Sitting of 8 December 1920

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    GOVERNMENT SERVANTS' CONDUCT RULES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that Rule 22 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules lays down that no Government servant shall subscribe in aid of any political move in India, instructions were issued by the Government of India for bidding Government servants to contribute to the Tilak fund, the Paisa fund, and other funds of an obviously political character; and if such instructions were not issued in these cases, why the Dyer fund was selected by the Government of India as an occasion calling for special prohibition?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): My hon. and gallant Friend shows by his question that he is aware of the general prohibition contained in the Rule. As regards its application to the Dyer fund, I presume that the Government of India issued their instructions in response to a request for orders. I do not know whether similar action was thought necessary in the case of the other funds mentioned, as to which I have had no particulars.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether the Government of India have issued instructions forbidding Government servants to contribute to the Julianwala Bagh memorial fund?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have no information.

    AUXILIARY FORCE ACT.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India the number of volun-
    2072
    tary enrolments in India up to date under the Auxiliary Force Act, and how this number compares with the number that were enrolled under the Indian Defence Force Act; and what is the date fixed as the time limit for volunteering under the new Act?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I regret that I am not able to give the information, as I have not yet received the report from the Government of India. I anticipate that it will take a little time to collect the returns from the various parts of India.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when I can put a question down and get an answer?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will inquire from my office this afternoon and let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know.

    ELECTION RULES (BURMA).
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the rules for the election of Burma's representatives to the Council of State and the Indian Legislative Assembly are unsatisfactory and temporary arrangements, he will now revise the rules and order a fresh election under the revised rules?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It will necessarily take time to revise the electoral arrangements in Burma. Meanwhile, I think it is preferable that the present arrangements, which should be completed by the 14th of this month, should be carried out than that Burma should have no representative on the Indian Legislature at the outset.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state what has been done to reconstruct the Royal Naval Reserves; whether recruiting has as yet been recommenced; if not, when it will be; whether the conditions of service have as yet been published; and, if not, when they will be?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): There are still outstanding several financial questions in connection with the

    2073
    scheme. I hope that a satisfactory conclusion will soon be reached, when a full statement will be made.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the reserves are suffering seriously through not being able to know the conditions under which they are likely to serve, and that recruiting is going ahead rapidly in the Territorial Army, which draws its recruits from the same source? Can nothing be done to expedite the scheme?
    Sir J. CRAIG: All these considerations are being borne in mind, and we are doing all we possibly can to get a complete scheme put in hand.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recruiting for the Territorial Army is not going ahead rapidly?
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if a Royal Naval Reserve sailor who completed his time in the coastguard in October, 1914, thus qualifying for a pension, but was mobilised on the outbreak of war and served on mine-sweepers and trawlers until August, 1919, being awarded the D.S.M. and long-service medal, is entitled to have his pension of £12 per annum, now given to him as from October, 1914, re-assessed so that it may be made equal to the pensions granted to active-service ratings and pensioners who served under similar conditions?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Royal Naval Reservists are not eligible for service pensions like naval ratings. In certain circumstances, however, they may be granted an allowance of £12 a year, which is ordinarily payable from the age of 60, this being a flat rate granted in consideration of liability for service in the fleet in time of emergency. In the case of a Royal Naval Reservist with at least 10 years' service in the Coast Guard the allowance may be granted from the earlier age of 50. There is no provision for the reassessment of such pensions on the scale of long-service pensions in consideration of war service.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is this man, 56 years of age, able and willing to work, to live on 5s. a week, or will the Admiralty find work for him?
    Sir J. CRAIG: If my hon. Friend will send me the specific case, I will give my best attention to it.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that many pre-War pensioners entitled to increased pensions have not yet been paid, and in several cases no application forms have been received; and will he give some explanation to the House regarding the delay in this matter?
    Sir J. CRAIG: A number of pre-War pensioners entitled to increases of pension have not yet been paid, and in certain cases application forms have not yet been issued. As my hon. Friend will realise, the work entailed has been considerable. I may state that payment has been made in about 12,000 cases, and is about to be authorised in 1,000 others. Approximately 4,000 cases are under investigation which are mainly those of Old Age pensioners, or pensioners otherwise in receipt of more than one pension. The cases in which application forms have not been issued are not numerous and mainly concern pensions at present in course of payment by the Ministry of Pensions and about to be transferred to the Admiralty.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Am I to understand that the matter is being hurried up as fast as possible?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Yes, Sir.

    OBSOLETE WARSHIPS.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to demands for the scrapping of the British Navy and its reconstruction on more up-to-date lines; whether any such plan is being considered; and whether he can give an assurance that no steps in this direction will be taken until the Report of the League of Nations dealing with dis armament has been considered by this House?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Existing warships must gradually become obsolete owing to developments in naval science and the building by other Powers of ships embodying these developments. The attention of the Admiralty has not been called to demands for the scrapping of the British

    2075
    Navy, and no such plan is being considered. The last part of the question therefore does not arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any body of experts, who are not engaged in administrative work, looking into the whole question of the future of our fighting forces at sea?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Yes, Sir.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who are they?
    HON. MEMBERS: You!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    BATTLE OF JUTLAND.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the full Report of the Harper Committee on the Battle of Jutland has been supplied to the Royal Naval Staff College for the use of officer-students and their instructors?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the same question on the 1st December and add that his reference to the full Report of the Harper Committee on the battle of Jutland shows him to be under a misapprehension. As I have already explained in reply to other questions, Captain Harper did not draw up any Report on the battle, but simply a record of events based on official British documents.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the record of events been placed at the disposal of the Royal Naval College, and in view of the fact that the students and instructors of the Royal Naval College are the principal means of drawing up a sound doctrine for the future of the Navy how can they do that without full information?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I think I answered that question last Wednesday.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the materials gathered by Captain Harper and his committee have been placed at the disposal of the Royal Naval College?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I answered that question last Wednesday. I think there were three supplementary questions, and I did my best to answer them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, amongst other documents relating to the battle of Jutland, he will publish the accounts given by the gunnery officer of the "Derfflinger" of his experiences in the battle and the official reports made by Admirals Hipper and Scheer?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Admiral Scheer's report, which is the only official German report in the possession of the Admiralty, will be published among the other official documents relating to the battle.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this so-called secret report of Admiral Von Scheer to the German Emperor, which, according to to-day's newspapers, is to be published in Germany, is known to the Admiralty, and will be published?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I am afraid that I have not seen the papers to-day, and I cannot answer without notice.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the first part of the question is not to be considered to be answered in the affirmative?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I have answered that. The only German official report in the possession of the Admiralty will be published.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the refusal to include the Harper diagrams in the Jutland papers may be reconsidered; and whether, in the interests of economy as well as of historical accuracy, he will recognise the peculiar advantages to be derived from the pub lication of the original track-charts, as correlated by Captain Harper, a highly skilled expert in navigation, rather than by the publication of track-charts of individual units, which, by reason of high speed, frequent alterations of course, and other disconcerting factors during the battle, must inevitably be liable to certain margins of errors?
    Sir J. CRAIG: As I explained in my reply on the 1st December, the inclusion of Captain Harper's diagrams would be quite outside the scope of the Jutland Papers as promised by the Prime Minister.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman think that records kept by certain ships constantly under helm and under fire are as reliable as those correlated by Captain Harper in his very exhaustive inquiry?
    Sir J. CRAIG: That question also has been answered on former occasions. Facts were asked for, and the facts at the disposal of the Admiralty, which have been promised by the Prime Minister, will be published.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is outside the scope of the Prime Minister's promise to supply this information?
    Sir J. CRAIG: If my hon. Friend had been in the House and had heard the series of questions which were put and answered he would have thoroughly understood the differentiation between Captain Harper's report and official records.
    Commander BELLAIRS: As we are to get so little out of the Harper report, will the hon. Gentleman give the expenses of this committee of four officers which made exhaustive inquiry and provided a narrative?
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the official despatches will be so much Greek to the general public and to most of the Members of this House, and that it is only by such a report as Captain Harper's that anything intelligible can be made out of them?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that that was the attitude which the Admiralty took up in the first instance; but the demand of the House for immediate publication of the official documents was granted by the Prime Minister. So we had no other alternative. The Admiralty was rather turned down by the House as to the procedure which they proposed to take, and which we were advised was the best course.
    Viscount CURZON: Did not the Admiralty themselves object to the publication of the Harper report?
    Sir J. CRAIG: My Noble Friend knows that in the first instance the Admiralty proposed to hand over the Captain Harper report and all documents bearing on this question to the historian of the War and to leave it to him to correlate and bring the whole thing out in consecutive order. My Noble Friend was one of those who objected most strongly to that, and it was only at the desire of himself and other Members that the official records are being published.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why is the diagram not to be published?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Because it is not official.

    FORE-AND-AFT RIG.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is in a position to state whether the fore-and-aft rig can now be granted to all petty officers?
    Sir J. CRAIG: This matter is receiving consideration.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the extensive naval programmes entered upon by the United States of America and Japan, and the fact that no capital ships are being laid down either in the Royal or private dockyards, he can give the House any information as to what steps, if any, the Government are taking in the matter of new naval ship construction?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The requirements of the situation have been carefully considered in connection with the Navy Estimates for next year, and the general view of the Cabinet regarding new construction will be announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow.

    SICK-BERTH STAFF.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that, in order to obtain recruits for the sick-berth staff, the physical standard has been considerably reduced, the educational standard has been reduced to that of seamen boys on entry, and that the term of engagement

    2079
    has been reduced to seven years; will he consider the advisability of improving the conditions of this branch, particularly as regards promotion, as a means of accelerating the rate of entry, especially in view of the fact that at present there are a number of ratings with eight years' seniority still awaiting their first advancement, that the younger petty officers can never hope to attain the rating of chief petty officer, and that many of these ratings are married; and is he aware that this continual waiting for promotion, coupled with the insufficient rates of pay throughout the service, is causing the members of the staff in question considerable financial hardship?
    Sir J. CRAIG: As the answer is rather long, perhaps the hon. Member will not mind if I have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer prepared:
    The standards required on entry naturally vary from time to time according to the state of recruiting. As stated in the question, the physical standard for this branch has been temporarily reduced and the educational standard is now the same as for the seaman class. The term of engagement has not been reduced, but candidates who wish to join for seven years only are now permitted to do so. As regards advancement of sick-berth ratings, there is at the present moment a small surplus of sick-berth chief petty officers and petty officers, and a small shortage of leading sick-berth attendants on the numbers required for the whole service. Promotions of sick-berth attendants on 1st January next will mostly meet the latter shortage, while the surpluses must inevitably retard promotion temporarily. With regard to the statement that the younger petty officers can never hope to attain the rating of chief petty officer, I think the hon. Member takes an unnecessarily gloomy view. I must not be taken to agree with the suggestion in the last part of the question that the rates of pay throughout the Service are insufficient, but, as stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for South Battersea on the 24th November, the question will not be lost sight of.

    PAYMASTER-LIEUTENANTS AND WRITERS.
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
    2080
    when the Admiralty will decide on the number of paymaster-lieutenants, commissioned writers, and warrant writers who are to be retained in the Royal Navy; and if he is aware that the number of the first-mentioned class is 10 per cent., of the second 20 per cent., and of the third 30 per cent. below the standard, and that the delay in fixing the number is acting, and has acted, prejudicially to some deserving officers who did good service during the War?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The question of the establishment of the Accountant Branch generally is now under consideration. No fixed standard of numbers for paymaster-lieutenants promoted from warrant rank, commissioned writers and warrant writers has yet been laid down, but the present numbers borne, although below the provisional numbers allowed during the War, are not below existing post-War requirements. The reduction in the requirements of officers after a long war must always involve a certain amount of hardship, but this hardship is not confined to any one branch, and is common to all classes of officers, whether promoted from the lower deck or not.
    Sir B. FALLE: When is this matter likely to be decided?
    Sir J. CRAIG: We are working as quickly as we possibly can. I hope very shortly.

  IRELAND.

    NAVAL SERVICE (PENSIONS).
    Major HAMILTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether officers and other ratings in the Royal Navy and civilians in the employment of the Admiralty, who are killed or wounded when on service in connection with the present disturbances in Ireland, will be treated, as regards pension for disability or pension for their dependants if killed, on the same scale as laid down for those who suffered in the great War?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Until 30 days after the Statutory date for the termination of the War, which has not yet been announced, officers and ratings of the Royal Navy who may be injured and the dependants of those who may be killed on service in connection with the present disturbances in Ireland, have pension rights upon the war

    2081
    scale. Civilians in Ireland are entitled to the same regulated compensation as civilians injured in the United Kingdom, but the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware that they can also claim compensation under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1919.

    ME. DE VALERA.
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement recently published in the Press, from a New York correspondent, to the effect that Mr. de Valera, the so-called president of the Irish Pepublic, expressly approves of the wholesale murder of British officers and, at the same time, asks the American public to demonstrate its horror at the massacre of Irish civilians by English soldiers; and whether, in the interests of Anglo-American friendship, he will request the Government of the United States of America to take official notice of Mr. de Valera's anti-British activities?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second, that the matter is under consideration.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the American citizens themselves on their own soil are showing their disapprobation very strongly of this man?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Undoubtedly there is a very severe campaign being carried on in America against this country, but so far we have found that we can trust American opinion.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the time has not arrived to make a serious representation to America that any further toleration of the activities of this man and the conferring upon him of municipal honours is an unfriendly act?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is no doubt that from the diplomatic point of view we would have a right to take the course suggested by my hon. Friend, but it is not a question of a right; it is a question of what is expedient.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Do not the laws of extradition apply, and enable us to arrest this man?

    MURDERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he now has information as to whether, on the 25th October last, a band of armed men, who described themselves as secret service agents, entered the house of William Gleeson, Moher, county Tip-perary, in search of his son, James, whom they stated they had come to kill; whether they threatened the father with death, and, on his son, William, offering his life for his father they took him, the son, outside the house and murdered him; whether any form of inquiry has taken place; and what was the evidence and finding?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The report of the military court of enquiry held in lieu of inquest in this case has now been received. The finding of the Court was that William Gleeson was wilfully murdered by unknown men on the 25th October, 1990, at Moher, County Tip perary, and that there was no evidence as to the identity of the murderers, or the circumstances of the murder.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the Court of Inquiry was held in public or in secret, and whether the next-of-kin or solicitors were allowed to be there?
    Mr. HENRY: I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the next-of-kin were allowed to be present, and gave evidence. In the course of that evidence the sister of the deceased was ordered by her father to refuse to give further evidence. Both the father and another sister were present in the house at the time of the murder.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he now has information as to whether Charles Lynch, of Milltown Malbay, and Michael Ryan, of Curraghduff, Thurles, were dragged from their beds on the night of the 24th October and shot dead by servants of the Crown; whether Charles Lynch was a man of 70 years of age; whether Michael Ryan was the only son of a widow and was seriously ill in bed when the band of men arrived; whether any form of inquiry has been held into these murders; and what was the evidence and finding?
    Mr. HENRY: I have not yet received the report of the Court of Inquiry in the case of Lynch. In the case of Ryan the finding of the Court was that he was wilfully murdered by unknown men on the 25th October, 1920, at Curraghduff, County Tipperary, and that there was no evidence as to the identity of the murderers, or the circumstances of the murder.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was this Court of Inquiry held in public?
    Mr. HENRY: I am able to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the evidence was cut short in the same way as in the last case, by the refusal of the relatives to continue.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the case of Lynch be looked into?
    Mr. HENRY: I am having inquiry made into it at the present time.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Arising out of that answer, is there any evidence at all, in relation to the allegations in Questions 88 and 90 that servants of the Crown had anything to do with those outrages?
    Mr. HENRY: No evidence whatever?

    CAPTAIN BOWEN COULTHURST.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state whether Bowen Coulthurst, the officer involved in the death of Sheehy Skeffington, and the man Iledfearn, recently charged with the murder of a bank manager at Leeds, are now engaged in any civic occupation or public service in Ireland, or if they have been so engaged at any time since the events with which they were respectively associated; and, if so, in what Department?
    Mr. HENRY: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Secretary of State for War whether Bowen Coulthurst, the officer involved in the death of Sheehy Skeffington, and the man Red-fearn, recently charged with the murder of a bank manager at Leeds, are now, engaged in any military or auxiliary forces in Ireland, or if they have been so engaged at any time since the events with which they were respectively associated; and, if so, in what department?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): Neither of these ex-officers has been employéd in a military capacity since the incidents mentioned.
    Mr. MYERS: Have they been employéd with the auxiliary forces?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that without reference.

  POLICE RAIDS, CORK.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he has seen the statement that on Monday and Tuesday last a large force of Auxiliaries held up the main streets of Cork, searching every passer-by and relieving some of them of money; whether it is true that the Auxiliaries rushed into three shops on Monday night, looted them, smashed their contents and the furniture in the houses attached; whether one of the shopkeepers who went to protest to the Labour Commission was arrested by an officer of the Auxiliaries; whether a party of Auxiliaries in Washington Street rushed into the shop of Mr. J. Cudmorc, rifled the till, smashed up the place generally, breaking plate-glass windows and glass shelves; whether they afterwards went up to the living rooms, destroying mirrors, chairs, and pictures, and throwing loose articles of furniture about; whether in the tobacco and sweet shop of Mr. Kenny, an invalid man, the Auxiliaries ransacked the till and took tobacco, and then went upstairs and ransacked the living rooms; whether on Monday afternoon, in Lower Glanmire Road, John Fleming, who was returning from work with two brothers and a friend, was shot in the abdomen by police in lorries; whether the Chief Secretary can say when the incendiary fires and the other forms of terrorism in Cork will be brought to an end?
  Mr. HENRY: I have communicated with the Police Authorities who informed me that the Auxiliaries conducted a general search of people in the streets of Cork on Monday and Tuesday, but that the allegation of theft of money, or any other property, is entirely untrue. The three shops which were raided on Monday night were raided because the police had

  2085
  been fired upon in the vicinity, and were endeavouring to find and arrest their assailants. The allegations of looting and of wanton destruction of property in this case, and in the other cases referred to, are absolutely unfounded. The shopkeeper who was arrested while on his way to complain to the Labour Commission was arrested on account of his using insulting and inflammatory language to the Auxiliary officers in question. Mr. Fleming was not shot by the police, who have been unable up to the present to ascertain by whom he was shot. Three police lorries passed at the time, but the sergeants in charge deny that any one of their men fired, and the ammunition was carefully checked on their return to barracks and found to be correct. The locality is a very bad one, and it is not unlikely that the shot was intended for the police and hit Fleming by mistake. As regards the last part of the question, the district inspector states that there have been no incendiary fires in Cork City this week.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statements I have set forth in my question have not appeared in responsible and respectable English journals, and whether, if these statements be, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asserts, entirely unfounded, they are not calculated to produce very evil results in Ireland, and whether under these circumstances the Attorney-General will not feel it his duty to take the same criminal proceedings before a court-martial in Ireland against these English journals as he has been taken against the "Freeman's Journal" in Dublin?
  Mr. HENRY: The reason was explained last night to my hon. Friend as to what makes the difference between England and Ireland. I have been asked to give the information, which I have already given, and if the hon. Member has any further questions, and will submit the names of the journals I will consider them.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: If I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the name of the journal now, which I do—the "Manchester Guardian"—having that information now in his possession, will he immediately initiate the proceedings, which ought to be as necessary in the case of an
  2086
  English paper with a large circulation as in the case of an Irish paper with a large circulation?
  Mr. HENRY: It will be considered.
  Mr. THORNE: Is there any difference between the law of sedition in England and the law of sedition in Ireland? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, all the difference.']
  Mr. HENRY: Not that I am aware of, but naturally there is the Restoration of Order Act in Ireland and not in England.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not prosecute the "Manchester Guardian" that in England he would have to bring the paper before a jury, and in Ireland he would have to bring it before a court-martial?
  Mr. HENRY: No, Sir.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    KING'S ROLL OF HONOUR.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Labour which of the borough councils in London are not as yet on the King's Roll; and will he state what replies he has had to representations made to them upon the subject?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): As a result of questions on Wednesday last, I have personally addressed the five mayors whose councils are not on the Roll requesting them individually to bring the matter before their respective councils as early as possible, and pointing out the very great desirability of completing the record of the Metropolitan Borough Councils with regard to the National Scheme. Three of the mayors have written saying they will bring the question before their Councils as early as possible, and I am in further communication with a fourth. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat his question this day week?
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give the names?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes As I pointed out, I have the names before me, but it may very well be—and in one case I know that it is the fact—that they are employing more than is required, but I do not

    2087
    want to publish the names until I have exhausted all other means. Perhaps my Noble Friend will put down a question next week?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not give the names of those borough councils which are on the King's Roll?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That would not be a bad plan.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour whether any representation has been made to any of the local authorities or firms in Ulster regarding the King's Roll of Honour and the employment of ex-service men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Representations by letter and by personal canvas have been made to a considerable number of local authorities and firms in Ulster, and the results so far reported show that undertakings to employ the requisite percentage of disabled ex-service men have been completed in 32 cases, which include the Belfast Corporation.
    Mr. DONALD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a statement by the Lord Mayor of Belfast that out of a total of 5151 employés in the service of the corporation 1625 are ex-service men, and in the circumstances is not the Belfast City Council entitled to be on the King's Roll of Honour, and will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to co-operate with hon. Members from Ulster in expediting the employment of ex-service men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very glad to hear those figures. I think that the Belfast Corporation is already on the Roll. I will certainly co-operate with anybody willing to get ex-service men employment.

    BUSINESS TRAINING.
    Sir R. NEWMANasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the claims of ex-service men who, on being demobilised, endeavoured to start in life without applying for a State training grant, but who, having failed, now desire to obtain some professional instruction, but find that, not having applied for the
    2088
    grant within a certain number of months, they are debarred from receiving any assistance from the State, though had they at once on being demobilised applied for a grant before trying to start life without it they would have been entitled to receive the same?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: With the permission of my hon. Friend, I will have the answer to this question printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer referred to:
    To meet the claims of ex-service men of the category referred to by my hon. Friend, the following facilities remain available:
    Until the 30th April, 1921, ex-service officers and men of similar educational qualifications may apply for assistance under the Business Training Scheme recently announced in this House. In initiating this scheme I had in view the relief of the type of case referred to by my hon. Friend. Under Article 7 of the Royal Warrant, any ex-officer who had not received State assistance, but finds his normal occupation debarred him owing to War disability, may receive professional or agricultural training under the appropriate Government Department, not exceeding one year. There is no time limit for applications under the Industrial Training Scheme, the scope of which is well known. During the life of the Maintenance and Training Grants Scheme, special concessions were afforded to ex-service men of the category referred to, and where, in view of the changed circumstances, such men found it necessary to apply for State aid after the failure of their personal endeavours, the regulations as to time limit for application were relaxed in their favour. This scheme, however, having accomplished its object, is now virtually at an end. The Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department is authorised to consider applications from ex-service men for grants to resettle them in civil life, notwithstanding that the period of 12 months from discharge or demobilisation has elapsed, this time limit having been extended to meet the type of case in question, and this extension remains in force until 31st December, 1920, up to which date applications for assistance will be sympathetically considered and dealt with by this Department.

    BUILDING TRADE (DILUTION).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Labour whether the negotiations with the building trades unions which have been in progress for the past 16 months to allow dilution so that at least 50,000 unemployéd ex-service men may be employéd in the building of urgently needed houses for the working classes have now been completed; and whether he will assure the House that, in the event of an agreement not being arrived at before the House rises, the Government will themselves take such steps as may be necessary to secure the employment of these men in the building of houses, especially having regard to the prevailing distress which is being occasioned by their prolonged unemployment by reason of trade union regulations which they have been unable to comply with owing to the fact that they were fighting for their country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Government hope to meet the representatives of the building craft unions next week, and if my hon. Friend will put down a question this day week, I hope to be able to answer it. In any event I can give rny hon. Friend the assurance that I will do my best to be in a position before the House rises to say definitely what action the Government intend to take.
    Sir W. DAVISON: This is the reply which I have had for very many months and surely the right hon. Gentleman can say on behalf of the Government, that in the event of these negotiations not coming to a satisfactory issue the Government which is the Government responsible for the Government of the country will take steps to secure the employment of these 50,000 odd men who are sick at heart from not getting employment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have just told my hon. Friend, I will do my best to give the House a definite assurance before it rises. Then when my hon. Friend says, in the event of the failure of these negotiations, will we then employ the 50,000 men, for the moment I am negotiating, and if he will put a question down for this day week, I will report progress.
    Mr. THOMAS: As this question implies blame to one side only, is it correct to say that the Cabinet only yesterday had this matter before them, and that the delay
    2090
    is as much due to the Government as to the men's side?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Have not these negotiations been going on for nearly 16 months, and, although the ball may now be in the hands of the Cabinet, it has been frequently in the hands of the unions, and they are mainly responsible for the delay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the fact that we have had discussions going on intermittently for some time. I am not prepared to attribute blame. I want to get something done, and I will do my best.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unions involved put suggestions on 3rd November, and were promised a reply on 8th, and that on 29th November no reply had been received by the unions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot tax my memory to say that that is accurate.
    Sir W. DAVISON: If I put a question down for this day week, can the right hon Gentleman answer the House that he will give a definite reply?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I will state where we then stand. I have given an undertaking before the House rises to do my best to have a definite answer one way or the other.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon Gentleman tell the House briefly and broadly what are the proposals he is going to put to the trade unions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is this not more a dispute as to demarcation between trade unions as to the particular work on which men are engaged?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think I can answer that question.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployéd ex-service men on the registers of the unemployment exchanges on the last available date?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of ex-service men on the live Registers of the employment exchanges at 26th November was 251,407.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is there any distinction made between men who served in France and on other fronts?

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Health if substitution committees, as recommended by Lord Lytton's Committee, to ensure the continued employment of ex-service men in the Civil Service have been set up in his Department; and to state the constitution of the committees already set up?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): A substitution committee, as recommended by Lord Lytton's Committee, has been set up in the Ministry of Health. The committee consists of a representative of the ex-service men, a representative of the temporary women clerks and an officer of the Establishment Division of the Ministry.

  HOUSING.

    CONCRETE BLOCK CONSTRUCTION.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at Manchester a certain firm recently received a contract to build 1,000 brick houses; that, as there were not sufficient bricklayers to carry on the work at the desired speed, it was decided to adopt composite concrete construction (Fidler) system; that this system consists simply of placing concrete slabs on edge which are held in alignment by strips of metal, and that no mortar or trowels are necessary; that directly arrangements were started for the adoption of the composite concrete construction system, the bricklayers notified their intention of deserting the brick houses if the simple system of building concrete blocks was carried out by unskilled labour; that this threat was issued as a protest, as the bricklayers claimed that the composite concrete construction system work was their work, despite the fact that there was sufficient work upon the brick houses for at least three times as many bricklayers as were obtainable; and whether, in view of the urgent need of new houses and of reducing the unemployment amongst unskilled labour, he will make representations to the trades unions concerned that this boycotting of a system which would be of real value to the country should cease forthwith?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the question is being referred to the local demarcation committee for the building trade, and I hope that in this way a satisfactory solution of the difficulty will be found.
    Captain BOWYER: In view of the delay that has taken place, and the way Members of this House have been put off, will the right hon. Gentleman give full publicity to such cases as these as and when they arise in order to enlist the sympathy of public opinion and get the best settlement of the question?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will certainly adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion and publish full lists of this and other cases that crop up.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if this case is not settled within a week he will take steps to show up this trade union which is holding up work, and whose selfishness is preventing ex-service men from getting employment?
    Major NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to this action of trade unions under housing schemes only 88 houses have been completed in 18 months in Manchester?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that it would be convenient to collect together the ascertained cases dealing with this kind of thing, and circulate them to Members.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also circulate the list of merchants and combines in his possession who are preventing housing because of increasing prices?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am only too anxious to place before Members all the information we have got on that particular point to which my right hon. Friend refers; but the matter was, as he knows, investigated only lately by a Committee of the Board of Trade at great length, and its Report is available. We have no information beyond what is contained in the Report.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is the statement of facts in the question correct or not? The right hon. Gentleman has hitherto avoided answering that point.
    Dr. ADDISON: No. I have not intentionally avoided it. The case has been referred to the Departmental Committee which deals with these things in each area. I am not prepared to say that the statement is fully accurate.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there no possibility of fixing some time limit in this dispute?

    OFFICE OF WORKS BUILDING SCHEMES.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health in how many cases building schemes are being carried out under the Office of Works; and whether any of the men employéd on these schemes are not members of trade unions?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Seventeen schemes are now being carried out by my Department. I am unable to state whether all the men employéd on these schemes are members of trade unions, but labour is recruited through the Labour Exchanges and with the assistance of local labour and trades councils, and the local branches of the Federation of Building Trade Operatives.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department require any authority to take on this work, and, if so, who gives the authority?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any difficulty in getting men for this particular class of work, and is he in a position to get all the material he requires?
    Sir A. MOND: There is certainly a difficulty in getting certain classes of labour for this work.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction of the various bank clerks on account of their being compelled to pay contributions for the State Unemployment Insurance Act; and that, in consequence of there being such a small percentage of bank clerks being dismissed and out of work, he can see his way clear to exempt bank clerks from paying contributions under the Act?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As has already been stated, I have no power to exclude bank employés from the Unemployment Insurance Act unless they are entitled to rights in a superannuation fund established by, or in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, and unless, in addition, the employéd person is not subject to dismissal except for misconduct, neglect, or unfitness, and generally if conditions of employment make it unnecessary that he should be insured. In any case, bank clerks earning over £250 a year do not come within the Act.
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a deputation from the National Alliance of Employérs and Employéd which proposed that unemployment benefit should be paid as from 8th November, irrespective of any question of contribution; and what is the decision to which he has come on the question?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I received this deputation yesterday, and a full report of the proceedings has been issued. As regards the suggestion that unemployment benefit should be paid irrespective of contributions, I am afraid I have no power to modify the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act in this respect.
  Mr. W. THORNE(by Private Notice) asked' the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of persons covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act who are at present out of employment and will, therefore, not be entitled to receive unemployment benefit this week; and whether, in view of the many persons so placed, he will consider the advisability of taking some steps to enable them to qualify for benefit?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not possible to give the number of persons who are unemployéd and who are not qualified to receive benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Benefit may be drawn for eight weeks as soon as four contributions have been paid, and under this provision large numbers of the persons now unemployéd are entitled to benefit under the Act. As regards entitling persons to benefit irrespective of payment of contributions, I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply given to-day to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West.
  Mr. THORNE: Have the Government considered the advisability of making some provision for these unfortunate fellows who are getting no payment?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The difficulty of qualifying by the four weeks payments has been before me, but it cannot be done under the Act. As a rule, the qualifying period is 26 weeks and not four. A person on short time is qualified to stamp, even though it be no more than one day bonâ fide employment during the week.
  Mr. THORNE: Do I understand that where the men are working short time, if the employérs are not in the position to put on the stamp for the employér's contribution, can the employé' put on his own stamp?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Both are parties to stamping the card. I imagine his employér would stamp it under those circumstances. If a man is at work one day a week bonâ fide employéd, that is employéd service under the Act, the card should be stamped.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Under the circumstances of the period of the operation of the Act, and the many thousands who have no employment, but two stamps and not four, three stamps and not' four, could not some concession be granted as would enable the fourth stamp to be placed on, in order to entitle that unemployéd person to benefit?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry that that would not be possible under the Act. It would be using the premiums of the Insurance Act as an out-of-work donation. I have handed the matter on to the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment, and asked them to consider it. I realise that it is a real difficulty, but I can give no assurance and I have no authority.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made such representations to the Cabinet Committee as would permit of representations being made to that body by persons in authority and in direct touch with the circumstances?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I assure my hon. Friend that the Cabinet Committee have the whole of the facts before them.

  COTTON INDUSTRY (HALF-TIME).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an estimate of the number of operatives in the cotton industry who are on half-time?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations decided on 3rd December that, commencing with Monday, 6th December, spinners of American cotton should stop their mills on Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday of each week. The exact number of persons affected is not yet known, but is probably not less than 100,000.

  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the admitted need of economy in his as well as other Government Departments, and to the fact that the Committee of Inquiry have reported that employment exchanges have failed to displace other methods of getting employérs in touch with employés, and are not generally popular, he will cease the building of further exchanges until the House has had the opportunity of considering and debating the Report of the Committee referred to.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No building work is at present being undertaken in connection with employment exchanges, except the provision of temporary hutments and certain adaptations of existing premises, and even this work has been cut down to the lowest possible point. The question of the provision of suitable buildings will be one of those which will be carefully considered in connection with the Report of the Committee of Inquiry. I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Committee find that in very many cases the premises now used for employment exchange work are unsuitable, and record their emphatic opinion that ths use of unsuitable buildings for employment exchanges is not an economy.
  Colonel NEWMAN: May I have an answer to the last part of the question as to whether we shall have an opportunity to consider and debate the Report before anything is resolved on?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be very glad if an opportunity were afforded, and much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he puts down that question again.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why employment exchanges always require to take sites in the most expensive places, such as in Princes Street, Edinburgh?

  LUNACY ACT.
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Lunacy Board of Control, in a statement dated 16th November, 1920, have declared that the only section of the Lunacy Act, 1890, which safeguards voluntary boarders in mental institutions (Section 229) is inapplicable to boarders in registered hospitals, and have likewise declared inapplicable to registered hospitals the form (No. 14) prescribed for obtaining the written consent of two commissioners to the admission of a boarder who shall have made previous application in writing; and if he will say whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken before the Lunacy Board's declaration was issued?
  Dr. ADDISON: The letter from the Board of Control to which the hon. Member refers merely stated that Section 229 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, does not apply to registered hospitals. I see no necessity to consult the Law Officers on a point which has never been in doubt.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: Is there any safeguard in law for those people who are incarcerated in such hospitals?
  Dr. ADDISON: That is quite a different question from that on the Paper.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (STATISTICS).
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health what was the income under the National Health Act for the last completed financial year, and the amounts paid for administration, sickness and other benefits, and remuneration to doctors; and what was the balance on the year's working and the total amount at the credit of National Health Insurance fund?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am only in a position to answer for England and Wales, and would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary for replies as to Scotland and Ireland. For most of the information asked for by the hon. Member I would refer him to the reply given on the 30th November to a question by the hon. Member for Twickenham, of which I will send him a copy. The other matters raise detailed questions, and I hope that it will meet my hon. Friend's convenience if I send him a detailed statement on the subject.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are the 1919 balance sheets published?
  Dr. ADDISON: I think so, but as I am not sure, I should want notice of that question.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH OFFICERS.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether any further information has been received with regard to the fate of the two British officers, Captain Frecheville and Lieutenant Couche, supposed to have been murdered by Bolshevists at Rostoff-on-the-Don last January; and whether, in any negotiations now pending, he will stipulate for investigation of the crime and the punishment of the guilty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. All the information on this subject in the possession of His Majesty's Government has been forwarded to the Soviet Government, whose reply is awaited.
    Mr. LYLE: As this is one of the last chances we shall have of dealing with this most unfortunate question, may I ask whether, before making peace, the right hon. Gentleman will press on the Soviet Government in the case of these officers who were foully murdered for some answer, and as to the reparation to be given?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have explained to the House over and over again that we are using this opportunity to make sure that every British subject who wishes to leave Russia is allowed to do so. As regards indemnity, we have reserved all our rights. The main object is to save the lives of the British subjects still left.
    Mr. LYLE: Is there not more than the saving of lives of the men in Russia? Before we make peace with people whose hands are red with the blood of British officers, should we not have some answer about these officers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The negotiations we are considering now are not negotiations for the making of peace, but with a view to resuming trade, which we wfluld not undertake if we did not think they were at least as important to us as to them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there is no information about the fate of these officers, but that it is only based on rumours from Con stantinople?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We fear the worst.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Are we to treat with people whose hands are red with blood?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that question can be dealt with by way of question and answer.

  PATENT MEDICINES.
  Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the importance of the subject in the interests of public health and the delay that has occurred in dealing with it, he will arrange for the introduction early next Session of a Bill to give effect to the recommendations, or to some of the recommendations, of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to answer this question. It is proposed to introduce next Session a Bill giving effect to the proposals which have now been agreed with the parties concerned.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that it is the wish and desire of all members of clubs in Wales that the opening hours on Sunday evenings should be from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m.; whether the same rights of citizenship in this respect will be
  2100
  applied to Wales as to England; and whether he is aware that the change of hours asked for would promote no abuse, but confer a benefit, and be to the greater domestic convenience of members and their families?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt):My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not aware that all members of clubs in Wales entertain the desire which is stated in the first paragraph, and I know from a resolution passed unanimously at a recent meeting of the Welsh Liberal Parliamentary party that there is a large body of Welsh opinion which would be opposed to the assimilation of Wales to England in the matter of the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor on Sunday.
  Mr. STANTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that I do not believe the Welsh Liberal party to be authorities upon the desires of the members of Welsh clubs? We want to know why we are debarred in Wales from the rights and privileges of other people in other parts of the country.
  Mr. SHORTT: I understand that the Welsh Liberal party do not agree with the hon. Member.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will without further delay restore to the working classes their ancient right to purchase alcoholic spirits in small quantities for off consumption?
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Prime Minister if he will have the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) Order which restricts the hours of sale modified, and will he allow the hours of sale on Saturday to be from 12 noon to 10 p.m., having regard to the great hardship experienced by large masses of the population who are now unable to obtain access to houses of refreshment between 2.30 p.m. and 6 p.m.; and is he aware of the serious inconvenience the present Regulation causes to persons who have to travel to various parts of the country?
  Mr. BLAIRasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, as there is no desire on the part of anyone to return exactly to pre-War conditions in the matter of liquor control, he can afford guidance to the

  2101
  Central Control Board by stating which of the restrictions still imposed by the Central Control Board on the public are not regarded by the Government as essential for maintenance?
  Captain BOWYERasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that the Liquor Control (Temporary Provisions) Bill is not to be proceeded with this Session, all unnecessary restrictions and Orders issued by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) may be withdrawn; and whether it is the policy of the Government to prolong these restrictions, imposed during war time expressly for war purposes, until the Government Bill dealing with the matter is passed?
  Mr. SHORTT: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. The Government cannot undertake at this stage to go into the details raised in these inquiries, and have nothing to add to previous answers.
  Mr. HIGHAM: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is very little detail to go into in this question, because it is purely one that the person who can afford to buy a bottle of spirits can take it off the premises and the poor man or woman who only wants to spend sixpence or a shilling cannot do it, and why should we differentiate between the poor and the rich in this way?
  Mr. SHORTT: That is going into details.
  Mr. HIGHAM: Why is it done at all?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the reason given for restricting the sale in small quantities was that the Admiralty did not want small quantities smuggled on board the ships in war time, although they had no objection to bulky quantities, but now, when the German Fleet is at the bottom of the sea and the sea war is over, why should this restriction continue; and is he not also aware that a small quantity of alcohol with aspirin is the best possible prophylactic for influenza and colds and that scores of people have died for want of it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for the Ministry of Health.
  Captain BOWYER: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that a great number of his supporters have pledged themselves up to the hilt
  2102
  in the constituencies that these war time restrictions shall be removed, and may we count on the support of the right hon. Gentleman, and, if so, when?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend has not forgotten, I think, that in the election address signed by the Prime Minister and myself, we stated as one of the objects which we intended to carry out that we should take advantage of the experience in this matter gained during the War. We intend to do that.
  Mr. HIGHAM: Does that mean that the restrictions will not be removed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It does not in the least mean that, but it means that we think that the restrictions should not be one by one relaxed before we bring in a Bill dealing with the whole question.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the fact that, as the restrictions have been relaxed, drunkenness and disorder have steadily gone up and that they are now nearly three times as high as in 1918, and in these circumstances, will he continue the present restrictions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That question obviously raises a point of discussion which cannot be dealt with in this way. Everyone, including the hon. Member, must be aware that even if the facts be as stated, there are many other things to account for it besides those which he states.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not ask the Liquor Control Board to do away with the petty reftric-tions which he does not mean to continue, while continuing those restrictions which he thinks it desirable to continue?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, changes, and very considerable changes, have been made in consequence of the subject having been considered by this House and by the Government. It is obvious that we cannot decide offhand exactly what restrictions we are going to keep on and what we are going to remove; it would be necessary to introduce a Bill.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Going back to the original question of the sale of small quantities of spirits, can my right hon. Friend say whether he will not make such

  2103
  representations to the Liquor Control Board as will enable them, at all events, for the period of the next two months, or until such time as the permanent measure is introduced, to permit of these restrictions so far as they relate to the sale of small quantities of spirits being suspended?
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that J. C. Conacher, a soldier who lost his right limb in the South African war and was also wounded in his left limb and foot and in his right arm, after trying to get work and being refused on account of disability, became, through the aid of friends and the officers of his regiment, licensee of the Blue Bell Inn, Newbiggin, Cumberland, prospered and accepted the offer of the Blue Bell Hotel, Rickergate, Carlisle, and also the Wheatsheaf, Rickergate; that his wife managed one of these premises at a salary of 35s. per week and all found; that these houses were managed to the entire satisfaction of the magistrates, the Excise, and the police; that on 10 days' notice in each case the Liquor Control Board seized both the latter premises and turned Conacher out on the street, deprived him of his two licences, and paid him no compensation for the same or for the loss of the goodwill of his two businesses; that the Board first offered Mrs. Conacher 25s. per week to remain in their service and, on refusal, increased the same to 30s., which she accepted; and that work was refused to Conacher by the Board on account of his military disability, while it was given to one of the young men of military age who were employéd by the Board; and will he appoint a committee of investigation into the actions of the Board that a remedy may be obtained for those who have suffered from its decrees?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to reply. This question relates to circumstances which I understand took placs some four or five years ago, and which have been investigated on more than one occasion by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) in the ordinary course, and by Lord D'Abernon (late Chairman of the Board) himself when appealed to personally. All the facts were also put before the Minister of Munitions when enquiries were addressed to him in 1919. I understand that the decision reached on each occasion was that there was no valid
  2104
  ground of complaint, and I see no reason to doubt that this conclusion was correct, and no ground to justify the appointment of a committee of investigation.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the fact that this man's two licences were taken from him without compensation, and that he was turned into the street, and if the Liquor Control Board, the people who were guilty of that indescribable wrong, were the people who did it, of what use is an investigation by the culprits themselves?
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister, in view of the necessity for giving ample time for the adequate con sideration both by Members of this House and the general public of the pro visions of the promised Bill dealing with the sale of alcoholic liquor, if it can be introduced before Christmas?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

  GLASS (IMPORTATION).
  Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the urgent necessity of securing for laboratory and other purposes a sufficient supply of the different kinds of glass used in the manufacture of optical and other instruments, and having regard to the importance of encouraging the production in this country of such glass, he will arrange for the introduction at an early date of a Bill prohibiting for a time, except under special licence, the importation of such varieties of glass and of such scientific instruments as may or can be produced in this country?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have been asked to reply. The President of the Board of Trade stated during the Debate yesterday that the Government intends to introduce the Bill dealing with key industries, other than the dye industry, as the first measure next Session. I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is impracticable to discuss the details of that measure in advance.

  WAR PENSIONS.
  Mr. HOODasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Wimbledon War

  2105
  Pensions Committee say that the pensions fixed in September, 1919, were at the rate of approximately 10 per cent. below the then cost of living; whether the pensions were fixed for three years, although the Government were willing to revise them every year; whether, having regard to that willingness, the Government will now revise the pensions (as, since September, 1919, the cost of living has increased from 131 per cent. to 176 per cent. over pre-War) and thus mitigate the hardship under which some pensioners, particularly widows with children, are suffering; and, if the Government are not willing to make such revision, if they will give a day before the adjournment for the Recess for the discussion of the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on the 23rd November in answer to questions on this subject.

  EDUCATION ACT, 1918.
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee who are considering the cost of national education have before them the report of the Departmental Committee on Scholarships and Free Places; whether this report advocates the abolition of fees in secondary education, because fee payers feel themselves entitled to more responsibility and influence than their contributions warrant; and will the Committee also consider the fact that to abolish fees would mean an eventual loss to national and local funds estimated at £7,600,000 per annum?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second part, that the Committee do not recommend the immediate abolition of fees. I do not understand how my hon. Friend has arrived at the estimate of cost given in the last part of his question.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the Committee on this particular subject? If he reads the Minority report he will find out the figures.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I read the report as much as I could.
  Mr. MYERS: May I ask whether it is a fact that for the education received by the fee-paying scholars in our secondary schools the cost is doubled?
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the representations that have been addressed to the Board of Education by local authorities as well as by public bodies urging a postponement of the putting into operation of parts of the Education Act, 1918, the decision of the Cabinet Committee on the subject will be made known before 1st January so that local authorities may be able to make the necessary arrangements?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which I gave yesterday on this subject.
  Colonel NEWMAN: How are the local authorities to frame their scheme of finance for the year if they do not know what they are to be called upon to pay?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is precisely the same question that has been raised before, and can only give the same answer.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  Mr. BETTERTONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the practice of various Departments of submitting Supplementary Estimates for the sanction of the House to expenditure which has been already incurred; and whether, seeing that this practice deprives the House of all control over such expenditure, he will take steps to ensure that Estimates be in all cases presented before the money is expended?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): The Treasury are constantly impressing on Departments the importance of obtaining Parliamentary sanction as soon as it becomes apparent that provision in an existing Estimate will be insufficient. The exigencies of Parliamentary procedure make it impossible to secure that in every case such sanction can be obtained in advance; but it is the recognised rule that this should be done, and I attach great importance to the observance of the rule.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is it the practice for a Department to inform the Treasury as soon as they see that the Estimate which they have obtained from this House is likely to be exceeded?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Oh, certainly.
  Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Is any action taken with regard to an official who fails to submit an Estimate in time for this House? Is any disciplinary action taken against him?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The responsibility primarily rests on the Minister.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: Is anyone discharged for a breach of duty in this matter?
  Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see into the particular case arising out of this matter in regard to the Ministry of Food?

  DENTISTS ACT, 1878 (AMENDING BILL).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of his promise to introduce legislation during the present Session of Parliament for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878, he can now name a definite date for the introduction of the measure?
  Mr. CAPEasked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to introduce a Bill for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878?
  Sir A. YEOasked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to introduce legislation for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878?
  Mr. FREDERICK THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether lie will introduce this Session the Bill to amend the Dentists Act, 1878?
  Mr. LINDSAYasked the Minister of Health if it is still the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during this Session to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878?
  Mr. KENYONasked the Minister of Health whether pledges have been given on behalf of the Government that legislation will be introduced during the present Session of Parliament for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878; and, if so, when it is proposed to redeem those pledges by introducing a Bill for the purpose?
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Minister of Health whether the Government propose to take action to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878; and, if so, whether legislation on the subject will be introduced at an early date?
  Captain ELLIOTasked the Minister of Health whether the proposed dental legislation, even if found contentious, will at least be introduced as promised before Christmas that the feeling of the House may be ascertained on this important subject?
  Dr. ADDISON: In accordance with the promise made by me, with the concurrence of the Lord Privy Seal, to a deputation representing a large body of Members, the Bill dealing with this subject will be introduced, so as to enable rfc to be printed before the Recess, in order that those interested may have an opportunity of examining the proposals.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whether it is likely to be introduced next week?
  Dr. ADDISON: It will be in a few days.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WEST HAM.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if he has received any information from the West Ham Board of Guardians to the effect that they will shortly be called upon to deal within the Union area with about 20,000 men out of employment; if he is aware that if they give a modified labour test it will cost about £1 per week per case; that the rates in some of the Union's area are about 25s. in the £; and, in consequence of the gravity of the situation from every point of view, he will agree to receive a deputation from the representatives of the West Ham Union?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that a number of applications for relief are being made in this Union, and I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which the Guardians may be able to make. It would, however, be more convenient that these suggestions should in the first instance be submitted in writing.

    ARTERIAL ROADS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the great need for exercising economy in the carrying into effect of the arterial road schemes on which unemployéd labour is to be utilised, he will issue before the close of the year the procedure Regulations so greatly needed by local authorities in the preparation of town planning schemes under the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919?
    Dr. ADDISON: I hope to issue these Regulations shortly.

  UNCERTIFIED DEATHS (INQUESTS).
  Sir F. BLAKEasked the Minister of Health the number of uncertified deaths that were reported to the coroners during the year 1919; how many of these were the subjects of inquests or were decided by the coroners not to need them; and, in the latter case, what evidence or information coroners are required to possess before deciding to dispense with an inquiry?
  Dr. ADDISON: The number of uncertified deaths reported in 1919 by a Registrar of Births and Deaths to a coroner which were not the subject of an inquest is 6,698. The total number of inquests held in that year is 31,488, but no figures are available as to how many of those related respectively to certified and to uncertified deaths. I understand that in all cases the coroner is governed by the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Coroners Act, 1887, which sets forth the circumstances in which he is obliged to hold an inquest.
  Sir F. BLAKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a medical man giving a certificate has to view the body of the person, the cause of whose death he has certified?
  Dr. ADDISON: I do not understand the point.
  Sir F. BLAKE: If a medical man is asked by a coroner to give a certificate of death, has he, before giving that certificate, to view the body of the person the cause of whose death he has to certify?
  Dr. ADDISON: I think I had better have notice of that.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is it not the fact that in all cases where the medical certificate is not forthcoming, by the direction of the Registrar-General it is reported to the coroner, the coroner causes inquiries to be made, and where a coroner is satisfied that an inquest is unnecessary, he signs a certificate to that effect?
  Dr. ADDISON: That is so. These are the matters referred to in Section 3 of the Coroners Act.

  MARLBOROUGH WORKHOUSE.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if the Marlborough workhouse has now only a master and matron in charge of that institution; and, if so, whether this is a sufficient staff to secure the good administration of the institution and the care of the inmates?
  Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the master and matron are the only permanent officers at this institution, and I am calling for a special report upon the efficiency of the present administration.

  HOUSE SUBSIDENCE, MINING DISTRICTS.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether the promised Government Bill to deal with damage by subsidence to houses and other property in mining districts is ready for presentation to the House; and whether it will be introduced this Session or at the beginning of next Session?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. It will not be possible to introduce the Bill this Session, but I hope to do so early in next Session.
  Mr. A. WIILIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill is prepared?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is being prepared.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    SHIPPING BRANCH.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Food what work is being performed by the Shipping Branch of the Ministry of Food at Trafalgar House, Waterloo Place, as distinct from the Royal Commission for Wheat?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The Shipping Branch of the Ministry of Food at Trafalgar House deals solely with the work of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, except in so far as it attends to shipments made for the account of the Inter-depart mental Committee for European Relief Credits. Trafalgar House is being vacated, and the staff moved to Palace Chambers.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Minister of Food whether he has received any representations from traders' asso ciations to the effect that traders in sugar have been involved in financial loss as a result of the orders of the Ministry of Food to traders to accumu late stocks during the coal strike, at the same time limiting the amount to be sold to customers and then ordering a reduc tion of price before a sufficient time had elapsed for the accumulated stocks to be sold; whether, in issuing such orders in future, he will give longer notice of such changes in price to traders; and whether he will ensure that no notice of such a kind shall be given to the Press until the official order has been made?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the Food Controller has already pointed out, during the continued advance in the price of sugar from the pre-War level of about 2d. per lb. to the recent high price of Is. 2d. per lb., traders were allowed to retain the esfcra profits on stocks held at each successive increase in the pries,
    2112
    and, therefore, it is only reasonable that they should be prepared to face the risks of a falling market. An exceptional situation was no doubt created by the request of the Government to traders to hold large stocks in the emergency created by the recent coal strike. In the case of retailers, this was met by the retention for a fortnight of the higher scale of approved retail prices. The Food Controller is prepared to consider the possibility of affording some relief to individual wholesalers in cases where it is proved that surplus stocks have been accumulated directly in response to the request made on behalf of the Govern ment. It is not practicable to give longer notice of changes in prices. I am not aware that any communication was made to the Press in anticipation of the official announcement.

    FLOUR (PRICE).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the great hardship inflicted upon retail co-operative socie ties and retail dealers generally owing to- the reduction of 4s. per sack on flour; is he aware that when flour was reduced in September dealers were protected; is he also aware that these same people suffered heavily when sugar was reduced by 2d. in the pound, owing to their stocks having been bought at a dearer rate; and will he take these matters into considera tion with a view to compensation?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In announcing the reduction of 4s. per sack in the wholesale price of flour, the Food Controller drew special attention to the stocks held by retailers, and pointed out that the public must allow a reasonable margin of time for these stocks to be worked off. I do not, therefore, see that retailers are involved in any special hardship. With regard to the reduction in the price of sugar, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply just given to the hon. Member for Stafford.

    STOCKS, MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Food what is the total quan tity of foodstuffs, including flour and coffee, stored in the Midlesbrough area, giving full particulars of the quantities on the Tyne and Tees Shipping Com pany's wharf and warehouses there; how long the bulk of the materials have been

    2113
    in stock; the date of the last deliveries into store; the total amounts cleared since 30th June last: and the condition of the materials now in stock?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am having inquiries made into the points raised by the hon. Member, and will communicate the results to him as soon as they are available.
    Mr. THOMSON: Seeing that these stocks are considerable, will the Minister take care that they are cleared before further losses are sustained?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My difficulty is that the hon. Gentleman's question is manifestly inaccurate, because the Ministry has never held stocks of coffee, and I must make further inquiry to ascertain the facts.
    Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this stock of coffee was discovered owing to a crane falling through the roof of a building?
    Sir W. MITCHELLTHOMSON: So far as I am concerned, the coffee never belonged to the Ministry.

  MALTA (BRITISH EMPIRE GOODS).
  Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a preference on (British-Empire goods came into force in Malta on 13th March last, and was cancelled on 22nd November; and whether he can say what are the grounds for such cancellation after a period which was satisfactory to exporters of British goods?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): A Bill providing inter alia for preference on British Empire goods was before the Legislative Council at Malta in the spring, but the preferential clauses were not favoured by the elected members, and were dropped. I am not able to say for what period, if any, the preference was in force.
  Mr. HURD: How can preference be enforced pending the passing of a Bill?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I imagine that on the introduction of a Bill the Customs officials take steps on the assumption that the Bill will be passed. If any Clause is dropped out they arrange accordingly.

  WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War what number of men and women are now employéd for exhumation and other work, respectively, under the War Graves Commission; what is the annual cost of this personnel; whether any reduction is likely in the near future; and, if so, what?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The number of employés of the Imperial War Graves Commission on the 1st December was as follows:—

  United Kingdom

  328

  France and Belgium1,

  230

  Italy

  40

  Gallipoli

  15

  Macedonia, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and East Africa

  26

  Germany

  1

  Other countries

  3

  Total

  1,643*

  * Including some 700 gardeners.

  None of these are employéd on exhumation duties, which are normally done by the Army. In the few cases, such as Macedonia, where exhumation is being done by the Commission, it is carried out by the employment of local labour. The salaries of the above amount approximately to £265,000 per annum. No reduction is likely in the near future.

  TRAMWAYS DISPUTE.
  Mr. WIGNALL(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the negotiations for an advance in wages of 12s. per week for men employéd in the tramways industry have broken down; whether he has been advised that since the last increase of wages was granted the cost of living has increased by 45 per cent., and now stands, according to figures issued by his own Department, at 176 per cent. above those

  2115
  for July, 1914; whether he is aware that the representatives of the workpeople offered to submit the question at issue to a Special Court of Arbitration and asked for a full investigation to be made in public into the whole of the circumstances; whether such suggestion of arbitration has been refused by tjie employérs' representatives; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid dislocation of the industry?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. This matter has been discussed by the National Joint Industrial Council for the Tramway Industry, and as far as I know is still before that body. I need hardly say that I should be ready to consider any representations whicb it may make to me if it desires to do so.
  Mr. WIGNALLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the private owners have withdrawn from the Council, and that now the Council is sustained only by the municipalities, and that yesterday the general machinery broke down by a refusal to carry out what is the order of this House; that failing agreement by mutual consent matters should be referred to arbitration or a court of inquiry? To that application the employérs have given an emphatic no; with a view to preventing this terrible strike which must of necessity follow, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Without the evidence fully before me I do not know that what I coidd at he moment say would be of help, and I would ask my hon. Friend not to press me to make a statement.
  Mr. A. SHORT: But is not the right hon. Gentleman going to take the necessary steps to bring these parties to gether, or are we going to allow the matter to take its course and the industry again to be dislocated; and is he aware that some 36 local authorities voted in favour of arbitration and 45 against, and that the 36 who desire arbitration employ a far greater number of men than the 45, and is it not a case for his interference?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I will do all I possibly can to bring the parties together. My hon. Friends and I are equally anxious that there shall not be a breakdown.

ASPERSIONS ON MEMBERS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES).
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter of privilege, to a very serious and libellous and intimidating statement which was made in the "Daily Mail" newspaper on Monday. I will be as brief as possible, because the facts are within the cognisance, I think, of nearly every Member of this House. A certain section of the Press has for a week past been engaged in publishing every day a list of Members who took a certain course and voted in favour of Government proposals on two days last week. I do not propose to allude to these cases of different papers. In some papers Members were called "wastrels," in others "wasters," and so on. [Interruption.] That is not the case which I wish to bring before the House. The case that I wish to bring before the House is the actual publication on 6th December, by the "Daily Mail," of two paragraphs in its leading article, both of which were of a very intimidatory nature.
I understand that it would not be in order for me to read them myself to the House, but I will hand them to the Clerk at the Table, so that he may read them before the House comes to a decision on this matter. At any rate, in both these excerpts the insinuation was made that eleven Members of this House had altered their vote owing to the intimidatory action of the "Daily Mail" newspaper. This House has from time immemorial most jealously guarded the honour of its Members and the privileges of this House and I submit that when this House has heard those paragraphs read, they will agree that this was an absolutely intimidatory attack upon certain Members of this House, and in being an attack upon their honour was, therefore, an attack upon the honour of all their colleagues in this House. I was not one of the Members concerned in that particular attack, but I think that, in view of the past history of this House in connection with newspaper articles, and in view of the growing abuse of the freedom of the Press which has been in vogue in recent times, that it is right to draw the attention of the House and of the country to this sort of tactics as regards certain Members of this House.

2117
I do not think this case is similar in any way to the case on the last occasion of this sort, which occurred in 1901, when the editor of the "Globe" newspaper was called to the Bar of this House to apologise for certain attack? which he had made upon the Nationalist party; but, although it is a different giound, it is a very strong ground. On that occasion the House, which, if I am not mistaken, was, as regards the majority, at any rate, hostile to the Nationalist party, backed up the Nationalist party in seeing that an apology was made, without any Division at all, although in that case it was simply an attack upon the Nationalist party. T submit that whatever our opinions may be about waste or extravagance, this House, at any rate, will support Members in defending themselves against unwarranted ' and unfair attacks of this nature. I do not propose to detain the House at any greater length, and I will therefore ask the Clerk at the Table to read the article? complained of.
Mr. SPEAKER: Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to conclude with a Motion?
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Yes.
Mr. SPEAKER: What are the terms?
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I was going to move it after the articles had been read.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to hear the terms of the Motion first.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The Motion I propose to move after these articles have been read is:
"That the passages in the articles in the ' Daily Mail ' newspaper of 6th December complained of constitute a grave breach of the privileges of this House."
Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry to have to take exception to this Motion, but it is really out of time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should have brought it forward on Monday. If he wishes to call the attention of the House to any breach of privilege "instantly arising," it must be brought at the earliest possible moment after the breach has been committed. I express no opinion as to whether there has or has not been a breach of privilege. It is still open to the hon. Member to raise it, but he must raise it in his own time. I could not accept a Motion of that
2118
sort now intervening before public business.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On a point of Order. Seeing that this article is written in a newspaper belonging to a Member of the other House of Parliament, is it not a breach of privilege for a Member of the other House of Parliament to impute motives and lack of honour to a Member of this House in the manner that has been done recently by Lord Northcliffe and Lord Rothermere? Would it be in order to move that Lords Rothermere and Northcliffe be compelled to attend at the Bar of this House, to apologise for the unfair and mean campaign carried on against the individual freedom of conscience of Members of this House in voting either for or against the Government?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down his Motion, and bring it forward in the ordinary way, there is nothing to prevent him.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask whether the fact that these articles complained of were published only the day before yesterday does not make the protest on this occasion within sufficient time, in view of the fact that it is only 48 hours after publication?
Mr. SPEAKER: The general rule of the House that has always been followed is that the matter must be dealt with instantly, and "instantly" means as soon as the House meets after the breach or the alleged breach of privilege has been committed.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the articles of a scandalous nature which have appeared in the 'Daily Mail' and other papers relating to the conduct of certain Members of this House."
The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this Evening.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to raise a point of Order, which I tried to put before this Motion was carried, with reference to ordering certain Members of another place to come to the Bar of this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: It would be better to discuss the whole matter at 8.15.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But this does not arise out of the Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER: The time to raise any question in connection with this general subject matter will be at 8.15.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:But does my question arise out of the Motion? It is a question of bringing Members of another place to the Bar of this House. Does that arise out of the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury? I do not gather that it does arise out of that Motion, and I think it would be out of order. I only ask the point of order with reference to Members of this House who own newspapers, and particularly the "Daily Chronicle," which have made vicious attacks on Members.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: May I ask the Leader of the House what business it is proposed to take to-day and on Friday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to take the first six Orders to-day.
On Friday the business will be the Roads Bill (Committee), the Gold and Silver Bill (Committee), the Government of India Draft Rules, and other Orders.
4.0 P.M.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will adopt this suggestion in the future with regard to Motions suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule? Hon. Members will notice that there is a Motion on the Paper referring to Government business, and Government business means starred items, and that means 19 of them. It would be a very
great convenience to all Members if, in putting a Motion down, the items were included to which it was intended to refer, so that Members before coming to the House would be able to see what Orders the Government propose to take.
Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a reasonable suggestion, and I think we can adopt it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Order No. 6 on the Paper refers to the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Compensation Bill. That is an important Bill, and there are many Amendments. Does the Leader of the House think it fair that that should be taken at one or two o'clock in the morning?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a Financial Resolution in connection with the Bill.
Sir F. BANBURY: Only a Financial Resolution?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Only that.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get the whole of the Report Stage of this very controversial Ministry of Health Bill before 5 a.m.?
Mr. BONAR LAW: What my hon. Friend has asked is what I hope. So the answer is in the affirmative.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to take the Air Navigation Bill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill is urgently required for the aircraft industry?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Not to-day.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:When?
Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as we can.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the. provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
The House divided: Ayes, 249: Noes, 60.

Division No. 389.]

AYES.

[4.15 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Armitage, Robert

Barlow, Sir Montague

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Barnston, Major Harry

Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

Atkey, A. R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Benn, Sir A. S. (Flymouth, Drake)

Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Bennett, Thomas Jewell

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Betterton, Henry B.

Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

Parker, James

Bigland, Alfred

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Pearce, Sir William

Blair, Reginald

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Biake, Sir Francis Douglas

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertlord, Watlord)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Brassey, Major H. L. C.

Hinds, John

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Breese, Major Charles E.

Hood, Joseph

Purchase, H. G.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Clckm'nn.W.)

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Briggs, Harold

Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

Randies, Sir John S.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hopkins, John W. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bruton, Sir James

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Remer, J. B.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Remnant, Sir James

Burn, Col. C. Ft. (Devon, Torquay)

Hurd, Percy A.

Rodger, A. K.

Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Rogers, Sir Hallewell

Butcher, Sir John George

Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Carew, Charles Robert S.

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Carr, W. Theodore

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

Jesson, C.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

Casey, T. w.

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Brldgeton)

Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

Johnstone, Joseph

Seager, Sir William

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Seddon, J. A.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Kidd, James

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Coats, Sir Stuart

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Simm, M. T.

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

Stanton, Charles B.

Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Starkey, Captain John R.

Cope, Major Wm.

Lindsay, William Arthur

Steel, Major S. Strang

Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lloyd, George Butler

Stevens, Marshall

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

Stewart, Gershom

Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Sutherland, Sir William

Curzon, Commander Viscount

Loseby. Captain C. E.

Taylor, J.

Davidson, J. C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

Lynn, R. J.

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

M'Guffin, Samuel

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Townley, Maximilian G.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Turton, E. R.

Donald, Thompson

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

Waddington, R.

Doyle, N. Grattan

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Edge, Captain William

Macquisten, F. A.

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Warren. Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Wason, John Cathcart

Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Whitla, Sir William

Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

Matthews, David

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

Flldes, Henry

Mitchell, William Lane

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

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Moles, Thomas

Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

Forrest, Walter

Morrison, Hugh

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Mosley, Oswald

Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

Gardiner, James

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Wolmer, Viscount

Gilbert, James Daniel

Neal, Arthur

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Rlpon)

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Goff, Sir R. Park

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

Grant, James A.

Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfleld)

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Greig, Colonel James William

Nield, Sir Herbert

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Gretton, Colonel John

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Young, Lleut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

Grltten, W. G. Howard

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

O'Neill Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (LIv'p'I.W.D'by)

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Briant, Frank

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormsklrk)

Cairns, John

Finney, Samuel

Bottomley, Horatio W.

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Glanville, Harold James

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

2122

2123

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Grundy, T. W.

Myers, Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hall. F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Tillett, Benjamin

Hallas, Eldred

Raffan, Peter Wilson

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Redmond, Captain William Archer

Wignall, James

Hayday, Arthur

Rendall, Athelstan

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Hirst, G. H.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Rose, Frank H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Royce, William Stapleton

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Irving, Dan

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Wintringham, T.

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

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Sitch, Charles H.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Spencer, George A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Morgan, Major D. Watts

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

Mr. Hogge and Mr. Neil Maclean.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, he added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Registrar-General (Scotland) Bill; Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill [Lords]); and Mr.Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill [Lords]): Sir Ernest Pollock.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Dye-stuffs (Import Regulation) Bill): Dr. Addison, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Major Barnes, Sir William Barton, Mr. Briggs Mr. Alfred Davies (Cli-theroe), Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, Sir Robert Home, Mr. Irving, Mr. Kellaway, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Marshall Stevens, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Mr. Wadding-ton, and Mr. Woolcock.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they bad discharged the following Members from
  2124
  Standing Committee B: Commander Bellairs, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Sir Arthur Fell, and Mr. Wallace; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Grattan Doyle, Lieut.-Colonel Pickering, Colonel Penry Williams, and Sir Thomas Robinson.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBEIITS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill): Dr. Addison; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rae.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Courtenay Warner; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Alexander Shaw.
  Reports to lie upon the Table

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.— (Application to Ireland.)
    This Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect with the following modifications:—
    (1) References to the Minister of Health or the Minister shall be construed as references to the Local Government Board for Ireland, and the reference to the Public Works Loans Commissioners shall be construed as a reference to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland:
    Provided that, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act with respect to treatment for incipient mental disorder, the Lord Lieutenant, or any officer or officers appointed by him for those purposes, shall be substituted for the Minister; and the references in the said provisions to the Lord Chancellor and to the Judge or Masters in Lunacy shall respectively be construed as references to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and to any Judge authorised to exercise jurisdiction with respect to lunatics, or the Registrar in Lunacy;
    (2) The references to the Sections of the Public Health Act, 1875, mentioned in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act shall be construed as references to the corresponding Sections of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919, mentioned in the second column of that Part of that Schedule;
    (3) References to Sections one and twentyeight of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919, shall respectively be construed as references to Sections one and twenty-three of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, and other references to the first-mentioned Act shall not apply; and the reference to the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, shall be construed as a reference to the Lunacy (Ireland) Acts, 1821 to 1901;
    (4) The expression "local authority" means:—

    (a) for the purposes of Part I. of this Act, the local authority within the meaning of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890;

    (b) for the purposes of the provisions of this Act with respect to the use of local authorities' premises by Government Departments and other authorities, the council of a county or district;

    2160

    (c) for all other purposes of thi? Act, the sanitary authority;

    (5) Where a petition has been presented under Section six of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, respecting a portion only of a Provisional Order made by an inspector of the Local Government Board for Ireland, that Board may divide the Order into two Orders, and the new Order containing the portion of the original Order to which the petition does not relate may be confirmed in like manner as an Order in respect of which no petition has been presented, and the new Order containing the portion of the original Order to which the petition relates may be confirmed or disallowed in pursuance of the said Section;
    (6) The council of a county shall have power to resolve that an annual sum, of such amount as they may determine with tho approval of the Local Government Board for Ireland, shall bo raised off their county to be paid as a salary to tho surgeon of the county infirmary; and the limit imposed upon the amount of any such salary by Section eighty-six of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, as adapted by the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order, 1899, is hereby repealed;
    (7) It is hereby declared that the limitation in Section seventy of the Dublin Police Act, 1842, in paragraph (4) of Section ten of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, or in any similar enactment, does not apply to proceedings for the recovery of sums certified to be due by the auditor at the audit of the accounts of any public body within the meaning of Section twenty-three of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902;
    (8) Notwithstanding anything in Section fifty-two of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, but without prejudice to any judgment obtained under that Section, any provision in a contract of tenancy entered into since the passing of that Act and before the passing of this Act imposing on the landlord a liability for or in respect of poor rate shall be deemed to be valid;
    (9) The provisions of this Act specified in Part II. of the Second Schedule thereto shall not apply to Ireland and in the application under this Act of Section ninety-five of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, to districts in Ireland the reference to highway purposes shall be omitted from that Section.—[Mr. D. M. Wilson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. M. Wilson): I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

    2161
    The main provisions of this Clause provide machinery to enable the benefits given under this Bill to be applied to Ireland. The Bill, as originally drafted, applied to Ireland, as any hon. Member will see by looking at the last Clause which expressly says that it shall not apply to Scotland. The machinery in the Bill, however, refers to the Ministry of Health for England and to Acts of Parliament which are probably English Acts. In Ireland we have corresponding Acts of Parliament to enable the provisions of the Public Health to be carried out there, and we have the Local Government Board which takes the place of the Minister of Health in this country. The first four Sub-sections and Sub-section (9) of this Clause are entirely machinery. Unfortunately, when I moved this Clause in Committee upstairs, we had arrived at a rather late hour on Thursday night, and it was absolutely essential that the Minister should get the Bill through that night and have it printed, so that it could come before the House to-day and be considered on Report. I met with opposition from various quarters of the Committee, but I believe that opposition was entirely due to a misunderstanding, because I do not think, if the facts were really understood, that any hon. Member would refuse to give to Ireland the machinery to carry out the benefits which have been given to England under this Bill.
    Last year we passed an Act giving powers for additional housing both in England and Ireland, and in that Act a grant from the public funds not exceeding £15,000,000 was authorised to carry out those powers. Ireland has contributed her share to that grant of £15,000,000, just as well as England, and is therefore entitled to be enabled to spend her share on the provision of public health and additional housing advantages so as to bring about the results desired by the Minister of Health, just the same as England. Therefore, the provisions of this Clause are really to enable us to carry out in Ireland the benefits that you have conferred upon yourselves and Ireland by this Bill. We have not the machinery for carrying out those benefits unless you give us this Clause. Those remarks refer to the first four Sub-sections and to Subsection (9) of this Clause. We say that references to the Minister of Health shall
    2162
    be construed as references to the Local Government Board for Ireland, and that references to the Public Works Loans Commissioners shall be construed as references to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. There are other similar matters in the first four Sub-sections. With regard to Sub-section (5), when schemes are promoted in Ireland, we have very often one person, whose property is affected, putting in a petition of appeal against the scheme. Under the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, the whole scheme is hung up until that petition of appeal, which possibly applies only to a minute portion of the scheme is heard and decided. Under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, which enables us to house the working-classes in rural districts under a different system entirely and which is financed from a different source, we have found it necessary, expedient, and very useful, where a petition applies to only a portion of the scheme, and the rest of the scheme is unobjected to by anyone, that we should be able to put in force that portion of the scheme to which nobody objects and have merely the portion to which objection is taken held over until the matter is decided. With regard to Sub-section (6), under an old Act of 1836 the surgeons of our county infirmaries were paid a salary of £75 a year, and the object of this Sub-section is to enable the county council to increase that sum. With regard to Sub-section (7), there is a provision in our Summary Jurisdiction Acts, both in Dublin and in the counties, that proceedings before the magistrates for the recovery of certified sums must be taken within six months. We ask for an extension of that time, to enable us to take those proceedings before the Petty Sessions or before police magistrates, as that is a cheaper mode of procedure than going to the High Court.
    Sub-section (8) relates to the incidenoe of rates, and remedies a real injustice. The main principle of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 was that, where councils were elected to govern local matters in Ireland, the rated occupiers who elected the councils or corporations should have the burden placed upon them of any increase in rates, and there is a Section in that Act which makes absolutely void any contract entered into by the tenant with the

    2163
    landlord that the rates shall be deducted from the rent. Although that was clearly the law, and was done for a perfectly good purpose, yet such is the inveterate conservatism of some people in Ireland that the landlords continued to let their premises to tenants under the old system and to agree to pay the rates. Eventually a case was brought to the House of Lords this year, and the Lords said that, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord had agreed to pay the rates, the agreement was void, and the tenant, in addition to paying the rent, would have to pay the rates. Sub-section (8) of this new Clause does away with that injustice to the tenant, so that, where tenants and landlords have entered into these agreements since 1898—perhaps without knowing the law—the landlords will have to keep their agreements and pay the rates, and not put the burden upon the tenants. I would ask hon. Members who may have opposed me in Committee to grant me this Clause, because it appears to me to be absolutely just.
    Captain REDMOND: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General one or two questions as to which I am still not quite clear. First of all, I should like to know what proportion of this £15,000,000, which is supposed to be allocated for the purpose of the last Housing Act, is to be available for Ireland. I should also like to ask whether, if this Clause is not put into this present Bill, the result will be that the previous Act will be inoperative in Ireland, and whether we are to understand that the Sub-section with regard to contracts for payment of rates by landlords refers only to previous contracts, or means that in all future contracts the landlords shall be bound to pay the rates.
    Colonel NEWMAN: To my mind it seems rather curious that, within a few weeks of the passing of a Government of Ireland Bill, such a Clause as this should be introduced. The Solicitor-General told us that he was unfortunate in the Committee, of which I was not a member. He said that he came in too late, but it seems to me that here he has come in too early. We really ought to consider this particular Clause after we have considered the whole of this Bill on Report. I quite admit that it is an important Clause, but it is not the whole Bill, or
    2164
    anything like it, nor has it anything to do with the Amendments which may be carried here in this House against the Committee. By the casting vote of the Chairman, a Clause enabling the members of local authorities to be paid for their services was deleted in the Committee, and I understand that certain hon. Members are going to move the insertion of a similar Clause in the Bill at this stage. If that is carried, it will make a great difference to the Bill and to the expenses of the ratepayers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: To relieve the hon. and gallant M'ember's mind, I may say that that Clause will be out of order on Report.
    Colonel NEWMAN: I am very glad to hear that. It removes a great danger in the application of this Bill to Ireland. This Bill, although it may have been asked for in England, Scotland, and Wales, is not asked for in Ireland, and it seems to me that, within such a comparatively short distance of giving Ireland its own Governments in the North and in the South, it would be better to let them agree to the provision of a Ministry of Health, and not to impose this measure upon them.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I want to draw the attention of the House to the way in which this Clause is drawn up. It makes it absolutely impossible for any man, unless he spends, I should say, three or four hours in looking up authorities, to get the slightest idea of what the Minister of Health wants to do. I would ask the House for a moment to read with me Subsections (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) says:
    "The references to the Sections of the Public Health Act, 1875, mentioned in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act shall be construed as references to the corresponding Sections of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919, mentioned in the second column of that Part of that Schedule."
    Does anyone in this House really know what that means? Possibly there may be skilled lawyers who have some knowledge of it, but I am certain that no ordinary Member of this House knows what it means, or could possibly find out without spending at least an hour in looking up the Sections referred to. Then Subsection (3) says:
    "References to Sections one and twenty-eight of the Housing, Town Planning, &c.,

    2165
    Act, 1919, shall respectively be construed as references to Sections one and twenty-three of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, and other references to the first-mentioned Act shall not apply; and the reference to the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, shall be construed as a reference to the Lunacy (Ireland) Acts, 1821 to 1901."
    Therefore, you have to look at the Lunacy Acts relating to Ireland over a period of 80 years in order to get the slightest idea of what this Sub-section means. The same thing applies to Subsections (7) and (8). It is clearly impossible for hon. Members who are busy men to devote their time to digging out and mugging up these authorities, and it is about time that the House of Commons made a definite stand and refused to pass any Clause which embodies such legislation by reference. Till that is done, the Government and their legal advisers will continue to put Clauses before us in this form, containing things of which we have not the slightest idea; and when, after they are passed, it becomes apparent that things have been done of which the House does not approve, the Government will say, as they have done in the past, that the House passed them, and therefore cannot repeal them. I feel so strongly about this Clause that, if any other hon. Member will divide against it with me, I will go to a Division on it—not because I have the slightest objection to the Clause, for I have no idea what it means, but because I object to this slipshod way of passing legislation.
    Sir E. CARSON: I have a great deal of sympathy with the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just addressed the House. Indeed, I myself, during this Session, have drawn attention on more than one occasion to the increasing burden which is put upon Members in regard to understanding Bills. I do not believe that there has ever been a Session in which there has been more legislation by reference. This controversy has been going on in this House ever since I came into it twenty-eight years ago, and I remember, on one occasion, the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain ridiculing the whole system of legislation by reference, and paraphrasing "The house that Jack built," by saying, "This is the Act that repeals the Act that sets up the Act," and so on. That has been increasing year by year. I do not believe
    2166
    that there is any other Legislature that does its work in the same way. If we were a business-like Assembly, which we never pretend to be, we should do what is done in some of our Colonial Legislatures, and was done for a little while here, that is to say, whenever you set out a Section to an Act which has been incorporated, it should be furnished to the House in the White Paper or in some sort of appendix to the Bill. Until that is done, it will be impossible for Members to examine these Clauses in the way in which they ought to be examined. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that he could do this in an hour. I could not. While, however, I have not the slightest hope that we are going to get away from this method of dealing with Bills, I hope that the House will not make its first effort at resentment on this Clause relating to Ireland. I myself, when the original Ministry of Health Bill was before the House, pressed the Government very strongly to set up a Public Health Department in Ireland, and it was only through my irritating my right hon. friend on every occasion that I could in the House, that, eventually, the Government agreed to set up a Public Health Department in Ireland. In the same way as this Bill brings in Amendments as regards the Public Health in England, so this Clause necessarily refers to a different series of Acts, which correspond to the Acts which apply in this country. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Ashley) says, and I do not wonder at it, that he does not know what those Acts are, but all that this Clause says is that, in construing this Bill in relation to Ireland, its provisions are to apply, not to the English Acts, but to that series of Irish Acts.
    I think it would be a pity if the housing scheme, for instance, was not to go along smoothly by removing the difficulties which the Solicitor-General has already stated. May I say with reference to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford that the point he puts is entirely to relieve the tenants. What happened was that an Act of Parliament made the Poor Rates payable by the tenants. It had been the habit in Ireland in many contracts to make them payable by the landlord, and they went on drawing their contracts as if the Bill making them payable by the tenants had never been passed. The matter

    2167
    came before the Courts, and they held that by reason of the passing of the Act the contract by the landlord to pay the Poor Rates was invalid, and therefore the tenants would have to pay. That was taken to the House of Lords, who affirmed the judgment. This Clause put in here is to relieve the tenants. Whether it be a past or a future contract which puts the Poor Rates on the landlord, under this Section the landlord must pay, notwithstanding the previous legislation on the subject. I am not going to take up the time of the House in going through these matters in detail, but so far as I am able to judge, and I gather I am right from the speech of the Solicitor-General, this Clause does nothing more than apply to the machinery existing in Ireland, by proper nomination of particular Acts under which they work, the provision of certain clauses of this Bill. For my own part, I think it would be a misfortune if the House were to refuse this relief to Ireland, notwithstanding the fact that it comes down here so late in the Session.
    Captain REDMOND: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor-General if he can answer me on the two points I raised? I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Member (Sir Edward Carson) for having enlightened me upon the meaning of this Sub-Clause, and certainly from the information he has conveyed to me, I shall myself support it. May I also say, in regard to the general application of this Bill to Ireland, if, as I understand from the Solicitor-General's explanation, these Clauses are necessary in order to make the previous Housing Act workable in Ireland, and if these Clauses are also necessary to enable Ireland to enjoy her probable portion of this £15,000,000, I certainly will support the Clause. My only objection to the whole Bill and to this Clause is that they are not generous enough in their treatment of Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is making a second speech.
    Captain REDMOND: May I ask the Solicitor-General for a reply?
    Major O'NEILL: Would it not be better for hon. Members to say what they have got to say and allow the Solicitor-General to reply later?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is so.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: My right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Duncairn, agrees that there are grave objections to legislation by reference, but apparently the right hon. Gentleman is prepared in this case to overlook these objections on account of the excellent things to be found in this Bill. I am afraid my right hon. Friend has not studied it very carefully. Without entering into the merits of this new Clause, I would point out that it very considerably ties our our hands with regard to what will follow in the Bill. If we are to pass this Clause as it stands I think it would be possible to cut out Clause 8 to which many of us seriously object, and which we consider a dangerous interference with the Lunacy Laws as they now stand. For these reasons I hesitate very much before agreeing to this Clause. Not only do I think it will bring very great trouble to Ireland, and not only do I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Duncairn has not given adequate study to all the dangerous provisions of this Bill, which he thinks just in some ways, but I also object to the Clause because I think it ties the hands of the House when it comes to deal with those very objectionable Clauses—Clause 8 and Clause 9.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. If we pass this Clause in the form in which it stands on the Paper, would we be prevented from eliminating or largely modifying Clause 8 and Clause 9 of the Bill as they now stand?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House can strike them out altogether.
    Major O'NEILL: In answer to what my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) has just said, and with reference to your ruling, Sir, we are anxious that certain provisions of this Bill should apply to Ireland. For instance, Clause 2, which is the Clause which extends by one year the time during which a subsidy may be paid to a private builder. There are various other Clauses in this Bill which we think it would be an advantage to extend to Ireland, but that does not in the least prevent us or any other hon. Members of this House, when considering the Clauses in detail, from striking out any Clause which we think we would be

    2169
    better without. The reason I rose was to criticise this Clause more for what it leaves out than for what it contains. I have down an Amendment to this Clause, and perhaps it might be more convenient if I stated on the Second Reading of the Clause now what are the main principles which lead me to move that Amendment, and when the time Gomes for it to be moved, I shall only move it formally. The objection I have to this Clause is that it does not remedy what is the prime defect with regard to the Housing scheme in Ireland, in so far as it has gone up to the present. Under the scheme in Section 1 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, which gave grants to private builders, the rural areas in Ireland were excluded. The reason of that was that the definition of the words "local authority" in respect of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, a definition which dates back to the Housing Act, 1890, does not include rural authorities, consequently, the result has been that the grants payable to private builders have been payable only in respect of houses actually built within the boundaries of urban authorities.
    The position in many urban districts in Ireland is that there is a crying need for houses—as great as or greater than the need in this country. Some of the large cities and some of the small towns have found when they came to put their scheme before the Local Government Board that the condition which the Local Government Board laid down as regards the number of houses to be built to the acre, and so on, had to be applied. They found that there was literally no room within the urban area for the building of the houses they wanted to put up for the benefit of the urban population. The only way to get these houses built is by aid of this grant to private builders, and what I suggest to the Government is this, that the rural district councils should be empowered to give certificates under which a subsidy to private builders can be paid in respect of houses built in their areas which are outside the urban areas. That will be the only way in which it will be possible to relieve the housing break-down, which, I am sorry to say, has undoubtedly occurred throughout Ireland since the Housing Act was passed.
    2170
    5.0 P.M.
    We do not ask for any extra money, we do not ask for a penny more from the British Treasury. All we ask is that the proper share of this £15,000,000 already allocated for the payment of grants to private builders should be made payable in respect of houses erected for the working classes, and you will not get it until you allow the neighbouring rural areas to participate in the way I have indicated. This is not an unreasonable amendment. It is a matter upon which there is intense feeling throughout the whole of Ireland, and I feel sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will support me. I believe that in Dublin it will make a tremendous difference if we could get the rural authorities just outside the city boundaries to give grants, and it is the same way in many parts of Ulster, Cork, and other places. Nearly every town in Ireland, large and small, will benefit to a tremendous extent without one penny extra charge beyond what is due to them from the Exchequer. The Housing scheme in Ireland, I am sorry to say, has largely broken down. Sometimes I feel ashamed when I remember the promises I made in my election speeches in 1918 when I referred to the Housing Bill which this Government was going to bring in, because in my constituency, which contains one large town where there is a considerable industrial population, they took an enormous interest in the housing question, and I made many speeches upon it, and I told the people that as the result of legislation foreshadowed by the Government they were going to get better houses and something was really going to materialise. It has not materialised; the scheme has largely broken down, but it can even now be saved if the Solicitor-General will agree to the spirit of my Amendment, allow rural authorities to make these grants and put the main responsibility for constructing houses upon the private builder, and then there will be a chance that housing in Ireland can really make a satisfactory start.
    Mr. LORDEN: I rise for quite a different reason. After spending eight days in the Committee these Clauses were brought on in the very last few minutes of the sitting, and we extended the time considerably on purpose to have them discussed. It seems to me to be quite a

    2171
    breach of the undertaking that the Leader of the House gave on this very Bill when he said:
    "We will not ask the House on Report to reverse the decisions which have been come to by the Committee. I do not think it is possible for us to meet more completely the wishes of the House than I have done."
    The right hon. Gentleman also said it was not a suitable Bill for an Autumn Session. Here is a Bill full of controversy. We are asked to put in these new Clauses and to sit here till the small hours of the morning, and probably to-morrow, on purpose to discuss these things as a matter of urgency. I protest against these new Clauses being put in after we have had a pledge from the Leader of the House like this. It was a distinct and emphatic pledge. This matter was withdrawn from the Committee simply and solely because the Committee had discussed all the other items. Now we are asked on Report to put in all these new Clauses. I feel it is not in the spirit of the undertaking which was given to the Committee, and I press that these new Clauses should be withdrawn. I would not take anything at all from Ireland; in fact, I should be quite willing to give everything to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) says in every other case, "Do not have any legislation by reference, but only in the case of Ireland."
    Major O'NEILL: No.
    Mr. LORDEN: I cannot help but feel that that is a great pity, because up to a certain point we were all with him. I think I am entitled to make this protest, after the strong undertaking given by the Leader of the House, and this undoubtedly is a breach of that undertaking.
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: The hon. Member seems to have forgotten that this Bill, as it was introduced, refers to Ireland, and that it is absolutely necessary to have this Clause, because we must modify it to apply it to Ireland. Most of the references which are made in the various Clauses refer to objects which are applicable both to England and Ireland, and if these modifications are not made a legal absurdity will be perpetrated. It is evident that the Bill in the first instance refers to Ireland, and if Clauses are not inserted which make it applicable to Ireland it is absurd. It is essential that
    2172
    at some stage of the Bill these modifications must be introduced.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether, if this Clause were defeated, the Bill would not automatically apply to Ireland. I can see nothing in the Bill as amended saying that it shall not apply to Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill does apply to Ireland, but I understand, in order to make it more intelligible in its application to Ireland, it is desirable to introduce this Clause.
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: That is really the point I wanted to make. I hope the House will see that it is absolutely necessary to have these modification Clauses so that the Bill, in its original state, may be applicable to Ireland. Otherwise it would be absolutely unworkable.
    Captain ELLIOT: The only point I wish to mention is on the hospitals Clause. The Minister upstairs told us that the undertaking to have an inquiry into the hospital system would not apply to Ireland, and I would ask the Solicitor-General whether between now and the time of that Clause coming up he cannot have the matter looked into. It seems there will be a necessity for an inquiry into hospital accommodation in Ireland. I merely rise to ask if, when that Clause comes on, he would give some such undertaking to the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask a question from the English point of view. In this Bill the housing subsidy for houses built in Ireland is extended to two years if we pass the main Bill. This Clause says:
    "This Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect with the following modifications."
    I have read the Clause, through carefully, and I should say at a first glance that the housing subsidy will apply to Ireland. I think that is most extraordinary. For two years we are to pay a subsidy on houses built in Ireland, while a Bill has passed this House, and is going through another place, giving self-government to Ireland. For one thing, that would modify the whole of the financial arrangements come to in this place.
    Major O'NEILL: It would not make any difference.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I shall vote against this Clause. I dare

    2173
    say hon. Members from Ireland on both sides of the House are agreed that it is very nice to get money from us to subsidise their houses.
    Captain REDMOND: I protest that it is not money from England. It is money subscribed by the Irish as well as the English taxpayers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very sorry if I have in any way hurt the hon. and gallant Gentleman's feelings. I do not mind how much I hurt the feelings of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. COOTE: And we care less.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I protest against our legislating for the expenditure of even Irish money on Irish housing. I am afraid in practice it will come to be getting a subsidy out of us. The housing part of this Clause is ridiculous, and I protest against it. There is another part of the Housing Clauses in the main Bill—compulsory hiring of dwelling-houses. Surely that is a thing we might leave to the Irish governing body themselves. I protest most strongly -against our applying this part of the Bill to Ireland at all. I do not consider that we ought to be legislating for the domestic concerns of Ireland in any way at all, and especially by means of complicated Clauses by reference which even the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) admits he cannot follow. From an English point of view I think the Bill ought to have been recommitted as regards this Clause. In Committee it was brought in at the last moment. No one understands it except the Solicitor-General himself, and I dare say it takes him all his time, and I protest as strongly as I can against both the Clause and the Amendment which has been referred to. I am in favour of leaving the Irish to settle their own affairs, and especially when it comes to a subsidy from this House I shall protest by voting against it.
    Mr. COOTE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is labouring under an entire misapprehension when he states that we are coming here as Irish Members for a subsidy from this House. We have already got our just rights under the old Bill. The money grant was given to the United Kingdom and we have got our part; but in order to make this applicable to our peculiar needs we want certain
    2174
    Amendments in reference to the housing scheme. The money that is going to Ireland is money that belongs to Ireland, so that we are not here to take anything from the House but what is our just due, and I think the House is willing to give us our just due. They have given us our due. Now we want them to go a little further and we want the machinery amended so that we may put the money to the proper use for which it was granted by the House. That is the whole trouble with us.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Member really want power from us to interfere with buildings in each locality? That is what he is asking for. Does he want that sort of power from us?
    Mr. COOTE: I was just coming to that. There are two schemes under which we can build houses outside urban districts; one is by utility societies. Many of us are in the manufacturing interest and wish to see colonies grow up here and there outside the urban centres. When we come to develop our industries we find we are up against a famine of houses, and we either have to build them out of our own pockets, which is prohibitive at a time like this, or we must build them through utility societies. There is a rule in all utility society schemes that they will only acknowledge the original tenant of a house as the owner of the house for all time, and the original tenant of the house under utility schemes in Ireland has to put up sufficient money under the scheme in order to get the advantage of it. Therefore there is a deadlock so far as utility societies are concerned. The other scheme is that of labourers' cottages under the rural districts scheme; but these cottages will not be given to the artisan population. They are only for agricultural labourers. This is denned by Statute, and when we who are interested in the development of the country apply to the local Board for some assistance it is withheld. Besides even from the point of view of the labourers' cottages, of which more ought to be built— there is £1,000,000 granted for it—the restrictions are such that owing to the cost of building the local councils will not build, that in the face of all these adverse circumstances we ask the House to give to individuals the same power you have in England, that house-

    2175
    holders, and those who wish to be householders, can put up their houses and get a certificate from the local authority that they have complied with the Statute and get the usual bonus. This is the great advantage which we consider will be conferred upon the people of Ireland by the application of these rules propounded by the Solicitor-General, together with the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill). We want the machinery to allow us to make proper use of this money.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I do not know how we stand in regard to this Bill. We have been told by the Govern ment, repeatedly, that it is necessary that the Irish should be able to deal with their own affairs and bo finance their own local affairs as far as possible. I have always deprecated that idea until a few years ago, but conditions have changed. Surely there are some points under which it is perfectly hopeless to endeavour, as we are doing in this Clause, to apply this Act to Ireland. The first Clause in the Bill gives power to hire dwelling-houses for the housing of the working classes. The condition of affairs in Ireland to-day renders it impossible to occupy houses in certain districts. Many houses are compulsorily vacated. Under this Bill would you be able to acquire those houses, and to use them for the housing of the working classes when they are not occupied, mainly or largely owing to—
    Captain REDMOND: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. and gallant Member making a Second Reading speech? He is now discussing the question whether this Bill shall apply to Ireland, and you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that even if this Clause does not pass the Bill will apply to Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill does apply to Ireland. The only country to which it does not apply is Scotland. This Clause is to elucidate some part of the Bill in its relation to Ireland, as I understand the administration is not the same in the two countries.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I agree as regards the main ruling, but the point which I wish to elucidate was how the Government can bring this parti-
    2176
    cular Clause into operation in Ireland, and I was giving a simple instance of the difference in conditions, and why as regards this Clause I conceive that it would have been far better to deal with Ireland entirely separately, just as you are dealing with Scotland. Another objection to-this Clause at the present time is that as I read it the Sub-sections (1), (3), (4) and (9) deal entirely with machinery. They give additional machinery and additional powers for applying this Bill to Ireland. In Sub-section (6) you have the power given to the county councils to raise sums to be paid in salaries. The whole of this Clause is tending to impose a charge and an additional burden upon the Irish people. If we take it as conclusive that they will pay their share—and I see practically every Irish Member present agreeing that at any rate the British taxpayer in general will not be overburdened in this respect—I would like to know very clearly how much and what these charges are likely to amount to. In bringing Ireland into this Bill, what was the meaning of the Government I We have just passed a Home Rule Bill through this House, to which many of us are pledged entirely, and when we are dealing with legislation affecting housing or land I maintain that we ought to confine the Bill to England and to leave Ireland to deal with these matters as one of the first pieces of legislation in the new Parliament that is to be set up. I think the Government should have left Ireland out of the Bill entirely.
    Mr. MOLES: You have frequently ruled, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is applicable to Ireland, and it has been frequently stated that the need for houses in Ireland is just as claimant and as desperate, and in some cases more so, than it is in England. Therefore, I should have thought that there would be no opposition to an Amendment. Because of changes in the cost of material and labour the Housing Act in Ireland has broken down, just as the Housing Act broke down in this country. You have had to come to the House and to seek Amendments of the original measure, in order that you might make your former Act workable, and in precisely the same way we have had to come here and to seek Amendments in corresponding detail in order that the Act may be worked in precisely the same way in Ireland. Does the hon. Member

    2177
    (Lieut.-Commander Williams) intend the Act to remain a dead-letter in Ireland or not? I say to him and any other opponents that if you do not, your hostility and your obstinacy is not understandable, but if you wish to act justly and fairly towards us, and if you wish to see the Act workable and operative you will require to amend the provisions of the original Act in the way we suggest.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) made a hopelessly-mistaken point when he sought to inspire horror on the Benches opposite at the suggestion that Irishmen are coming here to plunder the pockets of Englishmen. We are here in no such capacity. We are here, very respectfully, to remind you that we pay our just debt as taxpayers, just as you do, and just as we contribute our common share to the Exchequer so, as a matter of fair justice, we have certain claims upon that purse. That is all we are claiming, and nothing more. What we ask is that you shall amend the machinery so that the machine for the construction of houses in Ireland shall work. That, and nothing else, is our proposal. Do not run away with any fantastic idea that we are here to plunder your pockets, or that this scheme can be hung up in the air until an Irish Parliament is operative. We have as good a right to housing now as you have, and you have no right to set up a fictitious argument of that kind for the purpose of delaying this measure.
    Dr. MURRAY: I wish to contradict a statement made by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Lorden) with respect to this Clause. I was a Member of the Committee, on the Bill and I was one of those who urged that this Clause should be postponed and taken up on Report, and the general understanding on the Committee was that that should be done.
    Mr. LORDEN: What I said was, that this is a definite breach of the undertaking which was given by the Leader of the House when the Financial Clause of the Bill was under consideration, that anything that was not carried through Committee would not be pressed on Report. Now we get this new Clause. I am objecting to that undertaking not being carried out.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Upstairs the whole of the Committee, including, I
    2178
    believe, the hon. Member (Mr. Lorden), agreed that this matter should be raised on Report.
    Dr. MURRAY: I do not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Paddington affects this Clause at all, because this Clause simply elucidates and makes plain the meaning of the Clause which will make this Bill applicable to Ireland. Therefore, in essence, it is not a new Clause I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Moles) in what he said. So long as we are responsible for having anything to do with the government of Ireland, I maintain that Ireland should be treated as fairly as England or Scotland. I notice that the only time hon. Members from Ireland join hands is on the golden bridge.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (4, a), to insert the words:
    "provided that, for the purpose of granting certificates under Section one, Sub-section (2), paragraph (6), of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses constructed within a fixed distance (to be specified by Order in Council) from the boundary of an urban authority, the council of a rural district shall be deemed to be within such meaning."
    In the remarks I made on the Second Reading of the Clause, I stated the objects of my Amendment, and I will now merely read the paragraph as it would stand when my Amendment has been inserted.
    The expression "local authority" means—
    (a) for the purposes of Part I of this Act, the local authority within the meaning of Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890: provided that, for the purpose of granting certificates under Section one, Sub-section (2), paragraph (6), of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses constructed within a fixed distance (to be specified by Order in Council) from the boundary of an urban authority, the council of a rural district shall be deemed to be within such meaning."
    That is, within the meaning of the local authority.
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I beg to second the Amendment. There are many urban districts in Ireland so congested that

    2179
    they are unable to take advantage of the money that Parliament has granted to them. The Local Government Board must be satisfied that the schemes submitted to them are of a certain character and description; more particularly must they be satisfied with regard to the number of houses per acre. The result of that is that urban districts have forwarded schemes to the Local Government Board which for that reason they have rejected. The Local Government Board then require the urban districts to provide further schemes which will come up to their idea and satisfy them as to the number of houses to the acre. These urban districts are so congested that it is impossible to find land inside the urban boundary so as to conform to the Regulations of the Local Government Board. This Amendment seeks to provide that rural authorities shall in such cases be enabled to undertake work which urban authorities cannot undertake owing to the congested state of their districts. Some excuse may be made with regard to the money question, but as has already been stated under the Additional Power Housing Act, Clause 2 of which refers to Ireland, the aggregate amount of grants to be made for the purpose of the preceding section of this Act shall not exceed £15,000,000. So the United Kingdom has the moral right to spend £15,000,000 for this purpose. Ireland, of course, being still part of the United Kingdom, has its quota of that sum and is entitled to spend it. It is impossible for very many of the urban areas to spend any portion of that sum, and consequently the provision of workers' houses in urban districts broke down absolutely. The result is that the money to which we are entitled as part of the £15,000,000 cannot be spent in urban areas, and all we ask is that that sum may be spent in rural areas. There is no fresh principle involved and no additional grant from the Exchequer is necessary, and it is a way out of a very serious difficulty in the provision of workers' houses in Ireland. Another reason for objecting to this may be that we have in Ireland something which they have not in England—the Labourers Acts. These Acts refer only to certain classes of people.
    Mr. O'CONNOR:They have been enlarged.
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: They have been enlarged to some extent. At first they were applicable only to labourers, but it was found that in many districts in Ireland where industries, such as hand loom weaving, were carried on in the homes of the people, the houses were very bad, and the Acts were extended to include individuals who were engaged in any industry in rural districts. But that does not meet the need for the artisans in towns to be supplied with houses. As they cannot find room in urban areas they must overflow into rural areas, and this is only a question of the use of money which has been voted. It is not a question of generosity: it is purely a question of the adaptation of the powers already granted and the use of the money already voted. Unless something like this is done we shall be without working-class houses in certain urban districts. The need for the provision of working-class houses in Ireland is very acute. This is one solution of the difficulty, and I hope that the House will consider the Amendment in a sympathetic way.
    Mr. D. M. WILSON: I regret on behalf of the Government that I cannot accept this Amendment. I doubt whether it is possible to raise the matter on Report. We have in Ireland a most admirable system for supplying dwellings for persons who are earning wages in rural districts. But the problem in this case is to provide houses for people living in urban districts, and the only authority in relation to that matter who are the authority who have to deal with it are the urban councils, who are the certifying authority with regard to any of these schemes as to whether they are properly carried out or not. My Friends want the Government to allow the rural district councils to put forward schemes in the interest of the inhabitants of urban districts and to certify them. The grant, which is for £15,000,000, is for the purpose of enabling these houses to be built. If you enable persons instead of building inside an urban area to build outside in a rural area and get a certificate from the rural district council, you will have a greater outlet for the expenditure of public money than was contemplated under the Act of 1919, and increase the drain upon our share of the £15,000,000 in so far as that outlet goes. Therefore the Treasury think that this is not a matter that can be dealt with on Report. In addition,

    2181
    this Amendment is of no use even if it were adopted, because the Treasury is judge of whether that would not be the result.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whit-fey): I must deal with that point. I understand it to be stated with the authority of the Treasury behind it that this Amendment would involve a new spending power which would mean more money spent in the current year.
    Mr. WILSON: That is practically so.
    Mr. MOLES: On the pointof Order. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Allen) has pointed out that that is not so, that the sum to be disbursed has already been voted by this House, and that what is asked is the creation of new machinery to facilitate the disbursement of that sum so voted.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House, I understand, has assented to the provision that a certain sum not exceeding £15,000,000 may be spent on certain purposes. We are now on the Report Stage of the Bill, and if the proposal were shown to involve greater spending power even within the permissible limits it is not a thing that could be done at this stage. That is the point which I would like the Solicitor-General to make clear to me.
    Mr. WILSON: That is quite so. The grant under the Act of 1919 shall not exceed £15,000,000, and the only locality in which that grant can be made use of is inside the urban area. The effect of this Amendment would be to enable some of that money to be spent in a rural area and outside the urban area. Therefore it would give a greater outlet for spending the money than was contemplated when the grant was given.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: You could not go beyond the amount.
    Mr. WILSON: You could not exceed the £15,000,000. I am only trying to explain the view of the Treasury and the financial authorities. I want to make it quite clear that the grant shall not exceed £15,000,000 for the United Kingdom. Ireland is entitled to a certain share. That grant can only be spent on subsidising houses built toy private persons within an urban area.
    2182
    The effect of this Amendment and the subsequent Amendment would be to enable that money to be spent in a rural area outside an urban area, and therefore to give a greater opportunity of spending the money which would be allocated to Ireland under the grant. Therefore they consider that that will be putting an additional burden or giving a greater opportunity for putting an additional burden on a public fund.
    Mr. MOLES: I can speak with some confidence on this point as I happened to be on the Committee of the original Housing Bill. It was then that the Financial Resolution was taken. At that period this was the position contemplated and provided for in the Financial Resolution, that one or other of these two bodies, namely, an urban local authority or a rural local authority should have power to sanction housing schemes, but as matters went on this new point came in, and it was held that an urban authority was not entitled to empower a housing scheme where the houses were to be built outside the urban boundaries. Then recourse was had to the rural authorities in whose area the site of the houses was proposed to be. This is where the Treasury and my right hon. Friend came into the picture. They said the urban authorities cannot and the rural authorities we will not permit, and in that way a sum of money which was originally contemplated to be spent under the authority of either of these bodies is deliberately withheld from both. They may have it one of two ways. They are not entitled to have it both ways. My point is this. Either they must concede the right to the urban authorities to go over their boundaries and have the houses erected there, or concede what is in this proposal, the right to the rural authorities to issue a certificate, and we make that claim all the more confidently by reason of this. The rural authority, in virtue of the new property being in its area, would have so much additional revenue brought to it by increased valuation and local taxation in respect of the new property; and I respectfully say that at this late hour it is fair neither of the Treasury nor of the right hon. Gentleman to take this step against us.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Having given the best consideration I can to the subject on the spur of the moment, I have come

    2183
    to the conclusion that the position is not sufficiently clear to justify me in ruling the Amendment out of order.
    Captain REDMOND: I feel sure, Sir, that the House will be pleased at your ruling, because it gives us the opportunity of discussing what is a serious position in connection with housing in Ireland owing to the action of the Treasury. We find the British Treasury once more stepping in, and, in an exceedingly mean and shabby fashion, endeavouring to curtail the administration of funds already voted by this House for the people of Ireland. Ireland has been voted her proportion of this sum of £15,000,000 for the benefit of dwellers in urban areas in Ireland. The Irish Local Government Board have made Regulations with which the local authorities have not been able to comply. One of them is that not more than twelve houses are to be erected on an acre of land. It is almost impossible to get an acre of land in the middle of an exceptionally congested district of an ancient Irish town or city. The Amendment is to enable houses to be built, if not within the boundary, within easy access of the urban area. It is grossly unfair that the Treasury, when to their delight they discovered that the Act is practically unworkable in Ireland, should step in and place a further obstacle in the way of making it as applicable as it is in England. It may be said that if this were passed rural councils in Ireland would enjoy greater advantages than similar bodies in England. But we must remember England is mostly industrial and urban and those councils do not play such an important part in the community in England as in Ireland. I am just informed that the rural authorities in England have the power which is sought by this Amendment, and that, of course, makes the case for the Amendment all the stronger. It actually shows that the Act has been worked unfairly in regard to Ireland, and if this Amendment is not passed we will not have the same Act applied impartially in England and in Ireland. The same thing has happened before, and in almost every instance where the same Act is passed the administration has been entirely different in the two countries.
    I do not think our demand is a very excessive one. It is not going to bring
    2184
    about the ruin of the Treasury or to increase the amount granted by a single shilling. The object is to make the distribution easier and to facilitate the working of the existing Acts. We know now, on the confession of the Solicitor-General, that he has been to the Treasury, and the Treasury, seeing that the Irish people would probably benefit by this as much as the people in this country, once more put its foot down and said, "It may be the same Act and properly applied in England, but the benefits must be withheld in Ireland." It is only another instance of the manner in which the Treasury has always dealt with Acts which have to be applied to Ireland. I think the Solicitor-General should be impressed by the fact that all shades of Irish opinion in this House are in favour of this Amendment, to which, indeed, there is no opposition from any quarter. What has the Treasury got to do with this matter, since the money has been already voted? I think the Government might display some independence and self-respect, and make up their minds themselves and tell the Treasury to mind their own business, and make this proposal applicable in the same manner to Ireland as to the rest of the United Kingdom. I appeal to the Solicitor-General, who is an Irishman and knows the conditions there as to housing, and represents himself a rural constituency, on the ground that the Irish representation is united on the matter, and that there is no opposition from any quarter except the Government, to take up an attitude independent of the Treasury and see that this machinery is made equally applicable to Ireland as to this country.
    Mr. COOTE: We cannot understand the action of the Solicitor-General in opposing this Amendment, and we cannot see why the Treasury should intervene at all in this matter. The money has been allocated, and we are only asking for machinery by which to spend it. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, has the scheme of the late Act succeeded, and what is the number of houses built under the Act in Ireland, because the whole machinery of house building has broken down under the Act, and very naturally, because it has broken down here? Has the Treasury intervened in like manner in England, and put in blocking objections to the Act being extended

    2185
    to the rural districts, as they are attempting to do here? If we are to have houses built in Ireland they must be built within two years or the bonus will disappear. It looks as if owing to a variety of causes, such as cost and congestion of the urban districts, we will have very little house building during the next twenty-two years. Unless we get this Amendment all the advantages that have been given under the Act will disappear, and Ireland will be deprived of her share of the fifteen millions, or about a million and a quarter pounds.
    Captain REDMOND: Robbery again.
    Mr. COOTE: We must protest in the strongest manner.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): This is a matter of machinery. A rural district council is not a housing authority under these Acts, although it is a housing authority under certain other Acts. I suggest to the Mover of the Amendment to insert after the words "rural district" in the last line of the Amendment the words, "subject to Regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland." That, I think, would meet the case, and with that addition we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Major O'NEILL: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment. I felt it was really only a question of getting him to understand what the true facts of the case were in order to get his consent to the Amendment.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The Government at first opposed the Amendment and now suddenly change their minds and accept it. I do not think, from the point of view of the taxpayer, that the position is quite in order. I know that this does not increase the Vote, and, therefore, does not technically put a fresh charge on the people, but if you spread the money over a larger area, whatever Ireland gains in the extension of the main proposal, some other part of the United Kingdom will lose.
    Dr. ADDISON: There is an allocation made for the different parts of the United Kingdom, and it is merely here a question as to how that total should be distributed in Ireland.
    6.0 P.M.
    Lord H. CECIL: That diminishes the force of the argument, but if you extend the area over which public money is to be used, you lay up for yourselves in the future the possibility of a demand for an increase of it.
    Captain REDMOND: May I ask the Noble Lord why rural areas should be excluded in Ireland and included in England?
    Lord H. CECIL: There is no reason in the abstract why anybody should not have anything, but the point here is that we ought now constantly to be considering how far our money will go. As I understand it, if this Amendment be not carried, the money is not to go to rural districts, but if it be carried the money will be extended to rural districts so far as it will go. Obviously, therefore, you will create an increased demand from the urban districts, who will have to share what would otherwise be solely theirs. That is the objection to all extensions of expenditure, and unless it be for that reason, I do not understand why the Treasury were opposed to it. I think this House ought always nowadays to support the Treasury against the other Departments. I do not think there is any representative of the Treasury present, but we understood from the Solicitor-General for Ireland that the Treasury were opposed to this Amendment, and certainly we shall act unwisely if we do not support the Treasury in opposing everything which they oppose on the ground of the increase of expenditure. Therefore, unless we have the explanation that the Treasury have no objection to this Amendment, I hope the House will oppose it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I should like to join with my colleague in thanking the Minister of Health for accepting this Amendment. I should also like to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is one of the few Cabinet Ministers in whom I have any confidence. He is the one Cabinet Minister who seems to have some humanity in him, and he has undoubtedly during his term of office done his best in dealing with all those pressing and public causes which I think it is to the interests of all of us to deal with. I cannot understand the Noble Lord's position. He objects to larger powers being given to

    2187
    local bodies for housing, but I do not think there is anything in all the series of problems which we have to deal with after the War so important and so vital as the question of housing, and I would endeavour to secure as large grants as possible from the Government in order to build houses for the people, especially since the policy of the Government is to make these islands countries in which heroes are to live.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not quite arise here. The hon. Member should confine himself to the narrow point as to whether the urban authorities alone or the rural authorities as well should be given powers under the Section.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I am always getting out of order, and I regret that I find myself so often in conflict with you on these narrow points. However, I will endeavour to keep within the bounds of order. Many hon. Members opposite represent constituencies which may be called rural, but which in reality are urban—towns, for instance, like Lurgan, in Co. Down—and a great many of their constituents are linen workers. Nothing is more splendid than the way in which these workers in the linen industries have been enabled to take advantage of the Agricultural Labourers Act in order to build houses, because in many cases their work is only part of the income that they secure in connection with their agricultural pursuits. I should therefore like to join in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. RENDALL: I think there is something in what the Noble Lord says. There is some ground for thinking that a larger sum may eventually be spent as a result of accepting the Amendment, for this reason, that while the Government allocated a certain sum, the larger the area it is spread over the more likely it is that the money will be used. If we accept the Amendment we must realise that the result will probably be that the whole of the money will be spent, instead, possibly, of only a portion of it.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I have every sympathy with the Irish Members' point of view, and I would not wish them to get any less than their due amount under this Bill, but I very
    2188
    sincerely regret the decision of the Government in accepting this Amendment. It is quite clear that by bringing in this Amendment you will not have more money spent, but, as the hon. Member who has just sat down has pointed out, you will spend money more quickly, and the Treasury apparently have objected to that. It is nice to know in these days that we have a Treasury at all, and when we see the Treasury putting their foot down—
    Captain REDMOND: In regard to Ireland.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: Whether it is in Ireland or in England. I would like to see them putting it down much more in both countries.
    Mr. MOLES: The hon. and gallant Member has quite misconceived the position. I pointed out previously that £15,000,000 has been already voted by the House, and a given proportion of it has been allocated to Ireland, but the conditions that govern the building of houses there are such that the urban authorities cannot go over the border and build, and rural authorities cannot give certificates in order to obtain the subsidy, with the result that no money is spent in those areas. What we are doing by this Amendment is to carry out the general intention of the Bill.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I quite agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, that it has nothing whatever to do with spending more money. What I am complaining of is that you are expediting the expenditure of money in this respect, and I do say that in these days, when the Treasury do come here and say they object to it, it is very wrong indeed for any Member of the Government to persuade the House to accept it.
    Mr. D. M. WILSON: In regard to the point about the Treasury, I would like everyone to be perfectly satisfied, because the point is completely safeguarded by the first section of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, which says:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister of Health … may, in accordance with schemes made by him with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of moneys provided by Parliament."
    Therefore, no scheme can be adopted at all unless the Treasury approve of it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. D. M. WILSON: On a point of Order. Does that include the addition proposed by my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, it was not moved.
    Mr. WILSON: I mean the words:
    "subject to Regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for Ireland."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. I put the Question from the chair.
    Major O'NEILL: It arose by the Minister of Health suggesting words to me as the mover of the original Amendment, which I said I would be quite satisfied to go into my Amendment. Could they not go in now, without being formally moved by the Government?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not at all. I am not a thought reader, and the Government ought to take the trouble to hand in their Amendments.
    Dr. ADDISON: The Amendment was handed in.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already put the Question, and the Amendment on the Paper has been added. I read out the words when the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Neill) moved his Amendment. That is the moment for the Government to intervene and say that some Amendment to the words is proposed, but nothing was said and the matter, so far as this House is concerned, is now disposed of. It can be done in another place.
    Mr. DEVLIN: If you are attacking the Government, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, am I entitled to join in?

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Garden Cities.)
    (1) During a period of three years from the passing of this Act, and for the purpose of the development of a garden city, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may, subject to such conditions as the Treasury may require, advance money on loan to an amount approved by the Treasury to any authorised association within the meaning of Section ten of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, and Section sixty-seven of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as amended by Section twenty of the Housing, Town Planning. &c, Act, 1919, shall, subject to the
    2190
    provisions of this Section, apply to any such loan as it applies to a loan to a public utility society.
    (2) In Section forty of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919, and in Section ten of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, the words "the issue of any share or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury" shall be substituted for "the payment of any interest or dividend at a rate exceeding six per cent. per annum," and "payment of any interest or dividend at a higher rate than six per cent. per annum," respectively, and any public utility society or authorised association shall have and shall be deemed to have had power, notwithstanding anything in their rules or constitution prohibiting the payment of any interest on loan capital at a rate exceeding six per cent. per annum, to raise money on loan at a rate of interest not exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury as aforesaid. — [Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether this Clause does not cause an additional charge to be put upon the rates. The Clause says that during the period of three years from the passing of the Act, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may advance money on loan to any authorised association for the purpose of the development of a garden city. Then it says:
    "In Section 40 of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919, and in Section 10 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, the words ' the issue of any share or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury ' shall be substituted"
    for other words, so that it appears that if under the first part of this Clause, namely, the borrowing of the money, no charge would be imposed for the moment on the ratepayers, I would point out that a charge is imposed in that the ratepayers have to find the money to redeem that loan, and therefore a charge is eventually imposed in that way; but a charge is imposed under the second part of the Clause, because the interest would have to be provided by the ratepayers, and a rate would have to be made to provide that interest. For those two reasons, I suggest that as this is the Report stage, and no additional charge can be imposed, this Clause falls through.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: On that point of Order, may I point out that the interest will not have to be paid by the ratepayers, but those who raise the capital? It is a private enterprise.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that is so, and I think it is sound so far as that is concerned. It is a public utility society.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The chief point I feel I have to bring forward is that this does not impose any charge on the ratepayer or the taxpayer, but is directly supported by private enterprise. I do not wish to go at great length into the principle to-night, but I think I ought to show why it is proposed to add this Clause to the Bill at this late hour. The reason is that it is a necessary complement to the housing scheme now in full swing. Experience shows that it requires this amount of State aid. The State aid is on absolute security—the security of the land. It is only proposed to lend this money to bodies definitely approved under regulations to be drawn up to secure that they are bodies which will be able to pay, and are sufficiently constituted to be able to develop the scheme properly. It is probable that the regulations will be so exacting that it will not lead to any extensive enlargement as regards the garden city principle. But, inasmuch as it will help forward one, two, or three schemes, I should think it would meet, and I hope it will meet, with the support of the House whether they approve of housing at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers, or whether they prefer to leave it entirely to private enterprise.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On the point of Order. I admit I was under the impression, in looking at the Clause, that the money was to be advanced to the local authorities. I see now it is not to be advanced to local authorities, but to certain authorised associations which are described in certain old Acts of Parliament. This is the disadvantage of legislation by reference. But I venture to say very humbly this makes it worse, because the result of this is that the Treasury is liable, and the Treasury is only the taxpayer. Therefore, a direct charge is imposed upon the ratepayers in the event of these associations—who they are, I do not know—not being able to carry out their obligations. Therefore, there is a direct charge under those circumstances imposed on the ratepayer,
    2192
    and I venture humbly to submit the Clause is out of order.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: On the point of Order. May I venture to remind you that on a former occasion, on a Clause similar to this authorising a loan, Mr. Speaker considered very carefully whether that Clause was in order. I remember I had the privilege of discussing across the floor of the House the point of Order with him, and he ruled that a Clause authorising a loan was not a Clause authorising a charge, on the ground that the loan was to be repaid with interest.
    Lord H. CECIL: On that point, it surely all depends whether the public utility society is so good as to amount to certainty. If it does not amount to certainty, it is quite clear that a charge may be imposed on the people without any further reference to this House, and the loan then might be a loss to the public. We have no means of knowing whether it does or does not impose a charge. It is surely contrary to all the practice of this House that a bargain should be entered into by the Treasury, involving even conceivably a charge upon the people which does not originate in Committee of the whole House or on the recommendation of the Crown.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: May I submit, as I submitted to Mr. Speaker on the previous occasion, that if we are to be ruled out on the ground that there may be, contingently, a charge, then practically nothing can be done by private Members, because there is scarcely any proposal of legislation that does not contingently impose a charge upon public funds.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think both the last points are going further than is necessary. The Noble Lord speaks of absolute certainty. The Noble Lord may have it, but I cannot pretend to it myself. This is limited by the approval of the Treasury of approved schemes, and I think the judgment I have already given stands. I have this further in my support that I notice Mr. Speaker on this Paper, having no doubt considered the Clause earlier in the day, marked it as one that could be moved.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The security for the loan is 75 per cent. on the

    2193
    approved value of the land. That land cannot run away, and is therefore the best security you can possibly have. In the Kegulations that will be drawn up, it is presumed that the Minister will insist that that 75 per cent. should only be loaned to a substantial body, who already have sufficient capital to provide the other 25 per cent. of the value of the land, and to proceed with the scheme. It must only be for approved societies that can carry through a scheme. The principle of public utility societies has practically been passed already. It may be said, "Why should not the garden city associations be formed into public utility societies?" The reason is that the public utility societies are limited to housing alone, and the principle, as I think all know, of the garden city movement, is that, instead of housing people as if houses were the only requirement, the scheme is for the complete development of the community—houses, roads and general development as a whole. The principle of garden cities has been fully recognised and proved to be a practical proposition. It has been proved at Letchworth. Letchworth, the first garden city, now contains 10,000 persons, and something like 100 factories and workshops hard at work. It is a self-contained community, and that is what differentiates it from garden suburbs and ordinary suburbs. The principle is urged by the Departmental Committee on insanitary areas in its Interim Report. That Committee is now preparing its full Report, and if we are going to pour out money like water on the subject of housing, we have this scheme epitomised in the slum areas of London. How are you going to deal with them? Are you simply going to replace them by other houses a little bit more spread out on the same site? There is a limit to that, to meet ordinary requirements. Are you going, then, to extend your suburbs further and further, separating your people by so many hours travelling every day to and from their work? You are losing thereby two or three hours of man's working time, and causing an enormous diminution of efficiency.
    Therefore you want to arrange this garden city scheme by which industry itself shall emigrate into the country, and the houses and people with it. That is where we want the State to come in. The factories do not want to emigrate
    2194
    until the people are there; the people will not emigrate until the factories are there. Someone has to step in. Hitherto it has been extremely difficult for private societies to come forward and do it. They are doing it at Welwyn, and it is because of the Welwyn experience that we ask for this approval. I do not believe ever again any body of men would be prepared to do what these have been able to do. It is an extremely difficult proposition to ask people to subscribe money at 6 or 7 per cent. under the circumstances. Therefore we ask for the State to fill in the blank on approved security, and only on approved security. The second part of the Clause is to correct an obvious anomaly. Public utility societies are limited, and rightly limited, to a certain dividend. The maximum dividend they can earn has been limited to 6½ per cent., but, unfortunately, the Loan Commissioners have had to put up their rates for borrowing to 6½ per cent., and, obviously, it is an absurd proposition to borrow at 65 per cent. and only earn 6 per cent. dividend. Therefore we ask that that may be put right, so that the limit of dividend may be raised to the charge of the Loan Commissioners.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to second the Motion.
    The hon. and gallant Member has fully explained the Clause, and there are only one or two points I would like to stress. The House will see that this Clause has the support of practically all sections of the House, of various political colours. I think it will even appeal to the economists in the House, and for this reason. We realise that we do require a large number of houses, and I submit to economists particularly that every house supplied under this Clause would mean so many fewer houses to be supplied under the original 1919 Act, whereby a penny rate was involved, and also the other houses supplied under the amending Act of 1919, whereby a subsidy is granted from the Treasury of £260. Under this scheme here, houses will be supplied and will not get the penny rate, nor the share of the subsidy of £260. All they get is the support of the Public Works Loan Commissioners in helping to raise the money. The question of security has been raised. I submit that in the protection afforded by the Treasury, which has to sanction all these loans, there is ample security for the public taxpayer.

    2195
    It must be remembered that the bulk of the money is found by private enterprise, and the State money, which comes from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, takes precedence in the claims on the estate. Here you are dealing with real property, and surely, from the narrow financial point of view, that security will be adequate. But, apart from these narrower considerations, surely from the point of view of true economy, it is in the interests of this House to explore every avenue, every means, whereby we can remedy the existing house shortage. If this can encourage private interests to spend more money on these schemes, without any risk of loss to the taxpayer, I am sure even the stern and unbending economists opposite will support this Clause.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sure the House will notice that on the paper which has been circulated a very large number of names are attached to this Clause, and they represent Members from practically all sections of the House. I propose to take what I am sure will be a distasteful course, but I think it is only consistent with what we have done before. I say, if I may be allowed to, that this Clause, in my view, is an excellent proposal, and one which, I think, would be well embodied in our Statutes. But so are some of the other suggestions in the other new Clauses, and it will be within the recollection of the House that I was subjected to a number of animadversions not long since because the Bill was too large. In Committee upstairs, in consonance with my pledge down here, that when certain Clauses were put before the Committee, if they were objected to they would be withdrawn, certain Clauses were dropped out of the Bill. I suggest it would be entirely out of accord, much as I should like to assent to this Clause, with what we have done already, and the promise given to the House, if we were to begin now to add a large number of new Clauses. Therefore I feel that the only logical and fair course to take, in view of the pledges to the House, and the almost unanimous indicated decision of the House, and I hope the House will not add them to the Bill.
    Mr. A. SHAW: Will the right hon. Gentlemen refrain from putting on the Government Whips against this Clause and allow the House to decide?
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I think all those who have spent years in promoting the housing cause in this country will hear with deep regret the words which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the House. I am quite aware there must be some cause which has led him to make such a statement, because I do not believe for one moment his own inclinations would take him in that direction at all. This Clause might be added to the Bill without any loss of time or without hindering the Bill in any way, if the majority of the House were in favour of it—as I trust they would be. Therefore I would like to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to put on the Whips against this Clause, but to leave it to the free vote of the House. If the House does accept the Clause, then surely the thing can go forward, and it will contribute some little to the solution of the housing of our people, which is so great a problem. This solution, I suggest, would be on the very best principles, without any charge on the community, not crowding people into the existing towns, and not scattering them 10 and 20 miles from their work, so involving long railway journeys, but it would mean taking them to new centres, where they could have all the advantages of open-air living, and at the same time be quite close to their work.
    I believe there is one objection felt by some hon. Gentlemen sitting near to me with regard to this Clause; that is, they do not desire to see public money lent to people who are working for profit, even on this housing question. That is a strained view. It is not a dishonourable thing to work for profit, and it is the only way in which some people can possibly serve the community in the circumstances of to-day. But that is not my answer to that objection. My answer is that this is not a question of lending money to people who are working for profit at all. This is a question of lending money to people who are providing houses at cost price without any profit to anybody, and with great benefit to-the community, and no profit, as I say, in the technical sense, to anybody.
    These garden city associations simply have to pay the market price for everything. Of course, if they have to hire capital—which they must have—they have to pay the market price for it. But there is no more profit in one-

    2197
    of these garden city companies than there is in an ordinary co-operative society. It only happens that these companies are registered under a different Act of Parliament Therefore, I hope that no hon. Gentleman will object to this Clause on the ground that it is contributing public money to private enterprise. It may, however, be said that some of my hon. Friends would much prefer this work was done by elected authorities. That may be. I do not know that I myself object to that in the abstract; but here we are in the presence of an emergency. This Clause only deals with the next three years. During those three years we have got by every means in our power, without pedantically confining ourselves to any one means, to get a supply of houses, so far as we can do so, consistently with sound financial principles. Let me say another thing to those who desire to see this work done by local authorities. It is this: the garden city companies and co-partnership housing schemes have set a great example to the local authoritias. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is now engaged in great housing schemes for the development of the housing of this country on the open-order system, it is due to the preliminary work of the garden city companies and the co-partnership housing schemes that he is able to do it. Therefore, I say there is no conflict of interests between the local authorities and the garden cities, for these latter are paving the way for what the others will be able to do.
    Letchworth furnishes an instance, a very remarkable example, of the way this matter has been carried forward. Letchworth is intended to be handed over to the local authority when the time comes that the local authority is in a position to take it over. The company is really a trustee for the local authority. In its memorandum of association it is laid down that the company cannot pay more than 5 per cent. to its shareholders, and that rate cannot be altered without going to the Court of Chancery, and getting power to alter it; and any surplus of profit is to be for the benefit of the town and its inhabitants. We know, of course, what capital is costing now, and it may be necessary to get the 5 per cent. altered to 6 or 6½ per cent., or possibly 7 per cent., but that can only be done by the approval
    2198
    of the Court of Chancery. No question of conflict, therefore, between action by the local authority and these garden-city companies arises on the broad consideration of this matter. There is one other consideration that I would put before the Minister. If you allow this Clause to go through, you make these loans to companies which are putting forward their own money and risking it in the public service, and you will enable these companies during the coming winter to give a good deal of employment which they will not otherwise be able to give; and unemployment during the winter is going to be a thing which we cannot afford to disregard. I earnestly hope the Government will not put on the whips against this Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I say in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in relation to his suggestion that these companies are not out for a profit, that I understand when the Letchworth garden-city people wanted the Great Northern Eailway Company to build a station, they asked—I have not the figures before me, but my impression is—they asked £500 per acre for what they had given £40 per acre. The Great Northern Eailway Company went to law and won their case.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am quite aware of the circumstances, but in addition to giving £40 per acre for the land we had to spend enormous sums on roads, sewers, waterworks, and gasworks, all of which the Great Northern Eailway Company wished to get the benefit of for nothing.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I really think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health on this point is remarkably illogical and unsound. The sole objection he has to this Clause— which he says is a good Clause—is that if he takes this Clause into the Bill he will have no arguments to use against other new Clauses. That is unsound.
    Mr. A. SHORT: The "Daily Mail" propaganda!
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is unsound, and for this reason: This Clause deals specifically with a matter which is already dealt with in Part I of the Bill— the question of houses. To my mind, Part I is the only part of this Bill which

    2199
    should be proceeded with; the rest of the Bill ought to be dropped. Any Amendment that deals with housing, and that will help us to get houses, ought to be considered on its merits by this House. We ought to postpone dealing with great matters of public health until we can deal with them in a businesslike, and not a piecemeal, manner. This Clause is limited to dealing with houses. It is essential and ancillary to the purposes already contained in the Bill. That marks it off entirely from other new Clauses, such as that which proposes to deal with the protection of meat and cheese from flies. Such a Clause is bringing into the Bill an entirely new subject and set of circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman is quite justified, in the autumn Session, in adopting a line hostile to a new Clause like that. I shall support him in resisting the consideration of such a Clause.
    This is primarily a Housing Bill, and garden city companies are setting the one example I want to see followed up and down the country, namely, they are providing houses at an economic rent. They are the only people who at this moment are building houses at really economic rents without a subsidy. That is the thing at which we ought to aim, and that is the one thing by which in the long run you are going to solve the housing problem, and the only way. Whether it is by subsidy to the private builder or to the local authority, it is evident that we have got into a quandary. The garden city people are the best ray of light to-day in the housing situation in this country. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question, an I that is, if he does not accept this Clause, where will the Treasury stand?
    I understand the Treasury has advanced money to these companies, or is prepared to advance it. I really think that the Minister responsible for housing ought not to oppose something which the Treasury, the guardian of the nation's purse, are willing to concede. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government, are satisfied with this Clause, I really think that not to proceed with this Clause simply because the Minister may not want to take some other Clause is reducing legislation to a farce. I hope that the right hon. Gentle
    2200
    man the Member for Mid-Herts will in any case press this Second Reading to a Division, if only for the reasons I have stated. I do urge upon the Minister of Health to give the House a free vote upon this question, and not to put on the Government Whips against this Clause, which he says is a good Clause, and which will help the one thing with which we ought to be dealing in this Bill. I urge him to reconsider his decision this evening and to produce rather better arguments if he wishes to reject the Clause.
    Major NALL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not waver upon this matter. We have already got the Government involved as a shareholder in dye-stuffs and sugar growing, and goodness knows what else, and I really do not know how far we shall go if this Clause is adopted. It is all very well for hon. Members to give the case of one particular association which, one rather gathers, has got into difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then why the need for this money?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: To extend operations.
    Major NALL: If this principle is to be extended all over the country there will be absolutely no end to the sums the Treasury may be asked to find. It is an entirely bad principle that the State should be called in to subsidise in this way all sorts of vague enterprises that may or may not succeed. We have no guarantee in this case that it will succeed, and it seems to me that this particular association is amply covered by the provision in Clause 2, where a subsidy is paid for houses privately built. That is as far as we ought to go with the national finances in their present position. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not relax his opposition, and that he will keep the Whips on.
    Dr. MURRAY: I want to appeal to the Minister of Health to reconsider his decision. The Government have already changed their minds in reference to a previous Clause, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision on this Clause, and not be afraid of the so-called economists in this House. There are two kinds of economists, the stunt economist and> the real economist. The stunt economist strains at a gnat and

    2201
    swallows a camel, but this Clause is real economy, and does not commit the Treasury any further. This proposal would be a real economy because it would provide for the social welfare of the people, and encourage one of the finest developments of housing in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that every hon. Member of this House pledged himself to do all he could for housing, will agree to this Clause.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Whatever may be the merits of this Clause and the grounds for supporting garden city schemes, we must recognise, in view of the general financial position of the country, that it is not desirable to refuse assistance to local authorities who are responsible directly to the public and give it to any public utility society, however
    admirable its objects. The only possible way of getting this Bill through is not to enlarge or expand it at this stage, and local authorities should have priority. Those who are acquiescing in the limitations of this Bill are bound to protest against it being extended in the direction proposed by this new Clause, however good its object may be, and however admirable its methods. I hope my right hon. Friend will stick to his position, and at this time of the Session it is better to have a comparatively small Bill than risk the passing of the measure by extending it in other directions.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 208.

    Division No. 390.]

    AYES.

    [6.50 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hallas, Eldred

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

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rodger, A. K.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormsklrk)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Birchall, Major J. Oearman

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Sexton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromfield, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Spencer, George A.

    Cairns, John

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

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

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thome, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consent

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Fildes, Henry

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Finney, Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parry, Lleut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Pownall, Lleut.-Colonel Assheton

    Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle and Mr. T.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Thomson.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Carr, W. Theodora

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withlngton)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Armitage, Robert

    Casey, T. W.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Atkey, A. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Foreman, Henry

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Forrest, Walter

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Clay, Lleut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Gardiner, James

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Blair, Reginald

    Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemes Hempstead)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Briggs, Harold

    Edge, Captain William

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Hinds, John

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Hood, Joseph

    Neal, Arthur

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Parker, James

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Waddington, R.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Ward. Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Jesson, C.

    Perring, William George

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D.(Southport)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Purchase, H. G.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Kidd, James

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Reid, D. D.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Remer, J. R.

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Lorden, John William

    Renwick, George

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Lynn, R. J.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    wise, Frederick

    M'Guffln, Samuel

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Malone, Ma|or P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Manville, Edward

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Moles, Thomas

    Seager, Sir William

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Seddon, J. A.

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

    Morrison, Hugh

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'houses' ['persons constructing houses'] stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

    Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Clause (Protection of Food Supplies), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Dr. Worsfold), I cannot say that it is out of Order, because the Bill deals with the question of food supplies, but I think it is so far remote from the general purposes of the Bill that I shall be justified in passing it over. The next Clause (Expenses), in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) imposes a charge upon the rates, and the same observation must be made in connection with the following Clause (Expenses and allowances for members of local authorities).
    Mr. T. THOMSON: The new Clause standing in my name is part of the original Clause 17, Sub-section (c) as passed, and I would like to know if that fact would alter your decision, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that does not alter the rule on Report stage that we cannot impose a fresh charge. The same ruling applies to the Clause (Increase in remuneration of officers of local authorities) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Wilson).

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 17, to houses in respect of which certain grants have been or shall be made.)
    7.0 P.M.
    Where any grant under Section one of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, as amended by any enactment, has been or shall be made towards the construction of a house, then, notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (9)' of Section twelve of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, the provisions of the last cited Act shall apply to that house, or any part thereof, if let as a separate dwelling, and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which the last cited Act applies.—[Mr. Charles Edwards.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I am afraid that what was said by the hon. and gallant Member, representing the Government, just now in reference to new Clauses does not give us very much encouragement. Paragraph (a) of Cause 1 of this Bill says:
    "This Section shall not apply to any house erected after or in the course of erection on the 2nd day of April, 1919."

    2205
    The object of this new Clause is to bring houses that have been built under the Government subsidy scheme within the Rent Restrictions Act. At present there is no restriction whatever on the rent which may be charged or the price which may be put upon these houses for sale. If it is right to restrict the rent to be charged on a house in the building of which the Government has had no hand, surely it is also right to bring under the same restriction houses partly built by Government grants. That is the chief purpose of this Clause. There have been charges of gross profiteering in regard to houses built with the aid of Government grants. We were told the other day that some hundreds of pounds had been made by people who had built these houses for gain. These dwellings are being built, and are then held up, sometimes for a considerable period, until a purchaser comes forward who will give the price demanded. The only purpose of the first Clause in this Bill is to bring into use houses that have been vacant or uninhabited for at least three months. If these new houses are brought under the Rent Restrictions Act it will have some effect, also, upon the prices asked.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: I beg to second the motion.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): This new Clause is, to all intents and purposes an Amendment of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act. I could argue the merits or demerits of the proposal at some little length, but I would point out to the House that to adopt this Clause would really be a retrograde step. Instead of adding to the number of houses available for the people it would diminish it. The Standing Committee upstairs accepted a provision that Clause 1 should not apply to the new houses. By this new Clause the hon. Member is proposing to adopt an entirely different point of view to that taken by the Committee. I do not wish to argue the Clause so much on its merits as from the point of view put by my right hon. Friend, namely, that the Government feels bound, in view of the statements made on the Second Reading and in Committee upstairs, to offer its opposition to all these new Clauses proposed to-day in the House. I therefore regret that it is
    2206
    quite impossible for the Government to accept the Clause.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Inspection of Dwelling-houses.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of every local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, to cause their district to be inspected at least once in every year with a view to ascertaining—

    (a) whether any dwelling-house or part of any dwelling-house therein is in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation;

    (b) whether any dwelling-house or part of any dwelling-house therein occupied or intended to be occupied by a member of the working-classes is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation;

    and for that purpose it shall be the duty of the local authority and of every officer of the local authority to comply with any Regulations made under this Section.
    (2) The Minister of Health may make general or special Regulations for carrying this Section into effect and matters connected therewith and, without prejudice to this general power to make Regulations, such Regulations may prescribe—

    (a) the qualifications to be possessed by the person or persons making the inspection;

    (b) the particular matters to which regard is to be had in making the inspection;

    (c) the records of the inspection which are to be kept by the medical officer of health to the local authority;

    (d) the consideration by a local authority of representations or reports made to them in consequence of such inspection;

    (e) the reports which are to be made by a local authority or the medical officer of health to the Minister or the county council;

    (3) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall be deemed to form part of Part II of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and without prejudice to any power of the Minister under Section ten of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909, any non-compliance by a local authority with any requirements of this Section or any Regulation made thereunder shall be a de fault which may be dealt with under Section eleven of the last cited Act, and the provitions of that Section shall extend accord ingly.—[Mr. Allen Parkinson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

    2207
    I do so with a view to instituting a serious house-to-house inspection every year. The Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, definitely states, in Section 17, that local authorities may cause to be made from time to time inspections in their district. One of the objects of this new Clause is to fix a definite time within which inspections shall be made. We feel that the backward authorities will rot carry into effect the powers given to them in the Act of 1909, because those powers are not obligatory. This Clause will make it compulsory for all authorities to make their inspections once a year. Not only does it state that all dwelling-houses shall be inspected in order to see whether they are in a sanitary condition, but it also provides, where necessary, that "part of any dwelling-house" may be inspected. This makes the provision more comprehensive. If the houses were inspected once a year we should at least be laying the foundation for better conditions of life for our people. We should be compelling property owners to keep their houses in better sanitary condition. It may be said there is no reason for this proposal, but those who have served on local authorities know the difficulties of getting these inspections made and also of getting notices served on landlords who are not carrying out these inspections. Every house under a local authority-ought to be inspected and reported upon once a year. I have in mind a quite recent incident where a fairly large authority in a Lancashire town made an inspection of the whole of their area. The result spread a sort of horror throughout the people in that area.
    I am not going to say it was any worse or any better than in other parts of the country, but the result of the inspection was such that it at least awakened the whole of the people in that particular borough to a sense of their responsibility. The inspection revealed that the average number of persons living in one house was 51. There were sixteen houses with one room only, 642 houses with one living room and one sleeping room, over 3,000 houses with one living room and two sleeping rooms, and nearly 800 houses with one living room and three sleeping rooms. That is the kind of thing we want exposed. There are a large number of these houses absolutely unfitted for habitation, and the report said that there
    2208
    were 1.375 without through ventilation and otherwise insanitary. By the adoption of this Clause we should be giving power to the local authorities and making it obligatory on them to carry out inspections. This measure has been too long delayed, and the phrase "may be" ought to be removed from every Act of Parliament relating to the housing of the people. The inspection must be compulsory or it will not be done at all. It will also take away the desire of many owners of slum property to become members of the local authority with a view to retarding the operations of the local medical officer of health and the sanitary inspector. These officials ought to be given all the confidence necessary, and people who possess houses ought to keep them in a condition reasonably fit for habitation.
    Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to second the Motion. I should like to express my surprise that the Minister of Health will accept none of these new Clauses. One would have thought that anything adding to the efficiency and usefulness of this Bill would have been welcomed. In the first place, this Clause proposes that in every district an inspection of the property shall take place not less than once a year. Together with the hon. Member who moved the Clause, I can, if necessary, give some experiences in regard to the inspection of houses in various localities. There was one, especially, where an inspection showed that hundreds of houses were both overcrowded and unfit for human habitation. This information is absolutely essential if the health of the people is to be safeguarded in the manner which I am perfectly sure the Minister of Health desires. In addition to that, it gives power to the right hon. Gentleman to see that those who make the inspection are properly qualified, so that the results of their inspection may be taken as fairly reliable data upon which the municipalities can act. It also pro poses to give him power to see that the reports of the inspectors are dealt with properly. It appears to me that all the powers which this new Clause would give would tend to the betterment of housing condition and would materially assist in improving the health of the people. I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that under no circumstances will any of these new Clauses be adopted. From a long experience, I am

    2209
    sure that this one would be very helpful, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow, at any rate, this new Clause to become part of the Bill, believing, as I do, that it would be beneficial to the people generally.
    Dr. ADDISON: I agree that, if the provisions of this new Clause were part of our public health statutes, it would in due time have many of the effects which my hon. Friends contemplate. I recognise that they, and others who move new Clauses, must be disappointed at the decision which I have very reluctantly had to take in this matter. I think that several of the proposed new Clauses would be useful additions to our Public Health Acts, and I hope that before very long they may be embodied in them. At the same time, I have taken the course that I have taken because it is getting on in December, and I made a promise to the House to resist the casting of additional burdens on the Bill, because the House was unanimously of opinion that there were too many things in it already. I am sure that, in the circumstances, it would only burden the Bill if I were to accept this Clause. There are several others as well which contain quite good suggestions within the limits of the title of the Bill, but, in view of the fact that the Session is so far advanced, I would appeal to my hon. Friends not to press this Clause upon me. I am sure it is fair to the House of Commons, in view of the promise I have made, not to burden the Bill with additional Clauses.
    Mr. J. JONES: To those of us who are members of local authorities which are not merely responsible for finding more houses for the people under the Housing Acts, but are also responsible for the conditions under which existing houses are occupied, the decision of the Minister in charge of the Bill appears to be a very unfortunate one. What is the position in most of our industrial centres to-day, apart altogether from the position in rural areas? In my own district, during the past 12 months, we have conducted, under the existing Public Health Acts, a house-to-house inspection, and what have we discovered? We have discovered overcrowding on a wholesale scale, insanitation, and conditions under which human beings ought not to be compelled to live. No less than 14,000 houses in our borough are registered as
    2210
    not reaching even the minimum requirements of the present Public Health Acts. We, as a local authority, are trying to do our best under existing circumstances, but we are cribbed, cabined, and confined by the technicalities of the existing law. We had hoped that, in the new era of reconstruction promised to us by the statesmen of to-day, we should be given, not the power to introduce a new heaven and a new earth, but such opportunities as would enable us to carry out the intentions even of the existing Public Health Acts. In my own constituency nearly every street has been visited, and we have found families of, sometimes, as many as eight people living in one room. We have power, under certain conditions, to visit houses and to inquire into the sanitary arrangements, and we have certain other powers under which, if the landlord does not do the things that he should do, we may be able to do those things ourselves. That, however, means a long process of law, with great technical and legal difficulties, and in the' meantime children are dying in that district, at the rate of 200 out of every 1,000 born, before they reach the age of five years. I have heard preachers in churches and chapels drawing tears from the eyes of their congregations when they described the massacre of the innocents by Herod and people of that type, but our modern Herods get elected on our local authorities and keep on murdering children, and nobody says them nay; and they can get Gentlemen here in the House of Commons to defend them in their depredations and in their massacre of the children of the people.
    We ask in this Clause that we shall have power to deal with this position, and the right hon. Gentleman says that reluctantly he is compelled not to accept it. Why reluctantly? Is there a power behind the throne? Is there one set of statesmen who can get up and promise us a new heaven and a new earth, that the sun of prosperity will rise over the hilltops of poverty, and that we shall have an England fit for heroes to live in, and is there someone behind the scenes who decides that "So far shalt thou go and no farther." Are we going to be told that all the fine promises that were held out to the people in regard to these great problems of reconstruction are going to be blasted by private and vested interests? I know, as a member of a public

    2211
    authority, that the best sanitary inspector is the man who does not inspect at all; the man who takes his job easily and does not visit is looked upon as the best visitor, because the people who sit on the Public Health Committee are, in the main, owners of property, and do not want to see the inspector. In one district with which I am well acquainted, the chairman of the Public Health Committee was himself prosecuted five times for owning insanitary property. That is the kind of thing that we are up against—the interests of those who think that the only interest they have in the people is the interest they can make out of them. We are asking for this Clause because we want to give to the public authorities some power to see that the legislation which this House has passed shall be properly put into effect. As I have said, there are 14,000 houses in our borough to-day which are registered as being unfit under the Public Health Acts for occupation by the people. We cannot find further accommodation—there is no room; and yet we are told that we must not have a private inspection, but that we must wait—"Live, horse, and you will get grass"—and expect the Amendment of the Public Health Acts. This Clause would give the power now to the local authorities to do something effective. All that we ask is the right to put into operation the intentions of those who carried the original Public Health Act, and I am very sorry indeed to hear the Minister say that he cannot give us that.
    Dr. ADDISON: If I might, with the permission of the House, answer a question which was put by the hon. Member, he is really under a misapprehension. Under the existing Housing Act, all the local authorities in the country have been required to make an inspection of all their houses within the last 12 months, and to report upon them to the Ministry of Health. We have had reports on examinations of houses now from practically every authority in the Kingdom, and, therefore, what my hon. Friends ask for in this Clause has actually been done during the last 12 months.
    Mr. JONES: We are asking for the power to continue the operation of the Public Health Act as intended. That was only for a special purpose, and we are asking that we may have continued power
    2212
    to deal with public health in the matter of housing.
    Lord H. CECIL: Probably the whole House will not dissent from the hon. Member if he says that the question of insanitary dwellings remains a very grave question, and will deserve the consideration of the House on a future occasion. My right hon. Friend did not give quite a sympathetic reception to this Clause, but I hardly think that its actual provisions would be wise. It proposes a compulsory inspection of all working-class houses every year, and the reasoning of my hon. Friends seemed to point to an addition to the duties of local authorities, in that they would be obliged every year to go through the process of inspection. I confess that I think that that is a very onerous duty, and would be found to be burdensome both to the local authority and to the citizens generally. My hon. Friend (Mr. Jones) does not trust local authorities. He says that some of them may be compared to Herod. But if that be so, how does it happen that they are elected? I should not have thought it possible in a working-class constituency. Even if it be true, will any compulsory provision make things much better? Will Herod's viceroy, inspecting once a year, find out abuses? I think that in the end you must trust the local authorities. We all know that such institutions do not always work perfectly, but you must trust the elected representatives of the people to do their duty, and the people must get other representatives if they fail. By putting a compulsory Clause into an Act of Parliament, obliging them to do this, that or the other, you will not get round the difficulty. If they are not trustworthy, and are really corrupt representatives, they will find a way out of any Clause. The only way is not to elect them another time. Therefore, I entreat the hon. Member to "trust the people."
    Mr. J. JONES: I want to give them houses to live in.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Closing orders.)
    (1) For the purposes of Section seventeen of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909, the representation of the medical officer of health that a dwelling-house is in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation shall be binding upon the local authority, and where a closing Order within the meaning of the

    2213
    cited Section has been made in respect of a dwelling-house it shall not be within the power of the local authority to determine the Order except the medical officer of health certifies that the dwelling-house has been rendered fit for human habitation.
    Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall affect any right of appeal to the Minister under the cited Section.
    (2) Where the local authority consider that it is not reasonably practicable to render a dwelling-house, which is in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, fit for human habitation they shall, when serving the closing Order, accompany the Order with a notice to that effect, but no closing Order shall be invalid by reason of any failure to comply with the provisions of this Subsection.— [Mr. Robert Richardson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I want to protest as strongly as I can against the decision of the right hon. Gentleman not to accept any new Clause on the Paper. We want to try to give the Minister some help in making this Bill a real Health Bill, and such action does not give us very much encouragement. Under Section 17 of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909, the duty is imposed on local authorities of making closing orders, but it does not compel them, when they find that a house has been condemned by their medical officer, to say that it must be closed. What we want is that, once the medical officer of health—who has been appointed, probably, because he is the best man that they could find—has decided that a house is unfit for habitation, no power shall be given to the council to prevent the doctor from closing that house. I want the medical officer to have that power. If he does not have it you reduce to a lower standard your best medical men and you put them on the same level as recalcitrant authorities. When houses are a menace to a local area the medical officer should have power to close them. We know of thousands of houses in which are not to be found even the elementary conditions of pure water for the people to drink. Medical officers have reported condemning houses because they lack a water supply, and yet these places are still occupied to-day and likely to be occupied for many years to come. I do not know if this Clause like the rest is to be turned down; if it is I wish to
    2214
    enter my most emphatic protest against the action of the Government in dealing with the Bill in this manner when they might have got something good out of it.
    Major WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Motion.
    Dr. ADDISON: This is not a good proposal, because it takes the power out of the hands of the local authority altogether.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: No, it does not take any power from the local authority; it gives power to the medical officer.
    Dr. ADDISON: It removes the power from the local authority and it constitutes the medical officer of health an autocrat over that body. My hon. Friend well knows that the reason action has not been taken in respect to many areas that have been scheduled is that alternative accommodation is not available. I am sure a proposal of this character would be a retrograde step. You must make up your minds to trust the elected representatives of the people. If they are not trustworthy, if they do not do their duty they should be turned out at the next election. They already have tremendous powers, and it is for the electors to see that they exercise them. But it would not do to place an officer of a local authority in the position of imposing his will upon them.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his deduction. Everybody knows that the medical officer is appointed by the local authority and has tremendous powers under the Health Act. I have been a member of a local authority for over 30 years, and I have never found any medical officer take upon himself these autocratic powers.
    Dr. ADDISON: But this is a proposal that he should do so.
    Mr. THORNE: He would have to report to the Health Committee first and they in their turn would have to report to the General Council. I do not see any danger in giving these powers to medical officers. I think we are up against a dead wall to-night. The Minister apparently has made up his mind that he will not accept any of these proposals, and I, for one, feel inclined to walk out of the House and leave him to do as he likes with the Bill. We are simply wasting our time in proposing these Clauses.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know if the House is prepared to accept the advice offered by the hon. Member who spoke last. If it is, there does not seem to be any particular need, in view of the attitude of the Government which has been endorsed by the House on a Division, to go through each of these new Clauses. It would simply be a waste of time.
    Mr. THORNE: I agree.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then we had better pass at once to the first Clause of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to hire dwelling-houses compulsorily for housing of the working classes.)
    (1) For the purpose of providing houses any authority, being a local authority within the meaning of Part III of the Housing of Working Classes Act, 1890, shall have power to hire compulsorily any house of a rateable value not exceeding in the metropolitan police district, including the City of London, thirty-five pounds, and else where twenty-six pounds, which is suitable without reconstruction and has not been in the bonâ fide occupation of any occupier at any time during a period of at least three months immediately preceding the date on which the local authority make the Order authorising the compulsory hiring:
    Provided that—

    (a) this Section shall not apply to any house erected after or in the course of erection on the second day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any house acquired for the public service or for the purpose of the statutory duties or powers of a statutory undertaking, and reasonably required for those purposes; and

    (b) the term for which a house may be hired under this Section shall be from the date of the hiring until the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.

    (2) The provisions set out in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the compulsory hiring of houses under this Section.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being found present—
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "of a rateable value not exceeding in the Metropolitan Police District, including the City of London, thirty-five pounds, and elsewhere twenty-six pounds."
    2216
    The purpose of this Amendment is to restore the Clause to the form in which it was originally proposed to the House on the Second Reading. At that time I assume it represented the considered judgment of the Government on this question, and it could only have been in a moment of great weakness that the right hon. Gentleman agreed to mutilate and destroy the effect of the Clause by limiting its operation to houses not exceeding a rateable value of £35 in London and £26 in the Provinces. If the Clause is to be of any value at all, and if the principle it embodies is sound, it should apply to all classes of houses that can be made use of at this particular time. Surely this is a war problem. The Government did not hesitate to commandeer the manhood of the nation in the nation's extremity, and with the aftermath of the War now upon us, when we have this extraordinary shortage of house accommodation, it would be equally fair to commandeer the nation's property, which cannot be considered more sacred, when it is a question of the life and health of the nation. Anyone who has any intimate knowledge of the housing conditions of the country, particularly in industrial areas, must be convinced that at the present time it is nothing less than a crime to withhold from the public service and public use houses which might be utilised in this crisis. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) referred just now to the overcrowding in his own constituency, and spoke of families of six, eight or nine people living in one room. Go where you will—in Lancashire, in the North of England, or anywhere—you will find the same state of things—seven, eight, and even a dozen people being crowded in one room, and much such families living in one house. We are all agreed as to the necessity for improved housing, and it is not unreasonable to say that any houses that can be used under the terms of this Clause—houses, as was originally proposed, that could, without material reconstruction, be adapted for housing men who have come back from overseas—should be utilised for that purpose. I hope, therefore, the Minister will see his way to revert to the form in which the Clause originally was presented to the House.
    If it is sound to take a cottage it must be equally sound to take a mansion. Are you going in this matter to have one law

    2217
    for the rich and another for the poor? It would be a most unjust and foolish thing to do with the present state of unrest in the country. I am satisfied that if one thing more than another aggravates the feeling of unrest and discontent it is the appalling conditions under which so many of our people are housed. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. I would quote the words he himself used when resisting one of the proposed new Clauses. He asked, "Why not trust the local authorities?" I ask him on this Clause to trust the local authorities, and to leave it to their discretion to take such houses as may be necessary and as would come within the four corners of the Bill as originally drafted. If it is a good principle to trust the local authorities in order to carry out various other Clauses of this Bill, I appeal to him that the same advice is equally applicable to this particular Clause, and that he should leave it to the local authorities and trust them to carry this out in the best interests of the locality which they serve, and of the requirements of which they themselves are the best judges. If the Minister in charge of the Bill cannot accept this Amendment in full I hope that at any rate, in view of the tremendous shortage of houses, and realising that this is, after all, but a temporary measure, he will agree to raise the limit so that more houses may be brought within the scope of this Clause. Finally, I will appeal to the economists in this House. This should meet with their approval, because if houses can be utilised in this way, they will be supplying a need which otherwise will have to be met by putting up new-houses, and that means an extra burden on the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Therefore, in the narrower interests of real economy, I suggest it is better to utilise the houses we have rather than build new houses which would only mean a further increase in the rates.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: This is one Amendment which I do certainly commend to the Minister in charge of the Bill. What is so remarkable about the way in which this Clause has been handled by the Standing Committee is this, that the principle of the compulsory hiring of houses was accepted by the House on the Second Reading. The same
    2218
    principle has been accepted by the Standing Committee. All that the Standing Committee has done is to keep the principle, but to minimise its application. If the principle is worth having, and if this Clause is worth inserting in any Act of Parliament, the principle is worth following, so that it can be applied in a practical way in those areas where the need for this type of legislation is greatest. By reducing the rateable value of the premises affected by this measure to £35 in London and £26 elsewhere, you are really depriving those areas where there has been the greatest demand for legislation of this sort of the benefit and protection which it confers. If this Clause is passed in its present form, we shall have an admirable example of window dressing If anybody claims that houses are empty in areas where there is great congestion of population, the Government or Parliament can answer: "We passed legislation with regard to the compulsory hiring of these empty houses; it is there on the Statute Book." But, of course, its application is nonexistent from the point of view of those districts. Our object in urging the Ministry to frame a Clause of this type at all was not to dress windows but to occupy houses, and I submit that that object is certainly not achieved in the whittling-down process which has been adopted with regard to Clause 1, because particularly owing to the re-assessment which is taking place in very many of our large cities, these rateable values are unduly low, so that it may be almost impossible to find any house that comes within the category of this Clause. Many Members think there will be a very great danger of unsuitable houses being taken owing to these compulsory powers, and that there will be no real ground for taking houses which are not in working-class areas, and therefore the extension of the principles of the Clause has got to be opposed. But this Bill provides most adequate safeguards, first of all in the case of large houses where caretakers are in occupation. Houses of that sort will not come within the purview of the Clause, because they will be legally in the occupation of the present owner. Nor does this Clause apply to new houses, nor to houses which will require a certain amount of reconstruction before they are occupiable, and moreover the Minister has to be satisfied,

    2219
    after hearing evidence, that the occupation of the House is reasonable; and after all these circumstances have been attended to, the rent to be paid has to be a fair rent. Therefore I think the House can be perfectly clear about this that all reasonable precautions are set forth in the Bill against any abuse of the power which this Section seeks to confer upon local authorities. I want to support my hon. Friend with regard to the two great reasons why this extension should take place in the provisions of the Clause. First of all, there is at the present time a very genuine feeling of grievance in a great many urban districts. In the district which I have the honour to represent in Parliament this grievance became acute early in the year, and I believe it was upon that grievance that the idea of this legislation was in fact founded. There you have a district of what I might call lower middle class residential streets, where every house is not only occupied, but over occupied. Three, four or five families inhabit a house originally intended for one family. People are slow to marry, and when they do marry they hesitate before they take upon themselves the responsibility of having children, and that is, of course, a deplorable state of affairs. In this district a considerable number of houses were found which were held up from occupation with a view not to getting higher rents, but with the object of selling at the then monopoly value of the premises. I do not say that the desire to obtain the full economic value of these houses was an immoral or unscrupulous one on the part of the property owners. Far from it. But I do say that in the present congestion of the population there, in view of the tremendous shortage of houses, and the great social evils which result from overcrowding, it was a sin against society to leave houses in those areas unoccupied at this time; and this is a type of house which the Amendment framed by the Standing Committee excludes from the purview of the Bill, and this is the very type of house we want to bring within the ambit of this legislation. If you accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend you will remove that grievance, but you will do something more: you will be providing a palliative against the present shortage of houses. Of course, it does not go to the roots of
    2220
    the housing difficulty—I am not suggesting that for a moment; but it is, at all events, bringing into the market a number of houses which at the present time are unreasonably withheld, and that seems to me to be a most potent ground for arguing that this Clause ought to be made as wide as possible, instead of being restricted as much as it could possibly be. The real reason why the Standing Committee practically turned down this Clause was that they were frightened of it being socialistic. If they passed the Bill in its original form, they were told, they would be supporting a wasteful, socialistic Minister, and would be inflicting socialism upon society. All I can say is that politics in this country have been too long enslaved by catchwords and phrases—do not let them be enslaved by mere labels now. It is so easy when dealing with an important reform to say, "This is sheer socialism, and we cannot tolerate the idea for a moment." This House will do well to look behind the label. Let me draw a little illustration or parable from Gallipoli. We were always wondering out there why it was that all our supplies were being preyed upon at the base, while one officer always managed to get through from home some very fine liqueur brandy. We could not understand how it was till he said "I will explain." He showed us the bottle, a medicine bottle, labelled, "The Embrocation—for external use only." Here we get this excellent proposal, as originally drafted by the Minister of Health, a prescription made up by himself, and containing very excellent properties which would undoubtedly help the social evils from which we are suffering. But the Standing Committee choose to tie on a label, and call it "poisonous" and "socialism," and that is the end of it. It is not socialistic at all, because it is not depriving people of their property against their will and without compensation. It is giving them the full, fair market value of their premises, and it only compulsorily hires the premises from them in such cases where upon full consideration of all the circumstances, the Minister, after hearing all the evidence, considers that taking over will be just and reasonable. This seems to me to be a very good ground for accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I feel more than ever confirmed in that

    2221
    opinion by the fact that the House and the Committee have accepted the principle. Why not carry the principle to its logical conclusion, so that it may be of real value and service to the community?
    Colonel LESLIE WILSON: This Amendment is one of several Amendments dealing with the same point, and I think it would save time if on this Amendment I could deal with the following three Amendments on the Paper. My hon. Friends who have spoken on this point have said that if the Bill only came down to the House in the form in which it appeared in Committee they would be satisfied, but I want to remind the House it was owing to an Amendment moved in Committee that the Bill is not in the same form in which it went upstairs. The Bill originally dealt with houses "suitable for the working classes." There was an Amendment moved by my hon. Friends opposite to omit the words "suitable for the working classes," and while opposing that Amendment in the first place, I did so because my right hon. Friend and I foresaw some of the difficulties we should be met with later on in this Clause. I, personally, dislike the definition "working classes." It savours of class distinction, and it is a quite indefinable term. I should be very sorry to define it myself. But it made it absolutely essential at a later stage to define the class of house which should be compulsorily acquired under this particular Clause. These Amendments of which I am speaking, and which deal with this particular point, propose either to leave out the limit altogether or to double or treble it. As hon. Members know, it is only intended to enable local authorities to deal with those houses which are suitable for the particular purpose required, and our object is not so much to define the class of people who shall occupy the house as it is to define the type of house which is required. The limits which are put into the Bill upstairs are £26 and £35, and my hon. Friend who spoke last said that by those limits we were depriving areas where the demand is greatest. He also said that keeping these limits in the Bill meant that this Clause was only a window-dressing Clause. My right hon. Friend in the Committee stage said he would carefully examine these figures, and he has carefully examined these particular figures, and reports have been received
    2222
    from some of the largest centres, which I think the House will be glad to hear— from Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Southampton. They are all agreed that the limit of £26 is adequate.
    Dr. MURRAY: From whom do these reports come?
    Colonel WILSON: They come, as a matter of fact, from the town clerks.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: There are no houses with that value empty.
    8.0 P.M.
    Colonel WILSON: The number of houses in Liverpool in 1919 was 172,777. Of these 135,450 were under £22 10s. rateable value. With regard to the rateable value of £35 fixed for London, the scale laid down by assessment authorities shows that that rateable value covers houses up to a rental, inclusive of rates, of 27s. a week where the rates are 12s. in the £1, and houses of 29s. 6d. where the rates are 15s. and more in the £1. There are cases in which it would be desirable that the rateable value should be increased in this Bill, but the difficulty in which I find myself is this. There was a definite pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal on the Second Reading that he would not ask the House to reverse any decision which came from the Committee. At the same time, I freely acknowledge that the Minister of Health in Committee said before we went to a Division on this point, "I will again examine the figure, and if we can arrive at some friendly arrangement which will modify that figure on Report, I shall be glad to see if we can do so." If I put forward any suggestion it can only be accepted by the Government if it is-accepted by the whole House. I cannot go back on those pledges. In order to avoid the danger of any houses being shut out from the working of the Clause, I should like to see a higher rateable value, and if I can come to an agreement with the House, I will make a definite proposal that the rateable value shall be £50 and £40, and the Government will be quite prepared to accept it. But I cannot go against the decision of the Committee unless the whole House is agreeable to it and is willing to accept the proposal which I have made now. That is the position, and I feel sure hon. Members will

    2223
    agree that I cannot force it on the House unless there is a definite agreement amongst the Members of the House.
    Mr. LORDEN: These figures were inserted because they dealt with the class of house that was likely to be hired, and the Clause says, "which is suitable without reconstruction." When the Bill left the House it was for twelve months. Who could imagine a local authority spending money on houses for twelve months? We then added to it in Committee that it is to terminate at the same time as the Kent Restriction Act, and that gave 2½ years. The figure does not represent the rent by any means. You are dealing here with a house denuded of its rates, entirely denuded of the repairs—one-sixth—and therefore in the metropolitan area it would be £42, and £31 outside the metropolitan area, for houses denuded of their rates. But if the rates were in addition it is a much higher rental than could be suggested here. But the moment you enlarge this scope you allow the local authorities to spend money which they cannot have the slightest chance of getting back. That is the difficulty. They cannot get it back in the time unless they charge an inordinately large rent for the premises they are going to hire compulsorily, and therefore there is a good deal to be said for keeping it at a reasonable figure. With regard to £50 and £40, I do not know that I should raise any question about it, but you could not adapt houses for the class of people it is intended to house without considerable alteration if you go to £50 a year rateable value. A rateable value of £50 means £60. Many local authorities are letting their houses to-day at something like £1 a week inclusive of rates in many cases, and therefore the figure here is really an economic figure, and there could be no expenditure on the part of the local authorities beyond what is a reasonable expenditure to get the house into a cleanly and sanitary state of repair. It is all covered by those words, "suitable without reconstruction." If you are going to reconstruct your house and take a house at £100 a year or £105, or leave it without limit, the result would be that the local authorities will waste a great deal of money, which they will have no chance whatever of recouping, because the time is so short.
    2224
    I understand there is a suggestion that by agreement with the owners the compulsory powers may be for a period of five years, but the moment you start compulsory hiring you really must consider what the feelings of those people are who feel that their places are going to be compulsorily taken from them, and they will not be inclined to come to an agreement, as they otherwise would be if you took things by agreement. Here, I think, I should not oppose £50, although I quite realise that the expenditure of doing up a house of £60 rental is a great deal more than doing up a house of £42 rental, and therefore I certainly feel that the line taken by the Government is the right line. But I think they should have been a little stronger. It was thoroughly discussed in Committee, and it was thought that it would probably add greatly to the expenditure of the local authorities, without any chance of recoupment. If you get it down at £42 and £31, you must not run away with the idea that it is £35 and £26 rental. It is £42 and therefore it makes a considerable difference, and the houses which would be suitable for taking you will cover by the rateable value. That takes up the very large majority of houses.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I only want to make one point, which is suggested by my Amendment with regard to the proposal which has been put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He suggested a raising of the limit. He suggested it, as far as I can see, on no very definite grounds. The original figure was come to in Committee as being the figure of the increase of Kent Mortgage Restriction Act, but it was the Act of 1915. That Act has since then been repealed, and I take it that the spirit of the Committee should be the use of the sum that is arrived at in the Act as amended up to date, because that is the real figure that is meant to correspond with the phrase "housing of the working classes," and therefore I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is in keeping with the spirit of the discussion in Committee and with the whole idea of the science of housing that he should keep the same figure in the Bill as in the Rent Restriction Act, not of 1915, but of 1920.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have not yet gathered whether there is

    2225
    general consent to this very generous suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If there is I will not in any way oppose it further, but I hope our acceptation of this will not in any way prejudice us against a discussion of the Amendments lower down to leave out the words "suitable without reconstruction." If it will not affect that, and if there is general agreement, I am delighted that this small concession has been made. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Lorden) really underrates the importance of the matter. The events going on in certain parts of London to-day surely help to make us realise the gravity of the problem, and the spectacle of large empty houses standing in different parts of London is bound to give rise to very strong feeling and to the sort of incidents we have been having lately, and I hope the Government is going to impress on local authorities the great importance of getting on with this matter and taking over these empty houses as soon as possible without any undue delay, and I hope they are not going to countenance any obstructive tactics on the part of owners of property in preventing one means of meeting the urgent needs of the present moment.
    Mr. J. GUEST: We do not exactly oppose the Amendments dealing with this question, but in the view of myself and those with whom I am associated we would have infinitely preferred that the whole matter had been left to the discretion of the local authorities without being hampered by restrictions. I think the suggestion of the Minister, however, has considerably improved the situation from our point of view.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "thirty-five" ["including the City of London thirty-five pounds"] and insert instead thereof the word "fifty."
    Leave out the words "twenty-six" ["and elsewhere twenty-six pounds"], and insert instead thereof the word "forty."—[Colonel Wilson.]
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "is suitable without reconstruction and".
    These words seem to some of us unduly hampering. What is meant by reconstruction? The putting in of extra stoves
    2226
    or an extra lighting system? I do not really know. I took over a house in London recently and without altering any of the rooms I had to practically rebuild the house to put in decent lighting and cooking arrangements. Is that reconstruction? Apart from that we are afraid these words will limit and hamper the working of the Clause, and we are bound to press the Amendment unless the Minister in charge of the Bill can give us some more suitable meaning of the words in the Clause.
    It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  ASPERSIONS ON MEMBERS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES).
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House is aware that we have fixed 8.15 for discussion of the Motion which the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) has been given leave to move; but on reflection I think I ought to inform the House that I have come to the opinion that I was wrong in accepting that Motion. When the hon. and gallant Member rose to ask leave to move the Adjournment, I considered in my mind the points which were involved in Standing Order 10, namely, whether the Motion was for the purpose of discussing a definite matter: I thought the matter was definite; whether it was urgent: I thought it was urgent, I thought it was a public matter, and I thought it was an important matter. Therefore I accepted it. Perhaps, also, I was moved with some indignation at the character of the attack and the nature of the attack which has been made upon certain Members of the House; but I confess that I had not in my mind at the moment the rulings which have been given on former occasions that Motions for the Adjournment under Standing Order 10 must have some relation to the conduct or the default of the Government, and must be in the nature of criticism of the Government, either for having done some action or for having omitted to do some action which was urgently necessary at the

  2227
  [Mr. Speaker.] moment. The Motion of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave notice, namely:
  "To call attention to the articles of a scandalous nature which have appeared in the 'Daily Mail' and other papers relating to the conduct and character of certain Members of this House,"
  does not affect the Government, and whatever may be the decision of the House, either in adjourning or refusing to adjourn, the action of the Government is not in issue at all. Therefore, I do not think that the Motion can properly be made. It raises a false issue. Hon. Members when asked to vote Aye or No on the Motion for the Adjournment, would be asked to pronounce upon some question that would leave the Government quite intact, and, indeed, the Government would not necessarily take any part in the discussion of that question. To that extent the Motion raises a false issue.
  I must again confess that I was wrong in accepting the Motion. At the same time I go further and say that the House, by a very large number of Members having risen in their places, has condoned my error, and the House having fixed 8.15 for a discussion of this matter, I do not think that I should be justified in declining to call upon the hon. and gallant Member to move his Motion. I will go one step further, and after what I have said with regard to the effect of the Motion, and the fact that it has no relation to the Government and that it could have no general effect, and that we cannot upon a Motion for Adjournment discuss Questions of Privilege, I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member under these circumstances, I would ask him, however strongly he may feel upon the matter, whether he would not consider the inadvisability of proceeding any further with his Motion now?
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER- SHEE: Of course, Sir, after what you have said and the appeal you have made to me and to the House in general upon this subject, I will not attempt to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Mr. REMER: As one of the Members of this House of whom it has been alleged that I have seen "a red light," may I ask if there is any means by which
  2228
  Members of this House can justify themselves in this House for the position they have adopted. Is there any means by which we can express our reasons for giving our votes in this House and jus tifying the position which we took up on the occasion in question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I put it to the hon. Member whether it is really desirable or necessary that any hon. Member whenever he is attacked in the Press should seek to justify his position in this House. His conduct here is open and well known to his colleagues. He owes a duty to them and to the House, and I would venture very humbly to suggest that if every hon. Member who is criticised or attacked in the Press thinks it necessary to get up in this House and to apologise or explain or exculpate himself or defend his opinion there will be very little time left for public business.
  Mr. J. JONES: May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to propose a Vote of Thanks to Lord Northcliffc and his papers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of it in the ordinary way.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I do not want in any way to traverse your advice to the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury, or in any way to remark on your present ruling, Mr. SPEAKER, but may I put this point very briefly to you?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury not having moved his Motion, I do not see what question can arise.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will you permit me to put a question? I take it that it is agreed that the matter of Adjournment is a matter for the House entirely, and I think you recognised that yourself in saying that the House had condoned what you called your error by its vote to-day. Under these circumstances the motion is not proceeded with; and on a previous occasion, notably on the 10th May, 1916, a Motion for the Adjournment of the House for which leave had been obtained was not moved because the Government had agreed to afford facilities for a Motion on the same subject on the following day. You have ruled that this is a matter that does not concern the Government, but I am going

  2229
  to put it to you that this is a matter which does concern the Government, that this is a matter of criticism of the Government and of an attack on the Government for not having exercised their powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and other emergency legislation which is on the Statute Book, and which is acted on in other cases and in other countries.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is not a word about that in the Motion. The Motion is:
  "Articles of a scandalous nature which have appeared in the 'Daily Mail' and other papers relating to the conduct and character of certain Members of this House."
  There is nothing relating to the Government in that.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Well, Sir—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury not having proceeded with his Motion, there is nothing now before the House.
  Mr. J. JONES: Who has brought him to heel?

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Postponed Proceedings resumed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment as a means of relieving the very sort straits in which many poor people in this country are placed, including many ex-service men. One of the obvious means of relieving the present house famine is taking over these empty houses. These words are hampering and may make the Act very largely a dead letter. Owing to the action of the Government in generously meeting us, with regard to raising the rateable value of houses which may be taken over, this Bill now applies to larger premises than when it came up here. A great many houses rather larger than working-class houses which are not being used for various reasons might be suitable for this purpose but will need slight reconstruction. The hon. Member opposite said that
  2230
  it was ridiculous to talk of reconstructing a house which you were only going to occupy for 12 months. There is a great deal in that, but the question of putting up partitions, providing extra sanitary arrangements, extra ventilating arrangements which might be needed in these houses, effecting small practical alterations which would be temporary, such as might be made in a building used for the armed forces during the War, might be objected to by owners of property who wished to prevent their property being used for this philanthropic purpose. We say that the need is so urgent and the feeling of certain sections of the people is rising so rapidly that no obstacle ought to be thrown in the way of taking over these great empty houses for this purpose. The hon. Member (Mr. Lorden) has built a great many houses and will build many more, and I do not think that this Amendment will affect his operations.
  Mr. LORDEN: Not in the least.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If it did, I am certain that I could appeal to his generosity towards these people. The position is simply tragic. People are living in tents, and the fact that a house requires certain alterations in order that it may be used for more than one family should not be a reason for not taking it over and adapting it. In more than one country in Europe they have had to ration houses. I would rather see everyone restricted to one house than to see a man walking the streets unable to get a house. A little statesmanlike generosity on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel W. Wilson) may avert serious trouble.
  Mr. J. GUEST: I beg to second the Amendment. I am afraid of what may be construed under the term "reconstruction." If the Clause is left without a better definition of what are the intentions of the Ministry, the supply of houses under this Clause will be considerably restricted. If you are going to take over houses of a rateable value up to £40, you are bound to face some alteration in those premises to enable them to accommodate more than one family. Take the ordinary villa residence. There will certainly have to be provision made for an extra kitchen, extra fires, perhaps extra windows, and drainage accommodation. Some people might hold that some of

  2231
  these items are included in "reconstruction." There is no necessity for this wording to be retained in the Bill. In the Schedule provision is made not only that they are premises which are to be occupied at what I would term a fair rental, but within the limited period of occupation, which may be two and a half years, or even less, they must bear the costs of any adaptation or reconstruction. That puts a limitation on the extent of the alterations which may take place. Some hon. Members may fear that it is intended to take possession of the places of the gentry or landed classes and then to leave them in a dilapidated state. Nothing of that sort is possible. The limitations are such that my own personal view is that very few houses will come within its operations, and those which do come will bear the burden of rent and cost of adaptation, so that there is no necessity for further limitation.
  Colonel L. WILSON: My hon. and gallant Friend stated the case quite clearly for this Clause. The object of the Clause is to provide houses for ex-service men who are in urgent need of them at present. Every hon. Member knows of cases in which housing accommodation is urgently required at once. This Amendment would enable a local authority to hire compulsorily houses which need to be reconstructed before they can be made suitable for occupation. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. The words "without reconstruction" have a definite substantial meaning. They are used already in the Housing and Town Planning Act. I can assure my hon. Friends that these words will not have the effect which they fear, namely, that repairs and alterations such as they have suggested with regard to partitions, sanitary arrangements, or whatever may be of a minor character, cannot be done by the local authorities. The Schedule of the Bill, Clause 7, states that
  "in fixing the amount of rent to be paid, regard shall be had to any money which may have been or may be required to be spent by the local authorities in putting the house in a condition reasonably fit for human habitation."
  Under the Amendment which was accepted by the House just now, a larger type of house can be taken by the local authority and, considering the fact that it can only be occupied for two or two and a half
  2232
  years, it would be most unreasonable that the ratepayers' money should be spent on conversion. The minor alterations which have been referred to and which are necessary can be done. There still remains the power with the housing authority to acquire any property, and this would not stop them acquiring the houses mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment. They can do anything that is reasonable in the nature of the minor alterations for the two and a half years.
  Captain COOTE: Has the word reconstruction in law a definite meaning, and can the hon. Gentleman give us a more precise definition of the meaning?
  Colonel WILSON: It has a legal meaning. Reconstruction means to alter the character of the house by addition to it or by such alteration so that the character of the house is changed.
  Mr. LORDEN: The hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested just now that I had something to do with house building. I happen to be in the building trade, but with regard to house building I am afraid I have done very little of it. The provisions of this Bill do not affect me personally in the slightest way.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I never suggested they did, and I would not think of making such a suggestion. I know that if they did that would make the hon. Gentleman come down on our side.
  Mr. LORDEN: I am glad to have that disclaimer, but it does not do away with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. I happen to know something about building, and when I come to the House I submit I am entitled to use that knowledge in order to arrive at a reasonable and practical solution. This Bill, as it was first drafted, was not practical, but to-day it is practical to carry out its work. The Schedule of the Bill covers the whole of the ground which would be necessary in the case of houses taken for two and a half years. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent sanitation, amendment of drainage, painting, cleaning, repairs to woodwork or brick or slate work or to do what is necessary to make the house habitable. Reconstruction means turning a house into flats. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
  Mr. ROYCE: Reconstruction does not mean even rebuilding. It means to change the character of a house, not necessarily into a flat—
  Mr. LORDEN: I agree.
  Mr. ROYCE:— from the character itoriginally presented. The hon. Gentleman has a large amount of building knowledge, but there are other hon. Gentlemen who have had some experience, too.
  Mr. LORDEN: I hope nobody ever thought I claimed to know everything, but I claim to know something, and that is all I claim. Reconstruction might mean turning into flats or turning the house into quite a different character of house from that which it is now. Therefore it is necessary to have these words in. If they were not, some local authority might spend a much larger sum of money in reconstruction than the occasion warranted. As it is, they have full power to put the house into a habitable condition.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "fide" ["in the bonâ fide"] to insert the word "residential."
  The object is to prevent the use of houses as store rooms and for other purposes and to give the local authorities in such cases power to take them over. I know of several instances in the country where houses are being used as store houses for potatoes and that kind of thing. I know of one case where houses are being used as store houses and if the power to take them over was given there would be three cottages perfectly equipped handed over by a school which now occupies them. There are hundreds of these cases scattered over the country. The word "residential" may not cover the point, but the object is to give the power to take houses which are not now in human habitation. I submit this proposal would inflict no harm on anybody and would do a great deal of good in the housing question.
  Mr. WATERSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I have also had brought to my observation similar instances of houses being so used. Near a village in the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are seven iron stone quarries and many of the men have to walk many miles to their work. Close
  2234
  to the village there are one or two houses, and of which is used as an apple storehouse for the squire of the village. In this age when there is such a great shortage and when men are being urged to give greater output, there ought to be some regard for these men who should be given every facility to live in close proximity to their work.
  Colonel WILSON: I do not quite understand the object of this Amendment, and I am not at all certain that if these words were inserted it would not defeat the very object of the Clause. I suggest that the cases which my hon. Friends have mentioned, with which I fully sympathise, are fully covered by the insertion of the words "bonâ fide occupation" in Committee. I am also advised that the words "residential occupation" have no meaning in law, or if they have a meaning, it is such that it might defeat the ends we have in view.
  Mr. ROYCE: I think on reflection the hon. and gallant Member will find that the words "bonâ fide occupation" might mean not necessarily human occupation.
  Colonel WILSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not so.
  Mr. J. GUEST: May I ask if the words "bonâ fide occupation" would be complied with if a house were untenanted but the owner paid the rates?
  Dr. ADDISON: No, such a house-would not be in bonâ fide occupation.
  Mr. J. GUEST: There are people who have residences in London and elsewhere, and they might not be in one of them for the best part of the year, and I wondered if such a house could be considered to be in boné fide occupation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "three months," and to insert instead thereof the words "one month."
  The need of housing in certain parts of the country is so acute that it seems unreasonable to allow any house to remain unoccupied for more than a month. I do not suppose that a person shutting up his house and going away for his holiday would be caught in any case,

  2235
  because no local authority would do that, but in the case of a man giving up his house and leaving it for more than a month, I cannot understand why the local authority should not have power to take it over. The other case I have in mind is the case of people holding up a house for a higher rent. I want to see the rents brought down. I would not suggest this Amendment except that I know from personal observation how terribly acute this question is. I get abusive letters saying: "You pose as a friend of the working classes. Why do you not do something to get us houses? I am living in a barn, or in a workshop," or something of that sort. I believe I shall have the support in this case of even the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), as he must know how terribly urgent this question is in certain parts of the country.
  Mr. J. GUEST: I beg to second the Amendment. So far as I can see, there is no reason for houses in general to stand empty for more than a month.
  Dr. ADDISON: The words in the Bill represent what was clearly considered to be a compromise in Committee, as there were various Amendments down, some for a shorter period and some for a longer period. I would point out that the houses which would be taken first by the local authority would be those which have been unoccupied for some months in times past, and therefore in these cases the three, months' period would already have been covered. We must also remember that cases often arise in the event of death where it would really be a hardship to put in a period of one month. I think the Clause is a very drastic proposal, and that we ought to give as fair a notice to the persons concerned as possible. I cannot, therefore, accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment.
  Mr. SPENCER: There is one very real objection to the period of three months, because it will give to the owner of the property a better chance of holding it up for the purpose of selling the house rather than letting it to what he might deem to be undesirable tenants. Houses have been held up for the purpose of selling, and if you keep three months as the period it would give the owner the right
  2236
  to keep his house empty for three months and three weeks for the purpose of selling, and that means that the most desirable people are not necessarily going to get the house, but those will get it who are in a position, probably, to purchase, as against those who are in a less fortunate position in that regard. If you put in one month instead of three months, the probabilities are that the owner would not be able to sell it in that period but would let it to the local authorities. I had during the War to remove, and I had the utmost difficulty in getting a house, while there were many which were empty. I was told that I could buy a house, and we had to pay £1,000 for a house which cost about £300 or £400 before the War began.
  Mr. R. CARTER: The word "undesirable" has been used with regard to this three months. Surely a man who has means to buy a house cannot be called undesirable, and I should have thought that if the landlord had to let the house under any circumstances, practically to any tenant, there is a good deal more likelihood of the tenant being undesirable.
  Mr. SPENCER: I think the hon. Member has misapprehended my term "undesirable." I mean undesirable from the point of view that a man might have a mind to purchase the house and to be able to buy it, whereas the other man might not have any house at all and not have the money to buy it.
  Mr. CARTER: Surely if a man owns a house, and he wants to sell it in preference to letting it, at any rate, if he holds it for three months, he loses the rental of it. If a man wants to dispose of a house, and it takes three months to do it, this Amendment would be very drastic indeed, and would put a very great onus, and undeserved penalty, upon a man who is leaving a neighbourhood and wants three months' opportunity to sell his house. This is quite a new class of legislation, and surely after all—I am not speaking as a landlord, but perhaps the people harder hit than anyone else under the Bill are the landlords—we ought to be perfectly even-minded, and I think three months is a reasonable time, and should not be curtailed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, a), after the word "pur-

  2237
  poses," to insert the words "or to any house which is required for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding.'
  These words are taken from the Rent Restrictions Act, which is already in operation. They will not require any explanation from me. It is perfectly obvious that it would not be possible to carry on the work of an agricultural holding unless words of this sort were inserted.
  Colonel L. WILSON: As my right hon. Friend has said, these words are similar to those in Section 5 of the Rent Restrictions Act, and the Government is quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

    CLAUSE 2.— (Amendment of Section 1 of 9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 99.)
    (1) Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919 (which proscribes the conditions under which grants may be made to persons constructing houses), shall have effect as though two years where therein substituted for twelve months.
    (2) Every Regulation made by the Minister of Health prescribing the conditions under paragraph (a) of the said Sub-section with which houses whereof the construction is begun after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, shall comply, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
    Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    9.0 P.M.
    I want to say straight away that I am not taking into account in any way the merits of the Clause. I am asking the House to reject this on purely financial grounds. This Clause is asking us to continue the housing subsidy for another year. The housing subsidy as given in the present year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now something between £15,000,000 and £16,000,000. What it will be in the full year 1921–2 under this Clause, I do not know, but I assume that, as £15,000,000 does not represent a full year the subsidy will be more than that.
    Mr. LORDEN: Fifteen million pounds represents the total.
    Mr. HOLMES: For one year?
    Mr. LORDEN: Oh, no—altogether.
    Mr. HOLMES: Surely I am right in saying that in the Budget this year the housing subsidy is given as £15,000,000?
    Dr. ADDISON: This relates to quite a different matter. This relates to the lump sum given as a subsidy to private builders to build houses. It is not the amount required for local authorities' schemes.
    Mr. HOLMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the financial effect of this Clause is? Because it is obvious, if you are going to continue these grants for another year, you are going to spend more public money. The point I want to put is this. We are all urging the Government to reduce expenditure day by day. We are going to have a Debate on economy to-morrow. A number of Members will doubtless vote in favour of reduced expenditure, but whenever a proposition comes before the House which, on its merits, is good, the House votes for it, and involves the country in fresh expenditure. I am sorry for the hon. Members who find themselves on the Black List, but, in many cases, they are simply guilty of hyprocrisy, because they pretend to be economists, and desire to reduce the national expenditure, but they vote for education, health, houses, and anything else that comes along which they regard, on its merits, as good. I am perfectly willing to admit that this may be a perfectly good thing on its merits. I am quite willing to agree that education and all sorts of collective benefits which may be given to the nation by legislation are good things, but I do suggest that, at the present time, the country is not able to afford a great many of these collective benefits which social reformers of all parties desire to give them, and I ask the House to say at the present time that, having regard to the position of the national finances, we cannot afford to spend more money on social reform until we have got our finances right. For that reason I move the omission of this Clause.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to second the Amendment, and largely on the same

    2239
    ground, that of finance. As I understand it—1 may be wrong—the House voted a lump sum of £15,000,000 to be used in doles to encourage private builders to put up houses. I understand by the end of the financial year, 31st March, that of that sum there will not have been expended more than probably £4,500,000 or £5,000,000, and the object of this Clause, which looks so innocent, is to enable the Minister to spend the £9,000,000 remaining, and to spread the period over to next year, at his goodwill, for a further four months. If that is so it is exactly equivalent to our voting to-night the expenditure of new money to the extent of £9,000,000; otherwise this unexpended balance of the £15,000,000 would automatically go back to the Treasury, would lapse at the end of the financial year. I think the country can ill afford this expenditure at the present time. If it was injudicious and improper to have voted the £15,000,000 originally for this purpose, it is more than improper now, it is scandalous, knowing what we do about the financial needs of the country, and the ever-growing burden of taxation, which is less well borne to-day than when we voted the £15,000,000.
    There is another reason beyond these. I am sorry, very sorry, to say that the whole result of the policy of the Minister in giving these doles and subsidies for the building of houses has produced a most disastrous effect. It has had the effect of making the houses built the most dear and expensive in the country. When we first talked about a Housing Bill here we spoke with bated breath of houses costing £500 to £600, which in pre-War days cost from £250 to £300. But the doles came along, and steadily the prices of these houses mounted up, and now we talk, without bated breath, of £1,000 to £1,200 as the cost of a four or five-roomed cottage. The doles have been all absorbed by the building trade. I am quite confident that if by some good fortune the Minister had devoted his activities to some other business than the building of houses, the law of supply and demand would probably, before now, have given us more houses built and in course of erection, and at an infinitely cheaper price. It seems to me, looking at the result of the activities of the Minister— and I have come very regretfully to the opinion—that the Minister of Health is
    2240
    a luxury, and a very expensive one, and one that I am doubtful, very doubtful, the country can afford at the present time.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): What the hon. Gentleman is saying is rather interesting, but it is also rather irrelevant.
    Mr. HOPKINS: i am sorry to appear irrelevant, but I was endeavouring to reinforce the criticism which might be made against the Minister who proposes to spend this money under this Clause; but I will conclude by seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Clause.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Gentleman, I think, cannot have carefully examined the facts of the case. If he really wishes to allege that it is due to some action of the Minister that building is so dear, may I remind him that if he is building a factory or a warehouse he has to pay enormously more for it, just as the Minister of Health has for the bricks and materials. The Minister individually is no more responsible for this thing than are the unfortunate people who have to extend their mills and factories. What my hon. Friend opposite has inquired about has been quite correctly answered by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is to carry over into another year the unexpended portion of the subsidy authorised last year. The money referred to by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway relates only to England and Wales, or, roughly, £12,500,000, of which some £5,500,000 has been spent during the present year. The £15,000,000 is applicable to the United Kingdom. If my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Holmes) is one of those who take the view that all this effort should cease then I absolutely disagree from him. Nothing, in my opinion, at the present time will be more dangerous to the best interests of society. If we want any evidence of that, one has only to look at the daily papers for the last fortnight. This whole matter was gone. into fully on the Financial Resolution and on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think there was a consensus of opinion that, so far as any assistance by the House of Commons was concerned in this matter of housing, this was the most economical way, because, at all events, we do get rid of our liabilities on the spot; it is not a continuing liability over

    2241
    a long term of years. Amongst the schemes it is, I think, universally accounted the best and the most economical. It is on that account, when in these days we certainly get as much as we can for as small an expenditure as possible, that this particular class of expenditure is advocated, for in it we do get return for the money expended. Therefore I hope the house will not accept the Motion.
    Mr. LORDEN: On this point the Minister has touched the very spot when he alludes to the question of costs. What is the cheapest form of house building? It is the subsidy scheme. You are limited to a subsidy of £260 for every house you are building, whereas if you adoptee) other schemes the cost might be £1,000 more.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The schemes of public utility societies do not cost any more
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot have a general discussion on the housing policy. The point is, are we or are we not going to have this subsidy to the private builder for another year.
    Mr. LORDEN: I was trying to show that this was the best and cheapest way of dealing with the problem, and of the two evils I think we should choose the lesser. The system we have adopted is an evil, but it is very much less than the evil of the municipalities dealing with it themselves.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I want to know whether it is possible under the present arrangement for a man to arrange to build a house and having come under the scheme, can he add two or three more rooms and make a larger house. I think that would be obtaining the subsidy for a different class of house. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman can take any steps to prevent this questionable practice being adopted. I hear rumours that it is being done and I think it should be stopped, because the money should not be given in such cases.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think in the Clause as it stands there is much to which we can take objection. As I understand it, in reply to a speech which I made on Committee, the Minister of Health gave a distinct pledge that under
    2242
    no circumstances would the Government contemplate the extension of this principle longer than the period mentioned in this Clause, that is, for another year. The importance of that pledge may not be apparent, but if you are going to lead builders to suppose that Parliament is going to encourage builders to rely upon a subsidy for many years to come because it is the cheapest way, in that case I should vote against this Clause. If the idea is going to be that the Government are going to encourage house builders in this way permanently, we should never get back to the provision of houses on an economic basis. You will never achieve this if the private builder is led to believe that he is always going to get a subsidy. The Minister of Health assured us that we should never be able to solve this problem until we got back to an economic basis.
    We now come back to the justification for extending this practice for another' year. The hon. Member (Mr. Holmes) said you have to cut your coat according to your cloth, and that it is no use on one occasion reducing military expenditure if you keep silent with regard to reducing other forms of expenditure; and he further said that you can never get real economy unless expenditure is reduced all round. Does the hon. Member think that anybody who went to his constituency in England and asserted that he was going to vote against spending any more money on houses would have any chance of being returned again? We have heard a good deal about squander-mania, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that in no circumstances is he going to carry on this policy for more than another year. I regard with some apprehension that he is going to carry on this policy for another year, but I hope that that period may suffice to bring us back once more to an economic-basis. I confess I have no very great enthusiasm for the method adopted in this Clause, but on this occasion I shall support it.
    Major MOLSON: Although we are all trying to effect economy, I think it would be a mistake to stop this subsidy. I believe that houses will be more cheaply built by the aid of a subsidy than if they were built by public authorities, and for that reason I am against this Amendment. On this point I am quite at one

    2243
    with the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden), and I agree that the cheapest way of building houses is by leaving them to private individuals.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: I would like to know whether the unexpended portion will fall into the Treasury at the end of the financial year, and will it come into the Estimates next year?
    Dr. ADDISON: It will appear next year.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I think we are all agreed as to the value of a subsidy as a temporary expedient, but I would like to urge upon the Minister of Health the necessity of seeing that the rules and regulations laid down by his Department are such that the local builders have a wide latitude as to the way they shall build the houses, provided that they are good and efficient. I bring up this point because I realise that I had to approach the right hon. Gentleman's Department on this question a short time ago. It was merely a technical detail, in which an obstruction was put in the way of a local individual. There was some form of regulation which affected the question whether a house in a slate-producing district should be fitted with slates or not. The right, hon. Gentleman was extremely sympathetic in this respect and gave every assistance. I should like to urge him to use his powers very widely and to try to do away with red tape as far as possible in the construction of these houses. Only in that way can he hope to expedite the building question.
    Dr. ADDISON: We framed our scheme with a view to its being as elastic and simple as possible. I think the Government scheme works exceedingly simply, but we have often been criticised because the regulations are too lax and easy. However, I will bear the point which the bon. Gentleman has raised in mind.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend (Mr. Hailwood) asked whether unexpended balances would fall into the Treasury. I think not, if this is carried. As T understand it, a sum not exceeding £15,000,000 has been authorised for one year. Now, we say that that sum should be authorised to two years. Therefore, until the end of two years, no money
    2244
    which is unexpended will fall into the Treasury. At the end of the two years, if the period is not renewed, any unexpended balance will fall into the Treasury and go to the reduction of the National Debt. Of course the money will appear on next year's Estimates. I think I am right in that?
    Dr. ADDISON indicated assent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is really a very difficult question. There are a great number of matters which probably the majority of the Members of this House would like to see done; but you have to consider your resources. However good a thing may be, if you have not the money to do it, and if you borrow the money, the only result will be what happens in the case of a spendthrift who, not having sufficient money to dine at the Ritz, borrows in order to do it. He will come to an untimely end, and so shall we. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to realise we have to get the money from somewhere. One hon. Gentleman said that if a man had not got a house and had no money he ought to have one. That is a very crude doctrine, although, if I had no money for a house, I should probably agree with it. If that doctrine were carried to its logical outcome we should abolish all civilisation and go back to a savage state where the strongest person took what he wanted from the weakest. That would not tend to the prosperity of this or any other country I do not like subsidies, and I believe that the only real solution probably is private enterprise. I am afraid we are killing private enterprise, and that all those Bills, which are supposed to assist in the provision of houses, will result in frightening the speculative builder or the investor.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Lorden) does not read. There is nothing about the floor area of houses in the Clause. The following Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), substituting five years for two in which grants may be made to persons construct

    2245
    ing houses, involves a charge. The hon. and gallant Member will remember the Resolution passed by the Committee on which this Clause was founded. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst), providing that no grant may be made to persons constructing houses unless they satisfy the Minister of Health that at least 33 per cent. of the workpeople employed by them in the process of constructing such houses served in the armed forces of the Crown during the late War, is too indefinite in form for the Report stage. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Mr. Hopkins), is one that I pass by.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "made" ["every Regulation made"] to insert the words "after the passing of this Act."
    Unless we put in some sort of Amendment of this kind it will be possible for the Minister of Health to issue a Regulation before 31st March next altering the subsidy payable on each house, and also, for instance, altering the number of houses that can be built in a particular area. In the past the right hon. Gentleman has issued orders, without coming to this House, altering the number of houses which can be built in any area, and altering the amount of the subsidy. Without coming to the House he altered the subsidy by Regulation from a £160 maximum to a £260 maximum. This Amendment is to ensure that before issuing a new Regulation, or before such Regulation should have binding force, the right hon. Gentleman must lay it on the Table, and give the House an opportunity of saying whether it wants it or not. The Amendment is a reasonable one. After all, we ought to have control ever very important matters, such as the subsidy payable, the area, and the number of houses in a particular area.
    Major MOLSON: I beg to Second the Amendment
    Dr. ADDISON: I quite agree with the hon. Member that his Amendment makes the matter clear, and quite specific. It was our intention to deal with it, but I have no desire to avoid the procedure
    2246
    which he advocates, and I think his proposal will meet the case. I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), leave out the words, "Subsection with which houses whereof the construction is begun after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty-one shall comply." — [Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.]

    CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment of Section 5 of 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 99.)
    Section five of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919 (which gives power to local authorities to prohibit building operations which interfere with the provision of dwelling houses), shall be amended as follows:—
    (1) The powers and duties of a local authority under the said Section may, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the authority, and subject as hereinafter provided, be exercised and performed by a Committee appointed under Section eighty-one of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as amended by the Second Schedule to the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919:
    Provided that any Order made under the said Section by such a Committee shall be forthwith submitted to the local authority and taken into consideration by the local authority at their next meeting, and shall not continue in force unless confirmed by the authority.
    (2) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the said Section in special cases, any local authorities having powers under the said Section may appoint a joint Committee consisting, as to a majority of its members, of members of their own bodies or may otherwise act jointly, and where any local authorities so appoint a joint Committee the said Section shall have effect as though the areas of those authorities were a single area and as though the joint Committee were the local authority for that area:
    (3) The power of a local authority under Sub-section (1) of the said Section shall include a power to prohibit the construction of any works or buildings where it appears to the authority that the provision of dwelling accommodation for their area is being delayed by a deficiency of labour due to the payment of remuneration in any form to persons employed on the construction of those works or buildings in excess of that commonly recognised by employers and trade societies in the district:
    (4) Where the Minister of Health (in this Act referred to as "the Minister") is satisfied that the provision of dwelling accommodation within the area of a local authority is or is likely to be hindered—

    (a) by reason of the construction in the area of some other authority of buildings of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation; or

    (b) by reason of the failure of the local authority to make adequate use in their area of their powers under the said Section as amended by this Section;

    the Minister, after hearing the local authority concerned, and giving to that local authority fourteen days' notice of such Order, may make such Order as he thinks proper in the circumstances of the case for prohibiting or restricting the construction of works or buildings in the area in question:
    An Order made by the Minister under the foregoing provision shall not extend to any works or buildings authorised or required by, under, or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, and shall be subject to the like appeal as if it were an Order made by a local authority under the said Section:
    (5)The tribunal to which appeals under Sub-section (2) of the said Section are to be referred by the Minister shall, instead of being a standing tribunal consisting of five persons to be appointed by the Minister, be constituted as follows: —

    (a) The Minister shall constitute a panel of persons to act as chairmen of the tribunal and a panel of persons to act as ordinary members of the tribunal;

    (b) The tribunal shall consist of one person selected by the Minister from the panel of chairmen and not less than two persons selected by the Minister from the panel of ordinary members;

    (c) The tribunal shall sit in such number of divisions as the Minister may from time to time determine:

    (6) It is hereby declared that the power of the Minister to make rules of procedure under Sub-section (2) of the said Section includes power to make rules with respect to hearing of appeals by the tribunal:
    (7)The costs of an appeal under Sub-section (2) of the said Section shall be in the discretion of the tribunal hearing the appeal, and the tribunal may direct to whom, by whom, and in what manner those costs or any part thereof are to be paid, and may settle the amount of the costs to be so paid or any part thereof:
    An Order of the tribunal for payment of costs may by leave of the High
    2248
    Court be enforced in the same manner as an Order of that Court, or if the amount thereof does not exceed fifty pounds, may be recovered summarily as a civil debt:
    (8) The following shall be substituted for Sub-section (3) of the said Section: —
    "(3) An Order made by a local authority under this Section shall have effect as from the date specified in the Order in that behalf, but any person who is aggrieved by and has appealed against the Order may apply to the tribunal of appeal, and the tribunal may, on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, suspend the operation of the Order pending the determination of the appeal or for such shorter period as it thinks fit."
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This Clause is two and a half pages of interference with the business of private individuals, and it can only have the result, if the powers under it are exercised, of inducing unemployment. At the present time we do not want to diminish the amount of available employment in this country. Even when a local authority, for good or sufficient reasons, and knowing their own district, may desire that some factory or other building should be put up in their neighbourhood, the Minister may think that he knows better than the local authority, and may step in and prevent it. I do not think that this wide, autocratic and unnecessary power should be put in the hands of the Minister.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend has described this Clause as two and a half pages of interference with the business of private individuals. I am afraid he has not read it, or that he must have lived in some strange world during the past year or two, for he appears to have forgotten that powers to this effect have been in our possession for a long time past. The dangers with regard to them only exist in the mind of my hon. Friend. What has happened has been that a number of authorities up and down the country have exercised their powers to prevent a certain amount of unnecessary building, but they have only power to stop such building where they can show that the provision for housing in their area is actually short on that account of labour and material. It is

    2249
    not a question of diminishing the volume of employment. In fact, in order to enable an authority to exercise its power, it must show that the opportunity for employment on housing is thereby prejudiced, and therefore there is no question of limiting the amount of employment. I have not heard of any case throughout the length and breadth of the land where necessary factories or works or shop extensions have been stopped by this procedure. I see that an hon. Member is present who was a member of the appeal tribunal to which such cases go, and he will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that a single case has occurred throughout the country where this has happened. The fact is that it is administered by sensible people, who recognise that the provision of works and shops and factories is necessary for the provision of employment, and nothing of the kind has ever been stopped. What has arisen has been that in a number of cases great public annoyance has been caused by flagrant disregard of the provisions of the original statute. There are cases where simply nothing has been done, and that has caused great trouble and annoyance and even serious distress.
    The Clause contains another provision which, I agree, at ordinary times is objectionable, but which I think is absolutely essential just now. It is the provision which puts a limitation upon the amount of wages or excess payments that may be made. That goes beyond what was in the original proposal, and the reason for it is that it has been found that one very potent cause of forcing up the cost of building, which is so disastrous to everyone concerned, has been competition for the scanty amount of building labour available. The result of that competition has been that certain people have been willing to pay their workmen 2d. or 3d. more than the district rate of wages, that has been done sub rosa. In one case in which it was stopped by the Master Builders' Federation, some philanthropic individual appeared outside the works gates on a Saturday afternoon and presented every man who came off the job with a sovereign, and the other men in the same district clamoured for the same kind of consideration.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I had better intervene at this point.
    2250
    Almost the next Amendment on the Paper which I propose to call is one proposing to leave out Sub-section (3), and I think it would be better to defer this discussion until we reach that Amendment and not to take it on the more general question.
    Dr. ADDISON: This is a Motion to leave out the whole Clause, but of course I defer to what you suggest. At all events these are the novel suggestions in the Clause. It is really a question of machinery for the purpose of administration, and embodies procedure which has been found by experience to be the best for getting expeditious work. The other novel points were the two that I have mentioned. I am sure that, in the present state of public temper, and with the present shortage of building labour, if we are going to prevent unnecessary competition, which is carried on in a highly improper manner and at high cost, some powers of this kind are really necessary, and I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not propose to call the next Amendment, to leave out the words from "1919" to the end of the Clause and to insert the words "is hereby repealed," as that would conflict with the decision at which the House has already arrived.
    Major NALL: On a point of Order. You put the question that the words down to "1919" stand part, and I suggest that that really does not rule out this Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House has already decided that the Clause in some form—that is to say, some form of amendment of Section 5 of the Act referred to—shall stand, and it would clearly be a contradictory proposal to move to repeal that part of the Clause alternatively.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1), to insert the words "at such meeting." This is merely a drafting Amendment, which makes the meaning clearer.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to Second the Amendment.
    Colonel L. WILSON: I do not know that I should call this exactly a drafting

    2251
    Amendment. I think my hon. Friend's suggestion is that it should be made necessary for the local authority to confirm or disallow any order made by their Housing Committee at the first meeting of the authority following the date of the order.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thought that that was what was meant by the Bill.
    Colonel WILSON: It does not always mean that, but on behalf of the Government I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (3).
    In spite of the attempt of the Minister of Health to take the wind out of my sails by talking about philanthropists giving sovereigns to workmen on Saturdays, I intend to persist with the Amendment, and I am not discouraged by finding myself in the company of the right hon. Baronets opposite (Sir F. Banbury and Sir H. Craig) whose names are also down to move the rejection of this paragraph, although, except in matters of economy, I do not find myself very often in agreement with them. I wish to address myself more particularly to my hon. Friends who represent Labour. I want to point out that this paragraph sets up a very dangerous precedent. It provides that if an employer in a certain district pays a higher wage than other employers he is to be stopped from employing men at all. We have had a good deal of discussion lately about key industries. If it is to be said it is wrong to give more wages to attract workmen, there is no reason why people employed in key industries should not say to other employers, "You must not offer higher wages to our workmen in order to draw them away." This is a most unhealthy precedent, and may lead to a lot of bad feeling.
    There is an organised attempt in certain industries to bring wages down. I am not complaining of that. I only wish to draw attention to the fact. Furthermore, certain local authorities will make great efforts to pay low wages for house building, and I understand one of the
    2252
    fears of the building trades union which make them oppose a great dilution by unskilled labour is that it will bring down wages. Certain local authorities may be so unscrupulous, or so hard up for money, as to take advantage of unemployment in their district to bring down wages, because men would be willing to work for a lower wage rather than starve. You are going to penalise the good employers in a district. You are going to encourage sweating on behalf of local authorities. This paragraph will not encourage or help building at all, because where unnecessary building or luxury building is taking place to the detriment of building dwelling houses, there are ample powers in the original Act and in paragraph (4) to prohibit it by an Order of the Ministry of Health. Therefore the argument that this is going to help the building of houses for working classes will not hold water. The House should be very 10th indeed to penalise men for paying more money. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the disgraceful action of an employer in giving a £1 note to every workman on a Saturday who was engaged on a certain job.
    Dr. ADDISON: The £1 was given as a bribe to draw men off housing work. That is what I suggested.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman talked about drawing men from house building work. If that was the case, why did he not prohibit the building going on in that neighbourhood if it could be shown that it was hindering house building? Was the money not paid because the employer was a good business man who could afford to pay higher wages? I am highly suspicious of this Clause. When you begin to interfere with this form of contract between workers and employers you do not know what trouble you may create. I have never advocated the limitation of profits. As long as we allow private industry, you must allow the highest profits to be made. At the same time it is not fair or right to limit the workman in the wages he commands. This paragraph seeks to do that. I hope I have made out a case. I am looking forward to the able advocacy of the right hon. baronet opposite, and I hope at the same time my hon. Friends near me will support the omission of the paragraph.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment, although I am not sure that the reasons which actuate me are the same as those which have been given by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I am against this paragraph because I am in favour of freedom. I have always been a lover of liberty. I believe a man has a right to sell his labour, or any other kind of property he may possess, to the highest bidder. I have always taken the view that where trade unions interfere with the liberty of a man to sell his labour at whatever price he likes, whether high or low, that is not true liberty. It is not true liberty to tell a man who chooses to work for 20s. a week that, unless he demands more, his head will be broken. There is no freedom about that. If a man is fortunate enough to command a higher wage than the rate current in the district, because he may be more skilled than anybody else, I can conceive of no reason why he should not accept an offer of a higher wage. It is quite true that during the War certain people—and I am not sure the Government are not to blame— who were engaged in the manufacture of munitions and required labour took it from other industries by offering higher wages. That made it rather unpleasant for people who had to deal with labour, but at any rate there was no reason it should not be done, and why the employés should not accept the higher wage. Here you have the possibility of a person who happens to have, a considerable sum of money and does not mind spending it, offering to men engaged in building houses a higher wage than is current in the district and this Sub-section says that that is to be prohibited. Supposing for the sake of argument that the proposal is right in principle, is this the proper way to give effect to it? Are you to pass a law which says that no man shall accept more than a certain sum for his services? That is, what you are doing by this paragraph. I say you ought not. A friend of mine told me this story the other day. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of it, but my friend is a reliable person, and I believe his statement to be accurate. A friend of his was making some alterations to his house. It was a large house, and the person interested was a rich man. These alterations were going on for a long time, and he went to the contractor and said, "Now, look here, I would like to pay these men a rather larger sum if they
    2254
    will work rather harder. I will not ask you to do it. I will pay it out of my own pocket, in addition to the contract price, and I will pay it direct to the men." The contractor replied, "You had better see what the trade unions say about it." The gentleman saw the foreman, and in some kind of way they got over the trade unions, with the result that this particular gentleman paid the men himself. The consequence was that he got the work done in one month, which would have taken three months, and saved £600, and at the same time freed the men for work on workmen's houses or any other job.
    That is an illustration of my point. If, in order to deal with what is supposed to be a certain evil, we pass legislation which deals with all sorts of other things, I do not see that anything will be gained. I do not believe there are large numbers of people, especially in these times, who are going about the country offering higher wages than the trade unions will allow. They must be a very small number, and in the financial position in which we are, and which will become worse in a. very short time, they must grow less. The present financial position, in my opinion, will be followed by a large reduction in wages. That must come. It is as certain as I am standing here. I do not think there will be any necessity for this particular Clause, and by omitting it we shall have struck a blow for the remaining liberty and freedom left to us in this year of grace 1920.
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has given us more attractive reasons for this particular Amendment than did my hon. and gallant Friend who moved it, but I do not think he was any more convincing. The right hon. Gentleman is a director of a very important railway. He has a very important position on that railway, and I have no doubt that in the course of business his company, along with others, come to certain understandings, as to what they will do with regard to the payment of workpeople and all manner of other officials. If I apprehend his doctrine aright, he says that, notwithstanding all these arrangements, "I am an apostle of liberty."
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman means that because one railway has given certain wages, I have immediately done the same, he is mistaken. I have always fought against it.
    10.0 P.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would always insist that any understanding which is arrived at shall be honourably kept. The employers and trade societies have come to certain arrangements for particular districts, and have determined a district rate of wages. That is an agreement as between employers and the trade unions. I do not think the right hon. Baronet is such an apostle of liberty that he will suggest for a moment that an agreement binding on the industry shall be broken. The difficulties that have arisen are due to people going outside the agreements arrived at in the district. In order to attract men from housing schemes they made all manner of payments beyond and in addition to what is agreed by the trade shall be paid in particular districts. It was on that account that not only the employers but the Joint Industrial Council of the building trades, consisting of an equal number of representatives of the employers and operatives, came to me and said, "This is bad for our industry; it is forcing up prices in an artificial and sporadic way all over the place "— and so its was—" and we want you to help us to stop it." The representatives of the industry themselves applied to me with absolute unanimity to put this proposal before Parliament, because it was being used as an instrument to inflate prices and costs. I am quite sure the experience of the last few months fully justifies the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London was quite right in one observation. He says this is not so prevalent as it was. There are undoubtedly signs of what is commonly known as a slump, and people are not so anxious to do this kind of thing as they were. Therefore, I think the number of cases will be much fewer in the future than in the past. I would remind him that during the War we had to do the same kind of thing, and we did it with the consent of all concerned. It is not with the desire of interfering with individual liberty, but to secure that trade agreements arrived at by representative bodies applicable to those in the trade shall be fairly and properly observed. It has to be shown in the Clause itself that the deficiency of labour on the housing scheme is due to that, and unless that
    2256
    can be proved as an initial proposition no case arises.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to one argument of mine. If this is happening why are not these buildings slopped under the next paragraph?
    Dr. ADDISON: Because at present there is no power in the existing statute to stop them on this account.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I was somewhat surprised at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that this Clause is inserted at the request of the trade itself, because I hold that established or standard rates are minimum rates and do not in any way interfere with the recognition or payment of something above the minimum. If that were so many industries one could mention are at the moment paying quite 25 per cent. of those engaged in the industry above the standard rate. When these matters are argued and reasoned out one generally gets established what is looked upon as the minimum basis rate for industry, leaving freedom of action so far as a recognition of a price above that minimum rate either to the discretion of the employer or to some special arrangement which may be made between the workmen and the employer so long as a rate less than the established minimum is not paid. I support the Amendment but for quite a different reason from that of the right hon. Baronet, because such a case as he mentions would not in my opinion come within the jurisdiction of this Clause— the mere matter of an alteration to house property. I rise particularly to protest against the insertion of a provision like this because I believe the local authorities could well have secured to themselves an adequate supply of building trade labour had they refuted to pass plans for such things as picture palaces, and these are in the main I believe the parties who are offering these extra inducements of Id., 2d. or 3d per hour over and above the rate that is being paid on the building of houses under local authorities, and naturally they do the trade. You ought to have taken away the incentive for it, and the local authorities ought not in the first instance to have sanctioned plans for the erection of mere pleasure palaces whilst at the same time calling out for labour for houses for the working classes. But the local authority

    2257
    having passed the plans can also ration the particular contractor so many operatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There is some arrangement of that sort, because I have in mind one glaring instance. I feel that having passed plans for building you ought not to take away the inducement offered to a man to get a higher rate for his labour. If the building trade had themselves suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should include a Clause which will restrict the scope of their employment after a local authority has once granted permission for the building to go on—I cannot for the life of me believe it, because in my constituency I get quite a different view from the members of that industry that I meet.
    I should much have preferred that the plans had not been passed in the first instance, but having passed the plans they restrict the called-for labour because of the shortage of the houses. The trade itself has pointed out to the Government Departments the fact that there are on these luxury buildings all the thousands of skilled men that you might well have had on your housing. But the initial fault of course lies with the local authorities. How can you say to the men who are engaged on luxury-building at 2d. or 3d. an hour over and above the standard rate for the district, "You are going to suffer a reduction of 2d. or 3d."? Do you think that is going to create a feeling of harmony and attract to the building of houses men who know that it means for them a reduction of so much per hour, or some other special arrangement which may have been entered into with their employer? I deplore the shortage of labour on housing as much as anyone inside or outside the House. Although it is a parallel with the right hon. Baronet's example, we are at the moment engaged in altering suites of offices. As some special attraction to get building trade men there I have myself given an extra inducement because we want the occupancy of suitable offices and are we therefore simply to stand and say, "Just take your chance, if you care to come at the ordinary flat rate," knowing as a trade union official that all these arrangements and all these rates that are established are minimum and not maximum rates? I do not think the House ought to lay down the prin-
    2258
    ciple of a general flat rate arrangement because it might well be carried into other industries, but once accept the principle that a general flat minimum rate arranged in conference between trade unions' must not be exceeded, and one particular department of the industry complains that someone is offering a further inducement and drawing from him men whom he is willing to pay the minimum rate. It is a principle that, I think, will be rather a bad one, and would create more discontent than content.
    Sir T. ROBINSON: I think all contracts between local authorities and builders for the erection of private houses provide that the standard rate of a district must be paid. Every contract to which local authorities are parties includes a Clause to that effect. What is happening? Last week in the Manchester district, where there is a housing scheme for the erection of 250 houses, IV joiners were attracted from it to other buildings within the district because the contractor responsible for the erection of buildings outside the housing scheme offered 2d. per hour more. The result was that the contractor responsible for the building of the 250 houses under the housing scheme was unable to proceed. He came along to me and asked me what he was to do. He said, "The erection of the houses will be delayed. My difficulty is to keep within the time I am given by the local authority for the erection of the houses, and I cannot contend with this sort of thing." In another case I have seen on one side of the street the erection of houses and on the other the extension of works. I am not going to say that the extension would not mean greater efficiency, more production, and lower cost, to the advantage of industry; but I have seen men attracted from the right-hand to the left-hand side of the road in one week to such an extent that it practically stopped the housing scheme. So far as I know, the leaders of the men's unions are opposed to this sort of thing. The employers take the same view, and I need hardly say that the local authorities take the same view. If the House will not assist the Minister to get rid of this sort of thing they must take the responsibility for the delay in the building of houses. I do not think it is fair to hold the Minister responsible for quick erection if the House refuses to

    2259
    assist them when he has pointed out its difficulties, and has asked the House to assist him to remove the difficulties that stand in his way. This is a real difficulty in the North of England. Wages at the rate of 2d., 3d. or 4d. per hour more are offered to men to leave housing schemes and to go on the erection of buildings, in particular in connection with works. It is done in some cases with regard to luxury buildings, but not in many. The local authorities, on the whole, have been very discreet in regard to luxury buildings, and have refused to pass plans for such buildings, and on that account this difficulty has not obtained to such a great extent in connection with luxury building. The Minister is justified in asking the House for these powers, and if the House refuses to grant them the House must take, the responsibility for the delay in erection of houses.
    Major HAMILTON: It is not often that I support the Minister of Health, but on this Clause I shall support him. It seems to me perfectly clear that our object in housing legislation has been to get working-class houses put up, and put up quickly, and here we have a difficulty that the House is asked to put right. Luxury building can be stopped by the local authorities, but there are other buildings not as essential as working men's houses which do not come within the definition of luxury building, and on those buildings, by paying higher wages, workmen can be attracted away from housing schemes. These buildings, which are not luxury buildings, may be put up in another locality not coming under the same authority as the housing scheme. The hon. Member who spoke last will bear me out when I say that the Manchester Corporation are complaining bitterly of buildings, not of a luxury nature and not working-class houses, which are being put up in other authorities' localities, and where the owners of those buildings are paying above the district rate for Manchester and Cheshire in order to tempt the workmen away from the housing schemes in Manchester to go on to this other work outside the Manchester district. In this Clause it is the first time that the Government has taken authority to prevent such building outside the locality of Manchester, at the request of Manchester, and if this paragraph is not carried the whole power that
    2260
    the Government is seeking under this Clause will be taken away and Manchester, taking the example that I know best, will have just cause to say that this House has prevented them from getting on with most important building schemes in that very congested area where the housing conditions are a disgrace to our country and to the great city of Manchester. I do not agree with what was said by the Mover of the Amendment (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), but I agree with what was said by the Seconder (Sir F. Banbury). I am entirely for liberty, but this is a temporary provision to meet a very great difficulty arising out of the War, and I hope the House will support the Government in this matter and not carry the Amendment.
    Lord H. CECIL: I hope that the House appreciates the highly dangerous principle that underlies this paragraph. I cannot think that the arguments, weighty as they are, advanced by the last two speakers, as regards the necessity of meeting practical inconveniences, really weigh against the danger of adopting such a principle. The practical inconveniences might be met in other ways. I see no reason why the local authority should not have power to arrange, as it were, a table of precedence within its area and say. "These works are most necessary. These are less necessary and these are still less necessary, and they should be carried out in that order." In view of the great need that is described that might be quite defensible, but if you say that they ought to interfere in the bargaining between a labourer who wants to get a higher price for his labour on the one hand and an employer who thinks it worth his while to pay that higher price, it seems to me that by parity of reasoning you might control all bargains in every form of mercantile transaction from one end of the country to the other I do not understand the position of the Government in making such a proposal while it purports to maintain the doctrine of private enterprise against nationalisation. I do not deny that there are some arguments in favour of nationalisation, but, having laid down that principle, by putting in a Clause like this they really make their position ridiculous. Nationalisation is nothing but general State regulation. That is all it comes to—a highhanded State settlement of everything,

    2261
    of all transactions of a commercial, mercantile, and industrial character. If you once begin to lay down the principle that people are not to pay more or less than a certain amount you are destroying the whole foundation of private enterprise, which is the liberty of bargaining with free competition, which, confessedly with many incidental injustices and hardships, in the end maintains the prosperity of the country
    If you adopt this system of control in respect of the building trade, why should you not do it in respect of every transaction in which there is any shortage, whether of raw materials, or labour, or anything else? The principle lends itself to corruption. The man who wants to have his building erected quickly is to be prohibited from giving publicly and openly higher wages to labourers in order to attract them. But there is nothing to prevent somebody from going secretly to labourers, as a member of this trust which my right hon. Friend is so fond of encouraging, which is a building trust of employers who have come to agreement with the trade unions in the district, and saying, "I will give something to you if you arrange that my building takes precedence." If you once have a close market, which is limited to a certain number of people who are fortunate enough to have got the ear of the principal builders of the district, how are you going to stop it? You may prevent the labourer selling his labour in the dearest market, but how are you going to stop an employer selling secretly his preference to somebody who approaches him privately? How is it that my right hon. Friend does not see that these inroads into the principle of private enterprise are madness? Socialism is a logical theory, though I believe that it is mistaken, because it is founded on an unsound view of human nature; but these inroads on private enterprise, by which you are trying to stop private competition here and elsewhere, are madness. It was done during the War, but that was because the War interfered so tremendously that there was no free competition, but you have got to get back to it. Here you are proceeding on a new basis against a new evil which is alleged to have arisen lately. It would be far wiser to say that you will interfere with respect to the necessity of building, which I understand we already do. Some are
    2262
    classified as luxury buildings. Carry that classification further, but do not interfere in the bargaining between, labourer and employer, buyer, and seller, but leave it to the free competition in the open market which our ancestors believed in and which brought such unbounded prosperity to this country.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I desire to support the Amendment. This is the first time in our industrial history that a man is to be prevented from selling his labour at the best possible price. I think there must be something behind it, and that the Minister of Health must be cognisant of the arrangement which has been made.
    Dr. ADDISON: No, no!
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I have been associated with an organisation which tried to co-ordinate wages, and I know what a difficult task it is to get wages at a dozen works all on the same level. I have always found that when a man, either inadvertently or on purpose, paid higher wages for contract labour it invariably tended to increase the general rate of that labour in that district. The right hon. Gentleman gave us the comparison of the railway companies, but when they make an agreement it would be improper for any one of them to break it, and yet you take power to stop the railway company and not the building employers. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there is an agreement between employers and workmen that nobody has a right to employ bricklayers except a contractor, who draws a sum of 3d. or 4d. an hour for every bricklayer he employs. That is his profit. If I employ a bricklayer, am I to be hauled up before a building committee if I pay him that 3d. or 4d. per hour which the contractor now gets. I am credibly informed an arrangement has been come to between the trade unions and the builders by which no man can build except through a contractor.
    Dr. ADDISON: The district rate is easily ascertainable by any person.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman admits that arrangement has been made.
    Dr. ADDISON: No, I do not. I deny it absolutely with regard to housing.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I am credibly informed by a man of considerable experience in a district I know that the 3d. or 4d. per hour for each man is the contractor's profit; and if I employ a bricklayer privately, can I pay that 3d. or 4d. to him? I am sorry to think that this is a deliberate attempt to prevent a man reaping the benefit of the selling of his labour. I hope the House will hesitate very much before they will initiate this system in our industrial life.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Let us consider exactly how this matter stands. This Clause was not in the Bill as it was originally read a Second time by the House. It was a new Clause thrust upon us, against strong resistance by many in the Committee, by the right hon. Gentleman, and he told us plainly: "This is pressed upon me by some industrial societies and unions."
    Dr. ADDISON: I did nothing whatever of the kind.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night that both employers and trade unions agreed upon this point. If I misrepresented him, I am ready to withdraw anything that was inaccurate, but I say that this was a new Clause introduced into the Bill after it had been read a Second time. I have heard defences of this Clause, to my greatest surprise, from hon. Members representing the Labour party. I appealed the other day to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who is usually thoughtful and careful. He is not here now, but in a speech which followed a speech I made, he admitted the difficulties. He skimmed very lightly over these difficulties, and he admitted that it was only in very special circumstances that he would allow any such restrictions. The hon. and gallant Member beside me (Major Hamilton) has tried to bolster up this Clause by saying, "You will stop luxury building, but you must have an additional power of interfering with the rate of wages earned. Surely my hon. and gallant Friend cannot have read the Bill. Already in the Bill the local authorities have the power to prohibit building operations which interfere with the provision of dwelling-houses. Is that not quite enough?
    Major HAMILTON: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Section 5 of the
    2264
    Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, he will find he is not representing it correctly.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It gives power to local authorities to prohibit building operations which interfere with the provision of dwelling-houses, and the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing his Bill, thought that was quite enough; but a new suggestion came to him, that he must not only have the power of stopping something which interferes with the building of houses, but he must stop it by getting hold of the workman and telling him he is not to earn more than a certain wage; and it is not only the wage, but the words are "remuneration in any form.' There are many forms of remuneration besides wages. Certain facilities for assisting his family might be given, or certain consideration given to his convenience, but under this provision any convenience that a good employer might offer to his employer may be turned into a reason for stopping the whole operation altogether. He may be told, "You are giving far too easy terms. You are too easy altogether. Your employment is too convenient. You are taking away from this man, who treats his employés in rather a harsh way, and who wants to get his pound of flesh out of them." He may reply, "You did not stop me because I was interfering with the building of houses, and, therefore, presumably, I was not interfering with the building of houses, but because I happen to pay my workmen a little more, you have a new grievance against me."
    I do not care in the least for the allegation that this is arranged between employers and employed. In the 18th Century there was an episode which has been over and over again instanced as one of the utter absurdities, one of the economical insanities of that time. Certain of the farmers and the agricultural holders in special localities were found— wicked creatures that they were—to be offering rather good wages and so stirred up discontent among the others. What happened? They were actually brought before the court and fined. That was not 200 years ago. Are you wanting to revert to that now, where a man who happens to employ under easy conditions, who makes his employment more attractive than another, is to have his rival go to this little junta—not the local authority, but a junta within the local authority—

    2265
    and say, "You must really stop this unpleasant rival of mine, who is offering too good terms, and you must tell his workmen that they are to be brought into rule, and to be under exactly the same terms as others." I am glad to see, on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) and the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) there has been a protest against this. Do not think this protest comes only from old reactionaries like myself. It may be that we, the old reactionaries, are the only people left to stand up for freedom. Let us resist this attempt to curb trade and wages and the independence of employers and employed.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It does seem to be an anomalous position for me to be occupying to be opposing the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City as to the necessity for increased wages for the working classes. Equally, seeing an appeal has been made to us here to give some explanation for our conduct, the House will at least agree that it cannot be levelled against us that we are placing material considerations in front of the necessity and importance of building houses. During the War—to take the history of the principle—this House unanimously, in practically half an hour, carried one of the most important Clauses affecting labour that was ever carried. What happened? There were private engineering firms giving, not 2d. or 3d. per hour extra, but 10s. a day, to induce engineers to go to private work because these firms were selling to the Government at an enhanced price. The Minister of Munitions came to the House and said: "We are suffering; the soldiers are suffering, the country is in danger, and we want you to help us to deal with the difficulty. It was sent to the leaders of the trade unions: "It is your men who will suffer; it is your men that must make the sacrifice; and we put it to you that we expect you to help the nation out of its difficulty." The Clause was passed. The trade unions' leaders went to the men, and not only agreed to the provisions of the Clause, but to a penalty which, in many cases actually prevented men being employed. That was the justification for that. The justification was outlined by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil). It
    2266
    was the War circumstances. The nation was in difficulties.
    Lord H. CECIL: We could not wait!
    Mr. THOMAS: We could not wait that is exactly the point! Does the Noble Lord know what is happening to-day? I have no hesitation in saying that I view with grave apprehension the taking charge of public building by the House of Commons. Do not make any mistake—
    Lord H. CECIL: That is not your remedy. You should stop unnecessary building, but if a building is not unnecessary, why should you stop it?
    Mr. THOMAS: I will come to that in a moment. There is another way to do it. But you could very well have said stop it on the occasion referred to.
    Lord H. CECIL: You should have said so; but the Government left us no choice in war-time.
    Mr. THOMAS: The circumstances proved that there may have been other ways, but they were not exercised because the Government thought they would have been ineffective. Does the Noble Lord know that there was a very serious raid in Bristol two nights ago? Does he know there are at least 30 towns at this moment where the unemployed have taken possession of buildings? I tell the Noble Lord the housing problem is so serious that it may be as big a menace to the country as the War. It is the fact that there are not more than 15 per cent. in the building trade working on cottage homes to-day? What do the trade unions say? They say that it is infinitely better to make a straight, open bargain than to have indirect bribery of any kind. For it is perfectly true that there is more than Id. or 2d. given. Let the hon. Gentleman be under no misapprehension; in all branches we deprecate this undermining the moral principles of the men. There are traders in the City of London who, in addition to the trade union rate which the men receive, are obliged to go and collect the goods earlier than their competitors, and that is wrong.
    Lord H. CECIL: Why?
    Mr. THOMAS: Because it is a demoralising position. If the Noble Lord was suffering as a result of this, I am sure he

    2267
    would take an opposite view, and if he were in need of a cottage for a wife and family, he would take a different view of these necessities. Whether hon. Members go into the Lobby or not on the principle of liberty, we know there is so much necessity for this twopence an hour for the working classes, and I hope hon. Members will go into the Lobby realising that we, who speak directly for the working classes—
    Lord H. CECIL: If you speak for the working classes, why do you not get more hon. Members on your side?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Why do you not hang the Kaiser?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned with hanging the Kaiser. An appeal has been made to us, who specially speak for the working-classes—
    Lord H. CECIL: You say so, but nobody else says so.
    Mr. THOMAS: I do say so, and I specially speak for a section of the working-classes, and I say on behalf of those people, and speaking as a working-class representative, I believe that the problem of housing is so serious and dangerous that any sacrifice ought to be made to hasten it on. I believe this Clause will do it, and it is because of that that I shall give it my support.
    Mr. REMER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke of the danger that this country went through more then two years ago when this House passed a number of Bills of an emergency character. I do not think that any comparison can be drawn between this Bill and any legislation we passed when the country was passing through a serious crisis. Then we were short of men, and there was a great difficulty in finding labour to carry out the necessary works for the War. Even to-night the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Thomas) has spoken of the great volume of unemployment in Bristol and other parts. Therefore, to talk of being short of labour at the present time is beside the point, and that is not an argument which will carry any weight with hon. Members. I object to this Clause for the very simple reason that it interferes with the liberty of the subject, and it interferes with the ordin-
    2268
    ary relations between employer and employed. There are workmen who are paid high wages because they are worth them, and there are workmen paid low wages because they are only worth low wages. There are men dear at Is. per hour and others who are cheap at 3s. per hour. I want to impress upon the House that in this Clause we strike a knife right through the principle of payment by results We strike a knife right through the principle of any kind of piece work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I read the Clause that way. It refers to anybody who pays more than trade union rates per hour. In it we strike a knife through the principle of piece work, of payment by results, of increased production, and of profit-sharing. If we read the Clause carefully, we find that anyone who pays more than the trade union rate of wages, whether by piece work, by results, or by profit-sharing, is offending the Clause, and is open to condemnation on that account. On that ground, particularly, because I believe in payment by results in the form of profit-sharing, or something of that sort, I support those hon. Members who object to this particular Clause.
    Major NALL: The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), the hon. Member for Stretford (Sir T. Robinson), and the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton) all assumed that any man in the building trade who is paid more than the trade union rate of wages, and is induced to leave a municipal housing job, goes to some other sort of work. They did not say that that is actually the case. As two of those hon. Members have referred to the difficulty in Manchester, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on that position. Strange as it may seem, I have reason to believe that these men who left the municipal housing job went on to other housing jobs, which are costing the State less than municipal work. Therefore the State is gaining, and the men are getting higher wages. What is the position in Manchester? After 18 months of the operation of the right hon. Gentleman's municipal housing scheme, the Manchester Corporation has succeeded in building 86 houses. Eighty-six houses in 18 months! In a very much shorter period the private builders, actuated, un-

    2269
    doubtedly, by the building subsidy of £210 or £260, have built 79 houses. That is only a few, and there are only a few contractors doing it. If the private builder can build 79 houses in a short period and the municipality can only complete 86 houses in 18 months, as is shown on statements made, I take it, on the authority of the Manchester Housing Committee, in the "Manchester Guardian," whilst the liability of the State in respect of the subsidised house is only £260, the liability in respect of the municipal house is £500 or more, and the hon. Member for St. Pancras said, earlier in the Debate, that in due course it might well cost £1,000 per house. Whilst the State is saving on the privately built houses, the workers are gaining better wages by working on those houses. This is what one of the builders said publicly:—
    "My men know that I have not, like a public body, an endless purse to draw from, and they know that, certain trade union regulations notwithstanding, they will receive some suitable acknowledgment if their work is conscientiously done."
    There we have the whole secret of the thing. A private builder can always out-do the State or the local authority. Private enterprise every time, given proper opportunity, freed of the restrictions which the right hon. Gentleman imposes in this Clause, and the previous Act to which the Clause refers; freed from these restrictions—the removal of which I endeavoured to obtain earlier on to-night but was unfortunately prevented from moving an Amendment owing to the Rules of Procedure—will clear off these arrears in housing in a manner which will save money for the State and provide houses for the masses. Here we have the actual fact that men are being attracted away from municipal housing jobs—some of them, probably, going to other sorts of work, but many of them, undoubtedly, going on to other houses, which, in the long run, cost the State less. The House can judge which is the more economical and the more common-sense policy to pursue.
    I have said on another occasion, and have taken frequent opportunities of saying outside this House, that hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House will support anything that will help to smash the private builder. In my division condemned houses have fallen in,
    2270
    causing casualties to the tenants. Other houses are condemned, and the tenants are under orders to quit. They turn up at the court, and, despite the fact that the houses are propped up temporarily under the care of the corporation, they appeal to be allowed to stay in them because there is absolutely nowhere else to go. Hon. Members on this side of the House above the Gangway do all in their power to prevent the erection of houses to which such people can go in that particular district. So strong is the feeling among the workers themselves— and it is a working-class district—that, in the recent municipal elections, the councillor who holds the opinions that I hold was returned by almost two votes to one against a Labour candidate. The feeling in Manchester is so strong that the Labour party may well keep quiet, as they have, in this Debate; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, when he gets up to support the extraordinary proposal that is contained in this paragraph, is doing the worst thing that he can to hinder the completion of houses and the restoration of the building trade to a proper and economic basis. I hope that the House will divide on this question, and that we shall show by our votes in the Lobby that we believe that the municipal schemes of the Minister of Health are doomed to failure. Their record up to date is nothing but one long tale of failure, and the only hope that this country has of gaining the number of houses that it requires to make up the arrears that have already accumulated lies in the restoration of the private builder, in supporting and encouraging private enterprise, and in allowing the workers to get the highest wages that they can get, according to their ability to earn them.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: This paragraph is a most perfect example of the methods of the right hon. Gentleman. It is introduced ostensibly because there is a great shortage of skilled labour, and, as is the right hon. Gentleman's custom, he takes a course which must infallibly have exactly the opposite result to that which he says it will give. While saying that we are short of labour, he proceeds to put a provision into the Clause which says, in effect, that the man who goes into the building trade as a skilled man shall, alone of all men of all trades, be

    2271
    disallowed the privilege of selling his labour in the best market. That is the right hon. Gentleman's way of increasing the amount of labour in the building trade. Imagine a bricklayer who has a boy who has just passed through school and is ready to be apprenticed to a trade. If this paragraph is passed, what is the position of that man? Is he, knowing perfectly well that the unfortunate boy, if he acquires an unusual degree of skill, is to be debarred from offering his labour in the highest market—is he likely to let his boy go into that trade? Is he not really more likely to put him into some trade where there is no such restriction on labour? I hope the House will bear that in mind.
    Mr. SEXTON: It is most refreshing to hear the arguments advanced from the other side of the House in favour of paying higher wages than trade union rates. It is a revelation to me. The tendency has always been on that side to pay less than trade union rates. I am speaking from experience. It occurs to me there must be some sinister motive behind this. We have heard a good deal about private enterprise. I am not going to argue as to the rival merits of private and municipal enterprise. I am not going to dispute that houses may be put up more cheaply by private enterprise than by municipal enterprise. But what the private builder loses on the swings he gains on the roundabouts. He can afford to pay higher wages because he does not put up houses but only apologies for houses. If it was not for the fact that they lean so lovingly on each other not one of the houses would stand on its own bottom for 24 hours. The walls between them are so thin that, as one of my hon. Friends suggested, "you can hear the fellow next door making up his mind." In the comparison with municipal-built houses private-built houses appear in an odious light. An important test is the length of life of the house. It apparently pays the private builder to put up a jerry-built house, particularly under the leasehold system. He knows he will only own the house for a limited number of years and that at the end of the lease every brick on the land becomes the property of the landlord. It is the length of life of the house that counts, not the amount
    2272
    of money spent on the building. I agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas), we naturally want to get as much wages as we can for the workers, but after all there is some morality in trade unions Hon. Gentlemen may be able to point to isolated instances, and I am not going to defend them, but I say there are responsible men in the trade union movement equally as moral as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said. Those who step in and interfere with the progress of the housing of the people are responsible for more than they imagine if they carry that game on.
    Mr. MYERS: On this occasion it is not a matter as to whether houses have been erected by private enterprise or by municipalities. The great question is-whether houses have been erected at all. Our complaint on this side of the House is that while lip service has been given to the necessity for houses being erected, the tendency has been to work in the other direction. I would like to ask the hon. Member for the Hulme Division (Major Nail), when he mentioned that 86 houses had been erected by the municipality and 79 by private enterprise in a given period, how those 150 houses compared with the volume of alternative building that has taken place in the city in the same period. It is not so much a question of who erects a house, but the measure of the building operations that have taken place in other directions. On the Second Reading of this Bill I gave some figures to the House. The trade unions of the bricklayers, carpenters, slaters, plasterers, and plumbers returned a membership on the 1st January of this year of 305,502, and out of that number on the 30th June this year 15,109 were employed on State-aided housing schemes. Out of 108,000 carpenters, 4,000 were on housing; out of 53,000 bricklayers, 7,000 were on housing; out of 3,000 slaters, 569 were on housing; out of 12,000 plasterers, 1,000 were on housing.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Do you mean on State or municipal houses, or on houses of any kind?
    Mr. MYERS: On housing of a State-aided character, and that brings in those houses which have the subsidy. They are State-aided houses. It cannot be denied by hon. Members opposite that, while lip

    2273
    service has been given to the necessity for houses in the country, the skilled labourer in the building trade, having been occupied in the erection of houses, has been bought off, and turned his energies into building of an alternative character. Take the case I mentioned on the Second Reading in the neighbourhood of the Walton Heath Golf Course. The housing scheme in the vicinity was in operation, but the builders were taken away from the housing scheme and put on luxury building in the immediate neighbourhood. They are not paying extra wages above the trade union rate, but the men are paid for the two hours they do not work. They are bought off in that direction, and that is prevailing all over the country, and instead of houses being erected, cinemas, garages, factories, and all the rest of it have been put up wholesale in all parts of the country, and every hon. Member who takes a railway journey of any length has only to look out of the carriage window to see the work in progress. Our quarrel on this matter is that these men have been drawn away, and they ought not to have been drawn away. We have heard a good deal about dilution in the building trade, and I believe any labour that is available for the building trade ought to be brought in, but I think there is a method whereby a lot of this discussion and demand for dilution can be instantly silenced. If dilution in the building trade is admitted, I hope the building trade will insist upon unskilled labour going on to these buildings which are not for people to live in. A garage to hold a motor car or a warehouse to hold bags or wool may attract unskilled labour, but we ought not to have it applied to buildings in which people have to live. We shall have a C3 population continued unless we provide the very best habitation for our people, and I am not going to favour shoddy labour or shoddy materials going into places in which people have to live. If the people who are shouting for dilution of labour in the building trade can be told that unskilled labour will go on to buildings such as I have named a lot of the criticism in this direction will be instantly silenced and our position in supporting this Clause is to insure that the best building labour available will go on to that building where it ought to go, the erection of houses for the people.
    Dr. ADDISON:I think we have now thrashed the question out, and I hope the House will come to a decision.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I find myself in conscientious disagreement with my hon. Friend belonging to the same party as myself. I opposed this in Committee, and found myself alone, so far as my own people were concerned, and I am in the same position to-night. If a Division is taken, I shall certainly support the Amendment. The point of municipal building as against private enterprise does not touch the question at all. What we are discussing is whether a certain class of building shall be, stopped by preventing a man paying higher wages. I have not been sent to this House to help to produce legislation to keep wages down to a certain dead level. Further than that this Clause can never produce the effect that it claims, and no buildings will be stopped because this Clause becomes law. You might drive it underground, but you cannot prevent any employer of labour giving a bonus to men which did not appear on his pay-sheet. This Clause will never have that effect. All the power that local authorities require is in the Clause already. But I can quite imagine that there are certain authorities in this country who would far rather act under a Clause of this sort which deals with wages than they would under one of the other powers given them, and if there is any class of building which is of less necessity than houses, and which is not covered by anything that is in the Clause already, words could easily be found to deal with that when dealing with the wages of the workmen. I look upon this as the lowest, meanest possible way of trying to prevent a certain class of building, and I am opposed to it. If you are going to pay bonuses to labour, if you are so desperately anxious to pay higher wages to labour, pay them to those engaged in the erection of dwelling-houses, and we shall not object We want the erection of houses for the class to which we belong, and as a party, in spite of the defection of one or two. we shall support the Ministry of Health in this matter. The whole question of wages does not arise here. The question of eighteenth-century wages does not arise. It is a question of getting houses for the workers, which have been

    2275
    delayed because of certain War measures that have had to be carried through Hon. Members must remember that this is still a War measure as it affects the workers.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: What seriously alarms me is the speech of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). He said he opposed this Amendment on the ground that he wanted to force the skilled labour among the plasterers, joiners, and carpenters into work on housing schemes. That is a very wrong thing to do, under the circumstances, when you have in the building trade a large number of skilled plasterers and joiners who can do work of a far higher quality and earn far higher wages on other work than house building. Housing is not the highest grade of labour in the building trade.
    Mr. MILLS: This action has been taken at the request of the building trades themselves.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Have the carpenters and joiners asked for this action to be taken?
    Mr. MILLS: Yes
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is a considerable answer to my question. Is it going to be practicable? Are you going to succeed in forcing a largo number of highly-skilled men from work, such as steel construction, on to bricklaying for housing schemes? The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) was under a complete misapprehension. It is not the case that anything is good enough for the workers. The plans for the houses have to be approved by the Ministry of Health, and the thickness of the walls has to be approved by the Ministry of Health. The idea about hearing a man think in the next house is done away with. You cannot get round the byelaws now, though you could 50 years ago. At the present time no house is allowed to be erected for occupation by the working-
    classes unless it is up to a certain standard. That is most clearly expressed in the Housing Act.
    Mr. MYERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the byelaws relating to the benefit of the rooms which has been recognised by municipalities for a generation has been reduced by the Ministry of Health under the housing schemes.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that the hon. Member disapproves of that, and that he will vote against the Ministry of Health on that point. I supported this Clause as it stood in Committee, but the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) has raised serious doubts by his speech. The idea of forcing highly-skilled men to do less skilled work is repugnant to my ideas of the progress of the artificers of this country. It is an entirely retrograde movement. I shall feel serious compunction about supporting the Clause as it stands, and I hope that either now or in another place the right hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to a Clause to carry out the purpose of the hon. Member for Spen Valley.
    Mr. MILLS: May I explain that the Labour party in this matter are guided by the wishes of the operatives in the building trade. They realise that it is necessary in order to get the houses to keep the men off the other buildings to which they arc attracted by higher wages, and that if the housing scheme is to be finished at all it must be by forcibly transferring the men to building houses.
    Major NALL: Does the hon. Member intend to say that the operatives arc themselves asking for this change?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.
    Mr. MILLS: That is the only point I wished to make.
    Question put, "That the words of the paragraph to the word 'where' ['or buildings where'] stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 112; Noes. 70.

    Division No. 391.]

    AYES.

    [11.25 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Bromfield, William

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Armitage, Robert

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Blane, T. A.

    Davidson, J. C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Sexton, James

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Forrest, Walter

    Lorden, John William

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Lynn, R. J.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Manville, Edward

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Mitchell, William Lane

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

    Gregory, Holman

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Waddington, R.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Morrison, Hugh

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Myers, Thomas

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Neal, Arthur

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport) '

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wignall, James

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Parker, James

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Wise, Frederick

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Younger, Sir George

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Renwick, George

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Rodger, A. K.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley

    King. Captain Henry Douglas

    Sanders, colonel Sir Robert A.

    Ward.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    NOES.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Perring, William George

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Briant, Frank

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Remer, J. R.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Cairns, John

    Hood, Joseph

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Spencer, George A.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera

    Sugden, W. H.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kidd, James

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M-cLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Matthews, David

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Flldes, Henry

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grant, James A.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and

    Sir F. Banbury.

    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (3), to insert the words
    "If in any area any fifty or more local government electors represent in writing to the local authority that the power to prohibit building operations under this section should be exercised, and the local authority within six weeks after receiving the said representation declines or neglects to take any proceedings to put this section into force, the local government electors who signed such representation may petition the Ministry of Health for an inquiry."
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to second the Amendment. Section 10 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, provides for four residents making a complaint to
    2278
    the Ministry, if the Housing Acts are not carried out by the local authority, and if that principle is carried out under that Act at the instance of only four resident electors, the provision that the representation under this Bill should be made by 50 electors would appear to be very reasonable, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Colonel L. WILSON: I feel sure my hon. Friend will not be disappointed when I say that it is impossible to accept the Amendment. It is quite unnecessary. It rests with the local authority to do its duty in this matter, and if it does not do so the Minister has full power to act, and

    2279
    would act, on the information given him by his own officers in the district.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman so certain that he will be informed of neglect on the part of the local authority if this Amendment, is not accepted? There is, for instance, a great deal of what is called luxury building going on now, and how does he know that he will be informed? How does he know that his officials will take the same view as the people in the district? It seems to me that the Amendment provides an ample safeguard, as a petition to the Minister in these cases is very salutary, and I feel suspicious when the Minister declines to accept this Amendment. Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will get so many petitions that he will be worried to death? If people show sufficient spirit and energy to get up a petition of this sort, I should have thought the Minister of Health would have been delighted to receive it, and to send down an official to make enquiries.
    Colonel L. WILSON: May I just say, in order to remove the suspicion of my hon. and gallant Friend, that municipal electors can make representations, and that there is no necessity for this Amendment?
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (4).
    I do so because I feel that the autocratic powers given to the Minister here are too wide. They should be limited very considerably. The Minister takes the power practically to over-ride the local authority's opinion, although he gives them an opportunity of being heard first. After all, it would be utterly impossible for the Minister to deal with this himself. It must be in the hands of an official, and therefore I do feel that the paragraph ought to be safeguarded so that it is on the advice of a tribunal. The Minister wants houses, and he wants them any way, and his mind must be biassed in that respect. He has plenty of power without this, and I hope he will agree to the Amendment.
    Captain THORPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend is aware that the necessity of this arose, it being represented in various cases that the authority had failed to exercise any of its powers in respect to this matter. It was in order to meet that that the proposal was accepted. Real and effective safeguards are provided against any arbitrary action of the Minister or those acting on his behalf. In the first place, he has to give the local authority fourteen days' notice of the suggested order, and then the order is subject to an appeal to a tribunal set up just as if it were an Order made by a local authority. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps have put forward some effective suggestion for safeguarding the position that would not destroy the usefulness of this Clause. I have had representations from all over the country that this Clause should be inserted, and I think the safeguards are to the point.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment. It is necessary to safeguard the rights of the public. The people concerned in the localities can deal with this matter in the best way irrespective of this Amendment.
    Captain THORPE: Personally I do not feel satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I am opposed, and of the people in my division— there were a sufficient number right-minded enough to return me—who also are opposed to the growing despotism and the growing powers that from time to time are being collected in the hands of individual Ministers. In this case I do not suggest that any powers taken by the right hon. Gentleman, for whom we have a great regard, would be misplaced or misused, but it is a possible source of that growing bureaucracy which is a curse to, and is retarding, the recovery of this country, commercially, as in every other sense. We have got absolutism in the liquor trade, in the flour trade, indeed in every trade, and now we are asked to accept, for reasons that, I think, are totally inadequate, absolutism in the building trade so that we may, if necessary, prohibit buildings. To my mind any form of restriction of the means of employment is misconceived. We know that in October there were

    2281
    274,000 unemployed, and that in November that number had risen to 471,000. Surely the solution for unemployment is productive work, further employment? The principle has been laid down that anything, whether luxury building or otherwise, that provides employment is to be restricted; that will fail as a remedy for unemployment.
    Let me give a concrete case. It may be proposed, as it was in Lancashire the other day, to build a brewery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say without fear, however personally you label it, that a building which is to create what is known as honest British beer is a very excellent institution. In that estimate for that brewery, to cost £30,000, the amount to be paid to the bricklayers and the other essential trades that might in the alternative be employed on cottages was £10,000. The local authority, in its wisdom, decided that in point of fact a brewery was a luxury trade which should not be allowed to proceed because it was likely to interfere with the building of houses. What is the immediate result? You have available, hypothetically, the value of £10,000 for the building of cottages, but you have no guarantee that that £10,000 worth of labour will be devoted to the building of cottages.
    Dr. ADDISON: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member's speech has no relevance to the question before the House. I submit that the question whether you could spend a given amount of money on building a brewery is not raised by the proposal we are discussing.
    Captain THORPE: I quite anticipated that comment. What I was going to say was that powers which are now exercised by local authorities it is now proposed should be handed over to the Ministry of Health. I submit that what is wrong in the case of the local tribunal is infinitely worse in the case of a Minister who knows nothing of the local conditions. In the case of the brewery to which I have alluded there was £20,000 worth of labour for unemployed men, some of whom might have been employed fixing girders or on concrete work, but the argument of the right hon. Gentleman practically is to let that £20,000 remain unemployed, provided that we get potential work for £10,000 on cottages.
    Dr. ADDISON: That could not possibly arise, and such a case can only arise when there is a shortage of labour on cottages. In the case which has been given by the hon. Member there is a surplus of labour, and that would not come under the Bill at all.
    Captain THORPE: There is no place in the United Kingdom where there is not a shortage of cottages. If there is a short age of labour my submission is that the remedy is not to be found in restricting one particular form of employment, but among hon. Members on the Labour Benches. The whole of these discussions are being conducted on a fallacy which is that the kind of labour available at any given moment for any form of building is limited. As a matter of fact, it is limited because the trade unions have put an artificial barrier against increasing the number of bricklayers and the number of men employed in the building trade. There are any number of ex-ser vice men—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I fail to see the relevancy of all this. This paragraph gives certain powers to the Minister of Health under certain circumstances, and it has nothing to do with the matters which are being dealt with by the hon. Member.
    Captain THORPE: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I will conclude by saying that the war-time exigencies for placing absolute control in the hands of the Minister have passed. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but I will give fourteen days' notice to the local tribunal of my proposed action." What is the effect of that? Assume for a minute that a local authority has neglected to do its duty. By reason of its failure the right hon. Gentleman sends a notice to it, in some form or another, saying that it has not done its duty. For fourteen days that notice will be on the Table, and there will then be an appeal for a tribunal to be set up. Paragraph (5) says that the tribunal to which appeals are to be referred by the Minister shall be a tribunal selected very largely by the Minister. I do not suggest —and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think it—that any tribunal selected by the Minister will not be impartial, but a tribunal selected by the Minister, sitting at the Ministry of Health, in London, to hear an appeal from the decision of the Minister of

    2283
    Health, and brought into personal contact with the right hon. Gentleman, cannot help being somewhat prejudiced. If I do nothing else, I ought to take this opportunity of protesting against this growing system of despotism, and against the idea that a Minister of the Crown combines the infallibility of the Pope with the omnipotence of some Turkish Sultan. It appears to be one of the inevitable concomitants of democracy that it should he badly governed—but to be over-governed—and that is what we are suffering from—is a mark of slavery and an insult to a free-born people.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I hope the House will pass this Clause. The Minister simply asks, in cases where necessary housing is being held up by building of another kind, that he should have the power to take steps to see that houses are erected. What are the safeguards the public have against bureaucracy? First of all, that the Minister, if he believes that these buildings are being erected to the detriment of housing, shall give a certain notice to the local authority, and that his decision on the matter shall be submitted to a tribunal. Surely that is reasonable. If the House is desirous that working-class dwellings shall be erected there is nothing wrong in the Minister asking that he should not be blocked in his good intentions by the diversion of labour and of skilled workers on to buildings that are, not of the same importance and as essential to the public as a whole. The public have two guarantees. First, that the Minister must give notice if he intends to interfere, and secondly that his interference shall go before a tribunal. The House is quite justified in assuming that these two conditions make it certain that building will not be interfered with unless there is a legitimate reason to deflect the labour to more important work for the housing of the people. I know what is said about bureaucracy. I do not like bureaucracy myself, but certain pledges were given by the Government at the last Election, and particularly by Members who stood with the coupon of the Government. One of those pledges was that there should be housing for the people. The Minister is now asking, that he may devote his attention, not to the stopping of useful building, but to the prevention
    2284
    of the carrying out of work on buildings that are of less importance than houses for the people. With the safeguards that are in the paragraph, I hope that the House will accept it without further demur.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I had intended at one time to support the Minister in regard to this paragraph, but I am afraid that, when I find that Ministers are in a hurry to get through any particular piece of work, my suspicions are aroused. I find that the Minister is in somewhat of a hurry in this case, and I do not think he explained very satisfactorily, at any rate as far as I was concerned, precisely what he means by this Subsection. In the first place is it really necessary that he should start by assuming that the local authorities will not do their duty? It has been pointed out that, if a local authority does not meet the requirements of the time, it is possible to change it; and it has also been pointed out that it is easy to appeal to the Ministry in various ways. I would ask the Minister to see if he cannot in some way modify the paragraph, so that he may at any rate seem to trust the local authorities more than he seems to trust them at present. Then I should like to ask what precisely is meant by "buildings of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation." At present, in almost every district, the matter of primary importance is dwelling accommodation, but it is conceivable and possible that in the immediate future there may be a considerable number of places where there may be a shortage of, say, factories, or agricultural buildings, which might be of more importance than dwelling houses in those particular cases. I should like, therefore, to see some modification of this part of the sub-Section also, so that it may be left almost entirely to the local authorities to carry out the work. I am convinced that if they are trusted they will carry it out at least as efficiently as a big Ministry in London.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has said that he is always suspicious when a Minister is in a hurry. Personally I am in a hurry to get to bed, and at our present rate of progress we shall get to bed at about six o'clock in

    2285
    the morning. What we have to do is to hurry on with housing. This paragraph is a very simple one. We have already swallowed the previous paragraph which seemed to me to be far more serious, dictating as to the wages that shall be paid. This simply gives to the Minister the power to act in certain conditions when buildings are being erected which prevent the provision of housing accommodation. With regard to the second point, we all know that there arc good local authorities and bad local authorities, and I think there ought to be some central power to see that defaulting local authorities do their duty. It is not necessary to interfere with good local authorities, but pressure is necessary, in the case of some authorities, to see that this important work is carried on.
    12 M.
    Mr. REMER: I should like to join with the last speaker in his protest against attempting at the hour of midnight to discuss for the first time on the floor of this House the important proposals embodied in this measure. Members have no doubt debated the Bill upstairs but there is a great disadvantage because Members who do not happen to be on the Standiing Committee have usually to discuss the Bill at a late hour like this. It is a great injustice to hon. Members themselves. This is a proposal to give the Minister of Health most autocratic powers not merely for a short period, but for all time. Forty years hence there may be a Labour Government in office, and we may find men occupying the position of the Minister of Health using the powers given in this Clause for all kinds of ulterior purposes, and defining luxury buildings in a way no sensible person would dream of doing. I have carefully examined this particular Clause. It seems to me that these autocratic powers will be given to the municipality. There are local authorities in the country dominated by Labour majorities which have run the rates up to as much as 25s. in the £ by reason of their wildcat schemes. I am very much inclined to move the adjournment of the Debate until a more opportune time for the discussion of this very important subject. It is impossible at this late hour of the night to properly debate proposals of this kind.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I have rather come to the opinion that this Clause if strengthened somewhat would obviate the necessity for
    2286
    putting into operation a decision recently arrived at in the division lobbies. It seems to me that the Minister ought to have power not only to review possible building operations by an authority outside the area where housing schemes are in progress, but he ought also to have power to review them within the area itself, so that, assuming that by local influence plans are being passed that are absorbing a greater number from the building, instead of going to the outside authority, who are also passing plans for further buildings, I think he ought first to review the state of affairs within the area itself. Surely if that were so you would be able to gauge whether cottage building would be interfered with by the local authority passing its own plans within the area. That would be a much better way than saying, after the plans were passed: "You must not pay more than the trade union rates to the men."
    Colonel GRETTON: This Clause is really of considerable importance because of the principle it raises. The Minister proposes, either on his own motion or at the instigation of some local authority, to proceed into the area of some other local authority than the one in question because in that other area buildings are being erected which are of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation. It means that the local authority whose area is to be invaded either by the Minister or some other local authority has already dealt with this question. No objection has been raised, the buildings are proceeding, plans are laid, material bought, labour employed, and then somebody comes along and instigates the Minister to act. The Minister may or may not agree. If he does, on the advice he gets, then he proceeds to give notice that in 14 days he will make an order, and he proceeds to do so accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman tells us there is an appeal. Let the House see what sort of an appeal he is going to set up.
    Dr. ADDISON: This machinery is already in operation.
    Colonel GRETTON: I am taking what the right hon. Gentleman put in the Bill. It is set out in paragraph (5)—
    "The Minister shall constitute a panel of persons to act as chairmen of the tribunal and a panel of persons to act as ordinary members of the tribunal."

    2287
    He appoints his own tribunal—persons of his own selection—specially chosen for ' this particular Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the paragraph which we are now discussing.
    Colonel GRETTON: I was illustrating the value of the appeal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. gentleman to confine himself to the paragraph which we are on.
    Colonel GRETTON: I will of course do so. So much as illustration of what an appeal is worth in the protection of the local authorities from the invasion of the Ministry. This is a Clause for gingering local authorities, and I maintain that in these matters local authorities should have the power to carry out these Acts with as little interference as possible from the Minister. I have risen for the purpose of protesting against arming the Minister with these extraordinary autocratic powers, practically without appeal, for any purpose whatsoever. Surely he has sufficient powers already in other Sections of the Bill without attempting to override local authorities in the way he proposes in this paragraph? If my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall feel obliged to support him in the Lobby.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (8) leave out the words "by a local authority."—[Dr. Addison.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Execution of works, &c., by local authorities outside their own districts in connection with housing schemes and otherwise.)
    (2) The council of any county or district in the area in which a scheme is being carried out as aforesaid shall have power, with the approval of the Minister, to borrow money for the purposes of any agreement entered into by the council under this section.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert the words
    "Provided that any order of the Minister in so far as it relates to the sanction of a loan under this section for the purpose of the payment of interest payable in respect of money borrowed shall be provisional only, and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament."
    Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause was put in in Committee as somewhat of a safeguard, but I do not think it goes far enough. There should be
    2288
    some additional safeguard when you have a Clause in which you can continue to borrow money for five years, and the right hon. Gentleman in Committee made the suggestion of the very words I have down as a proviso, and to our astonishment when it came to a question of voting he did not vote for it. That seemed rather letting us down. He said it was cumbersome and clumsy, but a little while afterwards when pressed hard with regard to Clause 9 he practically put in the same proviso. It was one of the Clauses which was talked about very much on the Second Reading of the Bill. Everybody seemed to be against it because it was such a ridiculous proposal that, without any safeguard, a local authority should be able to borrow money practically forever, paying interest on the loans, and continuing to pay interest on the additional loans that it took up. The right hon. Gentleman could not defend that: therefore he gave us other safeguards that are in the Bill. The proviso which I now move is reasonable. There ought not to be a Clause like this in the Bill, without some considerable limitation.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LORDEN: I understand from the Minister that he is now prepared to give the safeguard. I am very glad to hear that, and I will formally move the Amendment.
    Earl WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not share my hon. Friend's optimism in regard to the Minister's promise. A very strange situation arose in Committee on this Clause which has been explained by my hon. Friend (Mr. Lorden). When it came a question of voting he did not vote for it. I am prepared to sit down if the right hon. Gentleman will assure me that he will accept this as it stands, that he will vote for it, and that the Government whips will be put on for the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I have said I will accept this Amendment, with all its implications, and I will take responsibility for it.
    Earl WINTERTON: Then I am satisfied.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Rate of Interest on certain Advances and Expenses.)
    The rate of interest on advances under section one of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, and on any expenses recoverable by a local authority under section two hundred and sixteen of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, or under section two hundred and fifty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875, or under section fourteen of the Private Street Works Act. 1892, or incurred by a local authority under section fifteen of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1909, or section twenty-eight of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919, or on any advances, costs, charges or expenses of substantially the same character under any local Act, shall be such rate as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury from time to time by order direct
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "section" ["under Section fourteen"] and insert instead thereof the words "Sections thirteen and."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "the Minister may with the approval of."
    This Clause raises a question which is of purely financial importance, and one for the Treasury, as to what is the right rate of interest in dealing with public money. There should be no long process of going from office to office and from Minister to Minister. The real authority in these matters should be consulted in the first place, and a decision should be given by the Treasury, and not by the Minister. That is the much better form of procedure.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment. The Treasury in these matters should look after not merely the public purse, but all questions of finance and loans, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to get the support of the country for his measure he will accept the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: There is no necessity for the insertion of these words. The local authorities make their applications to the Ministry of Health, and they are dealt with. They must go to the department that deals generally with that class of work. To accept this proposition would upset the whole machinery. I trust that the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Treatment for incipient mental disorder.)
    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any Act a person shall not, if the required con-
    2290
    ditions are complied with, be liable to any penalty for receiving to board, lodging, or taking charge of for a period not exceeding six months, whether for payment or not, any person suffering from mental disorder which is incipient in character and of recent origin, but not being a person who is a person certified as a lunatic under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, or in respect of whom an order is in force under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913:
    Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise any person who has been received into any institution, home or house under this section to be detained therein if he delivers to the superintendent or other person, by whatever name called, having the charge of the institution, home or house, or sends by post to the Minister, forty-eight hours' notice in writing that he desires to leave.
    (2) The required conditions for the purposes of this section are as follows:—

    (a) The institution, home, or house in which the person is received must be approved for the purposes of this section- by the Minister:

    (b) No such person shall be received into the institution, home or house except with his previous consent in writing and except on a recommendation in writing by one duly qualified medical practitioner to the effect that that person is reasonably likely to benefit by treatment therein:

    (c) The superintendent or other person, by whatever name called, having charge of the institution, home or house, shall on the demand of any person having authority to inspect the institution, home or house, produce all such written consents and recommendations as aforesaid:

    (d) The reception under this section of any person into the' institution, home or house, shall be reported within twenty-four hours of such reception to the Minister by the superintendent or other person aforesaid, and a copy of the written consent and recommendations shall be enclosed with the report:

    (e) No institution, home, or house, shall be approved by the Minister unless the superintendent or other person, by whatever name called, having charge thereof undertakes to reside in the house:

    (f) In the case where the institution, home, or house approved by the Minister is under the control of two or more persons, and if any of such persons dies leaving the other surviving, and one of the survivors gives a written undertaking to reside on the premises the condition imposed in subsection (e) of this section shall be deemed to have been complied with:

    (g) No material alteration or addition shall be made to any institution, home, or house approved by the Minister for the purposes prescribed in this section without the previous consent in writing of the Minister:

    2291

    (h) In the event of a breach of any of the conditions in this section contained, the approval of the Minister of any institution, home, or house may be withdrawn without prejudice to the liability of any person to be proceeded against for an offence under any Act.

    (3) Any institution, home, or house approved by the Minister under this section shall be periodically inspected by officers appointed for that purpose by the Minister.
    (4) The Minister may make regulations for the purpose of carrying this section into effect, and a copy of any regulations so made shall be posted in the institution, home or house, and a copy shall be handed to each inmate on admission. A draft of any such regulations shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than twenty-one days on which such House is sitting, and the regulations shall not be made until both Houses by resolution have approved the draft, nor, if any modifications are agreed to by both Houses, otherwise than as so modified.
    (5) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any regulations made by the Minister under this section, or detains any person or otherwise acts in contravention of the provisions of this section, he shall be liable on summary, conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and imprisonment.
    (6) Nothing in this Act shall affect any power exercisable with respect to lunatics by the Lord Chancellor or the Commissioners in Lunacy or by the Judge or Masters in Lunacy.
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This Clause will not answer the purpose intended. The Minister, on the Second Reading, said that this Clause was rendered necessary by the fact that 45,000 cases of shell shock and mental disorder had to be provided for. The pressure on the lunatic asylums of the country has been very great for some time. Many of our discharged soldiers who were mentally afflicted have found their way into these institutions. The condition of many of these men is such as does not justify them being kept there, but we cannot accept what is provided in this Clause as a reasonable alternative. The proposal is to set up a number of voluntary institutions by individuals or voluntary associations which may take in these cases of mental disorder for treatment, and which institutes may be run for private profit. There are many defects in the Clause. Sub-section (2, b) says that no person shall be received into an institution except with his previous consent in writing.
    2292
    The Clause deals with cases of mental disorder, and when an individual is in that condition he is not always able to act in such a fashion that any value can be attached to any signature which he attaches to any document. Obviously that is a very loose proceeding. When the men get into these homes or institutions there is no responsibility whatever provided in this Clause on behalf of the State. These men were promised a good deal more than is offered to them under this Clause. They were told that the disability they suffered from as a result of their service to the country would be recognised, and the best that could be given to them would be given to restore them to a normal condition. This provision is not even a half-way house in that direction. It is nothing more than an apology for the promise made to deal with these men. In our view, the only sound way to deal with cases of this character is for the State to take the complete responsibility of giving these men the treatment they need. Keep them out of the recognised lunatic asylums by all means, endeavour to set up some type of intermediary institutions, hostels or the like, which would approximate to their domestic surroundings, and where some form of industry could be instituted. There are such places in the country at the present time. That principle ought to be extended. There is not a line or sub-section of this particular Clause which admits a farthing of financial responsibility on the part of the State. They say: "Some other persons may undertake this responsibility. We give them no backing, no support in any direction whatever. We throw over these forty-five thousand victims of shell shock to the tender mercies of private enterprise to exploit them for their own gain and benefit. "These men are entitled to a good deal more, and to the best the State can do for them. As the Minister said— it was the only thing said in support of this Clause—it was a cheap and convenient method of dealing with these cases. If this limited proposal is the result of a proposal to effect some economy in these cases, it is nothing less than a scandal that any measure of economy should be attempted in this direction which would cause anything less than simple justice for these men. This Clause is quite inadequate. It will not achieve its purpose, and even if it does,

    2293
    it is not a fraction of what these men are entitled to. It is a very small contribution of what we ought to offer in this direction, and so we say the inadequacy of the whole measure stands condemned. We think the Clause ought to be deleted and something better put in its place.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment. We can see no safeguards for these homes. We ought to put something in their place, something entirely under the control of the people and for the people. What will happen is that the poor soldier will be driven into a home where he will be in terrible dread of being exploited by the people who are running these places. We want something better as a safeguard.
    Colonel L. WILSON: I understand that the main objection of my hon. Friends opposite—
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order, would the way you put the question preclude a manuscript Amendment of my hon. Friend to insert after the last "a" in line 34, "registered hostel or"?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will put it in order.
    Colonel L. WILSON: The objection was that this Clause was inadequate, and therefore ought not to be put into the Bill. This Clause was discussed at considerable length in Committee upstairs. As my hon. Friend said, the main reason for this Clause is to provide some home or institution where these shell-shock soldiers can go, where there is a hope of successful treatment for them, and where there is complete dissociation from the machinery of the Lunacy Act. If my hon. Friends will look at the safeguards in the Clause itself they will see that in every possible way these men, or those who enter into these institutions, homes or houses, are safeguarded as far as is possible to safeguard them. I cannot understand, like my hon. Friend who moved to leave out this Clause, that these homes or institutions will not be available for the men for whom they are primarily and principally intended. It might be possible to go a great deal further than we have gone on this particular Clause. It would only have been possible to go further by the expenditure either by the State or by the local authorities of a very large sum of money for the estab-
    2294
    lishment and maintenance of special homes for this particular object. I do not believe that such expenditure would be acceded to by this House. Therefore, while safeguarding, as we have safeguarded, the interests of those who will be received in these homes, we believe that by this Clause we are making available for these cases, for which it is most essential something should be done as soon as possible, these institutions which we hope will provide that successful treatment for these men who, as my hon. Friend has said, deserved well of the State, and perhaps deserved even better than we have been able to provide for them. I hope my hon. Friend will not press for the Clause to be deleted. Although it may not go as far as he and others would wish, I am convinced it will be of the greatest benefit to these men.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I find myself in strange company at times on this Bill, and I hope the hon. Member (Mr. Myers) will not be surprised that I heartily support him on this Amendment. This is a most extraordinary Clause, absolutely intended, according to the Front Bench, only to apply to soldiers who served in the war. It goes far farther than that and is a distinctly dangerous Clause to put in. The lunacy law in this country has been built up over a great number of years and the greatest care has been taken to prevent anything like unlicensed houses for lunatics. What does this Clause do'? It allows certain people who are absolutely not under the control of the Lunacy Act to receive lunatics. If you are receiving a person who is not a lunatic there is no need for this Clause at all. There is nothing to prevent anyone taking an eccentric person into their house and keeping him there as a boarder. Some day my hon. Friend will take me in when I need it and he will not be committing an offence under the" Lunacy Acts. If the man is a lunatic then this Clause comes in and does away with the salutary restrictions laid down at present that nobody shall keep a person who is a lunatic for reward or otherwise, except under certain conditions laid down. This Clause repeals those restrictions and lays down that in certain cases you are to have institutions kept for reward which are not under the Lunacy Commissioners, who are fully cognisant of this work. They need most carefully watching. I

    2295
    have seen a good deal of the working of the Lunacy Act and I certainly say that gross cases of injustice have occurred under it. It is a very easy way of disposing of people to get them shut up and keep them there on the ground that they are lunatics. The Lunacy Commissioners have experience of this work. Here you are setting up a new body who are to look after these institutions for reward. These men who set up these institutions are not to be responsible to the Lunacy Commissioners, but to the Ministry of Health who have had no, or very little, experience of lunacy. They have no great idea of keeping their lunatics under proper control and therefore we need the people to look after this sort of work.
    There is no reason why you should transfer these powers at all. You talk about the restrictions and safeguards of this particular Clause. The hon. Member put it perfectly plainly. You have a man who ex hypothesi is insane. Starting with that assumption, he is asked to sign a document. Is that document of any value when he does sign it? When he gets in, is he to know he has the power of getting out? Is any notice to be put up in the institution which will let him know? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am told that has been put in. If he is kept by a person for reward it is obviously his object to keep him as long as possible. I will support every possible safeguard to this Clause, but I do ask that before the House at twenty minutes to one in the morning embarks on an alteration of the Lunacy Laws the Government if they cannot see their way to adjourn it, will give it rather more consideration than we can give it at this time. Before you launch out into this difficult and complicated matter of lunatic administration I, at all events, liberate my soul by putting in a protest. Probably hon. Members have had a large number of letters protesting against this Clause. I protest against dealing in an omnibus Bill of this kind with things like the Lunacy Acts. This presents rather strongly the advantages of the Coalition Government. If we had an Opposition this sort of thing would not be allowed to go on. There would be a massacre of the innocents before long of some of these departmental Bills. I have seen the working of these Acts, and know the importance of these safeguards and the vital
    2296
    importance of not shoving through legislation of this kind in the middle of the night, setting up these institutions to be kept by a doctor, giving him these powers for the first time. If the House chooses, it can do this, but I ask it to reject this Clause altogether, and let the Government bring in a new Bill dealing with the Lunacy Laws. Then I will sit up all night if necessary.
    Mr. ORMSBYGORE: I hope the Government will listen to the appeal of my hon. and learned Friend for Cambridge (Mr. Ilawiinson), and really consider what they are going to do at this stage of the Bill. We have now reached the beginning of the contentious Clauses of this Bill. This is a Clause which some of us went into the Lobby on the Second Reading of the Bill to defeat, and I really think that in a small House, at a quarter to one in the morning, to discuss a question of far-reaching importance—this and the next Clause- is unworthy of this House and unworthy of the Government. I hope very shortly, the Chair will accept a motion to adjourn the Debate, so that we may discuss these far-reaching matters in a proper way. All the more do I urge that in view of the reply of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping to this Amendment. It really was to my mind a most extraordinary reply. He seems to think that this Clause deals with the shell-shock soldier. So, I believe, does the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to leave out the Clause. It is quite clear on the face of it that no shell-shock soldier will come under the operation of this Clause. It is limited to persons suffering from mental disorder which is incipient in character and of recent origin. The Armistice is more than two years old, and practically all these shell-shock cases are being dealt with in special neurasthenic hospitals under the Ministry of Pensions, and will remain under the Ministry of Pensions until they are cured. I do not believe that they will come within the purview of this Clause in any sort of way. What you are legislating for here, I am quite sure, are cases of an entirely different type. You are legislating for the type of person who may or may not become a lunatic, who is in the incipient stages of mental deficiency. There are many of these cases, especially among young persons. There are, too, the cases of adolescent insanity.

    2297
    Delirium tremens is another typical class of case. I do not believe the shell-shock soldier is going to be touched in any way by this Clause. Yet that was the whole burden of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech. It is the Ministry of Pensions' duty especially to look after these. It is not the duty of the Ministry of Health. An efficient service has been built up, and they have got specialists for these shell-shock cases.
    If you are going to hand these cases over to the Ministry of Health from the Ministry of Pensions, you will be doing no good to the shell-shock soldier. My reply, to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment in dealing with these cases is that the last thing you want to do is to horde them into a State institution. That is the very last place in which you should put this sort of people—a state-built and a state-maintained institution. The one chance for curing these people is to get them into the quietest possible and most normal home. How are you going to get that? I am not opposing his suggestion on the ground of economy. If we are to cure these people, I would willingly spend money to cure them. But directly you get county councils building institutions for the reception of these people, by whatever name you call the institution, they are in fact lunatic asylums. The patients may not be certified lunatics; you may have a notice put up in the corridor to say that they may go out when they like, yet the atmosphere of the institution will be upon them. I am quite sure that the way of dealing with these people properly is to secure a limited—a strictly limited—number of houses—seaside boarding-houses preferably—with the most grandmotherly landladies you can get, properly certified by the Ministry of Health. These are the sort of places where these poor people should be able to go. If they are treated as normal human beings, living in a normal house and a normal life there is a chance for "the incipient cases of recent origin." Once you get them into the atmosphere of the institution, once you get them on to the slope that leads to lunacy, then all chance of curing that kind of case, or of holding it back, is gone. I do earnestly ask the House, if they are going to deal with this matter to-night, not to follow the wishes of the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevel-
    2298
    yan Thomson) but will narrow this Clause down to a certain number of carefully inspected and protected private houses and will introduce, if necessary, still further safeguards to ensure that these houses have nothing to do with lunacy and nothing to do with the Lunacy Acts, and in no way connected with them. That is your only chance of doing anything effective or useful for these people. If this class of person is associated, as it is already associated in many people's minds, with the Lunacy Acts, the whole object of the Clause is defeated. I earnestly hope, therefore, that m any Amendments which are considered we shall give a certain amount of attention to this in Committee but everybody knows what happens in committee upstairs, with only a handful of members present, hon. Members will carefully examine this Clause and ensure that all possible safeguards are inserted so that these poor people in their incipient stage are not subjected to any ill-treatment and not allowed to go on the slippery slope which leads to lunacy.
    Mr.T.THOMSON: Prom whatever view we may regard this Clause, I think that there will be general agreement as to its inadequacy in dealing with this question. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last (Mr Ormsby Gore) agrees that in its present form, it is not sufficiently comprehensive and that it is not sufficiently adequate as regards the safeguards which everyone would like to see inserted. It has been suggested that the shell-shock ex-soldiers are adequately dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions. I do not think that that is the opinion of the ex-soldiers themselves, nor is it the opinion of those who look after their interests indirectly The Minister of Health has told us that this is a step in the direction of assisting the ex-service man I have in my hand a letter which I received only to-day from one of their organisations, and they say that there are in it over 2,000 ex-service men, practically neurasthenic cases, waiting for proper attention. That does not look as though there were adequate accommodation or adequate treatment for these cases. They also say that, under the provisions of the Ministry of Pensions, a number of the cases are dealt with in asylums, which is, as I think most hon. Members will agree, a quite improper method of dealing with these merely borderland cases. We shall probably all

    2299
    agree that we ought, whether for soldiers or civilians, to do all that it is possible to do for cases in an incipient stage of mental disorder from whatever cause it is due. These cases should be treated quite apart from lunatic asylums.
    This Clause, at present, is totally inadequate to deal with the problem before us. In Committee upstairs we were told that the following Clause and this Clause hung together; that Clause 9 could not be made effective unless we had Clause 8. Some of us voted for Clause 8 because we hoped that Clause 9 would be made effective in dealing with these particular cases. When we came to Clause 9 we were told that we had discussed the matter long enough on Clause 8, and, instead of increasing the provisions under Clause 9, they were cut down and curtailed. I have an Amendment on the Paper which I understand is going to be ruled out of order because it is not possible, on Report, to make any provision whereby even a rate charge can be provided for. Therefore I submit that Clause 8, as it stands, is a quite inadequate way of dealing with this huge problem. The ex-Service man is not being dealt with adequately by the Ministry of Pensions. The Clause does not provide a single extra home; it makes no provision for such a home. It only provides that private individuals shall be able to start homes and shall be absolved from all penalties at present incurred if they take in such cases. What does that really mean? We are told that there are sufficient safeguards, but some of us maintain that if this Clause goes through and if this immunity from the Lunacy Acts is passed, there may be set up all over the country a large number of small houses, taking four, five or six cases, to make a living out of these people. Is it satisfactory that the State should seek to allow a profit to be made out of these people? It is repugnant that the shell-shock soldier should be at the mercy of someone seeking to make private profit out of him. We are, told that there are safeguards, but what safeguards can you possibly have if you have a large number of these small homes, possibly running into hundreds, under this Bill, set up throughout the country? Can you imagine any system of inspection adequate, and, if you can, what a huge system of inspection would be required. We heard a
    2300
    good deal in Committee about safeguards. There are certain paper safeguards, as the last speaker said, but these safeguards are totally inadequate. Therefore, I submit that it would be better, in the interests of all the sufferers, whether civilian or ex-Service men, that the whole Clause 8 should be dropped in order that a more comprehensive and complete scheme should be brought forward next Session. I would remind the House that this is no new problem. The Minister of Health himself and two other hon. Members were part of a deputation that waited on the then President of the Local Government Board—Mr. Herbert Samuel as he then was—and urged on him in July, 1914, that this question of incipient mental disorder should be dealt with by the State in a comprehensive way, and that the local authorities should establish homes and hospitals for the care of those affected with such mental disorder. The then President of the Local Government Board received the deputation in a sympathetic manner, and it is rather regrettable that six years afterwards one of the deputation should be fathering such an inadequate measure as the one which he now puts before us. I think he himself realises that he is only attempting to touch the fringe of the question. I submit again that it would be better to leave this alone entirely in order to gee a more comprehensive and more effective scheme of dealing with this matter in the next Session.
    Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    1 A.M.
    I must confess that I find myself in considerable difficulty over this Clause. I originally moved, in Committee, to leave out the Clause, but was partly convinced as the result of a private conversation with experts of the Ministry of Health, and I withdrew my Amendment. But, on looking at the Clause again and after the large amount of correspondence I have received on the subject, and after hearing the speeches from both sides of the House, I am bound to say that I find myself in a good deal of doubt as to whether I ought to vote for this Clause, or whether the House ought to delete it. At this late hour one does not want to tire the House, but to deal with this subject adequately one has to deal with the questions of the insane, the partially sane, and the sane. My hon. and learned

    2301
    Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), who objected to this Clause, will agree with me as a lawyer that one of the oldest distinctions which the judicature and the legislature have drawn is the distinction between the sane and the insane. The judicature and the legislature have always said, "We refuse to be told by the local authorities that a person is not quite sane or insane. In order to protect the interests of the subject he must be certain either sane or insane." The reason for that is that directly a man is certified insane he loses all his rights and becomes in the same position as a prisoner. Therefore, the judicature has drawn a clear distinction. It says: "The state we cannot admit so far as the law is concerned is that there are two classes—the sane person and the person who is neither sane nor insane, the borderland cases." The Government, in bringing forward this Clause, so far as we can gather from what has been said in this House and in Committee upstairs, is seeking to deal with those cases of incipient insanity which they think cannot be adequately or properly dealt with under existing circumstances. There are obviously two very important questions arising. If the position taken up by the experts in these matters was that after all these years we have been suffering from a lack of proper institutions to deal with those who are on the border, then the law of lunacy should be amended in order to deal with the position that has arisen. If it is a fact that there has been gradually growing up this difficulty of dealing with these things, this is not the Bill in which it should be dealt with. It should be d3alt with by an amendment of the lunacy Acts, which are a most important part of our judicial and legislative system. It is part of the right hon. Gentleman's contention that we want to be able to deal with the shell-shock soldiers. On that point I want to put some very close questions to the right hon. Gentleman, because, as was pointed out by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, if the object is to deal with the shell-shock soldier, how are you to benefit him by the Clause as it stands? How is he to be able to go into these institutions for payment? I do not see how the ordinary soldier, the ordinary artizan, is to do it. The authority really responsible if a man has shell-shock is the Ministry of Pensions. It is the duty of the
    2302
    Ministry of Pensions to provide for him. I think no one can deny that it is not the duty of the Ministry of Health. This is typical of the way of this Government. We are dealing with this Clause at one o'clock in the morning, and there is no representative of the Ministry of Pensions present on the front bench, so that anyone who wishes to obtain information from the Ministry of Pensions cannot do it. I said upstairs in Committee, and I repeat it, the attitude which the Ministry of Pensions has taken up on this matter is very important. It may be urged that it is offensive on my part to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill affecting, as this Clause does affect, the interests of another department without consulting that department, but my experience of this Government is that they have done the whole of their work in that way. Every Bill is a departmental Bill, and has no reference to any other office of State.
    To return to the question of the shell-shock soldier, it was only partly threshed out upstairs. This Clause as it stands is not going to help that man at all. How is a man going to be able to afford to pay? There are, up and down the country, a very great many of these men, and it is undesirable that they should go into a regular lunatic asylum. But because a serious state of affairs exists, because as an aftermath of the War there is a number of soldiers suffering from shell-shock, a number of incipient mental cases, that is no reason for dealing with them in a wrong way. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman regrets the use of the words "cheap and easy," which, I think, were the words he used. The impression which the right hon. Gentleman gave us in Committee upstairs was that this was the simplest way of dealing with the question. I have grave doubts. This is a breach of the spirit of the lunacy laws. For the first time in our history you are creating a fresh class which the Legislature has always refused to recognise. Secondly, I do not think you are dealing with the shell-shock soldier in the way you should. Under this Clause as it stands you will not be able to deal with that man, because he will not be able to afford to go into these institutions. These are my reasons against the Clause. As a result of Amendments we secured in Committee, the chances of abuses are not very great. My objection now is not so much on the

    2303
    ground of abuse, but because I believe the Clause will not secure what it intends to carry out. As a protest against the absence of the Minister of Pensions, who ought to be present on a Debate of this kind, I feel it my duty to ask leave to move that this Debate be now adjourned.
    Major MOLSON: I beg to second the Motion.
    Captain ELLIOT: It is a little difficult for a Scottish Member to intervene on a motion to adjourn the debate on a clause of a bill relating to England, but unless we can proceed to discuss this most important clause now it seems to me that there is a great passibility that the whole thing may be shelved. The clause had a good deal of debate in Committee, and there has been a great deal of correspondence on the matter. Although the hour is advanced it cannot be said that the intellectual abilities of the noble Earl have been in any way weakened or impaired by the late hour at which the discussion has arrived, and on general grounds it is important that we should come to a decision one way or another on this important point in time to permit the Bill to go to another place. When finished in this House the Bill has still to go to another place, and unless they get the requisite time there this measure may be lost, and the important reforms embodied in it may be lost not only for the next few weeks, but for many months to come. On these grounds I would respectfully ask that the debate be not adjourned.
    Dr. ADDISON: I regret that my Noble "Friend has thought fit to move the adjournment of the debate because we must have regard at this stage of the session to the other work which Parliament has to clear up, and also to the fact, which my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken showed clearly, that unless we can make progress with this Bill and with others rapidly we shall find ourselves probably not able to deal with the subject not only now, but perhaps for a long time to come. I am not in a position at present to debate the merits of the proposal, but I should like to have an opportunity to reply to what my hon. Friend said. I would remind the House of the fact that this clause was the subject of discussion for a whole day and
    2304
    part of another day in Committee upstairs, and certainly it was thoroughly threshed out. After all, all of us who have been in this House for any length of time know very well that ten minutes past one o'clock used to be thought very early. It is not very long since it was the habitual practice of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did not have Standing Committees."] Anyhow the Minister of Health is prepared to go on.
    Earl WINTERTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to make one suggestion. I am willing to withdraw my motion which was merely to call attention to the absence of the Minister of Pensions if the right hon. Gentleman will now obtain the services of a representative of that department, which has got two Members who should be on the front bench.
    Dr. ADDISON: I must honestly con fess I have no idea where these representatives are. I have made inquiries and I hope they will be produced, but I must say that the whole of this matter has been discussed in great detail with the Ministry of Health. If I were permitted to reply to the point that has been raised by my hon. Friends, I would say that they are over anxious. This clause is not—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The right hon. Gentleman must not deal with that question.
    Dr. ADDISON: I was trying to reply to the point of the Noble Earl, but I hope he will take my assurance that the subject has been well discussed with the Minister of Pensions.
    Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I do not know if I should be allowed to discuss the merits of the Clause.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No; the only question before the House is that the debate be now adjourned.
    Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I would urge the House not to listen to the suggestion of the Noble Earl to adjourn this discussion. In my opinion this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. The whole of this very important matter was fully discussed in Committee, and, as far as I could see, it was unanimously agreed in Committee that such a Clause was abso-

    2305
    lutely necessary. I would remind the House that this Clause does not affect shell shock cases.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that subject.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before this motion to adjourn the debate is withdrawn, I think we should get some indication from the Minister in charge of the Bill as to how late he is going to keep us discussing these controversial clauses. If my Noble Friend were to withdraw his motion for the adjournment would the Minister accept a motion for the adjournment after we have threshed out this Clause. The House may be willing to sit to discuss this very important Clause, as I agree it is. We ought to discuss it at considerable length. I urge him to assure us that if the Motion for the adjournment is withdrawn he will accept the Motion for the adjournment at the end of this Clause before we embark upon the still more controversial Clause dealing with poor-law hospitals. Let him assure us that we will not discuss in the recesses of the night a far-reaching Clause dealing with the law and with whole categories of persons with only the representatives of the Ministry of Health. There is a clear case here from the speed of the representative of the Ministry of Shipping that the representative of the Ministry of Pensions should have been here to reply to the charge made against that Ministry by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), and no representative of the Ministry of Pensions is here. It was just the same upstairs on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was left to paddle his own canoe. Nobody came to help him. The Government do not care two-pence about the Bill, and the only thing to do is to share the view of the Government about the remaining Clauses of the Bill and adjourn the Debate. If the Government do not proceed any further with the Bill, but take the Bill as they have got it—the first seven Clauses—to another place, they can deal with the rest of it in another session.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. and gallant Friend made a suggestion, and I have made enquiries as to the business requiring to be carried through in the immediate future, and it appears that if the suggestion of my hon. Friend were adopted and we brought the discussion to a close at the end of this Clause that the
    2306
    only way to deal effectively with the re maining business of the House would be to begin Clause 9 at eleven o'clock to-morrow night. As far as I am concerned, I do not mind a bit, but after all this is not an unusual time for Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, it is in these luxurious days, but it is not as compared to the habits of the old days.
    Earl WINTERTON: Parliament sat all the year in those days with a reasonable Government in power.
    Dr. ADDISON: Those Governments were not so subject to criticism. They were not more reasonable than the Governments of the present time. If the Members are willing to sit to-morrow night and go on with the rest I am not going to object, but I think we made up our minds and came here prepared to sit, and that is the best course to take.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he accepts the Motion for the Adjournment. He will save the time of the Government and House. He will get the other items on the Order Paper without very much argument, and have a better opportunity to-morrow of discussing the Clause. It will also give the right hon. Gentleman and the Government an opportunity of considering whether they could not amend this Clause to meet the approval of the Members by an Amendment in another place. Arguments have been used which should carry some weight with the Government in inducing them to further consider this Clause.
    Major HAMILTON: The Motion for Adjournment is quite definitely on one point. The House has heard the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) attacking this Clause and the Ministry of Pensions. The Minister assured the House that he sent for the Minister of Pensions and his representative. He has not arrived yet, and I have not seen anyone leave the front bench. I am credibly informed he is within the precincts of the House. The Minister says he has sent for him, but I have seen no one go. This is a vital matter. Here we are sitting at half-past one and there is a Standing Committee on an important Bill to-morrow on which many Members have to serve, and all this discussion would have been saved if the Minister of Pensions or his repre-

    2307
    sentative had come in to explain the questions which have been put and the attack made on him. I shall support this Motion simply and solely because the Minister, twenty minutes ago, assured us he was sending for the Minister of Pensions. As fas as I could watch no one has gone for him and no one has tried to bring him here to answer the questions of the House.
    Mr. REMER: I should like to add my protest. It seems to me there is a very controversial question in this particular Clause, and a position has arisen in this Bill which ought really to be considered at a later date. It is almost impossible for Members of the House to take the intelligent interest in this Clause which they ought to take if they take the time of the House in this way. I support the
    Question again proposed "That the words proposed to be left out to the word
    Motion for the Adjournment. I protest against taking an important matter like this at half-past one in the morning. I see no reason why it should not be leftover till to-morrow or another day. Even if we have to sit on Christmas Day I do not think a matter like this ought to be rushed through the House of Commons without proper consideration. I think we ought to enter an emphatic protest against the Government trying to rush through all this legislation without mature consideration. Members of the House are privileged in many ways. I object to this kind of legislation being put through without'the faintest chance of dealing with it in a proper and adequate way
    Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    The House divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 392.]

    AYES.

    [1.25 a.m.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Remer, J. R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Lorden, John William

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Raffan. Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Earl Winterton and Mr. Ormsby Gore.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Neal, Arthur

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Parker, James

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gregory, Holman

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Hailwood, Augustine

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

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Roundeil, Colonel R. F.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Hayday, Arthur

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Blane, T. A.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scott A. M. (Glasgow Bridgeton)

    Broad Thomas Tucker

    Hope James F. (Sheffield Central)

    Seddon J. A.

    Bruton Sir James

    Hotchkin Captain Stafford Vere

    Sexton James

    Carr W. Theodore

    Jones Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Casey T. W.

    Kellaway Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    I Shaw Thomas (Preston)

    Chilcott Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Kidd James

    Shaw William T. (Forfar)

    Coats Sir Stuart

    Law Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow C.)

    Sitch Charles H.

    Cockerill Brigadier-General G. K.

    Lindsay William Arthur

    Smith W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lort-William, J.

    Stanley Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Coote Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Lynn R. J.

    Sugden W. H.

    Craig Colonel Sir J. (Down Mid)

    M' Lean Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Sutherland Sir William

    Davidson J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Maclean Neil (Glasgow Govan)

    Thomson T. (Middlesbrough West)

    Davies A. (Lancaster Clitheroe)

    Manville Edward

    Waterson A. E.

    Davies Thomas (Cirencester)

    Mills John Edmund

    Whitla Sir William

    Edge Captain William

    Mitchell William Lane

    Williamson Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Edwards C (Monmouth Bedwellty)

    Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wilson Daniel M. (Down West)

    Elliot Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Morden Colonel H. Grant

    Wilson Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Eyres-Monsell Commander B. M.

    Morgan Major D. Watts

    Wise Frederick

    Fildes Henry

    Morrison-Bell Major A. C.

    Wood Sir H. K. (Woolwich West)

    Forrest Walter

    Murray C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Foxcroft Captain Charles Talbot

    Murray John (Leeds West)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fraser Major Sir Keith

    Myers Thomas

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    person '['a person shall not'] stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I do not want to keep the House much longer over this as we have got some twelve Clauses more before we go to bed. But an appeal has been made from one or two sides for medical opinion on this Clause and I should like to point out one or two things. I think the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge was alarmed over the Lunacy Laws and that has been suggested from other sides. Many Members feel that the Lunacy Law is being tampered with. The fact is this. The Lunacy Law-is absolutely clear cut as the result of experience but experience has shown that there has been a fringe going through the door of the Lunacy Acts which has not been dealt with. This Clause simply proposes to deal with that fringe. It is seen by everyone that that fringe of lunacy cannot be dealt with by the Lunacy Laws and by the lunacy systems. It must be dealt with entirely separately. That is no new discovery. The whole of modern treatment is in that direction. I have here a report by the Medico-Psychological Association dated 1918 and it deals with all the different points summoned up in this Bill. Amongst these is that the early symptoms of disorder often occur long before certification is possible and medical opinion is that we must deal with this point apart from the compulsory or penal Clauses of the Lunacy Laws as they are called from the social point of view. They ought to be treated as mental disorders and that is what this Bill proposes to do. What is far and away the best way for treating these cases was explained by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). It is the treatment of these people in private houses in family life. There are many of the people who wish to be treated in that kind of way and I appeal to hon. Members themselves. Perhaps they can imagine in their own families cases of individuals who through accident or illness are hovering on the fringe. Many of these cases instead of being once and for all labelled as lunatics are curable and will be cured. Meanwhile this is the kind of treatment we want for them. We want them to go into a private house but we want these homes to be properly under guidance and under control. The proposals of this Bill are grossly inadequate. They hardly touch the real poor—the real working classes as we used to understand them. But my friends in this Association say we have
    2310
    made a good beginning. I hope it is not the view as expressed in the opening speech made for the rejection of this Clause that it is intended to provide a number of vast institutions. That is not required. We want to have this small arrangement to enable the experiment to be made. A physician with whom I have been in correspondence has written "I agree that Clause 10 (that is now Clause 8) is now a very workable start for us. I hope it will go through now all right.
    Captain ELLIOT: There is one important point I will put to the House. This is not an untried experiment. This is a system which has been in operation for the last 54 years in Scotland. The fact is that in Scotland the position has been in a way very much more advanced than anything that is suggested in this Bill. The private case can be consigned to a private residence not exceeding six months on one medical certificate under Section 13 of the Lunacy Law of 1866. It has been found in practice to have worked so well in Scotland that very many cases of people who could afford it have been sent from England to take advantage of this temporary residence where they were not certified as lunatics and had a chance if they recovered of going back into normal life without the asylum stigma being placed upon them. I suggest that that is a very pertinent point in discussing this Clause. As far as I can see from a very careful reading of the Debates upstairs in Committee the point was scarcely mentioned. To the question that has been asked by the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) are we suffering from a lack of institutions suitable for treating private cases I say we are suffering from surely a lack of institutions and the case is evident from the fact that cases are sent from England to Scotland where we have this very treatment which under this Clause will be made available for them in England. I put it to the House that a thing which has been working for fifty-four years in Scotland without as far as I know any kind of abuse having been reported is a very strong prima facie case for it being extended to England. Then the Noble Lord said that in that case we were altering the law of lunacy and his third point which was the most important was that the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill was not the place to deal with it. But I put it to the House that with the safeguards put into the

    2311
    Bill the place has to be inspected the regulations to be posted in the House and a copy of them handed to the patient on his admission and that he can leave the House at any date on forty-eight hours' notice — I submit to the House that an experiment which has been tried for over half a century—
    Earl WINTERTON: May I say that so far as I am concerned I take no objection to the safeguards which I think are adequate? The point I would like you to answer of what has gone on in Scotland is this. Have these institutions in Scotland dealt with the class of patient which the Minister wishes to deal with under this Clause the poorer class of the population who cannot afford it?
    Captain ELLIOT: The people are undoubtedly better off than the poorer classes. But in the cases to which the Minister is referring the case of the soldier under the Ministry of Pensions there will be funds available for the treatment of these cases. At any rate this is making a start towards the treatment of the poorer class of the population and I submit that when you have this Clause so carefully safeguarded as it is it is not a strain upon the custom of the House or the country to ask the House to consider it and pass it even at this late hour of the night.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I accept most thoroughly the medical view that there is a necessity or at any rate a very great need for some place to which such patients may be taken where they will distinctly understand that they are not in a lunatic asylum or what is called in modern language a mental hospital. If this is our object in this Clause then a time when we all ought to be in dreamland is not altogether an unsuitable time to discuss it. These unfortunate people are to be kept free from any taint of lunacy or of lunatic asylums, and are to be received into these places which are to be permitted to take in persons suffering from mental disorder and are to be permitted to detain those persons until they give 48 hours' notice to leave.
    Dr. ADDISON: No; they can walk out at any time they like; 48 hours' notice has only to be given in respect of the Minister of Health.
    Mr. HERBERT: I may have made a mistake on that point but at any rate, there is detention.
    Dr. ADDISON: No there is not.
    Mr. HERBERT: Then I will put it in another way that nothing in this Section shall authorise a person to be detained if he does something. I presume that therefore he is authorised to be detained if he does not do that something. That seems to me to be the common-sense view. In addition there has to be a recommendation signed by the duly qualified medical practitioner. The place into which he has to go is to be periodically inspected by officials of the Ministry of Health but the state of the inmates has not to be inspected. This home mental hospital or lunatic asylum is to be controlled by regulations that have to be posted up and a copy supplied to the inmates. If a man were suffering from incipient mental disorder and there was some danger of his getting worse if he were put in what is officially known as a lunatic asylum or mental hospital I should think that he would have the very finest possible chance of coming to the conclusion that that was the way he was being treated. The only difference I can see between these places and between mental hospitals or lunatic asylums is that there is no provision whatever for the inspection of these unfortunate patients or any supervision of their property or their rights. In fact they can be treated as lunatics for the time, at any rate without the slightest possible chance, if they are incapable of managing their own affairs of having their own affairs and property attended to in a proper way. Surely it comes to this. So far as I can read it the whole object of the medical fraternity is not likely to be attained by this particular Clause. The object which the Lunacy Laws have always had, to prevent these unfortunate people from being made the victims of designing scoundrels, is to be done away with, once and for all. Therefore I oppose this Clause as strongly as possible and I hope that other hon. Members will do the same.
    Mr. SEXTON: If any evidence was required in support of the extension of the Lunacy Laws not only to the working classes but to all classes it is the spectacle of members of this House at ten minutes to two in the morning discussing this matter.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I confess that I cannot quite understand how the hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Eawlinson) can both of them say that people who go into these homes are in any sense to be treated as lunatics. That point was very present to many of us in the Standing Committee and it was emphasised over and over again that if you are going to avoid any question of compulsion you j must give the patient who is to be an inmate of one of these homes all the protection that the Lunacy Acts can provide. Inasmuch as these people can go in when they like and at their own consent and come out when they like it seems to me that every element of compulsion is absent and that there is no analogy whatsoever between patients in these homes and inmates in an ordinary asylum.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: What I pointed out was that the only thing that this Clause does is to make a thing legal which is now illegal. The illegal thing at present is that you must not take into a house for reward a person who is insane. The only thing that this Clause does is to say that notwithstanding the provisions of another Act you shall be allowed to take in certain people who are insane subject to these restrictions. Ex-hypothesi you are only dealing with persons who are insane. If a person is not insane there is no need for this Clause for there is nothing to prevent a person taking in another person who is not insane.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I was perfectly per fectly aware of that point and Section 315 I think it is of the Lunacy Act deals with it. That point was present to all of us when we discussed this on Committee. But what I do not understand is this why a system that has worked with admirable results "in Scotland for something like 50 years—
    Mr. RAWLINSON: They have not this Clause in Scotland.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot understand why if this Clause is going to set up something similar to those institutions which have served their purpose so well in Scotland we should not at any rate give an opportunity to the afflicted people if they wish to go into these homes. There is no element of compulsion what-
    2314
    so ever. If there had been the slightest-element of compulsion introduced I should have voted against this Clause in Committee and should have opposed it by every means in my power. There was an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Waver-tree Lt.-Col. Raw which did carry some element of compulsion but that Amendment was negatived and the question of compulsion was withdrawn from the Bill. Therefore I entirely dispute the assertion that the situation here created is in any way analagous to those contemplated by the Lunacy Act. I should like to say however that it does seem to me that we are at this time nearly two o'clock in the morning discussing just about the most serious thing which this House has been called upon to discuss this Session. This is a question of great importance and we have had six or seven hon Members who are fully qualified to speak who are all agreed on the fundamental solemnity of the question and that is the only question on which they are agreed. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough Mr. T. Thomson thinks that certain methods should be adopted in dealing with this matter. The hon. Member for Spen Valley Mr. Myers who spoke if I may say so with the" greatest animation and eloquence in Committee on this subject thinks that we ought to refuse to pass the Clause at all. Other hon. Members take different views. While all are agreed on the importance and seriousness of the subject no two speakers have agreed as to the method and manner in which to deal with it. Therefore once again I do protest against being called upon to give a vote which I for my part shall record with the deepest possible sense of responsibility at this time of the morning and on a subject so serious.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I do not want to speak on the merits of the Clause. I am not satisfied with the reasons of several hon. Members who profess to regard the safeguards as satisfactory. I am moving an Amendment or two later on which I think are necessary for the safeguards to be made sufficient but it is because I fear that those Amendments will not be accepted that I shall probably vote against this Clause. I merely rose for the purpose of clearing up the answer which the Minister of Health gave to the

    2315
    hon. Member opposite Mr. D. Herbert with regard to the nature of the detention under this Clause. I am not at all satisfied with the explanation. As I read it the Clause repeals Section 315 of the Lunacy Act to the extent of making it legal to receive patients for profit who are covered by that Sectioin. Detention is authorised by the Section subject to this one safeguard:
    "Provided that nothing in this Section shall authorise any person received into any institution home or house under this Section shall be detained therein if he delivers to the superintendent or other person by whatever name called having the charge of the institution home or house or sends by post to the Minister forty-eight hours' notice in writing that he desires to leave."
    That forty-eight hours' notice in writing governs the delivery to the superintendent as well as the sending by post.
    Dr. ADDISON: No no.
    Major ENTWISTLE: It means that because what is the object to the verb "delivers" in this Sub-section'?
    Dr. ADDISON: He delivers "to the superintendent or other person"—"or "—that point has been made clear. A patient has the right to go out at any time; he can walk out the moment he hands in his notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: That was never intended in the Bill.
    Major ENTWISTLE: There is no other word as object of the verb "delivers" except "forty-eight hours' notice" and the hon. and gallant Member has just stated what the object of the Bill was. It was proposed that this "forty-eight hours' notice" was to govern "delivers" and "the superintendent." Therefore when the right hon. Gentleman says that is his intention some words might be inserted to carry out what is the intention of this Section.
    2.0 A.M.
    Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I will not detain the House for more than two minutes. As one who has been attending many thousands of certified lunatics in and out of asylums I think perhaps I might inform the House of the real meaning of this Clause. I should like to do so for two reasons first of all to prevent mental diseases becoming hopeless and incurable
    2316
    and secondly to prevent these cases from going into the lunatic asylums. I contend that this Clause has no reference whatever to the Lunacy Acts. The whole object of the Clause is to treat mental disorder exactly as you would treat any other disease the human body is subject to. There is no form of compulsion whatever and the object of the 48 hours' detention is that if a person undergoing treatment in one of these institutions or homes suddenly became suicidal or homicidal it would be obviously unsafe to allow him to walk out and in these special cases 48 hours' notice should be given so that his friends might be communicated with and he might be taken away. The 48 hours' detention is simply to protect the man himself or the community from a possible murder. I do impress upon the House the great importance of giving everybody a chance who is attacked as any of us might be at any time with incipient mental disorder to get well. The only alternative as the law at present stands is that any person suffering from incipient mental disorder must go into a lunatic asylum. A rich person can fit up his house as a private lunatic asylum with nurses and doctors but the poor cannot do that. Any of the poorer classes who are attacked with incipient mental disorder have no alternative but to be certified and put into an asylum. We all know that in the case of a person who is certified as a lunatic there is the very greatest difficulty in getting employment again in any capacity whatever and the object of this Clause is to try and first of all cure insanity in the earlier stages to prevent it becoming incurable and to prevent the stigma of being certified a lunatic falling on a person who has unfortunately been attacked with incipient mental disorder. I assure the House there is no possible suggestion of compulsion either as to going into institutions or of detention when a man gets there. He can walk out at any time. The 48 hours' detention and it was my own Amendment will only operate in the case of a man who becomes suicidal or homicidal whom it would be foolish to allow to walk out.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That is not in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel RAW: That was the intention of the Committee. The Lunacy

    2317
    Acts are not in any way concerned in this Clause. The persons affected by the Clause are outside the Lunacy Acts. If a person became really organically insane he would be removed from his home and certified. I impress on the House the great importance of passing this reform which will be of enormous benefit to the community.
    Major HAMILTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an answer on this last point. I have listened with the greatest interest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Lieut.-Colonel Haw). He understands this Clause in one sense but when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted my hon. Friend he obviously did not understand even the reading of the Clause as printed. What we want is some definite assurance that when this Amendment to leave out the whole of the Clause has been disposed of an Amendment will be moved to make it clear that the principle of the Bill is intended to be as explained by my hon. and gallant Friend. That is that no one is to be detained for over an hour if the medical officer considers that a man is capable of looking after himself and is not a danger to the community. While if the medical officer considers that a man is not capable of looking after himself then he can only be detained for 48 hours. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance on that point he will remove a very great objection.
    One other thing I should like him to tell us something about. Is it not a fact that a man suffering from shell shock or neurasthenia cannot be properly treated in these small isolated homes? I have been on the committee of management of a shell shock home for ex-soldiers and the medical officers assure me that they must have special treatment and there is only a limited number of specialists in the country who understand this mental condition and can give the correct treatment for shell shock. If that is so I hope we are not to have ex-service men sent away to these isolated homes to suffer from this horrible malady for years when they might be improved by being put into proper institutions which the Ministry of Pensions now have.
    Dr. ADDISON: I need not add to what I have already said as to the importance of this subject. The point raised is that under the Clause which
    2318
    comes next hospitals and other institutions will then be free to take this class of case once they are taken over just as they can take any other class of ailment. That is the greatest possible improvement. I agree that a considerable number of these neurasthenic cases are best treated in quiet homes. Clearly those who have to do with the recommendation of the class of treatment must be responsible for the kind of advice they give. The Member for Lanark (Capt. Elliot) told us that this scheme had been in operation very successfully in Scotland for a number of years. It applies not only to war cases but during the War it was used particularly for the treatment of these mental disorders and the evidence became overwhelming as to the necessity for encouraging this class of treatment. There is the greatest necessity for these men not being labelled lunatics. A large number who go into lunatic asylums recover in a few weeks' time. With regard to the point as to 48 hours' notice; that is the maximum time which detention may be made except in the cases mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend and the regulations provided for in paragraph 4 which have to be laid on the table of the House and approved by the House will set down the conditions clearly. This simply prescribes the maximum amount of detention.
    Major HAMILTON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman insert some such words as these "if fit to leave or if not so fit if he delivers forty-eight hours' notice." My right hon. Friend assures us he can walk out at a moment's notice and then this promise would be in the Act.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will give that suggestion careful consideration. That is the maximum limit in cases where it is necessary in the interests of the person that some due notice should be secured. Forty-eight hours is the minimum time in which a letter could be sent to the Minister of Health and a reply sent to the person in charge of the home. I think hon. Members who have studied the law are satisfied with the safeguards. They are as stringent as we can really make them.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would like to ask a question in reference to the paragraph (2 b) as to whether any provision would be made in cases where it would

    2319
    be impossible to get the consent of the patient in writing. I happen to have had rather a pathetic experience of cases where it would be in order for them to be treated in the way provided in the Bill, but where it would be absolutely impossible for them to give their consent in writing either to going into the place or of their wish to leave.
    Dr. ADDISON: That point was discussed at great length upstairs. I agree that the consent in writing will greatly limit the number of persons who can be taken in. We all know these cases in which it would be quite impossible to get
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Am I entitled to move the manuscript Amendment handed in by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford in Subsection (1) after the word "a" ["a person shall not"] to insert the words "every registered hospital or"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not taken the trouble to put it on the
    any certificate of consent but I think we all feel it is better to make this experiment. It is not a complete system; we have got to find our way to deal with the matter properly. It is better that the experiment should be a small one and free from scandal rather than it should be wider and open to all kinds of abuses. It is for this reason that the Committee after long discussion adhered to this expression "consent in writing."
    Question put "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'person' ['a person shall not'] stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes 88; Noes 24.

    Division No. 393.]

    AYES.

    [2.15 a.m.

    Addison Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Fremantle Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Ormsby-Gore Captain Hon. W.

    Allen Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Ganzonl Captain Francis John C.

    Parker James

    Amery Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gibbs Colonel George Abraham

    Pease Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Archer-Shee Lieut. Colonel Martin

    Goff Sir R. Park

    Pollock Sir Ernest M.

    Baird Sir John Lawrence

    Green Joseph F. (Leicester W.)

    Raw Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Baldwin Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Greenwood William (Stockport)

    Remer J. R.

    Balfour George (Hampstead)

    Gregory Holman

    Roberts Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Barlow Sir Montague

    Hailwood Augustine

    Robinson Sir T. (Lanes Stretford)

    Barton Sir William (Oldham)

    Hamilton Major C. G. C.

    Roundell Colonel R. F.

    Betterton Henry B.

    Harmsworth C. B. (Bedford Luton)

    Sanders Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Blades Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Hilder Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    j Scott A. M. (Glasgow Bridgeton)

    Boscawen Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hope James F. (Sheffield Central)

    Shaw Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Broad Thomas Tucker

    Hopkins John W. W.

    Shaw William T. (Forfar)

    Bruton Sir James

    Hotchkin Captain Stafford Vere

    Stanley Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Carr W. Theodore

    Jones Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    j Stephenson Lieut.-Colonel H.K.

    Casey T. W.

    Kellaway Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Sugden W. H.

    Chilcot Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Kidd James

    Sutherland Sir William

    Coats Sir Stuart

    Law Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow C.)

    Ward-Jackson Major C. L.

    Cockerill Brigadier-General G. K.

    Lindsay William Arthur

    Whitla Sir William

    Coote Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Lorden John William

    Williams Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Coote William (Tyrone South)

    Lort-Williams J.

    Williamson Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Courthope Major George L.

    Lynn R. J.

    Wilson Daniel M. (Down West)

    Craig Colonel Sir J. (Down Mid)

    M' Lean Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Wilson Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Davidson J. C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Manville -Edward

    Winterton Major Earl

    Davies Thomas (Cirencester)

    Mitchell William Lane

    Wise Frederick

    Elliot Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wood Sir H K. (Woolwich West)

    Eyres-Monsell Commander B. M.

    Morrison-Bell Major A. C.

    Fildes Henry

    Murray C. D. (Edinburgh)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Forrest Walter

    Murray John (Leeds West)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley ward.

    Foxcroft Captain Charles Talbot

    Neal Arthur

    Fraser Major Sir Keith

    Newman Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    NOES.

    Adamson Rt. Hon. William:

    Hirst G. H.

    Sexton James

    Bell James (Lancaster Ormskirk)

    Holmes J. Stanley

    Sitch Charles H.

    Davies A. (Lancaster Clitheroe)

    Maclean Neil (Glasgow Govan)

    Smith W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Edwards C. (Monmouth Bedwellty)

    Mills John Edmund

    Thomson T. (Middlesbrough West)

    Entwistle Major C F.

    Morgan Major D. Watts

    Waterson A. E.

    Grundy T. W.

    Myers Thomas

    Hall F. (York W.R. Normanton)

    Raffan Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayday Arthur

    Rawlinson John Frederick Peel

    Mr. Thomas Shaw and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford Watford)

    Royce William Stapleton

    Paper nor has he taken the trouble to be here and I do not know why I should call it.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to controvert your ruling but it is really an important Amendment and my hon. Friend asked me if I would move it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it is an important Amendment it would have been desirable to have seen it on the Paper.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name. I think the ground is amply covered.
    Colonel L. WILSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "forty-eight hours'" ["forty-eight hours' notice in writing."]
    Earl WINTERTON: May I submit my reasons for my Amendment which is very important?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The more important it is makes it the more necessary that it should appear on the Paper.
    Colonel WILSON: There will be a further Amendment providing that except that persons who in the opinion of the Superintendent or other person aforesaid is not in a fit state to leave may be detained for a period not exceeding forty-eight hours from the date of the notice. This will make it quite clear and will meet the wishes of several hon. Members who have spoken quite recently on this subject.
    Earl WINTERTON: I think the matter was discussed upstairs. It does make the intention of the Clause clear.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: May I suggest that the words "in writing" should also come out. A patient is to be detained until he gives a written notice.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not think it is too much to ask a person if he desires to come out to write it on a slip of paper. I think it is in the interests of the person concerned that he should have something to show what action he has taken.
    Mr. HERBERT: I want to be quite clear. When I was speaking before the point I was making was that these places where these patients are received are the places where they will be detained.
    Mr. T. SHAW: What we are anxious to meet is this: that no case of a shell-shock soldier shall arise that he is detained in any institution without reason. Every possible provision ought to be made so that a man shall have a right to receive the writing materials required. There may be a shell-shock soldier who without any mental disability is unable to give a written notice. I do not want any action of that nature
    2322
    to arise to keep a man in an institution when he wants to leave. I think that is the desire of the House. In all cases there should be a sufficient guarantee that under no circumstances whatever shall a man be detained when his mental state is such as ought to allow him to leave the institution. I hope the Minister will give some guarantee that a man shall have every facility to give the notice or if his state of health is such as to prevent a written notice he shall not be detained.
    Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment was moved in order to provide that specific safeguard. It is provided that the Regulations have to be approved by both Houses and it does in fact meet the hon. Member's case.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: This applies not only to shell-shock but to other people as well. You are here faced with a very great difficulty which exists under this Bill. The Minister in charge of this Bill thought anybody could walk out of these places without any notice at all. That was his idea a few minutes ago. He gave it from the Front Bench. That was the idea when this Bill came before this House to-night. He distinctly said it and thought that any person could walk out of the institution whenever he liked. That is not the Bill and that is not the Amendment. This is a very fair illustration of the difficulty which arises in dealing with this matter. Are these institutions which are called neither asylums nor mental hospitals but which are in fact mental hospitals to have the power to detain people there or not? It is perfectly plain that an inmate has only to give a written notice if he wishes to leave. The point which has been taken from the Front Opposition Bench deals with the person who at that time is not able to write and no provision is made for him. It is futile to say that this matter can be dealt with by regulation. We come next to the point that a person can be detained for forty-eight hours if the proprietor of this mental hospital thinks he should keep him. Is not that simply an absolute open door to abuse? I have studied this matter for many years. Everybody knows what we want; the only question is whether this Sub-section carries it out. You get a person into one of these mental homes; it is to the proprietor's interest to keep him there as long as possible. It is said

    2323
    that a person can walk out whenever he likes but there is nothing of the kind in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: It is provided that a copy of the regulations shall be posted up in the institution home or house and those regulations will include this power of walking out.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman on the front bench has said that an inmate cannot walk out unless he has given notice in writing. This is a fair example of the way in which this Clause is not understood in this House. The Front Bench and the hon. and gallant Member arc under some misapprehension.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: There is no misapprehension at all; it is there.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It is not there at all. An inmate cannot walk out until he has given notice in writing and the proprietor has to have 48 hours' notice. The proprietor is interested in getting the man there; if the man wants to go out the proprietor may at once say: "I shall detain him for 48 hours on the ground that he cannot go out." Who are the people to whom this section only applies? Why the people who are insane. There is no need to have this section at all for some persons. Therefore you have got this inmate detained there for 48 hours owing to the action of the proprietors of the asylum. What is that likely to do? I see there is an Amendment on the Paper and I hope it will not be abandoned by the mover in which it is stated that nobody shall be certified a lunatic in such an asylum. Unless such a provision is agreed to a man who is detained in one of these institutions for 48 hours will be liable to be certified insane if a couple of doctors are brought in and he will be removed to an asylum. The idea that he can walk out even at the end of 48 hours is a non-existent power. One is pleased to get this pencilled Amendment even at 2 o'clock in the morning but is it the right way to safeguard the interests of the persons concerned? This Amendment is difficult for even a lawyer to follow. At any rate do let us know what we are doing. By this Amendment and by this Clause as amended you are giving power to the proprietors of these institutions to detain for 48 hours an in-
    2324
    mate and at the end of that time he may be certified as insane. This Clause constitutes a very grave danger indeed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (1) insert the words "except that a person who in the opinion of the superintendent or other person aforesaid is not in a fit state to leave may be detained for a period not exceeding forty-eight hours from the date of the notice." —[Colonel L. Wilson.]
    Mr. LORDEN: I have an Amendment on the Paper at the end of Sub-section (1) to ad I the words "a copy of this proviso to be handed to each inmate on entry."
    I understand that the Minister is billing to add it to the regulations to be handed to the inmates. This proviso is so important that it should be brought specially to the notice of the inmates and therefore I think by adding it to the regulations to be handed to the persons it will be properly brought to their notice I understand the Minister is prepared to do that?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes.
    Mr. LORDEN: Then I do not move my Amendment.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to add the words "Provided that no member of the Lunacy Board of Commissioners nor any official of the said Board shall be appointed as such an officer."
    This Amendment was moved in Committee. Unfortunately I was not able to be on that Committee and though I did draft the Amendment I am afraid that the subject was not given such consideration in Committee as I think it deserves. It is a most important safeguard and one which goes to the very root of the Bill. We have been told that this Bill is intended to dissociate incipient mental cases from the only lunacy treatment. That is the whole point and object of this Bill. The Ministry has said that it is willing to introduce any safeguard for that purpose. We agree with the objects of the Bill to provide hostels or homes free from lunacy administration for the purpose of incipient mental cases in order to give them a chance to recover and free them from association with certified incurable cases. If that is the real object of the Bill the

    2325
    Minister would best show his sincerity by accepting this Amendment which is very reasonable and carries out what is said to be the object of the Bill. In order to dissociate the administration of these homes entirely from the ordinary administration under the Lunacy Acts, I make the proviso that no member of the Board of Lunacy Commissioners or any official shall be an inspecting officer under the Act. The Minister in answer to this Amendment in Committee dealt with it very briefly. First of all he said:
    "It is proposed by the Ministry that the inspection shall be carried out by medical officers on the staff of the Ministry and not by the Board of Commissioners."
    When the point was first raised, the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not agree to the Amendment on the ground of expense, because the Board of Commissioners was there, and it would mean additional expense if the inspecting officers could not be selected from that body. Any argument on the ground of expense would meet with my serious consideration, but the Minister has absolutely abandoned that ground by saying that the inspecting officers will be members of the staff of the Ministry—that is, dissociated from the Lunacy Board—so that the Amendment will not entail any additional expense. The only other reason given is that in certain and very special cases it may be necessary to utilise the experience of the Board of Control, and that the Ministry should be left free to do so. I ask anyone whether my Amendment which says that the Lunacy Board of Commissioners shall not be the inspecting officers, in any way prevents the experience of the Board of Control from being utilised in this matter. There is nothing to stop the Minister of Health or the members of his staff from consulting the Lunacy Board on any matter on which they want advice. That is a very different proposition from their being the actual inspecting officers. The whole success of these homes will lie in them being absolutely dissociated from the ordinary lunatic asylum. I am convinced that the reasons given by the Minister in Committee do not at all meet the point of my Amendment and I hope he will see his way to accept it.
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: May I ask the Minister one question before he replies?
    2326
    As I read the Clause it looks as if we confined inspection to the buildings, and I should be glad to know if these men are to be visited in the sense in which mental hospitals are.
    Dr. ADDISON: This is the usual form of words—inspection of establishment. The inspection of an establishment is to see how it is conducted and to criticise what goes on in it. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be a comprehensive inspection. I entirely agree with all that the Mover of the Amendment says as to the necessity of keeping apart from the ordinary lunatic asylums. At the same time our inspection will be by the ordinary staff of the Ministry. If my hon. Friend looks at his Amendment he will see it says "nor any official of the said Board shall be appointed as such an officer." Surely it would be very unwise to debar by Statute from appointment at any time any official, however subordinate. You must accept my assurance. I or any future Minister can be called to account at this box if the Regulation is not observed, to keep this separate from the Lunacy Board. Then Sub-section (6) goes on to say:
    "Nothing in this Act shall affect any power exercised in respect of lunacy by the Lord Chancellor or Commissioners in Lunacy or the Master in Lunacy."
    That is to say that if any member of the Board of Control felt that it was necessary in the discharge of his duty that he should inspect any of these homes he would be fully entitled to do so at any time.
    Major ENTWISTLE: My Amendment does not affect that.
    Dr. ADDISON: Therefore we provide in one Clause that any member of the Board of Lunacy Commissioners would be entitled to inspect, notwithstanding anything you say here. The second part of the Amendment would be grossly wasteful of man-power and experience. I think my hon. Friend must rely upon us exercising ordinary common-sense and upon the fact that we can be called to account at any time in this House.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: We should all be willing to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, but he will not always be the Minister of Health and he cannot bind his successors. There is nothing in the Amendment which conflicts what the

    2327
    point he made in regard to Sub-section 6. The only object of the particular Clause and the Amendment before the House is to make it quite distinct that ordinary inspection shall be carried out by the Ministry of Health and not by the Lunacy Commissioners. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said I submit a good ease has been made out by the Mover of the Amendment in favour of disassociating entirely any association with the Lunacy Board.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I am going to vote for this Amendment because this ought to be kept entirely apart from lunacy as now understood. There is no reason on earth why the Minister should not accpet this Amendment. If he does not intend to make this treatment co-terminous with the ordinary lunacy treatment why does he object to the Amendment? His statement already indicates that he has the intention to use certain members of the Prison Commissioners.
    Dr. ADDISON: No I have not the slightest intention of doing any such thing but that is a very different thing from putting in a statutory provision preventing a Minister for all time from using any subordinate official of the Board.
    Mr. SHAW: I am prepared to put it in the Statute and prevent a Minister doing it. That is my deliberate intention without equivocation. The right hon. Gentleman may not always be at the Ministry of Health and the law as it stands is the guide and not the good intentions of the present Minister. This ought to be apart entirely from the ordinary lunacy case and I cannot understand what very strong objection the Minister can have to accepting the Amendment. All it says is that it should be clearly defined that it shall be impossible to connect it with the ordinary Lunacy Acts and Board of Commissioners.
    Earl WINTERTON: There is more in this Amendment than appears at first sight and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I do not see the object of the right hon. Gentleman in not accepting it. Surely the one thing that these unfortunate people suffering from incipient mental disorder must have kept from their mind is the question of lunacy. Their cure largely depends upon their being per-
    2328
    suaded that they are not insane that they are only suffering from temporary mental depression and that they have nothing whatever to do with the asylum system of the country. The Government have pointed out that the whole object was to dissociate the treatment of cases of incipient mental disorder from the insane. Yet they refuse to accept an Amendment to prevent the Commissioners of Lunacy having anything to do with them. I cannot understand their reason. It is all very well to say the Government do not wish to incur expenditure but the Government have a way of not letting expenditure stand in the way when they wish but that when they wish to refuse a reasonable Amendment they always put it on the expense. It would not be difficult to appoint officials of the Ministry as inspectors under the Act. I shall personally take steps to get the Amendment moved in another place.
    Mr. LORDEN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. It seems to me really a safeguard for these people in these homes that some of these commissioners who understand these matters should visit them. They do not wear a cap or clothes and visit them as inspectors. They go in like an ordinary person. It is a great advantage that they should have an opportunity of inspecting these homes if they so desire.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert:
    "(4) If the superintendent or other person having the charge of the institution home or house or any person employed in any capacity therein neglects or ill-treats any person received under this Section into the institution home or house he shall be guilty of n misdemeanour and shall be liable—

    (a) upon conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years; or

    (b)upon summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

    (5) Section three hundred and twenty-four of The Lunacy Act 1890 shall apply to any superintendent or other person having the charge of any institution^ house or other home into which a person is received under this Section and to any person employed in any capacity in such institution house or home in the same manner as it

    2329
    applies to any manager nurse attendant or other person employed in any institution for lunatics and the provisions of Section two of The Lunacy (Ireland) Act 1901 shall extend accordingly."
    Having regard to the fact that the Bill provides for a periodical inspection by officers appointed for that purpose by the Minister it is only right that they should have some authority as far as regards the conduct of these institutions that every safeguard should be taken and every protection given to inmates and that everything should be done that can be devised for the proper safety of the occupants.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel WILSON: In Committee stage upstairs my right hon. Friend gave a distinct understanding that this particular Amendment would be dealt with in the regulations to be issued by the Minister and approved by Parliament. As regards the second part of the Amendment dealing with the penalties the penalty Clause is Sub-section (5) of this Clause. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the penalties in that Clause it would be more convenient if he moved an Amendment to that Sub-section rather than put in the alterations suggested here.
    3.0 A.M.
    With regard to the third part of his Amendment dealing with Section 324 of the Lunacy Act of 1890 that this shall apply to patients of institutions approved under the Clause having regard to the fact that all the patients in these institutions are voluntary and can leave under the conditions which have been so recently discussed in the House it seems very much out of place in the present position. The other portion of the Amendment might be properly dealt with on another Clause.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to move after Sub-section (3) to insert a new Sub-section:
    "(4) Except in cases of homicidal mania no person should he certified as a lunatic under the Lunacy Acts 1890 to 1911 while he is retained in any institution home or house under this Section."
    The right hon. Gentleman in Committee said this Amendment would be impracticable to specify the particular types of mental instability. I fail to
    2330
    appreciate that point because what this Amendment is designed to do is to prevent any person being certified while he is in one of these homes. I realise that there are exceptional cases where a man might be a danger to himself or to others where it might be unreasonable to prevent certification. It was purely on that ground that I introduced words which I tried to make as definite as possible and which to me seems to cover every case which deserves exceptional treatment "except in cases of homicidal mania." If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these words are too narrow or too restricted I should be perfectly willing to substitute some such words "except in dangerous cases." Subject to that modification I desire to insist very strongly on this Amendment which is one of very considerable importance. The one thing which we want to guard against in the establishment of these particular homes is that it shall not be said or thought that they are in any way a halfway house towards the lunatic asylum. We have had a specific statement as to the objects of this Clause and I am sure that it is not within these pages that these homes should be used in any way as facilitating progress towards the lunatic asylum. Safeguards have been put into this Clause providing that persons shall go in with their free and absolute consent that it shall be a voluntary entry and that they shall stay there purely voluntarily. That being so it seems to me of special importance because of the very voluntary nature of their entry that there should be no suspicion in their minds in any way that they may be certified from these establishments. That would create this danger. The very appearance of its being a voluntary consent to entry into these places would make them extremely suspicious if they knew they could be certified from these homes. It is of absolute vital importance to the success of these homes that there should be every confidence in the homes by the people for whom it is proposed these benefits should accrue. Therefore it is a very reasonable thing to ask that if they are to be certified except in extreme cases at any rate they should be discharged from the home and go back to their own home and be certified in the ordinary way under the Lunacy Acts. If a person who is in this state of mind knows beforehand that

    2331
    he cannot be certified from these homes, with greater confidence will he go, and with more chance of success will be the treatment. Of all the safeguards this Clause needs the one thing which would ensure the bonâ fide nature of these homes that they are really designed in the interests of the patients, and that there should be no suspicion that this is an easy way to get into a lunatic asylum. This safeguard is the most important that can be inserted in the Bill. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat it with sympathy and accept it. Because I think this Amendment of such great importance I shall have to ask the House to divide but I trust the Minister will be able to meet me. I trust a good case has been made out.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to second the Amendment. It meets the point which I put on the previous Amendment, which I thought really an important Amendment. There was the fear that once the patient had got to the homes it was merely a step towards certification. If you want to make these homes a success, you ought to prevent certification whilst the people are there. The most clear case was the one given a few minutes ago—supposing a person gives the notice that he wishes to go and the superintendent says "I do not think he is able or it is unwise that he should go" doctors would be called in during the next 48 hours to back up the opinion, and the patient might be certified as being of unsound mind. I am quite content with the form of the Amendment. In cases of homicidal mania an exception might be allowed, but in the other cases there could be no reason why if patients thought they were really getting no good they should not be sent away. For these reasons for the benefit of the Bill as well as for the benefit of the patient, this Amendment should be accepted.
    Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment effects an alteration in the first words of the existing lunacy law. The people in these homes ought to have some safeguards and protection in the same way as the ordinary person would have in any other homes. It should be applied equally all round. In the short time in which I was engaged in professional life I spent some months in one of
    2332
    these places, and I must say that homicidal mania by no means exhausted the category of cases. If I were to accept this Amendment I should want a definition of what homicidal mania really means. You might have all kinds of definitions. The Government really cannot accept this Amendment.
    Earl WINTERTON: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) supporting this Amendment. What would happen if this Amendment were carried. Supposing A or B goes into a home. A or B might also be suffering from some form of physical disorder as well as mental disorder from a cold or influenza or something of that sort. If they are to be certified as insane they will be taken away to their homes and their private houses and there certified as insane. That would be an absurd state of things. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] As I have received the cheers of the Government on this question may I be allowed to say however that I am not at all sure that it would be any more absurd than the methods employed under this Clause.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The Noble Lord's argument is perfectly good but he must remember in all these cases these people are insane.
    Earl WINTERTON: No.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Oh yes; the whole object of the Clause is for insane people only.
    Earl WINTERTON: I cannot say that I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I like him do not like the Clause but I do not agree with his interpretations as to the effect of it. But I do not want to get involved into a legal argument with my learned Friend nor do I wish for the cheers of the Solicitor-General. In my opinion there is no doubt that this Amendment would have a deterrent effect on persons who are suffering from nervous breakdown. I quite agree that there is the danger that they may be sent to an asylum certified as insane, but to get over it by saying that under no circumstances will steps be taken with regard to homicidal mania is absurd. The truth is that in this Clause we are really breaking new ground. We are making a most serious change in the law, and we are making it in accordance with a habit of modern

    2333
    Government at this hour of the morning in a thin House which cannot be expected to give attention to all the questions which may arise.

    Division No. 394.]

    AYES.

    [3.15 a.m.

    Adamson Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst G. H.

    Shaw Thomas (Preston)

    Bell James (Lancaster Ormskirk)

    Holmes J. Stanley

    Sitch Charles H.

    Coats Sir Stuart

    Maclean Neil (Glasgow Govan)

    Smith W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Davies A. (Lancaster Clitheroe)

    Mills John Edmund

    Waterson A. E.

    Edwards C. (Monmouth Bedwellty)

    Morgan Major D. Watts

    Wilson W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Grundy T. W.

    Myers Thomas

    Hall F. (York W.R. Normanton)

    Rawlinson John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hayday Arthur

    Royce William Stapleton

    Major Entwistle and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford Watford)

    Sexton James

    NOES.

    Addison Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Fremantle Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Neal Arthur

    Allen Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Ganzoni Captain Francis John C.

    Newman Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Amery Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gibbs Colonel George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore Captain Hon. W.

    Archer-Shee Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Goff Sir R. Park

    Parker James

    Baird Sir John Lawrence

    Green Joseph F. (Leicester W.)

    Pease Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Baldwin Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Greenwood William (Stockport)

    Pollock Sir Ernest M.

    Balfour George (Hampstead)

    Hailwood Augustine

    Raw Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Barlow Sir Montague

    Hamilton Major C. G. C.

    Remer J. R.

    Betterton Henry B.

    Harmsworth C. B. (Bedford Luton)

    Robinson Sir T. (Lanes Stretford)

    Blades Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Hilder Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Roundell Colonel R. F.

    Boscawen Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

    Hope James F. (Sheffield Central)

    Sanders Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Broad Thomas Tucker

    Hopkins John W. W.

    Scott A. M. (Glasgow Bridgeton)

    Bruton Sir James I

    Hotchkin Captain Stafford Vere

    Seddon J. A.

    Carr W. Theodore j

    Jones Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Casey T. W.

    Kellaway Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Stanley Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Chilcott Lieut.-Com. Harry W.:

    Kidd James

    Sugden W. H.

    Cockerill Brigadier-General G. K.

    Law Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow C.)

    Sutherland Sir William

    Coote Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Lindsay William Arthur

    Ward-Jackson Major C. L.

    Courthope Major George L.

    Lorden John William

    Whitla Sir William

    Craig Colonel Sir J. (Down Mid)

    Lort-Williams J.

    Wilson Daniel M. (Down West)

    Davidson J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Lynn R. J.

    Wilson Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Davies Thomas (Cirencester)

    M' Lean Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Winterton Major Earl

    Edge Captain William

    Manville Edward

    Wise Frederick

    Elliot Capt. Walter E. (Lanark):

    Mitchell William Lane

    Wood Sir H. K. (Woolwich West)

    Eyres-Monsell Commander B. M.

    Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Fildes Henry

    Morrison-Bell Major A. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Forrest Walter

    Murray C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley

    Fraser Major Sir Keith

    Murray John (Leeds West)

    Ward.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Power of county councils to provide hospitals and ambulances.)
    (1) The council of a county shall on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Minister have power—

    (a) to acquire by agreement with any Poor Law authority any existing Poor Law hospital or infirmary belonging to that authority within their area and maintain the same as a hospital for the treatment of illnesses and diseases generally or for the treatment of any particular illness or disease or any particular class of illnesses or diseases; and

    (b) to establish and maintain or to con tribute towards the cost of or other wise to aid in establishing or maintaining an ambulance service for dealing with cases of illness either within or without their area.

    (2) Where on the application of the council of a county the Minister is satisfied that there is a deficiency of hospital accommodation in the area of the council and that any Poor Law hospital or infirmary could be made available for meeting such deficiency,
    Question put "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes 23; Noes.31.
    he may in default of agreement under this section between the council and the Poor Law authority concerned after giving the authority an opportunity of being heard by order require the authority to transfer the hospital or infirmary to the council on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in the order.
    Any such order may contain such provisions with regard to the vesting of the hospital or infirmary in the council and such consequential and supplemental provisions as the Minister may think necessary and any order so made shall be binding on the authority:
    Provided that any such order shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament.
    (3) The councils of two or more counties may with the consent of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may prescribe combine for the purposes of maintaining hospitals under this section and where any councils so combine they may appoint a joint committee under section eighty-one of the Local Government Act. 1888 and that section shall have effect accordingly.
    (4) The council of a county may with the approval of the Minister delegate to any joint hospital board or in the case of the London County Council to the managers of the' Metropolitan Asylums District the management on their behalf of any Poor Law hospital or infirmary acquired by them under this section.
    (5) Section one hundred and thirty-two of the Public Health Act 1875 (which gives powers to recover the cost of the maintenance in hospital of a person who is not a pauper) as amended by section sixty of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907. shall apply to any patient who has received treatment in a hospital maintained by the council of a county under this section and the council shall have the same power of recovering expenses as is given to a local authority under that section.
    (6) The expenses of a council under this section shall be defrayed in the case of the council of a county as expenses for general county purposes or if the Minister by order so directs as expenses for special county purposes charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the order and in the case of the council of a county borough as expenses incurred in the administration of the Public Health Acts 1875 to 1908.
    (7) A council shall have power with the approval of the Minister to borrow any sums required for the purposes of this section in the case of the council of a county in the same manner as for the purposes specified in section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act 1888 and in the case of the council of a county borough in the same manner as for the purposes of the Public Health Acts 1875 to 1908.
    (8) If any person is deprived of any office or employment or suffers pecuniary loss by reason of the acquisition under this section by any county council of any Poor Law hospital or infirmary the Minister may order that compensation of such amount as appears to him to be just shall be paid to that person out of the fund out of which the expenses of the hospital or infirmary were defrayed before it was acquired by the council and any compensation so ordered to be paid shall be paid in such manner whether in the form of a lump sum payment or of an annual payment as the Minister may think proper to direct.
    If any persons who were members of the staff or were employed in connection with any hospital or infirmary acquired by the council of a county under this section are transferred to and become officers of the council they shall not while they continue in office be in any worse position as respects their tenure of office salary and superannuation allowances than they would have been if they had continued to be such members or so employed.
    (9) In this section the expression "council of a county" includes the council of a county borough.
    Mr. ORMSBYGORE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    2336
    I opposed the Clause on the Second Reading and in Committee both in general and in detail and in my point of view the Clause as it now stands is worse than it was when originally introduced. The action of the Minister in accepting an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Herts which now forms Sub-section (2) of the Clause really makes it compulsory on the Poor Law authorities of the country to hand over their institutions to the county councils to be maintained and run as State general hospitals for the treatment of all and sundry for all kinds of diseases. That is in direct contravention of a pledge given by the Minister to the hon. Member for Newcastle. When the hon. Member for Newcastle wrote to the Minister to explain the Clause the Minister replied on October 12 saying there was no intention to compel boards of guardians to give up their infirmaries to the county councils but that the Clause contemplated a purely voluntary arrangement between the parties. An extract from a letter written from the Ministry of Health to the hon. Member for Newcastle said:
    "Dr. Addison desires me to say that he would be prepared to move Amendments making this quite clear."
    Then the Minister in Committee upstairs accepted a far-reaching Amendment compelling the boards of guardians to hand over their institutions to the county councils willy nilly. I regard that as a direct breach of the promise which the Minister gave less than two months ago to the hon. Member for Newcastle. The point is that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to break up the Poor Law and instead of doing it openly and honestly he has done it in a piecemeal fashion. This Clause was introduced without the boards of guardians or their association being consulted or ever having one word heard on their behalf by the Minister. In this matter he has been the consistent opponent of boards of guardians. He has treated them most unfairly and still more unfairly by the arguments he used in support of the Clause on the Second Reading. He gave a lot of figures about empty beds in Poor Law infirmaries and these figures I have been endeavouring to get checked through the Poor Law Guardians' Association and I find in every single particular he gave that the figures are not borne out by the guardians themselves. Further the right hon.

    2337
    Gentleman gave figures for the summer months whereas everyone knows that there is less sickness then than there is in the winter and I believe he has been completely misinformed as to what he is likely to get out of this Clause. He wants to render available for the general public the beds in Poor Law infirmaries which are not now occupied by the pauper patients. Let us remember that the boards of guardians after this Clause is passed will still have laid upon them the statutory obligation of treating necessitous not destitute persons who come to them in Poor Law infirmaries and institutions or of making arrangements with county councils who have taken over their institutions under this Clause for the taking in of the pauper patients in those council institutions. There remain in certain Poor Law institions a certain varying number of surplus beds not now occupied. Instead of coming down to the House and asking for a Clause drafted in some such manner as my Amendment which would have enabled local authorities to take in these people and so utilise their surplus beds he proposes to force boards of guardians to hand over their institutions to the county councils. The first limitation is that the county councils would obviously not wish to take over workhouses or a hospital or infirmary inside a workhouse. They will only want to turn over a few-big Poor Law infirmaries that are separate institutions.
    We heard from the Minister that there are about 54 of which 27 are in London and the other 27 in the provinces in county boroughs. These are to be handed over to the county councils to be maintained by them possibly in competition with the local voluntary hospitals and maintained entirely out of the rates for the treatment of all and sundry pauper and non-pauper for all kinds of diseases. That is a far-reaching revolution in our hospital system and Poor Law system. It is new work to throw on the overburdened county councils. For many years past the Poor Law guardians have given devoted service. They visited and took an interest in the institutions and their inmates. In Stafford which I represent a large county you are not going to get the farmers and small landowners who represent different parts of the county on the county council to come into the county town and
    2338
    keep a careful eye on the expenditure and management and welfare of the inmates in the Poor Law hospital which is to be taken over. They are not equipped for the work. What will happen is that these admirably run hospitals will be handed over to a new set of officials a new bureaucracy under the county councils. It is not a good thing. It is tinkering with the subject. It is all because the right hon. Gentleman will not face the hospital question of the country and deal with it as a whole instead of piecemeal. He must also deal with the great voluntary hospitals and nursing homes at the same time. He is going to set up a Committee to deal with the finance of the voluntary hospitals. Why does he not wait till the Committee reports before taking these institutions over. He brings it forward as a matter of urgency yet the procedure under this Clause is going to take months to bring into operation whereas if he accepts my alternative he can put it into operation at once. His procedure means long and protracted negotiations between the poor law authorities and the county councils and in view of the way he has consistently put up the back of the boards of guardians I am afraid it would be difficult to secure a very smooth working of this Bill. Since its introduction the Poor Law guardians' representatives have held their annual meeting in London. They strongly denounced this Clause and suggested the alternative which I move on their behalf. They passed a resolution nem. con. against the Minister's action and the proposals contained in this Clause. The Minister will put in operation the proposals of Sub-section (2) and make an Order for the board of guardians to hand over their hospital to a county council. That Order is to be confirmed by both Houses. It is going to be mentioned before you get the surplus beds in the Poor Law infirmaries available for the sick whereas if he had approached the guardians in the beginning and assented to some such scheme as that in the City of Birmingham instead of exciting the hostility of the boards of guardians instead of effecting this revolution in our hospital system instead of embarking upon this great system of county council maintained hospitals he could have got the surplus beds available in a fortnight from the passing of this Act. I have no other course than to move the

    2339
    rejection of the Clause. It is a thoroughly bad Clause and is going to cause endless friction. It is the wrong way to deal with the problem. So far from getting 30000 beds he is going to place the boards of guardians who are responsible for providing the institutions for the reception and treatment of necessitous persons in a most embarrassing position because goodness knows how they are going to fulfil their statutory obligation. He is not going to advance public health in this country.
    I would in that connection like to point out this sort of situation. Take Southampton where there is a very fine Poor Law hospital. It has got 446 beds. For the moment there are 80 vacant beds but last September there were only 11 vacant beds. From the report of the local board of guardians I see they estimate that by next September they will not have a bed to spare. It is the same at West Ham. They are filling up the West Ham hospitals and more and more patients are being admitted. The effect of this Clause is going to be most serious upon the provision for the poorest of the community. Do not let us forget that in our zeal to scrap the Poor Law we have to see that provision is made for people who cannot afford to pay at all. Then we come to deal with the people who can afford to pay something. Because that is what is contemplated under the Clause when one of the Poor Law hospitals is transferred from the Poor Law authorities to the county councils you will see that the county councils under this Clause have power to obtain payment from the persons treated in that county council hospital.
    Dr. ADDISON: And so have the Poor Law guardians.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: But why do you not legalise what some of them are doing to-day taking in paying patients? Because the Minister in charge of the Bill is obsessed all the time with having a hit at the guardians; he is obsessed all the time with breaking up the Poor Law and he is obsessed all the time with the desire of tinkering with the hospital system in this country. I oppose this Clause just as vigorously as I have since the introduction of the Bill and I shall continue to do so.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to second the Amendment. I will not go over the ground which the hon. and gallant Member has so well dealt with but on the Order Paper I have down a notice to postpone the Clause. I put it down because I wanted the Clause postponed until such time as the Report is made upon the voluntary hospitals. I feel that we are only tinkering with the subject. If you are going to break up the Poor Law and there has been a great number of reports upon the Poor Law why not do it in a Parliamentary way. Do not tinker and play with it like this. There are only 54 institutions and there are 134 authorities amongst which you are to divide them. If the Minister had only legalised payments to be made to boards of guardians you would have carried out this work just as well. Whether you call it county council or Poor Law I cannot see that there is any difference. The most extraordinary thing in this Clause is Subsection (4) in which the Minister takes powers to turn over these institutions in the London area to the Asylums Board. One would think that the Asylums Board dealt entirely with imbeciles. It is nothing of the sort. They are really overflow institutions from the Poor Law. There is not the slightest difference between the Asylums Board and the Poor Law guardians I know they have the infectious hospitals to do with but generally speaking they are simply the overflow from the infirmaries into the institutions covered by the Asylums Board. What does strike me as an absolute waste of money is that in taking over there must be surveyors and people who have to be paid and what for? Only a temporary thing. This is the start of something much larger. Why not utilise the institutions which you have without going to all the expense of taking them over from another authority? As an example there is one medical man in charge of several of these places and he has assistants under him. Are you going to divide up all these places? The one man will not be able to give his services and you will have a number of men over each of these institutions. That is where you are going to waste a lot of money. I feel extremely strongly. I have had considerable experience of boards of guardians. Nobody will say they are ideal and for many of the things they have done in the past one feels rather resentful but for this very

    2341
    small experiment I say at this time the country cannot afford all this expense.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sure we all admire the energy and freshness of my hon. and gallant Friend who has brought this Amendment before us at this time in the morning. It is reminiscent of the same gallantry with which he fought it in Committee upstairs. I think the reasons are fairly familiar. My hon. and gallant Friend did not quite represent except in very picturesque fashion what was in the Clause. The sanction of a Provisional Order by both Houses of Parliament seems an effective safeguard. Also it has to be on the application of a county council. It is not that the Ministry of its own notion can go down somewhere and poke about. It has to be on the application of a responsible county council. They are satisfied that there is a deficiency of hospital accommodation in the area of the council. That is where the thing begins. There is nothing haphazard or ill-considered about that. But the main point is what is the best way in the interest of sick persons to make use of the hospital accommodatioin which is really available? The hon. and gallant Member did not in Committee dispute the real and urgent necessity of making use of this accommodation—
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As quickly as possible.
    Dr. ADDISON: As quickly as possible although he suggests the alternative which he puts before us. That alternative is that the Poor Law guardians should be entitled to become the general hospital authorities for the treatment of sick persons of all classes. That would be putting back the clock for a generation and I will give my reason why. I say now as I said in Committee upstairs that from the period from the first of the Poor Law Commissions there have been Commissions ad nauseam on the subject. Every body of men which has investigated the matter has come to the conclusion without exception that the only effective way to procure the proper health development of the country is to associate the hospital system with the proper health authority. Why? Because there are 635 Poor Law unions and you do not want to have 635 separate hospital authorities in the country. That would be an absurdity. You do not want to
    2342
    have 635 separate hospital authorities because the supplies of skilled personnel and highly-trained staff available in the country for general hospital service is extremely small and it would not go round 635 hospital authorities.
    The next thing is that to have a hospital devoted to general purposes you must make it available for the needs of the people covering a wide area and in counties you must make arrangements to transfer those people by ambulances to the places in which the hospitals are situated. That is the only practical way of developing the hospital system. The area of the Poor Law union is limited and the pressing need is for hospital accommodation. You would have all the miserable consequences among the various small unions as to their aspirations and their arrangements. You must get a proper staff and you must have an efficient staff. The unit of area for these purposes must be a county. You will not get an efficient staff while you have these hospitals under the Poor Law authorities and as a matter of fact it is absolutely true that people will decline to use these Poor Law hospitals. It is not an accident that time after time when this thing has been considered in this country during the last 25 years it has been recognised by all concerned that the people whether it is right or wrong whether it is foolish or absurd have an inherent obstinate objection to going into Poor Law institutions. In saying that I am making no reflections on the guardians. They have done their work splendidly and with very great effect. But the fact remains that in a very large number of cases where the authority is the Poor Law guardians the average person will not be associated with Poor Law administration. That is the fact and no amount of expressions of opinions in this House will alter it. It is rooted deep in the minds of our people and you arc not going to alter it by any Clauses of Acts of Parliament. What is the good of trying to pretend it is not there? The fact remains that these people will not go into these hospitals. In a large number of cases the Poor Law guardians are in my opinion quite rightly willing to receive payments for patients and in fact they have already taken in the people who are willing to pay on account of their position.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They do not have to be destitute but necessitous. Were these people necessitous?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Poor Law authorities have taken in people who have paid. They have done it because there were these waiting lists. Notwithstanding that you have large numbers of empty beds in these places. I gave the figure of 30000 and I have had that figure re-investigated and I see no reason to alter it. But supposing it is wrong and that the figure is only 20000 you have all these waiting lists and surely it would be permitting a pitiable spectacle of waste that you should have these people waiting to get into these places with these empty beds available. Many of these people have been waiting for weeks and months and these beds are eminently suitable for the purpose. Could there be anything more foolish than not to use the accommodation so provided for the relief of the sick? That is what I am proposing in this Bill. If you want to get rid of human and material waste if you want to practise economy then for heaven's sake make use of. this accommodation already provided in these public institutions.
    Further if there was one pledge more than another exploited in this matter by all those associated with this Government at the last election it was the pledge given to the people that this Government when elected—and for my part I am not going to make it a "scrap of paper"— would deal with this matter. These were substantially the words used:
    "That the Government accepts in principle the recommendations of the Maclean Committee in regard to the functions of the Poor Law Guardians and other authorities and regards as a matter of urgency that the treatment of the sick poor should be merged in the general health services of the community."
    I drafted that myself before the manifesto was issued. No system will be allowed to become part of the health services of the country unless it is based on an area not less than that covered by county councils. County councillors are not inexperienced people. These proposals are along the line of the proper development of the health services of the country. They are in accordance with our pledge that the grievous waste of men and material and the suffering that goes on is a matter of urgency and I ask the House to give its support to this Clause.
    4.0 A.M.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I shall be very glad when the infirmaries in London are placed under the management of a single body. That is clearly a necessity but I do not think that the change ought to be made by a single Clause in a miscellaneous Bill. I understand the urgency of the Ministry to get this change made but I think it would have been just as suitable to bring in a separate Bill bringing in this pledge and dealing with this necessity. I am sure that the change as proposed by this Clause is going to involve a good deal of expense. I do not know of any provision that has been made for dealing with the staffs of these Poor Law institutions. If these staffs decline to be transferred to the county councils—and the staffs for the most part I believe are pensioned it is going to involve a good deal of difficulty and expense. I would also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to take over the whole of the Poor Law infirmaries in London. If he is only going to take part of the Poor Law infirmaries in London he is going to cause a great deal of difficulty. For instance in my borough we have two Poor Law infirmaries one of which undoubtedly the Minister would be glad to take. The other one is a wing almost of the workhouse and I doubt whether he would want to take it. It would be difficult if you were to leave the. guardians with half their infirmaries to run and give the other half to someone else. It is going pretty well to double the staff expenses. The beds must be arranged to avoid these difficulties. All this scheme is carried out in the limits of a Clause in a miscellaneous Bill. I very much wish the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to postpone for a short time say till next Session taking action in this matter. In the meantime he might get over the immediate difficulty by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stafford. At the same time I disapprove of the method of doing this. I am inclined to think he is set on getting the infirmaries of London under the control of the county council but I hope he will take all the infirmaries.
    Mr. MYERS: I cannot share the enthusiasm or the hostility of the hon. Member for Stafford in his tirade against the Ministry. I subscribe to the findings of the Poor Law Commission

    2345
    or at least, that part of the Report that we should break up the Poor Law and distribute its functions among those avenues where the work is being done by in many Poor Law institutions in the country T am willing to concede that in many poor law institutions in the country there are. really excellently equipped hospitals and infirmaries where very excellent work has been done in the treatment of sickness and incapacity. I further subscribe to the view that the Minister just now expressed, that the hospital system should be associated with the local authorities of the country. I share that view, and I am somewhat loath to strike a hostile note when anything is suggested in the direction of relieving physical incapacity or supplying ameliorative measures. But it is because the Minister is not prepared to act up to the declaration he has made that I express the hostile note I must present. The first attack on the Bill was on the floor of the House when the Minister voluntarily surrendered one-half of it. Upstairs the Bill was further mutilated. My opinion now is that, if we are to get the whole of the Bill as it stands, it is not worth a great deal in an administrative or ameliorative sense. The Bill as we had it upstairs provided for contributions being made to the voluntary hospitals, and it enabled local authorities to make such contributions towards their maintenance. Under the pressure of hon. Members who desired to retain the voluntary hospital system every word of that was eliminated from the Bill, and in the Bill as it is now before the House there is no reference to the voluntary hospital system of the country. Consequently, we must discuss this matter on the assumption that the voluntary hospital system of the country is to remain intact.
    Then we come to the part of the Bill which provides for the taking over of Poor Law institutions and putting these institutions under the respective local authorities. I ask any Member of the House who is acquainted with anything in the nature of public administration how they expect that double-barrelled policy to work satisfactorily? It simply cannot be done. Voluntary hospitals are largely maintained out of contributions received from large numbers of people. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham in the Committee upstairs admitted that in
    2346
    some parts of the country 85 per cent. of the working people make systematic contributions to the voluntary hospitals. Now one section of the hospitals is to be put on the rates and brought within the control of the local authority. Voluntary contributions in the circumstances must inevitably stop. That applies also to people who make large contributions to voluntary hospitals. They will not come with their donations when they know that they are paying through the rates for hospitals of a different category. All the evidence goes to show that the financial stringency which prevails so far as the voluntary hospitals are concerned is going to be intensified by the operation of this Bill.
    The matter does not end there. I recognise the tremendous difficulty, so far as county councils or boroughs are concerned, in getting hold of Poor Law institutions. The initiative has to come from outside the authority. The operation of the principle is to result in just one authority here an another there making application for a Poor Law infirmary. We shall land in the position that we shall have voluntary hospitals and hospitals on the rates, while hospitals not taken over will continue under the Poor Law, an intermingling of administrative interests which is serious to contemplate. Even these complications are insignificant in comparison with the complications that must follow the complications of a financial character. Voluntary hospitals to-day open their doors to everybody, although most people going in give a contribution for the treatment they receive. The hospitals under the control of local authorities for the treatment of infectious diseases simply come up to the doors and take people away, asking no questions and making no charge. While I was at home on Saturday my five-year-old child was taken to hospital for scarlet fever. I was not asked how much I wished to pay. In the interests of the family and the community the child was taken to hospital.
    Inside this Bill there is a Clause resurrected from the Public Health Act, 1875, which says that every person who receives treatment in any hospital under this Bill will have a charge made upon him, or on his estate if he dies in the hospital. It means that the ordinary working person has to contribute to voluntary hospitals,

    2347
    pay through the rates for the hospitals taken over, and if he is taken ill he will have a bill sent to him. The hospitals taken over are going to come on the local rates. That cannot operate equitably because the allocation of hospitals is altogether out of proportion to the localities. The only equitable method is a charge upon the whole community and then there is no hardship in any area. Another factor is that the financial stringency coming to the voluntary hospitals will operate in this way. You are going to have two classes of institutions for those that can afford to pay and for those that cannot. The voluntary hospitals will be for persons who can pay a reasonable fee. The Poor Law hospitals are going to be the hospitals of the poor people while the voluntary hospitals will be for the middle class who can afford to pay three, four or five guineas. It is a vicious system perpetuating the class distinctions that we are anxious to eliminate. The question needs to be tackled boldly. The Minister declares that the hospitals ought to come under the local authorities of the country. Let us bring the Poor Law institutions under the local administrative authorities, and at the same time let us also take over the voluntary hospitals of the country. No two systems, but all institutions on the same basis, all sections of the community treated alike! That is the only sound and solid method of treating this matter. The charges on the rates will stop voluntary contributions. The financial aspect of the matter will be on a national, not a local, basis. The Treasury at present contribute 75 per cent. towards the treatment of venereal disease, and for tuberculosis 75 per cent. of the capital, and 50 per cent. of the administrative expenditure. Why should not the hospitals be treated on the same basis? There would be a great tendency for the local people to continue contributions to make up the rest and the local rates would escape.
    Lieut.-Colonel RAW: The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) has outlined an ideal scheme of hospital administration for this country. The present hospital system in England is in a state of confusion and almost chaos. That has arisen because for many years the voluntary hospitals treated diseases, and the poor law hospitals treated diseases they were never intended to treat. We
    2348
    must admit that our hospital system is absolutely inadequate for the needs of the community. We are all glad to know that is entirely due to the fact that the social conditions in this country have improved and made the Poor Law institutions vacant. The Minister of Health has a serious duty in trying to provide accommodation for the community at large. People only go to the Poor Law institutions because of destitution or necessity. The Minister has truly told us that there are between twenty and thirty thousand beds vacant in the Poor Law infirmaries. Having regard to the serious shortage and accommodation in the voluntary hospitals, the Minister had no other alternative than to take this opportunity of dealing with the Poor Law hospitals. There are very few institutions which are available for transfer from the Poor Law to the local authority, and it should only be those institutions which are quite separate from the workhouse and have no association with the workhouse which could be dealt with under this Clause. There are, I think, about 50 or 54 separate Poor Law infirmaries in this country which are quite dissociated with the workhouse and workhouse administration. These institutions could quite well by agreement be taken over by the local authority, and made very excellent institutions under the control of the health authority of the district. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) need have no feelings that there will be any distinction or difference made in these hospitals when they are taken over from the Poor Law authorities. I sincerely hope the House will give the Minister the powers he seeks to meet the great emergency of to-day. The expense incurred in transferring the institutions will be infinitesimal.
    Captain ELLIOT: There are just one or two points to which I should just like to refer. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) used an admirable piece of theory in his speech but the point is that the facts will not agree with him. He said that the municipal hospital taken over by the town would dry up the contributions to the voluntary hospital There are signs of that already. Bradford has a voluntary hospital with a big deficit. Sheffield with one municipal hospital has an overdraft of £100000. It does not work out his way in practice. Then

    2349
    he said and he made a very powerful case that the problem was an extremely complicated one. Everybody agrees that the problem is complicated. But he did not bring forward any constructive suggestion except that of nationalisation. I submit that that is not a practical remedy at the present moment. He suggested that this was a piece of class legislation in that the wealthy people would move into the voluntary hospitals and that the poor people would be thrown on to the Poor Law institutions. But is that happening at present? There are voluntary hospitals through financial contingencies which have to take in paying patients. Take the London Hospital which is at present working on the system of admitting paying patients. In a statement given by Lord Knutsford he expects the expenditure for 1921 to be £300000 although he only expects to derive in revenue from paying patients £20000. It is clear in this respect that the hon. Member's fears are illusory. The voluntary hospitals will continue to preserve their great tradition of catering-alike for the rich and for the poor for the necessitous and needy cases and will not rely to any great extent on the payments which it is getting from the people who are able to contribute. Then the hon. Member touched on an extraordinary theory which is often found on the Labour Benches when anybody introduces the Income Tax. I assure him that is foolish. It is an argument against taking this Bill at half-past four in the morning and the only reason it is not a conclusive argument against it is because the same argument was used upstairs in the middle of the day.
    Mr. MYERS: The hon. Member misunderstood what I said. I said that the contribution from the State towards the upkeep of the hospitals was too far away for the people to see.
    Captain ELLIOT: He says if the money is paid from the Exchequer instead of from the municipality people would not notice the expenditure. I think he underestimates the closeness with which expenditure is watched and likely to be watched in the near future.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: Good old "Dailv Mail."
    Captain ELLIOT: It matters very little whether the money is taken from
    2350
    the man's right breeches pocket or the left. Then the hon. Member stated that his remedy was to nationalise the whole thing to put it under State administration and as far as one can see to do away entirely with voluntary contributions which have for so long maintained such a great and efficient service in the country. That is an academic point to be debated. It is not one we can debate at this time and on this Bill. It is not practical politics. We are dealing with an immediate practical problem—the abolition of the waiting lists. That is what the problem comes down to. If this great problem is to be postponed until we have fought on the Floor of this House the whole question of nationalisation of the medical services of this country we shall not get those waiting lists clear this year next year or the year after. I admit that this is not an ideal way of dealing with it. I admit that the boards of guardians have probably a very real and genuine grievance but I would appeal to them to make sacrifices on account of the desperate pressure which there is on hospital accommodation in the country. The hon. Member for Stafford stated that in the one particular institution which he gave there were 80 vacant beds when the census was taken and only 11 beds now. I have the waiting list of a London hospital within a stone's throw from these doors. It has got 388 beds and a waiting list of 701. It is not a question of having II beds vacant. These institutions are crowded to the doors just now. In one case of a hospital with 600 beds it has 100 extra beds planted up and down in the wards. It is on account of that I appeal to the boards of guardians to make their great institutions valuable for the hospital cases of all classes of the community.
    The problem is only just beginning when you have actually taken over the hospitals by the county councils A new set of problems will then arise. I assure the House that the problem of hospital administration will be very large and very complicated and that there will be a very complicated system of problems as to what share the medical profession is to take in the administration of these hospitals when taken over because they will largely need to be controlled by the county councils and that control will need to be exercised by some committee of which the

    2351
    medical men staffing the hospitals and doing work at the hospitals will need to have pretty large representation. There is only one point I should like to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to cheer. If they want trouble they can get it. It would not be very difficult to make a speech on this subject which would last for one and three quarter hours, and I am quite ready to do it. Half-past four o'clock in the morning is a late hour, but half-past five is a later hour, and a quarter to six is later still, and if we have to discuss all the problems connected with this question I am quite willing to go on definitely. I do not wish to detain the House, but these health problems are always brought forward at night. Take the Insurance Act; that was debated at two o'clock in the morning, and we never get a decent Debate on health because of the habit of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench of discussing all sorts of problems which they consider to be of great importance but which are really nothing compared with the great matters touching the life of the people, such as the health administration of the country. I am not disposed to apologise for encroaching, at what might be considered excessive length on this subject. I do not consider it possible to Debate the health problem of the country at half-past four in the morning. The only point I want to make is that it shows the difficulty into which we have fallen by this splitting-up of this health administration into Scotland and England. I understand that I should not be in order in discussing hospital administration in Scotland on this Bill, and yet the whole thing will really depend on the decision arrived at on this Bill I should like Scottish Home Rulers to consider the problems raised by this policy of nationalism which is becoming such a part of our latest legislation. This separate health administration for Scotland has been broken down, the first time it has been put into practice. I do not wish to detain the House any longer.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: The Minister of Health waxed very eloquent, not to say warm and loud, over his professions as to the need for making use of these empty beds because of the pledges given at the last election. I feel sure that even the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree that we are in favour of doing our best.
    2352
    I consider this Clause to be incapable of amendment in any way sufficient to carry out the object which is required. The Minister of Health spoke of putting the clock back if we left these hospitals to be managed by the present authorities, the Poor Law guardians, in certain Pool Law unions. The point is, however, that the right hon. Gentleman, when he decided that the great voluntary hospitals were to be dealt with by a Committee, proceeded to deal with these Poor Law infirmaries alone and to deal with, them before the other questions were dealt with by transferring them to the county councils. He is not, perhaps, putting the clock back but he is smashing up the works of the clock and is making arrangements the results of which will not be final, but which will involve a great change, considerable expense, trouble and time, and even more legislation in this House before they are finally completed. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we have a very serious objection to Sub-section 2 of this Clause,1 which is not removed by the right hon. Gentleman's answers that the compulsory taking over of those infirmaries cannot be done without the consent of Parliament. It is all very well to say that. If the Minister has power to do that by coming to Parliament in this way he can effect what he wants by the mere threat of coming. The whole question of the hospitals should be dealt with as a whole, and the great voluntary hospitals are not included in this Bill. Surely the right hon. Gentleman had better do the best he can by making available for persons who need them those empty beds of which he has spoken, rather than to create this great machinery to be worked by the county councils. By doing so he would not get rid of the different character of voluntary hospitals and of the hospitals on the rates. Undoubtedly there is still that great objection to the Poor Law infirmary and I believe that that objection will be only a little less when supported by the rates and run by the county councils.
    Question put "That the words pro posed to be left out to the word 'and' ['within their area and'] stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes 70; Noes 28.
    Captain Sir ROWLAND BLADES: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, a) after the word "area" ["within their area"] to insert the words
    "provided that the treatment of the sick poor within that area shall not be prejudiced either through their having to be removed from their own area or from any other cause."
    In addressing the House for the first time at this early hour of the morning I hope Mr. Deputy-Speaker I shall receive your assistance. There is no doubt very grave unrest among the guardians of this country especially in the rural areas and it is for that reason that I move this Amendment. The hon. Member for Stafford has so fully stated the case that I do not propose to add anything except to acknowledge the work which the guardians are doing. In my own Division we have the Epsom Board of Guardians who are doing excellent and devoted service and this practically applies throughout the country. I hope the Minister will look upon my Amendment with sympathy.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry I have not had an opportunity of reading the words
    2354
    which my hon. Friend has moved until this minute and I could not without further consideration say that I could accept the Amendment. I would have liked to have done so after my hon. Friend's maiden speech and I do not see that there is any particular objection to the Amendment on the face of it. I do not however like to accept an Amendment like this which I have only now read. As far as I am concerned I do not quarrel with the principle and if I can devise words to meet it without doing damage to the machinery of the Clause I will try to get them inserted in another place. It seems to me there is no reason why I should object to the Amendment on principle but I would like to consider it a little further.
    Sir R. BLADES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, a) after the word "diseases" ["illnesses or diseases"] to insert the words "including the care and treatment of persons suffering from mental disorder which is incipient in character and of recent origin."

    2355
    This is to make it quite clear what the Minister meant for we may not always have him. He said that one of the purposes of Clause 8 was to enable these cases of mental disorder being treated in some of these Poor Law hospitals taken over under this Clause. I want to put it on record that the words of the Clause include this particular form of incipient mental disorder.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, a) to leave out the word "and" ["illnesses or diseases; and"] and to insert instead thereof the words
    "or to make such other arrangements with Poor Law authority as may having regard to any existing deficiency of hospital accommodation in the area of the council appear desirable for the duo reception maintenance and treatment of sick persons in any hospital or infirmary belonging to that authority within or without the area of the council."
    I made the point pretty clear in my original speech on the Clause. I originally submitted these words as an alternative to the Government proposals. Now I want them as an addition in order to make available the surplus beds that are available in the institutions that are not taken over. I want the House to bear in mind the speech of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) who said there were only about fifty suitable for the county councils to take over containing only a small proportion of the beds. Under my Amendment many more could be made available. Several hundred institutions are not separate and cannot be taken over but a certain number of beds can be made immediately available for non-pauper cases. The right hon. Gentleman will say it is putting the cart before the horse because he will not deal with the Poor Law first instead of tinkering with the whole system. I gave an exactly opposite pledge from his at the election. I told my people I would do all I could to prevent doing away with the guardians. He will have to legislate on the whole question of hospitals next year certainly the year afterwards. If he is going to fulfil his election pledges he will have to legislate for the Poor Law. This is merely tinkering. What is the objection to my proposal? It is merely an interim proposal pending legislation rather than to render
    2356
    available for sick persons a certain number of beds that would otherwise be surplus.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to second the Amendment. We can appeal with some confidence to the right hon. Gentleman on this especially after the way in which he urged upon us the scandal it was at the present time to leave these beds empty and that is what he is likely to do if he merely confines his operations to taking over some of these infirmaries as a whole and not using the machinery to take the beds of the smaller ones.
    Colonel WILSON: The acceptance of this Amendment would be a complete reversal of the policy of the Government on this Clause. It is therefore quite impossible to accept it. It would in substance make the Poor Law authority the hospital authority. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health argued the question a short time ago and convinced the House how unfeasible it was I do not propose to argue it again.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    5.0 A.M.
    I do not intend to trouble the House with a Division unless I get considerable support. I think it is a most 5.0 A.M. iniquitous proposal and if the right hon. Gentleman likes to keep it in the Bill he knows he has the ill-will of all the members of the boards of guardians.
    Dr. ADDISON: This particular Amendment is clearly unnecessary. We must have some power.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert the words
    "Provided that when there is in any hospital or infirmary belonging to a Poor Law authority accommodation in excess of that for the time being required for the sick poor in the area of such authority and not required by the county council for the purposes of this Section it shall be lawful for such authority to utilise such excess accommodation for the reception and treatment of persons other than the sick poor."
    This seems such a reasonable proposal that I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman can possibly have any objection to it. It is simply to provide that when there is any; hospital or infirmary

    2357
    belonging to a Poor Law authority with accommodation in excess of that for the time being required for the sick poor in the area of such authority it shall be lawful for such authority to utilise such excess accommodation. It gives a widening aspect for dealing with these institutions. It is a very small matter but it is a very important matter if the right hon. Gentleman is serious when he says that every bed should be utilised. This will give that opportunity.
    Major HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel WILSON: I must confess that I felt the difference between this Amendment and the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: That comes from going on so late.
    Colonel WILSON: It would create a hospital authority in the same area and we have discussed this question on the main question with regard to leaving out this Clause. I cannot add anything more to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend and myself. This would go at the very root of the Clause and for that reason it is impossible to accept it.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This is not going to avoid having two hospital areas under this Bill. Take Manchester. Under this Clause the infirmary and two other small institutions will remain under the Poor Law authority. The right hon. Gentleman is only going to take about 50 or 54. The whole of the rest of the 500 hospitals are going to remain under the Poor Law. It the hon. Gentleman really thinks that he is going to affect finality and unity by the Clause as it stands he has utterly misunderstood the situation that is going to arise if the Clause ever becomes operative. There is a substantial point of difference between the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden) and that moved by myself and if he goes to a Division I shall certainly support him. It is really scandalous that you should be asked to consider great changes in our Poor Law system at 5 o'clock in the morning. This is the only chance we have had of discussing on the floor of this House details of far-reaching effect. This is the way we are legislating about the Poor Law. This is the way we are dealing with the hospital question.
    2358
    The Government thinks that matters of public health are something that can be considered in an Autumn Session in the middle of the night. That is the only interest this Government has in the matter of public health.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "with the approval of" ["with the approval of the Minister"] and insert instead thereof the words "subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (5).
    This is the most pernicious provision in the Clause. Section 132 of the Public Health Act 1875 says:
    "Any expenses incurred by a local authority in maintaining in a hospital or in a temporary place for the reception of the sick ('whether or not belonging to such authority') a patient who is not a pauper shall be deemed to be a debt due from such patient to the local authority and may be recovered from him within six months after his discharge from such hospital or place of reception or from his estate in the event of his dying in such hospital or place."
    Having regard to the fact that we treat venereal disease tuberculosis infectious diseases of every kind and sort without question simply because these diseases are a danger to the community if a person gets into one of these hospitals physically incapacitated you are going to send him a bill for expenses. If he happens to die in the institution you are going to make a charge upon his estate. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that ness in the case of a large section of our population at present is very largely the result of the locality in which they are compelled to live or the particular industrial system under which they are compelled to work. They are features of circumstances both social and industrial and to add to that a penalty a charge for incapacity which these conditions impose upon them is retrograde and not progressive.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that the step proposed here is a very retrograde one in establishing the conditions attaching to the Act of 1875. I do not think that there is anybody who has been a member of a board of guardians but will agree that one of

    2359
    the worst features of that administration has been in the investigations to which people have been subjected. Where people are able to pay for any treatment they may receive why should they not contribute? After all how is the local authority going to say whether or not it is able to recover any other cost incurred? You cannot take proceedings against anybody unless there is some investigation beforehand as to their means and that would mean a close investigation into the means of different people in order to determine whether their financial position is such as to permit that being done. What principle is to be the guide in the differentiation between particular kinds of disease for which a person may require treatment? A workman in one particular industry may develop tuberculosis. For that disease he can have free treatment. Another person working in another industry may develop a disease requiring hospital treatment for which he is not prepared to pay. Where is the equality? I cannot see in view of the length we have gone in this Clause dealing with public health by which we are now seeking to establish facilities for medical treatment why we should adopt this old system which must re-establish one of the worst features of Poor Law administration the system of investigating the financial position of the persons concerned and of penalising them merely because they contract one particular form of disease as against another. If we are going to protect the public health and if we are going to ensure proper treatment let us make it easy for the people to have the treatment necessary for the purpose.
    Dr. ADDISON: The Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have made a great deal out of it which is not in it at all. Unless a provision of this kind be inserted in the Bill it would mean in the event of the county councils taking over Poor Law infirmaries and using them as medical hospitals that no charge at all could be made for anybody who came in. That would be very wrong especially as my hon. Friends are anxious to avoid setting up what is called a "double-barrelled system." It would be very foolish to prohibit a county council from making charges. The investigation to which allusion has been made will not
    2360
    take place to any material extent but we must give the power otherwise they will not be able to make any charge.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to support the Amendment and I do not think that the Minister has cleared the matter up satisfactorily because in the Act referred to it is stated that in the case of any patient other than a pauper is considered a debt.
    Dr. ADDISON: There is no obligation on anybody.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Section 132 of the Public Health Act 1875 is as follows:
    "Any expenses incurred by a local authority in maintaining in a hospital or in a temporary place for the reception of the sick (whether or not belonging to such an authority) a patient who is not a pauper shall be deemed to be a debt due from such patient to the local authority and may be recovered from him at any time within six months after his discharge from such hospital or place of reception or from his estate in the event of his dying in such hospital or place."
    The Section leaves it open for the authority to consider whether anyone not a pauper if there is a debt at any time within a period of six months shall be charged with that debt. I imagine the proceedings might be taken. One might ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would give us a further definition of the term "sick" because my mind is a little bit troubled. Sometimes a man is stated to be sick from a disease which may come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That man cannot be deemed to be a pauper. Is it to be expected that a charge is to be made so that it should be counted as a debt against that patient I Certainly he has by means of his compensation got a certain income but that income is far short of his ordinary weekly wage and may be insufficient to maintain any family for which he is responsible. In the event of a patient being in such a bad state when taken there that he eventually dies there is it intended that that part of his estate as represented by the Workmen's Compensation Act should be in any way used to pay the debt so incurred by the fact of his having been a patient?
    Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes 76; Noes 18.

    Division No. 396.]

    AYES.

    [5.20 a.m.

    Addison Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Ganzoni Captain Francis John C.

    Newman Sir R H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Allen Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Gibbs Colonel George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore Captain Hon. W.

    Amery Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Goff Sir R. Park

    Parker James

    Archer-Shee Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Green Joseph F. (Leicester W.)

    Pease Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Baird Sir John Lawrence

    Greenwood William (Stockport)

    Pollock Sir Ernest M.

    Baldwin Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hailwood Augustine

    Raw Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Balfour George (Hampstead)

    Hamilton Major C. G. C.

    Remer J. R.

    Blades Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Harmsworth C. B. (Bedford Luton)

    Robinson Sir T. (Lanes. Stretford)

    Boscawen Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford Watford)

    Roundell Colonel R. F.

    Broad Thomas Tucker

    Hilder Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Sanders Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Bruton Sir James

    Hope James F. (Sheffield Central)

    Scott A. M. (Glasgow Bridgeton)

    Carr W. Theodore

    Hopkins John W. W.

    Seddon J. A.

    Casey T. W.

    Hotchkin Captain Stafford Vere

    Shaw Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Chilcot Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Jones Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw William T. (Forfar)

    Coats Sir Stuart

    Kellaway Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Stanley Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Coote Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Kidd James

    Sugden W. H.

    Courthope Major George L.

    Law Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow C.)

    Sutherland Sir William

    Craig Colonel Sir J. (Down Mid)

    Lindsay William Arthur

    Ward-Jackson Major C. L.

    Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    Lorden John William

    Whitla Sir William

    Davies Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lort-Williams J.

    Wilson Daniel M. (Down West)

    Edge Captain William

    Lynn R. J.

    Wilson Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Elliot Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    M'Lean Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. '

    Wise Frederick

    Eyres-Monsell Commander B. M.

    Mitchell William Lane

    Wood Sir H. K. (Woolwich West)

    Fildes Henry

    Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Forrest Walter

    Morrison-Bell Major A. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fraser Major Sir Keith

    Murray C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley ward.

    Fremantle Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.

    Neal Arthur

    NOES.

    Adamson Rt. Hon. William

    Maclean Neil (Glasgow Govan)

    Smith W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bell James (Lancaster Ormskirk)

    Mills John Edmund

    Thomson T. (Middlesbrough West)

    Davies A. (Lancaster Clitheroe)

    Morgan Major D. Watts

    Waterson A. E.

    Edwards C. (Monmouth Bedwellty)

    Myers Thomas

    Grundy T. W.

    Royce William Stapleton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayday Arthur

    Sexton James

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Frederick Hall.

    Hirst G. H.

    Shaw Thomas (Preston)

    Holmes J. Stanley

    Sitch Charles H.

    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move in Subsection (8) to leave out the word "may" ["the Minister may order"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    This deals with compensation to Poor Law hospital officials. The Clause is permissive and I think it should be made obligatory.
    Mr. MILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend does not achieve anything by this Amendment. The specific wording of this Clause has been agreed by the Poor Law Officers' Association and there is no reason to suppose that I or any future Minister will not carry out the intention of Parliament in this Clause. It is very difficult to say "shall" because in some cases people would not be entitled to compensation and I should have to do something which I was not called upon to do by the intention of the Clause.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I would like to put a point of some importance. If a Poor Law hospital is taken over by a county council or a borough council it may be that certain members of the staff may not
    2362
    be required. A number of these officers have paid into the superannuation fund and if they were taken over it might be that the county council had no superannuation scheme and the interest that these officers have established so far as their former services are concerned would be placed in jeopardy unless they have a guarantee that they would be compensated. Does the Minister say that this Clause would cover cases of that description?
    Dr. ADDISON: Certainly that covers that very class of case.
    Mr. MYERS: This Amendment is put forward in response to the representation of a large Poor Law authority in Yorkshire. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (9) to insert the words
    "and the expression 'illness' includes any case of accident or other cases requiring surgical treatment and any case of confinement in respect of childbirth."
    The object of this Amendment is to give the widest possible interpretation

    2363
    to the word "illness." There is no provision made for childbirth under the Insurance Act and if a woman is in hospital for this purpose they can recover the expenses incurred from that woman at least the expenditure of the doctor's fee and we believe that when these institutions are kept by public funds the treatment should be free to everyone whatever the disease they suffer from may be.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel WILSON: It is the intention of the Government to give the widest possible interpretation to the word "illness." It is not desirable to catalogue all the various diseases and illnesses but it is best to try and confine it to as few words as possible. There is a point of some substance in this. If I may take the case of childbirth I am advised that the case of confinement is covered by the Clause as it stands but it is a doubtful point. I could not possibly put the Amendment in where the hon. Member has proposed it but if he is satisfied with this undertaking I hope he will withdraw it. The undertaking is that if I am not quite satisfied that it is unnecessary to insert this and that the Bill does not cover all the illnesses specified I will cause to be inserted after the word "generally" the words "including cases of confinement in respect of childbirth." With regard to the question of accident I think my hon. Friend may rest assured that the word illness covers accidents.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 10. —(Regulation of sale of clinical thermometers.)
    (1) No person shall sell offer for sale supply or deliver any clinical thermometer unless the thermometer has been tested approved and marked in accordance with Regulations made under this Section by the Minister:
    Provided that this Section shall not unless the Minister by order directs to the contrary apply to an offer to sell a clinical thermometer for export from the United Kingdom or to the sale supply or delivery of a clinical thermometer if the thermometer is intended to be and is thereafter exported from the United Kingdom.
    (2) If any person acts in contravention of this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This is one of those extraordinary provisions that have got into this as an outcome of D.O.R.A. It seems to be one of those extraordinary forms of protection not desirable to the most arrant Tariff Reformer. There is no difficulty about it. You can send these thermometers to Kew I understand and you can get them marked satisfactorily without it being insisted on that you must get them done. I hope the Minister will agree to this deletion.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ORMSBYGORE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will retain this Clause. It is quite the most useful Clause in the whole Bill the only Clause really worth having. I did hope at one period that we would have had an Amendment to the title of this Bill to make it read the Clinical Thermometers Bill with this Clause standing alone. It is a provision very much needed. A doctor told me that before the War 40 per cent. of the clinical thermometers manufactured in this country were unreliable and inaccurate. He told me he went to one patient and happening not to have his own thermometer asked the patient if he had one. He had and the doctor took his temperature with it. He found it to be 103 and packed him off to bed. Later he took his temperature again with his own thermometer and found it was normal while the other was still 103. Either one was wrong or they both were. If you were travelling abroad the one thing you never buy is a British thermometer. It is an awful bore buying a foreign one because you have to convert it from Reaumur or Centigrade into Fahrenheit. This was because of the notorious unreliability of British thermometers. During the War the Government came to the conclusion that they should test thermometers and they established a testing station at Kew which is really valuable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will retain the Clause because it is most important that clinical thermometers should be accurate.
    Mr. T. SHAW: As a very confirmed Free Trader, I hope that the Government will maintain the Clause. If there is one thing on which they ought to have a guarantee, it is that of clinical thermometers. Laymen experiment with clinical thermometers. I have done it myself, and because I believe it is simply common sense and nothing to do with Protection, I hope the Government will maintain the Clause.
    Question "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'supply' ['sale supply, or deliver'] stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "sale" ["offer for sale"], to insert the word "or."
    We feel, by having the words as they are now in this Clause, they may be the means of creating a great deal of irritation and, in some respects, persecution of people who have no responsibility in these matters. The object was to provide if any person shall sell or offer for sale any clinical thermometers. We think that sufficient protection so far as the object of this Clause is concerned. After all, the servant of a business firm may deliver a clinical thermometer, and it is absurd to suggest that an errand boy, or anybody of that description, who goes through the form of delivering the article should be liable to prosecution under this Clause. So long as the public is protected adequately, we feel that the Clause gives the proper means of proceeding against those who have committed an offence.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel WILSON: As explained in Committee, this word "deliver" would not apply in any way to those people to whom my hon. Friend has alluded. There is not the slightest intention nor can it be read into the Clause, that it would apply to an errand boy who is delivering a clinical thermometer. The word "deliver" was deliberately put into the Clause to cover the case of a person in this country as an agent of a manufacturer abroad, who, of course, cannot be got at. It is the agent of the foreign manufacturer whom it is desired to get at.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: Would not that particular case be covered by the word "supply"?
    Colonel WILSON: Not necessarily. Amendment negatived.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(3) This Section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of 'the Scottish Board of Health' for 'the Minister.'"
    Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "with the substitution of 'the Scottish Board of Health' for 'the Minister.'"
    On a matter of this particular kind it is very important we should have the same Regulations made by the same authority and enforcing the same stamp of efficiency.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think my hon. Friend's suggestion is a really good one.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to move after the words last added, to insert a new Subsection—
    "(3) Provided that the total expense in any one year under this Section shall not exceed five hundred pounds."
    I hope the Minister will be able to accept it. I do not suppose the Minister intends to appoint a very large staff, but I think it is just as well that we should have it clear that the House knows what expense it authorised. I think £500 will be more than ample.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel WILSON: This Amendment is quite unnecessary, as this Clause does not entail a charge of a penny extra on the Exchequer or on the rates. The cost of testing these clinical thermometers is 3d. A fee of 3d. is charged at Kew where they are all tested at the National Physical Laboratory. The total number tested at present is over 30000 weekly. While the pre-war charge for testing was 1s. the present charge is 3d., and in that

    2367
    charge is included all expenses including overhead charges-everything and everybody.
    Amendment negatives.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Amendment of Section 189 of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55.)
    In Section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Public Health Act 1875 (which gives power to urban authorities to appoint certain officers) the words "sanitary inspector or sanitary inspectors" shall be substituted for the words "inspector of nuisances."
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move at the beginning of the Clause to insert
    "(1) The persons now known as inspectors of nuisances shall as from the commencement of this Act be called sanitary inspectors and any references in any enactment order. regulation or other document to an inspector of nuisances shall be construed accordingly."
    (2)"
    This Amendment refers to an undertaking which I have given and it makes clear the title of the new sanitary inspectors set out in Clause 13. There is really no substantial alteration.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Loans.)
    (2) The operation of paragraph (2) of Section two hundred and thirty-four of the Public Health Act 1875 (which relates to the exercise of borrowing powers) shall be suspended during the period of two years immediately following the commencement of this Act and paragraph (3) of the said Section shall cease to have effect.
    (3) The unapplied balance of any loan raised for any purpose by a local authority before the commencement of this Act (not being a loan advanced by the Public Works Loans Commissioners) may with the consent of the Minister be applied to any other purpose for which the authority have power to borrow money and if so applied shall be deemed to have been duly borrowed for that purpose at the time when the loan of which it formed part was raised:
    Provided that if the loan was raised by a Metropolitan borough council for a purpose which required the consent of the London County Council the consent of that council shall be required in addition to that of the Minister of Health to the application of the unapplied balance.
    (4) Where any local authority owing to circumstances arising out of the War have been unable to make the required provision by means of a sinking fund or otherwise for the due discharge of any loan the authority may submit to the Minister a scheme making provision for the discharge
    2368
    of the loan whether by extending or varying the period within which the loan may be discharged or otherwise and the Minister may if he thinks fit approve any such scheme either with or without modifications.
    Any scheme approved by the Minister under this Sub-section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:
    Provided that nothing in any scheme shall in any manner prejudice or affect the security rights or remedies of any mortgagee or other person from whom the loan was raised.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I believe that Clause 15 was one of those Clauses about which the Minister said he did not mind whether it was in or not. Sub-section (2) is one of those which whittles away the safeguards of the local authorities. The paragraphs of the Public Health Act which are referred to are as follows:
    "(2) The sum borrowed shall not at any time exceed with the balances of all the outstanding loans contracted by the local authority under the Sanitary Acts and this Act in the whole assessable value for two years of the premises assessable within the district in respect of which such money may be borrowed;
    (3) Where the sum proposed to be borrowed in such balances (if any) would exceed the assessable value for one year of such premises the Local Government Board shall not give their sanction to such loan until one of their inspectors has held a local inquiry and reported to the said Board."
    Here we are whittling away these safeguards at a time when you want them specially. It is highly wrong to do that and I warn the hon. Gentleman that if he creates these charges he will cause a very great rise of rates. It is not him but it is the local authorities who may increase it and the local authority will seize the advantage. There is no doubt that some local authorities have applied to the right hon. Gentleman to have this done at a time when they should strengthen rather than weaken these safeguards.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: The Minister of Health will have his hands full if he is supposed to indulge in all these nefarious practices. It is not possible to do all these things. The whole point is that in respect of housing the limit of borrowing is two years' assessable value and we have proposed here to give time in which the local authority may have the

    2369
    power to raise the loan irrespective of the limit as to two years' assessable value owing to the fact that there has been no real assessment since the War. We must give time for that assessment to take place on the improved value bearing in mind the decrease in the value of money. It is only to cover that period and to allow the reassessment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move in Subsection (3) ofter the word "Minister" ["may with the consent of the Minister"] to insert the words "if the Treasury so approve."
    One does get rather suspicious of a Minister of Health dealing with loans and with money matters. I have very great respect for the Treasury and I think the Treasury would exercise a wholesome influence on him and keep him within certain bounds. We have put similar words in other parts of the Bill particularly in Clause 4 and I think it is in the interest of economy that these words should be put in.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know what the Minister of Health would do if everybody made such suggestions as those of my hon. Friend. The Local Government Board has dealt with loans as everybody knows for the last two generations and has not carried out any wicked transactions. The real point is that if the local authority were to submit details of all sums for which they require sanction the work would be an administrative impossibility. There might be small sums of £5 for electricity or for tramway purposes and it would simply be an impossibility for the Treasury to deal with all these sums. You would want another Treasury with an immense staff.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "making provision for the discharge of the loan whether by extending or varying the period within which the loan may be discharged or otherwise" and insert instead thereof the words "varying any statutory provision requiring the loan to be discharged within any particular time or in any particular manner."—[Dr. Addison.]

    CLAUSE 17.—(Subscriptions by local authorities to local savings committees.)
    A local authority within the meaning of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890 may subject to the approval of the Minister contribute to the expenses of any local savings committee established for their area or any part thereof.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the words "Provided that the contribution shall in no case exceed a farthing rate in total."
    There should be some limit in regard to these contributions which may be made by the local authority.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    6.0 A.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot accept this Amendment. It would mean that the farthing rate would become the minimum rate just as is the case with the library rate. As a matter of fact I do not expect the rate to be more than one-twentieth of a penny in most cases.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Purchase and appropriation of land.)
    (1) The council of a county or a Metro politan borough or the common council of tho City of London may subject to the approval of the Minister appropriate for any purpose for which they may be authorised to acquire land any land acquired by the council for some other purpose and not required for that purpose:
    Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to the appropriation of any land for educational purposes or to the appropriations of land acquired for educational purposes for any other purposes or effect the operation of any enactment relating to any such appropriation:
    Provided also that the appropriation of the land under this Section by a Metropolitan borough council shall be subject to the approval of the London County Council in addition to that of the Minister if the consent of that council was necessary to the raising of a loan by the Metropolitan borough council for the purchase of the land.
    (2) Section ninety-five of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 which makes provision with respect to the purchase and appropriation of land by certain local authorities) shall extend and apply to every district in England and Wales to which it has not been applied by and Order made under Section three of that Act as if had been so applied.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "Minister" ["approval

    2371
    of the Minister"] insert the words "and subject to the like restrictions as are contained in Section ninety-five of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1907, in respect of the appropriation of land by local authorities under that Section."

    NEW SCHEDULE.
    SECOND SCHEDULE

    PART I.

    References to The Public Health (Ireland) Acts.1878 to 19]9 to be substituted for references to The Public Health Act, 1875.

    Sections of The Public Health Act 1875.

    Corresponding Sections of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919.

    Section sixty-one

    Section seventy-one

    of The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.

    Section one hundred and forty-three

    Section one hundred and fifty-nine

    Section two hundred and thirty-four

    Section two hundred and thirty-eight

    Section two hundred and fifty-seven

    Section two hundred and fifty-five

    Section two hundred and eighty-five

    Section two of The Public Health (Ireland) Act 1896.

    PART II.

    Provisions not applied in Ireland.

    Reference to Section of Act.

    Subject matter of Provision.

    3 (5)

    Amendment of Section 5 of 9 and 10 Geo. V., c., 99 as to constitution of appeal tribunals.

    9

    Power of county councils to provide hospitals and ambulance.

    11 (1)

    Amendment of 38 and 39 Vic c. 55, and 54 and 55 Vie., c 76.

    17

    Subscription by local authorities to local savings committees.

    —[Dr. Addison.]

    Brought up and read the First time.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When the Solicitor-General for Ireland puts down complicated provisions such as these is it in Order for a non-Irish Minister to move them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think so.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    FIRST SCHEDULE

      PROVISIONS AS TO THE COMPULSORY HIRING OF HOUSES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
      1. Where a local authority propose to hire a house compulsorily under this Act they may make an Order for the purpose in the prescribed form.
      2. The Order shall be published, and twenty-one days' notice thereof shall be
      In Sub-section (2), after the word "Wales" ["England and Wales"], insert the words "and Ireland."
      After the word "if" ["as if had been"], insert the word "it.' —[Dr. Addison.]
      given to the owner of the house, in the prescribed manner.
      3. The Order shall be submitted to the Minister and shall be of no effect until it has been confirmed by him, and confirmation by the Minister shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the Order has been duly published and made and is within the powers of this Act.
      4. No compensation otherwise than by way of rent shall be payable in respect of the house compulsorily hired and in determining the amount of the rent no additional allowance shall be made on account of the hiring being compulsory.
      5. The local authority shall be entitled to enter into possession of the house as soon as the Order has been confirmed by the Minister, notwithstanding that the amount of the rent has not been determined.
      6. In default of agreement as to the amount of rent to be paid by the local authority, or as to the other terms of the tenancy (including the delivery up of the house in proper condition), the amount of the rent or the other terms shall be fixed by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition

      2373
      of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 and the provisions of that Act shall apply for the purpose subject to such necessary adaptation as may be prescribed.
      7. In fixing the amount of rent to be paid regard shall be had to any sums which may have been or may require to be spent by the local authority in putting the house into a condition reasonably fit for human habitation.
      8. Where the amount which was originally estimated as sufficient to put the house into a state reasonably fit for human habitation subsequently appears to the local authority not to be sufficient for that purpose the local authority may with the consent of the Minister apply to have the rent payable reassessed by the official arbitrator.
      9. In this Schedule the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister and the expression "owner" means any person who would at any time during the term for which the house is compulsorily hired have been entitled to the possession thereof if the house had not been so hired.
      Amendment made: At the end of paragraph 2 add the words "and the owner shall have an opportunity of giving evidence before the Minister in opposition to the confirmation of such Order."—[Sir B. Newman.]

      SECOND SCHEDULE.

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

      Session and Chapter

      Short Title.

      Extent of Repeal.

      18 & 19 Vict., c. 120.

      The Metropolis Management Act 1855.

      In Section two hundred and sixteen the words "together with interest thereon after a rate not exceeding five pounds for the hundred by the year."

      38 & 39 Vict. c. 55.

      The Public Health Act1875.

      In Section one hundred and forty-three the words "or at a mortuary"; in paragraph (2) of Section one hundred "and seventy-four the words" and shall "specify some pecuniary penalty to be "paid in case the terms of the contract "are not duly performed"; paragraph (3) of Section two hundred and thirty- four: in Section two hundred and fifty- seven the words" at a rate not exceeding five pounds per centum per "annum" wherever those words occur.

      45 & 46 Vict. c. 50.

      The Municipal Corporations Act 1882.

      Section thirty.

      46 & 47 Vict. c. 11.

      The Poor Law Conferences Act 1883.

      The whole Act.

      48 & 49 Vict. c. 22.

      The Public Health and Local Government Conferences Act 1885

      The whole Act.

      54 & 55 Vict. c. 76.

      The Public Health (London) Act 1891.

      In Sub-section (2) of Section ninety the words from "but this enactment" to the end of the Sub-section.

      55 & 56 Vict. c. 57.

      The Private Street Works Act 1892.

      In Section fourteen the words "at a rate" not exceeding four pounds per centum" per annum."

      56 & 57 Vict. c. 9.

      The Municipal Corporations Act 1893.

      The whole Act.

      Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 3.
      This paragraph appears to be unnecessary. It gives the Minister the right to upset the decision of local authorities when hiring houses. According to the Bill they have to hire houses and we think the Minister should not have the right to veto those powers by withholding his consent to the powers that they seek.
      Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment. I think this provision may create a great deal of delay and irritation as between local authorities and the Minister.
      Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment is quite impossible. Some Department must be charged with seeing that the law is administered. The law prescribes certain safeguards in respect of property that may be compulsorily hired and it is the duty of someone to see that they are carried out. If you removed this paragraph there would be no one to see that the provisions were complied with.
      Amendment negatived.

      Session and Chapter.

      Short Title.

      Extent of Repeal.

      62 & 63 Viet. c. 44.

      The Small Dwellings Acquieition Act 1899.

      Sub-section (3) of Section one.

      9 Edw. 7, c. 44.

      The Housing Town Planning, & Act 1909.

      In Sub-section (5) of Section fifteen the words "at a rate not exceeding five pounds per centum per annum."

      8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 39.

      The Education Act 1918.

      Section thirty-eight.

      9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 35.

      The Housing Town Planning, & Act 1919.

      In Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section twenty- eight the words "at a rate not exceeding" five pounds per centum per annum."

      Amendments made: At beginning of Schedule insert

      6 & 7 Will IV. c. 116 (as adapted by the Local Government(Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order 1899).

      The Grand Jury (Ireland) Act 1836.

      In Section eighty-six the words "not exceeding ninety-four pounds."

      —[Mr. D. M. Wilson.]

      In paragraph beginning "38 & 39 Vict. c. 55" leave out the words "in paragraph (2) of Section one hundred and seventy-four the words ' and shall specify some pecuniary penalty to be paid in case the terms of the contract are not duly performed.' "—[Dr. Addison.]
      Mr. MYERS: I beg to move in the paragraph beginning "38 & 39 Vict. c. 55 after the word "performed" ["not duly performed"] to insert the words
      "in Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and seventy-six the words ' once at the least in each of three consecutive weeks in the month of November' and the words ' in the month of December' and in Sub-section (3) of the last-cited Section the words ' and the purposes for which they are required."
      We proposed this Amendment upstairs but there was a slight error in the way it was presented and we propose to ask for its insertion again. Section 176 of the Public Health Act to which reference is here made makes it necessary in the regulations for the purchase of land that notice is to be given in a local newspaper once at least in three consecutive weeks in the month of November. It further makes provision for notice to be given in the month of December every year. If the local authority requires to embark on any transaction it must comply with these provisions and it might be that it would have to wait until the period came round. We propose that this should be inserted in the Schedule and should be among the
      2376
      enactments of the Bill in order to give local authorities their freedom to effect transactions which are embodied in that Clause.
      Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Colonel WILSON: I do not understand the situation. This Amendment is quite in order but it is consequential to the proposed new Clause which the hon. Member put on the Paper and that new Clause has not been put in the Bill so that the Amendment cannot be inserted.
      Mr. MYERS: In Section 176 of the Public Health Act referred to in this Schedule there is a condition imposed on a local authority desirous of purchasing land that it shall put a notice in a newspaper in the month of November and give notice to the owner of the land in December. Unless it gives notice at that time it cannot effect the purchase that year. We desire to repeal this in order to give local authorities freedom all the year round.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As there are two Law Officers here is this not done may I ask by the Acquisition of Land Act. Is it at all necessary for a local authority to still carry out these advertisements in the paper in November and the old fashioned procedure? I rather think that subsequent Statutes have been passed by both Houses which abolish the need for this.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): It would be very inconvenient to make the alteration proposed. The reasons for the notices which are issued in November and December is in order that due and sufficient notice may be given in respect of Provisional Orders and other matters concerning Bills which are submitted to Parliament and of which the season of November and December is suitable because in the ordinary course Bills are submitted to the House then for the Session which always begins at some time like February. In due course the Bills and Provisional Orders pass before a Committee of this House. Otherwise the business of the House might be considerably interfered with. That is way provision is made that the notices shall take place at that time so that these persons who have got to receive notice shall have an adequate opportunity of preparing their cases which they have to bring to the Committees of the House.

      "41 & 42 Vict. c. 52.

      The Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878.

      In Section one hundred and fifty-nine the words 'or at a mortuary '; paragraph(3) of Section two hundred and thirty-eight; in Section two hundred and fifty-five the words 'at a rate not exceeding five pounds per centum per annum ' wherever those words occur."— [Mr. D. M Wilson.]

      Leave out the paragraphs beginning "45 & 46 Vict. c. 50" "46 & 47 Vict. c. 11" "48 & 49 Vict. c. 22."
      In paragraph beginning "55 & 56 Vict. c. 57" after the word "In" ["In" Section fourteen"] insert the words "Section thirteen the words 'at the

      "9 & 10 Geo. V., c.45

      The Housing (Ireland) Act,1919.

      In Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section twenty-three the words ' at a rate not exceeding five per cent per annum.' "— [Mr. D. M. Wilson.]

      Motion made and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am surprised that the Government intend to take the Third Reading of this very long Bill at this hour of the morning. We did not understand that they were going to take the Third Reading as well as the Report stage. We understood that they were going to proceed with the next six Orders. If you are going to take the Third Reading now I think it rather a scandal that the only time the Government ever give to
      It would be quite an unfortunate practice if in a Schedule of a Bill relating to public health we were to alter the practice and procedure which has obtained for a long time and which is convenient to Members of this House.
      Mr. MYERS: It is not convenient to local authorities who want to buy land.
      Sir E. POLLOCK: We must have some regard to regulations and to the convenience of the Members of this House. Members could not be asked to sit on a Committee at any time that the local authorities might think fit to bring forward a Bill and put in their notice. I think it is better these words should be retained.
      Amendment negatived.
      Further Amendments made: After the paragraph beginning "38 & 39 Vict. c. 55" insert:
      rate of four pounds per centum per annum' and in."
      Leave out paragraphs beginning "56& 57 Vict. c/" and "8 & 9 Geo.5 c. 39."—[Dr. Addison.]
      At the end of paragraph beginning 9 & 10 Geo. 5 c. 35" insert:the Ministry of Health for their Bills are these hours in the middle of the night. I hope that other Members of the House will protest on that ground. There are many points which ought to be examined on this Bill. It will probably receive very rough treatment in another place because it has not been properly discussed in this House. We have been continually passing legislation in these Ministry of Health Bills in a most imperfect form because we have to legislate in this way. We took the Second Reading the Report stage and the Third Reading of the new Insurance Act abolishing sanatorium

      2379
      benefit all in the middle of the night. What happened? I have in my constituency to-day clerks who administered sanatorium benefit who are now to be thrown out.
      Dr. ADDISON: That statement is entirely incorrect. The sanatorium benefit is going to be continued to 30th April. I say that in order that he may disillusion the clerks.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am very glad to have that explanation. A couple of months ago the right hon. Gentleman could not give me that assurance. We ought to have inserted the provision then. That is just the sort of thing that happens and is forgotten when we are legislating under these conditions. I rise now to protest most vigorously to the Leader of the House and to those responsible for arranging the business of the House for taking this Health Bill with these complicated matters of local administration under these conditions with less than 100 Members in the House.
      Mr. MYERS: I want to join in the protest which has just been made. It is the second or third experience we have had of sitting through the night and discussing questions of public health. We are entitled to ask that some more reasonable sense of proportion in the importance of public Departments should be recognised in this House. The Ministry of Health is entitled to just as much consideration as the War Office and if we come to a close analysis it is entitled to a good deal more because the one is endeavouring to preserve the health and life of the community and the other is engaged in a destructive policy. My protest is more directed against the Bill as it stands. The Bill when it was introduced into the House did not go very far and it met with a tornado of hostile criticism on the lines of economy. In response the Minister had to run away from his own supporters and throw over one-half of the cargo of the Bill. It went upstairs and when it came down here there were four provisions of the Bill which might be of some value—the housing Clause the hospital Clause the Clause for treating mental disorders and the Clause which effects expenses of members of local authorities. What virtue there was in the housing Clause has been taken away by the rateable
      2380
      limitation that actually no houses which are required will come inside that provision. The Clause for mental disorders is not worth anything. It is of no more value than the paper it is printed upon. The hospital Clause is altogether unsatisfactory and the Clause relating to payment of members of local authorities has been swept off altogether. When the Bill was introduced it could have been made something in the nature of a useful and ameliorative measure but any virtue it had has very largely gone out of it. If the electors of the country are willing to criticise Bills wholly and solely on the expenditure involved—and I agree it was very largely magnified and the House was scared although there was no great measure of expenditure in the Bill; I think it is safe to say that the whole volume of expenditure under this Bill has been spent in one month in military operations—if the electors of this country are satisfied to have economy practiced at the expense and neglect of education and public health they will have to pay for it in the future.
      Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to join in the protest against taking the Third Reading of the measure at this time. These measures of the Ministry of Health almost invariably have to take a second-and often a third-rate position in the programme of His Majesty's Government. This particular Bill as I know and as the Minister has said has been demanded by various local authorities for nearly the last twelve months. As far back as last June the Minister himself promised that he would bring in legislation to deal with unoccupied houses. It is to be regretted that realising the necessity of legislation on these lines it should be the end of December that we have to deal with this measure and then in the early hours of the morning. These questions of social well-being to some of us are the things that matter. I protest against a Government which is a Government of reconstruction leaving its reconstruction to the fag end of a Session and in the early hours of the morning when other things which make for waste and which do not matter take pride of place in consideration.
      Mr. A. SHAW: If we take a reasonable view the Minister is perfectly right on insisting on the Third Reading. I have never known a Bill that has been

      2381
      more thoroughly discussed. We sat £or weeks upstairs threshing it out word by word. The discussion was minute and meticulous and we got it threshed out thoroughly. I think it is a very useful Bill. Indeed it is a Bill which is designed to meet one of the most terrible problems of the times and speaking for myself I congratulate the Minister on the conspicuous courage and ability with which he has steered it.
      Captain ELLIOT: I cannot agree with all that the hon. Member has just said but I wish to congratulate the Minister for the efforts he has made to deal with the question of waiting lists. Any effort we can make in this House in that direction even at this hour in the morning is sufficient justification for this Bill which has been carried. I join in the protest which has been made against the late hours at which these great measures are taken. It seems to me if they would put them at the front of their programme instead of the way in which they have been taking them in the past few months the Government would be more popular in the country than it is to-day I know the Minister of Health is doing his best and I heartily congratulate him on the courage he has shown in pressing forward this very urgent and necessary matter but I do think that the Government might give time for these great matters affecting in this case some £12000000 or £15000000 per annum of public revenue to be discussed at a time when the whole House could be here instead of at a time such as this when as a previous speaker has said we are only waiting for the tubes to start to take us home.
      Sir R. NEWMAN: I have only one protest to make. I am sure that the Minister in charge of the Bill will not take this protest as directed against himself but I was not on the Committee upstairs and I think that it was unfortunate when this Bill came before the House on the Report stage that we were told that the Minister could not possibly accept any of the new Clauses put down because of an undertaking he had given in the Committee upstairs. That strikes a serious blow at the Report stage of a Bill. This Bill has been very much mutilated upstairs. We hoped we might get some Clauses altered when it came downstairs again but the Minister has told
      2382
      us that he was unable to accept any Clause on account of the undertaking given to the Committee upstairs. You Mr. Speaker under those circumstances thought that it would not be worth while considering these new Clauses and they were all withdrawn. This may be all very well on one Bill but I trust that this procedure may not be followed on the Report stage of other Bills. It encroaches on the rights and privileges of the ordinary Members of this House.
      Lieut-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg the House to allow me to say just one word as regards the whole genesis of this Bill and its imposition in the Legislature of the country. We must remember that the Ministry of Health was formed "with a very great pronouncement and with universal approbation. The country was told that it was to be a real Ministry of Health not simply the Local Government Board carried on under another name and that it was to co-ordinate all the health services of the country and to work them altogether and to make them became a far greater force than ever before. This Bill is a very poor vindication of that declaration. It is not the fault of the Minister in charge of this Bill nor of the Government in the mass of legislation before us but I do not think that we who are specially concerned in the public health of the country are bound to point out that this is a Very inadequate instalment of that undertaking. The Government must be asked seriously to consider the question of putting forward some of the proposals in order to vindicate the undertaking. It cannot be vindicated in a miscellaneous Bill of this sort which brings together all the scattered types of opposition on 26 subjects from 26 different points of experience. It may be described as ten different Bills. If so the Government ought to find time for each of those Bills but I do not know how they can. We are bound to point out that there are enormous commitments overdue in view of all the declarations made. Tuberculosis has been shelved time and time again. The Milk and Dairies (Prevention) Bill was past in 1915 after many years as the first instalment of the prevention of tuberculosis. Again that has been shelved this year. Then there is the question of Poor Law organisation. The organisation of the local authorities has again been shelved and we have the whole scheme

      2383
      for the organisation of the medical services waiting for all these things. We have got the Third Reading of this Bill, in an emasculated form.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  ROADS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee:
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That there shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the directions of the Treasury, a sum equal to the proceeds of the duties on licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles and for carriages and of all other sums paid into the Exchequer under any Act of the present Session to make provision for the collection and application of the Excise duties on mechanically-propelled vehicles and on carriages; to amend The Finance Act, 1920 as respects such duties; and to amend the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903 and The Development and Road Improvement Funds Act 1909; and to make other provision with respect to roads and vehicles used on roads and for purposes connected therewith."—[Mr. Neal.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Thursday).

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purpose of calculating the amount of the duty chargeable on a licence for a vehicle under the Second Schedule to The Finance Act 1920 the expression 'weight unladen' in that schedule should be taken to be the weight of the vehicle inclusive of the body, and all parts (the heavier being taken where alternative bodies or parts are used) which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle when working on a road, but exclusive of the weight of water, fuel, or accumulators (other than boilers) used for the purpose of propulsion and of loose tools or loose equipment.
  Provided that in the case of a vehicle which weighs more than seven and a quarter tons, and is specially constructed so that all or part of the superstructure is a permanent, or essentially permanent, fixture and the axle weights of which do not exceed the maximum axle weights prescribed under The
  2384
  Motor Car Act, 1903, or any Act amending that Act, the weight unladen of the vehicle shall be deemed to be seven and a quarter tons."[Mr. Neal.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow (Thursday).

  REGISTRAR-GENERAL (SCOTLAND) [SALARY].
  Considered in Committee:
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such Salary as may become payable to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland under any Act of the present Session amending the Law relating to the appointment of that officer."—[Mr. C. D. Murray.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Thursday).

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [GRANTS].
  Considered in Committee:
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to housing in Scotland, and for the purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under Section one of The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses completed within two years of the passing of that Act or such further period not exceeding four months as the Scottish Board of Health may in any special case allow."—[Mr. C. D. Mvrray.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Thursday).
  The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Sixteen minutes before Seven o'clock a.m.

IRELAND.
  ARREST, DUBLIN (JOSEPH JOYCE).
  ARREST, DUBLIN (JOSEPH JOYCE).
  POLICE CASUALTIES (PENSIONS).
  POLICE CASUALTIES (PENSIONS).
  POLICE "WEEKLY SUMMARY."
  POLICE "WEEKLY SUMMARY."
  LOCAL OFFICIALS (SUPERANNUATION).
  LOCAL OFFICIALS (SUPERANNUATION).
  PRISON OFFICERS.
  PRISON OFFICERS.
  ARMED FORCES (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  ARMED FORCES (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
INDIA.
  MESOPOTAMIA RAILWAYS (WAGES).
  MESOPOTAMIA RAILWAYS (WAGES).
  SHWE DAGON PAGODA HILL.
  SHWE DAGON PAGODA HILL.
  BURMA (REFORMS).
  BURMA (REFORMS).
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (RESOLUTION).
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (RESOLUTION).
  BURMA RICE CROP (CONTROL).
  BURMA RICE CROP (CONTROL).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  IRISH BUTTER (EXPORTATION).
  IRISH BUTTER (EXPORTATION).
  CANADIAN CATTLE (EMBARGO).
  CANADIAN CATTLE (EMBARGO).
  FLUCTUATIONS IN PRICES (NOTICE).
  FLUCTUATIONS IN PRICES (NOTICE).
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  NEW ZEALAND LAMB.
  NEW ZEALAND LAMB.
  ALLOTMENTS (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
  ALLOTMENTS (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
  MISSING (EVIDENCE OF DEATH).
  MISSING (EVIDENCE OF DEATH).
  WAR GRAVES (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  WAR GRAVES (PHOTOGRAPHS).
BRITISH AND IMPERIAL FORCES.
  WAR CASUALTIES.
  WAR CASUALTIES.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (TIMBER).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (TIMBER).
  CAPE VERDE ISLAND (BRITISH CONSUL).
  CAPE VERDE ISLAND (BRITISH CONSUL).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (SUBSTITUTION).
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (SUBSTITUTION).
  OUT-OF-WOKK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WOKK DONATION.
  RE-SETTLEMENT GRANT.
  RE-SETTLEMENT GRANT.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (PRIVATES H. GOULDING, H. C. GRANT, AND CORPORAL H. MONTGOMERY).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (PRIVATES H. GOULDING, H. C. GRANT, AND CORPORAL H. MONTGOMERY).
  NAVAL PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  NAVAL PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
HOUSING.
  GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY (MESSRS. H. NEWSOM & Co., LINCOLN).
  GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY (MESSRS. H. NEWSOM & Co., LINCOLN).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION.
  UNION OFFICERS, LYNN (PAY).
  UNION OFFICERS, LYNN (PAY).
  MARLBOROUGH UNION (DISCHARGES).
  MARLBOROUGH UNION (DISCHARGES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.
  EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  IMPERIAL MINERAL RESEARCH BUREAU (BAUXITE).
  IMPERIAL MINERAL RESEARCH BUREAU (BAUXITE).
  HONG KONG (ADOPTED DAUGHTERS).
  HONG KONG (ADOPTED DAUGHTERS).
SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL).
  WOOL.
  WOOL.
  TENDERS (PUBLICATION).
  TENDERS (PUBLICATION).
  STORES, ABANCOURT AND AUDRUICQ.
  STORES, ABANCOURT AND AUDRUICQ.
  MUNITIONS (TRANSPORT FOREMAN'S DEATH).
  MUNITIONS (TRANSPORT FOREMAN'S DEATH).
  DINAS MAWDDWY EXPLOSIVES STORES (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  DINAS MAWDDWY EXPLOSIVES STORES (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
  MINES DEPARTMENT.
  MINES DEPARTMENT.
  COAL MINERS' STRIKE.
  COAL MINERS' STRIKE.
  COMPENSATION LAWS.
  COMPENSATION LAWS.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, WIMBLEDON.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, WIMBLEDON.
  RAILWAYMEN'S WAGES.
  RAILWAYMEN'S WAGES.
  IRISH EGGS (LOSSES IN TRANSIT).
  IRISH EGGS (LOSSES IN TRANSIT).
  HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
  HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  AIR RAID VICTIMS (REPARATION COMMISSION).
  AIR RAID VICTIMS (REPARATION COMMISSION).
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT, 1920.
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT, 1920.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  INSURANCE CARDS.
  INSURANCE CARDS.
  DARTFORD DIVISION.
  DARTFORD DIVISION.
  ROAD AND SEWER WORKS.
  ROAD AND SEWER WORKS.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.
  ARTERIAL ROADS.
  ARTERIAL ROADS.
  TINPLATE TRADE.
  TINPLATE TRADE.
  COTTON-SPINNING INDUSTRY (EGYPTIAN SECTION).
  COTTON-SPINNING INDUSTRY (EGYPTIAN SECTION).
  MINIMUM WAGE COMMISSION BILL.
  MINIMUM WAGE COMMISSION BILL.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TEMPORARY SORTERS, BELFAST (WAGES).
  TEMPORARY SORTERS, BELFAST (WAGES).
EDUCATION.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HOLIDAYS.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HOLIDAYS.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has a statement to make as to the progress of business, and perhaps this would be a convenient opportunity for him to make it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of making a statement as to business. Representations have been made to the Government that it would be imprudent to take the Report stage of the Home Rule Bill before next Monday, December 13. We have accordingly agreed not to begin the Report stage until that date, but as it is really important, in view of the magnitude and importance of the Amendments made here, to send the Bill back to another place for their early consideration, it is hoped that the Third Reading will not take a long time and will be looked upon more as a convenient opportunity for making final Amendments in the measure. If, as I hope, the Report stage can be finished on Monday and the Third Reading either taken that day or as the first Order on Tuesday, we propose to beg in the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill on that Tuesday, devoting the following day (Wednesday, December 15) to it, and if necessary Thursday, the 16th. By Friday, December 17, it is possible that the Home Rule Bill may have been returned to this House from the House of Commons, in which case we should propose to devote that Friday to the consideration of the observations of the Commons on your Lordships' Amendments.
I should like to add that certain Bills of a Departmental character will reach your Lordships from the other House in the course of a few days. There is, however, one Bill of substantial importance—namely, the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill. As to the date of its arrival I can make no statement. It is also possible that a Bill dealing with roads may be brought up to your Lordships' House. The House will

1227
therefore see that there is a good deal of Government business during the next fortnight; and I hope that early next week the House will allow the Government, if it thinks that course necessary, to have precedence for Government measures.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I cannot speak in any way for the Irish arrangements, but I will do my best to call the attention of those noble Lords who are not here to the announcement of the noble Earl; and there is, of course, to-morrow for any further discussion on the point.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am much obliged.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Debate upon the Amendment moved by the MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE to the Motion that the Bill be now read 2ª—namely, to leave out ("now") and to add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months")—resumed (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, in rising to speak in this debate I should like to say that I intend to support the Bill if to-night a Division is challenged on the Second Reading. My reasons for doing so are these. For a considerable period of time I was associated with Lord Lee as a member of the Ministry of Agriculture, and I can fully endorse and support every word that fell from him in his opening speech as to the importance of food supplies in time of war. In addition to having had some insight into the practical administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and the difficulties and problems associated with the production of food, I am what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, called an owner-occupier producing food on a somewhat extended scale. My reasons for supporting the Bill, as I have said, are
1228
based on the importance of food production as a weapon in national defence.
The Minister of Agriculture reminded us of the difficulties and problems he had to encounter, and I would like to offer him my small tribute to the extraordinary success which attended his efforts. The problems were very great, the difficulties were overwhelming. I did not always quite see eye to eye with him and I had grave doubts whether mass food production could be carried out successfully in this country with an attenuated labour population. However, all those difficulties of labour which confronted us at that time have disappeared, and to-day in my judgment it is no hardship whatever on the agrarian community to ask them to plough up and retain under the plough those acres which were ploughed up during the war.
So far as I can judge, it is not absolutely necessary for the purpose of national defence that wheat, and wheat alone, should be grown. I imagine that any foodstuffs which can be consumed by the British population are of equal value to the production of wheat, and it might be found easier to import wheat from distant lands as it is less bulky than many other commodities which we might grow at home. Your Lordships will realise that during the last three years there has been a complete revolution so far as mechanical appliances are concerned. During the war the difficulty of getting horses and feeding them was overwhelming, but to-day, with the advent of the tractor, those difficulties are non-apparent. The value of a tractor is equal to that of six horses, and the value of a motor lorry is equal to about ten horses. Those problems, therefore, are no longer apparent to-day.
I need not elaborate the point of national defence. Noble Lord after noble Lord in the course of the debate yesterday, and on previous occasions, who have been associated with the problem of national defence have most vehemently and passionately asserted that one of the most important factors in the problem of national defence is an adequate supply of our home produce. In the course of the debate last night a noble Lord—I think it was Lord Stanhope towards the end of the evening —pointed out that he did not think that His Majesty's Government would be likely to be involved in any serious dispute with any foreign Power for many years to come, and that consequently the necessity for pre-

1229
serving an adequate food supply at home did not come into the problem of national defence. I venture to say that the greater the volume of food produced at home, combined with an effective fleet, the more are the hands of His Majesty's Government strengthened in any negotiations with foreign Powers, 'while the lack of food at home, and the knowledge that foreign Powers have of that shortage, must tend to weaken their hands. That is not the only point. It is possible—and this is a matter over which our Government cannot have control—that two friendly Powers upon whom we rely for our food supplies may, in the passage of years and by no means at a distant time, come to unfriendly relations with each other and declare war, so that the food supply on which we relied from them would be absorbed by their own countrymen and not allowed to come to our shores. We might therefore suffer serious shortage if these two Powers were to struggle with each other, and the food supply in these countries no longer allowed to come to us.
I desire to support the Bill also on the basis of finance. The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, last night dwelt on the importance of this subject. It is a matter of common knowledge to your Lordships that to-day our exchange with the United States is by no means satisfactory, and so far as I can understand there are only two sources of wealth on which we can draw. One is coal, with which I need not deal, and the other is the produce of the soil, where nature labours along with man to produce and maintain an adequate food supply. If we wish to improve our exchange with the United States the first thing we have to do is to produce the maximum amount of food at home, because it is only by a proper use of the soil of England that we can hope to redress the economic position. The noble Lord, the Minister of Agriculture, in the course of his speech, said that he identified himself with this measure which is before your Lordships, that his future career was associated with it, and that he pinned his faith upon its passage and its effective operation. For my part, as a considerable producer of foodstuffs in this country—I am almost ashamed to say it as your Lordships may regard me as a vulgar plutocrat—I hope between now said the next twelve months to produce a a sum total of food for the British people which will run into nearly six figures in terms of
1230
money. I believe that this can be carried out, provided, of course, that the direction is good and that the adverse influence of the climate does not exist.
There are only two contingencies which might arise that would in any way interfere with the possible success of this production. On the one hand, it may be that during the next twelve months the claims of labour may be so over-stated as to make the cost of production greater than the total value of the food; or, on the other hand, the noble Lord himself may be so pressed by forces which at present he cannot foresee as to indicate to him the necessity of underselling the farmer in the home market and not making operative the guarantee which is in the Bill. I do not believe that either contingency will arise. I pin my faith entirely on the noble Lord. I believe that he is master of the situation; that he will see this Bill through; and that he will be able to put into effect its various clauses. If only the community associated with the soil will back him up and stand by him to secure the mass production of food necessary, I have not the slightest doubt that the terms of this Bill will prove to be both useful and effective.
After all, the situation is this. John Bull owes a lot of money to Uncle Sam, and the only man who can pay that bill to-day is Hodge himself. The Duke of Buccleuch last night in an interesting speech told your Lordships, as I think some other noble Lords did, that he doubted very much indeed whether this guarantee of £40,000,000, or whatever it may be, would ever be paid by the British people, and I believe some noble Lords said that they did not think the Bill was either wanted or required by the community as a whole. That may or may not be true. All we know is that the Bill passed the House of Commons by substantial majorities, and that the members of the Labour Party supported it and desired that it should come into law. So far as the British people refusing to pay the guarantee is concerned I do not think any noble Lord in asserting that is likely to be accurate. The British people are shrewd enough to see that to-day every sovereign's worth of food produced in this country is circulated among themselves, whereas for every £l spent on food which they purchase from abroad they get only 13 s. 5d. or 13 s. 9d. worth in return. It is obvious, from the point of view of the British public that

1231
what they require to-day and for the next few years is mass production at home in order to reduce our foreign debt.
I turn to the social aspect of this problem, which was dealt with by Lord Ernle in one of those speeches which are always so intellectual and generally objective. He pointed out to your Lordships the importance of maintaining an adequate number of men on the soil, and said how important our village life was and how vital it was to preserve those men in and around our villages. I speak as a practical administrator, and I fail to see how you can maintain adequately in the future our village life, get the men to live in the village, and secure them an adequate wage for their livelihood unless they are employed in tilling and cultivating the soil in and around the places in which they live. Put the land on grass and you displace the men; preserve it under the plough and you have employment for them to-day and for all time. What is the alternative if von destroy village life? There is emigration. I do not suppose any noble Lord would venture to suggest that the villagers should emigrate. Then they can drift into the towns. Anybody who is at all familiar with urban opinion will know that if farmers and landlords allow agrarian labour to drift to the towns it will be said that the agrarian community do not know how to manage their affairs properly and that it is time for the State to undertake the work.
The third alternative is to place these men on the soil in the shape of small holders. Anybody examining into that problem on behalf of labour would say that it is better for the labourer to earn his £100 or £120 solid cash per annum than to risk his small and slender resources in a doubtful enterprise on the land of England. This, of course, applies with equal force to the urban population who are associated in making implements for agrarian use. The greater the number of tractor steam ploughs, binders, elevators, and all the various machines which are employed in agriculture, and especially in the tillage of the soil, the greater the number of men employed in our towns in those industries. Place the land under grass and those industries become jeopardised. On these broad grounds of principle I desire to support the Noble Lord in the measure which he has laid before the House.
May I for a few moments turn to some of the apparent disabilities which have
1232
been mentioned by noble Lords in the course of the debate, and which the application of the principles of this Bill will, it is said, inflict upon your Lordships' estates. In the first place I should like to deal with the question of notices to quit and the thorny problem of security of tenure; and if I may be allowed, might I draw a picture of the year 1890 and the picture as I see it in the year 1921? In the year 1890 I was sitting in mg office on September 29, waiting and wondering what number of farmers would send in their notices to quit. Sometimes ten, sometimes 15, sometimes as many as 20 would do so; and any noble Lords—and their must be many—who recall those days will remember that one had to go to the farmer and beg and implore him to take over the land on any terms he thought fit, and he did so on his own terms and on the terns of giving labour only 12 s. per week it is quite trite that the rights of the individual were adequately preserved and safeguarded, and if you could only get a tenant you were perfectly entitled to turn him out, but the difficulty was to get the tenant.
Then what is likely to be the position in September, 1921. The produce of the soil will be guaranteed by a mimimum value promised by the Government, the farmer himself will be secure, the rent will be secure, and there will be no labour disturbances or difficulties in the village, for the labourer will be more or less secure in his cottage, and surely that is a point which is of value to your Lordships and to anybody who resides in the country districts. No disturbances, no ill-feeling, and no unemployment in the villages, and an impartial public authority will settle that odious question the raising of the rent. When I contrast those two situations I greatly prefer the probable situation in 1921. So far as I can see, having listened very carefully to the debate and having attempted to study somewhat the difficult clauses in the Bill, it appears to me that the price you have to pay for that change will not amount to more than one year's purchase. It is quite true that in exceptional cases it may mount up to four times that, but as a general rule the amount will not be anvil inure than one year's purchase.
I was caller so liaised yesterday in listening to the speech of Lord Selborne, of find that he drew a contrast between the farmer on the one hand who had pros-

1233
pered in the war and who got advantages under this Bill, and the landlord who got no profit out of the war and who received no advantages under this Bill. I could not help wondering that the noble Earl himself did not go straight to the root of the question and refer to that which is the major proposition—namely, the incidence of taxation on the estates of your Lordships. In the Finance Act of 1919 a fresh disability has been placed upon us—I do not complain; I merely note the fact—and the position to-day is this, that owing to the immense burdens imposed upon us in the name of Death Duties many estates will only last two generations, and in the course of a century the sum total of the wealth owned by members of this House will have entirely to be recreated if the descendants of noble Lords are to enjoy the same property qualifications and the same property as noble Lords to-day. That seems to me to be the major proposition. That is the governing factor, and one which we have to take into consideration in discussing the terms of this Bill. For what mast have occurred to the minds of the farmers? The farming community must have said with some justice, "These owners of property, in the passage of time, will have to liquidate their estates in order to discharge their obligations to the Government or the general community. We do not know where we stand, and we shall little to part company with our landlord sooner or later; therefore is it unreasonable and not right and proper that we should approach the Government and see that we get some security, some definite pledge, that the industry in which we are involved is one that can be perpetuated, and that we shall not be at the mercy and the victim of a taxation which has been placed upon our landlords."
I pass from the rather unpleasant subject of notice to quit to another which is equally difficult and involved—namely, the question of the raising of rents. There are quite a considerable number of clauses dealing with the raising of rent, but I want to point this out to noble Lords. I think that these financial matters should be done in relation to and in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself because the difficulty to-day is that, if the landlord raises his tenant's rent he inflicts upon the tenant a treble disability. Not only is the rent raised but the incidence of taxation on the farm itself is increased, and also the incidence
1234
of local rates. Therefore if any noble Lord wishes under this Bill to raise the rent of the farm he inflicts upon the tenant a treble disability. The noble Lord (Lord Lee of Fareham) should be able to tell us whether or not the arbitrator would take this fact into consideration. The real truth of the case is that tenant farmers should be made to go under Schedule D, which is under profit. If the tenant farmer was under Schedule D he would pay on his profit; and if the rent were raised, obviously the extra rent accruing to the landlord would proportionately come off the profits of the farmer, and therefore it would be kept in the industry itself. I do not deny that it is smacking a little of Sovietism to give power to the noble Lord to give notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to force all the farmers under Schedule D. I think that a considerable amount of the profits of the industry may be preserved in agriculture instead of being sequestrated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing street.
There is another point which requires consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is the question of repairs. The rigid assessment of repairs is very noticeable in the Bill, and I should like to know exactly how we stand with regard to what is called the maintenance claim. It used to be a fifth of the gross income of the landlord. I was assured by noble Lords last night that now any amount could be spent by the landlord and could be entirely placed under the heading of "maintenance claim." If that is so, it is no hardship on the landlord to impose upon him a considerable amount of responsibility in connection with repairs. But if I am wrong in assuming that is so, it may be that the. Ministry of Agriculture may force the landlord to spend more than the Treasury would allow him to deduct. Upon that point I should like to get some reply from the noble Lord. I could not have supported this Bill if I did not think it contained provisions for perpetuating and making really effective the control of our first industry by the State itself. Many noble Lords spoke last night as if there was still control in agriculture. As far as I can see, all that is done is that whereas formerly your Lordships and your agents controlled and managed your estates, power will now he exercised by a group of public officials. I ant not at all prepared to challenge the noble Lord and say that the

1235
old system was not the better one. But the old system has passed away.
NOBLE LORDS: Why?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908 your Lordships have not the power to control the tillages of any of your tenants. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, was responsible for that Act, by which he gave the tenants of England the right to farm as they liked, The control of the landlord and his agent was entirely removed, and your Lordships' tenants have been farming as they liked since the year 1908.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: 1906.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The Consolidating Act was 1908. I say that that was the effect of the noble Marquess's Bill of 1908, and I asked the Ministry of Agriculture for some figures in connection with it. I asked what was the sum total of food produced in the five years before the Agricultural Holdings Act when the landlords of England and their agents controlled their estates, and what was the total of food produced for the five years subsequent to the Act of 1908, when the farmers themselves were allowed to farm as they liked. The figures given to me are very remarkable and instructive. In every case, apart from the increase in potatoes, the average yield per acre showed a decrease in every single commodity.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: May I interrupt the noble Duke? I think he is mistaken about the Act. If I recollect aright, the Act which gave the tenants control of cultivation was passed in the year 1906.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I think that was the Small Holdings Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: May I explain that 1906 was the Agricultural Holdings Act; 1907 was the Small Holdings Act; and 1908 was the Act which consolidated all the Acts. I think, therefore, the noble Duke is right, 1908 being now the principal Act.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I do not think the right of the farmer to do
1236
as he liked came into operation till 1908. It may be that I might have taken figures for one year earlier, but I do not think, had I done so, that it would affect the figures. They conclusively prove that when there was control there was a greater amount of food produced, and that when control was removed the amount of food was less. What is much more serious is this. A considerable amount of the unexhausted improvements—the manurial value of the soil—were undoubtedly removed by the tenants themselves, but the figures surely show enough to prove the case for control; and the question is whether the control should once again be re-established under the landlord and his agent or whether it should be taken over by a public official. I am afraid that we have moved so fast that it would be impossible to-day to put back the hands of the clock, and we must rely upon the public authority to help and manage and control. The figures that I have given show that the effect of Lord Lincolnshire's efforts was the reverse of his intentions, and, whatever the noble Marquess said last night about the intentions of this Bill, it will at least destroy those effects.
Personally I welcome this Bill and its intention to control. I miss the opportunity that I formerly had of consulting the gifted and experienced intellects on whose authoritative judgment I relied so much for the direction of policy in administering many thousands of acres. In my humble judgment direction is vital, and I therefore cannot see why the farmers of England should object to receive the advice and wise counsel of those who, we presume, must know well. I hope, if I am permitted to do so, that I shall be allowed to avail myself of the advice of the members of the Council which the noble Lord is proposing to set up—the Council of Agriculture which was included in the measure passed last year, and the members of which Council I understand are shortly to meet together. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Fareham, will be able to assure us in the course of the debate that it is his fixed resolve and policy, and that it is the policy of the Cabinet as a whole, to make this control the expression of the deliberate thought and the wisest agricultural brains in England, and that it is not to be the haphazard judgment of an unreflecting successor in the Office which he holds.

1237
After all, control and direction go together, and it would be impossible successfully to maintain and develop the resources of the land of England unless the direction is right, good, sensible and intelligent. We rely upon the Government for that direction. We are right in doing so, are we not? We are entitled to look to the Government in the future for direction. I welcome that direction, and I heartily support the noble Lord if he will only give it to me. Few people seem to appreciate that even the Government itself sometimes errs in direction. Only the other day the Government promised to put 25 per cent. of English wheat into the quartern loaf, and for some reason or other which I do not know and which perhaps some member of the Government can explain, it has allowed that to be cut down to 15 per cent., the consequence being that a great amount of English wheat was flung on the market and millers were unable to take it. The farmers had to take it back into their barns, and 8 per cent. of their money is lying idle in consequence of lack of direction on the part of His Majesty's Government themselves only bring that to the notice of the noble Lord for this reason, that any lack of proper direction is resented bitterly by the farming community and is very likely to prejudice him in their eyes in any future rules, regulations, or orders which he desires to impose upon them.
One other point in this connection is that no work can be carried out properly and effectively unless it is part of a great general scheme. I would like to bring to the notice of noble Lords in particular the question of the adequate drainage of the land of England. There is a cleaning clause in the Bill dealing with drains, and I am rather at a loss to make out whether the obligation falls upon the tenant or upon the landlord. If it falls upon the tenant and he can show that he has already spent several pounds per acre in the employment of labour, it would be rather difficult to impose an order upon him to clear out all his ditches. If it falls upon the landlord and the landlord can show that he has spent one-fifth of his income in the maintenance of his estate, I think the noble Lord will find it rather difficult to impose a fresh burden there. It seems to me that the noble Lord would be well advised if he considered the possibility of having the whole of the ditches and hedges of England administered out of
1238
public funds. After all, what is it the Bill proposes to do? It proposes to recultivate the soil of England. The farmers are to-day spending £4 per acre on arable and grass land mixed and £6 per acre on arable land, and you are asking them to spend nearly £20 per acre in increasing the production of their land between now and the next twelve months. Is it wise, is it prudent to insist upon that policy unless you are sure that a great portion of the land of England which is to-day water-logged has the water removed from it and the soil upon which you desire these crops to grow placed in a condition to produce, them in as effective and fruitful manner as possible.
I hope that the noble Lord will not regard my remarks as being in any sense hortatory. I merely desire to point out as a practical man the great difficulties and problems with which he is faced, and that unless the soil is placed in a condition properly to produce these crops and the hedges are cut down so as to prevent animals and so on from getting at those crops—unless those two factors are dealt with, as I think they should be, on a national basis, I fear that some of the fruitful results the noble Lord expects from this Bill, and with which I desire to associate myself, will not be obtained.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Duke through his speech except to say that I do not think that cutting down the hedges will make a very great difference. I shall try to confine myself to what I consider the really important part of the Bill—the question of expenditure. I had hoped during the course of this debate that some member of the Government would rise in his place and give your Lordships some sort of estimate, however rough and ready, as to what the charge upon the taxpayer is likely to be during the next few years, and also some estimate of the increase of food they expect to get by that expenditure. I was fortunate only a short time ago to hear a speech on this very question delivered by Mr. Lambert, who used to be Member for South Moulton and whom I have heard on this subject on more than one occasion. He put the case very strongly indeed, but he received no answer in another place, and we have heard no answer to it here during the whole of these debates. I think you Lordships would be well advised, before

1239
allowing the Bill to pass into law, to insist that the Government should make some authoritative declaration as to what it is to cost and what results are likely to be attained.
Speaking for myself, I can only say as a general proposition that as far as the Bill is concerned I have no faith in the success of an industry which depends for its prosperity on Government control and a subsidy from the taxpayer. Having stated that, I turn to some of those arguments which have been used in recommending this Bill to your Lordships and to the country. If I may say so, all the authoritative speeches which have been delivered in support of the Bill have been based purely on the grounds of national security and safety. The one thing that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill mainly insisted upon, both at the beginning of his speech and in the peroration, was national security and safety from submarines.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am not going to press the question as regards the alternative values of grass or pasture; I am only going to read this letter which was sent out to the agricultural committees at the time we were asked to plough up the land—
"The acreage now under plough is in many cases exhausted. On the other hand newly ploughed glass land is cleaner than most of the existing arable land. It is in a much higher manurial condition, and it is therefore capable of producing more corn within the next few years."
That letter is dated November 5, 1917. I do not wish to labour this point, because all of us are agreed that if you want to grow good crops and it is a question of the fertility of the soil, you will get much better crops from such land than from existing already ploughed land. I believe that is admitted, and that is one principle which influenced the noble Lord in his Ploughing Orders at the time of grave national danger in 1917.
I am much impressed by the noble Lord's argument on this question, that our danger was from the submarines and that he wanted to put us in an assured position. But I want to ask the noble Lord this question if he founds his Bill on that claim. Was it because our land was in grass or
1240
greatly in grass or was it owing to our obsolete land system that these dangers occurred? I am perfectly certain if he looks into the matter he will find that it was not on account of those two causes that we were in dire peril of being starved out. I have dealt with the question of grass. As to the fertility of it, I believe it was a very valuable asset indeed in those days of trial. But there was another cause. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who spoke the other night, is the man who first attempted to arouse the country during the war to the danger of our position. The terrible danger that we got into in 1917 was not, in my opinion and from all the information I have received, owing to our obsolete land system or to the fact that a large amount of our land was under grass, but to the fact that the Admiralty turned down the advice given by Lord Selborne, who was President of the Board of Agriculture at the time. In 1915 Lord Selborne wanted to start this ploughing campaign. He foresaw the danger, and he said, "This war will go on for some years; we must try to produce more food at home. Now in the time to set to work to use the fertility of our grass land." What happened? If the information I have received is correct it was the Admiralty who turned that scheme down, and it was not until two years afterwards, in the year 1917, when our ships were being sunk by submarines at the rate of fifteen a month, that the Admiralty found out their mistake; and at vast expense—all honour to them—Lord Ernle and Lord Lee had to set to work on that hurricane campaign of trying to provide food for the people. I only quote that because I think it is an important factor when we come to deal with this question in a Bill which is to alter the whole system of land tenure in this country and to alter the principles of corn production. If it is to be based on the necessity of providing food for the people in emergency, then the whole facts of the case ought to be known. In addition to the mistakes of the Admiralty there was also a great mistake committed owing to our haphazard method of recruiting at the beginning of the war. I think myself that the noble Lord (Lord Lee) will agree with me. At the beginning of the war all the good fellows, the patriotic men, the strongest and the beat and the most skilled, volunteered and went out to do their best in France and all over the world.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: And saved the nation.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes, and saved the nation in doing it. And later on many of those skilled men were most urgently wanted at home to help in cultivating the soil. It was the same in other industries. Not only agriculture but munitions suffered. All this tended towards our troubles in 1917 and 1918, and it was not our land system which was at fault.
After what fell from Lord Milner last night I should like to deal with the question of national security. I feel that it would be presumptuous on my part to criticise anything, said by such a great financial authority as Lord Milner. I was a humble follower of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and Lord Milner when they attempted to place British agriculture in a preferential position compared with foreign agriculture by proposing a modest duty of 2s. on corn imported into this country. I am therefore very sorry that on this question of national security I must part company with Lord Milner. I thought he spoke last night somewhat lightly of 10's of millions, 20's of millions, and 30's of millions which might have to be found by the taxpayers in order to encourage wheat-growing in this country. The noble Duke also dealt with this question, and it is, of course, an indisputable proposition that every quarter of wheat, we grow at home saves the importation of a quarter of wheat from abroad. But I am not quite certain that that is sound financially. If I were asked to put money into this thing—and we are asked to put money into it as taxpayers—I should very much like to see some balance, sheet presented, and something more definite placed in the prospectus than was advanced by Lord Milner. Because, however desirable it may be that we should grow corn at home there must be a limit of cost, and it cannot be a business proposition to call upon the taxpayers to pay millions and millions of money to grow an article which can be produced at half or a quarter of the cost in another country.
Though I agree with a great deal of his argument, the whole time that it was being put Mote us by Lord Milner I seemed to recall another policy that was put before us only a short time ago and to hear an echo of the bulging corn bins of Russia and of the fertile plains of Mesopotamia and the Garden of Eden. If we are to get our corn
1242
and our oil from Mesopotamia and to spend hundreds of millions in conquering Mesopotamia in order to obtain that oil and corn, is it a good proposition to spend millions more here in order to get corn to compete with it? Let us have sonic declaration from the Government. Either let us embark upon foreign expeditions in Mesopotamia or make terms with the Bolsheviks in order to get corn from the bulging corn bins of Russia. I do not think that the country can afford to give huge subsidies to grow corn in this country and at the same time embark upon foreign conquest and expensive military expeditions in order to get under our control nations from whom we think we can get the corn. It is for this reason that I differ from noble Lords whose opinion I value very highly and who have placed the question of the security of this country in the forefront of their arguments.
I regret extremely that during this debate we have had absolutely no estimate of what the cost is to be, or of the results which are likely to accrue. Last week attended a good many nights here, and I was grieved indeed to hear of the financial difficulties of noble Lords from Ireland. They pointed out how impossible it was in Ireland to borrow money under the Irish Acts or to pay their taxes. We are suffering a bit from the same complaint here. When we are asked to spend money for the sake of national security I really think we should ask ourselves the simple question, Can we afford it During the next few months we shall have claims for the Army and Navy, we shall have claims for the Air Force, we shall have claims for the dye industry, we have had claims and shall have claims for public health—all brought forward in the interests of national security.
Before we go much further with this subject we ought to have some balance-sheet and know exactly whether we are going to get a quid pro quo for the money we have to spend. It may be said that that is asking a good deal from the Government, but there is one estimate which they could have given us, and that is an estimate of what they believe is the cost of the administration of this Act. I believe in another place this was brushed aside and the country was informed that the only cost of this Act was the pay of three Commissioners, who were to find out what the price of corn was to be. I

1243
believe that is the truth, but I do not think it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because this Act is bound up with other Acts. It is bound up with the Corn Production Act and with the Agriculture Act, and those Acts cost a great deal of money. I can only say from my own experience that in every county of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland there will be agricultural committees, the members of which it is recommended should be paid their travelling expenses.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAMdissented.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord shakes his head in negation, but I happen to be on the committee of a County Council which was appointed to draw up one of these agricultural committees under the noble Lord's Agriculture Bill, and we received a recommendation as to the formation of this committee, and there in black and white it is put down as one of the recommendations that these councillors should be paid for their attendance and their travelling expenses. What is more, it is only a few days ago that on an agricultural committee we received information that all the mileage allowance was to go down. All these things could be roughly estimated by the Government, and they could really give us some idea of what the staff in London is going to cost, what these committees are going to cost, and what the permanent officials are going to cost. If I may say sop during the war expenses as regards the cost of officials in the working of committees were not so great as they will be under this Bill. During the war hundreds of thousands of men did voluntary service on committees and never asked for a penny of pay and never received a penny of travelling allowances. That is not going to go on under this Bill it is perfectly certain. I do not wish to go into petty details about the matter. I can only say that I did protest against the members being paid for attending these committees as I said that education committees, which probably work a great deal harder, are not paid, and I thought it not proper that the agricultural committees should be paid. The point is that this is going to cost the country a lot of money seeing that there are all these officials attached to it, and I am quite certain that there is a growing feeling in the country against this control and
1244
all the expenses with which it is accompanied. I am perfectly certain that a good deal of this work could just as well be done by a good estate agent as by numerous visits from a number of inspectors and committeemen who are all buzzing about the country in motor cars at the public expense.
During the war it did not matter. We all made a push, and we all did it in the hope that in that way we were helping to beat the Germans. But things are different to-day. Money is scarcer, and there is a growing feeling of resentment among the people that these schemes should be continually brought forward, which simply mean added expense. My estimate of expenditure under this Bill is something between £200,000 and £300,000 a year as representing what it is going to cost the country. I do think there is a growing feeling of resentment among the people at having to pay these officials and having the burden of control when they see very few tangible results at the end of it.
I should like to pass from the argument of those noble Lords who support the Bill on the ground of national security to the other argument used to support this Bill which was brought forward so ably by Lord Ernle. I confess when I listened to him I almost cried. What did he tell us? I hope I am not misrepresenting him. He did not tell us that the desert was going to blossom like the rose; he sees things through different spectacles from those of the Prime Minister. He told us that the argument for the acceptance of this Bill was that we had better take it because we might get something worse. It is a sad look-out. He told us, "Take this Bill or worse will befall you."
I ask you briefly to consider what in plain English are the main provisions of the Bill. How do they affect the landlord? The landlord under this Bill will be told what rent he is to receive; the landlord under this Bill will be told whom he is to evict; the landlord under this Bill will be told what repairs and improvements he is to execute. The tenant under this Bill will be told what rent he has to pay; he will be told how he is to cultivate his land, and he will be told what wages he has to pay his labourer. The labourer is going to be told what wages he is to receive, and how many hours he shall work. Well, my Lords, it is pretty strong. When the

1245
noble Lord says, "You should accept this Bill because you may get something worse," I am doubtful if you can get anything touch worse. He said, "If you do not accept this Bill you may have nationalisation." That made, us all feel cold, and we had a shiver when he told us that. I often turn over in my mind, What is nationalization? I always imagined nationalisation to mean that the State stepped in, took a man's property, paid him compensation for it, managed it as it thought fit, and took the profits for the nation. It is what the Government have been doing in the past few years with the railways. I rather think it is what they have done with coal in the past year. Instead of paying a sum down they make an annual payment; they guarantee to shareholders in the railways their earnings of 1913.
But apparently under this Bill an arbitrator is to say what rent is to be paid, or you are to get a rent paid you, but not on the actual value of the land. That is nationalisation without confiscation—a nationalisation in which the Government may say how everyone is to carry on his business and how every labourer and man is to work, and pay no compensation whatsoever. This Bill, if I may point out, goes very much in that direction, because by the Bill there is an arbitrator who is to say what tent is to be paid. There is also a very dangerous clause in this Bill and one which I believe has never occurred in any system of nationalisation before. What does it say? It says that the owner of the property is not to be judge of what are suitable repairs to his buildings or land; he is not to be the judge of what is an improvement to his property. A third party, a Government agent, is to be judge of what repairs are necessary and what improvements are to be carried out, not at the nation's expense but at the man's expense whose land is nationalised. I never heard of such a proposition. It certainly is not done in the case of the railways, and I am not quite certain whether it was done in the case of coal. If I may say so, I believe it to be a purely new principle in nationalisation, for any system of nationalisation which has occurred up to the present has laid down the rule that either you compensate or confiscate. Having given compensation, and having said a man is entitled to so much for having taken away from him the management of his property,
1246
I never heard it suggested that he must after that find capital expenditure out of the income you allow him in order to carry out the improvements which the Government, through its agent, thinks necessary and profitable.
I can only say that if this Bill is to be recommended to us on the ground that should we not accept it we shall get something worse, it is a poor look out for any property owner in this country. I do not regard the land particularly, for if the owner of land is to be left no power over the management of his own property, land is not the only thing that is going to be confiscated. In spite of the dire prophecies of Lord Ernie as regards landowners, if the land is taken away without compensation I do not think that railway shareholders or holders of Government securities are in any better position than landowners.
I wish in conclusion to state what in my opinion should be our action as regards this Bill. I should like first of all to refer to its reception in the House of Commons. It was not anything to boast about. Although the noble Duke has stated that it was passed by substantial majorities it is really a significant fact that a measure, brought forward as the charter for agriculture, could only find some 160 members in the House of Commons to support it.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: How many against?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Twelve, I think. Out of over 700 members only 160 voted for it. I recollect a stern fight in the House of Commons for a measure which did do agriculture some good—the Agricultural Rates Act—and I know perfectly well that there were a great many more than 160 members who supported it. A large number of the members of the House of Commons who have an interest in agriculture purposely abstained from supporting the Bill, and did not vote against the Third Reading, although they did not like it. I do not blame them. What was their position? If they had voted against the Third Reading the Bill would have been thrown out; it would have been killed. Our position in this House is different. We have no longer a power of veto. We can no longer kill a Bill. All we can do is to delay and revise, and in my opinion if ever there was a case when

1247
your Lordships should exercise the power of delay it is in connection with the present Bill. I will tell you why.
In the first instance there is no need for this Bill for the next few months. The only thing the Bill refers to, as regards the production of corn in this country, is the production of wheat and oats for next year. The maximum price has not been fixed. There will not be any more wheat put into the ground because the wheat is in already, or I hope it is. It will not affect that. In addition, you have the Corn Production Act still in effect; your Wages Board under that Act will continue, and I believe also that you have full powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. The greater part of the agricultural policy during the last four or five years has not been carried out under the Corn Production Act, but under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I believe I am correct that, as regards agriculture, the Defence of the Realm Act is still in force.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Until the end of the war.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Then I am quite right in my statement. What is the position? The position is this. If it is not going to be effective before next year you will not meet the difficulty which will have to be faced this winter and next spring. At the present moment there is absolutely no guarantee except the guarantee under the Corn Production Act of 45 s. a quarter for wheat. That is the only guarantee. Wages are very high and farmers are practically unable to sell anything. It is not a question of prices; there are no offers. You can bring to the market your barley, your oats and wheat, but what chance have you of selling? What chance have farmers of selling their wool for the next year or two? It is not a question of prices. You cannot sell anything; and if that is to continue how will the farmer during the next winter and swing be able to go on paying these wages? If I am not mistaken the difficulty the Government will have to meet is that during the next three or four months they will have to do something under the Defence of the Realm Act to deal with the serious situation which will probably occur in rural districts owing to unemployment.
If we do not give a Second Reading to this Bill we shall, of course, be open to
1248
misconception, and it will be said that all the trouble has arisen owing to the action of the House of Lords. It will not of course be true. I say without fear of contradiction that if your Lordships decide to delay this Bill by refusing to give it a Second Reading it is the right and the straightforward course to pursue. Nobody wants the Bill, and a straightforward policy is always the best. If it is desired by the country, if it can be shown by next spring or summer that the vast expenditure you are likely to put on the country by this measure will bring adequate results, bring in your Bill, pass it through the House of Commons in two or three days and it can then come before your Lordships again.
We ought to pause, in view of the enormous financial difficulties with which the country is faced before we give this Bill a Second Reading. We have always been told, everyman who considers the financial position of the British Empire at the moment is always told, that if we want economies we must look to policy. Policy governs finance. That is perfectly true, and I appeal to your Lordships, now you have the chance in some way to direct policy and by that means to influence the finance of the country, to use your votes in favour of economy.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, for the admirable speech he has delivered. He has relieved me from many things that I desired to say. On the other hand I do not pin myself to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. My view, after a careful consideration of the whole question, is that the agricultural world, threatened with a fall of prices which promises to become more acute, might suffer serious disabilities if this Bill disappeared, especially if the fall in prices should occur much more suddenly than we expect. If we could depend on prices continuing I should not have a moment's hesitation in moving the rejection of what I regard as one of the worst Bills I have ever seen introduced into Parliament. Although I give full credit to the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture for his explanation and all the work and trouble he has devoted to this question, all the inquiries he has made, all the great efforts in addition to introduce a Bill which might meet the requirements of different parties and still pass into law; although I am fully aware of all that and

1249
although I am strongly convinced that the great object of this Bill and the great object of all your Lordships and of the House of Commons is to increase as largely as we can the production of home-grown food in this country, in order thereby to avoid great perils which otherwise we might not avoid, my own opinion still is that the Bill is of a character which I have endeavoured briefly to describe.
May I say a few words in reference to the appeal made by my noble friend? I think that the public and Parliament ought to be informed without further delay what the probable cost of this Bill will be. The noble Lord said two or three hundred thousand pounds, but so far as I can form a judgment, it will be infinitely greater than that. In these days, unhappily, so many Government Departments think in millions rather than in thousands that if the amount falls within the limits suggested by the noble Lord I shall be greatly pleased and much more surprised. I also wish now to refer, lest I should forget to do so, to the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne, with which in great measure I agree. I think it was en admirable and a most temperate speech delivered on a very serious occasion. But I am reminded by the statements of various speakers in this debate that this Bill is founded largely on the Report of a sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee. I have examined that Report. I do not mean to say that I hive read every word of it with the greatest care, or that I have followed the evidence which was given, but I have looked into it. I found that it was preceded by an historical survey on the agricultural position, conducted by one of the secretaries of the Committee, and I read that the years 1870–78 were not years of agricultural depression and that in those years a farmer who kept his land under the plough and grew wheat crops made fair profits.
When I read that I thought I must have gone off my head, because I remembered perfectly well that in the year 1879 I moved for the first Royal Commission on agricultural depression, which at that moment, and for some years previously, had reached the most alarming crisis. That Commission was granted at once. It was supported from the other side of the House, and seconded by the late Lord Brassey, and Mr. Disraeli not only immediately granted the Resolution which I moved but paid me the compliment of
1250
writing to say that he should take my Resolution as the reference to the Royal Commission. I have not brought the volume with me, but I referred to it this morning. We had to inquire into Ireland as well as England and we made a preliminary report in regard to Ireland. I find that in Ireland, in common with the rest of the United Kingdom, there had been the greatest suffering from the depression in agriculture in the years 1877, 1878 and 1879. Not only that, but turning for confirmation to a book called "The History of Farming, Past and Present," by a former Minister of Agriculture, who made an admirable speech last night, what I found was this—that there were various periods which could be called great crises of depression, and such a crisis arose—I wrote it on my shirt sleeve just, before coming down to the House—from 1875 to 1884.
if the Report referred to as one of the main authorities for asking us to support this Bill can be so inaccurate on such a subject as that of the awful depression—there is no other phrase for it—which occurred at that time, all I can say is that the Report rests upon very much more slender foundations than I should have thought could have been possible.
Now I want to say two or three words upon the different classes which this Bill must naturally affect. They are four in number. The first are the owners of landed estates; the second are the occupiers of the land; the third are the actual tillers of the soil; and the fourth are the consumers of the home-grown food. With regard to the landowners I think the question was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Selborne last night. I took his words down and they were to the effect that during the war the landowner got nothing but gave everything. Yes, so he did, not only in treasure but in blood. I shall never forget the day in this House when I heard the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, make that most moving speech in which he described your Lordships' House, after the innumerable losses of sons, relations, intimate friends and others, as a House of mourning indeed. No class has ever been so little recognised for what its members have done in the past in connection with this Bill as the landed class of this country; the great landowners in particular, who have succeeded to their estates upon which it is no exaggeration to say that the farmers, the tenants who occupy the land,

1251
the men who cultivate it, the tillers of the soil, were all more or less regarded in the days that I can remember, forty or fifty years ago, as belonging rather to the same family than to anything else. Between them all there was nothing but a feeling of the deepest friendship and regard, and yet no class in connection with this Bill is so harshly treated as they have been.
I come to the occupiers. You have done everything you can do for them. It is a very curious coincidence, but looking at the same Report one of the paragraphs which I came across was in relation to agricultural labourers. What it said was that they never were so well off in their lives. They are the only, class who have suffered nothing, and why? Because the prices of wheat, which I knew to my cost and which I am never likely to forget, have fallen front 62 s. pa quarter. When I succeeded to my estates the prosperity of the county of Lincolnshire was something that I have never seen paralleled elsewhere. Every little shop, in every little village, in every small town, and in all the great county towns like Lincoln and Grantham, where these great agricultural implement factories were springing up every day, and were extending their works and selling their produce in all parts of the world, was prosperous. There was never anything like the prosperity which prevailed in those days, and as for the agricultural labourers, they were the most splendid fellows I ever saw in my life. In those days many ploughing meetings were held and prizes were given for agricultural work, and the pride these men took in it all was charming to see. The way they did their work was better than anything I have seen since, and indeed it is perfectly true that in those days the county of Lincoln was always held to be, what it was, the premier farming county in England.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Will the noble Viscount say what were the wages of the farm labourers in those days.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think they were 17 s. 6d., and with the difference in the price of wheat they were infinitely more than compensated for any difference in wages. I remember the black day in 1879, in Lincoln market, when the quotation for wheat was 17 s. 6d. per quarter, and it never rose to more than 22 s. or 23 s. for many years afterwards. The Government have done everything in the world that it is
1252
possible to do for the tillers of the soil but my apprehension is that this cannot possibly last, and for one reason alone which so few people not connected with agriculture understand or know anything about. They all forget that the great majority of the land in this country is poor or moderate land, and such land cannot be cultivated so as to grow corn in the way that this Bill proposes, except at a loss at the wages which are fixed by the present Wages Boards.
I am not going to dwell to-day upon the question, which I shall raise in Committee and make quite clear—namely, that a great breach of faith was committed towards the farmers. On February 23, 1917, the Prime Minister gave a definite pledge that no Wages Boards would be set up till after the war or until the prices in the Corn Production Bill had expired, and they are in existence to-day. I will give the noble Lord chapter and verse for the statement which I make upon this point, because I think it is very desirable that the facts should be known, for farmers are very often the subject of much abuse. What I want to say is this. The agricultural labourer, so far as I know him, and I have known thousands and thousands in my life, and the farmer as well, are all of them the best people in the world to lead, but they are the very worst people to try and drive, especially when they have the smallest suspicion that the people who are trying to drive them are people who really do not know and understand the business of which they have charge. That is too often the case, I fear, in many of the Government Departments, and especially in the new Government Departments which have been created within the last few years.
As far as I know anything about agriculture it is perfectly possible to fulfil the aspirations of the noble Lord who is now Minister of Agriculture, and I have every possible sympathy with him, in growing enough corn of different kinds, and especially if you take into account the fact that flour can be used for making bread which is made from potatoes and oats as well as from wheat and barley—it is perfectly possible that you may grow enough to make your country safe from any danger of famine, but it will be an extremely costly thing to do. It fell to my lot in the year 1882–3 to promote an agitation in which, after a year's very hard work in the North of England and elsewhere, I was successful in obtaining a Royal Commission to inquire

1253
and report upon the condition of our food supply in time of war. I do not know whether the noble Lord ever had an opportunity of reading or considering that question. If he has not, I should be very glad if he would allow me some day to come and talk to him about it. I have it at my fingers' ends, and I could probably save him a great deal of trouble.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: May I remind my noble friend that he was good enough to draw my attention to it when we were both members of the House of Commons, and that I made a speech in support of it at his request, and he was kind enough to compliment me afterwards on having mastered the subject.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord tells me, and I am going to press this upon him again. Now that I may say I have an ally on the point, I shall not waste the time of the House. One of the Reports made, every word of which I wrote myself, contained a provision made by one of the ablest men I have ever known, Mr. Marshall Stevens, who bought the de Trafford property at Manchester for £300,000, which is now worth at the very least £5,000,000. That shows that he knew what he was about. He made a proposal to His Majesty's Government to provide granaries on the Manchester Ship Canal. The largest ships were to come alongside elevators and pump the wheat into them, and it could be taken away again when it was wanted. To encourage people to use these elevators it was provided that the storage should be rent free. Your Lordships may imagine what that meant when the price of storage on the other side of the Atlantic was 3s. a quarter. My noble friend the Chairman of the Commission, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, told us one day in the course of examining a witness that so acute was the competition in wheat that the difference in price of a single cent made the difference between making a fortune or losing one. I came to the conclusion, and the majority of the Commission came to the same conclusion, that it was a perfectly feasible proposition, and if the opportunity has not been lost since then it is a proposition to be pressed upon the Government at the present time. They should use all the forces in their power to give effect to it. The cost was going to be trifling. The Report of the Commission states that to
1254
begin with the cost would be comparatively trifling, and would not add more than one-quarter of a cent. to what is annually spent at the present time on the national defence of the country. That ought to be an inducement to my noble friend, when he sees the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture going up by leaps and bounds. When I was head of the Department the Estimates were £230,000 a year, and during Mr. Long's term of Office they were £250,000. What are the Estimates to-day? How many millions do they run to, and what is done for agriculture more than we did at that time? Those are questions to which I think the public would like to have some answer. I have said a few words upon this subject which I hope will not be altogether without use. I shall not vote for the rejection of the Bill, but I shall do my utmost in Committee drastically to amend it. If we find that we cannot amend it as we think it ought to be amended, I at all events shall join with my noble friend Lord Ancaster in voting against the measure.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, we have had advice front three noble Lords as to the course which it would be wise for us to adopt regarding this measure. The noble Duke advises us to pass it as likely to be of a most beneficial character to agriculture, and from a very wide and general purview of the whole situation he anticipates evidently enormous gains. The noble Earl who spoke from the backbenches advised your Lordships to reject the Bill, and the noble Viscount who has just spoken, with his enormous experience in agricultural legislative matters, advises your Lordships that it is one of the worst agricultural Bills that to his knowledge has ever been introduced into Parliament, and I suppose he knows more about agricultural Bills than any one in either House. But he is not going to vote with the noble Marquess for the rejection of the Bill.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: No, because I hope to amend it.
LORD HARRIS: am going to take the liberty of advising your Lordships from an entirely different point of view. I am certainly not going to support the noble Marquess in rejecting the Bill. I think that would be, from a Party political point of view, tactically very unwise.

1255
It would be seized hold of by the Party of disorder in this country, who would make capital out of it, not immediately perhaps, but in the course of a few years when the opportunity occurred. They would make use of it to make any changes that were going to be introduced in the Second Chamber still more drastic than may be at present contemplated by His Majesty's Government. It would be dangerous at this moment for this House to reject the Bill. If the House of Commons had taken it into its head to reject it, it might have been a wise action, but it was not going to run its head into that noose; it thought it much safer to pass it OH to this House for your Lordships to take the risk of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire. I think your Lordships would be very unwise if you allowed yourselves to be taken in that trap. Therefore, from that point of view, I am going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
I admit that if the Bill was going to be as unfavourable to the agricultural industry as apparently the noble Earl on the backbenches thinks, and as, I suppose, the noble Viscount thinks from his saying that it is the worst Bill he has ever seen, I would put that in the forefront before the Party political question, but I do not think that view is right; therefore I am prepared to vote for the Second Reading. Regarding the reasons for introducing this Bill, I should like to say that I have done what I imagine many of your Lordships have not done—I have read every single word of the evidence in the three volumes of the Blue-book of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and I certainly rose from that perusal with no conviction that any adequate reasons had been brought forward for a change in the system of agriculture in this country unless it be, of course, from the point of view of the necessity of growing wheat. I could not find in it any real complaints of the ill-treatment of tenants or the tyranny of landlords. I waded through a very very voluminous mass of evidence in which there was an enormous amount of quite unnecessary repetition—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
LORD HARRIS: —involving a great waste of time. On rising from the perusal of those three volumes the effect on my mind was that we ought to be very well
1256
satisfied in this country with the arrangement of landlord and tenant and as regards the system of agriculture; that we grew on the whole as large crops as the climate of the country permitted; and that those crops were well adapted, having regard to the price, to the soils upon which they were grown. I understand that if the members of the Royal Commission on Agriculture had ever been able to agree to a Report, which they could not, they were to give the reasons for the Bill which has now been introduced. I cannot admit that the result of my examination of that Report justifies the Bill, though there may be other very good reasons for it.
I said just now that I was prepared to support this measure from an agricultural point of view—that is to say, I do not object to its passing from an agricultural point of view. I do not think it is going to make very much difference. The system of agriculture in this country rises superior to legislation, and it will proceed in its calm and methodical way despite all the laws you may pass.
I should like to tell again a story which I have told your Lordships more than once. I went to India a good many years ago, just after the Government of India in its paternal way had thought it was its duty to teach the Indian farmers how to farm and had sent for Professor Voelcker, an eminent agricultural chemist, as your Lordships know. Professor Voelcker travelled for a year all over India and studied many systems of agriculture in that vast agricultural country. On his way home he passed through Poona where I was at the time, and having known him at home he came to see me and presented me with his Blue-book, a fairly substantial volume. He said, "You will find a great deal of very interesting matter in that Blue-book but the gist of it is in the last paragraph." I looked at the last paragraph and there were these words—
"The Indian farmer knows very well how to farm. I have nothing to teach him."
That was the result of trying to apply English methods to Indian farming on farmers who knew their business thoroughly well.
During the very long period I have had a seat in this House I have taken part in the discussion of, I forget how many agricultural Bills, but I suppose quite three, and I can honestly say that there is always this to be remembered about

1257
agriculture—that we cannot be dogmatic about it even in a small country like Great Britain, because the methods, the climate, and the soil differ so materially that one cannot speak positively except about that area which one knows intimately. I cannot detect, either as regards myself or my tenants or as regards any of my neighbours or their tenants, that those Acts have made any difference. As I said before, agriculture rises superior to legislation. My own opinion is that in another ten years if this Bill passes, amended as I hope it will be, you will find it has not made very much difference, that apiculture has gone on in very much the same way, that we are still superior to every other country in the production of flocks and herds and horses, and superior to nearly every other country in the world in the amount we produce per acre. Holding that opinion, your Lordships can understand why I do not mind the Bill passing and why I ant not afraid of it.
A great deal of what is going to be done under this Bill depends upon the agricultural committees, and I take the liberty of expressing the hope, very modestly and respectfully, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is going to be very careful about those committees. The Prime Minister has burned his fingers very badly over agriculture on more than one occasion, and he does not want the chickens to conic home to roost in the ease of the agricultural committees as they have done in regard to the land clauses of the Finance Act of 1909. If these committees are good committees—that is to say, committees that understand agriculture—they are not going to interfere very much with the good tenant. If they are bad committees—that is to say, committees who do not know much about it—they will cause trouble. I am told, on very good evidence indeed, that there are two county committees that have not one solitary representative on them who knows anything whatever about agriculture, and that there are some others on which the agricultural representation is very limited.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: May I remind the noble Lord that one-third of the members of these committees are, in any case, appointed by me. I hope he does not suggest that none of my nominees in any case have agriculture experience, because I can assure him that it is the very reverse.
LORD HARRIS: I do not for one moment distrust the noble Lord, but he is not going to be there for ever. Other noble Lords will conic after him, and there is no assurance that they are going to appoint agricultural representatives on these committees. If the committees are good committees they are not going to interfere very much with the system of agriculture in this country. They are not going to burn their fingers. But if they are going to be paid committees and if an order is going to issue from the Ministry of Agriculture or the Cabinet that they are to order ploughing regardless of what it costs to grow corn and are going to assume a tyrannical policy and order ploughing to a very great extent, then there is one inevitable result—that where it cannot pay to grow corn the farmer will be broke and will complain and it will come back upon Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Lloyd George, as I said, does not want to burn his fingers a second time, or perhaps I might more justly say a third or fourth time, over an agricultural matter, and I venture very respectfully and modestly to suggest to the noble Lord that he must be very careful, if he has not been so already, as regards the personnel of these agricultural committees.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Hear, hear.
LORD HARRIS: I ant not afraid of the good committees, because I have had experience of one. In the county where I reside we have a very good committee which has done most excellent work. They have prosecuted careless farmers in two or three cases with excellent results. They have taken over land—2,000 or 3,000 acres, I think—where it has been badly farmed, and they have shown what can be done by good farming. In both cases an excellent example. And that is what we want. We want to get rid of the bad farmer, and I am thankful for this Bill because it relieves me of the responsibility of getting rid of a very bad tenant. I report him to the agricultural committee, and they come round and, if they agree with me, it is they who have to take the responsibility of turning him off the land, not I. Or again, if a tenant is farming badly and you do not care to give hint notice, you bring in the agricultural committee again as a warning to hint that he has got to cut his thistles, or to do some agricultural operation which he has not

1259
been doing in the past, and which he ought to have done. And, in fact, you get a great deal of help from the agricultural committees if they are really expert. I am not afraid of them, and that is one reason why I am prepared to support the Bill.
As regards the probability of a very large increase in the cultivation of wheat, of course if the Cabinet or the Ministry of Agriculture are going to issue orders to these agricultural committees then you may see a very much larger acreage of wheat than you would under natural conditions. But, as regards the Costings Commission, three fortunate gentlemen—fortunate so far as their salaries are concerned, extremely unfortunate, I think, as regards the work they have to perform—are going to decide what is the cost of producing corn.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM LORD LEE OF FAREHAM dissented.
LORD HARRIS: Well, they are going to come to some decision which will enable somebody or other to say what the minimum guarantee should be. I understand from the Bill that the minimum guarantee will depend to some extent upon the cost of production of wheat and oats. It is on the costings of wheat and oats that the guarantee will depend. I said just now that this is a subject upon which we ought to be extremely modest and not to dogmatise, but it is the business of these unfortunate gentlemen to dogmatise. They have to lay down a price for the whole country, regardless of weather, regardless of soil, regardless of the cost of labour. What will they do? Of course they will average; what else can they do? They must average. And what does that mean? It means that the good soils will be favoured, and the bad soils will be penalised. Of course that must happen. Is that likely to induce a very large increase in the acreage of corn? I should doubt it. And that is why I think you will find, after a year's experience of the decisions of the Costings Commission, that is to say of the guaranteed price, that the agricultural committees will be very chary indeed of telling the tenant—certainly on poor soils, and I should say on medium soils—to increase his cereal cultivation. And therefore again I think you will find that agriculture will rise superior to legislation.
1260
There is one thing I cannot find out from this Bill—I do not think it is in it. I do not see any correlation between the Castings Commission and the Wages Board, and that is a serious matter. It is a very serious matter at this very day. This morning I see in the papers two most ominous statements. One is that the Lincolnshire farmers hay been advised by some Association—I think it is called the Holland Association—not to send their corn to market on account of prices. And I see in the same paper a statement that the Wages Board is going again into the question of prices, and I should imagine, from the prices that are mentioned, that that means they are going to consider whether wages should not be put up again. If wages are put up again and prices fall—and they have fallen recently, and they are falling—there is going to be trouble, and particularly for this reason, that the system of fixing wages is arbitrary. Of course, you may say it is six to one and half a dozen to the other—the farmers on the one side, and the working men on the other, with the unfortunate chairman who has to give the casting vote. He follows the line of least resistance, and, so far, has generally cast his vote on the side of the working man. I am not saying that he has done it unfairly, but that is our experience. If wages are going up again, and at the same time prices of corn are falling, there is going to be trouble.
I must confess that I think my noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies lost a great opportunity soon after the Corn Production Bill was passed and the Wages Board established, when he did not in some way bring in the question of the index figure in the settlement of wages. It has already been employed in the case of the Whitley Councils. In the case of the local government employees of my county I had to go into a recent report of a committee which corresponded with the Whitley Councils. They had adopted the index figure system, which four or five years ago, on the introduction of the Corn Production Bill, I implored my noble friend Lord Milner to look into and try and introduce and correlate with the system of regulating wages. It is being adopted everywhere now, and where it is adopted it is giving satisfaction. It was not adopted in the case of the agricultural labourer, and that is why I say that at present wages are being fixed arbitrarily.

1261
The noble Lord just now put a question to my noble friend opposite as regards the wages in the years of which my noble friend was speaking. My noble friend was not very clear about the year which he meant, but I will take the years 1894–5–6, when wheat was sold as low as18 s.—I think my noble friend said 17 s. 6d. in the Lincolnshire market; I know I sold it at 18 s. I said this at the time of the Corn Production Bill, and Lord Milner could not dispute it. In my own neighbourhood (and I am only speaking all through of my own experience in my immediate neighbourhood) wages were 14 s. 6d. "Starvation wages," it would be said in many places in England, if you gave out those figures from the platform.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: What was the price of wheat?
LORD HARRIS: Eighteen shillings. Therefore the agricultural labourer was going home every week with seven-elevenths of a quarter of corn. I do not hesitate to say that with 14 s. 6d. in those days the children's boots wore infinitely better than they are now, and I believe the agricultural labourer was every bit as well off in the 'nineties as he is now with his wages three times what they were then. That is the opinion I have formed, and I have asked a great many people who remember. They agree with me, so that I am confirmed in my opinion. I only throw that in because the noble Lord asked my noble friend opposite what were the wages in those particular years. As I said at the time of the discussion on the Corn Production Bill, it is not a matter of how many shillings and sixpences a man gets, but it is a question of how much he can buy with them. That is what makes the worth of money.
I honestly confess that I do not think this Bill is going to produce very much. I do not think it is going to do very much harm, and therefore I am prepared to vote for it for that reason. I think it would do a very great deal of harm to this House, possibly to one class of the three classes interested in agriculture, if your Lordships threw out the Bill, and therefore, following upon the advice which has been given by the three noble Lords who have already spoken, I should implore your Lordships to pass the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, but I should like to say one or two words. The noble Lord who has just sat down has been talking a great deal about the wages board. What understand by that is that there is a desire for the moment to regulate in some way the wages of boys. That is really what is going on now. With regard to the wages board, no matter what happens it has come to stay; if you do not have a wages board you will have something else. As far as I am concerned I have taken a great deal of interest in it; I think it is one of the best things that has occurred for the agricultural labourer. You must remember this. You talk about wages having been 14 s. 6d. in the county of Kent, but I fancy in the county of Norfolk where I live the wage was 13 s. Now the agricultural labourer in my county gets £2 6s. per week, and I doubt whether he is any better oil at this present moment (because prices have not fallen yet for him) than he was in the 'nineties or even in 1914 when the war broke out, when I put his wage in Norfolk, including the harvest and hay, at £1 per week. I do not believe for one moment—and I have gone into the matter—that a married man with a wife and four children is one bit better off than he was when the war broke out.
The Government are talking about the price of corn having gone down, but I should like to remind Lord Lee of this. He made mention of the great loss of acreage of wheat in the past harvest. It is very natural. The control was taken off barley last year, and the price of barley last year was absolutely phenomenal. Everybody said, "We are not going to take much trouble about wheat; we are all going to grow barley." And they did grow barley, and those who threshed early and were lucky enough to get up the barley dry, have made an uncommonly fine price on the barley this year. But the Clerk of the Weather Office was not particularly kind to every district, and I believe there are in this country this year hundreds and hundreds of quarters of barley that are not decent pigs' food. Farmers are very funny people; they are always longing for the removal of control. Possibly if you had taken the control off wheat early in July every one would have put his land under wheat again. They always go for the last thing.

1263
Perhaps you will think it rather odd, and that I am rather cranky, but I shall vote for this Bill. I shall vote for it be-because, though I do not like it (I am perfectly honest with you) I think there are certain clauses that are very good. I like those clauses, and therefore as I would sooner have half a loaf than no bread I shall vote for the Bill. I quite agree that in the case of those people who take the Free Trade side it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth; and if you are going to put a subsidy on corn and corn goes down you will have to find so many millions to keep up this minimum. But I console myself because I do not think that part of the Bill will last two years; it will be wiped out simply because the people of this country will never consent to see wheat tremendously cheap by putting their hands in their pockets and paying a subsidy to the farmers. Upon whose shoulders will it fall? Upon yours and mine first. That is natural. You cannot help it. I remember that in the General Election of 1895 there was in my own county a great cry of "Speed the plough"—a sort of Protection under another name. My beloved father talked to me one day about it. He said, "My dear boy, you may live to see the artisan in this country tickled with the idea of putting protective duties on the articles he manufactures; but remember this—he will never protect his belly. The result will be that the farmer, and the landowner who lives out of the land, will be selling the produce in the cheapest market and buying everything he requires otherwise in the dearest." My father said, "It may come, but I do not think it will." Well, it came during the war, but I think that when you get a great war you cannot take any notice of that. It is a case of "needs must when the devil drives."
If this Bill is to be thrown out, which I hope it will not be, you do not get the opportunity in your. Lordships' House of offering Amendments, and there are, in my humble opinion, many Amendments that might be offered without wrecking the Bill. I look upon the Bill as though it had been hurried through the House of Commons. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, is not here, but he said that not many people voted for it—only 160. But there were only 12 who voted against it, so that that is rather a large majority. No doubt it was looked upon as a foregone conclusion. Looking back, there have been many other
1264
important things to be considered, particularly the Irish question. I think sonic of the clauses are rather crude. The clause that I shall move an Amendment upon is crude. I shall move to delete Clause 6, which is intended to give Wales a separate Wages Board. I do not intend to detain your Lordships with the reasons, because I shall have to give the reasons when I move the Amendment, and I think once is quite enough.
With regard to the other clauses, there is one which I think might be amended in some way. That is the clause in which there is the question of compensation. This is a rich man's Bill, and there are still plenty of rich men in this House. Under this Bill, if you pass it, this will happen. A landowner has a tenant who bothers and bores him. He talks to his agent and says, "Bother this man; give him notice to quit." The agent says, "You will have to pay £1,500 or £2,000." The landowner says, "Pay him and let him get out." There is no hardship to anybody; he can afford it. But just look at the other side of the picture. A man owns perhaps 500 acres of land. He lives perhaps in town, or at any rate he does not live on his land. He has other means, but he is not well off. He lets this farm and it is well managed by somebody for him. He has two daughters who are unmarried, and on his death he leaves his real estate to be sold and everything to be divided between the two daughters. The property is sold, but there is a great diminution in its value because one year's compensation has to be deducted from the price of the farm.
But there is another case, and still worse. A man has a small place and lives there. He has an only child, a boy, and the boy who really loves the place goes into some profession and continues in it. His father, finding as he gets older that he cannot look after the farm, lets it because he does not want his only son to lose his profession. The father dies and leaves the farm to the boy now grown up; he will have to pay a considerable sum of money to get back into the place where he was brought up and of which he has many cherished memories. For that reason I shall endeavour to perusade your Lordships, and I hope another place, that if a landowner really wants to farm the land, whether he be rich or poor, he shall only pay the compensation of 1906, always provided that he farms the land himself for at least eight

1265
years. That would be a guarantee of his bona fides. I do not believe there are many tenants who would object to a landowner going back under such conditions. I have rather a liking for tenant farmers. I have never turned a man out yet, and my father who managed his estates from 1847 to 1902 only turned out one, and he went bankrupt and practically turned himself out. I do not think there are any bad landlords in Norfolk nor are there bad landlords in your Lordships' House. The Bill may affect a few and prevent them creating some injustice.
There are clauses in this Bill which are very valuable. There is the clause which relates to keeping the land clear of weeds. There are a great number of weeds on the land at the present time. I have a lot, and it is a very good thing to keep them down as it gives an enormous amount of labour. I know what I am talking about as I had one man working on six acres of marigolds for over two months doing nothing else but weeding it out. It will give labour, and it is a very good thing to give employment in this way. The other clause in that which gives some slight protection to the agricultural labourer and his cottage. I can remember, and it is not so long ago, that men in Norfolk were living in cottages at a week's notice. It is the custom in the county. They cannot do it with me because I do not let one single cottage with my farms—I beg pardon I think there is one cottage. I let cottages to farmers under a separate agreement entirely, and if they choose to misbehave and bully any labourers I can give them six month's notice to quit those cottages. There has never been, except on one occasion, the least trouble about it. I do not think it should be permissible for any one to give the occupier of a cottage a month's notice just before Michaelmas. He should have at least three or four months' notice in order to get another place.
I must apologise to your Lordships. I did not mean to go on so long and I am afraid I am a garrulous old man thinking aloud. I am going to vote for this Bill although I hope it will be amended and prove not a terror but a blessing. I must say just one more thing. It does not do to think that because you own land you are monarch of all you survey. There are many of your Lordships, like myself, whose land has been held unbroken for
1266
centuries. Perhaps if my own ancestor had not done what the King wanted him to do he might have had his head cut off in which case I should not be addressing your Lordships, and the land might have been given away to some one else. In those days the King owned the land. That has disappeared and the land belongs to the Government of the country. They can make what laws they like. If you have a pure democracy they will wish to have a finger in the, pie and make certain rules and regulations. As to nationalisation, some land is nationalised now. It was George III who gave sonic of the Crown lands over. They are managed by the nation, and managed well. If nationalisation does as well I, for one, am not afraid of it. I thank your Lordships for having listened to me with such great patience.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, if Lord Harris is right and agriculture is always able to rise superior to legislation I ant inclined to say, Why stand we in jeopardy all the day long over a Bill of this kind? It is also a rather harsh commentary on the noble Lord who introduced the Bill and explained in such an admirable way the broad principles which actuate the Government in bringing it forward. Lord Lee of Farcham has made it so easy by placing before us the general principles that I propose to stick to general principles, and to explain why on general principles I intend to vote with the noble Marquess against the Second Reading.
I read carefully the noble Lord's speech, and I saw in one place he said that when he was carrying out the arrangements for ploughing and improving our position during the war he was so prepared to plough that in the stress of those circumstances he would have ploughed up the floor of your Lordships' House. Under this Bill, as I understand, he is not going to plough but he is going to protect the plough. The plough is going to be protected at the expense of the taxpayer and the consumer, and to an amount which is unstated and quite undefined. I associate myself with the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, in saving that it would be very desirable to know to how much money, both as to carrying out the Bill and as to cost of production, the taxpayers are now going to be committed. We know nothing about this, and I do not suppose that we have the slightest idea—for every county committee may take a different view as to

1267
how far they shall direct larger ploughing operations in the areas under their direction—what kind of amount of actual corn the taxpayer is likely to get hack for his money.
All we know is that we have got a bad climate here. I cannot say what the average is, but it is only in a certain number of years that yon can get a good harvest. You have generally tricky harvest weather, you have high wages, and I suppose you have also got to pay for piecework. Everybody knows that in the delicate operations of farming piecework is necessary, particularly with the defined day as regards hours. I do not know whether piecework will be calculated in the cost of production and wages. We know that you can import wheat from the Colonies at 2s. a bushel cheaper than you can grow it here. I have been brought up in Free Trade principles as well as in laissez faire principles, and that is one of the main reasons why I oppose this Bill.
In his speech Lord Lee said that it was needless for Line to labour the desire for a settlement of the whole question of agriculture. Well, I am not prepared in 'Dryden's lines to say—
" My flocks, my fields, my woods, my pastures take,
With settlement as good as law can make."
I cannot go so far as that. The noble Lord told us in another part of his speech that this is a horning question. He also said that the old system of agriculture under which we are living is a sort of Castle Dangerous which it is not really safe to inhabit. He tells us that home-grown wheat, exposed to all those vicissitudes and expenses upon which I have tried to touch, would be an element in our first line of national defence. I doubt very much whether any noble Lord of parts and experience in farming would be prepared to affirm either of the propositions which I Lava stated just now that the old system of agriculture has completely broken down and that we can grow wheat with such advantage here as to make it a first line of national defence.
I do not know exactly whence this burning question and this desire for settlement come. I believe it is from the National Farmers' Union. I do not know much about that union. I am sure it is composed of a very nice body of men. I
1268
have liked farmers all my life, but I sometimes wonder whether they are all farmers. Anyhow, one knows that it is a union, probably with a board room and committee rooms, mahogany table, good stationery, a comfortable fire and constant committee meetings; and one knows that in these circumstances you have one or two predominant members of the committee and a capable secretary who are the people who inspire the projects and impel the blows. If Lord Lee, who, as he told us, got a great deal of information from the National Farmers' Union—
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: And other bodies.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: From other umlauted and distinguished agriculturists in the other House. Of course, I quite recognise that the noble Lord got information from other bodies. I was only saying that a good deal of the information comes rather from bodies who are set in these comfortable circumstances and who deliberate on an agenda and draft resolutions, rather than perhaps from practical people who have had to deal with agriculture. So far as I am concerned I think that the settlement which agriculture wants—landlord and tenant—is non-interference, or, if you like the jargon of the day better, self-determination and fiscal autonomy.
In a very interesting part of his speech Lord Lee referred to the inter-dependence, proved by the war, of naval and agricultural considerations. I believe Lord Selborne associated himself with that view, but I think a good deal of the question depends also upon tonnage and free imports. There is no sort of doubt, as has been pointed out several times, that with our rates and taxes, with our high liabilities and commitments, any fresh charge on the taxpayer is likely to be viewed with extreme suspicion, as charges on the taxpayer always mean, carried right through the population, a slightly increased cost of living to the consumer. What will happen if, later on, this subsidy or guarantee (whatever you like to call it) of the cost of production becomes a consumers' question? Two or three days ago I saw the enormous amount of Canadian wheat which is pouring into the country. Let us assume that in two or three years' time a new Government is coming into office;

1269
that a plank of its programme at the General Election—a perfectly, legitimate plank, because what Parliament can put in Parliament can take away—is that all this has got to be swept away; and that the consumers are told, "If you will give us your vote we will get rid of this part of taxation and to that extent lighten your burden, and you will in addition probably get your food supplies a little cheaper." All this will go like snow before the sun. What 'becomes then of all that has been done to bring about this policy? I suppose we shall get compensation. I do not know how that is going to be adjusted, or to what sort of tune the taxpayer will be brought in to find the money to do away with what you are doing now. That is a point upon which I dam say we shall hear more later on. I do not propose to go into Part II of the Bill, because, as I said, my objections are to the principles of the Bill. If it gets a Second Reading, if you grant the premises and principles of the Bill, I have no doubt it is so ingeniously drawn that it will afford many opportunities for amendment; but I do not see very much difference between eviscerating the pre tint Bill, re-writing it here and sending it down to the House of Commons and throwing it out on Second Reading.
Another point which I should like to place before your Lordships is that the Bill proposes to establish a corner in wheat growing in a country which is not suited to wheat growing. It is proposed to give security of tenure, to provide for the settlement of highly-complicated and difficult questions, to force steorotyped methods of farming and stereotyped hours of labour on agriculturists, and to do all this by means of a State guarantee. All these things, the noble Lord tells us, are to act in combination and effect national insurance. Taking the metaphor of insurance, I think that unless you schedule the wheat-growing counties for the purpose of this Bill the premium which you will have to ask the working people of the country to pay is for a policy which they do not get back in value. That is one of the objections in chief which I have to the Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever referred to Gibbon on agrarian laws, but I looked up last night what Gibbon has to say about agrarian laws. Agrarian laws only referred, I think, to the Ager Publicus—that is, to State property. Private property was rigorously excluded from them. What
1270
happens now is that all the private and independent relations of landlord and tenant, all the private and independent methods and systems of agriculture, all that we have ever understood by independent farming—all that now is practically to be put into an agrarian law, and I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that this is a form of bastardised nationalisation. It is in those circumstances that I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire, and I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to deal with one side of this Bill to which great importance seems to be attached by the Government, and which I think is one of the questions that have not been fully answered by those who, like myself, do not believe in this Bill—I mean the military question. The introducer of the Bill and Lord Milner have based a considerable portion of their arguments on the question of insurance and the question of national safety. Now, my Lords, may I submit this question. One hundred years ago it was a very good argument that an Army, or a nation with an Army, marched on its belly. To-day an Army marches on its belly, bat its belly has to be supported by iron and wood, and my point is that for national safety you have to insure not on wheat alone but on the other essential supplies which enable you to put your Army into the field. May I point out that during the war the ordnance trains which went up to the Front were in regard to iron six to one as compared with food, and in regard to wood were four to one. If you turn to this country the proportion of shipping required for timber and other war industries never got below 13 per cent. of the total shipping up to the year 1917. After that statistics have not been published.
If you have to insure, surely the business of the country is to insure the material which it is absolutely necessary to insure, which can be insured cheapest, and which it is most difficult to import in time of war. I do not think the wheat supply fulfils one of those conditions. Wheat in the first place is a comparatively easy matter to ship. It is not so bulky as timber, nor is it as compared with iron ore, It is a matter which you can improvise,

1271
because the more grass land you have in the country the greater is the potential agricultural efficiency which you have stored there. Secondly, as regards the other materials, such as iron, you have got to bring it over in certain cases from a greater distance, and as regards timber the bulk is a matter of considerable importance. What about the cost? So far as we have known of late, either in this House or elsewhere, we have had no definite statements of what this bonus is going to cost. The estimates vary from £5,000,000 to £35,000,000. In timber alone for £25,000,000 you can assure yourself for a period of three years. I would submit, in regard to the question of cost, that as regards the matter of insurance you have selected the article which is probably the most expensive of the three essential matters which you require in war time.
As regards national insurance, what nation is it that is going to come against us? It must, for the purpose of submarines, be someone that has a sea-board. It is not going to be Spain. Surely it is not going to be France? Holland did not show any great powers of war during the Great War. Belgium is not likely to be in a position to attack us, and as for Germany, have we not the peace Treaty? Lord Milner said that you could not improvise your wheat supply at a moment's notice. I agree, but we are going to have more than a year's notice if Germany gets her submarines up again. I dare say that some of your Lordships will remember that before the war I got up in my place many times and said it was absolutely certain that we were going to have a war within a certain number of years. There were many signs that it was coming, in for instance the deepening of the Kiel Canal and other preparations which were going on. And I am sure that noble Lords on the Defence Committee will accept the statement that from 1906 the party working under Lord Roberts professed absolute certainty that the war was coming. Before there is a menace we should have to wait until submarines have been created by the enemy, and one does not order submarines like boots at a store. They have got to be made, and things have got to be organised. If we defend this argument on the question of insurance, we should organise upon those things which you cannot improvise in one, ten, or twenty years—upon those things which you must organise ahead.
1272
Then, have we got to the last word on the question of getting our wheat supply assured even if war is declared? I am not sure that the Channel Tunnel, which would open the whole of the ports of the Continent, would not be a much better insurance than what is talked of here. Submarines are talked of here, but believe that super-submarines run to several thousand tons, and they might be used for importing wheat. Then again surely we are not going to commit the same faults as we committed at the beginning of this war, when the Navy possessed only about 700 mines. Surely we are not going to be caught napping with this lack of preparation again. Finally comes the question of what other means of insurance can be made. I have listened with great attention to the arguments that have been put forward, and I must say, although being a person who has often been accused of being a pessimist, that to-day the arguments in regard to this form of insurance move me in the least. I would like to say one word, if I may, on another phase of the question. We have heard a great deal said—I think very rightly said; it is one of the main arguments of the supporters of the Bill—regarding the importance of what is called security of tenure, or, to use the better phrase of Lord Ernie, "continuity of tenure." Personally, I am whole-heartedly a supporter of continuity, or security of tenure for the tenant. I think that it is absolutely necessary, in view of the sales of land which are going on all over the country, that the tenant should be safeguarded. There have been cases of great hardship, and many of those cases would never have occurred if landowners were not in the position that they are forced to sell their land. Under the circumstances, I think that security is necessary for these tenants.
But very little is said by the Government on another question which is connected with the increase in food supply, and that is the question not only of security for the tenant, but also security for he individual who puts capital into a farm. The landlord's capital, compared with the tenant's, is certainly as two to one. £15 an acre is considered a big sum for a tenant to put into a farm as capital, but the landlord's capital in the same farm will be £40, £50, or £60 an acre. Do we want to stop this flow of capital into the land? I sat for four years on a Royal

1273
Commission on housing in Scotland, and we had specially to go into the question of rural housing. I think that there were two Conservative members of the Commission, the remaining ten members being Radicals, and most of them were opposed to the landlord interest. Yet there was not a single member of that Commission but came time and again and assured me that he had no idea of the cost of keeping up landed property, or of the amount of money that had to be put into farms to keep them going. In this Connection, I have visited the farms of the Duke of Buccleuch and of several other noble Lords who are present to-night, and I can certainly say that in the case of a great many of those estates the land is purchased by the landowner, in the form of his buildings, sometimes twice in a century. I ask again, is it worth while stopping this flow of capital into the land?
I agree that it is a good thing that individuals should buy their farms. It gives greater security to the country if the land is more divided, but the sale of farms is seldom good business for the tenant. There are a large number of tenants who cannot afford the money to buy their farms, and I think that until they have had sufficient time to enable them to get money to purchase their land, it would be the greatest calamity if, by a Bill such as this, it were made impossible for landowners to keep their farms. If a great deal more land were forced into the market I think that it would be the greatest calamity that could befall the country at the present time. I am convinced that this Bill will dry up the stream of money that goes into equipping farms. People will not be dictated to as to how they are to conduct their farms. They would sooner sell then. I speak with a certain amount of experience in this matter. I am a landowner in the North of Scotland, where our tenants, who are crofters, have fixity of tenure, and I can assure your Lordships that the amount of money which is being put into the crofter holdings is astonishingly less than used to be the case under the old system. I am satisfied that when this system is applied to farms, exactly the same thing will be found to be the case. I have spoken to your Lordships on more than one occasion with reference to this question, and I assure you that the clearing of the Highland al people is going on
1274
faster to-day than it has done at any time.
You are not going to have clearance in this case; you are going to have poorer agriculture. These farms will be carried on by some one, but they will not be carried on with the same amount of efficiency. Is this the time, when everything costs so much more than it did before, to retard the industry of agriculture? I say No. To conduct a farm successfully there must be security and continuity to the tenant, capital put in, and work conducted with efficiency. I do not believe that the average agricultural committee, constituted as it is, is going to add very much to the efficiency with which the industry is run. I do not believe in Government control. I do not think Government control has proved a success or is going to be more successful in farming than in other matters. As far as I am concerned I would like to see a portion of this legislation passed. I would like to see the tenant having continuity and security, but, I do not like many other matters that are in the Bill, and I join with the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, in asking the Government to delay the Bill and to try again.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LOVAT: I think that several advantages are to be gained by delay. In the first place, you will see how the wheat market is going on. You will see also how the cost of living is going to work out. I believe we are much too close to the great war, that the waves of rise and fall in all commodities are too great and too rapid, that we are not sufficiently far off to be able to stand back and look at the picture to see what we ought or ought not to do. I believe that nothing will be lost by waiting one or two years while we look at the question. I also believe that if that policy of standing off and looking and waiting to see what is going to happen in the cost of living and so on is carried out, some measure ought to be brought in at the same time to safeguard the present position of tenants because I think that such have been the changes in the ownership of land since the war that the tenants ought to be properly protected.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I have several times expressed my admiration of the courage of the Minister of Ariculture. I desire very particularly to express admiration

1275
of his courage on this occasion in introducing such a very revolutionary Bill, for whatever may be the merits of the Bill—and merits it certainly has—I do not think any one will deny that it is a revolutionary Bill and will have very far-reaching consequences upon agriculture in this country.
I should like also to express my own satisfaction at the sympathy—I believe the genuine sympathy—of the Prime Minister in coming to the aid of our once extremely depressed agricultural industry, and if there were no other reason which would justify me in voting for the Second Reading of this Bill it would be that we have now for the first time since the days of Lord Beaconsfield a Prime Minister who has interested himself in and is deeply in sympathy with the needs of the agricultural industry. But I cannot help regretting that this sympathy was not shown some ten years ago, when some of us were crying in the wilderness for some much smaller measure of attention than the Government are now giving to the industry, because if that sympathy had been forthcoming it might possibly have averted the war altogether and would certainly have substantially reduced its duration. My only fear now is that, whereas we used to complain of the cold shoulder, we may have reason in future to complain of a warm embrace which, like that of the grizzly bear, may prove uncomfortable and anything but salutary.
Having served at the Ministry of Food during the most acute period of the submarine peril I ant bound to confess, realising as I do the gravity of that peril, that any reasonable measure that can be adopted to prevent its recurrence in time of emergency is deserving of the sympathetic attention of your Lordships' House. This Bill can only be justified if in fact it is likely to produce a large increment in the output of home-grown essential foods. I was interested to hear both the noble Lords who last addressed the House express some doubt as to whether we ought to stake our whole national security in the matter of food upon wheat to the exclusion of other foods. It may rather interest your Lordships to know that in the year 1917 there was considerable doubt entertained and expressed in the Ministry of Food on this subject. In fact, matters reached such a crisis as the result of considerable argument that some of us raised the cry "Pigs and
1276
Potatoes" as a cry worthy of consideration by way of supplementing, as we thought, the exaggerated claim for wheat, because at any rate those two commodities have the very great advantage of its being possible to reproduce them very rapidly and of supplying a very large bulk of extremely nutritious food at short notice.
The Prime Minister is evidently of the opinion, and I am not sure that the Minister of Agriculture is not of the same Opinion, that it is going to be quite possible for us to become self-contained in the matter of our food supply. I believe that to be wholly inpracticable. I noticed that the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, referred yesterday—if I may venture to say so I think erroneously referred—to the claim that for a short time forty-two weeks of the total annual food requirements of the country were in fact raised or had been raised upon British soil. That is the figure of food production which was put forward, I think, two or three years ago. That figure could only have been arrived at by bringing into account as human food the whole of the food, whether oats or otherwise, that had been raised and necessarily raised for the 'requirements of live stock. I think even the noble Lord opposite will admit to-day that we did not in fact reach anything like that percentage of our own food requirements as the result of the cultivation of our own soil.
I think it was in the year 1911 that I ventured to suggest in the House of Commons that if we ever reached as large a proportion as 40 per cent. of our own food requirements from our own soil we should be doing all that we could reasonably expect, at any rate under known methods of husbandry. I ventured to make the same suggestion, I think it was in the year 1915, and curiously enough on each occasion it was received with ridicule or doubt as to its veracity. On the first occasion it was received with ridicule because it was regarded as a gross over-estimate. On the second occasion it was received with ridicule because it was regarded as a gross under-estimate. I still hold to the same view, having studied the subject for many years, and I believe that if you manage to raise anything like 40 to 45 per cent. of your full requirements in the matter of bread-stuffs from British soil you will be achieving the most that you can possibly achieve, at any rate in the light of present day knowledge.

1277
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has devised any scheme which will secure for our food requirements the maximum amount of bread-stuffs of which our soil is capable, because otherwise it seems to me that we are likely to embark upon the unfortunate practice of ploughing up land in every direction all over the country, regardless of soil and climate, in the hope of being able to provide the maximum amount of bread-stuffs for our own needs. I regard that as an extremely dangerous, a very unsystematic, and a very unscientific policy and, so far as the West of England and Wales and a large part of Scotland are concerned, it is likely in the long run to result not in a net increment of food but, in my judgment, in a very serious diminution of it.
May I, in passing, refer to the division which took place in the House of Commons on the Third Reading of this Bill? I think Lord Ancaster has already alluded to it. I have taken some trouble to analyse the personnel of the Division List, and, as far as I can ascertain, of the many experienced agriculturists in the House of Commons who took part in the various discussions on this Bill only four voted on its Third Reading. And as regards the remainder, constituting the majority of 161, one-third of the whole were members of the Government and their Parliamentary Secretaries, and another one-fourth were members of the Labour Party, who are supporting the Bill—at any rate some of them—for totally different reasons from those of obtaining a maximum food production. At any rate, that indicates to me that there is no very great enthusiasm for this Bill even on the part of the House of Commons as representing the public.
But I am bound to say that I am going to support this Bill on Second Reading in the hope that it may be very substantially amended in some very important details, particularly as regards control, and I do so because it contains this very valuable provision for a guarantee against serious loss in the case, at any rate, of two of our more important crops. I advocated a guarantee, as the noble Lord knows, for some years before the war took place. I made a very careful calculation in 1912—of course, reckoned in the light of the then costs of production and in the light of the differences between the market price of wheat for many previous years and the
1278
price which would be sufficient to induce wheat-growers to grow the crop at a reasonable profit; and certainly my estimates show that the cost to the country of such a guarantee would not be anything very serious. I now think, although the costs of production have gone up enormously, that the sort of estimates which have been presented to your Lordships during the last two days, as regards the bill that may be ultimately thrown I upon the public, are somewhat exaggerated.
There is one element of doubt, and to it Lord Harris just now referred. That arises in consequence of the fact that, rather unfortunately, the wages of agricultural labourers, under the system inaugurated by the Central Wages Board, do not depend upon, and have no specific relation to, the cost of the production of the commodities upon which their work is employed. I am bound to say that either some alteration must be made in that respect, or, if not—and I think it is the better alternative—it would be much better, now that there are two very powerful organisations of agricultural workers in existence, to scrap the Wages Board altogether and leave them, as in the case of other industries, to fight out their own salvation in the matter of wages, as they are perfectly well able nowadays to do.
We have been told that the reason why this rather drastic control is contemplated by this Bill is that there must be some quid pro quo. It has been repeatedly mentioned in the House of Commons, and I think was mentioned by the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture in his opening speech. I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any other quid, so far as the general public is concerned, than the production of the wheat which is likely to result from this guarantee, and the security which the nation will realise in respect of its food supplies as the result of that production. I think I may say of those of us who have claimed in the past to be protectionists or tariff reformers, that we are passing down a somewhat slippery slope if we are going to admit that, wherever you provide protection, whether by bounty as in this case, or by an import duty for the benefit of any British industry you are going, as a necessary corollary, to institute Government control of the internal methods of conducting the industry. In my humble judgment it is going to break clown the faith of many protectionists if

1279
that is going to be the necessary result of introducing a protectionist system in this country.
May I apply it to a case which is somewhat familiar to me? In my part of the country we produce tin plates on rather a large scale. The tin plate industry has for many years past been put forward by the tariff reform school as a case which is specially deserving of the consideration of His Majesty's Government in this respect. Is it going to be suggested that, because you are going in future to protect the tin plate industry against unfair foreign competition, therefore the Government will be justified in saying to tin plate manufacturers what plant they shall employ, what machinery they shall employ, whether, in fact, tin plates shall be their ultimate product, or whether it is not more in the public interest that galvanised sheets shall be turned out instead? That is an exact parallel to the case contemplated in this Bill. You are saying to farmers that they shall not produce what they are best qualified to produce, what they have the machinery and equipment to produce, what their land is best fitted to produce, but they shall produce something else because it is more necessary in the light of the country's requirements. If you apply that to any other industry and make drastic Government intervention in the internal affairs of that industry a condition precedent upon the affording of the protection which that industry demands, to my mind it breaks down the whole case for tariff reform as applied to the industries of this country.
The Selborne Report has been referred to, and the noble Lord opposite quite rightly mentioned that I, among others, signed Part I of that Report. But that Report, at any rate Part I, advocated encouragement of every possible kind to the farmers of this country to grow the largest possible amount of wheat, but it did not advocate drastic compulsion, least of all in the case of those farmers who are deemed to be farming according to the rules of good husbandry. I for my part warmly welcome Government interference, through the county committees or otherwise, in the case of farms which are being grossly under-farmed to the detriment of the owners of the farms and, still more, to the detriment of the nation. That is in my judgment permissible intervention I think most landowners will throw up their
1280
hats with delight to realise that in future they are likely to be relieved of a very serious responsibility which the Agricultural Holdings Act, at any rate as usually interpreted, has stood in the way of their exercising in days gone by. I very much fear fettering the agricultural industry for all time with control that goes beyond this very limited scope.
I have myself been an instrument for a time of Government control, and the experience has taught me that it involves three very serious evils—first of all, the lowering of the standard of commercial morality of those upon whom it is exercised; secondly, the destruction of enterprise and self-reliance; thirdly—and this applies particularly to the agricultural community—it operates with dangerous and unfair uniformity. May I say, in passing, that of all British industries in my judgment agriculture is the least susceptible to successful Government interference. May I remind your Lordships that no such interference has ever been attempted in any other country in the world, except possibly Russia, and now for the first time in freedom-loving Britain.
The control contemplated in Clause 4 as the Bill was originally drafted was obviously intended to promote the production of breadstuffs and breadstuffs only. Now, apparently, by an Amendment which was made I think on the Report stage in the House of Commons, it is with the object of increasing the arable area, quite regardless of the food value of the crop which the farmer may choose to grow, whether onions, cabbages, or indeed daffodils. All he has to do is to turn a certain amount of his grass into arable in order to satisfy the express requirements of this clause. Following, if I may venture with respect to say so, the extremely interesting speech of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ribblesdale, may I remind him that about four months ago I extracted from the Minister of Agriculture an official statement which showed in fact what were the chief wheat-producing counties in Great Britain and what was the proportion of the wheat which those counties produced. From that I derived the interesting information that out of a total of 86 counties in England, Wales, and Scotland, under normal prewar conditions eight counties only, situated on or near the East Coast, produced more than half the total wheat output in the

1281
United Kingdom. I do not trouble myself with oats, became you cannot rank oats on anything like the same footing as a food for human consumption—first of all because a large proportion of it is required for feeding our livestock; secondly, became according to the latest figures 90 per cent. of our oats requirements are already being produced in this country, and therefore there is no need for any great incentive to produce oats; and, thirdly, because the milling extract in the case of oats is so low as a means of manufacturing bread as really hardly to be worthy of consideration when ranked alongside wheat. What I suggest is that you are going to obtain a larger amount of human breadstuffs by intensifying the cultivation of those counties which have proved according to past experience to be best suited both in the matter of soil and in climate for the production of that particular crop. If, as the Royal Commission on Agriculture have in fact suggested in the last paragraph of their Report, you are going to insist on every county producing a particular quota of breadstuffs, you are going in fact to do a very unscientific thing, and in the long run I am quite sure you will not materially augment the supply of our human breadstuff requirements.
As my noble friend Lord Clinton said yesterday, we must bear in mind that a very large proportion of the wheat which was raised in the very favourable year of 1918 was raised as the result of feeding the crop upon the accumulated fertility of many years, in some case of some centuries, represented by the upturned turf of the landowners in this country. Surely that turf is in times of emergency a very valuable national asset, and as I think the noble Lord pointed out, the larger the arable area—and it applies particularly to our much used-up soil in this country—the larger the amount of artificial fertilisers you are bound to provide in order successfully to cultivate it. The bulk of those fertilisers come, and always will come, from other countries across the seas. As your Lordships well know, we get our nitrates from Chile, our potash largely from Stassfurt, and to some extent I am glad to say from Alsace and Lorraine, and our supplies of phosphates come very largely from the phosphatic rock which is found in North Africa. We have never found adequate substitutes in this country for any of those fertilisers, and so far as one can see, never
1282
will. As we have to provide ships to carry this large quantity of fertilisers from over seas, surely there is some virtue in having good turf which we can use in times of crisis in place of those fertilisers, even though it be at very serious financial expense to the landlords of this country. It is very difficult to make an estimate, but I reckon that the landowners have provided in this respect an amount of fertility representing something like £50,000,000, for which they have not received a single penny. It is my very strong conviction that if the noble Lord opposite will only tighten up that particular clause which refers to the rules of good husbandry it ought to be wholly unnecessary, in order to achieve his professed purpose, to insist upon any measure of control beyond the maintenance of rules of good husbandry in every county throughout this country.
May I say, in passing, that this is the view, after a considerable discussion, which is held by the Federation of County Agricultural Executive Committees, over which I have the honour to preside, and which consists mainly of the representatives of the very instruments of control which were employed during the war. It is only fair to add that during the last three months they have been reinforced, and reinforced with great advantage, by representatives of the new county agricultural committees which have been coining into existence; but both before that recruitment and after, the Federation of Agricultural Committees carried a unanimous resolution to the effect that control beyond that which would ensure good husbandry was undesirable, and they expressed the hope that the noble Lord would eliminate any further measure of control from his Bill. Great faith is placed by the National Farmers' Union, and apparently by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, in the discretion of the county agricultural committee. I think he has to admit that, in many counties, but for the weighting of the scale with his own nominees the county committees would be wholly unsuitable to perform the task with which they are entrusted.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I do not admit that.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I say that you are bound to admit it. May I ask whether it is not true that in the county of Mon-

1283
mouthshire there was only one practical agriculturist on the original county agricultural committee as appointed by the county itself, that a very large number of persons from the coal mines and the tin plate and steel works found their way on to the committee as being persons interested in agricultural land, and that but for the noble Lord's intervention this particular body would have been wholly unqualified for the delicate task they have to perform It is all very well for the noble Lord to treat this as a personal matter. I hope he will not treat it as such. So far as he is concerned we trust him. If it is left to his good judgment the weighting of these committees with suitable men, in cases where they are not previously appointed, will be good, and we can rest satisfied with the result. But he is not always going to be in the position he occupies to-day. A time may come when a gentleman of very different political, social and economic, views may occupy the position and the weighting of the scales, which is being done to-day in the interests of reinforcing these committees with practical men, may take place in a very different direction, when it is sought to plough up the land and cultivate cereals not with the idea of a greater output of food but with a view to the larger amount of labour employed regardless of the cost.
I hesitate to take up your Lordships' time further, but in consequence of what Lord Ribblesdale said I want to make some reference to the guarantee in its actual operation. The guarantee, as I understand, is based upon figures which were supplied by the Royal Commission as representing the average cost of production throughout the country. It is not unfair to suggest that if you take certain counties in the Midlands—Shropshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, or even Wiltshire—the average figure may be perfectly fair and may either bring to the corn producers a fair margin of profit or at least save them from serious loss. But if it is a fair figure for these counties it is too large a figure for the east of England, the best wheat-producing lands in the country, and much too small to operate advantageously in the west of England where the climate and soil are so unsuitable to wheat production. You cannot devise an average figure that is going to leave the farmer with the same amount of loss on his wheat growing all over the country. If it is fair for the east it may result in a serious loss in the west. If it is going to give large profits to wheat
1284
growers in the east—I do not object, as long as the nation gets its food (it is in the east you are going to get the greater production), but I do say this, that by adopting such a course you are going to render your scheme far more vulnerable in days to come when the guarantee materialises and the bill has to be paid.
I hope that the noble Lord will allow us in some small measure to rectify the drawbacks to be found in the Bill, and on the subject of compensation for disturbance I want to ask whether, in seeking to stabilise through the medium of higher compensation for alleged loss the position of the tenant farmer, he does not, in fact, make the relations between landlord and tenant unsettled and unsatisfactory, and lacking in that human sympathy which has operated in the past; whether he does not make the position of the tenant farmer more unstable than it has been in the past to his own detriment and to the detriment of the country.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I give your Lordships an assurance that it is with extreme reluctance that I venture to say even a few words at this stage of the debate, when I know you are anxious to hear the reply of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. There are, however, one or two points that I want to place before you in order to justify the vote I propose to give on the Second Reading. I have listened to nearly the whole of the speeches, and I have never, throughout a somewhat long experience of this House, listened to so large a number of speeches from so many different quarters, from noble Lords with various political antecedents, in which I have not agreed with something that has been said. I think it will be a very great calamity if this House were to reject the Bill on Second Reading, or, after we have done something in the way of amending it, the Bill should fail.
The outstanding points in favour of this Bill have been well put by Lord Lee and Lord Milner last night. They are to make sure that there will be as large an amount of cultivation of the land of these Islands as is possible, that we shall continue to maintain as large an agricultural population as we can, and that we shall do everything in our power to produce as much of what we require at home as we can. It is quite true that the Bill is open to criticise, but

1285
my answer to that is this. If you reject this Bill, what is going to be your policy? Is it to be a reversion to the old system of laissez faire and all the evils which have been mentioned to us to-day? There are great dangers and considerable evils. This is no new question with me. I have had considerable experience of landowning. On that part of the estate to which I succeeded from my father there is not a single farm which I have not in the course of my occupancy let three times upon a nineteen years' lease. That is a considerable experience in the management of an estate.
I was also, as Lord Chaplin mentioned, Chairman of the Commission twenty years ago. During the course of that inquiry I became deeply impressed with the dangers which this country might run under certain circumstances. It was then established beyond all doubt that there were periods, particularly one period, of the year in which we had only a very short time supply within our Islands, whether homegrown or imported. Towards the end of the summer it was almost a matter of a week or two whether the supply was sufficient to carry us on until the harvest began. The Commission, of course, consulted the Admiralty, and what coin forted us a good deal was the declaration of the Admiralty, which according to the conditions then existing was probably correct, that these Islands having such a large coast line could not satisfactorily be blockaded. But since that time in recent years the submarine danger has developed. I think that makes it absolutely necessary that we should prepare well for the future and take care that we do not run the same risks which we undoubtedly did in the later years of the war.
Of all the systems I have heard suggested for getting over these difficulties I go so far as to say that the system of guarantees which is in this Bill is open to the least objection: As is obvious, it involves a certain amount of control, not only in the interests of the tenant and of the labourer, but in the interests of the consumer. If a guarantee involves control, I wish I could be equally sure that control will involve a guarantee. What I am afraid of, if this Bill passes and hereafter the guarantee is attacked, is that those who are interested in the land may lose the guarantee while control and Government interference will continue. That would seem to me to be a very great
1286
danger. It is a danger for which you must calculate. The population of this country being largely industrial it is plain that if the world-price of wheat falls much below the guarantee, two points will be made against the policy of the guarantee—that it costs too much, and that it is keeping up the price of bread. I hope that in Committee the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will make it clear that if we are to have a system of control as a balance for a guarantee, that control will not last longer than the guarantee, without the direct sanction of Parliament.
No one interested in agriculture wants this Bill as it stands. Some people want sonic parts of it, and some other parts. I regard it really as an implied contract between the various parties, mentioned by the noble Viscount who spoke earlier, interested in the land, the owner, the tenant, the labourer and the consumer. Therefore, I hope that if, in the interests of all these classes, we are to have the control which is in the Bill it will be made absolutely clear that those of us who are interested in landowning shall not be made the victims of control if we lose the advantages of the guarantee. That is all I am going to say about Part I.
As regards Part II, I wish to say that those of us who come from Scotland must consider its application to Scotland. We are in a difficult position. This is an English Bill, drafted for England and applied to Scotland only by one clause and a schedule. I do not pretend to understand it. I frankly say that the drafting seems to me so obscure as to require a great amount of skill to ascertain the real legal effect. One question which I would ask the noble Lord is this—Is it intended to destroy our leasehold system in Scotland or not? If this Bill passes as it stands, I understand that the leasehold system will have to go and will have to be replaced by something else. What will it be? The noble Lord, I know, does not like the idea of dual ownership. Fixity of tenure, security of tenure, and so on, have also been mentioned. I agree that there should be absolute security for the tenant fur everything he has put into the land. Our leasehold system gives him that. It is a bargain between two men, the landlord and the tenant, and it seems to me wholly wrong to alter that bargain during the currency of existing contracts and to

1287
give the tenant advantages and compensation for things which he has promised to do, while if his tenancy is to end at the end of his lease, as I understand it, he is to have compensation for the very things he has bargained and promised to do. I may be reading the Bill wrongly, and I will not say much about it, but wait till the Committee Stage. It seems to me, however, that in a rising market the tenant of the future will be perfectly secure, and in a falling market he can go, and the landlord will be liable to the loss in both cases.
Clause 8 is a long and difficult clause, and compensation for disturbance is not applicable to a leasehold system. I was going to criticise Clause 11, but I understand that it does not apply to Scotland. All I have to say in conclusion is that much in the Bill seems to me to mean that the landlord will have no interest in ownership in the future and had better get out of it on almost any terms he can. But, as I have said, I shall vote for the Second Reading, though I hope that in Committee we shall be given full consideration and an explanation of what is really intended for the future of Scotland.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, yesterday made a speech in support of this Bill to which I listened with great interest and with great pleasure. I listened with great interest because he has admitted knowledge of the subject, and with great pleasure because of the qualities which are always shown in his speeches—qualities which I am glad to think have found expression in a more permanent form, which enables a busy man like myself to enjoy his leisure, forget his anxieties and refresh his mind. I do not possess those qualifications, but perhaps your Lordships will permit me, in as short a time as that within which I can compress my remarks, to express my opinions upon this Bill, not from the point of view of a person who possesses or professes any knowledge whatever of our agricultural industry, but from the point of view of a man who has some little knowledge of sonic of the urban conditions that exist in this country and thinks that he knows, and to sonic extent can measure, sonic of the feelings by which the vast communities in those urban areas are actuated.
The noble Lord said in effect that he thought this Bill was as good a Bill as could be introduced by a Coalition Government.
1288
It was a pale and tepid compliment, but I think it is true, and the reason that the noble Lord gave is true. It is because a Coalition Government is unable ever to carry out the real policy of any one of its component parts. It is always attempting to reconcile conflicting views, to stabilise opposing forces, to adjust outstanding differences, and to pursue the way of compromise, instead of pursuing the course which either one party or the other honestly believes to be the best to follow. The result frequently is that instead of getting movement and progress you get something that either is a state of rest or a movement in a direction which no one thinks is right. It is not always the case that the middle path is the safest. If your road forks on each side of a bog you had better take one course or the other, and not pursue the path in the middle. The noble Lord thought that this Bill reconciled forces which were expressed on the one side in a passionate desire for nationalisation of land, and on the other, as I understand it, for a continuance of our present system without interference or alteration at all. Does any noble Lord think that this Bill is going to appease the demand for nationalisation? I agree with the noble Lord—I think that the demand for nationalisation grows in strength and volume, and I had almost said in ferocity, from day to day. But where does it find its expression? Not in the country areas but in your crowded towns, and the real reason for it is this, that there are men in those towns, thinking, sober, earnest men, who so revolt against the conditions in which they are compelled to live that they believe that the system of land tenure is responsible for their difficulties, and think that by throwing the whole thing into the hands of the State the difficulties will disappear.
I will not waste time in representing how great and grave those difficulties are. Many of your Lordships know them well, and you know perfectly well that honest artisans in our great industrial centres to-day are compelled to live in conditions in which the sense of decency and self-respect can hardly be maintained. To me it is a miracle that so many of our fellow-subjects have been able to encounter and overcome those difficulties, before which I believe many of us would have utterly failed. That is the feeling at the back of it, and I have never heard of any great demand for nationalisation from tenant

1289
farmers, and but little from agricultural labourers. If there were any from agricultural labourers it would be a demand which took the form of asking that they should have some share of the land themselves, and this Bill does not give them an inch. The consequence, so far as nationalisation is concerned, of attempting to reconcile your opposing forces is that you have adopted a measure which does not reconcile them in the least and will not delay by one single hour the time at which these men will press forward their claims for consideration.
The real part of this Bill to which I propose to address myself, because it would not be right to go through the whole of it is Part I. The Parts are really interdependent, but Part I is the essential portion for this purpose. That again, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker, is a part which is evenly balanced—the guarantee on the one side and control on the other—and the extent to which you effect control must necessarily be affected by the extent to which you exercise the guarantee. It is unfortunate for the Government that they are liable to attack on both flanks—by those who object to the guarantee, and by those who object to the control. I do not know how you attack on both flanks, but I object to both. I am not sufficiently acquainted with military tactics to know whether an attack on both flanks at once is possible.
With regard to the guarantee, I pass by the economic discussion as to whether it is justified or not. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill said his main justification was national defence, and that was supported by Lord Selborne, and it was referred to by more than one other speaker. I cannot pass by Lord Selborne's speech without expressing the appreciation, from my own knowledge, of the courage and foresight which he showed in regard to our corn supplies in the earlier part of the war. But although I appreciate thoroughly what he did then, and although I regret that I together with others were unable to accept his view, I find myself quite unable to accept the view of either of the noble Lord or of the noble Earl that this is essential for our national safety. I thought Lord Lovat gave reasons why it was unwise to concentrate your whole attention upon food supplies—reasons which admit of no answer. It is of no use having your food supplies guaranteed if your instruments of
1290
warfare and of transport break down; and we depend, I was going to say just as much, or it may be even more, for overseas work upon such matters than we do upon corn.
Further, what is the extent to which this guarantee will give us national security by preserving the food supplies? Before the war it was calculated that from 20 to 25 per cent. of our cereals were home-grown. I think I am right in that figure. In other words, we know that it used to be said that if you went away on Saturday at midday and returned on Sunday night you might, if you confined your feeding to that period, live entirely on home-grown supplies, but you could not extend your meals beyond the Sunday evening. It is suggested by the noble Lord—and I understand this is an outside figure—that this Bill may increase your food supplies 50 per cent. I think that I am right in saying—and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will correct me if my memory is wrong—that it used to be thought that 25 per cent. was the extent to which you could reasonably increase your food production here at home.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I never said that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I thought it was generally accepted that was so.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then I have made a mistake. Does the noble Lord suggest that the 50 per cent. which was produced under the spasm of the war is a percentage which he hopes to maintain?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Why not?
LORD BUCKMASTER: I only wanted to know. Then it is so. The food supply of this country, it is thought then, can be increased 50 per cent. by this Bill. That means then that there will still be left 63 per cent. that must come from overseas. In other words, you have added somewhere about five weeks in the year to the food supply, and if that is essential in the national interest surely by far the better way to effect it is to have granaries and store your five weeks' corn. No one would object to that if it were undertaken for national purposes, as part

1291
of national service. Before I pass from this matter I should like also to point out to the noble Lord, the Minister of Agriculure, that his zeal for the national defence led him, I think, into possibly a pardonable error as to the extent to which we should have shipping difficulties in importing our corn. He said that the amount of 4,000,000 which we raise in the country would require 857 ships of 5,000 tons each to bring it. Surely the noble Lord is confusing ships and voyages. I think that is obvious. You multiply your 857 by five. It is an excusable mistake, but it makes a very large difference, because a ship does not make only one voyage in the course of the year, but it well may make six or seven voyages.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: If it is not sunk.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Of course. Does the noble Lord suggest that every ship that is going out and coming in is to be sunk? If so, there is an end to the whole thing. Your remaining 63 per cent. will not come in. But of course the, noble Lord did not mean that. I only wish to point out that it is possible that One's zeal in these matters may sometimes lead one astray. That, however, was a small diversion from the strict path of reason which would be permissible to the noble Lord.
I pass to the economic objection to this provision. What is it? It is that you are attempting by State control to compel an industry that is now in the hands of certain people not to be conducted as the interests of that. industry demand but as the exigencies of the State require, and that has to be determined by something in the nature of Soviet committees which are to be set up from county to county to tell the people whose livelihood depends upon the agricultural industry the way in which the State wants them to use the material at their disposal. I think it is quite plain that nobody could suggest that any such provision could be applied to any other industry, because if so there is the end of society as we understand it. The Soviet system would have been established, not indeed in all its horrors but in its absolute effect. That is exactly what a Soviet Government does. It sets up committees in all industries, and compels the people to obey their directions as to the way in which the industry is to be carried on.
1292
Suppose it was found that cotton was a very important thing for us—and indeed it is—and that there were difficulties in the cotton trade owing to the increased charges for labour or other causes. Suppose that the cotton trade was flagging in consequence. Would anyone come down and say that it was essential you should have the cotton trade first of all guaranteed by a State guarantee, and then controlled by a Department of experts? I cannot see why the people who have charge of the agricultural industry should be assumed to know nothing whatever about it. Therefore, unless it is required in the national interest, I think that it is a very dangerous provision indeed to introduce.
But the danger does not stop there. Another danger has been mentioned by more than one noble Lord, and particularly by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, whose speech I am sure your Lordships heard with the greatest possible attention. The noble Duke pointed out, what indeed is the literal truth, that directly this guarantee begins to operate and you call upon the national purse to subsidise the agricultural industry, the demands and clamour in the towns for the repeal of the Bill will be such that I do not believe any Government will be able to withstand them. What is the result? You will then have introduced all your machinery, compelled the breaking up of the land against the will of the people concerned in it, promised them guarantees, and then, instead of your promise being fulfilled, other Governments who succeed you will dishonour your bond, and the Bill will be once more torn up. That I regard as a very serious and dangerous thing. I feel quite satisfied that there is not a single member present to-night who, knowing the tone and temper of the big industrial centres, will deny that that not only is a possibility but that it is the most certain probability that you can have to face. The truth is, of course, that directly this guarantee proceeds to operate, from that moment you tax every other industry for the benefit of one. That is a position which it is extremely hard to justify. Although it appears easy to satisfy another place, it would be impossible to satisfy large industrial communities upon the ground that has been heard in favour of this Bill—namely, national defence.
Let me say a word about this question of guarantee. I know that in objecting,

1293
as I do, to this I object upon grounds which are not the same as those of many noble Lords who object to it equally, and I think most notably the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, from whom I differ with considerable uneasiness. I object to this Phil also because it is an interference with the principles of Free Trade. I know that it is said that Free Trade is a shibboleth, and I would wish to state that though I am, and always have been, a Free Trader, I have never so regarded it. I have never thought that Free Trade, or any other economic law, is like a law of nature. I have never believed that it applies with equal force and with equal reason to all communities. My belief is, having regard to the peculiar conditions of this country, to the absolute necessity for its dependence upon two domestic sources of supply alone, coal awl iron, that the way in which you may best promote its prosperity and wealth is to avail yourselves without let or hindrance of the activities of other races, of the genialities of other climates, and the fertilities of other soils.
Let me now pass—and I do so with reluctance, as there is much more that I should like to say—to the question of the controls that this Bill is going to introduce. I do not think that they have been adequately considered in the full and interesting debate to which your Lordships have listened. What is it that this Bill proposes to do? In the first place, the Minister is to be entitled under Clause 4, if he finds that the provision of food can be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land under cultivation, to serve on him notices, and from those notices all kinds of terrible consequences follow, ending with the termination of his tenancy if he does not obey the directions that he is given. Let me ask your Lordships to consider what that means? A piece of land may very well be improved by a method of cultivation which would require an expenditure which is absolutely outside the power of any tenant farmer to provide. It may none the less be true that if you could provide the money, and if you could improve the cultivation you would possibly make the farm more productive than it is. The wretched man who is in occupation of that piece of land, as far as I can see, is liable, first to notice, and then to eviction. For what reason? Because be is poor.
1294
There is no other reason. If he had the money he could do it.
The real thong, I think, that this Bill overlooks from first to last is that what agriculture has suffered from more than anything else is the difficulty of obtaining sufficient capital by the tenant farmers to work the land. Everyone knows the hazard and the danger of the business, and unfortunately tenant farmers, suffering from the bitter experience to which they were exposed in the last few years of last century, when they lost all their little gains, have been extremely reluctant, if they had money, to embark it upon this form of enterprise. Therefore, if you call upon these men to provide money you will call upon them to do something that they may be wholly unable to do. If your object really was to improve the cultivation of land it would have been much better to have established some system of land banks or some place at which farmers could have obtained credit as they can in Italy upon their reputation, and upon the successful cultivation of their land.
When the occupier has recovered from that shock the next thing you find is that if he has unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary works of maintenance he is liable to another notice, and then he is liable to be fined £20 and £l a day while they remain unexecuted. "Unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary works of maintenance." Works of maintenance are very heavy. Will "unreasonably neglected" mean be satisfied that he has not the money to do it? Is that what is meant? I do not think so. I do not think that this Bill anywhere considers the possibility of the man against whom these notices are served being literally unable to comply with them. And if not, what is the man to do? He may suffer from very bad harvests. People up in the North of Scotland this autumn might have seen a sight which saddened me. They might have seen the big rivers carrying down sheaf after sheaf of oats that were all already to be taken away, because at the very last moment a flood had come and swept away the harvest of many of the farmers by the riverside.
Let us take a man like that, who has lost all the profits of the year and may be unable to execute what he ought to do under the terms of his lease. What happens now? It is passed by for the moment; he is asked to do it when he can; he is

1295
given a little time and a little encouragement and, it may be, a little help. Under this provision he may have notice served upon Trim and be fined £20 and £1 a. day for every day he does not do it. It, is not only that, but when his tenancy is ended I find that the Minister may make an order for adjusting the relations of the landlord and the tenant. I should think they would be extremely difficult to adjust. That is as far as the tenant is concerned. What happens to the landowner? There are a large number of orders made that may be served on him, and in addition there is this advantage that he will enjoy—
"Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate…cultivates or manages the estate…in a manner inconsistent with good estate management and so as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon…"
orders may be made, and a receiver and manager may be appointed to manage his estate for him, and he is to go on managing it until he has put it all right. I want to know who is to bear the expense?
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: What is the provision in the Bill for the expenses of the receiver and manager?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That can be dealt with in Committee.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Am I to understand that it is not in the Bill?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Yes, it is in the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then what is the provision in the Bill which enables this man to specify that this estate is one of those that cannot be run at a profit and on which he cannot possibly make both ends meet, and there is a loss. I want to know where it is to be borne.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKM ASTER: Is it to be a charge upon the estate? If it is to be a charge upon the estate, is it to have precedence of the existing mortgagee's charges? I have no affection for mortgagees, and I do not expect any one has, but I think that a mortgagee ought to know where he stands, and I should like to know whether the expenses under this Statute are capable
1296
of being imposed upon the property to his prejudice. I really think those are matters—and there are many others to which I could refer—which are sufficient to satisfy your Lordships that Clause 1 of this Bill, though it is said to stand upon two legs, stands upon two legs each one of which is broken. It is rickety on both its supports, and it is not such a Bill as. I submit, should receive the approval and commendation of this House.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: At the bottom of this is, I believe, the fundamental economic unsoundness of the position in which we stand. The reason why this Bill has become necessary is that economic laws have been broken everywhere owing to the war. And unless we take steps slowly to restore them, although they may not act with absolute certainty and at once, yet sooner or later they surely will act, and as you defy them from one industry to another you will prejudice the total propserity of this country. You cannot support an industry by compelling it to make payments that the fair profit of the industry cannot support, and if it be found that there be any form of carrying on any trade with is economically unsound, it is to the national prejudice and the national danger that you insist on that way being adopted. In many ways I expect all of us have become socialists; we may even have become Communists. But the Socialism which I support is not the kind of Socialism which is introduced under this Bill. The Socialism in which I believe is a Socialism which consists in a better understanding as between every class of the community, the one with the other; a little more allowance for mistakes that are made on each side; a little less readiness to pounce down on a man who may be farming a little badly or doing a few things that you think a little wrong; a little more consideration for human weaknesses and a little less Government control. I believe in benevolence, but the benevolence I believe in is the benevolence of men and women for each other, and not the benevolence of any Government Department.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, I have listened with great attention to, I think, every single word which has been spoken in the course of this debate, and

1297
perhaps the remark with which I agree most cordially, although I was not in agreement with the whole speech, was one made by my noble friend Lord Chaplin when he said that he had every sympathy with me in toy present position. I can assure your Lordships that I need all that I can get, in view of what I ventured to say in my speech in introducing the Bill—that—I was aware, painfully aware, that it was not a Bill which could be exactly described as popular in your Lordships' House.
But whilst many and severe criticisms have been made I need hardly say I have no complaint whatsoever about any of them, or indeed of the attacks, and I am naturally- very grateful for the considerable measure of support which the Bill has received from many influential quarters in the House. But whether the speeches have been for or against the Bill I hope I may say without disrespect that they seem to me to have shown great knowledge and experience, a deep sense of responsibility and, with possibly one exception, great seriousness. I am sure that the noble Marquess who moved the rejection of the Bill will allow tic to reply briefly to his speech, because he said comparatively little about the Bill. He talked a great deal about pre-war Party politics, about the wickedness of a Coalition, about the peculiar simpleness of a late hero of his, the present Prime Minister, and deduced from all this—it is true in rather more elegant language than he had previously used to the Bucks Farmers' Club when he said that; the Bill was "rotten "—that it was a thoroughly bad Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who has just sat down shares his view that it is a bad Bill, and apparently largely on the same ground that it is not a Party Bill—that it is a Bill which does not represent. the sort of traditional policy of one Party or the other, and that, because it is a Bill produced by a non-Party Government, which does not have to regard all these Party considerations, therefore it tout be a bad Bill. I venture to say that prima facie that is one of the great credentials of this Bill—that it is produced at a time of non-Party Government, and that, it seeks to do what is considered right as the result of the lessons of the war, without any regard whatsoever to the effect upon this or that Party in the State.
But the noble Marquess wants to see the Bill knocked on the head (that was his
1298
phrase), and a few days ago he saw a good sporting chance of that consummation being reached to-night. I hope he has not been depressed by the number of noble. Lords who have risen in their places—it is true very often to criticise the Bill, but to express what seems to me the sober and wise view that it would be a wrong thing, when a Bill is brought forward with this measure of responsibility on the part of the Government, that it should be summarily thrown overboard without consideration. I think that possibly the reason why the noble Marquess's advocacy in that respect seems to have failed with your Lordships is on account of what I really thought was the most remarkable statement that he made in his speech, when he said, "What chance has any reasonable Amendment, in the interests either of the tenant or the labourer, of being accepted in your Lordships' House? What chance has any Amendment which does not reflect the interests of the landlord of being accepted here?" That seems to me to be a very uncomplimentary and extraordinary suggestion. I totally disagree with it, and, whilst I am prepared for all things when the Committee stage of this Bill is reached, I am quite certain that your Lordships are not going to examine this Bill from the narrow point of view of your own interests only, and I am sorry the noble Marquess should have acquired such a pessimistic estimate of human nature as the result of his political experience.
I noticed that he expressed particular dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Bill because they did not afford real and complete security of tenure to tenants. And he expects to take with him into the Lobby in consequence of this all your Lordships who think that the present proposals in that direction go too far. In fact, so strongly did Ire speak on this subject that he admonished me several times not to venture to call the proposals in Part II of this Bill security of tenure. We do not call them security of tenure, because they do not give, and are not intended to give, security of tenure. And I am very grateful to my noble friend, Lord Clinton, for his recognition that security of tenure, in the sense of fixity and dual ownership, is a thing to which I am irrevocably opposed, and which I have done my utmost to keep out of this Bill.
The noble Marquess dismissed the whole Bill in a very scathing way. He said it

1299
was bad for agriculture, dangerous for the public, and repugnant to Liberal and Free Trade principles. I am not naturally concerned with the latter, but that indictment, as it proceeded, impressed me once more with the great flexibilty of mind and elasticity of judgment which has been one of the secrets of the noble Marquess's great influence with his party in the past. Because I cannot help recalling that only this year he did me the honour of attending a meeting which I was asked to address in his own neighbourhood. He also did me the honour of seconding a vote of thanks to me after I had explained, I am afraid at great length, what it was that the Government proposed to do in the way of legislation, and this is what he said—
"They all had reason to congratulate themselves on having had the opportunity of listening to the comprehensive, far-reaching, and courageous statement of policy which Lord Lee had made to them. A great thing it was for a man to speak his mind, and it was also a great thing for a government to have a policy. They had been told that afternoon on the highest authority that there would be a guaranteed minimum price for cereals that it was not to be a temporary war measure, but a permanent one. He was also pleased to hear Lord Lee's declaration on the question of fixity of tenure, which would put hope and confidence into the hearts of tenant farmers."
I do not blame the noble Marquess for changing his mind, but I do not feel that I have got to deal with convictions which are so deep and immovable that I need devote any further attention this afternoon to his speech.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: That was not all that I said. It is what was in the report, but I think the noble Lord will do me the justice to remember that I told him that, if guaranteed prices or anything like Protection was introduced in the noble Lord's scheme, I should do the very best I could to throw it out.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The noble Marquess's recollection is very much better than mine. I do not recall any statement of that kind. At any rate, if that was his opinion, even though I did not gather it from his speech, I quite admit that he is trying to make it good to-day, and to that extent he is consistent. But, coming now to the debate generally, there seem to me to stand out of it amongst the critics three chief anxieties: first of all, with regard to the cost of the guarantees; secondly, with regard to the possibility of ploughing orders on a large scale under Part I of the Bill; and, thirdly, with
1300
regard to the effect that the scale of compensation for disturbance in Part II might have upon the landowner. I hope I have clearly stated the three main objections that have been put forward to the Bill, and, of course, I shall have to deal with this at a later stage in Committee in great detail.
But I should like to deal with these criticisms and with the speeches which have been made upon them, briefly and broadly this evening. I have been challenged more than once, notably by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, this afternoon, who made an extraordinarily powerful speech. I did not agree with it, but everybody must admit the powerful way in which he stated his case. He said that it really was not fair that no kind of indication or estimate should have been given to Parliament of what the possible financial liabilities might be under this portion of the Bill, and also, of course, a secondary matter, with regard to the cost of administration. I feel that it was a little hard to make that statement in view of the fact that a White Paper was presented to Parliament by command of His Majesty on June 10, in which the fullest information, so far as it was possible to procure it, was laid before Parliament. That White Paper, Command Paper 741, gives all the information that is necessary to enable any noble Lord to arrive at the cost of the guarantees if, but only if, they are prepared to prophesy what the price of wheat and oats will be in 1921–22 and subsequent years. We give the scale, but the rest is in the region of prophecy.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Does it show the cost of administration?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am coming to that. It refers also to the cost of administration in connection with this question of guarantees; but I think that the question of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, went a little further. He wanted to know what was the estimated cost of administration, it is true not under this Bill, but under the related Bill which set up the county committees. With regard to that we can give a fairly close and, I hope, an inclusive estimate. The total annual expenditure which we estimate in connection with the Ministry of Agriculture operations of the county committees is £160,000 a year. The cost under this Bill of the three Commissioners is estimated at £2,000. So that the total is £162,000.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: May I ask if that includes the expenses of wages boards throughout the country?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am not sure, but I will inquire about that. I am sorry that point did not occur to me. I thought the noble Lord was referring to the operations of the county committees. However, I do not think he will find that the amount is very great compared with the other figures for which he was asking in connection with the cost of the guarantees. He asks, Can one afford to run the risk of the financial liability of these guarantees? Lord Buckmaster spoke about the "clamour" that would arise in the towns if any guarantee was made, but I think it only right, if you are going to consider the question of whether you can afford it, to ask Can we afford the present charges to which we are being subjected by our reliance and our dependence upon food supplies from overseas, and particularly from. North America? I do not think the towns which are going to clamour, or even your Lordships, have any idea of the extent of this liability at the present time. I give only one illustration. At the present rates of exchange the increased cost to us from the operation of exchange alone of every quarter of wheat that we import from North or South America is more than the total cost of that quarter of wheat before the war. If, as we know, our total imports of wheat from North and South America average between 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 quarters, we are actually paving to-day, owing to the difference of exchange alone, something between £25,000,000 and £30,000,000 which we would not have to pay if that wheat had not to be imported. I only say that this should be put against the liabilities which we might incur if these guarantees came into force because we grew the wheat here at home. Lord Buckmaster tried to pin me down, I thought, to a statement, or the expression of a hope, that we might be in a position to produce the whole of that wheat here.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I never tried.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I never suggested any such thing, but I say it is worth while to reduce our dependence upon foreign sources of supply to the utmost extent that is possible, not merely as a measure of national defence but as a measure
1302
of economy and of fiscal soundness. No doubt I shall have to deal more fully with that on a future occasion, but I hope your Lordships will keep those two liabilities in your mind when you come to a decision with regard to the wisdom or otherwise of this method of insurance by guarantees.
Now I come to the most contentious point which arises under Clause 4. My noble friend Lord Selborne, and I think the Duke of Buccleuch—and, if I may say so, no one listened with greater admiration to his speech than I did last night—both took the line which somewhat surprised me, that this Bill if carried into effect in its present provisions would fix the indifferent farmer—I think that was Lord Selborne's phrase.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Not Clause 4, but Clause 8.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I was referring to the Bill itself, but I will show why I connect it with Clause 4. He said that it would fix the indifferent farmer, and that it was the bad and lazy farmer's salvation. I find it rather difficult to follow that argument, particularly if Clause 4 of this Bill is not emasculated, because that clause gives power to the county committees to make it really impossible for the bad and lazy farmer to continue in business; and if Lord Selborne sees in the later clauses of the Bill a danger in that connection I hope I shall get his support in not giving up the more important powers to control husbandry contained in Clause 4 of the Bill.
I was particularly interested in what Lord Clinton said with regard to this question, because it seemed clear to me from his speech that he did not think the provision which would deal with good husbandry went far enough. I think he used the words, "the occupier must make the best use of his land in the interest of the country." Of course, that is the direct negation of laissez faire which is the policy of Lord Buckmaster, but I think it is the right policy. I am quite convinced that some powers more far-reaching and more effective than those that are contained in the good husbandry subsection of Clause 4 are absolutely necessary. At present they are contained in paragraph (b) of Clause 4 which I know is perhaps the most contentious clause in the whole. Bill and will be no doubt minutely examined. With regard to that I at prepared to consider

1303
proposals which do not interfere with what regard as the essential part—namely to see that grass land, when necessary, is improved, and, if arable is laid town to grass, that it should be properly laid down. So long as matters of that kind are safeguarded I shall be prepared to consider the objections which have been expressed so forcibly but with a good deal of misapprehension as to what the powers of the Bill are with regard to a Ploughing Order. I am under no misapprehension as to the feelings of your Lordships with regard to Ploughing Orders. They have been expressed very forcibly by many who have supported the Bill generally, and when we come to the consideration of the clause I hope to be able to allay many of the fears expressed.
I must remind your Lordships that there are 46,000,000 acres of cultivated land in this country. Of that area 20,000,000 are under the plough now, and another 20,000,000 consist of permanent grass, of such quality that no one but a lunatic (except when the life of the nation was at stake) would think of ploughing up. That is where your stored fertility in time of war comes in. But there is a balance of grass land which is not doing its duty, and cannot do its duty as grass land, which might do its duty better under another system. That is all I have in my mind, or that any county committee which knows its business would consider for a moment.
On this point may I refer to what I conceive to be a profound fallacy that has been evident in the course of the debate, that in time of war you can rely upon improvisation for increasing your production of cereals. We thought that in 1916 and the early part of 1917. Then all agricultural authorities said, "What is the good of ploughing up any of this grass land? It will only be eaten up by wire-worms." I agree there is a great risk when you plough up grass land that you may lose your first crop by insect pests. It is because we realised this during the war campaign and also realised that in some counties there were practically no farmers with any arable experience, no appliances, no skilled labour, that it does not do to rely upon improvisation in time of war. It is a broken reed to attempt to lean upon.
With regard to Part II of the Bill, a criticism was made by Lord Selborne and re-echoed by other speakers that the pro-
1304
visions leaned too far in favour of the occupier as distinct from the landowner. Lord Selltortie I third: used the phrase, "It, sways the beam in too mach in favour of the occupier." I can assure your Lordships that I had no such intent in framing the measure, but I quite admit that we have had our eve principally upon the occupier of agricultural land because he is essentially the food producer. Do not let it be supposed for a moment that our proposals are altogether satisfactory to the occupier. I had a letter only two days ago from a very sensible correspondent, as I thought, who said, "There is one thing I have ascertained that God cannot do, and that is satisfy a farmer." I think there is sonic truth in that. Certainly, have not succeeded in this Bill in satisfying the farmer.
I was rather sorry that Lord Chaplin, in the course of his speech, seemed to think that we had deliberately brought in a Bill which was a great hardship to landlords, a class which has done, as he said, and I entirely agree, inestimable services to the State not only during the war but in the discharge of their duties for many generations past. The difficulty, of course, is to preserve a fair balance. I agree with Lord Selborne when he said that the tenant is entitled to full security for capital legitimately invested in his holding. That is precisely what we are endeavouring to effect by means of these proposals. We might have brought in a Bill to give him fixity of tenure, but for reasons which I have stated we were unwilling to do so. But our intention was to give the tenant full security for capital legitimately invested, and no more. If the Bill does not carry out that intention your Lordships will be very well qualified to point it out when we come to that clause in Committee.
With regard to the method and scale of compensation, I recognise that there is no logic in it. We do not profess that there is any logic. After all, there is very little logic in this country; it is much more a characteristic of our neighbours across the Channel. But we suggest it as on the whole a fair and convenient compromise. I noticed with interest last night that Lord Crewe preferred the rough rule of thumb we had put into the Bill, the one year's rent, rather than a more general phrase giving full compensation for everything. I gather that Lord Clinton prefers

1305
the more general phrase. It is entirely a question of the balance of convenience. If you have the more general phrase, nearly every case practically will be the subject of litigation, which will perhaps not be a great injury to the big man but will be very hard on the small man. I believe on the whole that the words proposed will be more acceptable to the great mass of tenants and owners affected. It is a matter which can be debated. With regard to Lord Chaplin's suggestion that this Bill was one of hardship, do not believe there is anything in it which is going to be hard on the good landlord. On the contrary, in many respects he will have much to gain.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I only quoted Lord. Selborne's words.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I will accept them from whatever channel they come. I suggest that the landlord derives many advantages from the Bill, particularly with regard to the question of fixing rent, and the matter which Lord Harris brought forward so forcibly when he said, "I attach great value to the power of the committee to get rid of a bad tenant for me." He said, "It relieves me of an unpleasant responsibility." There are other provisions, such as compensation for deterioration of a holding, which I think are of real value to the landlord.
It is quite impossible, particularly at this late hour, to attempt to reply to all the speeches which have been made and I hope that many of your Lordships who have spoken will acquit me of any disrespect if I do not reply to all the points put to me. I will endeavour to do so in due course. But I must refer to one which was made by my noble friend Lord Lovat. I found it difficult to follow leis argument. As understood him he said it is no good making this country less dependent on foreign sources of supply for food unless you also make it independent with regard to wood and iron. This Bill is an agricultural Bill and deals with food. It would hardly be in order for it to have dealt with wood and iron. I know that my noble friend is deeply and rightly interested in the question of forestry, and perhaps some day he may be successful in getting the claims of forestry dealt with on some principle of this kind, in which case I
1306
shall no doubt be found supporting him. In the meantime, to say that it is no good trying to do anything about food because in time of war you might not have trees—
LORD LOVAT: I cannot accept that.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I thought the noble Lord was going to correct me. If he does not accept that, I must have misunderstood his argument. That brings me to the last word I wish to say. It is with regard to another general criticism which has been made by some speakers in the course of the debate, that these proposals do not contribute anything to the safety of the country in time of war. I was sorry to hear some of the things said on that subject. Last night the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, derided the lessons of the war and spoke about "last night's whisky." "Are we to shape our policy under the influence of last night's whisky?"
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: The noble Lord must net misrepresent what I said.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I do not want to follow the noble Marquess too far into his metaphors, but there is another statement in vino veritas. It is only two years since we were faced with this peril, and to say that because our measure is largely based on the lessons of the war as we understand them, therefore we have, so to speak, the fumes of stale whisky in our head, is not I think a very powerful argument.
During the debate I have been asked again and again, With what country are you going to war? What is the particular war and what is the particular country against which you are preparing these proposals? That seems to me a peculiarly ridiculous question to ask. We are not preparing for war against any particular country, but we say that it is our bounden duty to make this country as little exposed as possible to dangers of starvation from wheresoever they may come in the case of a future war, and that, in addition, we should do anything in our power to prevent any return of the appalling agricultural depression which followed other great wars in the past owing to lack of State interference. We recognise that you can do it

1307
only by incurring a financial risk. I claim that that risk is infinitesimal as compared with the cost which we might incur if we did not make preparation, and any money that is spent goes into the pockets of our own people instead of those of foreign producers across the sea.
Are those who disagree about the importance of this measure as a national influence, and who, I must point out, have no responsibility themselves for national defence at the present time—are they really going to take the responsibility of setting their judgment against that of the Government of the day with regard to a danger of which we are aware, and are they prepared to force their view as against the Government by rejecting this Bill on Second Reading? As my last word, I do appeal most earnestly to those of your
Lordships who may not see eye to eye with us with regard to every detail of our agricultural policy, as expressed in this Bill, at least to recognise that we are making a disinterested effort to interpret the lessons of the war as we understand them; that we are not influenced in the faintest degree by any political or Party consideration in putting the proposals forward; and that we have been actuated by a single-minded desire, in such way as we could and with such experience as we possess, to assist in safeguarding this country against the risks to which it was exposed in the last War.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Greville, L.

Chilston, V.

Harris, L.

Bedford, D.

Falmouth, V.

Hastings, L.

Marlborough, D.

Finlay, V.

Hawke, L.

Somerset, D.

Goschen, V.

Hylton, L.

Hardinge, V.

Islington, L.

Hood, V.

Kenyon, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Knollys, V.

Killanin, L.

Ailsa, M.

Milner, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Bath, M.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Camden, M.

Wimborne, V.

Ludlow, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Manners, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Northampton, M.

Addington, L.

Monson, L.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Monteagle, L. [M. Sligo.)

Abingdon, E.

Balfour, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Albemarle, E.

Belper, L.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Bledisloe, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Boston, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Chichester, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Ormmathwaite, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Penrhyn, L.

Eldon, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Queenborough, L.

Fortescue, E.

Clinton, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Grey, E.

Cloneurry, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Harrowby, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Kimberley, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Roundway, L.

Lovelace, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Sackville, L.

Lucan, E.

Cranworth, L.

St. Levan, L.

Lytton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Sandys, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Sempill, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

de Mauley, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Decies, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Plymouth, E.

Deramore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Powis, E.

Dewar, L.

Sudeley, L.

Sandwich, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Teynham, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Walsingham, L.

Selborne, E.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Wharton, L.

Strafford, E.

Erskine, L.

Wigan, L. [E. Crawford.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Faringdon, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Russell, E.

Hothfield, L.

Portland, D.

Shaftesbury, E.

Incheape, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Spencer, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Wellington, D.

Westmeath, E.

Lambourne, L.

Wicklow, E.

Lawrence, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Legih, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain) [Teller..]

Allendale, V

Lovat, L.

Bangor, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Middleton, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Cowdray, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

De Vesci, V.

Mowbray, L.

Aneaster, E. [Teller.]

Gladstone, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Aylesford, E.

Haldane, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Bathurst, E.

Parmoor, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Anslow, L.

Phillimore, L.

Coventry, E.

Bellew, L.

Raglan, L.

Devon, E.

Berwick, L.

Redesdale, L.

Graham, K. (D. Montrose.)

Blythswood, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Byron, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Leicester, E.

Cawley, L.

Saltoun, L

Lichfield, E.

Chalmers, L.

Savile, L.

Lindsay, E.

Denman, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Lindsey, E.

Derwent, L.

Southwark, L.

Mayo, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Morton, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Nelson, E.

Farnham, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Portsmouth, E.

Forester, L.

Reading, E.

Gainford, L.

Sydenham, L.

Roden, E.

Harlech, L.

Whitburgh, L.

Rothes, E.

Hemphill, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o clock.