considered by the National Maritime Board, and that any increase of pay would be applicable retrospectively as from 6th October last; whether he is aware that the weekly rates of pay of officers of home-trade cargo and home-trade passenger vessels were settled by the National Maritime Board on 11th March and 18th June last; whether the assurance thus given to the officers of those cross-Channel transports remains unfulfilled as regards the great majority of them which are owned by different railway companies; whether he is aware that these officers have been in receipt of pay at only about half the rates settled by the National Maritime Board, and whether serious consequences have ensued; whether this is due to the Railway Executive Committee declining to recognise or act upon the decisions of the National Maritime Board; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the officers of railway-owned steamers receive the same rates of pay and conditions of service as officers of other similar vessels—that is, in accordance with the decisions of the National Maritime Board?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I only received notice of this question late this morning, and fear I can add nothing to what the hon. Member already knows. The Railway Executive Committee have agreed to pay the initial rates for each grade as recommended by the National Maritime Board, but desire to retain their own classification of railway steamers, and their own system of seniority. The rates of pay will on the average, and on the whole, be equivalent to those laid down by the National Maritime Board, and the increases of pay will be retrospective.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take, in view of what has taken place, to let his decision be known, that at least the equivalent, as I understand, of rates

    1463
    settled by the National Maritime Board will be paid to these officers from the 6th October last?
    General McCALMONT: And will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to answer my question on this subject, and which has been on the Paper some days, to-morrow?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I have no knowledge of that particular question, but in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Peto), I take it that the publication of the reply I have given to him will be sufficient evidence of what the Board intend to do in the matter. In the meantime, I am personally taking the matter into consideration, and if I have anything to communicate to my hon. Friend I will do so.

    CROSS-CHANNEL TRANSPORTS.

      County Councils, Scotland.
      Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of times on which each county council in Scotland met in each year from 1910 to 1917, inclusive, and the average attendance of members representing the various districts in Argyleshire, Inverness-shire, Boss and Cromarty, and Perthshire?
      Mr. MUNRO: I am not in possession of information which would enable me to reply to my hon. Friend's question. I could probably obtain it in the form of a detailed return from the officials of the counties referred to, but I hesitate to impose this burden upon them under existing circumstances. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press his request.

      Land Values.
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the valuations of the various values of land, specified in Section 25 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, have now been made over the whole surface-land of Great Britain, subject to some trifling exceptions, and as the total values, which are the gross values less fixed charges and certain other deductions, have been aggregated and amount to more than £5,267,000,000, whether he will give instructions that the gross values and the full site values, respectively, shall also be aggregated and their respective amounts disclosed?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on the 5th February last, to which I can add nothing.
      Mr. D. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these valuations have been made at the expense of the taxpayer, and in view of the need for new sources of revenue is it not important that the aggregates at least should be disclosed?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to which I have referred my hon. Friend pointed out that a great deal of work would be involved in giving mere particulars.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the question of a levy on capital depend upon having the actual figures or the gross figures?

      Tithe Rent-Charge.
      Mr. D. WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount of tithe rent-charge attached to benefices in respect of which the sum of rather more than £193,000, being half the rates, was paid during the financial year 1917–18 by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue out of public money under the Tithe Bent-Charge (Rates) Act, 1899; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that the relief thus given to the owners of this tithe rent-charge for this last financial year is greater than in any previous year since the Act was passed?
      Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part of the question, the facts are as stated.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the Leader of the House what Orders he proposes to take to-day? Does he mean to take the Naval Prize Bill and the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. We hope to get all the Orders on the Paper down to No. 10 (Asylums Officers' Superannuation Bill), except the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Bill and the Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it proposed to take the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, with reference to the Naval Prize Bill, that a White Paper dealing with the Bill will be issued tomorrow, and would it not be desirable to discuss the Bill with the White Paper before us?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that. This is a Bill which it is desirable, if we can, to get through the House before the Recess, and if that is to happen it must go to another place in order to give them time to discuss it. I hope, therefore, it will not be necessary to postpone it till to-morrow.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether it is intended to get the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Bill through before the Recess, as it is a very pressing matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he thinks it advisable to press this Motion? The other day a Motion was moved for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on the Education. Bill, which everyone must admit is an extremely important Bill. An
  1478
  Amendment was moved on the Report stage of that Bill at about twenty minutes past Eleven, and what was the result? There were twenty-eight against the Amendment and eight in favour that is thirty-six, with the four Tellers, or forty in all, and with you, Sir, in the Chair, forty-one altogether. There were forty-one Members present a little after Eleven o'clock, on one of the most important Bills before the House, when there are 670 Members of the House, which shows that after the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended hon. Members will not attend. I venture to say that it is a farce to attempt to pass Bills in this House when there are only about forty Members present, and if on a Bill like the Education Bill it is only possible for the Government to muster thirty in their favour out of 670, is it dignified or fitting that we should go on suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule? I venture to say, after some years' experience of this House, that there has been no sign of obstruction during the whole of this Session, and that therefore it is most unnecessary to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to support the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and particularly with regard to the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill. There are a number of very important questions arising under that Bill, affecting very large numbers of people in all parts of the country, and, in view of that fact, I think it is extremely unfortunate that decisions should be taken by a Committee of this House which will affect pecuniary interests at a time when there can be no real discussion of the questions involved, and at a time also when the people who are affected cannot be apprised of the considerations which have been put before the Committee in coming to a decision. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to what occurred one evening when the Eleven o'Clock Rule was suspended on the Education Bill, and I think there is some ground for the fear that a similar situation may arise on this measure also. It is true that a number of Members are interested, but, unfortunately, in the conditions prevailing in this House it is difficult for the people outside who have interests affected to bring their influence to bear upon members of this slumbering body.

  1479
  They are now living with the fear of a General Election before their eyes, and many of them have no intention of going to their constituencies again unless they have a free run, and in these circumstances they are inclined to ignore their duties here. Those considerations should, I think, prevent the Government from taking a measure of this kind at such a late hour. During the remaining days of this week the House will not be very fully occupied, and while it may be possible to take some of the other Orders at a late hour, it would be very unfortunate if any substantial questions outstanding on this particular Bill should require them to be taken at a late hour.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope the House will allow this Motion to go forward, and I can assure them that it is made quite as much for the convenience of the House of Commons as for that of the Government. We are getting very near the end of the Session, and in spite of what my hon. and learned Friend has said, we will find it extremely difficult to get the business which is absolutely necessary through in order to adjourn at the time I mentioned. What the right hon. Gentleman opposite said is perfectly true. There has been no obstruction, and it is for that reason that up till now we have not moved a general Motion, as has always hitherto happened, suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule every day, because we have found that the House has been ready to meet us as long as we made nothing but fair demands upon it. There is no intention whatever of staying late. The object of suspending the Rule is that an extra half-hour or three-quarters of an hour may enable us to get through the business, and it will help the general convenience of the House. It is not the Government's fault that members are not sufficiently interested to attend, and that question does not apply only after eleven o'clock, and I think it is another reason to make the House desire that we should have a reasonably early Adjournment, because I think all Members of the House have had a very severe strain, and a rest will be good for all.
  Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand that no new controversial Order will be called after eleven?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It really depends on what is called controversial, but I think I can say that, in the ordinary sense of
  1480
  the word, I accept that. I cannot say it may not seem controversial to particular individuals.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand it is only intended to take the business on the Paper?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
  Mr. WATT: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take out the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, and add one or two of those at the end of the Paper? The first Bill on the Paper may take a very long time, and the one I have mentioned will certainly take the rest of the day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is a misunderstanding about that. This Bill will be taken second to-day, and, in spite of what my hon. Friend says, I hope that the first Bill will not occupy nearly-all the time. I hope the second Bill will come on at an early hour, but in any case we will not dream of starting it at eleven o'clock.
  Question put, and agreed to.

TRADE BOARDS BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman), is beyond the scope of the Bill. It deals with the application of the Bill to agriculture, but agriculture is a wholly different subject—not a trade, but an industry.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. DENMAN: Might I point out to you the difficulty in which we are placed in regard to your ruling. In the Committee upstairs the Minister in charge of the Bill assured us that he, by Order under this Bill, could apply it to agriculture. The ruling you gave is final in this House, but it would not be binding in the Courts of law nor on a Minister administering the Bill. After this Bill has been passed and becomes law, if the Minister makes an Order, only the Courts of law can set it aside. The Amendment which I wish to-move is intended to safeguard the interests of agriculture against such an Order being made, and without the Amendment that safeguard would, of course, be absent. It seems to me the position is a

1481
very serious one, and I would, therefore, like to press for a reconsideration of the ruling.
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot state what course may be pursued by the Minister who may have to administer the Bill, but I would point out that quite recently agriculture has been treated differently, and an Act has been passed setting up full machinery for dealing with these matters.
Mr. DENMAN: But that was only a temporary measure which will come to an end automatically in 1922, and the Minister will then be in a position in which, if he thinks it necessary, he may set up a trade board for agriculture under the Trade Boards Acts. May I say, on the merits of the question, there is reason for thinking that a portion of the Agricultural Act to which you have referred—the Corn Production Act—applies to an agricultural trade? It applies to market gardens which, under the Bankruptcy Act of 1869, are declared to be a trade, and there is no possible doubt that the Minister could make a special Order under the Trade Boards Bill which would apply to market gardens. In these circumstances I submit that the safeguard I am proposing is necessary for that branch of Agriculture.
Mr. SPEAKER: We have, never treated agriculture as a trade. Indeed, it has a separate code of legislation to deal with it, and it is not included in any of the matters dealt with by the original Trade Boards Act.
Mr. DENMAN: The workers in it have a trade union, and if they are organised in a trade union, they can surely reasonably anticipate coming under the Trade Boards Act?
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot argue any further with the hon. Member. I have taken a broad view of the situation, and I cannot believe the agricultural community ever expected that they would be included in the Trade Boards Act, nor was any such suggestion made on the Second Reading. Neither do I believe that when the House passed the Second Reading it contemplated agriculture being treated as a trade. For these reasons, which seem to be general, broad, and sufficient, I feel bound to rule that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is beyond the scope of the Bill.

TRADE BOARDS BILL

  CLAUSE 1.—(Application of the Principal Act, 9 Edw. 7, c. 22.)
  (1) The Trade Boards Act, 1909 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act") shall apply to the trades specified in the Schedule to that Act and to any other trades to which it has been applied by a provisional Order made under Section one of that Act or by a special Order made under this Act by the Minister of Labour (in this Act referred to as "a special Order").
  (2) The Minister of Labour (in this Act referred to as "the Minister") may make a special Order applying the principal Act to any specified trade to which it does not at the time apply if he is of opinion that no adequate machinery exists for the effective regulation of wages throughout the trade, and that accordingly, having regard to the rates of wages prevailing in the trade, or any part of the trade, it is expedient that the principal Act should apply to that trade.
  (3) If at any time the Minister is of opinion that the conditions of employment in any trade to which the principal Act applies have been so altered as to render the application of the principal Act to the trade unnecessary, he may make a special Order withdrawing that trade from the operation of the principal Act.
  (4) If the Minister is of opinion that it is desirable to alter or amend the description of any of the trades specified in the Schedule to the principal Act, he may make a special Order altering or amending the said Schedule accordingly.
  (5) Any Act confirming a provisional Order made in pursuance of Section one of the principal Act may be repealed or varied by a special Order.
  (6) Section one of the principal Act shall cease to have effect.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move in Subsection (l), to leave out the word "special" ["special Order made under this Act"], and to insert instead thereof the word "provisional."
  It will be in the recollection of the House that the main effect of this Bill is to alter the law in two respects. First of all it enables the Minister to extend the provisions of the Act by means of a special Order instead of by means of a provisional Order, and secondly it allows the Act to be applied to any trade instead of merely to those trades in which wages are abnormally low. I venture to submit that no case whatever has been made out for abolishing procedure by provisional Order and substituting that of special Order. Procedure by provisional Order was inserted in the original Bill in Committee as the result of considerable discussion, and I venture to say that so far that procedure has been entirely successful. We know that the operation of the original Act was very considerably increased by provisional Order and that the Board of Trade promoted five provisional Orders for extending that Act.

  1483
  Five Orders were embodied in one Bill which duly came before a Select Committee, four of the Orders were passed and the fifth was rejected. That Committee had for its chairman a gentleman who is now a Member of the Government, and it was a very competent Committee. It was an Order which dealt with the laundry trade which was rejected. At a subsequent period the Government came forward again with the same proposal which, curiously enough, went to the same Committee and was again rejected, and from what took place I gather there can be no doubt whatever that the action of the Committee in rejecting the provisional Order was quite right. It seems to me it is rather difficult to discover a greater justification for this particular form of procedure, because it has had the effect of preventing the Government from attempting to do that which, in the opinion of a very excellent Committee of this House, was manifestly wrong, and the Government have never, either in this House or upstairs, advanced any real reason why this procedure should be done away with. All they tell us is that it takes a little time, and that certainly does not seem to be a very conclusive argument in favour of substituting one form of procedure for another. I suspect the real reason for this Government proposal is that under the special Order they will not be liable to be prevented from doing precisely what they choose. We ought to be particularly careful in this case because this Bill very largely extends the scope of the Government's activities.
  Under the old Bill the provisional Order could only be made to extend to the case of trade where the wages were abnormally low, but under this Bill there is no such limit and there is nothing to prevent the trade boards system being extended to any trade in the country. In Committee upstairs we heard the representatives of the Labour party protest, not once or twice but several times, that the great organised trades unions would strongly object to having the trade boards system extended to them. We are constantly being told that the Act does not in terms contemplate the possibility of the extension of the trade boards to every class of trade. We are told it is not in the contemplation of anybody to extend this system of trade boards to other than poorly organised trades, but if we are going to have power in general terms to
  1484
  extend what is only intended to operate over a very narrow area, I think we ought to be careful to see that the Government are not free to extend it exactly, as they please. Our experience of the last few months proves most conclusively that the action of the Government bears no kind of resemblance to the professions under which it gets powers it asks for. New circumstances have come to light since the Committee stage of the Bill was closed, and these make it more than ever necessary we should insist on the provisional Order procedure. What is the safeguard contained in the special Order? It is this, that the special Order should be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty from either House within the next subsequent forty days on which the House has sat after the Order has been so laid, praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the Order and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the power of making a fresh Order. Two or three days ago some of my hon. Friends wanted to take advantage of that form of procedure, and accordingly placed the necessary notice on the Paper, but owing to the fact that the Government had taken the whole of the time of the House it was ruled that it was not permissible for them to move their Resolution. That seems to me to point to a very serious state of affairs. It means that this provision which is put into this Bill for the purpose of protecting a certain form of public interest is rendered absolutely useless if the Government put down a special Order taking the whole time of the House, and really so long as the onus lies on the Member of this House who is dissatisfied to obtain time for the discussion of the Order so long is that protection of little or no value, because it is always open to the Government—and they have had the power for the last four years to use that power, and then there is no opportunity whatever of raising a question of this character. We are told sometimes that if there is a sufficiently large number of persons who object to the Minister's Order the Government will give time, or some other way will be found to discuss it, but that is not at all satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to be told that it is only if a large number of Members wish to raise a discussion on a special Order they

  1485
  will be allowed to do so on sufferance, and when in the opinion of the Government there is a sufficiently large body of opinion in the House to make it dangerous to refuse the opportunity for debate. Parliament is merely a voting assembly. We are not merely here to discuss those questions which a large majority of the Members would like to take a Division upon. I submit that a small number of Members have an equal right to put their case before the House even if it is an unpopular one, and to try and persuade the majority of the House that the view they are advancing is the right one. It is certainly most improper that we should be told that a matter such as this question of a special Order cannot be debated because a majority of the House agree with the Government. Under these circumstances I submit that the only real protection we have got is to stick to procedure by provisional Order, and that the onus of finding time for discussion should rest on the Government. It would be intolerable that a provision which is intended to protect hon. Member's rights could at any moment be nullified by the action of the Government.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am glad to second this Amendment. My hon. Friend has set forth very clearly the whole grounds upon which it is put forward. The case for the Amendment has been very much reinforced since the matter was discussed upstairs in Committee. The Government then made a great point of the safeguard which was left to any industry which might be effected by the special Order, and which was contained in the provision for laying these Orders on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. But since then we have learned that this safeguard is absolutely nugatory. It has in fact been nugatory since the War commenced, and it will not only continue to be nugatory until the end of the War, but certainly for several Parliamentary Sessions after that. The special Order can only now be discussed if the Government themselves give time, and what is the situation which is likely to arise? You will have the Ministry of Labour making a special Order regarding a particular trade, and those engaged in that trade, either employers or workmen, will in the majority of cases represent a very small portion of the community, and will only be
  1486
  able to state their case to a small number of hon. Members of this House. If they so state their case to a small minority in this House, and even if they succeed in persuading the Members whom they approach, there is every likelihood that the Minister responsible for the business of the House will say there is no general desire for a discussion of the matter, and consequently there will be no opportunity whatever of discussing the action of the Government, no opportunity of having the views of the industry before the House, and the whole matter will be left to the unfettered discretion of a single autocratic Minister. That seems a proposition to which this House should by no means give its assent. If it had been possible for a small minority under our regular procedure to move an Address, and state arguments on the question, I should be content to abide by the decision of the Government, but now we know that is impossible. Before the War, in regard to Orders, a small section of this House was enabled to use the machinery of an Address, and, even although a minority, they were able by the strength of the case they put before the House to induce the Government to modify their action. But now no such proceeding is possible.
  I think, therefore, that unless the Government is prepared to make it possible for any section of Members at any time to move an Address in regard to these Orders, it should be our duty now to insist on the procedure of the provisional Order being adopted. The interests which are affected may be of very great importance. When we discussed the original Trade Boards Act—a much more limited measure, and when Parliament was discussing the matter under normal conditions, and was able to listen to arguments without any preoccupation—Parliament insisted that the system of provisional Orders should apply; but under present conditions it is impossible to get the House to give its serious attention to anything, and the Government is asking us to put all the interest of all these trades at the mercy and the discretion of a single Minister, without any security that his decision can ever be discussed at all. I should be very much inclined to call a count, just to indicate the small number of Members here who seem to have any appreciation of the importance of the issues which are now being discussed. If this were a mere temporary

  1487
  measure, which was limited in its operation to the period of the War, and was due to emergency causes, I can understand the indifference, but this is a permanent piece of legislation. It may affect any number of trades in this country, and, although it has been ruled that agriculture is outside this Bill, the Minister indicated upstairs that he could apply it to particular branches of agriculture, and be within its scope, and, consequently, even if the agricultural Members are absent now, believing there is no risk to that great industry, it may turn out, when it comes to a question of legal decision, that they have been living in a fool's paradise. For all these reasons I think the Government ought now to modify the decision they are now taking. It has been made clear to them that the security which they then magnified is utterly nugatory. Under these circumstances I hope the Minister will be able to announce that he is prepared to accept my Friend's Amendment.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. George Roberts): My hon. Friends who have respectively moved and seconded this Amendment rested their case, as I understand it, very largely upon the exigencies of war conditions. The Government have felt it necessary during the War, and for war purposes, to take the whole time of the House. This is purely a temporary expedient, and we hope, of course, that when the War ends it will no longer operate. I respectfully suggest that is not a sufficient reason for destroying the procedure which is set forth in this Bill. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) also made a reference again to the statement which is imputed to me as having been made in Committee respecting the position of agriculture under this Bill. I desire to take this opportunity of making the position clear. I had doubts, and I expressed doubts, in Committee, as to whether agriculture could be considered as coming within the Trade Boards Bill. Nevertheless, it was not for me to dispute the ruling of the Chairman, and I said if the Chairman's ruling was well-founded, then, even if the Corn Production Act was allowed to expire at the end of 1922, we could proceed to include agriculture under the trade boards scheme. I think that is quite a different thing from what my hon. Friend has represented to the House.
  1488
  I base my case for this new procedure, as I stated on Second Reading, on the fact that, whereas the more dilatory procedure by provisional Order was perfectly justifiable when the experiment was first made, we have now had sufficient experience of this scheme, and it has secured general acquiesence, to warrant, in my opinion, the adoption of a more expeditious and satisfactory method of including trades within its scope. I feel that nothing has since occurred to alter that view. But, nevertheless, perhaps it is necessary, owing to the fact that some Members may be present who did not participate in the previous Debates, to go over the ground again in order to make the position as clear as possible. First of all, I submit that the Minister is hampered by time, so far as provisional Order Bills are concerned, in their introduction into this House. Under the Standing Orders of the House no Bill for the confirmation of a provisional Order may be read the first time after Whitsuntide, and the House of Lords usually directs by a Sessional Order that no such Bill brought from the Commons may be read a second time after a fixed date in June. Therefore, it confines the Minister to the introduction of Bills of this character to a very limited stage in the early part of the year. But, assuming that a provisional Order Bill were introduced within the permitted time, and went through without opposition of any kind, a period of about three months would usually elapse between the First Reading and the securing of the Royal Assent.
  The procedure is, therefore, not very satisfactory or speedy, even under the most favourable circumstances. But, in the event of a Bill being opposed, there seems to be almost unlimited opportunities of obstructing its passage. If it appears that the Bill is confronted with serious opposition, then the probability is that it has to be referred to a Select Committee. The procedure of a Select Committee is also very unsatisfactory. Worst of all it is that if, on inquiry, a Select Committee feel that the measure ought to be extended, then, having regard to the practice of the House, it only allows a Select Committee to insert particular Amendments, and the Bill has to be withdrawn and the whole procedure gone over in another Session. Then, assume that the Select Committee recommend the House to pass the Bill, it can be opposed by any Member either on Report stage or

  1489
  Third Reading, and further time must be taken up with its discussion. Then, if a provisional Order passes through this House, a substantially similar procedure must be gone through in the House of Lords.
  My opinion is that, Parliament having sanctioned the principle of the establishment of trade boards in trades in which wages are low, should leave it to the Minister of Labour to select the trades which come within this category. It does not seem unreasonable to allow the Minister, in the exercise of his discretion, to bring in trades by the simpler procedure set out in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Moreover, this procedure does not abolish Parliamentary control, but enables Parliament to step in and veto the action of the Minister if in any case he has acted in an unfair or injudicious manner. The fact that the Trade Boards Act is acknowledged to have worked well constitutes, in my opinion, good reason why its application to other trades, where needed, should be made easier and more expeditious. It was admittedly an experiment, and the procedure of provisional Order, being cumbrous and dilatory, has retarded its extension. Again, the War, of course, has diverted attention for a long time from social reforms of this character. Nevertheless, the necessity for a wide extension of this principle is really urgent. Before the War half a million women in the country were paid less than 13s. a week—in many cases less. It is true that rates have risen owing to the War. Still some, not employed on war work, are being paid very low rates of wages. After the War grave dislocation is bound to ensue, and wages may slump with most undesirable social consequences, unless machinery is established to adjust matters on a just and humane basis. I feel that the state of affairs after the War may produce most lamentable results, unless machinery is in existence to take up the case of women and to adjust wages on a fair basis, and not simply on the old method of paying them just what they are able to command. These women, in the main, are unorganised. They are not in the fortunate position of many of the skilled artisans, and I feel that, as the problem will arise undoubtedly with great urgency, we must be prepared to meet it.
  Supposing we find it desirable to apply the Act to twenty different trades, under the procedure recommended by my two
  1490
  hon. Friends, it would be necessary to bring in a large number of provisional Orders. If twenty Orders are incorporated in one Bill, the whole might be held up by a small number of objectors. There would have to be reference made to a Select Committee, and I submit it would involve considerable delay, just at a time when the machinery ought to be operating smoothly and speedily. Before notice of intention to make an Order in respect of any trade the Department intends by argument and persuasion to remove opposition. I do not think this is sufficiently understood. Some hon. Members seem to think that the Minister in haphazard fashion simply decides that the scheme should be extended to another trade or other trades. The real procedure is that a good deal of investigation is carried on, and until we are satisfied that the conditions in the industry are unfair, that the rates of wages are unduly low, no action is likely to be taken. Even when we come to the point that action is desirable, we proceed to negotiate with the various parties in the trade. The result invariably is that when we give notice of our intention to make the Order we carry with us the general acquiescence of the parties in the trade. It invariably happens that the best elements in the trade, both workpeople and employers, are anxious to have their trade brought within the scope of the scheme. We had to give forty days' notice of our intention to make the Order, and the Order, when made, must lie on the Table of the House a further forty days; but having regard to the Amendments accepted in Committee those forty days would only run during the time that Parliament is not sitting. Then the Department proceeds to form a Board. That, in itself, is sometimes a lengthy proceeding. The Board notifies the Minister of the appropriate rates, and the Minister may within a month make an Order confirming the rate or rates, or refer the matter back for reconsideration. The Minister then sends a notification of the agreement to the Trade Board, and the Trade Board gives notice to the trade of the rate or rates, together with the dates on which the Order shall become effective. I think, when we follow all these several stages, we shall see, even then, under this approved and more expeditious procedure, that the operation is still very protracted, and one which affords every facility for objection being made by those who wish to make it.

  1491
  Again, I want to point out, as I did on the Second Reading, that the procedure follows very closely the provisions contained in Sections 80, 81 and 84 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1891, which prescribe the procedure for working the Regulations the Home Secretary is empowered to make for dangerous trades under Section 79 of that Act. I feel that the new procedure assures full publicity and ample opportunity for inquiry and for the ventilation of any grievances. If a Minister has erred or acted arbitrarily, the aggrieved person may get his Member in the House of Commons to ask questions or raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House, or move to annul the Order as prescribed in the Bill. But the Minister will naturally always strive to carry the parties in the trade with him. Moreover, parliamentarily the procedure will be well hedged with safeguards and restraints. Trade boards have been approved as beneficial. They have passed beyond the experimental stage. Their application, therefore, in suitable cases should be expedited. I repeat that the urgency of after-war conditions constitutes a further reason why this new procedure should be accepted. Organised labour is behind this desire. I believe the reformist element of all parties in the House give their approval to the expediting of the procedure, and there will be great dissatisfaction, if not worse, should it be decided to retain the old procedure, with its unnecessary delays and disappointments, having regard to the experience that we have now of the operation of this form of legislation. Thus I ask the House to reject this Amendment, so that the establishment of fair wages and improved labour conditions in the low-organised industries and the ill-paid industries may be "speeded up." Many workers are looking forward with hope. Good employers wish that competitive conditions should be regulated and humanised. Altogether the Bill makes a considerable step forward, and I think the new procedure can be amply justified by the considerations I have advanced. I beg the House to support the Government, and to reject the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We had considerable discussion on this matter in Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward practically the same arguments there that he has brought forward now. There can be no question
  1492
  that after the War this matter is going to be a very important one. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that after the War questions of work and wages will arise which will be very important, and that it will be very necessary to see that the proper steps are taken so far as possible to arrange these matters. While I quite agree with that, I do not agree that the steps he proposes to take is the best way of carrying this matter out. This is being urged as an important question. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, is a democrat. He believes that the voice of the people will prevail in the Commons House of the people. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman should leave these matters to the Commons House of the people, and not keep them in the hands of any individual, however excellent he may be. The proposal put forward might be expected without surprise from a reactionary person like myself—that we should have a person in whose supreme wisdom we should be content to trust the direction of the affairs of the country. I cannot, however, understand a doctrine of that sort coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour. It does not appear to me to be a democratic-principle. It does appear to me that it is taking away the power of the Commons House of the people elected by the democracy to see that what they desire is carried into effect. That is my first objection to the change from provisional Orders to special Orders.
  What is next advanced by the right hon. Gentlemen? He says that this matter is going to take a considerable time, and it is impossible, owing to the Rules of the House, to introduce the First Reading of a Provisional Order Bill after Whitsuntide. That is, he says, a Standing Order of the House, and, though I am averse from amending the Standing Orders of the House, believing that they are the outcome of the wisdom of our forefathers, written after great experience, still, it would be quite possible to alter those Standing Orders and to say that it should be possible to introduce and have the First Reading of a Bill even as late as July. After all—I have not got a calendar by me, but my right hon. Friend opposite is great on Church matters, and he will be able to tell us exactly when Whitsuntide comes—I think he will possibly agree with me that Whitsuntide takes place sometime in June.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May!
  Sir F. BANBURY: Not June, but May?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes. More at the end of May than June.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not pose as an authority on that point. I am not at all unwilling to call it the end of May, and not June. We usually meet here at the end of January or about the beginning of February. Between that time and the termination of that part of the Session there is January, February, March, April, and May-five months. Surely in five months the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represent the Ministry in this matter, can make up their minds as to what is the trade for which they wish to bring in a provisional Order, and before it becomes too late to proceed with a First Reading. I am afraid that arguments falls to the ground; there is no force in it. My hon. Friend opposite knows all about the procedure of the House of Commons—he used to be a Whip—and how often Members are here and when they are away. He is essentially a fair-minded man. I appeal to him how many times after twelve o'clock in the old days, or after eleven o'clock later, has he been all round the House to induce Members to stay when he was desirous to prevent a count-out? It is perfectly well-known to everyone whom I am, now addressing that an Address can only be brought in, so far as I know, after eleven o'clock unless the business has been terminated before. I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman when he talks about the time of the House. It does not matter whether the time of the House is in the hands of the Government or a private Member——
  Mr. HOLT: It does matter very much when, under the Standing Orders, all the time is taken by the Government, for no private Member can bring forward any Motion under any circumstances or at any time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes; but an Address to the Crown cannot be moved except after eleven o'clock, unless the business is over, whether it is a private Member's night or a Government night. Very well, then, we know perfectly well that on private Members' nights it is very rare the business is over before eleven, and with the insane desire, if I may say so, of modern Governments to legislate, it is quite impossible that it should be over before eleven o'clock. Therefore, the fact remains that the only opportunity which
  1494
  the great democrat whom I see opposite desires to give to the people to control their own affairs, and over legislation by the people, for the people—and I forget what the other part of the aphorism is!—is after eleven o'clock, because he knows perfectly well the representatives of the people in attendance now would not number forty, and they would probably be counted out. That is what is termed control of the House over these matters! The fact remains, therefore, that what we are-asked to do is to put the control of wages in any trade into the hands of one-Minister. I do not know whether I have sufficient confidence in the present administration to put power into their hands. That, perhaps, really does not arise, because we are not going to put it into the hands of the present administration. We are going to put it into the hands, after this Parliament is over, of whoever may then be Minister. I say it is far too great a power to trust to any given Minister, I do not care who he is.
  The procedure under the Trade Boards Act of 1909, says the right hon. Gentleman, has been so successful that it is necessary to do this. That to me is a very extraordinary argument. If the procedure under the Trade Boards Act of 1909, with its provisional Orders, has been so very successful, why vary it? As a matter of fact, the thing has been successful, because the only occasion on which there has been any objection to the procedure of the Minister under the Trade Boards Act, 1909, has been the case of the laundries. What happened to them? Their case was so good that they defeated the Government of the day. They won their case. After all—and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something which is rather irregular—after all, it is conceivable that the Government may be wrong. That is not, I know, the idea of the moment, but, still, it is conceivable that the Government may be wrong! If they are wrong why should they not be exposed, and why should their wrongdoing not stop? The Government were wrong in the case of the laundries, and an injustice was stopped and proceedings were stayed. That was the only time during the operation under the Act of 1909 that there was any difficulty about provisional Orders. The right hon. Gentleman says if anybody is aggrieved he can always ask a Member of the House to put a question and get an official answer, but that means nothing at all. In these days the answers are not

  1495
  even reported in the papers. I think it would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had said, "In my opinion Ministers are so efficient that they are the people who ought to decide these things; the House of Commons is only an assembly which comes down and gives us power to do certain things, and when they have given that power they do not retain any control, and they leave the whole matter to us, as they should do." If that is to be the future of the House of Parliament, why do we sit here every day—why not pass a single Bill, saying, "Ministers can do no wrong"? It would save a good deal of trouble, and we could all go home. I really do think that there is a great deal more than appears at first sight in this Amendment, and I hope my right hon. Friend, who is gifted with clear speech, and who holds very strong opinions on this subject, will give us the benefit of his views. There is something very much beyond the mere giving of the power to the Minister of Labour to fix wages. The real question at issue is the control of the House of Commons in these matters, and whether that control is to be maintained, or are we going to part with our authority and hand our power over to a Minister? I hope we shall not. I think we are going too much in that direction as it is. I do not altogether believe in autocracy, although I am not sure that it is not better than democracy, but I do not believe in a democratic autocrat, and I hope my hon. Friend will be able to carry his Amendment.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: I am not satisfied with the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before us. I happened to be a member of the Committee over which the Paymaster-General presided, which dealt with the laundries, and it was only a small matter with regard to the general application of the provisional Order to the whole trade. I regard it as a matter of the greatest possible importance that there should be an opportunity of having an investigation by a Committee of this House, or it may be even by an impartial person before whom the trades can appear and offer their evidence. I can assure the House that, in regard to the laundries, the official wit-nesses were turned inside out at the first inquiry, and this shows how utterly unreliable the official case was. I think I am right in saying that on both occasions the Committee were unanimous in the
  1496
  first place in rejecting the Provisional Order Bill, and, secondly, in passing it in regard to the minor portion of the Orders. It is absurd to say that any Member of this House can get satisfaction from a question put in this House unless the Department want to give satisfaction. Really the art of answering questions in this House has become not a mere art but a science, and so scientific that it is utterly impossible for us, try as we will, as I have demonstrated over and over again, to get a straightforward answer if the Department concerned does not want to give it.
  With regard to the opportunity of moving the Adjournment, I do not think that is satisfactory unless it can be done on a question of great importance and moved at 8.15. I think some mid-course might very well be taken. If there is undue delay, I do not know why the Standing Order should not be altered. But why is it necessary that there should be this procedure provided you can get an inquiry at which the trade can appear with their witnesses, and then you can have a report of the inquiry embodied by whatever means you like to adopt. I think it is a very serious matter when the bulk of us are complaining of such a large increase in officials, which we submit to in consequence of the War, that we should unduly allow officials to encroach under circumstances and by a procedure of this sort, making it extremely difficult for anybody to put the block on the brake if the Order is made. I think the House should retain a power, perhaps not so prolonged as the procedure on the present occasion, to take evidence publicly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make some alteration with a view of providing a via media.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to point out that practically everybody who has knowledge of the administration of the trade boards believes in the methods the Government propose in this Bill. There is practically a unanimous feeling on that point on the part of all those who have had experience of provisional Orders in the past. The old system led to many opportunities for obstruction, long delays, and much dissatisfaction among those who were hoping to get some protection under this legislation. The arguments brought forward to-day are largely, I think, from a dialectical point of view in

  1497
  order to point out where the House lands itself with regard to the provision of opportunities under special Orders, but that is largely a matter for the House itself, and when the House desires to recover back its power with regard to special Orders it will not be long before it can be managed. I would point out that when this Bill comes to be applied there will be a large number of trades probably pressing to be included, very largely brought about by war conditions from workers whose protective legislation or measures will suddenly lapse at the end of the War, and if the Members of this House are going to continue the old dilatory methods, you will be landed in chaos and confusion to a greater extent than hon. Members realise. I attach no importance to the argument that we are placing ourselves at the mercy of an arbitrary Minister.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But you objected to it under the Defence of the Realm Act.
  Mr. ANDERSON: That is a different matter. We are setting up here in industries certain self-governing boards made up of equal numbers of employers and employed who are going to investigate the conditions of labour, and the Minister of Labour is not going to deal with these matters. All he can do is to bring the two sides face to face. Those who are afraid of what is going to happen ought to show us the terrible things that have happened where this principle has been already applied. As a matter of fact nothing but unlimited good has come from the application of trade boards, and there has been no question of abuse or of Ministers trying to apply the boards to unsuitable trades. If the Minister of labour were to try to apply this principle to highly skilled labour he would meet with equal opposition from workers and employers, and it would be impossible for the Minister to apply trade boards except where there is an urgent need for them. It is no argument to say that it failed in regard to laundries, for that does not prove that it was not needed. In point of fact those of us who know the facts know there was a good deal of sweating in the laundry industry and the application of the trade boards principle, though defeated upstairs, would have been a Godsend to many underpaid women in that trade. Therefore, that is no argument, and I hope this House will endorse the line taken by the Government, which is
  1498
  the view taken by all who have real knowledge of the working and administration, of the trade boards.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Special Orders.)
  (1) Every special Order shall without confirmation by Parliament have effect as if enacted in this Act and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent special Order.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "without," and to insert instead thereof the word "after."
  5.0 P.M.
  This Amendment raises the question of Parliamentary control, but in a somewhat different way to the last Amendment. If this Amendment be accepted, I shall propose to insert after the word "by" the words "Resolution of both Houses of Parliament." The Minister of Labour never attempted to-offer an answer to the argument which was put forward by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) that under the system by which the Government take up all the time of the House it is quite impossible for any section of Members to propose an Address to the Crown with a view to having an Order annulled. There is a general feeling that there should be some Parliamentary check upon the powers of the Minister. We have not all got the same childlike faith in the virtues of a democratic Minister as that which is held by the Member for Attercliffe. I am somewhat surprised at the exuberance of his confidence in Ministerial discretion. I thought he was a member of a group called the "civil liberties group," whose activities were mainly devoted to preventing autocratic action on the part of Ministers without the control of Parliament. Now, when an hon. Member comes-forward in order to try and prevent autocratic control, my hon. Friend objects. This is not a procedure which will involve delay, for it does not even involve forty days' delay, because the day after the special Order is made by the Minister the Government can put the Motion down upon the Paper, find time for it, and have it passed. There is no delay whatever involved, not even the delay in the procedure which they themselves suggest. I therefore suggest that on this question my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division should return to the faith which he has been so loudly professing:

  1499
  outside and should insist on the control of the House of Commons. After all, we profess to be fighting for democracy in this War, but the only thing we seem to be doing in this House is to destroy every shadow of democratic control over Ministerial acts by our present legislation. My Amendment provides for the control of the House of Commons. I do not think it need be any serious check on the action of the Minister. If there is no opposition to the Order, the Resolution will pass formally at eleven o'clock on the first day on which it is put down. It will very soon be obvious to the Government what is the extent and dimensions of the opposition, and, if it turns out to be only a very insignificant minority, it will surely be possible for the Government to dispose of their arguments and their opposition without any serious inconvenience. I therefore maintain that the course suggested in the Amendment would involve no inconvenience to the Government, but it would at least afford some measure of control over the Minister, which I think it is the duty of the House of Commons at the present time to assert.
  Mr. HOLT: I desire to second the Amendment, and I really do think that the Government might properly be expected to accept it, for it meets every single one of the objections which have been raised to the procedure under provisional Order. It takes no more time than the procedure under the Bill. It will not alter the procedure under the Bill, except that it throws upon the Government the onus of providing an opportunity for a discussion in this House instead of upon the person who objects to the proposal. That is the only difference that my hon. Friend's proposal makes. I trust that it may even receive the support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson). I would like to commend to him this consideration. If you really want to secure your own liberties, you must be careful to respect those of others. You will never secure liberty unless you are prepared to see that the liberties of those people with whom you do not agree are preserved as well as the liberties of the people with whom you do agree. After all, if this Amendment is accepted what is the most the Government will be required to do? The most that they can be compelled to do is to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule and take a short Debate, and they are always in a position
  1500
  to keep a House after eleven o'clock. It is the very most that they can be asked to do.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I hope that my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. It would be a restraint, and I think too much of a restraint, upon the operations of this scheme. It requires time to be found by the Government, and I presume it means that in respect of every special Order proposed to be made the Government would have to allot a day for its discussion.
  Mr. PRINGLE Mr. PRINGLE indicated dissent.
  Mr. ROBERTS: That is how I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment and the purpose of his speech. I must fall back upon the feeling that there are already plenty of safeguards and abundant opportunities for inquiring and investigating into the matter as set forth in the Bill as it now stands. I hope that nothing to which I have given sanction in any way violates the democratic principle. If it does, it is quite unintentional, and I feel that I may claim immunity from an attack of that character. My hon. Friend the Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) appealed to me to be considerate of the liberties of other people. I am concerned with the liberties of the workers in some of the ill-paid trades of the country, and the more we expedite the operations of this Bill the sooner we shall be able to bring a greater measure of liberty into their lives. I feel that this is quite an unnecessary restraint to put upon the operations of this measure. The state of public business might make it impossible for the Government to set apart time for a Debate of a special Order just when the application of that Order was most necessary. I would remind the House again that at the expiration of the War there may be a grave necessity for a speedy application of the provisions of this scheme, and on that consideration alone I think I am perfectly warranted in asking the House not to agree to the Amendment.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope my right hon. Friend has not definitely made up his mind that this proposal is not beneficial. If it in any way tended to delay the bringing into operation of any of the new special Orders I should be prepared to support it, for I agree with him that any loss of time in bringing into being trades boards in some of the trades to which they can properly be applied, particularly when the

  1501
  War is over, would be to the detriment of those engaged in those trades. I think, however, my right hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that if this Amendment were accepted by the Government it would mean that the fourth Section of Clause 2 would automatically drop out. I would remind the House that the forty days are forty Parliamentary days, which may mean a great deal more. If we were about to adjourn as we are about to adjourn now for two months, it might mean a delay, not of forty days, but of eighty or one hundred days. The whole of that will automatically drop out, and it will be open to the Government to bring in their Resolution and pass it. They will be able to bring the special Order into operation without any further delay. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that that in itself would facilitate the benefits which we wish to give to the people engaged in these trades, and it would at the same time meet the general feeling which I am sure he must encounter from many quarters of the House; but the House itself, under his proposal, is parting with too much of the control which it ought to exercise over its Ministers. There is one misgiving which I have about the Amendment as it stands, but I think it might be provided for. It would mean that there would have to be one Resolution for every Order. I can quite understand that my right hon. Friend might wish to take a group of trades. I presume that he would apply one Order to each trade. In the same way, I should like to see one Resolution applied to each group of Orders. If that could be provided for, I think it would meet all that is required by the Ministry of Labour, and if that is done I hope he will be prepared to reconsider his position in connection with this Amendment.
  Mr. DENNISS: In Committee upstairs the question was debated at very considerable length as to whether it would not be better to adhere to the machinery of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, and continue the procedure of a provisional Order, but that was negatived. It seems to me, from the remarks which have just fallen from my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman), that the coming into force of the Orders would be considerably expedited if this Amendment were carried. Of course, the objection to it is that this House is not such a good tribunal for deciding points of this description as a
  1502
  Private Bill Committee upstairs. I still adhere to the opinion that I expressed that we ought to have kept to the provisional Order, but as we cannot get that I think this is an improvement upon the Bill. It has been pointed out that a group of Orders could be brought in after eleven o'clock at night, and Members would have the opportunity of attending and de bating them, whereas under Clause 2 as it stands a Member would have to get up almost an agitation in the House be fore he could get enough people to raise objection to any of these Orders. That would be almost impossible, and even then the whole thing would be a farce, because, if the Government put on the Whips, the few people one got to attend at 8.15 or 11 o'clock would not have the slightest chance of defeating the Government, except perhaps in a case which aroused an immense amount of interest in the country. Under those circumstances, I should like to support the Amendment. I know it is no use dividing on it, because the Government can defeat us so easily, but we may hope to convince the right hon. Gentleman that it would really expedite the making of these Orders if he put in a provision, as has been suggested, whereby a group of Orders can be taken, and the matter settled within a day or two after the Orders are made.
  Sir W. BEALE: I should be very sorry by any word or act to interfere with the beneficial operation of the principal Act and this proposed extension of it. I agree in that respect entirely with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) and the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson). I agree also that at the present time under the present administration there need be no apprehension at all about entrusting the widest possible powers to the present Ministry of Labour. At the time of the principal Act I had to make representations with regard to some of the trades which it was proposed to include that they were going too far, and I found all the officials—it was the Board of Trade at that time—ready to modify their views, as they did on two or three occasions, when they heard the opposition of the trade and the reasons for it properly stated. But I do not like the idea that we as Members of this House should abrogate all our powers. I admit that every courtesy has always been shown to me, but I am doubtful about the position if they could

  1503
  say, "After all, he can do nothing. He cannot raise the question practically in the House." I do not want to abandon every possible opportunity of this House having a voice as to the propriety of every one of these Orders. I see the difficulties and the objections. I was very much struck by what the right hon. Gentleman said that if you had to do it by provisional Order and put a great many into one Bill an objection to any single one would cause great delay. That, however, does not apply to this proposal, which is very simple. The question is whether we should substitute simply a confirmatory Resolution of Parliament, obviating any delay in the right hon. Gentleman and his Department attaining their object, and at the same time give some real power of control to this House. When the procedure which they themselves propose has been followed I am quite sure, from what I have seen of the way that they look into things and their disposition to do justice, that any question that came forward would be narrowed down to such small dimensions that there would not be the slightest difficulty of showing the House in a very short time that the objections were ill-founded. I do not think that the proposal is at all calculated to impede official action, and it would meet, not the whole objection, but the really substantial part of the objection, which is the taking away of any practical power of a Member of this House to be heard in opposition to an Order of this kind.
  Mr. WILSON-FOX: Some of us approached the consideration of this Bill with considerable misgiving, and it was only because of the strong case made by the Minister in charge of the Bill that we have modified our objection to it and are prepared to support it as a whole. But that does not mean that we should necessarily accept as fair and right every detail of it. Those who had the advantage of hearing the discussion in Committee approach it from a somewhat different point of view to those who, like myself, heard the points debated for the first time. After hearing the whole of the discussion on the first Amendment I came to the conclusion that it was evidently a case for compromise, and that while the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was perfectly right in insisting that there should be no unnecessary delay in giving effect to these special Orders, which, if they are required at all, are no
  1504
  doubt properly and urgently required, there is great force in the contention put forward by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman) that it was not right to deprive this House altogether of the power of looking into and controlling these matters before they become permanent.
  I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, seeing that the view of the House is generally in favour of this control not being entirely lost, will not offer a cast-iron front to the proposals which have been made to him. I was rather afraid when he spoke of this Amendment that he really was desirous that even if the-House wished, there should be no discussion upon these special Orders when made. That, I submit, is not a right attitude for the Government to adopt. It should be the care and duty of the Government to provide facilities for Members to discuss matters of this practical importance if a sufficient number of them wish to do so, and the onus ought not to be thrown upon them of trying to put questions with the result that they get evasive replies, or of seeking to force the Government to find time for a Motion which it is right and proper should be discussed. I cannot see that the argument of my right hon. Friend which apply with force to the preceding Amendment has really any application whatever to this Amendment. Time will not be lost if reasonable opportunities for discussion will be given in cases where it is needed. In these circumstances I support most strongly the appeal made to him from every quarter of this House to reconsider his attitude upon this Amendment.
  Mr. DENMAN: I find myself in disagreement with the mover of this Amendment and those who have supported it, and I hope that the Government will stick to its guns. The chief argument I have heard in favour of this Amendment is that it really adds to the speed of the procedure of the special Order. That, of course, is not the case. The special Order under the Amendment would not come into force until it had been confirmed by Resolution in both Houses of Parliament at certain times of the year. That might obviously mean a delay of some months. If the House were not sitting it would take some time before the Order could be confirmed under the Amendment. In the Bill as it stands a special Order becomes operative immediately it is made. Sub-

  1505
  section (4) of Section 2 contains some concluding words which are always put in in connection with such Orders—
  "without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done hereunder or the power of making a fresh Order."
  What always happens is that when a special Order is introduced and action is taken thereunder, if within forty days it is annulled, of course future action is debarred.
  Mr. DENNISS: "Previously"?
  Mr. DENMAN: Yes, previously to the address in either House. Therefore, the procedure contemplated by the Bill is very much more rapid, and I think we all realise that if it is to be effective we shall need rapid procedure. Can we rely upon the other House passing a Resolution in favour of a special Order with that rapidity and willingness which we would like? The Amendment, not the Bill, contemplates that either House should have to take positive action to annul an Order, but it would have to be set in motion to produce some favourable Resolution in favour of certain industries. That seems to me to be inviting the other House to consider matters in which they are not experts, and I should very much like to see the Bill left as it is in that respect. I think we are all agreed upon one point which was raised on the previous Amendment, which is that we ought to recover our power of debating special Orders. The remedy is not to insert provisions in this Bill, but to prevent the Government taking all the time next Session. After all, this Bill will not be very operative before next Session, and if next Session we secure to ourselves the powers which I think we ought to have not only on account of this Bill but many others involving the same procedure, whereby, an fact, we could discuss these special Orders we should really be securing what we all legitimately desire.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle, though, of course, I recognise points of legitimate argument can be advanced on behalf of both sides of this and every other question. What is required with regard to these special Orders is that they shall not be delayed, and that their incidence should be certain. In the Bill as it stands their incidence is not certain, and may not be certain for some months under certain conditions, whereas If it be the
  1506
  duty of Parliament to bring in a Resolution confirming these Orders at once the matter is definitely settled in a very short time. It would be bad for industry, and bad for the country, that there should be a long interval of, at any rate, potential uncertainty in a matter of this kind. I, therefore, venture to join with other speakers who have taken part in this discussion on the Amendment, with the solitary exception of the hon. Member for Carlisle, in asking the Government that they will not meet the obvious wishes of the House in this particular. There has been no concerted organised action to defeat the Government on this point. Whatever else may be said of the speeches made they are obviously sincere, and they have come from Members of the House of very different points of view and predispositions on matters of this kind, and, with this unforced and unorganised unanimity of criticism, I do hope that the Government will realise that, by allowing it, they are helping and not injuring the Bill, and conceding what all Members of the House desire.
  Sir GEORGE REID: I agree with other speakers that this is one of the most important, and may prove one of the most useful measures with which this Parliament can deal. For many years I have had in another hemisphere a large amount of practical experience in the working out of various methods of settling labour disputes, and I am bound to say that the only method in the whole of my experience, which has worked smoothly and satisfactorily, has been the one contemplated in connection with this measure, which is that of an equal number of employers and employés meeting together to thrash out their difficulties face to face with a chairman appointed by the Government. That has been the system in vogue in Victoria for many years, and the main point really is whether the method proposed is a good method of enabling those engaged in our great industries to come together to settle their disputes. I have not had the experience which other Members have had in connection with matters of this character in this country, but I would venture to say, with every confidence in the machinery which is to be used in connection with these trade disputes, that I rather deprecate the idea of political discussion while these disputes are pending. They might perhaps have an unhappy

  1507
  effect. Whether that is so or not, I have not the slightest want of confidence in the method proposed for settling these disputes, and I feel I must support the proposal of the Government.
  Sir H. NIELD: I am afraid the last speaker has wholly misapprehended what we are discussing. None of us in this House proposes to go back on the Trade Boards Act or to alter the method at all. The only thing is that we are now asked to abrogate all the functions of Parliament. Just think of it! In the year 1918, in a democratic House of Commons we are asked to abrogate every possible control over a trades Order, because the means suggested by Sub-section (4) of Section 2 are wholly illusory. The right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to this proposal that the Government would not be able to find time to discuss the Resolution here or elsewhere. Then what a farce it is to suggest that Sub-section (4) of Section 2 affords any security at all! Surely the Government must think that this House is atrophied altogether. We are told that we are out of touch with the electorate. No wonder, when measures of this sort are introduced by a Government which commands the support of all parties in this House! I think we are straining a great deal to ask the House to give up every control over proposals of this description.
  I attach the greatest possible importance to the inquiry by Select Committee. I admit it cannot be had because of the delay. I would have liked to have insisted upon another inquiry outside before the Order is launched, so that it might be within the powers of the Department to decide, as they do with regard to the rules. I remember one particular inquiry held by the Government some months ago to inquire into the application of certain new rules to docks, wharves, and harbours. They had a Commission, and the trades were allowed to appear before them, and then there came legislation. That is not to be had now, and we are not to be allowed to have any security at all for public ventilation. Do not let it be thought for a moment that I am against this; on the contrary, I have served on these Committees, and I am perfectly ready to recognise the usefulness of the trade boards and to realise that after the War it may be necessary to increase their efficiency in the scheduling of new trades. But do not
  1508
  let us come to the conclusion that this House is to assent to everything that is done. Those who declaim loudest about control of this House are the persons who to-day who in respect of this measure are prepared to give carte blanche and give up all the rights we have. All that we ask is that it shall be necessary for the House and for the other House to pass Resolutions confirming the Order when once it is made as a substituted method for the forty days. The hon. Member for Carlisle suggested that another place would refuse to pass this Resolution. If the attitude of the other place is to be attacked, as it generally has been in years past, it must be remembered that it is the very Assembly who would pass a Resolution of this sort, always ready as it has been to help industrial workers to obtain justice from employers. The other place is the very place that would readily pass a Resolution of this sort, whereas the difficulty might be experienced here. Nobody would want to act without reasonable cause. As there is the substantial point of time and of giving the control, limited as it is, that ought to be given to the House of Commons, I hope this stone-wall attitude on behalf of the Ministry will not be persisted in, and that they will accept this Amendment as being a substantive means of securing what they desire to attain.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) accused my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir G. Reid) of not understanding the Bill.
  Sir H. NIELD: No; of misapprehending what was under discussion. He was making a Second Reading speech.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, of misapprehending what was under discussion on the Bill. I think that my hon. and learned Friend himself misunderstood the procedure under the Bill as it stands. He spoke as if there were no sort of inquiry. If he will look at the Schedule of the Bill he will find that there is to be a public inquiry. That public inquiry is to be held with a chairman who is not connected with the Government in any way. That was the effect of an Amendment we accepted in Committee. I should have thought everybody would have realised that that would be an absolutely impartial inquiry, where both employers and employed, with an impartial chairman, would get fair play.
  Sir H. NIELD: My hon. Friend will admit that the Department will be the judge of what the results of that inquiry amount to?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Quite so. It is almost inconceivable that the Minister of Labour would be likely to try to force upon the House or anybody else an Order against the decision of the impartial umpire who had been appointed to go to the inquiry. Everybody has expressed the greatest confidence in the Ministry of Labour, and I am quite sure that either now or at any future time that sort of thing would be quite impossible. Our position is that the safeguards are absolutely adequate without any further provisions than we have in the Bill. Although this is a new proposal which was not considered in Committee upstairs and we have not had a great deal of time to consider it, at the same time the objections to it seem to us to be equally strong as the objections to the last Amendment. I do not understand why democrats like the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) think there is such a tremendous gain in being able, as he said, to come down and have a few minutes' discussion, and then take a. Resolution at eleven o'clock at night or afterwards.
  Mr. HOLT: The gain is this: Under the proposal of this Amendment we are at least certain of getting a discussion, whereas under the proposal in the Bill there is no certainty that there will ever be a discussion at all.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that a discussion after eleven o'clock, especially in these times, is not a particularly fruitful way of legislating. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) a short time ago referred to my having had some experience as a Whip. He will realise that this sort of discussion at eleven o'clock would absolutely put in the hands of obstructors the power of shelving any Resolution of the kind, because he knows perfectly well that the Closure could never be applied to a Resolution which was taken at eleven o'clock until about one in the morning, and he also knows that it is very difficult to keep 100 Members here till one o'clock in order to carry the Closure. That argument is a little overdone. The hon. and learned Member for Ayrshire said he had great confidence in the present administration
  1510
  of the Labour Department, which I am sure my right hon. Friend would be very glad to hear. He spoke as if things might be different in the future, and several hon. Members have spoken in the same strain. I do not think for a moment that in the future you will ever get a Minister of Labour who would go against the opinion of any impartial inquiry which has taken place beforehand. Hon. Members do not realise that it is not the arbitrary act of a Ministry to set up a trade board, but that it is the result of a very careful and long investigation. It is the result of the opinion of the employers as well as the employed, and the trade board is very often wanted by the employers as much as by the employed.
  Sir H. NIELD: Laundries!
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. and learned Friend did not give a very accurate account of what happened in the Select Committee on that point.
  Sir H. NIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman say in what respect it was inaccurate?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will if he wishes it, and if I am in order. My hon. and learned Friend described the procedure of the Select Committee as having reduced the proposal to very narrow limits. As a matter of fact, what they did was exactly the opposite. To begin with, the proposal was confined within very narrow limits, and those who objected did so on the ground that it did not go far enough. Because it did not go far enough they proposed and carried that it should include other forms of laundries, but, because of the Rules governing a Select Committee, it had to be thrown out, because a Select Committee cannot enlarge upon the proposal referred to it.
  Sir H. NIELD: I was a member of the Committee, and I know perfectly well what happened.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very sorry to differ from my hon. and learned Friend, but I think he had better refresh his memory upon the point. We have been looking up the matter very carefully for some days, and I think there are other hon. Members who will bear me out that that is the true history of the question.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will you say a word about the forty days' saving?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: At first sight that is rather attractive, but, as a matter of fact, in practice, during the forty days the Ministry would be employed in collecting the members of the Board. The preliminary work would fully occupy the forty days. In fact, it would never be able to begin until that time Lad expired. Therefore the gain does not appear to be very much. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) to suggest that there should be one Resolution referring to a number of trades, and that, if that were once passed, any of the trades mentioned in it could be brought in in the course of a Session.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: What I suggested was that the Amendment as it has been moved might give rise to the necessity of having a Resolution for each special Order, that it would facilitate the procedure if the Resolution could cover a group of Orders, and that by that means we should be able to get rid of all the delays occasioned by having to deal with them Order by Order.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That could be done, and no doubt would be an improvement, but it would be very difficult indeed at the beginning of a Session, especially at such a time as we might have when the War ends and the munition workers are being discharged, and there is great danger of sweating in other trades, to foresee all the trades that it might be necessary to put into the Resolution.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why at the beginning of a Session?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have until Whitsuntide.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This does not depend upon Whitsuntide.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is so, but I do not think it would be a very expeditious procedure if we had to bring in this Resolution with regard to every trade in regard to which we might want to set up a trade board in the course of a Session. There has been a good deal of objection to giving up the Provisional Order procedure. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing said that he was very much astonished that in 1918 any such proposal as these special Orders should be put forward.
  Sir H. NIELD: I must rise on a point of explanation. What I said was that I was surprised that in 1918 it should be proposed to abrogate the functions of Parliament altogether.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was trying to point out to my hon. and learned Friend that that was done in 1901 in respect of the Factory Acts. Therefore, it is not so astonishing that in 1918 we should follow the example of the Factory Acts. If anyone wanted to substantiate the case against procedure by special Order under the Trade Boards Bill, they ought to show that the procedure by special Order under the Factory Acts had had any bad effect. If they could, that would be some argument. They have not been able to show that the special Order procedure under the Factory Acts has had any bad effect. Therefore, we propose to adhere to the procedure suggested in this Bill, and we hope the House will agree to it.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Like the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman), I am hoping that the Government will stick to its guns. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Under the Government's plan we get these trade boards in forty days, whereas if the matter goes to another place, goodness knows what may be done to it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) is very indignant that any aspersion should be cast upon the promotion of social reform by the other place.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It can do it at present under the Bill.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I would submit that we do not know what the future may bring forth. If the present Prime Minister ennobles the captains of industry at the rate he is doing it now, the whole character of the other place may be altered. Great jealousy has been expressed as to the control by this House, very rightly on important points, but I submit it is equally legitimate to be jealous that the will of the people should be carried out, and that the House of Commons should be the expression of the will of the people and should carry out the will of the people promptly and sufficiently. The country has thoroughly made up its mind that it wishes to see the sweated wage eliminated from our midst, but at the same time it is very jealous that the confusion of after-war conditions

  1513
  may force vast numbers of the workers' wages far below subsistence level. That being so, the House of Commons and the Labour Ministry are only interpreting the will of the people in bringing forward proposals to deal promptly and expeditiously with the danger that is ahead of us. I cannot understand why the proposal of the Government should have met with so much opposition, when it is plainly in the interests of the country and the desire of the country that an efficient weapon should be in the hands of the Labour Ministry to deal with a very grave danger.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think my Noble. Friend has not sufficiently studied the Bill. He said he wishes to be content with forty days, because if the Resolution went to the other House no one knows what might happen. But as the Bill stands the other House can do what it likes. Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 says
  "every special Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House."
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not my right hon. Friend wish to have any control at all?
  Sir S. BANBURY: I wish to have control, but I am only alluding to the argument of my Noble Friend, who apparently was under the impression that if the Amendment was carried some additional power would be granted to another place, whereas, as a matter of fact, the powers which are already in the Bill give the other place the right to bring forward an Address, not after eleven o'clock, but at four or five o'clock in the afternoon, and if it is carried the proposal is rejected. My hon. Friend opposite said there was no fear of any Minister overriding a decision which had been come to at an inquiry presided over by an impartial chairman. Does he forget the case of the Board of Education and the Swansea Church of England school, where an inquiry was held and the Board of Education overruled it and did exactly what the inquiry desired it should not do? With that before us, and knowing that Ministers are sometimes arbitrary and the tendency to arbitrariness is increasing and will increase, there is some reason to put some restraint upon them. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman, not only here but upstairs, that what he feared was delay. It was not that he did not wish to consult the House of Commons. It was
  1514
  not that he did not think the House of Commons ought to have some control over the matter. Unless I am very much mistaken, a note was circulated with the Bill that the control of the House of Commons was going to be preserved. The only reason why it was to be preserved in that form was because of delay. Now comes the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and shows a method by which delay would be diminished. Is it accepted? On the contrary, there are excellent arguments for declining that also. The real fact is that the desire is to retain the whole control in this matter in the hands of the Department, and to deprive the House of Commons of any effective control over it. The delay is merely camouflage. It is merely put in to satisfy the Press and the public outside that the House of Commons is still to have control, and that the only reason why Provisional Order is done away with is delay, whereas the real reason is that Ministers desire that there shall be no control by the House of Commons, and that everything shall be left in their hands. I think this is an extremely modest Amendment, and I cannot understand how the Government can refuse it. It seems to me to be of the most simple character. It does not preserve very much control to the House. The modification that it shall include more than one special Order is reasonable. I do not think it should be necessary to come down with a Resolution for every special Order, but provided that one special Order should be allowed to be included, I think it preserves a shadowy control by the House over the acts of Ministers, and I trust now that I have reminded my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) of the case of Swansea, and have shown that his argument is absolutely illusory and has no foundation whatever, I look to him to support me on this Amendment. It is not often that a speech turns votes, but I trust this will be one of the occasions.
  Mr. BURNS: I sincerely trust the House will not accept the advice of the right hon. Baronet, and I particularly appeal to hon. Members not to endorse his view on the ground that there is a comparison between the Swansea Order issued by the Board of Education and a Board upon Minimum Wages and Insanitary Conditions in a trade which has been abominably bad for such a long while that masters and men in equal numbers on the

  1515
  Trade Board decide to alter it and the Board of Trade gives expression to something which the trade has already decided. There is no comparison between that and the Swansea Order. The right hon. Baronet is a very adroit angler for votes, and he thought if he could throw three or four flies over certain Members with whom he agrees on education he might perhaps get them into the Lobby on a matter which I sincerely trust the House of Commons will decide on its merits. The Swansea Order dealt with faith, with opinion, with political controversy of the most acute and almost rabid character, and for the right hon. Baronet to compare one with the other is really to abuse the affectionate regard that we have for him personally and which shows itself, whenever he suggests a certain course, in my subordinating my personal regard for him and voting against him The other argument is that advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir H. Nield). He said that if the Amendment is not carried, Parliament will lose control over certain matters which it ought to have control over. I speak with some direct knowledge on the subject and I should like the House not to be misled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who seems to be obsessed on trade board matters by his experience in connection with laundries. What are the facts under which this Bill comes into operation? In an unorganised trade in a badly paid trade, where probably there are starvation wages and insanitary conditions, the Board of Trade is compelled by the public opinion of the best employers and nearly all the workpeople to hold a public inquiry. It is openly held, and the employers and employed put their views before an impartial Government Department, and after hearing that inquiry the Board of Trade makes a special Order that wages, hours and conditions shall be so-and-so. Then, when the special Order is made, the precaution is taken, on behalf of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, that either House or both shall have an opportunity of presenting an Address.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No. My right hon. Friend has not heard the discussion or he would know that under existing conditions the House of Commons has no opportunity, while the House of Lords has. The object of the Amendment is to give both Houses alike an opportunity.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member is even more ingenious than the right hon. Baronet. It is perfectly true that the House of Lords has more opportunities of presenting an Address because the House of Lords, very sensibly, very rarely sits after eleven. They do their business at a more reasonable time of day. But the House of Commons still has an opportunity of presenting an Address, though it can only do it after eleven o'clock. To me it is immaterial whether it is moved at three o'clock in the afternoon in the Lords or at one o'clock in the morning in the House of Commons.
  Mr. PRINGLE: My right hon. Friend is not aware that it cannot be done here at all.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. BURNS: That is the hon. Member's opinion. It is not mine, and it is not that of the Ministry of Labour. This Address, according to the Bill, can be moved for in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords at different and not altogether similarly convenient times. When it is presented a Board can be set up composed of an equal number of masters and men. When an equal number of masters and men, jointly representative of the whole trade, have come to the conclusion that the industrial conditions of that trade ought to be altered, that weighs with me with greater force than if either the House of Commons or the House of Lords decided either for or against it. The idea that the course suggested will save forty days of time is illusory. That forty days ought more properly to be used for getting the machinery into operation for launching this Trade Boards Act, not six or seven months or a year, as has too frequently been the case, after a trade has expressed itself in favour of a trade board, but immediately. It should be done as swiftly as it can be done. The other suggestion, that trades should be grouped, would be fatal to getting a trade board for a single trade through altogether in one Session. If you aggregated several Trade Board Orders in a special Order you would have an aggregation of special points of friction, not in one trade, which is comparatively easy to deal with, but in probably five or six, or, after the War is over a dozen trades. The result of it would be that in the Lobby we should have the laundries saying to the jam, and pickles to both, "You oppose this as applied to us, and we will oppose it

  1517
  as applied to you." The result would be that the last condition of the sweated small industries would be undesirable, and there would be very few trade boards set up or special Orders passed. My own view is that, in the matter of the trades boards, one at a time is very good fishing. I sincerely regret that when I was at the Board of Trade, for the reasons briefly alluded to by the Minister for Labour and his colleague, the Trade Boards Act applying to laundries did not pass.
  Have we not rather got beyond these niggling and punctillious points about Parliamentary control? If one thing has emerged from this War, it is that sweated industries, low wages, and long hours are a mistake, and insanitary conditions are a scandal amounting almost to a public crime; and if on their own initiative masters and men decide to strike out a new line and to reorganise industry on the basis of better wages, shorter hours, and more humane conditions, Parliament ought not to go about with Sam Weller's double-billion-power microscope, finding means by which defects can be found here and there and providing pretexts, either for the House of Commons or the House of Lords by forty days and forty nights to cause delay, which would mean in the wilderness for the trade boards, thus depriving these poor sweated workers of the rights which their masters, through intelligent self-interest, have made up their minds to confer upon their workpeople. The only defect there is in this Bill is that pointed out by the right hon. Member for the City of London. I regret that the House of Lords should have an opportunity of presenting an Address at all. I
  deplore the necessity at this time of day, when this House is congested with public business and overcrowded with parochial and petty details that ought to be and should have been left to Government Departments to deal with more expeditiously than they now have the opportunity of doing.
  I am pleased beyond words that I have this opportunity of supporting the Minister of Labour. I hope he will stick to his special Orders. I trust he will adhere to the machinery and the procedure by means of which no haste will be taken that should not be taken. I sincerely trust that he will not budge, but that he will stick to the Bill, and that under no circumstances will he deprive enlightened masters and intelligent workmen from using the Trade Boards Act and the machinery of this Bill for getting rid of unorganised trades of women and young persons who, unlike engineers, bricklayers, and masons, are incapable of defending themselves against the encroachments of bad employers, and who appeal to this House to do something to enable them to protect themselves. I trust, therefore, that the time of the House of Commons will not be taken up by these details, but that they will be remitted to a competent, fair, impartial, and non-too-hastily moving Department, the Board of Trade, to be interpreted with common sense, and to give these sweated workers what is their due, and to provide a too-long delayed remedy for a condition of things which, in my judgment, has been intolerable.
  Question put, "That the word 'without' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 23.

  Division No. 69.]

  AYES.

  [6.5 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Boyton, Sir James

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Currie, George W.

  Alden, Percy

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

  Anderson, William C.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Arnold, Sidney

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Baker, Col. Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Willoughby, H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Du Pre, Major W. Baring

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.)

  Clyde James Avon

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Beach, William F. H.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Finney, Samuel

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Glanville, Harold James

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Macmaster, Donald

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Greer, Harry

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Shortt, Edward

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Smallwood, Edward

  Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)

  Martin, Joseph

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (A't'n-u-Lyne)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hills, John Waller

  Morgan, George Hay

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Hinds, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col Hon. F. S. (York)

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Wardle, George J.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Philipps, Capt. Sir Owen (Chester)

  Watt, Henry A.

  King, Joseph

  Pratt, J. W.

  Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Egbaston)

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk, B'ghs)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Mackinder, Hallord J.

  Rowlands, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Horne, Edgar

  Wiles Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Marriott, J. A. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Clough William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Mr. Pringle and Mr. Holt.

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Amendments of Principal Act with Respect to the Fixing, etc., of Minimum Bates.)
  (1) The following provision shall be substituted for the first paragraph of Sub-section (1) of Section four of the principal Act (which relates to the duties and powers of trade boards with respect to minimum rates of wages):—
  "Every trade board shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, fix a minimum rate of wages for time-work in their trade (in this Act referred to as 'a general minimum time-rate') and may also fix for their trade—

  (a) A general minimum rate of wages for piece-work (in this Act referred to as 'a general minimum piece-rate');

  (b) A minimum time-rate (which shall not be higher than the general minimum time-rate) to apply in the case of workers employed on piece-work for the purpose of securing to such workers a minimum rate of remuneration on a time-work basis (in this Act referred to as 'a guaranteed time-rate');

  (c) A minimum rate (whether a time-rate or a piece-rate) to apply, in substitution for the minimum rate which would otherwise be
  1520
  applicable, in respect of hours worked by a worker in any week in excess of the number of hours declared by the trade board to be the normal number of hours of work per week in the trade (in this Act referred to as 'an overtime rate');

  Any of the minimum rates aforesaid, may be fixed so as to apply universally to the trade or so as to apply to any special process in the work of the trade or to any special area, or to any class of workers in the trade, or to any class of workers in any special process or in any special area."
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c), after the word "week" ["in any week"], to insert in the Bill the words "on any day."
  This Clause as it stands guarantees the worker overtime rates when a normal week has been worked, but as has been pointed out upstairs, I think by the hon. Member for Hexham, it is possible for an unscrupulous employer to play hanky-
  1521
  panky with his workers and to employ a man two or three hours overtime on one day and perhaps five and six on another. The obect of this Amendment is to secure that the worker shall have overtime for every day that is worked overtime. I believe that it has the assent of the hon. Member for Hexham and also that of the Government, and I need hardly waste any more time, therefore, in commending it to the House.
  Colonel GREIG: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment. Attention was drawn to this in Committee. It will be observed that as the Clause stands a trade board may fix rates only in respect of work in excess of the number of hours fixed as the normal for the trade, but it does not enable a trade board to fix a time rate in respect of the work beyond the normal hours of work on one day or even in respect of work performed on Sundays and holidays. That is certainly not our intention, and I am obliged to the Noble Lord for bringing forward this proposal, which will be an improvement to the Bill.
  Mr. HOLT: I believe that I really drew the attention of the Government to this omission in the Bill, and I think that they are bound to make this alteration. It might be intolerable that it should be impossible to arrange an overtime rate for one day as well as for persons working the full number of hours in the week. At the same time, the matter must be dealt with with a great deal of care, because there is probably no worse form of bad work than that which results from having overtime rates paid before people work for a certain number of hours. I hope that the Ministry of Labour will be very careful in this respect, and watch with a very jealous eye the way in which any trade board establishes overtime rates for any special work where a small number of hours is worked. To my knowledge special time rates for Sunday work are a very great cause of no work being done on Saturday or Monday.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "week" ["hours of work per week"], insert the words "for that day."—[Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck.]

  CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions us to Orders for Confirming Minimum Rate or Cancellation or Variation of Rate.)
  (3) The Minister shall as soon as may be after he has made, an Order under this Section send notification thereof to the trade board concerned, and the trade board shall after receiving the notification give notice of the rate fixed, varied, or cancelled, as the case may be, and of the date when such rate shall become effective and of the confirming Order of the Minister.
  (4) Any such minimum rate as aforesaid, or the cancellation or variation of any such rate, shall become effective as from the date specified in that behalf in the Order by which it is confirmed.
  The date to be so specified shall be a date subsequent to the date of the Order, and where as respects any employer the date so specified does not correspond with the beginning of the weekly or other period for which wages are paid by that employer, the rate shall become effective as from the beginning of the next such period following the date specified in the Order.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "shall" ["the trade board shall"], to insert the words "as soon as may be."
  This is merely a drafting Amendment, which is necessitated by the acceptance of an Amendment in Committee. In the-present form of the Bill there is nothing to compel the trade board to give early notice of the making of the Order by the Minister, and the Amendment proposes to insert the words "as soon as may be" in order to secure that there shall be no unreasonable delay.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "rates fixed, varied or cancelled, as the case may be, and of the date when such rate shall become effective and of the confirming Order of the Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "making of the Order and the contents thereof."
  This Amendment also is largely of a drafting character. The object of the Amendment is merely to make clear on the face of the Bill that there should be notice not merely of the Order but of the proposals contained therein, and this can be secured by the words now proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "employer" ["any employer"], to insert the words "who pays wages at intervals not exceeding seven days."

  1523
  This Amendment is of a drafting character. It is a slight amendment to that which was made in Sub-section (4) of Clause 4 in Committee. Under the original Amendment as it now stands it would have been possible for employers in certain cases to escape their obligations to pay the minimum rate for a longer period than seven days. If, for instance, they paid wages monthly—I do not think that there are many cases, but they should be safeguarded—the workers might be deprived of the benefit of the minimum rate for nearly a month. In the vast majority of cases, of course, the wages are paid weekly. The object of the Amendment was merely to provide that an employer should not be compelled to calculate the wages of two parts of the same week at different rates.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "weekly or other."—[Mr. G. Roberts.]

  CLAUSE 5.—(Amendments of Section 6 of Principal Act.)
  (4) The following provision shall be inserted at the end of Sub-section (1) of Section six of the principal Act:—
  "In the foregoing provision, the expression 'deductions' includes deductions for or in respect of any matter whatsoever (other than deductions under the National Insurance Act, 1911, as amended by any subsequent enactments), and notwithstanding that they are deductions which may lawfully be made from wages under the provisions of the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1896, and where any payment being a payment authorised to be received by an employer under Section one, Section two, or Section three of the Truck Act, 1896, is made by any employed person to his employer, the employer shall for the purposes of the foregoing provision, be deemed to have deducted that amount from wages."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4) after the word "enactments," to insert in the Bill the words "and payments into funds which it is proposed to distribute which have been established by authority of an Act of Parliament or which maybe certified by the Board of Trade or by the National Insurance Commissioners to be for the benefit of the employés."
  There is no definition whatever of deductions in the old Act. When an Order has been made establishing a minimum wage in any particular trade, this Bill enacts that no deductions whatever are to be made by the employers from that minimum wage whatever it may be. Then, in the present Bill, we have the proviso that
  1524
  "the expression deduction includes deductions for or in respect of any matter whatsoever (other than deductions) under the National Insurance Act, 1911, as amended by any subsequent enactment."
  That means that the only possible deduction which the employer may make from the minimum wage are the payments which he makes on behalf of the employés to the National Insurance Commissioners. The object of this Amendment is that the employer may alternatively deduct payments which he makes on behalf of the employés into a superannuation fund, or a pension fund, or an insurance fund, which is either established by Act of Parliament or approved by the Board of Trade, or approved by the National Insurance Commissioners. This Amendment is the result of a Conference, which took place some weeks ago, of representatives of superannuation funds from all over the country, and I should have moved it in Committee but that I was ill. It appears that there is a very large number of funds which, if the Bill is passed in its present form and extended to their trades, will be completely smashed up. For instance, there is the fund at the very well known Bournville Cocoa Works. Everybody knows that Messrs. Cadbury's have got a wonderful scheme of pensions for their workers. The House will agree that these pensions schemes, provided that they are good schemes, are of very great benefit to the employés in the trades in which they are established. A large number of employés at the Bournville works are already under Trade Board minimum rate of wages, and up to the present the deduction has been apparently allowed to be made because there was no definition in the old Act, and this definition in the new Act will prevent that very excellent scheme of pensions continuing.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Does the scheme to which the hon. Member is referring involve a compulsory or a voluntary deduction from wages?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It involves a compulsory deduction. That is the whole question. It is exceedingly difficult to say whether it is voluntary or compulsory, but no one can be a member of one of these schemes unless deductions take place, and they cannot take place if the Bill is passed in its present form.
  Mr. ANDERSON: A voluntary deduction can take place.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am bound to say that I think not. There are many compulsory schemes which have been passed by the House and approved of by employés or by the National Insurance Commissioners, which will be destroyed if there is no Amendment. Under the Bournville scheme the men pay from 2½ to 5 per cent. on their wages. They retire on a pension generally at the age of sixty. If a man loses his work he gets all his pay back with compound interest, and the firm's contributions are not given back to the firm but added to the fund. At present there are 3,008 members, and the fund amounts to £308,000, while the annual contribution amounts to £30,031. Most Members of the House have heard of this fund, and realise the inestimable value of the whole of Messrs. Cadbury's organisations, and that it is highly approved of by the men is evident by the fact that 3,008 of them contribute to it. I will not weary the House with the details, but I may mention that no fewer than 2,896 women contribute to the women's fund. The Cunard Steamship Company have a similar fund, to which 1,036 members contribute. They are of all ranks. I do not suppose for a moment that the Cunard captain will ever come within the provisions of this Bill, but if you go down as low in the scale of work as the second stewards it is possible that they may be brought under the provisions of this Bill. I am not saying a word against this Bill. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, but I am an equally strong supporter of pension schemes. Under the provisions of the Cunard scheme the men contribute, the masters contribute, and there are excellent provisions for pensions which are approved by practically the whole of the staff. The English Sewing Cotton Company is another firm which has one of these funds. Messrs. Rowntree, of York, are another, and there are many of these large firms which have these schemes. Let me refer to one or two schemes which are compulsory. There are in London no less than ten municipal boroughs which have large schemes of this kind that have been approved by the National Insurance Commissioners and substituted for the provisions of the National Insurance Act. Under the provisions of that Act anybody who has a scheme of this kind may go to the Commissioners who, if they approve its provisions, can substitute it for the provisions of the Act. Among the
  1526
  borough councils of London, Kensington Council, for instance, go further than a mere scheme under the National Insurance Act, for they have a statutory scheme passed by Parliament in their Borough Council Act of 1907. It is very difficult to see how Kensington Borough Council will be able to reconcile the provisions of their Act enabling them to make deductions from the workmen's pay in respect of their scheme, if this Bill is passed in its present form. It is a compulsory scheme and every employé of the borough council engaged in ordinary sanitary work, or other duties, is subject to a deduction from his wages. The fund is for various purposes of relief—maintenance during sickness, the maintaining of children after the decease of the parent, funeral expenses, and other benefits. It was after the Insurance Act was passed in 1911 that the borough council of Kensington applied to the National Insurance Commissioners, who granted the power to make deductions under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, under which, if they find that the terms of employment can secure provision in respect of sickness and disability on the whole not less favourable than the benefit given under the Insurance Act, they are empowered to grant the right to make deductions. But I submit to my right hon. Friend that it will be impossible to pass the Bill in its present form without due regard to these other Acts of Parliament.
  Another instance is that of the Metropolitan Water Board, which employs a large number of men. They have a superannuation provident fund, which came into operation in July, 1909, and it is administered in pursuance of an Act of Parliament passed in 1907, namely, the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Act. The contributed funds under that scheme now amount to £193,000, and in the event of any deficiency it would not have to be made up by the members, but by the Metropolitan Water Board itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) suggests that voluntary contributions can be deducted now, but I would point out that under this particular scheme, which is compulsory, the employer is bound by Act of Parliament to make deductions, unless the particular Act is abrogated. The Metropolitan Water Board scheme was put before the National Insurance Commissioners, who held that it was better than the scheme under the National

  1527
  Insurance Act, and they gave a certificate for the purpose of establishing the scheme. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that this matter must be met by the Government in some way. It was not my fortune to be able to attend the Committee upstairs, but I understand that the Member for York moved an Amendment of this character, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he would give it his consideration between then and the Report stage. I am rather afraid that his objection may be not that these schemes are bad, for he cannot say they are bad, seeing that they have been approved by the National Insurance Commissioners, but that they might open the door to unscrupulous employers, who would make bad schemes, and enforce deductions from the workpeople's wages. In order to meet that objection, however, I have inserted in the Amendment the safeguard that it shall only apply to schemes which come under the Insurance Act, or which are statutory, or which are approved by the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think one could possibly make a better suggestion. The Board of Trade themselves object to taking the responsibility, because they think they would be in some shape or form guaranteeing the solvency of a scheme, but the schemes to which I have been referring are solvent, they have been approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and in many cases they had been pronounced better schemes than those under the Insurance Act itself.
  Mr. THOMAS: The Insurance Commissioners only certified that they give no less benefits.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes; they certified that they give no less benefits than are given under the Insurance Act. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be in a position to give this question a little more careful consideration than he was able to give it upstairs. I submit that there must be an Amendment of the Bill to save the statutory and other funds to which I have referred. The Bournville scheme, as I have stated, has a capital of over £300,000, and to say that such a scheme as that, or such a scheme as that of the Metropolitan Water Board and other schemes of the like character, including the schemes of the ten metropolitan borough councils, are to be torn asunder and broken up because
  1528
  of the provisions of this measure, would be an absurdity. This Amendment is not against the provisions of the Bill, which has no stronger supporter than myself. I move it because I think it will improve the Bill. There will be a great extension of trade boards after the War, and these schemes are bound to be extended, and I, therefore, submit to the right hon. Gentleman that some such safeguards or provisions as that which I now move should be introduced into the Bill.
  Mr. DENMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I have one of a similar character upon the Paper, though its machinery is quite different. In Committee, where this subject was discussed, we had cases brought before our attention such as those referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and under these voluntary schemes in which employer and employed take part deductions from the wages of the workers are permitted, and everybody is quite happy with them. There are trades to which the Act has already been applied, and in which deductions are now being made. In my own Amendment I suggest that the body to determine whether such a deduction should or should not be allowed should be the trade board itself. After all, it is a body representing employers and employed, and it is a matter which might safely be left to these people to look after their own interests. If the Minister in charge does not wish to accept this Amendment, and perhaps would prefer mine, then I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour should express such a preference, will withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should be quite ready to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman if my Amendment does not meet the views of the Minister of Labour. All I desire is to get an Amendment embodying my proposal accepted in some reasonable form.
  Mr. ROBERTS: This matter has been discussed at considerable length in Committee, and the representations which were made to me in regard to it certainly made some impression upon my mind. Of course, I am anxious to meet the views of hon. Members, but I am afraid that, in this instance, I am unable to do so, and that I must stand by the Bill as it is, because, if exceptions are made then, so

  1529
  far as I can see, there is no possible limit to them. I am very doubtful that we are at all justified in allowing deductions to be made from the minimum rate of pay. After all, when a trade is brought before the Board it must be a very ill-paid and ill-organised industry, and that being the case the scheme would fix a rate of pay which would not more than approximate to a bare living wage. That being the case, we ought not lightly to make deductions from such a minimum rate of pay. My hon. and learned Friend spoke of the large sums voluntarily subscribed to the schemes which he named, but it is very often the case that a workman very strongly objects to subscribing to a fund of the kind, though he feels compelled to do so in order to maintain his position. For my own part, I feel there are very many dangers attendant upon making exceptions, for, as I have remarked, once exceptions are made I can see no limit to them, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment. Still, I cannot conceive that such funds as those already in existence, funds like that of the Bournville Works, will he smashed up unless I accept this Amendment. First of all, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the worker and employer joining in those schemes. But in the cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred the wages are higher than the minimum rate, and it is to foe expected that the workers at Bournville are in receipt of a rate of wages in excess of the minimum rate, and therefore they would be able to empower a firm to make deductions from their wages. Other hon. Members have had experience of the workshop deductions, and I myself have experience of the strong objection entertained by workers to deductions being made from their wages. They much prefer that they should receive their wage and make out any payments themselves. I can assure my hon. Friend opposite that I have had inside workshop experience, and that that was always the stand I made, and indeed it is the general practice throughout the trade with which I am associated. We always insist upon receiving the wage in full, and appoint our own officials to receive payments in respect of any funds to which we desire to subscribe. My hon. and learned Friend rather alarmed me when he pointed out that certain local authorities have statutory powers to compel workpeople in their service to subject themselves to deductions. I was not quite aware of
  1530
  that, and it is a point that I shall have to investigate; but in respect of other schemes, those which are alternative to the Insurance Act, and which of course are approved by the Insurance Commissioners, they are not affected by the Bill. That, I think, my hon. and learned Friend realizes!
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is that clear?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Well, they simply apply to such classes of workers as, in my opinion, are never likely to be brought within the scope of the trade boards. They are invariably the better paid classes of workers—those in the employ of public Departments or railway and other statutory companies. I could not say with absolute certainty that there is no person now employed by such bodies who ought not to be brought under the trade boards, but so far as I can gather from information in my possession in regard to alternative schemes which have been established, they are not likely to be brought under the scheme of the trade boards. But in respect of the first point which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned, I shall, of course, have to investigate that, and if the case be as he submitted, I shall have to meet it in another place.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will send my right hon. Friend a reference to the various Acts.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I confess I was not aware of the case, and I wish my hon. and learned Friend had been well enough to attend the Committee, because in the meanwhile we would have investigated the matter, but I lay down the broad principle that no deduction ought to be suffered from a worker in respect of a minimum rate of pay. Our experience of the trade boards is that they are very cautious and conservative bodies of people, and the minimum rates that they fix are not as a rule high, and they simply correspond to a bare subsistence standard; and even while it may be that a scheme might ultimately be beneficial to the workers, I feel that we ought not to subject them to compulsory deductions unless we are able to assure to them that they will not only have a living wage, but also a margin over and above with which to make provision for the various vicissitudes of life. Where they have such a margin, then they may agree with their employer to make a deduction in respect of funds of this character.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Under the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill the employer may deduct the Insurance Act contribution, and these schemes which I have mentioned are only substitutions for the Insurance Act scheme.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think they are substitutions, because, after all, the employer would have to make the deduction in respect of the State insurance scheme, but these are additional deductions, as I understand.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. Many of these schemes have been approved by the Insurance Commissioners as substitutions for the scheme under the Insurance Act.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think my hon. Friend is quite accurate there. I am not aware that a private firm can establish a substituted scheme of the character indicated by him. I am advised that these schemes are confined to those made by a public authority, such as a railway company or other statutory company. However, I recognise that part of my hon. Friend's case must be further investigated, and I promise it consideration. But in respect to the general principle, I prefer to retain the provision that a worker shall receive at least a minimum rate in full, without deduction.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think, if I may say so, that my right hon. Friend has arrived at the right conclusion. He will, of course, I presume, after what he has said, keep an open mind on some of the points that were put to him by my hon. and learned Friend, but I feel with him that it would be a very dangerous door to open, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the number of people who would be likely to benefit from the trade boards who are equally affected by these funds is very small. I doubt very much whether it would be in the intention of the Ministry of Labour to extend the operation of this Act to any of the categories, with one or two trivial exceptions, perhaps, in the mind of my hon. Friend. It would, therefore, be a dangerous thing to open the door to the extension of a system in regard to minimum wages, which, even in regard to other wages, has in many quarters led to much opposition, and I think my right hon. Friend himself expressed a certain amount of natural prejudice against deductions from wages before he actually received his remuneration. That being the case, I think he has done right to refuse to accept the
  1532
  Amendment, and I presume that if there is a sound case in respect of any trades likely to come within the working of the Act he will be prepared to consider it before the matter is disposed of in another place. For the time being, I support the right hon. Gentleman heartily in not opening this door.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I also have received representations from the workers at the Bournville Works in regard to this matter, and I do not regret that the subject has been brought before the House if only that it has produced a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is obvious that the minimum wage applies to many workers if they are doing the same kind of article. For instance, at Bournville the cardboard-box makers would be in a scheduled trade, but, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, they would probably be getting a higher wage than the minimum wage, and if it is plain that, although they are a scheduled trade, yet because they are getting a higher wage than the minimum rate it will not interfere with a bonâ fide society which may have been going on for twenty or twenty-five years, it is a great point gained. I think the distinction has to be clearly made that this trades board schedule does apply to work where the minimum does not operate, and it might have given rise, as it has in this case, to the misunderstanding that the society would be seriously prejudiced. But it is evident that so long as the deduction made by the society does not bring the wage of the earner below the minimum wage scheduled, there will be no undue interference with the society. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made, and I hope the interpretation I have put upon it is perfectly plain and will be understood in the country.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the promise which has been made by my right hon. Friend to consider the matter before the Bill reaches another place, I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Worker Waiting for Work on Employer's Premises to be Deemed to be Employed.)
  For the purpose of calculating the amount of the wages payable in the case of a worker employed on any work for which a minimum rate-of wages has been fixed under the principal Act, the worker shall be deemed to have been em-

  1533
  ployed during all the time during which he was present on the premises of the employer, unless the employer proves that he was so present without the employer's consent express or implied, or that he was so present for some purpose unconnected with his work and other than that of waiting for work to be given to him to perform, and in the case of a worker employed on piecework shall be deemed during any time during which he was so present and was not doing piecework to have been employed at the general minimum time-rate applicable to workers of the class to which he belongs.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
  "Provided that, (a) where a worker resides on the premises of the employer he shall not be deemed to be employed during any time during which he is present on the premises by reason only of the fact that he is so resident, and (b) a worker while present during normal meal-times in a room or place in which no work is being done shall be deemed to be present for a purpose unconnected with his work."
  In Committee, the fear was expressed that a worker who resides on his employer's premises would be entitled to wages at the minimum rates during any time during which he was on the premises merely for the purpose of residing there, and the first part of my Amendment is designed to meet that point. That never was the intention, of course. With respect to the second point, there seemed to be some doubt whether the clause would compel the employer to pay his workers for meal-times. This was not the intention of the Clause, and the Amendment is designed to make that clear.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Short Title, Commencement, Construction, and Repeal.)
  "(4) The provisions of the principal Act specified in the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed:
  Provided that all rates fixed under any provision of the principal Act repealed by this Act shall, notwithstanding the repeal, continue in force and shall be deemed to have been fixed under the principal Act as amended by this Act and may be varied or cancelled accordingly."
  Mr. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "Act" ["repealed by this Act"], to insert in the Bill the words "and being obligatory at the commencement of this Act."
  This is purely a formal Amendment, and I propose it to prevent any confusion between the proviso to Sub-section (4) of this Clause and the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Clause 4.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should not like to allow this occasion to pass without congratulating my right hon. Friend, first of all on his conduct of the Bill through Committee and the Report stage, and also on the fact that no measure which is likely to be fraught with good to large numbers of workpeople has met with a greater degree of general support than this Bill. I hope my right hon. Friend will not be deterred by any of the procedure which is rendered necessary in this Bill from pressing on with with his Orders as rapidly as possible. There are now a large number of trades which can come immediately under the operation, as soon as it receives the Royal Assent, of the trade boards legislation. My right hon. Friend is well aware, I think, of some twelve or fourteen trades which might be the subject of Orders immediately, but as time develops, and there are changes in the production of munitions and the discharge of large numbers of men and particularly of women from our munitions works, the need for some sort of immediate Regulation would be so great that I trust my right hon. Friend and his Department will press on with the drawing and the issue of the Orders, even in preparation for the time when these men and girls will be less assiduously employed. If he does that I am quite sure be is not likely to meet with the difficulties which, in the course of the Committee discussions, have been adumbrated. I hope he will administer the Act with boldness and not be deterred from enforcing the procedure which he has himself inserted in the Act. There is one direction in which I trust he may count on the general support of all those who take an interest in these trades and that is in the endeavour to preserve harmony between those who are employed and those who direct. In times past trade boards have been largely dependent on the degree of general assent given to them, and, at the present time, when that amount of assent is likely to be more general than ever before, I think it gives another reason for the right hon. Gentleman drafting and issuing these Orders.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the kindly allusions he has made to myself, and I wish to assure him that I shall endeavour, as

  1535
  far as my responsibility allows, to expedite the bringing in of these Orders. I should like to take this opportunity to convey to all the members of the Committee my appreciation of the spirit they have displayed during the progress of the Bill through Committee. I well know that if hon. Members choose to lay themselves out they can cause the Minister in charge of a Bill a great deal of trouble. I am glad to admit at once that in our discussions there has not been any semblance of obstruction, and that the objections taken by hon. Members have been urged with scrupulous fairness. I know full well I could not thus have got the Bill through had I not received the hearty co-operation of the members of the Committee irrespective of party. I agree with my right hon. Friend that in the present doubtful state of public opinion we ought to seek to anticipate difficulties, and that is the point of view I have endeavoured to take. I agree also that the operation of trade boards in organised industries, and in joint industrial councils, should do a great deal to improve the relationship between employer and employed. They have indeed gone a long way to soften the asperities of those relationships, and as I have said, both inside and outside this House, I feel that according to the way in which we are able to deal with these problems the relationship of employers and employed, and, indeed, the whole future of our country, may be determined. It is our desire that that relationship shall be well ordered, and therefore we will do what we can to anticipate grievances and remove injustices, bearing in mind that justice denied, after all, is injustice done. I thank the House for the reception it has given to this Bill.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Modifications of Statutory Provisions Affecting Charges.)
    (1) Where it appears to the appropriate Government Department that the financial position of any undertaking to which this Act applies has been adversely affected by circumstances arising
    1536
    out of the present War, the Department may, if they think fit, by Order provide for the modification of any statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made by the undertakers, and of any statutory provisions consequential on or supplemental to any such provisions as aforesaid, for such period during the continuance of this Act, in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as appear to the Department to be just and reasonable:
    Provided that—

    (a) where the undertakers are a local authority no modification shall be authorised which will increase the statutory maximum charge by more than fifty per cent., or which is more than sufficient so far as can be estimated to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss; and

    (b) in any other case no modification shall be authorised which is more than sufficient to enable a dividend on the ordinary stock or shares of the undertaking to be paid at half the standard or maximum rate of dividend, if any, prescribed for the undertaking, or at half the pre-war rate of dividend, whichever is lower.

    (2) An application to a Department for the purposes of this Act shall be accompanied by such information, certified in such manner, as the Department may require with respect to the financial position of the undertaking in question.
    (3) The undertakings to which this Act applies are tramway undertakings, including light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads, and undertakings for the supply of gas water, and electricity.
    (4) For the purposes of this Act—
    The expression "statutory provisions" includes the provisions of any Order having the force of an Act;
    The expression "appropriate Government Department" means, in relation to gas and water undertakings carried on by local authorities, the Local Government Board, and in relation to other undertakings the Board of Trade;
    The expression "local authority" includes any commissioners, trustees, or other public body of persons carrying on, otherwise than for purposes of private profit, any undertaking to which this Act applies;
    The expression "pre-war rate of dividend" means the average rate of dividend for the three financial years immediately preceding the War.
    Sir D. GODDARD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "fit" ["if they think fit"], to insert the words
    "after considering (in the case of an application under this Act by a company) any representations which may be made to the Department by the local authority for any district in which the undertaking of the company or any part thereof is situate."
    This Amendment, I admit, is not a very important one, but it is submitted, in view of the fact that there is another Amendment on the Paper, to add a new Clause requiring the Board to Trade to hear the local authority upon any representations made by them with reference to a com-

    1537
    pany's application. It seems to me the effect of that would be that whenever any such representation was made there would have to be an inquiry by the Department involving the attendance of witnesses and possibly of counsel as well, and I venture to submit that while it is quite proper that local authorities should have full opportunity of making their representations, it might be sufficient if those representations were made in writing, or at all events in some less cumbrous form, than by the holding of a formal, full, and costly inquiry. The whole difference between this Amendment and the one subsequently on the Paper is in the avoidance of the expense involved in full inquiry. I do not know what the view of the right hon. Gentleman may be, but I can conceive that he would favour anything that would simplify matters instead of complicating them. This Amendment fully admits the right of the local authorities to make their representations, but suggests that it be done in a simpler form than by holding a full inquiry.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am one of those in whose name the Amendment further down on the Paper alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman stands, and I wish to state our position in connection with it. To the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Sir D. Goddard), as far as it goes we have no objection, but unfortunately it does not go quite far enough, and if he and his friends can see their way to meet us under certain conditions, we would be prepared to accept their Amendment. I think, however, this could be done better on the Amendment which stands in my name. We do not think it absolutely necessary that in all eases an inquiry should take place, but we do believe that local authorities should be so safeguarded that in any instance where they have a very strong case to put before the Board of Trade it should be open for them to do something more than submit it in the form of a letter, which could not possibly carry the same weight or have the same influence as if the case was stated before the Board of Trade. We want to strengthen the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich, and, as I suggest, it could be better done on the later Amendment.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Rowlands) were
    1538
    to state his opinion a little more definitely. All he has given us has been a pious expression of opinion; he has said nothing quite definite, and before this Amendment can be withdrawn it is necessary he should more precisely state his position. Our view is that in the Bill the Board of Trade takes power to make certain decisions and even awards in such manner and subject to such conditions as appear to the Department to be just and reasonable. We have no lack of faith in the Board of Trade; on the contrary, it will appear, before we get through this Committee stage, that we have a very great deal of faith in it. But we feel that before it can be sufficiently advised as to what it ought to do in the matter of an application by, say, a gas company, they should at least have the support and assistance of statements made by the local authorities; they should know what the local authorities desire and what arguments they have to put forward. We, in the case of an application by a gas company to the Board of Trade, suggest it should be decided in the light of the opinions of the corporations or rural district or urban district councils concerned. If my hon. Friend has any modification to suggest, let him state it now. Unless we know what he desires, I think we must press our Amendment.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I think it is desirable that some such Amendment as has been moved should be inserted in the Bill, but I am very doubtful whether this is quite the appropriate place for it. I think, further, it will be necessary to somewhat widen the scope of the Amendment, and later on we intend to propose an Amendment which I hope will meet the case. The Amendment as drawn now does not deal with cases where a local authority has powers of supply in the area of another local authority. It would be better that the Amendment should be made in Sub-section (2), at the end of which I propose to move the following additional words,
    "and the Department before making an Order shall consider any representations which may be made to them by any local authority appearing to them to be affected."
    If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich will withdraw his Amendment, I shall be glad at the proper place to move the addition of these words.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I should like to point out, first of all, that this Amendment has been introduced, not by those who desire to assist the local authorities, but by those who are in the other interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]
    Sir F. FLANNERY: My hon. Friend has no right to say that. He ought not to say that, because, as a matter of fact, we have gone out of our way to show that we desire that the local authorities should have the fullest opportunity to make representations.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I am afraid my hon. Friend did not hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir D. Goddard) said in moving the Amendment.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Yes, I did.
    Sir H. HARRIS: He frankly said he moved the Amendment in order to anticipate and defeat an Amendment standing later on the Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friend. However, I do not want to go into that, but only to ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether something ought not to be done to secure that local authorities should have notice when application is made under this Act, otherwise they might not know about it.
    Sir D. GODDARD: Under the circumstances, and after the expression of view of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter, and the Amendment he proposes to move, I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the word "loss" ["to be carried on without loss"], and to insert instead thereof the words "involving a charge on the rates."
    I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend (Sir M. Barlow). The Amendment carries out an object the Committee had in view, and I think is rather better than the word in the Bill.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am very sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook). I must confess that when I first saw this Amendment it did appear to me that it more adequately met the case than the words inserted in the Bill, but on a closer investigation of all the facts, it was quite
    1540
    clear to me that the words now suggested would not meet all the instances where it might be desirable that some relief should be given. There are instances, I think, confined almost exclusively to Scotland, where these undertakings are carried on year by year under what, perhaps, might be called an annual budget. The local authority estimates as nearly as possible what will be the cost of carrying on the undertaking for the ensuing year. If their estimate is correct, no change is necessary, but, on the other hand, if their estimate does not work out accurately, and they under-estimate the cost of carrying on the undertaking, then a loss arises. But it does not follow that, because there may be a loss in any particular period in respect of any particular undertaking, that that loss becomes a charge upon the rates. On the contrary, that loss is carried over to the next year, and provision is made by increasing the charges to cover that loss. Therefore if the words suggested in the Amendment were introduced, it would be impossible to have a loss in that case charged upon the rates to make it good. I trust, with this explanation, my hon. Friend, who was a member of the Committee dealing with this matter, will not press this Amendment.
    Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I am quite prepared to accept that explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert instead thereof,
    "(b) in the case of an undertaking for the supply of electricity, such modification only may be authorised as shall be sufficient to enable a dividend on the ordinary stock or shares of the undertaking being paid at the pre-war rate of dividend."
    I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend (Sir J. Harmood-Banner). This Bill, in my humble opinion, treats these undertakings somewhat shabbily. When you consider what they have had to endure in the way of extra wages which the Government Departments have put upon them—a bonus of 15s., a bonus of 5s., then a bonus of 12½ per cent.—I think it is very hard that they should be restricted to half the pre-war dividends. You have guaranteed the railway companies pre-war dividends, and you have given to shipping, engineering, and particularly to the production of food, all the

    1541
    advantages so that they may not only not lose, but that they may have gain. In the case of electric light companies, you have shortened the hours in which they can sell their product. By the Summer Time Act and also by the Lighting Order you have cut down a tremendous amount of their income. Surely, therefore, they are entitled to pre-war rates of dividends! I cannot see why they should be restricted to only one-half of the pre-war dividends. Another point the Committee will not forget is that a great many of these electrical undertakings are subject to be taken over at the "then value," whatever that may be, and there is very considerable dispute as to what that does really mean. I think the London County Council have a right to take over most of the London companies in 1931, and some of them a little earlier. If the people who have put their money in these concerns do not get something like a decent return, when they come to sell they will have a very serious loss. You say that munitions of war and food are national services. Surely electric light is also a national service! A great deal of your machinery for munition purposes is run by electric power. I know that a very large amount in London is. Why are they to be treated in this shabby way? They have had to suffer from the action of the Ministry of Munitions and other Government Departments in very heavy wages, largely increased price of coal, shortening of the hours of supply, and they have had to put down extra plant for supplying munition factories. They have done all that, which is as much a national service as any other service, and therefore I say, instead of cutting them down to half their pre-war dividends, they should at least be allowed to earn their pre-war dividends in full.
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that this Amendment as it is on the Paper cannot be quite in correct form, and the same thing applies to the following one, namely, to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert a particular service—in this case electricity—which would leave all the other services unprovided for. Therefore, the proper way to put this Amendment would be, after paragraph (a), to insert this as an additional paragraph. But I imagine it will be for the convenience of the Committee that on this Amendment we might discuss the question of whether these
    1542
    different services are to be treated alike or differently, and, secondly, in what manner they should be treated.
    Mr. PETO: On the point of Order. As the second Amendment to which you refer is in my name, I may perhaps say that my main object in putting it down in that form was precisely to bring to the attention of the Committee the fact that there is a totally separate case in regard to the water companies, as I have no doubt there is in the case of the electric companies, and the foundation of the case is that, as there was a Committee set up by the Board of Trade to consider gas undertakings and another to consider tramway undertakings, there was no Committee set up to consider either electric undertakings or water undertakings, and, therefore, the proper form of the Bill, after dealing with local authorities, is that there should be a sufficient number of Sub-clauses dealing with companies for the supply of gas, water, electricity, and other public utility companies of that sort. Therefore, I have limited my Amendment to water, but I do not think it thereby precludes gas companies or tramway companies being considered. What is necessarily right for one is not necessarily right for another.
    Sir R. BARRAN: There is an Amendment further on to leave out paragraph (b) altogether. That would leave it open to the Board of Trade to decide all of these on their merits. I think that would leave it open to these other Amendments to be dealt with. Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee to take that Amendment first and have the whole discussion on it?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot adopt that suggestion unless the other hon. Members give way. It seems to me that if there were to be a series of paragraphs it would not be a case necessarily of leaving out paragraph (b), but of making insertions in front of paragraph (b). But if I put it in the form I suggest—namely, after paragraph (a) to insert a new paragraph (b)—then the discussion can cover the various proposals, and hon. Members will not be deprived of any of their respective rights.
    Mr. TENNANT: Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if the Government informed us whether they propose to consider all these subjects as one, or whether they wish to have them differentiated with a paragraph for each?
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Before my right hon. Friend replies, may I say that it does seem to me that an omnibus paragraph dealing with electricity, water, and gas, all of which are services of public utility, would be desirable, and would be for the convenience of the Committee and in the public interest. Therefore, those who are with me would regard your suggestion as a convenient suggestion, and one that would be advisable, perhaps, to be adopted.
    The CHAIRMAN: I feel sure it would be to the interests of the Committee to be able on this first Amendment to discuss the whole situation. I think that would meet the convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. WATT: Including tramways?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes; including tramways.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: Of course, all these various undertakings require separate consideration. The electricity companies, particularly in large towns, are subject to purchase in a certain number of years by the local authorities. That does not apply to gas or water. My idea of the whole thing is this—that they ought to be differentiated, and that, perhaps, a general Clause giving this power at the end of paragraph (b) could be introduced by my right hon. Friend. But I am quite willing to do whatever you think right, and to put this at the beginning or the end.
    Mr. BURNS: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. Before the President of the Board of Trade replies on the various points which have been put to him, may I respectfully put this to him and to the House?——
    The CHAIRMAN: At present I wish to give to the Committee the fullest opportunity to deal with the general question, leaving aside for the time being points in dispute.
    Mr. BURNS: On that, Mr. Whitley, the suggestion has been made by the hon. Member for Maldon, speaking on behalf of those interested in the gas companies, that he would not object to what he termed an omnibus Clause to deal with the gas and tramways on which we have had Committees and in connection with which we have had evidence collected, and also that electricity and water companies should be included in the general discussion. Is it fair for the gas or for the tramways? Cer-
    1544
    tainly it is unfair to both electric lighting and water undertakings that we should include them with gas and tramways when there has been no evidence, no Committee sitting, and no information imparted to the House on which we can decide, without investigation, whether it is fair for them to be grouped with gas and tramways, when different conditions apply to them to those which apply to gas and tramways which have been thoroughly investigated.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is argument upon the merits of the case. I am putting the position so that the Committee may take one or the other course as it thinks fit—whether we shall deal in this Committee with the services by a different paragraph for each, or whether we shall deal with them by a general paragraph. Therefore I put the Amendment in the form I did, and which will not debar any subsequent proposals being debated, and it is for the Committee to say which of these two propositions shall be decided upon.
    Sir A. STANLEY: If I understand your ruling correctly, Mr. Whitley, it will be in order for me to deal not only with this Amendment, but also with the other Amendments which deal with paragraph (b) in the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes; and with water and gas.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Is it possible for the President of the Board of Trade to deal with gas and water when he has not heard the case for them?
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman can only put his view before the Committee as to whether these services shall be dealt with together or separately. The hon. Gentleman may follow him and state his case.
    Sir W. PEARCE: May I appeal to the Government not to pronounce a decision until they have heard the arguments in regard to these other undertakings? I should like to remind the Committee that there was a Select Committee appointed to deal with the tramways case. The Minister has not heard the case the Committee has presented in regard to having special treatment. I hope he will not make a definite pronouncement before he has heard the arguments.
    Sir F. LOWE: May I ask whether it would not be better for the President of

    1545
    the Board of Trade to say, first, whether he intends to differentiate between the services or whether he intends to treat them all in the same way? If so, then I cannot see any reason for any separate discussion on them. I think we ought to know that before we go any further.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I will deal, first of all, with the particular point just put to me. I think I can now in a very few words convince the hon. Member that it would not be possible—certainly it would be very difficult indeed—to distinguish or to mete out separate treatment to each of these public utility undertakings. This is a matter to which I have given a great deal of thought. We have familiarised ourselves with all the relevant facts in dealing with the different undertakings, and we have come to the conclusion that these undertakings should be grouped for the purpose of relief. Might I illustrate the point in this way: If you take local authorities who own electric and tramway undertakings, and possibly the gas, there can be no reason, so far as I can judge the situation, why we should distinguish in the measure of relief that it may be desirable to afford any one of them. We have therefore, come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, the case that can be made out for any relief in respect of any one of these public utility undertakings can practically be made out for each of the others. In dealing with these undertakings, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that for this particular purpose they can be grouped, and whatever form or measure the relief may take in respect of any one of them shall be applied to all alike.
    The Amendment that paragraph (b) be deleted from the Bill would mean that the whole onus and responsibility of determining whether or not any relief should be given to any of these statutory undertakings should be decided by the Board of Trade, and that it is for the Board of Trade, on its own responsibility, to determine what shall be that measure of relief. When we came to this House and asked that a Select Committee should be appointed to deal with the question of gas and tramways undertakings we determined then—and rightly—that the responsibility should not lie with the Board of Trade. Statutory undertakings are operated under various Acts of Parliament which from time to time have been granted by this House in the years gone by. It is
    1546
    for the Members of the House to determine whether there shall be any temporary modification during the War, and for a little time afterwards, from the provisions of these various Acts of Parliament. It is for that reason that we asked the House to appoint Select Committees to deal with these problems. It is true that only two Select Committees were appointed, one to deal with gas and the other with tramway undertakings. It is true, as hon. Members know, that the Report of these two Committees were not identical. The Report of the Gas Committee was that there may be instances where some relief should be afforded. Having said that, they went on to indicate what the measure of relief should be, provided application were made to the Board of Trade for such relief. The Tramways Select Committee also agreed that some measure of relief in respect of tramways undertakings was probably necessary. That Committee, however, left it entirely to the discretion of the Board of Trade as to the extent of the relief granted.
    If the Gas Committee had made a Report identical with that of the Tramways Committee. In other words, if they had left it to the discretion of the Board of Trade as to the amount of relief to be afforded, I cannot help thinking that if the Board of Trade had submitted a Bill to this House which left it entirely at their discretion what the relief should be, the House would have demanded to know what sort of relief it was proposed by the Board of Trade to give to these undertakings. I cannot believe the House would desire, nor should I be willing, that the Board of Trade should take full responsibility for altering a bargain which was made by the House in years past, without this House having an opportunity to indicate how far they thought that relief should go. Therefore, whether or not the Tramways Committee made the same recommendation as the Gas Committee, I felt in drafting the Bill we ought to accept the recommendations of the Gas Committee and include all the undertakings within the provision. In other words, they ought all to be drafted quite alike. The Gas Committee recommended that where there were cases of hardship where it was necessary that relief should be afforded, that the relief should be limited, and that no company—I will deal with the companies first—should be allowed to charge for their service, whatever it might be, a sum which

    1547
    would be more than sufficient to earn a dividend on the ordinary shares of the company in excess of half their pre-war dividend, or their standard dividend, whichever it might be. In other words, that the amount of the dividend which might be paid by these undertakings during the time this measure of relief is in force is to be limited to that extent; that they are not to earn more money beyond what is necessary to pay all their reasonable expenses, all their fixed charges, and leave what will pay a dividend not exceeding half their pre-war dividend, or their standard dividend, whichever may be the lower.
    Sir J. WALTON: Can that be justified?
    Sir A. STANLEY: If the statutory undertaking does not desire any relief they can go on operating as before and earn whatever their powers of earning permit. I understand that these gas undertakings represented to the members of the Committee that in all likelihood their expenses will be increased so that in all probability they would practically wipe out the whole of their ordinary dividends. That, I understand, is the measure of their anticipation in respect to the financial position of these undertakings. Obviously, one must recognise that that is a very grave outlook, indeed, and one that anybody associated with these undertakings can hardly look forward to with any particular degree of pleasure. They, therefore, suggest that their statutory limitations should, for the first time being, be laid aside, and that they should be empowered to increase their charges so that they may be able to maintain, during the period that this relief is given to them, practically their pre-war rate of dividend. Those who have spoken for the gas undertakings argue—and I think those who have spoken for other undertakings argued similarly—that there is no reason, no justice, in distinguishing between one class of statutory undertaking and another. They refer in particular to the railway dividends which have been guaranteed by the State—not wholly, but something very close to their pre-war rate of dividend. Therefore, it is argued, if the railways, being taken over by the State, are guaranteed practically a pre-war dividend, the statutory undertakings ought not to be put
    1548
    under so severe a limitation as is suggested by the Report of the Select Committee, and for which the Bill under discussion provides.
    As regards the railways it should be borne in mind that while it is true that very nearly the pre-war dividends of the railways are assured so long as the railways remain under the control of the State, that was an arrangement come to when the railways were taken over by the Government. At that time the railway companies were earning their pre-war rates, and in so far as those who represent the railway companies and those who represent the Government in the negotiations which resulted in the agreement could possibly judge, there was every likelihood that the railway companies would be able to continue to earn sufficient money so that a pre-war dividend could be maintained at the old rates. There was no suggestion that the State should subsidise the railway companies, and there was no suggestion that the rates or charges should be advanced. As a result of that arrangement up to within a very recent time—I should not like to say it is true to-day—after making a fair allowance as we are entitled to make for the cost of carrying goods and passengers on the Government account, the railways are earning sufficient to meet all their expenses and to meet the pre-war dividend which has been guaranteed by the State, and that has been done without advancing any of the rates or charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fifty per cent. increase on passenger fares!"] I am going to deal with that point.
    In January, 1917, the Government authorised the railway companies to advance all their passenger rates with certain exceptions, and unfortunately season tickets were left out, and workmen's tickets, and one or two other minor exceptions, and all ordinary fares were advanced by 50 per cent. The object of that advance was not for the purpose of securing additional revenue; on the contrary, the object was to stifle and to hold back traffic on the railways and not to secure additional revenue. It is only very recently that the Government has, with respect to any particular class of traffic on the railways, made any advance in the rates. What transpired recently in regard to season tickets is, I am sure, sufficiently so fresh in the memory of all hon. Members, and certainly in my own mind, as to make it unnecessary for me to go into

    1549
    details. In this case the Government advanced the rates to secure additional revenue, but it was a revenue proposition, and the advance was made with the object of bringing the rates charged within measurable distance of the cost of that particular traffic. Apart from that no advance has been made on passenger rates or charges with the object of securing that the bargain made between the Government and the railway companies shall be solvent or shall balance without any subsidy from the State.
    Another illustration would be the coal mines taken over by the Government. There the Government, with certain exceptions, has guaranteed the pre-war profits of the mines which have come under their control. It should be borne in mind that coal mines can hardly be compared in this respect with statutory undertakings. I think it is correct to say that the coalmine owners have periods of very severe depression, and that there is very severe competition, and occasionally it is very difficult to make a profit. There are other periods, no doubt, when the profits are quite satisfactory, but they are subject to fluctuations of the market, whereas in regard to statutory undertakings the position is different, and they are sufficiently wide for it to be possible for them to earn for their shareholders a fair return upon the money invested. They have a monopoly, and it is only under such very exceptional circumstances as we now find ourselves in that the conditions under which they are working make it impossible—it would be true in most instances to say impossible—for them to earn for their shareholders an adequate return for their money.
    As I understand the position taken up by those who represent the gas undertakings, and I have no doubt the same argument applies with almost equal force to undertakings like the tramways and the water supply, their position is that the very small dividend which it is proposed they shall be permitted to earn is not sufficient to secure the stability of those undertakings, and that it will be impossible for those undertakings to borrow money to secure that they shall be able to manufacture and carry on at the lowest possible cost. I think from that point of view I should doubt very much whether any hon. Member of this House would dispute that statement. I think it would be agreed at once by everyone that a dividend of 1¾ per cent. or, at the most,
    1550
    2 per cent. upon the ordinary shares of the undertaking is not sufficient to attract money into that enterprise. That statement we can all accept. The Committee did not suggest that such a rate of dividend would secure the necessary stability and attract money to those undertakings, and it is only purely as a temporary matter that the members of the Committee have made this particular recommendation. I think it is quite clear that whatever relief is given to these undertakings, after the War it will be necessary for the Government to very seriously consider the whole situation, not only with respect to the undertakings now under discussion, but also with regard to all statutory undertakings which are limited in their charges by Acts of Parliament, in some instances passed many years ago. After the War it is very likely that we shall be living under entirely different conditions, and therefore it will be necessary to consider whether the basis upon which statutory limitations have been established are under the altered circumstances reasonable and fair.
    The second point, which is, perhaps, somewhat less important than the first, is that this very modest dividend is unfair to the vast number of shareholders, and particularly to those undertakings where they have a co-partnership arrangement, and the earnings of the employés would be prejudiced by this arrangement. If I were asked to give my first impression, and my most lasting impression, of the House of Commons, I should say, without the slightest hesitancy, that the thing that struck me above everything else has been the sense of fairness that this House desires to display on every occasion, and I feel quite certain that this particular instance will be no exception to that rule. We have to consider not only the interests of the shareholders of those undertakings, and they run into very many thousands, but we must also consider the interests of the consumers, who also run into many thousands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eight millions!"]
    The members of the Committee considering this matter no doubt have had to consider not only the interests of the shareholders but also the interests of the consumers. I understand that the representatives of the gas undertakings who presented the case before the Committee very strongly emphasised the extreme

    1551
    likelihood of the dividends of those companies being completely wiped out. Therefore they felt that for that situation to arise would be eminently unfair to those who are interested in those undertakings. On the other hand, it was suggested that the Government should come forward and release these undertakings from their statutory obligations with respect to charges, so that they might, through the relief the Government would give them, be in a position to increase their charges to their customers, so that they might maintain their pre-war profit. As so often happens in instances of this kind the Committee appear to have split the difference, and they came to the conclusion that this very heavy burden should be borne equally by the shareholders and the consumers, and that if the dividend's of those undertakings were to be sacrificed that the undertakings should be afforded an opportunity of earning sufficient to pay off all their pre-war dividend or standard dividend, and, on the other hand, the customers should be relieved of what would be the additional burden necessary to make up the full pre-war standard. Therefore, in that way it really would mean if that advice is followed that the consumers would be taking a part of the burden and the shareholders would be taking the other.
    8.0 P.M.
    As was pointed out by those who object to the decision it is alleged that this will seriously prejudice their position. Well, the Acts of Parliament under which these undertakings are working have been passed by this House from time to time. The arrangement was come to in this place, and I feel if there is to be any change of a temporary kind—and it can only be temporary—it should be left to the House to decide. I quite understand that on this point there might be a very considerable difference of opinion, but I am sure everybody will desire to be fair to the shareholders and to the consumers, and I feel it would perhaps be desirable that there should be an opportunity given for the House to decide this matter for itself. I would like to make this reservation. The Government would not be willing that the Board of Trade should be given the full responsibility of determining what relief should be given. On that point we must maintain our position according to the Bill. I understand that those who
    1552
    are opposing this Bill are prepared to withdraw their Amendment, which provides for the withdrawal of paragraph (b), and that at a later stage an Amendment will be moved which will provide for something more than half of the pre-war or standard dividend, whichever it may be.
    Mr. TENNANT: But not the full.
    Sir A. STANLEY: But not the full. If that course is agreeable, then the Government will be prepared to withdraw the Whips on that particular Amendment and to leave it to the members of the Committee to vote freely upon it.
    Colonel Sir F. HALL: May I ask one question. Would the right hon. Gentleman also be prepared to withdraw the Whips in order that the House might decide fully whether dividends on the pre-war basis should be paid?
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: There are some companies that will not be able to provide for expenses and fixed charges. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are to understand that the dividend is to be after providing for those expenses and fixed charges?
    Mr. SAMUEL: May I ask whether the Government would be prepared to withdraw their maximum prices for the by products of these companies?
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON: May I ask whether there is any objection to stating now exactly what the Government do propose in their Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman is making a bargain. He is asking for an Amendment to be withdrawn as one of the terms of that bargain. Cannot he tell us what we are to get in its place?
    Sir R. BARRAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman leave to the House the question whether they are to get their pre-war dividends?
    Sir W. PEARCE: I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to his complete change of attitude with respect to tramway undertakings, which are in an entirely different position. In December last the Board of Trade established a Statutory Committee to deal with tramways, and they have great powers under an Order in Council. They are able to do what they please with tram-

    1553
    way undertakings. They are able to take rolling stock from one tramway to another and to reduce their running powers. They can absolutely close them and make any regulations that they please. The Chairman of the Committee presented a Memorandum pointing out to the Committee that under the powers they already possess they are the proper people to decide what relief should be granted, and he asked the Committee to recommend that the Board of Trade should be clothed with powers to vary the statutory charges, and that each case should be remitted, to the Committee by the Board of Trade to decide what relief should be given. I submit that this is a complete change of attitude on the part of the Department. Tramways are in an entirely different position from other undertakings. Besides the variations which have been already pointed out, they have a limited tenure and no sliding scale. A Committee having been established and armed already with drastic powers by an Order in Council, it seems to me that they are undeniably the right people to decide the measure of relief. That was the attitude of the Board of Trade, and personally I think that their departure from it is unfortunate. I hope that even now it is not too late for the Board of Trade to alter their decision in this respect.
    Mr. TENNANT: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he has met such opinion as I have been able to arrive at very fairly. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Sir W. Pearce) wishes to have a differentiation for tramways. I understand that the Government are not willing to accept it, and, that being so, it seems to me really unnecessary to argue it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I ought not to have said that, but the Government do not want to have it, and the probability is that they will succeed in their desire. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is almost impossible to differentiate between these various public utility companies. It is not really fair that you should put one in one position and another in another position. That is my view, and I entirely agree with the President of the Board of Trade in that argument. There are a large number of Members who have come here to take part in this discussion in order that they may represent their constituents, many of whom have written to them saying that it is exceedingly hard upon poor people who have invested their
    1554
    small savings in these companies that their dividends should be cut down by one-half. Most people realise that it would be equally unfair to the consumer to insist that there should be the full dividends of pre-war times, and I should like, at the conclusion of this Debate, to move to insert the words either "two-thirds" or "three-quarters" instead of "one-half." I think three-quarters would be a fair amount. I should like to know what hon. Members think of that suggestion. I understand that there are a good many Members sitting in this part of the House who would be prepared to agree to three-quarters.
    Sir F. LOWE: On a point of Order. The Amendment before the Committee simply deals with electricity. The right hon. Gentleman said that he does not propose to differentiate between any of these services. Therefore, I very respectfully suggest that the proper course for the Committee to adopt would be to consider whether the word "half" should stand part of the Clause. That would bring us to a direct issue on the whole question relating to all these services. It is absurd to discuss them separately when the right hon. Gentleman says that he proposes to take them together and not to differentiate between them. With your permission, if the Amendment were withdrawn, I should like to move that the word "half" should be left out of the Clause.
    Sir J. WALTON: We are supposed to be in Committee on this particular Bill, but it would appear that we are having a Second Reading Debate. Is it the idea that we should discuss the whole of the Bill in a sort of Second Reading Debate, or where do we stand? What particular Amendment have we under consideration?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the case of the statutory companies that are subject to pre-emption by the local authorities in a certain number of years. In 1914, when the War broke out, the London County Council had power to buy some of these undertakings in 1931. Four years have gone, in which they have been unable to make any provision towards the replacement of their capital by 1931. Other companies go on for ever. Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of that point?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I can assure my hon. Friend that very careful consideration was

    1555
    given to this and all other relevant points, as well as to the question of dealing with tramways as distinct from other public utility undertakings. After all, all that is involved in this matter now is to secure to those who are interested in these undertakings, whether local authorities or private individuals, some return for the money which has been invested, but only for the period of the War and for a short time afterwards. There is nothing permanent in this legislation. Obviously, at a later date this matter must be brought forward by the Government, and some decision must be come to which will secure the stability of these undertakings in relation to the conditions as they will exist after the War. I myself can see no reason whatever why those who are interested in tramway undertakings, whether local authorities or private individuals, should secure any better terms than those interested in gas, electricity, or water undertakings.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: On a point of Order. This Amendment dealing with electricity-alone has been moved by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson), and we have had a general statement with regard to the whole question from the Government. Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if we could know at once whether my hon. Friend is going to take the opinion of the Committee on his Amendment or whether he is going to withdraw it? Let us have it one way or the other. If, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, my hon. Friend still wishes to take the opinion of the Committee as to whether there shall be differentiation or not, let us discuss that point, but if my hon. Friend is going to bow to the decision of the Government, however reluctantly, and withdraw his Amendment, would it not help us if that were done now?
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may be able to assist the Committee. I have purposely allowed this discussion to run over more than one question in order that the Committee might see that it was arriving at an opinion. The first question is whether these services are to be dealt with together or separately. That issue is raised by the present Amendment. It would appear to be the desire of the Committee to get that question out of the way, and to reach the point as to whether the word "half" should stand part of the
    1556
    Clause or whether some other figure should be inserted. Perhaps the hon. Member will inform me whether he wishes to proceed with his Amendment.
    Mr. NEVILLE: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment covers two points. One is the elimination of electricity from separate treatment, and the other is whether they are to have their pre-war dividends. Those are two distinct points, and both are included in the Amendment. If he withdraws the Amendment, I take it that the point with regard to pre-war dividends has gone? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: Surely it is quite clear that it will remain entirely within the power of the Committee to decide under paragraph (b) whether the rate is to be one-half, or the whole, or any other proportion.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: May I respectfully make a suggestion? Supposing the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) were to desire to give full effect to all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he would be able to do so by slightly amending his Amendment by inserting after the word "electricity" the words "gas, water, or tramway services."
    If this Amendment were put to the sense of the Committee, after what my right hon. Friend has promised with regard to the withdrawal of the Government Whips, the whole case as suggested by you in the first instance, dealing with all these public utility undertakings together, will be presented to the decision of the Committee.
    Mr. HENDERSON: May I intervene a moment? Of course, I see the Committee wishes to settle this point, but at the same time I do not wish to press it to a Division. If the right hon. Gentleman would make it 80 per cent. we could settle the point at once.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: May I say, as a matter of procedure, that I appreciate your view as Chairman in encouraging the Committee to have as wide and long a discussion on this Amendment as possible. I see there will be grave difficulties in the matter of procedure supposing the hon. Member withdraws his Amendment and we get on to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division (Sir

    1557
    F. Lowe) that "half" stand part. If we decided that "half" shall not stand part, then we should have "two-thirds" proposed, and if that were defeated "three-fourths," and then you might go on to the whole, and that might be knocked out. You cannot go on in that way. The House is so divided about considering all these together that it might be possible, after moving 10s. and then not agreeing to propose any proportion—two-thirds or three-fourths, or anything else—afterwards. It is very much more desirable, if possible, to have a measure of consent on the fraction to be substituted before we come to the actual technical point of removing the one which is in the Bill. I think it is quite possible, in a House constituted as it is, to have those who advocate two-thirds or three-fourths and those who want the whole or those who want the Bill to remain as it is in the interest of the consumers. It is all very well to say that Members have had letters. We have all had letters, some from needy shareholders, some from rich shareholders, and some from the consumers. They are all appealing this way and that way. At any rate, I hope the discussion will not be terminated too soon.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps what I am going to say may make it clear. If the Committee desires to proceed on that point I do not think there will be the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, because I understood the right hon. Member for Berwick to say that he proposes to tender an Amendment to leave out "half" and insert "three-quarters." If this is done it would take precedence over the Amendment on the Paper, simply taking out "half," according to our custom, and the Committee will vote first of all whether "half" is to stand part; secondly, whether "three-quarters" is to be there inserted; and if no other figure is to be inserted it would remain that the whole should be. That is quite clear—if no proportion is inserted the whole will stand.
    Sir R. BARRAN: There are several Amendments down dealing separately with these undertakings. If we pass this Amendment now it will not be possible to bring them up again. The right hon. Member says, "Leave it to the House," but the Committee does not understand whether he suggests leaving the whole to the House to decide upon anything up to
    1558
    the pre-war standard, or whether he will leave it to the House to decide something below the pre-war standard. If he would leave it to the House to determine anything up to the pre-war standard I think hon. Members would not be encouraged to press their Amendments. On the other hand, if he proposes to make it less than the whole, then we are entitled to have a Division on each of those questions.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment which provides that in the case of water undertakings the Board of Trade shall have discretion up to the full pre-war rates of dividend. Unless the President makes the point clear I shall be bound to move my Amendment, but clearly I shall be precluded altogether from raising the question of the full dividend by the motion that "half" do not stand part and that "three-quarters" shall.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am sorry to intervene so often in the Debate. I thought I had made it quite clear in what I said previously, that, speaking for the Government, we are not prepared to consider the substitution of the whole of the pre-war dividend for the half. If something between half and the whole of the pre-war dividend could be agreed upon, then the Government Whips would be withdrawn. Whether it is two-thirds or three-quarters would be for the members of the Committee to decide.
    Mr. NEVILLE: Supposing the pre-war dividend of a gas company to be 5½, but the standard dividend 4 per cent., the difference is a great deal. If it is to be three-quarters of the standard dividend and not of the pre-war dividend, it would be much less favourable for the company.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to take off the Government Whips upon the understanding of "three-quarters," and the substitution of the word "higher" instead of the word "lower" later on? That would be a compromise which would end matters.
    Mr. GILBERT: Are we not in an extraordinary position after the speech the President of the Board of Trade has made. I am a new Member of this House, and perhaps not au fait with the procedure. But the Government have appointed a Select Committee in order to consider a

    1559
    matter like this, and I should have thought the Government always supported the Report of the Select Committee.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Which Committee?
    Mr. GILBERT: The Committee which has been inquiring into this particular point.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: There are two Committees. Why not take the other one?
    Mr. GILBERT: The other one does not make any recommendation as to the amount to be paid. But the Gas Committee was set up by the Government in order to consider the point of the sliding scale of these private company bills. The Committee has reported unanimously to the House, and I understand it has always been the practice of the Government, when they appointed Committees like that, to get the recommendations of the Committee carried out. We are met here to-night by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, that he is going to adopt part of the Committee's Report, but when he comes to the fraction of the amount of the dividend which is to be paid, the Government Whips are to be taken off and he is going to leave it to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members ask, "Why not?" I am trying to put my case as a new Member, because I always understood that when the Government appointed a Select Committee to consider a difficult problem the Government adopted the Report. To me as a new Member of the House it seems an extraordinary proceeding that the Government should come down here, not to adopt the Report of the Select Committee, but, as I understand from the second speech of the President of the Board of Trade, to propose an Amendment, though they do not say exactly what Amendment they are going to propose. They only tell us they are prepared to consider an Amendment for something between what the Select Committee recommended, and the whole of the dividend which was paid by the gas companies before the War. As the hon. Member for Maldon immediately interjected, does that mean the highest or the lowest dividend which was paid before the War? The Government are treating the Committee very badly on this matter altogether, and I am very much surprised.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: On a point of Order. Would you inform the Committee, Mr.
    1560
    Whitley, whether the hon. Member (Mr. Gilbert) is speaking to the Amendment or whether he is rising to a point of Order?
    Mr. GILBERT: I understand, Sir, that you ruled we were to have a general discussion on the matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Gilbert) was quite in order. I suggest that when he has concluded his remarks the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. Henderson) might withdraw his Amendment. That would enable the Committee to decide the effective point.
    Mr. GILBERT: When the hon. Member for St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) rose to a point of Order, I was trying to explain to the Committee that I understood from your previous ruling we were to have a general discussion. I am very much interested in gas from the London point of view. I again say that the Government have treated the House very badly in not keeping to the Report of the Select Committee.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am rather at a loss to know what to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw the Amendment!"] This is a very serious matter. If my right hon. Friend would give us an indication that he would accept 75 per cent. I would withdraw the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would be a matter for the Committee to decide. If the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment we could get on to that point.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Then on the understanding that it is going to come up again—that is, the question of the half or the three-fourths or the whole—I will withdraw. Do I understand, Sir, that you propose that the Division should decide what is the rate now, or on what Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already informed the Committee that I propose to entertain an Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant)—to leave out the word "half," and to insert the word "three-fourths"—which he has tendered.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Does that apply to this question only, or generally?
    The CHAIRMAN: It applies to the whole of these services.
    Mr. HENDERSON: That being so, I withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PETO: I am sorry I cannot take the same view as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson), and I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert instead thereof,
    "(b) in the case of any other undertaking such modification only may be authorised as shall be sufficient to enable a dividend on the ordinary stock or shares of the undertaking to be paid at the pre-war rate of dividend."
    Sir R. ADKINS: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether, in accordance with the obvious desire of the Committee, if the crucial issue of the particular proportion between one-half and the whole were now put to the Committee, it would not be open to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) afterwards to move the substance of his Amendment as an exception or an addition confined to the particular class of undertakings for which on this occasion he is speaking? Because I submit it would be more convenient for the Committee to come to a conclusion on the general amount as soon as possible, and that whatever limiting exceptions might be proposed by my hon. Friend should be considered by the Committee afterwards.
    Mr. PETO: If the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) had listened to the few opening remarks I was trying to make, he would have seen that I did not propose to move the Amendment exactly in the form in which it stands on the Paper, but to give the Committee at once an opportunity of settling one of the main propositions which must be considered. I want to leave out of my Amendment as it appears on the Paper the words "for the supply of water." It will then read:
    "In the case of any other undertaking such modification only may be authorised as shall be sufficient to enable a dividend on the ordinary stock or shares of the undertaking to be paid at the pre-war rate of dividend."
    It would be simpler and would avoid a position of great embarrassment if the Committee would settle the question whether the Board of Trade should have authority to deal with these questions of the alterations of statutory conditions up to the whole pre-war rate of dividend. Therefore I wish to move the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: That cannot be done here, because that is precisely and exactly
    1562
    an equivalent to leaving out the words and not inserting any other words. That Amendment would not come at this stage. It would not be competent to leave out paragraph (b) and reinsert it with the exception of the word "half."
    Mr. PETO: I only rose to move my Amendment in that form because I understood you, Sir, to say that you were going to put an Amendment, which is not on the Paper at all, to leave out "half" in order to insert "three-fourths." If you are going to put the Amendment on the Paper to leave out "half," and let the Committee vote on that first, I am perfectly satisfied.
    The CHAIRMAN: When two Amendments are tendered, one simply to leave out and the other to leave out and insert something, the latter class of Amendment comes first, as the hon. Member will see by comparing his Amendment with the one standing next to it. That is the reason why I said that. That will not debar the Committee from coming to a decision, if it so desires, to leave out from the word "half" to the end. It is competent for the Committee to do that.
    Mr. PETO: Surely under your ruling, Sir, you have prevented me from having precedence?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is so.
    Mr. BURNS: The confusion into which the Committee is drifting at this moment is in no sense due to the Committee itself. With all respect, I had expected that the President of the Board of Trade would have given us bolder and clearer guidance on this matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: At the present moment there is no Question before the Committee, I am trying to lead it to an Amendment on which it can debate the matter. The next effective Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Member for South Paddington (Sir Henry Harris).
    Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word "enable" ["more than sufficient to enable a dividend"], to insert the words
    "with due care and management."
    The sliding scale was devised to provide a company with an incentive to due care and management, but when the present Bill is applied to a company the sliding scale becomes suspended, and the company becomes entitled to fix the dividends.

    1563
    The companies will then be able to throw on to the consumer the whole of the increased charge in order to maintain the rate of dividend without the incentive to due care and management. The object of the Amendment is to ensure the consumer against any laxity on the part of the management. It follows the existing Acts.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. TENNANT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "half" ["at half the standard or maximum rate"], and to insert instead thereof the words "three-quarters of."
    Mr. BURNS: May I say how sincerely I regret the action the President of the Board of Trade has taken on this subject? First, he came to the House of Commons with twenty-four private Gas Bills, and he said, substantially, that these Bills contained within them matters of such importance and urgency that it was necessary for him and for his Department to secure the guidance of a special Committee. That special Committee was instituted. It sat for eight or nine days. It gave close technical application to a subject on which knowledge, evidence and information is absolutely essential to come to a wise and just decision. The Committee sent their Report back to the House. The Board of Trade took the Report and embodied its recommendation in a Bill. We were under the impression that the Board of Trade would at least have shown sufficient respect to the decision and the appointment of that Committee not to use this the first opportunity to run away from it. What is the attitude of the President to it? He says, first, I do not object to you mixing up electricity and water, on which there was no Select Committee, on which the House lacks evidence, advice and information, with gas and tramways, on which we ask for and got special guidance, evidence and information. The result of doing that is this. You can get a combination of four interests as against the consumer to-day that you probably would not have got on gas and tramways with the evidence and information which had been brought before the Committee. The result is that we are face to face with a vicious extension of Government liability for private property, for speculators, for company concerns which are using the War as an opportunity of getting privileges and preferential consideration which no
    1564
    other interest, because it is small and un-organised and non-statutory, could hope to get.
    See the disadvantage of this course. The President of the Board of Trade probably does not know how he is widening the scope of compensation, other than that recommended by the Committee, by widening this reference from gas and tramways to electricity and water. I am going to throw a little light upon the inexpediency, I think the injustice to the consumer, the taxpayer and the ratepayer, of water and electricity being included with gas and tramways. The inclusion of electricity as an object for privileged and preferential and, I believe, too generous compensation, adds 300 electric light concerns owned by municipalities only, apart from companies, and brings within the ambit of this consideration for generous treatment £50,000,000 more capital than was considered by the Committee upstairs, whilst the simple proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Peto), which was taken, in my judgment, too lightly, so far as local authorities alone are concerned, brings in 1,200 water undertakings with anything from £300,000,000 to £400,000,000 of capital. So we have this result. First we have the railways, and there is no comparison between the case of the railways and the case of water and electricity. The railways are the military veins necessary to carry munitions, men and materials. They are vitally necessary. You could not have begun the War, you could not prosecute it for a day without them. They stand in a special position of their own, and the President of the Board of Trade has told us that there is no probability of the State being damnified by the control of the railways undertaken by his Department at the beginning of the War.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: What about explosives?
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member has given an example of what an explosive can do at the wrong time. What about explosives? Important though explosives are, my own view is that if the Ministry of Munitions, against whom the gas companies from the point of view of explosives, have some claim, the Treasury and the other Departments concerned had given the gas companies probably a slightly higher price for the residuals necessary for the making of explosives, probably the difficulty in which some of

    1565
    the gas companies are placed would have been removed by more generous treatment on that head. But whether that be so or not it is impossible to say that either gas, electricity, or water, for the purpose of conducting the War and carrying on the economic and social life of the people, is at all comparable with the railways, which have in my judgment a special case in which it will be proved, for the four or five years that the War lasts and for six or seven years afterwards, from the point of view of the depreciation of their roads, locomotives, and material, that they have not made anything like the good bargain for themselves that some people speaking on behalf of gas, electricity, and water undertakings say the railways have made. Whether that be so or not, what I do respectfully protest against is the procedure of asking the House for guidance, that guidance taking the form of a Select Committee and the Select Committee recommending, as in Sub-section (b), a minimum of half the pre-war dividend, and then the President of the Board of Trade throwing them over, taking off the Whips, and letting us have a general stampede as prejudice or interest may dictate, with the result that we may see interests sufficiently well organised to put aside half or three-quarters the pre-war dividends, and to establish the absolute dividend that was paid before the War. If that were done, in my judgment, it would be a scandal, it would be unfair to the consumer, and it would involve us in a further expansion of two or three vicious things—I am talking now of financially vicious things—that have been done apart from the railways. You led off with the railways, and followed with a subsidy, it is estimated, of £45,000,000 for the land. Then you bring in the coal mines control, which we were told from that box would mean nothing from the State and probably little from the consumer. What is the result? Vast financial compensation to well-organised interests at the expense of the consumer or the taxpayer, which is snow-balling every day, every week, every month. First the railways, then the land, then the coal mines, and now we have the gas companies asking not for the half—which, by the way, other people cannot claim, and, therefore, will not get—but three-quarters of the pre-war dividends, and some even suggest a minimum of 5 per cent., or alternatively, as put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, some 80 per cent.
    1566
    I respectfully protest against the course that we have been advised to take by the President of the Board of Trade, and I am going to give one or two reasons why I do protest. I have a special claim to speak as a London Member, and I would ask the Committee to listen to the facts as regards cost and consumption measured from the standpoint of London. London, which will be very prejudicially affected if the Government depart from this Bill, subscribes 49 per cent. of the total capital in England and Wales which is in the gas industry of this country. London makes and consumes 40 per cent. of the gas made and consumed in the country. If what is sought to be given by this Amendment of more than what the Committee recommended at least £500,000 will be added to the consumers' gas bill in the county of London. Let us examine that for a moment, and see what already has been done during the War. Before the War London paid for and consumed £6,000,000 worth of gas per annum from all the companies. In 1918, only four years after, that £6,000,000 worth had grown to £10,500,000, and for not a great deal more gas. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a lot worse!"] That is an increase of charge to the consumer of £4,500,000 in four years. The quality is poorer. The amount of incombustibles in the gas has grown on an average from 10 and 11 per cent. to 22 and 24 per cent., and measured by the increase in the price per 1,000 cubic feet we have the South Metropolitan Gas Company, whose gas has risen from 2s. 3d. per 1,000 cubic feet to 4s., and the Gas Light and Coke Company from 2s. 7d. per 1,000 to 4s. 4d.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the cost of coal?
    Mr. BURNS: The consumer is not responsible, qua consumer, for the War. That is the Government's business. The consumer is not responsible for the rise in the price of coal. The consumer, qua consumer, is not responsible for the rise in the price of labour or of residuals, or any of the elements that go to this increase in the price of gas. The fact is that there has been an increased cost to the consumers of gas in London of £4,500,000 in four years, and in the price of gas from 2s. 3d. to 4s., with poorer quality. Wages have gone up from 50 to 90 per cent., and other elements of production have also increased, and here we are confronted with

    1567
    this fact, that of the increased cost in labour and other materials which have led to the increased cost of gas six-sevenths of that increased cost in the four years has already been put on the consumer. Now the proposal is made by the right hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Tennant) and others that the amount to which the companies should be entitled should be increased beyond what the Committee recommended, which will mean that from £500,000 to £1,000,000 will be added to the price of gas that has already been imposed upon this long-suffering, and in this particular relatively inarticulate, community of people in London, who have a right to appeal to the House of Commons to resist the logrolling of sectional interests, of well-organised trades, of well-manipulated monopolies. We have a right to appeal to the Board of Trade to stand up for the 8,000,000 of gas consumers in the United Kingdom as against the well-directed logrolling of the few well-organised interests. Compare these people with the shopkeeper, who puts into his business the only capital he has—his life. He is taken by the recruiting sergeant and sent to the trenches. These minor, subordinate, and unorganised interests are not to have any compensation or protection, while, on the other hand, these organised industries come here and say, "We do believe in war in Flanders, but do protect our pre-war dividends." It is not fair, it is not just, it is grossly inequitable, and, as my hon. Friend from Ireland (Mr. Field) says, it is not patriotic, that you should give this preferential consideraton to these well-organised interests, who already have exploited the country and put upon the people of London burdens to the extent I have indicated by an increased charge of £4,500,000, by an advance in the price of gas from 2s. 3d. to 4s. 4d. per cubic feet, and by a further £500,000 or £1,000,000, if this proposal is passed to increase the amount from ½ to ¾ per cent. of the pre-war dividend.
    It is nothing to me that a few workmen come to the Lobby of the House of Commons, and ask us not to support the Government Bill and the Committee's Report. They do not come as consumers. They do not come as workmen. They come as shareholders with a microscopic amount of profit, a small amount of capital as compared with the millions held by the other ordinary shareholders, and the preference
    1568
    and debenture shareholders. There are 6,000 workmen in round figures. They have only got £425,000, or an average holding of £75. They do not on an average draw £8 in dividends, but during the period of the War these men have had their wages increased from £697,000 in 1913, to £1,200,000, so that even if they were deprived of the whole of their £8 per annum dividend their rise in wages in the period of the War would be equal to a net addition of £200 over the four years, which compensates them for any slight loss they might have had in their annual receipt of £8 per annum. The fact is that there is not any case for them, when they are appealing to people as consumers and not as workmen, and when working people enter into a financial operation of any kind they are no more entitled to the sympathy of this House than any other shareholders who put their money into a concern for an entirely different purpose. To listen to the gas directors in this House anyone would be under the impression that they had nothing during the War to improve their position. All I can say is that the working man in the gas industry has made not a bad thing out of the War.
    9.0 P.M.
    His wages have risen from 1s. per thousand feet, which labour cost before the War, to 1s. 9d. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you object to that?"] I do not particularly object to that. The consumer pays for it. But I do object to working men who were getting £2 per week before the War, who are in a special trade of which large numbers are exempted from a certain service, and who have had their wages raised to £4 and £5, increasing the difficulties of the man who has not similar exemption, who not only has had no increase in his wages but whose wages of £2, £3, or £4 have dropped down to 1s. 2d. a day with from 12s. to 14s. per week for his wife and family. I do not object to the gas stoker or any other working man improving his condition to a reasonable extent during the period of the War, but he ought not to improve it disproportionately at the cost of people who are not earning high wages, who are subject to such disabilities as are the men who are in France, and who have not the privilege of exemption from certain military and naval services. Now, I come to the shareholder. Take residuals. Residuals which yielded 9d. per 1,000 feet before the War now get 1s. 4¾d. Coke, for which they only got 14s. 5d. before the War, now brings 23s. 4d., and in some cases 3s. or

    1569
    4s. more. In a word, gas is from 50 per cent. to 70 per cent. dearer. Coke is better paid. Labour is better paid. Tar has risen in price. Ammonia is better. Benzol and the other ingredients for explosives have also risen.
    Mr. NEVILLE: What about the price of coal?
    Mr. BURNS: The price of coal has risen, but that has not been due to the 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 consumers. It has been due to causes for which either the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, or other Government Departments are more or less responsible. It is not the business of either the miner, the gas stoker, the Government Departments, the shareholder, the Ministry of Labour, or the Ministry of Munitions to unload on to the unprotected, unorganised consumer all the cost that the War has imposed upon all sections of the community, and which all of us in proportion to our ability ought to bear. My complaint against the Government is this. The Government, to quote scripture, giveth to him who hath, and taketh away from him, who hath not. If the consumers had an organisation capable of bringing Members to this House, of Lobbying to the extent that Lobbying has gone on during the last three weeks in the Central Lobby, the Government probably would listen to them more than it now does. But may I point out the disadvantage of this particular course. When this War is over—and I hope that it will be over some day, and I hope that it will be over very soon—you are going to have a number of social and industrial problems, and it will require not only all the boldness and capacity and initiative of which statesmen are capable, but it will require the greatest moral courage and financial wisdom on the part of those who are responsible for national finance, to resist the claims that will come with insistent, almost irresistible demands from 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of demobilised men. The first thing they will ask for is work. The second thing they will ask for will be wages—not the pre-war wages, but war wages on the high scale of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, the railways, and the miners. Something else they will ask for, more persistently, in a clamant way which you will have great difficulty in resisting, if you yield
    1570
    now. They will ask for bigger allotment notes for their wives and children. They will ask for higher pensions for the disabled; and better treatment for the widows and dependants, who no longer have the full wage of either the dead or the crippled soldier to rely upon.
    There is my point. What reply can you give to the discharged soldier, the demobilised munition worker, or the sailor or the soldier, after you have instituted this form of generous compensation for gas, electricity, water, and tramway undertakings. The claim to sympathetic consideration that these men can have and will press cannot be denied, and in pressing it they will say, "What was good enough for the gas companies ought to be good enough for soldiers and sailors who have fought for their country." When that claim takes the form of large and perhaps disorderly gatherings of men in the throes of suffering in winter you will have the greatest difficulty in not meeting their claims. You will be up against your own lack of courage, your lack of wisdom, your lack of boldness in not saying, as you ought to say to-day, that war is a disturbing, deteriorating, and dislocating element, and that it is fair that no section of society, rich or poor, should be the subject of differentiation in treatment—that sections should get generous terms because well organised and clamant, while others, who have not their wealth, their ability, or their power of organisation have to pay for that preferential and exceptional treatment. If I had been President of the Board of Trade—[An HON. MEMBER: "Thank God you are not!"]—I hear an hon. Member, "Thank God that I am not!"—I should not have given any more consideration to the gas shareholder or any other investor than to the small greengrocer or the milkman in a back street of London, who has invested his only capital, his life, in the cause of his country, and who receives if he survive, maimed and disabled, or his dependants receive, if he is killed, a comparatively small pittance. The poor man gets only insignificant compensation and consideration as compared with capitalists who have not themselves, in many cases, risked their bodies and lives in this War, though their workpeople, be it said to their credit, have done so. These capitalists receive in cash far beyond what can be given either to the greengrocer, the navvy, the builder, the bricklayer, and the

    1571
    unskilled labourer, who, to their credit, patriotically responded to their country's call.
    I ask the House to remember what is happening in the country. I see in the papers a notice of Motion by Lord Inch-cape to call attention in the House of Lords to the financial condition of the country. I only refer to that to emphasise this point: It is estimated that the capital value of the United Kingdom ranges from £16,000,000,000 to £18,000,000,000. We have already spent or mortgaged, either in expenditure or debt, nearly half the capital value of the United Kingdom. If this War goes on for another two or three years we shall have incurred in debt or in war expenditure or mortgage, not half, but probably three-quarters of the capital value of the country. One Member has suggested that the War may go on for six or seven years longer. That is a contingency I dread to face, but it is not at all improbable that it may continue for two or three years, and that we shall have either spent, mortgaged, or contracted to spend three-fourths or four-fifths of the capital of the United Kingdom. That ought to make us pause before we still further burden the taxpayer, the ratepayer, and the consumer, who are the only three people from whom you can get money by taxation to carry out the War, to pay compensation to the dependants of the dead, the pensions for those who are disabled and crippled in doing service for their country. You are differentiating between the rich and the poor by giving preferential and generous compensation to well-organised interests in a form and in such proportion that you can never give to your guardsman, your sailor, your Highlander, or your men in the English regiments. I believe that the human claim should come first. I believe that there are calls upon us more clamant, more justly put forward, than are those claims which we now hear so much of today. It is because London is going to have at least £500,000—in my judgment it will be £1,000,000—more added to the £4,500,000 the consumers of London have already paid—that I ask this House to pause and to consider well what it is doing. It is because I believe the burden which you seek to impose by this Amendment is unjust, inexpedient, grossly unfair, and I think immoral, that I beg the House of Commons to think twice, and not to budge one iota from the very generous recommendations of the Select
    1572
    Committee. It is because I object to this preferential treatment and deplore the log-rolling of various well-organised interests—log-rolling that has been more or less successful—to create an opinion on their side which is favourable to them, but which can only be given effect to at the cost of others, that, in the interest of the soldier, sailor, and over-burdened taxpayer and shopkeeper, I put the appeal and claim that I now address to the House.
    Mr. ROBINSON: I want to say a few words on this matter, as one of the members of the Committee which specially-dealt with this question. All through we tried to hold what we considered a fair balance between the gas shareholders and the consumers. How far we have succeeded the House must determine. I must express my regret that the President of the Board of Trade, after accepting the recommendations of the Committee, has left this to the House owing to the ominous growl we have heard in this House from capitalists who are interested—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]—who have got up on one side alone when no voice had been heard from the consumers. I still want to hold a fair and just balance as between the two. We have heard speeches on one side alone, with the exception of one voice which was raised on the other side. The President of the Board of Trade made two speeches. In the first he accepted the recommendations of the Committee, but when hon. Members became more clamant he left the subject to the House to consider, and perhaps to give a greater proportion than half of the profits, as recommended. I should like to go back a little into the history of this matter. We had evidence put before the Committee as to the sliding scale and its operation. I will not go into the details of that question. Under the sliding scale, gas companies were enabled, by reducing the price of gas, to raise their dividends, and, on the other side, if they increased the price dividends had to be reduced. In the words of the Chairman of the Committee which dealt with this question in 1874 and 1875, it was a fine for bad management and a reward for good management. The sliding scale came into operation about the year 1875. From that time on, the sliding scale companies, generally speaking, did pretty well. They soon got up to their 10 per cent., and the evidence showed that they went up to 13 per cent. or 14 per cent. Good management was no doubt partly responsible, but one of the reasons was

    1573
    that the price of coal between 1875 and 1877 fell from 19s. 5d. a ton to 14s. 10d. There was no suggestion then to give back to the consumers any special part of that profit. As a result of this sliding scale, the evidence showed that one company-alone was able to gain during the period we are considering an added amount of no less than £3,748,000, and the companies as a whole gained under that scale something over six and a half millions. These are very material figures, and if now we say that they ought to share the hard times which fall on many other companies I think it is only fair. So well did these companies fare that they found it advisable to split their shares, and in some cases they gave about £250 in shares for the nominal £100. Now, of course, the dividend drops to 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. It is true that new people have come in and that the original shareholders have got off with the best part of the profits, but I think I am not called upon to make good that financial transaction. I do not think it is the duty of this House to make up those dividends to anything like the old level.
    I should like to say a word more about the price of coal, because it is said that it is so high on account of the action of the Government. To some extent that may be right, but I hold, and I think that most men who know anything about the coal trade will agree, that but for the interference of the Government in the price of coal and their attempt to keep it at something like a reasonable level it would have soared very much above the present figure, and if the gas companies claim that owing to the action of the Government the price of coal has been raised, I say it would have been raised very much higher if the Government had not interfered at all. We are asked to bear in mind that if these companies want more capital they will find great difficulty in getting it if the dividends are so low. That is very true, but we must remember that the Committee was set up to consider this matter for the period of the War, and we have nothing to do with what is to take place afterwards. I agree that after the War, if the price of coal remains at its present level, it may be reasonable to come and ask this House for special consideration, but that is quite another matter. We are not talking about after the War, but about this present temporary measure which we are now considering. It is said that we are dealing specially with this one industry, and that many other
    1574
    industries have done very well. That may be so, but, on the other hand, I ask the Committee to remember that some of these other industries are doing very badly indeed, and those are the ones that we have to consider, quite as much as the others. At the beginning this Committee set out to try and hold a fair and even balance, and I think that on the whole they succeeded in doing so. I am exceedingly sorry that the President of the Board of Trade has expressed his willingness to depart from the Committee's recommendation. Surely it would have been better to have thrown the recommendation of the Committee on one side altogether! We should then have understood where we were. I am bound to say that I have been very much surprised at the number of widows and orphans whom we have found as shareholders in these companies. Whenever a financial interest thinks itself assailed in any way, immediately all the shareholders appear to be widows and orphans. I hope this Committee will stand by the recommendations of the Committee upstairs, which, after all, spent a great deal of time and over a dozen meetings considering this matter and hearing evidence from both sides.
    Mr. NEVILLE: I do not know that I need follow what has been said by the last speaker or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns). The latter made a very impassioned speech, in which he alluded to a large number of topics which seemed to have very little to do with the matter before the Committee. The one position which nobody on the other side seemed to lay any stress at all on is that if there is any monopoly at all—and it is suggested that the gas companies have a monopoly, although they are competed with by the electric lighting companies and all other means of light and heat—if there is any monopoly at all at present there is only one, and that is that the gas companies have a dividend which goes down as their price goes up. Nobody else, so far as I am aware, in the whole of England is in that position, and if a butcher, for instance, before the War charged 1s. a lb. for his meat and got 3d. profit, what would he say if the Government said, "You must charge 2s. a lb. for your meat, and you will only get a ½d profit"? He would go out of business. He would say, "I am not on in this scene;

    1575
    I am off on something else." That is what the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick-maker would do. The only people in England who are in this miserable position are the gas companies. The price of everything which they get is put up against them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea alluded to the fact that they were getting a very much larger sum for their residuals, but he never mentioned the coal for which they have to pay; and when you come to see that the extra cost of the raw material which they require is only compensated for to the extent of one-quarter by the extra price which they get for their residuals, you will see that it is not so very big a compensation as is suggested. At all events, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself would go into business on those terms, that everything he bought should go up in price, and that for all he could sell he should only get a quarter of the extra cost of his raw materials.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do not understand what you mean by the extra cost!
    Mr. NEVILLE: Let me give a concrete instance. I will take the case of the company with which I am concerned. Coal, oil and raw material have cost us £500,000 extra. That is the extra amount we had to pay last year. The residuals, which are entirely in the hands of the Government, only brought us in £140,000. There is a difference of £360,000 or £370,000 which has to be made up.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: And you make an extra charge for your gas?
    Mr. NEVILLE: Of course we have to. We have to find the extra money; we have to find the extra capital for meeting this increased expenditure, and where are we going to find it? We do not discover it in the hedgerows. People do not come running to us and saying, "Here is money with which to carry on your concern." But we want double the amount of our ordinary floating capital and we have to get it somehow, and when hon. Members come here and speak of the wickedness of these gas companies one is surprised. One can only marvel at the enthusiastic way in which the right hon. Member for Batter-sea dealt with these companies. He hit them high and he hit them low. I do not say he hit them below the belt, but he certainly dealt with them as though they were grossly wicked. Yet they have been
    1576
    doing everything the Government has asked them to do. They have made everything the Government wanted. They have utterly changed the whole of their manufacture. They have gone into new lines of business. My company were approached early in the War and asked, "Can you make shells?" We had never made shells in our life, but we said we would try, and we put down the plant, we got a lot of women together and trained them. We got the men, we got raw material, and we made, I forget how many thousands of shells, to the satisfaction of the Minister of Munitions. If anything had gone wrong our shareholders would have been liable for the loss, yet not one farthing have they got out of it. Most astonishing to say we did make a profit. I do not believe any other gas company ever did that. But we have a most clever engineer, and he made a profit of £3,500. But then in comes the sliding scale and not one farthing of the profit goes to the shareholders. The price of gas has gone up. The price of coal has gone up, the price of everything has gone up, and therefore not one farthing of the money came to our shareholders, although it was made entirely outside our regular business at the risk of the shareholders, who came in and did the work from patriotic motives. When the price of gas goes up, down goes our dividend, and when the price goes down the dividend only goes up if we are able to earn it.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea alluded to the fact that the Ministry of Munitions had something to do with this matter. It seems to me that when the Government took up their position in this matter they were only looking at it from the point of view of the consumer. Look at the price we receive for our residuals. These things are extraordinarily important. The right hon. Member for Battersea talked about the railways being indispensable to the country. He said we could not carry on the War without them. Well, we could not carry on the War without cold drinking water, and we could not carry on the War without gas and electricity. Where would your munition works be if there were no gas and electricity? The right hon. Member for Battersea said not a word about that. It is not possible to harness the sun or the air to do the work in the munition factories; we must use gas and electricity, and without the power thus provided it would be impossible to carry on the War.

    1577
    Therefore, so far as that is concerned, I think there is sufficient to differentiate the case of the railways from the case of those who supply power. With regard to residuals, is the House aware that the price of residuals in the market, if there were a free market, would be very much higher than that which is received by my company? It has been calculated that what we receive for residuals represents 3d. or 4d. per 1,000 cubic feet. I spoke with an "expert" to-day who was talking about its being 10d. I do not know anything about that, but if the Government are holding the balance between the consumer and the shareholders, let them remember that it is the shareholder who has supplied the capital for carrying out this business in the interests of the country. He has done it for the sake of the country; he is getting no dividend. I know it has made a difference of £57,000 per annum to my company because the Government do not pay a proper amount for munitions. If the Government do consider the consumer's interests they should consider them from a proper point of view. There is no need to shed crocodile tears over him. Surely it is only fair that proper interest should be paid for money which has to be raised. This money is used for the benefit of the whole community, and it is not right to attempt to prejudice the interests of the shareholders in the way the right hon. Member for Battersea has done. He said that these corporations had not submitted their bodies for the Army. He must have forgotten that the only part of a corporation which exists in fact is that part to which one applies one's toes. I think really the right hon. Gentleman was very hard upon the companies when he talked about their having done nothing for the Army. Reference has been made to the stokers and to their exemption from military service. But there is hardly a stoker in existence at the present time. The women have taken the places of these men, and they are doing the work magnificently, God bless them! I forget how many, but at least 1,000 or 1,200 of our men have been taken away for the Army. The right hon. Member for Battersea has spoken of us as privileged persons. He has spoken of us as log-rollers, and that sort of thing, but my reply is that we have done everything we can to send men into the Army.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You did not send them.
    Mr. NEVILLE: At any rate, we never stood in the way of their going. We did not claim exemptions for them. We did not put in all sorts of pleas. We did not make frivolous claims on behalf of the people who were called upon to go. They have done everything that they can, at all events, to help the country in every possible way, and it does seem extraordinarily ungracious, if I may say so, that not sufficient recognition should be taken of the industries which have been doing these things. There is no other industry in the world, or in England at all events, which is handicapped in the way we are. We are not masters in our own house in any particular whatever. We are utterly without any power of ameliorating our position.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No self-determination!
    Mr. NEVILLE: I do not follow the hon. Member. This is a matter in which the House has a perfect right to consider what is just and fair for capital, and what is just and fair for labour. The right hon. Member for Battersea pointed out that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Is not also the man who finds the capital? He is not asking for anything out of the way, but what every Member of this House would ask for himself and nothing more, and I cannot see why there should be this differentiation, and why we should not have fair remuneration for capital. Unfortunately, we do require to raise capital. An hon. Member talked about not raising capital during the War. Then, perhaps, he will explain to me how works are to be carried out which require instant extension, when the chief consumer is the Government, who require an enormous increase of our materials for the purpose of their munition factories! We cannot do it on air. We must do it on capital, and if we go into the market for capital, what are we to pay for it? Everyone knows the important matter for all industry is, What are you going to pay for your capital? If you are going to make everyone say that this is the one venture in which it is not worth his while to pat his capital, you are going to put us in a position which is almost outside the money market, and we shall have to pay very much more for our capital. Who is the person, then, who suffers? The consumer, and anyone who thinks he is acting for the benefit of the consumer by cutting down dividends in this way is really acting against him, because, although for the consumer there

    1579
    may be a temporary advantage in the fact that less money has to be provided for dividend, he has got to pay in perpetuity, because capital has been inflated by reason of the fact that it cannot be raised at a reasonable and economic rate. Another thing which the House does not understand is what the standard dividends amounts to in figures. I have here the figures of five or six of the London companies. The standard rate of dividend, which is quite different from the pre-war dividend, which of course was very much higher than the standard dividend, which was a low-earning dividend that could be increased by good management and economy. Therefore the pre-war dividend is considerably higher than the standard dividend, but in the five companies the difference per 1,000 cubic feet between standard and half-standard dividend amounts to 1¾d., and in the highest case to 2½d. You may say the average is about 2 1–10d. for the whole area dealt with by the right hon. Member for Battersea. The difference between paying standard price and half-standard price is about 2 1–10d.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Are they only ¾ per cent. then under the standard dividend?
    Mr. NEVILLE: I will give the figures. The Gas Light and Coke Company's standard dividend, 4 per cent. They have got £16,000,000 of capital and half the standard dividend is 2¾.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: How can 2¾ be half of 4?
    Mr. NEVILLE: The hon. Gentleman does not understand—2¾d. per 1,000 cubic feet. The Commercial is 2 6–10d.; South Metropolitan, 2 2–10d.; Brentford, 1¾d.; Croydon, 1¾d. So that you get between 1¾d. to 2¾d.
    An HON. MEMBER: Can you give us the pre-war dividend on the capital?
    Mr. NEVILLE: That is a very difficult matter to tell you, because in the first place, a great deal of capital has been raised by the Auction Clause. I can only tell you, in the case of the company with which I am connected, that the net result is that the capital raised under the Auction Clause has been at 19.1 per cent. for £100 worth of stock. But what the percentage of the capital is I cannot tell you without notice. Of course, it was more than the standard rate. I do not think I need say another word to the
    1580
    Committee. It seems to me the matter is entirely one for the House of Commons, in which they must deal fairly with all the interests, and I do submit the interests of gas shareholders ought not to be lost sight of in this matter. You ought to consider from a business point of view, do you wish, or do you not wish, to give stability to those companies? If you give them the half standard, what will be the effect with regard to the company with which I am connected? The half standard does not apply to this company until the price of gas has been raised 13d. That amounts to this, that until you have charged the consumers £270,000 the shareholders get no benefit, and then they get £918. That amounts to 7–10ths of a penny per cent. on the increased cost. It amounts to something which is wholly infinitesimal. That is your half-standard dividend. It is illusory and impossible, and it shows that the whole suggestion which comes from the Board of Trade will have nothing whatever to do with the stability, at all events, of the company I represent.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I was myself a member of the committee which sat to investigate the whole question of the gas undertakings, and whether any modification ought to be made with regard to price; but in this Bill we find that this particular issue is mixed up with the tramways, with water and electricity. It is brought forward under conditions that might, in my opinion, have dispensed with the preliminary inquiry altogether, because it would have been easy, without inquiry, to put the question to the House in regard to these various statutory undertakings: "Do you think they ought to have pre-war dividends, or three-quarters of them, or what?" That issue could have been voted, upon just as well without an investigation as after the inquiry that has actually taken place. So that to a very large extent I feel that the work of that inquiry has been thrown away. I also feel that the discussion to-night in this House is a very mixed sort of jumbled discussion, because we are discussing all sorts of things. We are discussing the pros and cons of the tramways, the pros and cons, of electricity, of water, and gas, and it is most unsatisfactory. It is not possible, under those conditions, to get anything like a clear statement one way or the other. We have limited the whole question altogether; in my opinion, we might have gone a great deal further, because if

    1581
    we are going to give the relief to those who are mentioned in this Bill there are any number of other companies who would be very glad to come to the House of Commons in order to ask that a measure of financial relief should be guaranteed to them, or at any rate that three-quarters of their pre-war dividend, or the whole of it, should be guaranteed. There are any number of undertakings that have suffered as the result of the War, and why should we——
    Mr. PRINGLE: The one-man businesses!
    Mr. ANDERSON: I will deal with that point in a moment. Why not deal with these other cases, and give a general measure of relief? We are, it seems to me, taking a step which will once more end in our going round and round and round in the same old vicious circle. There will be a general and heavy increase in the price of gas to many of the poor consumers. Once more there will be begun agitations for increased separation allowances, or increased wages to meet the increases the Government has put upon them. If these rich and very powerful corporations can come to this House and make these demands in favour of such modification why should not relief be granted to every shopkeeper or business which has suffered as the result of the War? As a matter of fact, many of the small shopkeepers and one-man businesses ha re been ruthlessly smashed without any kind of compensation; whereas, we have got these various strong companies, well organised, with any number of representatives in this House, as we have heard to-night. They can make their power felt so far as the Government is concerned, and the Government is willing to meet them in a very substantial way. What we are asked to do to-night really is this: to break agreements which have been in operation in regard to gas undertakings and the like, since 1875.
    Mr. HOLT Mr. HOLT dissented.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Yes, the gas agreements. So far as the sliding scale is concerned, it is a very easy thing to break down that arrangement, but it will not be so easy to put it back on its feet once it is broken. It is perfectly true—and those of us who served on the Committee did not shirk the fact but faced the issue—that the War has imposed many heavy burdens
    1582
    upon the gas companies. I speak more particularly of them. I am not at all giving an opinion upon the water or electricity companies, as I have not had the same opportunity to go into the facts of the case. In regard, however, to the gas companies, there is no doubt the costs have gone up. The cost of coal, oil, transport, repairs, labour, and materials generally have gone up. Some of the costs in connection with the gas companies have gone up very heavily indeed, but it is quite a mistake to imagine that the public have escaped their share of the burden of these increased costs. In point of fact, the public to-day is paying in London substantially 50 per cent. more for its gas than it was paying before the War; in some cases considerably more than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last and who represents one gas company—and apparently speaks for one in this House—that company of which he is a shareholder, and apparently a director, has increased its price of gas to the consumer during the War from 2s. 4d. to 4s. Therefore, the public has already been hard hit by the increased price of gas. What we are being asked for now is that they shall bear substantially the whole cost, because if we do carry the Amendment proposed, it means that practically the remaining protection will be taken from the public, and that the public, who have already had to bear such a heavy charge, will find the charge substantially increased. It is not only that the price has been greatly raised, but, as has been said again and again in the House, the quality of the gas to-day is enormously lower than it was. I do not hesitate to say that the quality of the gas is at least 20 per cent. inferior to what it was in pre-war times. I do not blame the gas companies for that. They have carried out the instructions of the Ministry of Munitions and so on in order to extract certain ingredients from the gas for explosive purposes. Therefore the companies are not in the least to blame—in most cases, at any rate—for the quality of the gas But this fact remains: that the public are charged a greatly increased price for a greatly inferior quality of gas. Side by side with that the companies are gaining financially from this arrangement, because they are selling their ingredients to the Ministry of Munitions.
    Sir D. GODDARD: Oh!
    Mr. ANDERSON: My hon. Friend shakes his head over that. Can there be any doubt as to the fact? If he and others interested in gas companies have a quarrel with the Minister of Munitions about the price, that is their affair. Why should the consumer have to pay because hon. Members interested in gas companies cannot agree to a proper arrangement with the Ministry of Munitions with regard to the price of residuals?
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
    Sir J. WALTON: The State fixes the price.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I cannot answer half a dozen questions on different points at the same time. The fact is that at present, when there is any extra cost, that the price of gas is raised so that six-sevenths of the burden falls upon the consumers. Only one-seventh of the burden at present falls on the shareholders. That fact is incontestable. What we are now proposing to do to-night is that substantially this remaining one-seventh shall also fall upon the consumer. We were told by the last speaker that the sliding scale has been a most unfortunate thing for the companies, and that the companies are the only people that have to bear the terrible burden of this sliding scale. Who was it that asked for the sliding scale? It was the gas companies.
    An HON. MEMBER: No!
    Mr. ANDERSON: Yes; it was. The great advocate of the sliding-scale arrangement were men like the late Sir George Livesey, who was one of the greatest gas engineers in this country. It was not challenged. I am quite sure my colleagues on the Committee would say that it was never contested that the sliding-scale arrangement on the whole had worked well. It is forty-two years old. Nobody desires lightly to change that arrangement. That arrangement is a partnership. It has always been claimed to be a partnership, a partnership between the gas producer and the gas consumer. Under that partnership for many years past, in London particularly, the gas companies have been able to pay substantial dividends of over 10 per cent. on their original capital. In addition to that, they, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, who also sat with me on the Committee, have paid dividends to the extent of between £6,000,000
    1584
    and £7,000,000 in excess of the standard dividend during the time the sliding scale has been in operation. Therefore there was no complaint at all whilst the sliding scale was yielding over 10 per cent. and millions in excess, but now when it begins to operate to the disadvantage of the companies they come and say, "We want you to relieve us of our responsibility; it is no longer a partnership, and the public must endure the whole cost." I do not think that is fair, and this House has no right to take a step of that kind in the interests of the gas producers and against the interests of the consumers, many of whom are very poor people. It has been pointed out that besides the great increases in the cost of gas there are other compensating factors, there is an extra income from residuals, such as coke and materials for explosives, and even if the price is controlled it is substantially higher than it was. The South Metropolitan Gas Company had an income from residuals in 1914 of £517,000, and last year their income from the same source was £1,000,081. The residual receipts of 1914 were equal to 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet of gas, whereas last year they were equal to 1s. 6¾d. per 1,000 cubic feet. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much is profit?"] I am mentioning these as compensating factors. When you are estimating the increased price of coal you must not leave out any of these factors. In addition to that many of these companies have considerable reserves and insurance funds. The South Metropolitan Company have a reserve of £142,000 and an insurance fund of nearly £100,000, both of which are available for paying out certain sums to keep the dividend up to a certain standard.
    It is very often argued that the companies are not to blame for the present circumstances, and that they are suffering for reasons over which they have no control, and therefore are entitled to relief. Surely the reply to that is if the companies are not to blame, neither are the gas consumers. Amongst these gas consumers on whose shoulders you are proposing heavier burdens to-night there are any number of poor women, the wives of soldiers earning their separation allowances, and they are going to bear a substantially heavier tax by the action of this House in taking the steps suggested with regard to all these various concerns. In point of fact, we found that there was every degree of hardship and variation.

    1585
    You had maximum-price companies and sliding-scale companies, and you would find it difficult to apply some simple principle of legislation like you now propose or some simple measure of relief. There are 830 gasolene companies, representing £128,000,000 capital, and there are 519 private companies, representing a capital of £102,000,000. Therefore it is well to face the exact charge involved in the proposal before the House.
    10.0 P.M.
    I admit that sometimes there are very hard cases in regard to some of these companies which are quite exceptional. Sometimes in the case of the East Coast towns they occur, and one case brought before us was the case of Southampton, where undoubtedly the companies have suffered directly as the result of the War. They cannot get their coal conveyed, for reasons which hon. Members will readily appreciate, over the railways, and the price has gone up enormously. I believe the increased cost of coal in Southampton for the gas companies is 1s. 5½d. per 1,000 cubic feet, and I believe they have paid £3 7s. 6d. per ton for coal. Is it proposed that the whole of that should be put upon the gas consumers of Southampton? That is due to military and other national reasons, and that burden ought not to be put upon the consumers of Southampton, but it should be met by some arrangement with the Government to help that company by securing them certain facilities. We have been trying to reach an arrangement that would, as we think, be just to the companies and fair to the public at the same time. It would be easy to do a good thing for the companies and help the shareholders, but I am convinced that the proposals made by the Committee are such as would enable the companies to carry on temporarily, and see to it that the public get the service in regard to these gas concerns. You do open up the whole question in this way, and if this matter does go forward it will not end by the decision this House will take to-night. You have had a great deal of agitation from the companies' point of view, and you will very quickly reach an agitation from the consumers' point of view, and it may be in the end we shall find it imperative that, if this kind of thing is going on, to take over these concerns out of private hands altogether and organise them from the standpoint of the nation itself.
    Mr. McCURDY: I do not intend to follow the previous speakers in all the intricate questions relating to the finance of the gas companies, or such technical questions as the uses they make of their residuals. I want to ask the attention of the Committee to a few observations from a totally different standpoint. I submit that the Amendment now before the Committee raises a most important question of principle, and that our votes ought to be given upon that question of principle. We are asked to-night, as we have been asked before, and shall be often asked again, to compensate financial interests at the expense of the public. That is not a pleasant task for hon. Members of this House to be called upon to perform, and the least that we owe to ourselves is that whenever that duty is put upon us—to-day it is the case of the companies asking to be compensated at the expense of the consumers and to-morrow it may be the case of the employés of those companies asking to be compensated at the expense of the employers—in all such cases it is not enough that this House should act, as I am sure this House always would act, fairly to the best of their belief and ability, but it is also necessary that this House should act with such decorum that its actions are not capable of being misrepresented or misunderstood outside the walls of this Chamber.
    I submit as a general principle, which I think will commend itself to the members of this Committee, that when we are asked to deal with such a question as that which is brought before us to-night, the question of whether upon a full consideration of the financial position, and the varying financial position of different public undertakings and public utility companies up and down the country, a consideration of how that position has been affected by the progress of the War, and they are asked to determine what would be a fair and proper allowance to make them in respect of their statutory obligations so as to enable them at the expense of the consumer to recoup some part of the extra charges which are thrown upon them not through any fault of their own but in consequence of the War, we should all recognise that it is not a subject very suitable to be thrashed out upon the floor of this House.
    It is all very well for hon. Members like the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Anderson) to be talking about something that costs 1s. 5½d. per 1,000 feet and

    1587
    something else that is £3 7s. 6d. per ton. I do not know whether hon. Members were able to follow the argument and draw a proper conclusion, but for my part I was not. It is not the kind of subject matter that it is possible for us to do justice to or convenient to decide after a brief Debate at a late hour of the evening. It is precisely the kind of subject which, if proper justice is to be done, should be referred to a Select Committee which has time at its disposal properly to inquire into it, to examine witnesses, to weigh the financial considerations, and to come to an unbiased and balanced judgment. I submit that the only safe rule for us to lay, down for ourselves in all these questions—whether it be a question between a gas company and the consumers, or whether it be a question between the employés in a trade union and a private company—when we are asked to put our hands into one man's pocket to take out money to present to somebody else, is to say that before we do anything of the kind we shall always insist that there shall be a judicial and dispassionate inquiry by a Committee. What is the alternative? This is the alternative that presents itself to-night in all its naked crudeness. After a Select Committee of this House has patiently investigated this subject—nobody suggests that they were not competent and that they were not desirous of arriving at a proper recommendation—His Majesty's Government, acting through the Board of Trade, come to the conclusion that the recommendations are sound recommendations which they are prepared to submit to the House in the form of a Bill. Then what happens? Then we have gentlemen representing not the public at all, but private interests lobbying outside the walls of this Chamber, and hon. Members rising here not as representing their constituencies, but because they are gas directors, electricity directors, or water directors.
    Mr. HENDERSON: On a point of Order. This is the second time that I have been referred to as a gas director.
    Mr. McCURDY: I was not referring to the hon. Member at all.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I was not referring to the hon. Member. I said the right hon. Gentleman. I introduced this Amendment, and I beg to say that I am not a gas director. I do not hold a gas share, and I never did.
    Mr. McCURDY: I wish at once to assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire that I had not him in mind at all when I made the observation. I had in mind certain highly technical speeches to which we have recently listened. I venture to express the hope that the time will come when it will be regarded as contrary to the practice and to the procedure of this House that any person occupying the position of a director in a public company should intervene in a Debate in which the interests of that company are affected.
    Mr. FIELD: And he should not vote.
    Mr. McCURDY: My remarks apply equally to the case of representatives of trade unions using their position as representatives of constituencies in order to press the pecuniary interests of their clients upon the House. I submit two propositions, first, the members of the Committee are not in a position to form a proper decision as to whether half or three-quarters, or any other quota of the pre-war dividend or of the standard dividend, would be a proper allowance to make in this Clause. Secondly, the members of this Committee would do well to take their stand upon the plain principle that in a financial question of this kind that has been referred to an impartial Committee of the House of Commons, the only safe course is to accept the recommendations of that Committee.
    Major BRASSEY: I agree with the hon. Member, who has just addressed the Committee, that it is very difficult in a full House to discuss technical details such as arise on this point, and, notwithstanding his warning, I venture to rise as a director of a water company and to endeavour to put before the Committee some of the facts relating to a water company with which I am very well acquainted and which has suffered very much in consequence of the War. I am emboldened to do so by some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) both of whom expressly said that the Committee had not had put before them any facts relating to water companies. As the

    1589
    right hon. Gentleman opposite and other Members know well, the first duty of a provincial water company is to provide an ample supply of water for its district. The company with which I am connected has fulfilled that obligation, but not without great difficulties, and not without considerable loss to the shareholders. The town of Southend and district in the twelve years before the War increased in population more than any other district in England, and the difficulty with which our company has had to contend has been to keep pace with the enormously increased demand for water. That has been specially difficult, for whereas in some parts of England two or three good wells supply all the water that is required, in our district we have had to sink twenty-eight wells and make twenty-eight pumping stations as well as lay enormous lengths of main. During the summer months the population at Southend used to double itself, and special provision had to be made for that.
    I apologise to the Committee for having given these details, but I think it was necessary, after so much had been said against these statutory companies, that someone should endeavour to put before the Committee some of the difficulties which we have had to contend with. This has necessitated much capital expenditure and considerable risk to the shareholders. May I say one word about the shareholders? In the case of my company, they are mostly, almost entirely, very small people. They are not people who have invested their money in the company with the prospect of earning high dividends, because, after all, the maximum dividend on the bulk of the ordinary shares is only 5 per cent. They have been content with moderate returns, thinking they were investing their money with safety. Many hon. Members have expressed the opinion that under the provisions of this Bill those shareholders are sufficiently remunerated by half the dividend, which would be 2½ per cent., but I would remind them that these people in the past have provided the money for one of the prime necessities of life. Many districts, such as the one I have mentioned, have undoubtedly benefited enormously; prosperity has increased by having in their district an efficient water company. Provided good and economical management can be afforded to such companies, they are entitled to have consideration meted out to them. What has happened
    1590
    in the case of Southend? All buildings and developments have ceased. Large sums of capital which have been expended in anticipation of increased demand for water are lying unremunerative, revenue has decreased, and all the time the expense of fuel, labour, material, and everything else has largely increased. Whereas before the War we were earning 4½ per cent., during the past year only 1½ per cent. has been earned. I would venture to put one other point to the Committee. If we are to lay down by our decision tonight that a dividend of something like 2½ per cent. is sufficient remuneration to shareholders in a well-conducted statutory company which has fulfilled all obligations, we are not only doing a great injury to the shareholders of the company, but something much more serious in my opinion—making it almost impossible to raise capital for the future development of these companies, except on the most onerous terms. These undertakings are absolutely necessary in providing the prime necessities of life, and people will not invest in them unless there is a reasonable prospect of a fair return. There is one other point in conclusion, and that is this: I understand this Bill is brought forward mainly to get over the expense and delay occasioned by Private Bill legislation. In the case of my company we had decided to promote Private Bill legislation in the coming Session, but it appears to me that if a decision is given in this House to-night that the rates should not be increased so as to provide a higher dividend than 2½ per cent., the opinion of future Private Bill Committees and the future opinion of this House would be overshadowed very much by that decision. Moreover, in the future it will be almost impossible for a company like the one I have referred to to provide money for water, gas, or for any other service.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Many speakers have supported this proposal, and whatever else be true about the controversy it is not forwarded by tawdry rhetoric and cheap and inexpensive references to capitalists and to which side, whether producer or consumer, is the chief sufferer. I am not prepared to compete in this field of rhetoric in which so many previous speakers have disported themselves to the enjoyment of their audience. Any controversy of this kind lends itself to that sort of treatment by persons in their

    1591
    moments of relaxation; but does it really help the House of Commons towards a decision on a matter which is grave, which is complex, and which, at the same time, is acute at the present moment? These various statutory undertakings, as they are called, are not undertakings either framed or adapted to put large fortunes into the pockets of individuals. They are regulated by the State in the interests of the State. Each one of them has had to go through—and properly go through—searching tests by Committees of this House and of the other place as to the terms upon which it ought to be allowed to exist. When you are dealing with regulated commercial undertakings, I do not think that metaphors and comparisons from private trading or from other unregulated enterprises are of much use. The persons concerned in carrying on gas or water or electric light undertakings under very strict and proper regulations are not in a position to let them come to an end. That would be very much against public policy. As they really cannot put up the shutters when they are no longer satisfied with the business, as they cannot bring it to an end, they are bound to be in the position, quite as full of disadvantages as of advantages, of coining to Parliament at almost every turn if they seek any alteration whatever in any of the multiple conditions by which they are properly bound. What are the facts in this case? Take the famous issue of the sliding scale. The sliding scale has been of benefit to both shareholders and consumers.
    Mr. BURNS: Hear, hear!
    Sir R. ADKINS: It was a device. I care not who invented it. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), coming for a moment out of that cloud of heated feeling in which he has lived during the evening, agrees with me that the sliding-scale method has been of benefit to all concerned. It was developed, conditioned, and articulated under peace conditions. Any alteration of those under peace conditions would demand the most careful investigation, and there would be a great burden of proof on those who sought to alter them. But we are at war and we are in a war which has lasted a long time and which has brought about, in almost every aspect of public life, entirely novel conditions to which old formulas do not
    1592
    apply. The condition of war, where the sphere of Government action is extended all round, is bound to affect regulated companies or municipal undertakings even more than it affects the private trader. It may and does very often injure the private trader. It may and often does make the private trader a wealthy man. But when you are dealing with municipal undertakings or with statutory undertakings, the very extension of Government action—the control of prices, the regulation of freights—all these things fetter, hamper and injure these undertakings, be they private or be they municipal, through no fault of the undertakers, but as an inevitable and direct result, not only of the War, but of Governmental and Departmental action. If that be true, is it not reasonable to come to Parliament and say, apart from the ordinary chances of war, apart from the inevitable risks and uncertainties of war, we are specially affected in a prejudicial way by regulations and conditions which arose out of the War and out of the Government's considered action. Therefore we ask Parliament to look into the matter and to give such relief as is fair to all concerned, but such relief as at any rate is appreciable and as far as possible consistently with the public interest, is adequate. That is the case presented to the Committee, on lines of principle, as it affects this matter. The only approach to argument which I have heard from the opponents of the Amendment was that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. McCurdy), in which he developed with great forensic skill the elementary maxim that difficult and complicated matters are best discussed by Select Committees. Let us all agree with that. We find that the Committee which has gone into this, I have no doubt quite sincerely, has presented a report which helps the House, which is going largely to be adopted by the Committee without question, but which in one or two particulars has not really touched the grievance of those at whose instance this matter was raised, and the Government is criticised and almost abused by fervent Members of the Committee, because to-day it has not said precisely ditto to all the recommendations of the Committee, because it has not crossed all its t's and dotted all its i's, and become the mere executive agent of that Committee. I should be the last person to wish to condemn the Government for showing such independence.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: They said ditto. Now you are unsaying it.
    Sir R. ADKINS: That makes my point ail the stronger, because I am quite sure my hon. Friend, who never says ditto to anyone, and who is a positive model of amiable independence, will agree with me that when the Government says ditto it is wrong. Have I not the pleasure of his support? Therefore surely the Committee will take into account the view which the Government has expressed through my right hon. Friend. They are not asked to put any of these companies, municipalities, or undertakings, public or semi-public, in the position they were in before the War, but they are asked to give them rather more relief from difficulties directly due to Governmental action than the Committee itself desired. While I listened to the speeches of the hon. Member (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) with great interest and admiration, I am bound to say that, considered as exponents of impartial treatment, they appeared to me to leave something to be desired. I have never known the hon. Member (Mr. Robinson), whom I have known since we were boys, so full of fervent feeling as he was in the speech with which he delighted the Committee. Fervent feeling by members of a judicial committee in defence of their decision is apt a little to reflect on the mind of the spectator the opinion that possibly there was more fervour than impartiality. Therefore, I ask the Committee, in view of this exceptional situation, in view of the fact that if they pass the Amendment, they are not putting things back to where they were before the War, but they are giving appreciable relief for a grievance and an injury which comes out of Governmental action to support it and in doing so they will merely be striking out the actual line of justice to all concerned.
    Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: As Chairman of the Select Committee whose recommendations have been the target for a good many charges I should like to say a few words. The last speaker has urged that it is the duty of the Government to deal fairly with these gas undertakings. I cordially agree with him, but he has forgotten to point out that the proposal is to deal fairly with the gas undertakings at the expense not of those who, he very properly says, are mainly responsible for the present conditions, but at the expense
    1594
    entirely of other parties—the consumers, who have nothing whatever to do with the cause. It is upon that point mainly that the Committee differ from the view taken by the gas authorities. May I point out that the position of the sliding scale undertakings entirely, and in some others mainly, is that in effect of a partnership, which has been the outcome of years of arrangement of the conditions upon which those undertakings are carried, until they arrive at a point when there was to be, in effect, a partnership between the consumer and the producer. The terms of that partnership have been settled for many years gone by and have been modified in the Statutes that have been passed in respect of those undertakings. Now we come to a state of affairs when the gas authorities find that the conditions, financially, are not what they have been up to the war time, namely, most favourable to themselves—not unduly so; I am not throwing stones at them—but thoroughly favourable to themselves. We come now to the point when those conditions are not financially favourable to the gas undertakings, and there is, therefore, a proposal that the burden of the unfavourable conditions should be shifted entirely from one partner to the other.
    HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"
    Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: The proposal as embodied in the Amendments put down, particularly by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Neville), who represents one of the gas companies, is that the whole of that burden is to be transferred from the producer to the shoulders of the consumer. The Committee considered that question. Nine members of that Committee sat on eight different occasions and heard fully the gas representatives and other parties. After that they spent a considerable time in considering the course to take. They were extremely anxious to arrive at a balance that was favourable to the consumer on the one hnd and to the producer on the other. But their conclusions have never been put in their true light by those who advocate the interests of the gas undertakings. It has been represented to-night that the Select Committee propose to restrict the dividends of the gas undertakings to half their amount. That is not the proposal. The facts are simply these. The gas authorities came to that Committee and said: "Conditions to-day are causing

    1595
    a decline in our dividend and we foresee that as these conditions continue to increase, that decline will increase until not-only the dividends on the ordinary shares will disappear altogether, but the dividends on the preference shares.
    Mr. NEVILLE: That is impossible. The debenture interests are not touched at all by the sliding scale, and must be paid.
    Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I am putting the evidence that was given before that Committee. That evidence was that conditions to-day were causing a decline of the dividends on the ordinary shares, and that such decline would continue possibly to the extent of extinction and would then touch the dividends upon the preference shares also. The evidence was distinctly put before the Committee—whether right or wrong my hon. Friend from his more intimate knowledge can say. We said, "You gas companies come to our Select Committee and ask for relief. You draw for us a picture of declining dividends about to arrive at the point of extinction, and what we say is we will safeguard your position by our recommendations so that that possibility can never become an actuality, and we will safeguard it, in justice to you and your consumers, by saying this, 'You are at liberty to-day to increase your prices beyond what you are actually charging right up to the maximum given under your Statute.'" Practically every gas undertaking has so increased its price during the period of the War. I believe that the gas company which my hon. Friend (Mr. Neville) represents is one of them. The pre-war charge of 2s. 2d. or 2s. 4d. per 1,000 cubic feet has been made as high as 4s. within the statutory powers. But the proposal of the Select Committee is to give power to increase beyond the statutory limit. If this relief is given to them they can go beyond the maximum statutory price. They can get relief beyond that which will ensure to them that the dangers which they fear will never arise, and they will be made secure of their full dividend on their preference shares, and of not less than half the dividend on their ordinary shares. That is a very equitable decision. It is endorsed by the Government who have brought in their Bill basing it entirely upon the recommendations of the Committee, and, with the utmost desire to give
    1596
    full weight to the wishes of this Committee or of the House itself, that we should find some compromise. I, as Chairman of the Committee—and I believe that in this I speak for almost every member of the Committee—cannot see my way to depart from the position which we have taken up and accept the suggestion that has been made in the Amendment. We feel that it is not necessary for the fair protection of the gas undertakings themselves. The position is not nearly so hopeless as it has been put before us. The great illustration put before us is, "You are going to cut down my dividend to 2 per cent., or it may be 1¾ per cent." What dividend is that? Originally it was a dividend of 10 per cent. upon the capital of £100, but by the consent of Parliament that capital was split up and it was made a capital of £250, bearing a dividend of 4 per cent. instead of a capital of £100, bearing a dividend of 10 per cent.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: How long ago?
    Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: The answer to me on that point no doubt is that the people who held £100 and got the £200 have disappeared and are not existing to-day, and their money is gone into some other line. That is an answer, and you have to weigh how far that should go. But we have to bear in mind this, that the original capital of £100 which was paid into that undertaking is not to-day bearing the 4 per cent. represented to us, and the inequity is not, therefore, so great as it would be if this were not so. I hope that the representative of the Board of Trade will feel that this Amendment goes so far beyond what is reasonable that he will not see his way to accept it.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: One or two points have been made in recent speeches which I think ought not to go unanswered. First, my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Burns) complained that the President of the Board of Trade had left the question to the unfettered decision of the House. His complaint was that the Government, in the interests of the Government's Bill, had not put on the Government Whips, but decided to leave it to the free and unchallenged opinion of the House. Here we have a leading democrat thirsting for the lash of the Government Whips, and he complains because he does not get it. I believe that the Government have taken the right course in leaving the matter absolutely to the discretion and judgment of the House of Commons, quite apart

    1597
    from political or other considerations. My right hon. Friend referred to the difference between the gas companies and the railway companies, speaking of the latter as the military veins of a country in war. Let me read a statement by Lord Moulton, the official responsible for the supply of explosives. He said:
    "It was the gas industry which had supplied the country with the means of self-defence. Without the direct aid of the gas industry, and the assistance and knowledge which had been acquired by those who had devoted their lives to it, it would have been perfectly impossible for this country to wage the campaign of the last three years, or even for any but a trifling time to resist the overwhelming flood of enemies that was poured upon it."
    It is on public grounds, and not for the relief of shareholders, not out of consideration for the workers in the gas industry, that I appeal to the House of Commons to maintain the stability of this industry, so that when the time comes for enlarging the operations of the gas companies they may not be crippled by financial ruin such as would have followed if the original intention had been carried out. I say without any hesitation whatever that the compromise which has been arrived at, namely, that instead of asking for the whole of the dividend that the gas companies had before the War, we are satisfied with the terms suggested by the Government, that we shall have only-three-quarters of the dividend formerly given instead of the whole. That is a compromise of a moderate character, and
    one that is wise and right in the interests of the nation, not in the interests of the shareholders.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I hope the Committee will bear with me for one moment while I make two points. I have been deluged with letters from all over the country from the two different sides, and it appears to me that one of them is from the corporations, whose only object is to ruin the poor gas companies so that they will be able to take them over for an old song. My second point is this, that this depreciation of the profits of the gas companies has greatly come about by the action of the President of the Board of Trade, in that he has raised lately the price of coal, and as the coal owners do not get any profit out of that, but the Government get it, the gas companies are the victims, and I ask this Committee to think whether, if the coal owners or any other trading people are able to get their pre-war profits, the shareholders of the gas companies should not, in fairness, get them as well?
    Mr. DENMAN Mr. DENMAN rose——
    Mr. BOOTH Mr. BOOTH claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the word 'half' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 123.

    Division No. 70.]

    AYES.

    [10.49 p.m.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rowlands, James

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Shaw, Hon. Alexander

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    King, Joseph

    Smallwood, Edward

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Sutton, John E.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Cotton, H. E. A.

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ferons, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Field, William

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Sir W. Middlebrook and Mr. Fletcher.

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    NOES.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glos., E.)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

    Baker, Col Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Boyton, Sir James

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Herman-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hickman Brig.-Gen, Thomas E.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Holier, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pulley, C. T.

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Hope, Leiut.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Horne, Edgar

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Colvin, Colonel

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Shortt, Edward

    Dairymple, Hon. H. N.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Falconer, James

    Malcolm, Ian

    Swift, Rigby

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Manfield, Harry

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

    Weston, J. W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Mount, William Arthur

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, T. J. (Swansea)

    Greer, Harry

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Gretton, John

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Wright, Henry Fltzherbert

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Hancock, John George

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Younger, Sir George

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Haslam, Lewis

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Mr. Tennant and Sir F. W. Lowe.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

    Question proposed, "That the words 'three-quarters of' be there inserted."
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I desire to move an Amendment, that instead of "three-quarters" we insert "two-thirds."
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not an Amendment to the Amendment; but if the insertion of "three-quarters" be negatived by the Committee, then I will take the hon. Member's Amendment to insert "two-thirds," in order that the Committee may have its opportunity of deciding between those two propositions.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: On a point OF Order. Three-quarters is larger than two-thirds, and I submit that if you put "three-quarters," it would prevent us from taking "two-thirds."
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. I accepted the only Amendment which at that time was tendered to me to insert something instead of one-half, but it would be quite competent for the Committee on a Division to decide not to entertain the "three-quarters." Thereupon, if that is the decision of the Committee, I will accept the Amendment and take as a further Amendment whether "two-thirds" should be inserted.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: We have had what has been a most extraordinary Division.
    1600
    It is a Division such as I have never seen before, and I do not speak with a short experience of this House. You have had, by an overwhelming majority, I admit, backed by the Government, whether the Whips were on or not, the Report of a Select Committee entirely thrown over, and I feel it is necessary before any further steps are taken, that the representatives of the Government should give us a clear and definite explanation of what their conduct is to be on this Bill. [Some laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh now. Some of us will be able to laugh after them. I have in my memory only one example that occurred many years ago with regard to a Committee's Report being thrown over by a Government. If I remember rightly, it was in connection with a Railway Bill in Cornwall, and I remember the indignation of the members of that Committee, and the indignant speech of the chairman of the Committee, when they found their Report turned down by the Government of that day. The Government has not given anything like a clear explanation of why they have thrown over the Report of this Committee. To take off the Government Whips when a Select Committee Report comes down is an exceptional thing for which the President, I venture to say, cannot quote a precedent.
    The CHAIRMAN: That really does not Arise now. The hon. Member is criticising the decisions of the Committee. It is the Committee, not the Government, that gives the decision.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I accept your ruling. What I want to point out now is that the Committee, having decided that the recommendations of the Select Committee in regard to the half is not enough, and it now being an open question as to what should take its place; it is for the Committee to consider whether there is not some means less than the three-quarters that is proposed in this Amendment. Three-quarters is far too large and cannot be defended. The Government ought to have time to consider the situation, and the Amendment. It has never been clearly stated by them what amount they were prepared to put in the place of the half of the dividend which has been struck out by the vote of the Committee. It is the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to give us some explanation of what action the Government are prepared to take. Otherwise we may have other and more exaggerated Amendments. There has been no defence in any of the speeches for anything like the three-quarters. I do not want to go over the explanation that has been given by the members of the Select Committee as to how they arrived at their decision after an examination of the evidence, but I sincerely hope that the Government will give us an explanation, so that the House may know where they are.
    Mr. FIELD: I desire to support the Amendment. I have had twenty-five years' experience here, and I never remember an occurrence like this. I do not remember the Government turning down the Report of a Committee like this. The House is entitled to receive an explanation from the President of the Board of Trade before the Vote is taken.
    Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, Divide!"]
    I do so in view of the very curious and exceptional position in which the Committee finds itself. It is a very rare and an unusual thing for the Committee to
    have the Whips taken off, and for the vote-to take place without any guidance. Hon. Members in favour of certain Amendments came down in great force, while the Committee relied upon the Government to follow the normal procedure. To-morrow we are to enjoy the full summer of which the hon. Member opposite is the first swallow, and if matters of this kind are going to be left to the House it is only reasonable that the Irish Members should be able to take part.
    The CHAIRMAN: The House has already decided not to suspend its proceedings at eleven o'clock, and I cannot go contrary to that decision at five minutes after eleven o'clock.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I understand that the Amendment is to insert the words "three-quarters." Is it possible to amend the Amendment by moving to omit "three-quarters" in order to insert "two-thirds"?
    The CHAIRMAN: Not as an Amendment to the Amendment, but I have already explained that if the insertion of "three-quarters" is negatived I shall accept an Amendment to insert "two-thirds."
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Is it not possible to move to report Progress, because no such Motion has been made yet? The position is now entirely changed. We do not know now what figures we are dealing with and we did not know when we were dealing with "half." We cannot say what will be the general financial effect, and I submit it is only right that we should report Progress, in order that those interested may have an opportunity of considering the question.
    The CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member for Carlisle proposed the same Motion I thought it was not proper to accept it. We have had a long discussion upon this Amendment, which was to leave out "half" and insert "three-quarters," and the Committee must now be competent to come to a decision on the point.
    Question put, "That the words 'three-quarters of' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 71.]

    AYES.

    [11.9 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hunt (Leeds, N.)

    Benairs, Commander C. W.

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Hancock, John George

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Bird, Alfred

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Harmon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hohler, G. F.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon, C. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pulley, C. T.

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Home, Edgar

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesali)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Carew, C.

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Shortt, Edward

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stanier, Captain Sir Seville

    Colvin, Colonel

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Swift, Rigby

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Mon., S.)

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Malcolm, Ian

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Falconer, James

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Watt, Henry A.

    Fade, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Manfield, Harry

    Weston, J. W.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Greer, Harry

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Younger, Sir George

    Gretton, John

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Mr. Tennant and Sir F. W. Lowe.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Rowlands, James

    Anderson, W. C.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Scott, A. Maccallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Smallwood, Edward

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

    Cotton, H. E. A.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albeit

    Sutton, John E.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Field, William

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Fletcher, John S.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Glanville, Harold James

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Mr. Denman and Mr. King.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (b), leave out the word "half" ["or at half the pre-war rate of dividend, whichever is lower"], and insert instead thereof the words "three-quarters of."—[Mr. Tennant.]
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words,
    "Provided that in the case of a tramway or light railway as hereinafter defined any modification of fare so authorised shall not be less than one halfpenny."
    The additional tramway fare would have been ¼d., but it will now be five-sevenths of ½d., and there is no such coin. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will, therefore, do something to meet that point.
    Sir A. STANLEY: it will be impossible for us to accept the Amendment; but I think, in view of the changes which have been made in the Bill by the last Amendment, by three-quarters being inserted in the place of one-half, it will be necessary to make a change to deal with the particular points of this Amendment. If the hon. Member will withdraw this Amendment I will undertake on the Report stage to bring forward a suitable proposal to meet it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to add the words,
    "If by reason of such modification the net revenue of the undertaking is in any half-year more or less than sufficient to pay the dividend

    1605
    at such rate as aforesaid, a corresponding reduction or increase in the authorised charge shall be made in the following or subsequent half-year."
    I think the Amendment explains itself. It cuts both ways and meets the advantage either of the company or of the consumer.
    Mr. WARDLE: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. It really is not necessary. If any change takes place whereby the selling price has been increased slightly too high there will be a balance which will not be allowed to be paid in dividends, but will have to be carried over to the next half-year. In those circumstances, if it was substantial the price would certainly be reduced by the Board of Trade. If, on the other hand, it was too low, then of course they would be able to come to the Board of Trade to have an increase. It would be exceedingly difficult to hit upon the exact fraction which would enable the price to be settled if this Amendment were adopted. I hope, therefore, it will not be pressed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WARDLE: In accordance with the promise made earlier, I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the words,
    "And before making an Order the appropriate Government Department shall require the undertakers to give public notice of the application for an Order under this Act, and as to the manner in which and time within which representations may be made, and to give a similar notice to the council of each county, borough, or urban or rural district within which any part of the undertaking or limits of supply of the undertaking is situate, and the Department shall consider any representations which may be duly made."
    This Amendment is proposed in order to meet the promise which was made earlier in the evening, and I hope it will be accepted.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I should like to congratulate the Government upon having put in these words, which go very far to remove any objections that might have existed in regard to substituting the three-quarters for a half. I myself would not have voted for that substitution if I had not known that substantially this Amendment was going to be moved by the Government. The effect of the Amendment is that it prevents any Department making an Order for an increase in cost until the case has been considered from the consumer's point of view. This is a great
    1606
    safeguard to the consumer. It ensures that when a gas company or any such undertaking is desirous of having a modification made, it has to give public notice of its intention to apply for an Order. Then all the bodies in the districts concerned and those representing the consumers will have the right to come forward and state a case against such an Order being made. That is a very simple and practical way of safeguarding the interests of consumers and ensuring that no Order shall be made which gives the three-quarters of the standard we have been talking about to any company or body unless the case for that addition has been fully made out in the light of a public inquiry.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: So far as the hon. Member for South Paddington (Sir H. Harris) and myself are concerned, as we have an Amendment of this description on the Paper, I should like to say that, so far as we have been able to consider it, we think it meets the case, but we reserve-to ourselves the right to criticise it on the Report stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Application to Scotland and Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Short Title, and Duration.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918.
    (2) This Act shall have effect during the continuance of the present War and for a period of two years thereafter, and no longer.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "two" ["for a period of two years thereafter"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
    This is called a "temporary" measure. I suggest that one year is more temporary than two.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. It may be that two years would be too long a period. On the other hand, it might be that one year would be too short. I think it will be necessary for the Government of that day to deal with the question of establishing a new basis for determining the sliding scale in respect of gas undertakings and the whole question of charges by statutory undertakings after the War, but whether that period will be one or two years after the War

    1607
    would, I think, be very difficult for anyone to prophesy. If two years is too long there can be no harm in leaving it in, as the Government will have to bring in a Bill in any event, while, if we reduce it to one year, we might find it necessary to bring in a Bill extending the time.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: If the Bill passes with two years there is no means of reducing it, but if it passes with one year in it will be possible to extend it. However, I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman at this point, but I would ask him to consider this between now and the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The new Clauses on the Paper are outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. WATT: I understand the Scottish Office has agreed to bring in a measure to carry out the intentions of these two Clauses this Session. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will say "Yes" to that.
    The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to do that now.
    Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Wednesday.

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys provided by Parliament, and, if those Moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purpose of the present War, or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. BOOTH: When this Motion was before the House on Friday I allowed it to go through on the stroke of five o'clock in order to oblige the Government. The plea which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury then made was, I think, made in error. He said that this Motion had three stages. I knew that if I corrected
  1608
  him at the time we should go over five o'clock, and he would miss a day. I hope he appreciates the consideration that was shown to him. There are not three stages of a financial Resolution. I presume it was a slip of the tongue. He also made an error on a more serious matter. I stated it was the view of the Leader of the House that whenever a financial Resolution was proposed there should be a limit put in by the Government, or, on the other hand, the Minister in charge should explain why a limit was impossible. The thing was fought out on the Emigration Bill, and a specific pledge was then given. The hon. Member seems to doubt that; but if he consults his right hon. Friend he will find that I am right. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies granted a concession when the House had put a limit of £50,000, after a very narrow vote on a £10,000 limit. I then specifically asked the Leader of the House: "Are we to understand that in future a limit will be put into these Resolutions by the Government, or an explanation will be given why it is inconvenient to do so?" The Leader of the House agreed. You will find the question in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It must be clear to anyone who knows the right hon. gentleman that he would not leave the House under a misunderstanding. He agreed that as a matter of principle, wherever possible a limit should be put in. So far as I can see, it is not possible to put a limit in this Resolution. If the figure was named it would have to be very large. I am not saying that any specific pledge was given on this identical Motion, but a course was laid down, and I think the Government should observe the decision come to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Financial Secretary had stated on Friday that no limit could be inserted in this Resolution, I should have been satisfied. We must establish the precedent, and we must get the Government committed to it by their own practice. On three different occasions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sanctioned putting in a limit. I am not unreasonable. When one Minister said he would not spend £500 I immediately moved a limit of £1,000. That is the spirit in which the House would meet the Government if the Government would be fair. Will the Financial Secretary now say that he endorses the policy I have mentioned, and explain why no limit is put in this Financial Resolution?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I agree with what the hon. Member has said, and I thank him for his courtesy in letting the Committee stage be taken just on the stroke of five on Friday. If there had been a few minutes more I should have been able to give him the information he desired. I thought it might be necessary to give a careful explanation of his Resolution, but I find that the hon. Member is as familiar with the question of Government war obligations as I am. He recognises that in this case it is quite impossible to put in any figure at all. I am entirely at one with him—everyone in the House is—that wherever practicable a limit should be put in these Resolutions, but we must remember in this case what this particular Financial Resolution is. It is a Resolution that has to be passed upon which the Government War Obligations Bill can be built up. The Bill which can be introduced under this Resolution does two things. It continues in existence the obligations that have been incurred under the Acts that have been passed in each year of the War up to the last one, which was passed in December, 1916, and adds to that whatever obligations come to be payable incurred from December, 1916, down to the date of the passing into law of the Bill which is going to be introduced. The House will be pleased to learn that under the Bill the only new type of obligation is a very small one in comparison with those which have been included in previous Bills, and one for which, in my opinion, there will ultimately be no liability on the Exchequer of this country. The rest of the Bill will continue the obligations that have already been incurred, and which have been specified in the previous Bills. Hon. Members will remember that from the nature of these obligations, dealing as they do with subjects such as food supply, insurance of the shipping of the country, and things of that kind, it is quite impossible to give any estimate of what the liabilities may be and what the assets may be that will be set against
  1610
  them. It is for those reasons that no limit is mentioned, and no limit can be mentioned, in this Resolution. I trust that with the brief explanation which I have given them, and with the reminder to the House that they will be able to discuss the obligations in detail when they have the Bill before them, they will now allow the Report stage of the Resolution to be passed.
  Mr. WATT: I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks which he has made. He has admitted the advisability of having in Financial Resolutions which come before the House a limit fixed, when possible. He has explained that in this particular case no limit is possible, but as he has admitted the general principle that the Government, in bringing in Financial Resolutions, will in future insert a limit whenever possible, I desire to thank him for the enunciation of that principle.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Bonar Law, Sir G. Hewart, and Mr. Baldwin.

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL,—
  "to make provision with respect to Obligations incurred by, or on behalf of, His Majesty's Government for the purpose of the present War, or in connection therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

WAR.
  TREASURY BORROWINGS.
  TREASURY BORROWINGS.
  WAR AIMS COMMITTEE (STAFF).
  WAR AIMS COMMITTEE (STAFF).
  SPECIAL MILITARY AREA (TRALEE).
  SPECIAL MILITARY AREA (TRALEE).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
  DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
  RELEASE FOB SUBSTITUTION WORK.
  RELEASE FOB SUBSTITUTION WORK.
  TRANSFERRED SOLDIER.
  TRANSFERRED SOLDIER.
  RECRUITS (TREATMENT).
  RECRUITS (TREATMENT).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  NORTHANTS YEOMANRY (PRIVATE JOHNSON).
  NORTHANTS YEOMANRY (PRIVATE JOHNSON).
  ARMY PAY (INDIA).
  ARMY PAY (INDIA).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  COMMERCIAL FIRMS (OWNERSHIP, ETC.).
  COMMERCIAL FIRMS (OWNERSHIP, ETC.).
  Telephone Employes, Taunton.
  Telephone Employes, Taunton.
  Insurance Stamps (Sale).
  Insurance Stamps (Sale).
  International Opium Convention.
  International Opium Convention.