Sitting of 24 May 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday, 12th June.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  POSTAL CENSORSHIP, BELGIUM.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that letters sent by business firms in this country to business firms in Germany are frequently opened by the Belgian military authorities; whether he is aware of the reason for this censorship; and whether representations have been made or will be made by His Majesty's Government to the Belgian Government on this subject?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The only action of the kind that has come to my notice is the censorship exercised by the Allied military authorities (including the Belgian) in occupied Germany for military reasons. I am not aware than any practical inconvenience has been caused. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  ICELAND (BRITISH FISHERMEN).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that when our fishermen are arrested for alleged offences in Icelandic waters by Danish gunboats they are, in some cases, tried on board one of the gunboats and by the very officers who arrest them, and sentenced to heavy fines by these same officers; that the British Consul apparently acquiesces in this irregularity; and why no representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Icelandic Government?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am aware that in some of these cases the police courts, which are empowered by Article 7 of the Icelandic fishery laws to try them, have been held on board the Danish fishery cutters which arrested the trawlers. No case has been brought to my notice in which the officers of the cutters have themselves tried or sentenced the skippers of the trawlers. If particulars of any such case can be furnished, inquiries will be made.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that some friendly representation should be made to the Icelandic authorities in view of the many complaints of these fishermen?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars I will have inquiries made. This matter is engaging my serious attention.

  CHINA (EDUCATION).
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Committee appointed to consider the question of the education of Chinese on British lines, and presided over by Sir John Jordan, G. C. M. G., K.C.B., last met; and when the next meeting will be held?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Committee held a preliminary meeting on 6th October, 1921. Further meetings were postponed owing to the absence of the Chairman, Sir John Jordan, first at the Washington Conference and afterwards at Geneva, and of Sir Charles Addis in China. Both have now returned, and it is proposed to hold the next meeting in the immediate future.
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date when China should pay the next instalment of the Boxer indemnity; how much the sum then payable will be; and whether, in view of the difficulties of promoting Anglo-Chinese education, particularly at the present time, he will consider earmarking at least a portion of that sum for the promotion of Chinese education on British lines?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: On the entry of China into the War, indemnity payments were postponed for five years from 1st December, 1917: hut, in accordance with the 1901 Protocol, these payments are made as on 1st January each year, the actual payments being made in the form of monthly advances. The next monthly advance on account of the indemnity will therefore be due on 1st January next. The amount then payable will be £34,427 6s. 3d. For the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on 15th May last.

  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions put forward at the Genoa Conference for the simplification of the visa for the benefit of travellers have been definitely accepted; and, if not, whether any provision has been made to deal with the matter, notwithstanding the termination of tint Conference?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: These suggestions were embodied in Article 16 of the Third Report of the Economic Commission and accepted by the last plenary session of the Genoa Conference on 19th May. His Majesty's Government has been putting these suggestions in force for some time past as far as this country is concerned.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has that been followed by other countries?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes; I think seine countries have done so. If my hon. Friend desires a precise answer perhaps he will put a question on the Paper?

  BRITISH TRAVELLERS (SEQUESTRATED MONEY).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is taken by the Foreign Office on behalf of British travellers who are deprived of their money in crossing any foreign frontier; whether he is aware that it is not unusual for a period of over one year to elapse before the return of such sequestrated money; and whether he will consider taking some action either to put an end to this War-time restriction or to expedite the release of the money taken?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Regulations are in force in most European countries to control the export of currency. Such regulations are a matter of the internal administration of the country concerned in which His Majesty's Government cannot intervene. All possible steps have, however, been taken to draw the attention of British travellers to the restrictions with which they must comply to avoid the confiscation of their money at the frontiers.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Surely when British travellers are left in Eastern or Central Europe without sufficient money to get home the Government can do something?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Government cannot intervene in individual cases.
  Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest difficulty is after the British subject crosses the frontier and not before?
  Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very large sums of money are demanded from British emigrants into Germany? Why should they demand such large sums?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a different question altogether. If the Noble Lord will put down a question I will give an answer.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: When money has been sequestrated, would it not be possible to get back that money for the benefit of the traveller in something under 12 months?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I know that cases of great inconvenience have occurred, but, after all, this is a matter of the internal administration of foreign countries.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    DEPUTY JUDGE ADVOCATE.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what duties are performed by the Deputy Judge Advocate of the Fleet during the periods at which he is not officiating at naval courts martial; whether it is a part of his duties to prepare circumstantial letters, frame charges, and prepare lists of questions for the prosecutor, for use at courts martial at which he will officiate as Deputy Judge Advocate; and whether this has ever been done?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Apart from duties in connection with particular courts-martial at the home ports, the Deputy-Judge Advocate performs instructional work of lecturing and examining officers on Naval Law and court-martial procedure. When this officer is employed at courts-martial his duties do not, as might be inferred, begin and end with his attendance at the trial. Article 673 of the King's Regulations, which deals with these duties, states, amongst other things, that the prosecutor (and for that matter the accused also) is at all times entitled to the Judge-Advocate's opinion on any question of law relating to the charge or trial; and further that it is the Judge Advocate's duty, whether consulted or not, to inform the Convening Authority of any informality or defect in the charge—and of course he can only be in a position to do so after he has carefully perused the papers.
    The Admiralty have every reason to believe that the present Deputy-Judge Advocate of the Fleet—an officer of considerable experience—impartially performs these his lawful duties. It is no part of his duties to prepare circumstantial letters, frame charges or prepare lists of questions for the prosecutor at a court-martial at which he will officiate as Deputy-Judge Advocate of the Fleet.

    OFFICERS (COMPULSORY RETIREMENT).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed to return to the rule of 55 years being the retiring age for lieutenants promoted from the lower deck when once the list of these officers is reduced to pre-War numbers; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. AMERY: It is not intended to revert to the age of 55 as that for compulsory retirement for Lieutenant promoted from the lower deck, for the reason that, owing to the reduction of the Fleet and naval establishments generally, there will not be suitable employment for officers between the ages of 50 and 55. I may add that no commissioned officers below Captain's rank are allowed to remain on the active list after attaining the age of 50.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give any reason why those naval officers promoted from the lower deck are to be compulsorily retired, while all other naval officers are to be offered inducements to resign; and why all, or nearly all, officers promoted from the lower deck for War service are to be compulsorily retired?
    Mr. AMERY: In framing the scheme for the reduction of the lists, it has been necessary for the Admiralty to have particular regard to the state of the lists after the necessary reductions have been made in order that there may be sufficient officers of the requisite seniorities remaining, and that an adequate flow of promotion may be maintained. It is solely on account of these considerations that the Lieutenants who were selected under a special scheme for promotion from the Warrant Officer lists to complete War requirements are being compulsorily retired, and it is not to be inferred that they have been specially selected for retirement in preference to others. In promulgating the scheme the Board have expressed their regret that these officers must be retired, and their sense of the loss to the Naval Service thereby involved, but this is unfortunately inevitable in the circumstances. No officers specially promoted to Lieutenant for War services are being compulsorily retired.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any special provision is being made for these officers, considering their age?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. The terms under which they are being retired have been very generously framed in view of the circumstances.
    Mr. L. MALONE: Is this not a direct violation of the pledge given by the hon. Gentleman to me that the Geddes Report would not affect adversely officers promoted from the lower deck?
    Mr. AMERY: It does not adversely affect officers generally, but those particular officers who are surplus to requirements. We are compelled in certain circumstances to reduce all officers who are surplus to requirements. What we are doing is encouraging the flow of promotions from the lower deck.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Why should there be a difference between ordinary commissioned officers and officers promoted prom the lower deck? Why should one be induced to retire and the other compelled?
    Mr. AMERY: I answered that question fully yesterday. In all cases retirement is eventually compulsory, and when officers are surplus to requirements the element of compulsion begins to work.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the position of those six officers recently promoted, after examinations under the new Government scheme, from the ranks of commissioned warrant officers and who could legitimately expect to remain in the service to the age of 55 and to rise in rank; are these officers to be compelled to retire on reaching the age of 50 on the terms of receiving the rank and the pension of lieutenant-commander, that is of £350 plus gratuity of £500, or can they retire now on those terms as if they had attained 50 years, or are they to be kept on to 50 and then thrown out on the ordinary pension with no gratuity, or are they to be compelled to retire on ordinary pension on 22nd August, 1922, and no gratuity?
    Mr. AMERY: The six officers recently promoted to lieutenant after passing certain examinations are in the same position under the scheme for the reduction of the lists as other lieutenants (ex-warrant officers) normally promoted who will net have attained the age of 50 on the 12th August, 1922. They are eligible to retire under the reduction scheme on the retired pay earned by service calculated to the 12th August, 1922, with two years' additional service and a gratuity of £500; if not so retired they will be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 50 under
    1174
    the ordinary regulations, that is, without any gratuity or addition to ordinary pension.

    BUDAPEST MUNICIPALITY (DEBTS).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information in regard to the decision of the Budapest municipality, recently reported, to send representatives to London for the settlement of their pre-War debts and to negotiate a new loan for Budapest; and what steps, if any, His Majesty's Government propose to take for the protection of present and, possibly, future British creditors of that municipality?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I have no information as regards the first part of the question. Claims by British creditors in respect of coupons and drawn bonds of the Budapest Municipality which became payable before or during the War should he lodged with the Department for the Administration of Hungarian Property, for notification to the Hungarian Clearing Office under Article 231 of the Treaty of Trianon.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all that has been done, and that nothing has come of it? Is it not desirable that representations should be made by the Foreign Office that the Government would welcome any attempt en the part of Budapest to come to some sort of settlement.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINEES, EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. INSKIPasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Press by a manufacturer of cane furniture that out of five disabled trainees placed in his workshop four are now drawing unemployment benefit; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am aware of the statement referred to, and I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for calling

    1175
    attention to it. The statement is not correct. Of the five trainees one is still employed by the firm; two are now in business in the trade on their own account, and are reported to be doing well, and one is in employment with another firm in the trade. One was found on trial to be unsuitable for the trade and has been placed in training in an alternative course.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WORKERS' PANEL.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether it is with his approval that men in receipt of unemployment benefit are disqualified for continuing to serve on the workers' panel for the courts of referees or on the rota committees of the local employment committees; whether he is aware that a very large percentage of the men who have experience of this work are at present out of employment and in receipt of benefit; and whether, in view of the fact that the disqualification of these men is detrimental to the smooth work of administering unemployment insurance, he will reconsider this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This rule was laid down by me after careful consideration of all the circumstances. In spite of the inconvenience to which it must necessarily give rise when so many persons are unemployed, I am satisfied that for the sake of retaining public confidence in the administration of unemployment benefit it is essential that persons who are themselves in receipt of benefit should not be called upon to adjudicate on claims made by others. I may add that I have endeavoured to meet the difficulties suggested by my hon. Friend by allowing the Local Employment Committees to co-opt, for work on the Rota Committees, substitutes for the members who are temporarily debarred from acting.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that, while his action may give some confidence to the public, yet it weakens the confidence of the appellants who have to appear before these Committees?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I have given the matter careful consideration. I felt
    1176
    I could not put upon a man who is drawing benefit the task of saying whether another man should or should not have it. To meet the situation I said to the organisation sending us such a man, "Can you send us another instead, for the time being?"

    BELMONT INSTITUTION, EPSOM.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Minister of Labour what class of unemployed men are being sent from South London to the Belmont Institution, Epsom; what travelling facilities are provided for these men whereby they may seek employment in London or elsewhere; and what provision is being made for their families while these men are in the institution?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The men in Belmont are able-bodied men who, in the opinion of the guardians by whom they are sent, are more fitted for institutional than for outdoor relief. The master of the institution has a discretion to provide suitable clothing and an omnibus or railway ticket for any man who has a reasonable chance of obtaining work. Few of these men have any dependants. Where they have, the guardians give the dependants any outdoor relief that may be necessary.

  HOUSING.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether it is now the Government's settled policy to refuse all further financial assistance to local authorities who desire to provide houses in excess of the 176,000 already promised under the Housing Act of 1919 and, if not, how much lower have building costs to fall before the Government will sanction further building operations under the Housing Act of 1919?
    Mr. HALLSasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that costs of building are now clown so low that contracts are being accepted for building houses as low as between three and four hundred pounds per house, and also the fact that the number of building trades' operatives out of work is rapidly increasing, he will now sanction further schemes for building the much needed houses, and thus ensure that no less number of houses will be built because the Government called a halt last year?
    Sir A. MOND: Local authorities have been guaranteed against excessive loss at a heavy cost to the taxpayer during the whole period of high prices, and I think that where they consider it desirable to undertake further building they may not unreasonably be asked to do so on their own responsibility. It is not proposed to make any departure from the policy which I announced last Session as to the limitation of the number of houses to be built under the State-assisted scheme.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are very anxious to know what is the settled policy of the Government, and will he be good enough to reply in the first part of the question, as to whether the Government are going to sanction any further houses beyond the 176,000 under the Act of 1919?
    Sir A. MOND: I have repeatedly stated the Government policy is not to sanction any further new houses under the present scheme of State assistance.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state for the information of local authorities what proportion of the value of a contract they can borrow and what will be the rate of interest?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's question. Perhaps he will put it down.
    Mr. RENDALL: As the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed with the State scheme, can he inform local authorities what proportion of the amount of a contract for housing can be borrowed and at what rate of interest?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down.

    INCREASE OF RENT ACT.
    Mr. HALLSasked the Minister of Health if he will state how many local authorities he has received resolutions from requesting him to extend The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act, 1920, or to introduce legislation to obtain such power; and whether he intends moving in the matter?
    Sir A. MOND: I have received representations in favour of the extension of
    1178
    this Act from three local authorities. As the Act has still over 12 months to run, I think it would be premature to take any decision at the present time.

    WORKING CLASSES.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Health if he will grant the Return, Housing of the Working Classes, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of Yorkshire? [Return showing, for each of the urban and rural district councils in England and Wales, the estimated number of houses for the working classes within the meaning of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919,in their district; how many of these houses have, during the three years ended on the 15 th day of April, 1922,been inspected by the conned with a view to ascertaining what closing orders should be issued or what notices should be served under Section 15 of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909,or Section 28 of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919;the number of closing orders issued during that period by the council; the number of such notices served during that period by the council; how many of those closing orders have been determined on completion of the necessary repairs; how many of such undetermined closing orders have been enforced; in how mazy cases the requirements of the notices so served have been duly complied with; in, how many cases where those requirements have not been duly complied with the local authority have themselves executed the repairs necessary to render the premises in all respects reasonably fit for human, habitation; in how many cases the failure to enforce a notice served under Section 28 of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919,has been due to the proviso to Sub-section (1)of that Section; in how many cases any representation, or report of the medical offierc of health of the district that a house is unfit or not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation has not been acted upon, by the council either by the issue of a closing order or by the service of a notice under Section 15 of The Housing, Town, Planning, etc., Act, 1909,or Section 28 of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919;and the number of houses re-occupied in respect of which closing orders had been made operative.]
    Sir A. MOND: The information asked for could only be obtained at the cost of much labour and expense which I do not feel justified in incurring or asking local authorities to incur at the present time. A summary has, however, been prepared from the reports of medical officers of health for 1920, covering substantially the points on which the hon. Member asks for information and I shall be glad to send him a copy of this. The reports of medical officers for 1921 on these matters are being summarised as they are received, but up to the present comparatively few have been furnished. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with the information for this year also when it becomes available.

    WHITEFIELD.
    Mr. HALLSasked the Minister of Heatlh whether the Whitefield Urban District Council are giving preference to ex-service men in letting the houses that have been built under the housing schemes; how many have been let to ex-service men and how many have been let to non-service men, how many to people who have come from outside the urban district council area of Whitefield; how many ex-service men's names are now on the lists as applicants; and whether the lists have been closed to further applicants, including ex-service men?
    Sir A. MOND: The selection of tenants for houses built under the assisted housing schemes is a matter within the discretion of local authorities and is not one in which I am in a position to intervene.

    BRADFORD.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the applications for new houses on the register of Bradford Corporation is approximately 6,000, including over 4,000 ex-service men, involving, roughly, with their families, 20,000 people, who are now living in furnished apartments, cellar dwellings and other properties which have been officially declared uninhabitable and in many instances have been closed; whether he is aware that the corporation have secured land for 10,000 houses, have completed streets, drains, and sewers for over 1,400 houses; that schemes for the erection of 856 have been sanctioned, of which 630 are now occupied and the remainder
    1180
    approaching completion; that a year ago 957 people were employed upon house building in Bradford, whereas the number employed at present is about 450 and is rapidly diminishing; and that building labour is leaving the city because there is no work to be secured; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will reconsider the decision of his Department of 11th May, when application by the corporation to proceed with the erection of a further 520 houses was refused, and enable the corporation to continue the work necessary for the housing of the population?
    Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the matters stated by the hon. Member. The effective contribution to the housing problem is made when houses are finished. In the case of Bradford 100 houses contracted for last December are still unfinished and about 50 have not got beyond the foundation stage. When due progress is made with the houses already sanctioned, I shall be prepared to consider sanction for further houses.
    Mr. MYERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the work is being completed so rapidly in respect of the houses tinder construction that 49 men were actually paid off last night, and less than 30 houses are in the stage now where foundations have not been started?
    Sir A. MOND: That is not the information which I have received.

    INFANTILE MORTALITY (GRIMSBY).
    Mr. A. T. DAVIES (Clitheroe)asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Medical Officer of Health for Grimsby to the effect that of the deaths during April 15 children were too weak to live, and that were born weaklings because the mothers, through distress caused by unemployment, were not properly nourished; and what steps he proposes to take to arrest infantile mortality, the result of such causes?
    Sir A. MOND: My attention has been drawn to a Press report of the statement referred to, and I am in communication with the town council with regard to it. The object of the maternity and child welfare work carried out by local authorities with my sanction and with the aid of the

    1181
    Government grant is to arrest infant mortality and to safeguard the health of mothers and children. This work includes the supply of milk, and in some cases meals, to expectant and nursing mothers.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    DRUGS.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London, which sufferers from fever attend from all parts of the world, a drug known as Bayer 205 is largely used; and whether he can state whether this drug when imported is considered a fine chemical and subject to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Sir A. MOND: I understand that this drug has been used in six cases in the institution in question. I have no information as to its precise chemical composition, but unless it is identical with any commodity specified in the list issued by the Board of Trade, under Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, or contains any commodity so specified which has not lost its identity, it is not at present subject to duty.

    TOY DYNAMOS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a case of miscellaneous goods, under Mark 600, which arrived on the 11th April at Leith per ss. "Coblenz," included three toy dynamos of the value of 3s. 8½d. each; that each dynamo contained a magnet valued at 4d. which, being slightly in excess of the 10 per cent. allowed in free, resulted in His Majesty's Customs levying a duty of 3¾d. on the three dynamos; that the clearing agent at the docks charged 3s. 6d. for the labour involved; and can he give any idea as to the expenses incurred in the collection of this 3¾d.?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    If the respective values of the dynamos and magnets were as stated in the question the importers would be entitled to relief from the Key Industry Duty charge of 3d. as the value of the dutiable iugredients would not exceed 10 per cent. of the value of the whole article. I am, however, informed that no claim that the value of the magnets did not exceed 10 per cent. of the value of the dynamos was made and that the package was entered as containing, in addition to other dutiable goods, three toy dynamos containing permanent magnets of a value of 10d. on which Key Industry Duty of 3d. was tendered and paid. I have no information as to the charges made by the importers' agent in respect of services rendered by him in connection with the consignment of which, it will be observed, the dynamos formed only part. It is impossible to allocate the cost of collection of Customs Duties to individual importations, but I may state that in this case the duty on the magnets was included in a total sum of 18s. 6d. paid in respect of the dutiable contents of the package.

    MILK SUPPLY, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Health (1) what immediate steps he proposes to take to safeguard the health of the inhabitants of the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne, in view of the report of the medical officer of health and confirmed by the representative of the Ministry of Health, showing a dangerous degree of pollution in the milk supply of that city; if he would recommend the boiling of all milk offered for consumption until such time as definite measures have been taken to remove the serious menace to the health of the local community;
    (2) whether he has made inquiries and, if so, has he reason to believe that the serious conditions existing in Newcastle-upon-Tyne as shown by the medical officer of health, indicating 60 per cent. of pollution in samples of milk taken and tested, are applicable to other and, if so, to what towns and cities in England and Wales; and if new legislation is proposed to ensure a purer milk supply in the country?
    Sir A. MOND: I am advised that the conditions found in Newcastle are probably similar to those existing in other towns in the country, and, as I have previously stated, I am hoping shortly to introduce legislation on the subject of milk. It is generally advisable to boil milk intended for children unless it is derived from a certified source or has been properly pasteurised. The local authority will no doubt be guided by the advice of their medical officer of health in this matter and in the exercise of the powers vested in them for dealing generally with the situation.
    Mr. DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate if legislation on the subject will be introduced this Session?
    Sir A. MOND: I hope so.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion that it would expedite matters if a few of the distributors of impure milk were boiled as well as the milk itself?
    Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the desirability of introducing this legislation in another place so as to give further time for its consideration?
    Sir A. MOND: I will consider all these questions.

    POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION (POPLAR).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of Health whether Mr. Cooper's Report en the wasteful expenditure of the Poplar guardians will be published as a White Paper; whether he has yet decided what action to take thereon; and, if so, whether he will tell the House what such action will be?
    Sir A. MOND: The Report in question has been published by the Stationery Office, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the letter which I have addressed to the guardians.
    Following is the letter:
    "19th May, 1922.
    SIR,—I am directed by the Minister of Health to forward to you the accompanying copy of the Report made to him by the Special Commissioner appointed to inquire
    1184
    into the expenditure of the guardians of the parish of Poplar Borough, and in view of the Commissioner's serious criticisms of the guardians' policy and administration, I am to urge them to give the Report their immediate and most careful consideration.
    As the result of his inquiry the Commissioner finds that the administration of the Poor Law in Poplar is dictated by a policy which is in many instances foreign to the spirit and intention of the Statutes, and that the principles which influence the guardians in the excessive expenditure referred to in the Report are as bad as, if not worse than, those existing prior to the present Poor Law system. In particular he points out that the lavish allowances of outdoor relief encourage persons to apply who would not otherwise do so, and that the guardians' policy has a tendency to demoralise the recipients and is calculated to destroy incentive to thrift, self-reliance and industry.
    In the letter which he addressed to the Minister on the 22nd ultimo, the chairman of the guardians contended that the guardians, in granting relief according to their judgment of the necessities of the various cases, were merely exercising a discretion which is vested in them by the Statutes. It seems necessary, therefore, to point out quite clearly that, while the guardians are entrusted with a discretion to determine what is needed to relieve destitution where destitution does in fact exist, they are not empowered to make grants out of moneys provided by time rates in any case in which destitution is not present, and their action in granting relief in such cases as those mentioned by the Commissioner is, therefore, unlawful.
    The policy of the guardians is fair neither to the ratepayers of the parish nor to the independent workmen who are persevering to support themselves and their families by their own unaided labour. The Commissioner considers that by careful administration the guardians could effect a reduction in their present expenditure of at least £100,000 per annum, equivalent to the produce of a rate of over 2s. in the £. By adherence to the principles which have elsewhere been almost universally recognised as governing the administration of relief the guardians could check the progressive demoralisation of the poor of the parish and could afford a much needed encouragement to those who have persisted in reliance upon their own thrift and industry.
    The Minister, therefore, earnestly trusts that the guardians will at once proceed to set on foot the reforms which are indicated in the Commissioner's Report and he looks to receive from them within a month from this date a statement of the action which they have taken or propose to take in this direction. The guardians must clearly understand that it will not be possible for the Minister to make further advances of public money unless they bring their policy and administration into conformity with the

    1185
    principles and procedure which are accepted by other boards of guardians throughout the country.
    I am, Sir,
    Your obedient servant,
    (Signed) W. S. FRANCIS,
    Assistant Secretary.
    The Clerk to the Guardians of the Parish of Poplar Borough."

    ROCKFELLER TRUST (INSTITUTE).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether any sum of money has been offered to and accepted by the Government from the Rockefeller Trustees for the purpose of establishing an institute in London; what the amount of the offer was, what are the objects of the institute, arid where it will be situated; whether it will entail any annual charge on his Department; and, if so, what is the estimated approximate cost of the same?
    Sir A. MOND: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a full answer on this subject which I gave on the 23rd of February to the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark. Since that date a site for the institution has been acquired in Blooms-bury bounded by Gower Street, Keppel Street and Malet Street.

    BRITISH EAST AFRICA (OFFICIAL SALARIES).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the salaries of officials in British East Africa have been reduced; if so, upon what basis; and whether a similar reduction will take place in those of British East African dependencies?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): No reduction has been made in the substantive salaries of Government officials in the British East African Dependencies. A reduction has, however, for reasons of financial stringency, been found necessary in the special temporary local allowance which has been granted since the 1st of April, 1920, to European officials in Kenya, Uganda and the Tanganyika territory. This allowance, at the rate of 50
    1186
    per cent. of sterling salary, was granted for two years in the first instance to compensate officials for the fact that, owing to currency changes, their sterling salaries were to be converted locally at 10 florins instead of 15 rupees to the pound. The allowance has now been reduced to 25 per cent of sterling salary. The other East African Dependencies, whose currency is different, and where no local allowance is paid, are not affected by the decision.

    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Committee appointed to investigate the practicability of a Ministry of Defence and the Committee appointed to investigate the amalgamation and co-ordination of services common to the various fighting forces will have to hear the same evidence, and in view of tire fact that all amalgamations and schemes of co-ordination of common services are merely steps towards the creation of a Ministry of Defence, he will consider the advisability of appointing the same Committee for both investigations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The Committee of Imperial Defence will investigate the practicability of a Ministry of Defence. The Government do not accept the view that the same Committee should investigate this question and that of the amalgamation and co-ordination of services common to the fighting forces. The latter proposal is on the face of it more readily practicable, and may be accomplished, even if a common Ministry of Defence should prove not to be desirable.
    Mr. MALONE: Are we to understand the Committee of Imperial Defence, which is composed of very hard-working Government officers, is going to do all this detailed work, or are they appointing a Sub-Committee?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The methods of the Committee of Imperial Defence are varied and are appropriate to the particular occasion and object of their work. I will not commit myself at the moment, but I should think probably a Sub-Committee would be appointed for the purpose.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether a Lord of the Treasury has been appointed in succession to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has ceased to exercise the functions of a Lord of the Treasury; and, if so, on what date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An appointment to the vacant Lordship of the Treasury has not yet been made. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ceased to act as a Lord of the Treasury from the date of his appointment to that office.
    Mr. HOGGE: What date is that?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say without notice. A reference to the "Gazette" would inform the hon. Member.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment was not gazetted for weeks after it was announced here, and that the date is in question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "From the date of his appointment to that office' is the date when the appointment is gazetted.

    HONG KONG (LIEUT.-COMMANDER HASLEWOOD).
    Mr. INSKIPasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the publication of a letter alleged to have been written by the Admiralty on 8th October, 1921, informing Lieut.-Commander Haslewood that the action of the Admiralty in requiring him to restrain his wife from making efforts to secure the abolition of the system of mui tsai was taken at the instigation of the Governor of Hong Kong; whether Lieut.-Commander Haslewood was afterwards retired from the Navy and whether, in view of the decision of the Government and of the proclamation of the Governor of Hong Kong prohibiting mui tsai on the ground that slavery is not allowed in the British Empire, the Government will take steps to repair the injury which Lieut.-Commander Haslewood has suffered and to withdraw the expression of displeasure which he received?
    Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply, but as the answer to this question is a long one, perhaps it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I circulated it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. INSKIP: I do not know why the answer should be a long one. I asked a very definite question, as to whether the Government will take steps to repair the injury which Lieut. - Commander Haslewood has suffered.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member representing the Admiralty might read the answer. It seems to be a matter of general interest to the house.
    Mr. AMERY: I am aware of the publication of the letter referred to, but my hon. and learned Friend seriously misquotes it. The Admiralty did not, and could not, take any action in requiring Lieut.-Commander Haslewood to restrain his wife, since the Admiralty had no knowledge whatever of the incidents referred to in the question until after Lieut.-Commander Haslewood had returned from Hong Kong to England at his own request. The facts, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, are that the Governor asked the Naval Authorities at Hong Kong to induce Lieut.-Commander Haslewood to restrain his wife from propaganda which, in the opinion of the Governor, was being conducted on injudicious lines. As was quite proper, in view of such a request made by the officer responsible for the government of the Colony, the Naval Commander-in-Chief interviewed Lieut.-Commander Haslewood, who, however, was not willing to use his influence as suggested. Before the Commander-in-Chief had decided to take any steps officially, Mrs. Haslewood became seriously ill, and Lieut.-Commander Haslewood applied to return to England, which application was granted in order that he might proced home with his wife. It is not the case that Lieut.-Commander Haslewood was afterwards retired from the Navy. He had retired some years previously, and was only re-employed temporarily owing to the War, and his re-employment, like that of other re-employed officers, was about to terminate owing to the return of peace conditions. So far as the Admiralty are concerned, Lieut.-Commander Haslewood has suffered no injury and has received no expression of displeasure.

    1189
    I would add that the opening Clause of the last part of the question misrepresents the terms of the Proclamation in question, which read as follows:
    "Slavery is not allowed to exist in the British Empire, and therefore it must be understood that mui tsai are not the property of their employers."
    Mr. INSKIP: Is it to be understood that the Governor of Hong Kong is at liberty to request a British lady, whether she is the wife of a British officer or not, to refrain from opposing something which is inconsistent with the constitution of the British nation; and is it right that a British officer should be liable to be visited with the displeasure, or something equivalent to the displeasure, of their Lordships at the Admiralty, because he has a wife who is public-spirited enough to advocate the abolition of something inconsistent with the British Constitution?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there any obligation, expressed or implied, lying on the Government of Hong Kong to respect the laws and customs of the Chinese, who are the immense majority of the inhabitants?
    Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I am not able to deal with the second supplementary question. As regards the first, I can only repeat what I have said, that the officer in question did not incur in any way the official displeasure of the Admiralty, and I presume the Governor of any Colony is entitled to express his views as to the judiciousness or otherwise of propaganda, which, however well intentioned, may possibly be likely to create trouble in a community of a very different character from our own.
    Mr. INSKIP: As the hon. Gentleman has charged me with seriously misquoting a letter, may I ask my hon. Friend whether this is a correct transcription of the letter which the Admiralty wrote to Lieut.-Commander Haslewood:
    "As regards the interference with your wife's actions in Hong Kong, such action was taken by the naval authorities to induce you to restrain your wife from interfering publicly in a controversial matter."
    And was that controversial matter the question as to whether the system of mui tsai was consistent with the adopted principles of the British Empire, namely, that slavery is not allowed in the Empire?
    Mr. AMERY: That is entirely consistent with the answer I have given. I have said that no steps were taken against the officer, who, of his own accord, asked to be transferred home.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that it is in order for a Governor of any Crown Colony to approach either an Army or a Navy commander in that Colony with a view to interfering with the action of the wife of a subordinate officer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that the initiative in this case was with the Governor. Any further questions on this point should, therefore, be addressed to the Colonial Office.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I will address my question to the Colonial Office.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I would like to ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think, in view of the general feeling of the country relating to this connection of our administration with what is definitely slavery, that an apology is due to this young officer from his Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There, again, I think, from the information now given to the House, that further questions should be addressed to the Colonial Office.
    Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that what is complained of is not only the initiative taken, but the action taken on that initiative by the Admiralty, so that this question is properly one for the Admiralty?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This question was quite correctly put to the Admiralty, but it is now a question of an apology asked for, and it seems to me that that is a question which should be put to the Department responsible for the initiative.
    Mr. INSKIP: May I respectfully call attention to the fact that I took the course, rightly or wrongly, of putting the question to the, Lord Privy Seal on the ground that this is a question as to whether the Government should take action overriding the executive administration, both of the Admiralty and of the Colonial Office, and was not that a proper course to take?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think it was, and, perhaps, if the hon. and learned Member will put a further question to the Prime Minister, both Departments would be able to take the responsibility for the answer.
    Mr. INSKIP: I will adopt your suggestion, Sir, and put a further question, in the hope of eliciting a better answer.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may by permission intervene, the general practice is that in these questions addressed to the Prime Minister and myself, if we think they are of a Departmental character, we ask the Minister of the Department, who will naturally be much more cognisant of the details, to answer them, and that course we pursued here; but after what has happened, I will make it my business to endeavour to secure an answer to the next question put by my hon. and learned Friend.
    Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Is the House to understand that the Admiralty made no official communication at all to Lieut.-Commander Haslewood or was any official communication made by the Commander-in-Chief?
    Mr. AMERY: As I understand the position, the Commander-in-Chief raised the question with Lieut.-Commander Haslewood as to whether his wife's conduct was judicious or not, but nothing further happened because Lieut.-Commander Haslewood, owing to the state of his wife's health, asked to be transferred.
    Sir R. HALL: Was this case reported by the Commander-in-Chief to the Admiralty, and did the Admiralty send any official despatch on the subject to the Commander-in-Chief which was in part or in whole communicated to Lieut.-Commander Haslewood?
    Mr. AMERY: I should be very glad to have notice of that question.

    HAGUE CONFERENCE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister the terms of reference for the Hague Conference; and whether the existing treaties of peace, disarmament, and reparation payments will be debarred from the discussions as in the case of the recent conference at Genoa?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The terms of reference of the Hague Conference are printed as No. 8 of Command Paper No. 1,667, and are limited to the subjects mentioned therein.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that the question of reparations is to be barred at the Hague as at Genoa? If so, the thing will be a farce.
    Mr. L. MALONE: Will the Government consider the desirability of appointing a proper secretariat for this conference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There could be no more unfounded charge than that which is implied in the hon. Member's question I do not suppose the secretarial work of any conference has ever been done better than at recent conferences, whether at Washington or Genoa.
    Mr. MALONE: Does the right hon Gentleman know that I did not cast any aspersion on the British secretariat? I meant a proper international secretariat.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There always is an international secretariat, and the cooperation, and may I say the friendship, between them has been of the most cordial kind.

    WEST AFRICAN RAILWAYS (FREIGHT RATES).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the freight rates upon raw produce carried on the West African railways are inflated with a view to providing a surplus; whether such surplus is so provided and, if so, to what extent; whether these freight balances are being used to meet Government expenditure; and whether the freights in almost every case greatly exceed those of any other West African territory and thereby prejudice the sale of native produce?
    Mr. WOOD: The answer to the first question is in the negative; the second does not, therefore, arise. As regards the third question, in Nigeria and Gold Coast the excess of gross receipts over working expenses which represents a small percentage return on capital expenditure, is carried to general revenue, in Sierra Leone there was no such excess in the last year for which figures are

    1193
    available, but a deficit which was met from general revenue; as regards the last part of the question, sufficient data are not available for comparisons with the freight rates on the different French West African railways, but is worth remembering that in the British colonies native produce can now be bought many miles from the coast which was impossible before the Government built the railways.

    AIRCRAFT (WIRELESS APPARATUS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the wireless apparatus carried by aircraft, both British and foreign, and operating on the recognised air routes between England and abroad, is regularly tested upon each occasion before a flight is undertaken?
    Mr. PARKER (for Captain Guest): Under an arrangement made between the wireless company, who supply and maintain the apparatus, and the three approved British companies operating on the routes between England and the Continent, the reception and transmission of the installation on each machine are tested by the wireless company before every flight from this country. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the testing of the wireless apparatus on the foreign machines.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Could not friendly representations be made to the owners of foreign planes, as, obviously, wireless is useless, unless in perfect working order?
    Mr. PARKER: I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to the Minister.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HOWARD GRITTENasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious state of depression in the fishing industry, which is due to high railway freights, the price of coal, and also to foreign competition, whereby large quantities of fish are being dumped into this country free of duty, the foreign fishermen gaining further advantages from the rate of exchange and from the subsidies of their Governments; whether he is aware that the British Trawlers' Federation may be obliged to ask owners to lay up their fleets unless the Govern-
    1194
    ment can help them; and what proposals of remedy or assistance the Board of Agriculture is prepared to make?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR (for Sir Arthur Boscawen): My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties of the industry, which were recently discussed with representatives of all branches of it by my Noble Friend the Deputy-Minister of Fisheries. The question whether any and, if so, what practical remedies can be applied is now being considered by an ad hoc Committee representative of the Industry and the Fisheries Department, and until my right hon. Friend has received their Report he can make no statements on the subject.
    Mr. GRITTEN: In view of the facts, first, that if these trawler fleets are laid up, a million men will be put out of employment; secondly, that the important associated industries will be seriously dislocated; and, thirdly, that it is estimated, as the result, £1,000,000 more will have to be paid in the weekly unemployment dole, will the Minister of Agriculture recognise the immediate necessity of some expedition and celerity in this matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that arrangements are proceeding as rapidly as possible.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the Scottish Fishery Board represented on that Committee?

    BOARD OF EDUCATION (INSPECTOR'S OFFICE).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the annual cost in rent and upkeep of the Board of Education Inspector's office in Old Queen Street?
    Sir J. GILMOUR, (for the First Commissioner of Works): The annual cost of outgoings in respect of these premises is estimated at £423 per annum. No rent is paid, as the premises are Crown freehold.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Could not the premises be let for other purposes? Are not the premises in Whitehall sufficiently large to hold the whole staff?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think at the present moment that would be advantageous.

    TOWER OF LONDON (ADMISSION CHARGES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the hon. Member for the Pollock Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what are the present charges for admission to the Tower of London and if there are any free days to the public; if special terms are given to parties of school children under charge of masters or mistresses; and, if so, what they are and if it will be possible to allow school parties to view the buildings free on certain days if applications are made from an educational point of view?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The present charges are 1s. 6d. inclusive, or 6d. each for the Armouries, Vaults, Jewel House, and Bloody Tower, admission to the Armouries and Vaults being free on Saturdays and Bank Holidays. School children accompanied by teachers are admitted free on Mondays, and at half-price on other days.

  INDIA.

    CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS).
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what would be the extra charge, present and recurrent, to the Indian Treasury of increasing the Indian Civil Service pensions of men retiring after the War,i.e., from 1st April, 1919, by £100 for five years' active service after the present pension is earned and £200 for 10 years of such service; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the question of granting this?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I would invite the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the similar question by the hon. Member for Seven Oaks (Sir T. Bennett) on the 10th May. As regards the concluding words of the present question, I am afraid that the answer must be in the negative.

    PRISON TREATMENT.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the
    1196
    offences for which men when convicted are treated as special class prisoners in gaol with all the consequent concessions?
    Earl WINTERTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to his own questions of the 27th March, the 11th April and the 15th May and the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) of the 21st March and the answers to them. The Government of India in making suggestions to Local Governments referred to offenders convicted under the Acts of 1908 and 1911. But certainly in the Punjab and Bombay, and, perhaps, in other provinces also, the order for special treatment is made by the convicting court upon a consideration of various matters of which the nature of the offence is only one. The orders vary considerably, it is understood, from province to province. Bihar is the only province, so far as information goes, where the special treatment is made applicable exactly upon the lines suggested by the Government of India.
    Sir C. YATE: Is there any reason for this special treatment in this case?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have already explained, in my previous answers to questions, at considerable length, the reasons which led the Government of India to make these suggestions. I think those reasons are based on the practice which has been followed in various countries in recent years.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the Noble Lord ask the Government of India to reconsider that?
    Earl WINTERTON: I cannot undertake to do that. It seems to me a matter most essentially which rests within the purview of the Government of India.

    INDIAN SUBJECTS, UGANDA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether regulations have been made segregating Indians in Uganda; and, if so, when these regulations were made and how are such regulations reconciled with the declaration of equal rights for European and Indian citizens within the British Crown Colonies made by the Con-

    1197
    ference of Prime Ministers; and will he state the intentions of the Government in this matter?
    Mr. WOOD: With one exception, all town planning schemes in Uganda have been suspended pending a general decision of policy in regard to segregation. The exception is the town planning scheme for Kampala, which was prepared in the middle of 1919. A large part of the area reserved for Indians under the scheme has already been taken up by them, and I have not felt prepared in suspending other schemes, to attempt any reversion to the status quo in Kampala, as the arrangement there had the full approval of the local Indian community.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that in Kampala alone steps have been taken to segregate the Indians, but in other cases these schemes are held up, until the Colonial Office come to a decision on the matter?
    Mr. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member is quite accurate in saying that all other schemes except that at Kampala have been held up. That in Kampala is proceeding in accordance with arrangements come to in 1919, which, as I have said, had the full assent of the local Indian community.

    RUBBER PLANTATIONS, MALAYA.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many acres have been granted to Japanese and American subjects, respectively, in the Federated Malay States and also in the Straits Settlements; and whether he is in possession of information to confirm or refute the current statements that the slump in the British rubber trade has been caused to a large extent by the action of His Majesty's Government in granting such large rubber plantations to Japan and America that these countries no longer require to import British-grown rubber?
    Mr. WOOD: I am not in possession of the statistics asked for in the first part of the question, but I have no reason to believe that the present rubber situation has been affected by the ownership of rubber plantations in Malaya or elsewhere by Japanese or Americans.

    CALENDAR OF STATE PAPERS (PRICE).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the recent raising of the price of each volume of the Calendar of State Papers from the former 15s. to £3 will force many public and university libraries to discontinue the purchase of this most valuable series of historical records, their limited finances not permitting them to pay a fourfold price for this long range of volumes; and whether he will endeavour to reduce the price of the forthcoming volumes to a more moderate figure?
    Mr. YOUNG: The suggestion made in the first part of the question that the price of the Calendar of State Papers has been raised from 15s. to £3 for each volume is incorrect. The flat rate of 15s. was abandoned in 1914, and volumes published since have been priced on a basis of cost of production for each volume separately. Volume XXIII of the Venetian Series is presumably the volume which is in the mind of the hon. Member, and the price of £3 was necessary in order to cover the heavy cost involved in its production. While I agree with the hon. Member as to the value of these records, I am not able to recommend a reduction in price for subsequent issues other than the reduction which will automatically follow the fall in printing costs, etc.
    Sir C. OMAN: Is it not a fact that for many, many years down to 1915 the sum of 15s. was exacted, that only once has any sum differing between 15s. and £3, as an intermediate sum, been charged, and does the hon. Gentleman not see by raising the price to £3 a volume, nobody can possibly afford to buy these volumes, with the result that the whole numbers will be thrown on the Government, instead of getting many hundreds of pounds out of libraries?
    Mr. YOUNG: Perhaps the hon. Member will regard what I said in my answer when he has an opportunity of considering it. It is not the case that the price has been raised to £3 a volume. It is only in the instance mentioned that the volume is priced at £3. The price has been raised, as we so often have to do nowadays, to such a price as will be adequate to pay the increased cost of production.
    Sir C. OMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that by raising the price to the cost of production in this way, the volume will not sell, and therefore the object of raising the price to the cost of production is defeated?

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state what was the total amount of the National Debt on 31st December, 1918, so that a comparison may be made with the figure for 31st December, 1919?
    Mr. YOUNG: The approximate deadweight Debt on 31st December, 1918, was £7,290,000,000. The corresponding figure in December, 1919, was £7,998,000,000, the increase of £708,000,000 being due partly to fresh borrowing in 1919 for outstanding War charges and demobilisation, and partly to the increase in the nominal total of the debt by £140,000,000 as the result of conversions at a lower rate of interest into 4 per cent. Funding Loan and 4 per cent. Victory Bonds.

    ALLOTMENTS BILL (SCOTLAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Allotments Bill for Scotland will be introduced?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): The Bill was introduced and read a First time in another place yesterday.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When will the Second Reading be taken?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WAR GRAVES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department make any arrangements for the relatives of soldiers killed in France and Belgium to visit the graves and cemeteries now established in those countries; and, if not, do they make any grants or render any other assistance to the voluntary organisations who under-
    1200
    take this kind of work, or do these societies have to bear the whole cost of conducting all such parties?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): Grants are made to several philanthropic societies undertaking this work. In the current year a sum of £32,500 has been provided for this purpose, as shown on page 178 of the Army Estimates.

    THE WAR PENSIONERS.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the War 'Office whether pre-War pensioners employed in Government offices on or before 1st April, 1919, who were medically examined and graded, but were retained in their civilian employment as indispensable, are eligible for increase of pension in the same manner as applies to pensioners who rejoined the Colours?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The answer is in the negative. Reassessment of pension is limited by the Royal Warrant to men who actually gave satisfactory re-enlisted service.

    LOSS OF S.S. "EGYPT."
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information that the lascar crew of the Peninsular and Oriental mailboat "Egypt" were seized with panic and, with revolvers in their hands, prevented women taking to the lifeboats; and whether he will take steps to prevent lascars on passenger steamers carrying firearms?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I have no information at present upon this matter, beyond what has appeared in the Press. I am ordering a formal investigation.
    Mr. MILLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the reports of ships' captains who received the wireless message S.O.S. from the s.s. "Egypt," and of their statement that they could not get details of latitude and longitude in order to proceed to the rescue; whether he can state the personnel of the wireless staff; how many were fully qualified wireless operators; and whether

    1201
    or no watchers are employed on passenger-carrying vessels as allowed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1919?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No reports have yet been received by the Board of Trade from ships' captains who received the wireless message S.O.S. from the "Egypt" to the effect that they were unable to obtain details of latitude and longitude from the vessel, but reports on the subject are being obtained. The "Egypt" carried three fully qualified wireless operators. Ocean-going passenger vessels which carry more than 200 persons in all are required to have three fully qualified operators. Ocean-going vessels, whether passenger or cargo, which have less than 200 persons on board, carry one or two fully qualified operators, as the case may be, and, in addition, one or two certificated watchers. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Statutory Rules.
    Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make close inquiry into the statement made regarding the steamer "Titan," the only qualified wireless operator of which stated that he was receiving strong signals from the "Egypt" before he went off watch, and when he returned to duty two hours after the accident, there came for the first time knowledge of something which would have been available during the whole period to the watcher if he had had scientific knowledge; under these circumstances does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some fresh investigation should be made into these men being allowed to take duties for which they are not competent?
    Viscount CURZON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the wireless operator on the "Egypt," a London boy, went down under circumstances of the greatest heroism, and died at his post?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is perfectly obvious that every relevant question of the kind referred to must be fully investigated.
    Mr. MILLS: In view of the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member, I wish to make it perfectly clear that my question imputed no cowardice to any person.

    CANADIAN COMPANIES (REGISTRATION).
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement issued by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London to the effect that, officially, Canadians are classed as foreigners in the United Kingdom, and that if a Canadian company wishes to establish its own branch in this country it must register under Section 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, thereby accepting classification as a foreign country, and effectually barring itself from competing for Government contracts; and what measures it is proposed to take to remove this barrier to inter-Imperial commercial relations?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. A company incorporated in Canada which establishes a place of business in this country is required to file with the Registrar of Companies the documents mentioned in the Section referred to by the hon. Member, but it does not thereby accept classification as a foreign company. So far as I am aware, a Canadian company which has complied with the Section is not debarred from competing for Government contracts.

    ENEMY ACTION (CLAIM, MR. A. KENDALL).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state when the claim for £1,000 made on the 12th October, 1918, by Mr. Austin Kendall, I.C.S., of 47, Wynnstay Gardens, Kensington, in respect of the loss occasioned to him by being torpedoed by the Germans on his way home from India in the "Multan," on 27th July, 1917, is likely to be paid; what is the cause of the prolonged delay in dealing with this claim, whereby serious inconvenience and loss are being caused to the applicant; and what is the total number of war claims still to be dealt with?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The delay in disposing of Mr. Austin Kendall's claim is due to the very large number of claims which have to be

    1203
    dealt with by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. The number of claims remaining to be disposed of by the Commission is 52,473.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this is really becoming rather a scandal? It is four years since this claim was lodged, and no compensation has been paid. Serious loss and inconvenience has been caused to this gentleman—as I know personally —and what, therefore, about the other 52,000 applicants?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend is aware that the amount of money to be distributed is limited, but that to secure fair treatment we have aimed at investigating cases of hardship first; so that I hope in the course of the present year considerable progress will be made with the distribution.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Could not a grant-in-aid on account be given where prima facie the claim was a just one?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Already special investigation has been made in cases of exceptional hardship.
    Mr. GRITTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the Committee will reach the cases of compensation to property—I understand they are now only dealing with personal claims?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: When will they reach the case of compensation to fishermen?

    Number of Departments.

    Date.

    Senior Mixed.

    Junior Boys.

    Junior Girls.

    Junior Mixed.

    Infants.

    31 January, 1919

    …

    288

    62

    59

    793

    8034

    31 March, 1920

    …

    299

    58

    57

    835

    7,983

    31 March, 1921

    …

    315

    63

    54

    842

    7,954

    The numbers of men and women certificated head teachers of mixed departments were:

    On 31st March, 1920:

    Men

    …

    …

    …

    9,385

    Women

    …

    …

    …

    6,001

    Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot reply to that without notice.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Does this include the members of the mercantile services?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman think of increasing the personnel of the Commission, so that these cases can be dealt with a little more rapidly?

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (HEAD TEACHERS).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the President of the Board of Education the number of senior mixed departments in elementary schools for the years 1910, 1916, 1921 and 1922, and the number of headships of such schools held by men and women, respectively; and the number of junior departments in elementary schools for the same period, and the number of headships of such schools held by men and women, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    The answer is as follows:
    The only figures available as to the numbers of senior mixed and of junior departments in public elementary schools in England and Wales relate to 1919, 1920 and 1921, and are as follows:
    And on 31st March, 1921:

    Men

    …

    …

    …

    9,361

    Women

    …

    …

    …

    5,984

    I regret that I cannot give corresponding figures for 1910 and 1916, nor state the numbers of men and women head teachers

    1205
    of senior mixed and junior departments separately. The head teachers of infants' departments are, of course, all women.

    PENSION (NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT, Mr. J. W. BEE).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. J. W. Bee, late No. 17,247, quarter-master sergeant, North Staffordshire Regiment (number of identity certificate, S.C.K., 7,875); is he aware that on the 4th May Mr. Bee forwarded to the pension office, Broomyard Avenue, Acton, his old identity certificate on which all the stamping spaces had become obliterated, asking that a new certificate be forwarded to him; is he aware that two pension days have since passed without Mr. Bee receiving any certificate, in spite of three unanswered applications which Mr. Bee has sent; and will he explain the cause of this treatment and have the certificate forwarded at once to Mr. Bee?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): A new identity certificate has been sent to the man. I regret the delay.

    SMYRNA (ATROCITIES COMMISSION).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reports now being received of atrocities committed by Greeks upon Turks in Pontus and Ionia, the Government will now publish the Report of the inter-Allied Commission on Greek atrocities committed on the occasion of the landing of the Hellenes at Smyrna?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of the publication of this Report was fully considered and discussed by the Allied Governments at the time, when it was decided, for the reasons fully explained by the Prime Minister in this House on 22nd March, 1920, that publication was inadvisable.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not the implication from non-publication obvious, and has the hon. Gentleman seen the recent reports by Lady Kitty Vincent and letter
    1206
    of Mr. Arnold Toynbee as to the atrocities recently committed to which reference is made in the question?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; the answer is in the negative to both questions of the hon. Baronet.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MANDATES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America have agreed that in respect of mandated territories the United States of America and its nationals shall have the benefit of all engagements of His Majesty's Government defined in the Mandate, notwithstanding the fact that the United States of America is not a member of the League of Nations; and, if so, what benefit accrues to the mandatory power from undertaking the expenses and risks of accepting mandates and from being a member of the League of Nations?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Negotiations are proceeding with the United States Government in connection with the territories to be held under A and B mandates with the general object mentioned in the question. I do not think it is justifiable to assume that such benefit as may be derived by the mandatory and other members of the League from those territories will be lessened as a result of the negotiations.

    EMBOSSED ENVELOPES.
    Sir C. OMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he will refund to firms which at present hold large quantities of the envelopes stamped with the two-penny embossed stamp the sum which they paid to the Post Office for this surplus stock, which has now become useless, or will, as an alternative, furnish them with similar three-halfpenny envelopes to the equivalent amount of the sum which they disbursed on the two-penny envelopes which they wish to return?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): During the week ending Saturday, 3rd June,

    1207
    twopenny postage stamps, three halfpenny official post cards and official stamped stationery bearing twopenny or penny embossed stamps, will be exchanged at any Post Office counter for other postage stamps, post cards or stamped stationery, of equal value. Where firms hold large quantities of stamped stationery, special arrangements will be made on application to the Postmaster at the Head Post Office of the district.
    Sir C. OMAN: Will the special arrangements be anything like those suggested in my question?
    Mr. PEASE: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the instructions in the Post Office Circular.

    PRISONERS (RELEASE).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the men Hogan and Cooley, convicted in January last of felony, described by the learned judge as non-political, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, have been released; and, if so, upon what grounds?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): These persons were released from custody at the beginning of April in pursuance of the amnesty extended to prisoners who had committed offences in Great Britain from Irish political motives.
    Sir C. YATE: Was the amnesty extended to prisoners convicted in England?
    Sir J. BAIRD: It was extended to prisoners in the same category who had committed crimes from political motives.

    NIGERIA.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Nigeria carries a debt of £6,000,000 as a share in liability for War charges; if he will state the amount of the interest and sinking fund upon this sum; and how it is now being met?
    Mr. WOOD: No, Sir. The offer made by the Nigerian Government in 1916 was, with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government, withdrawn in 1919, in view
    1208
    of the change in the financial position of the country caused by the decision to prohibit the importation of "trade spirits" and the large expenditure required for the development of the country.

    WEST AFRICAN DEPENDENCIES (BUDGETS).
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he anticipates the Budgets of the West African dependencies to show a credit balance or deficit for the year ending 1923?
    Mr. WOOD: In the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and the Gambia the Estimates for the current year show a surplus of revenue over ordinary expenditure. In Nigeria the Estimates show a deficit, which will be met from surplus balances.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Mr. GRITTEN: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the practice of so many hon. Members not appearing in the House to put the questions standing in their names on the Order Paper. This practice causes great inconvenience to many hon. Members who desire; when they see an important question on the Paper, to put equally important supplementary questions; and is not this practice somewhat derogatory to the dignity of this House. Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider the feasibility of imposing some form of penalty upon them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member is a very practical one. Hon. Members may have other engagements, or sudden calls of which they were not aware. In those circumstances, I should be reluctant to pass any censure upon them.
    Mr. GRITTEN: Would it not be a matter of the merest courtesy to give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot be present?
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Would it not get over the difficulty if the hon. Member occasionally thought out an important question for himself?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is the best guardian of his own conscience.

  IRELAND.

    LONDON CONFERENCE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proceedings in the Ard Fheis in Dublin yesterday, he can make any statement in regard to the proposed conference in London between the Government and the Irish signatories to the Treaty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to apologise for his absence and to answer this question for him. As stated on Monday by my right hon. Friend, His Majesty's Government do not wish to make any statement on these subjects before seeing the representatives of the Provisional Government who are crossing on Thursday night. It is expected that a full statement will be made on Monday.

SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA.
Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the importation from overseas of money, valuable securities or property intended to be used for seditious propaganda and for purposes connected therewith."
This is quite a simple Bill, consisting of only six Clauses. The first Clause indicates the offences which may not be committed, namely, these which are enumerated in the title of the Bill as I have read it to the House. It includes also a definition of money, valuable security and property, and further it says that these articles when intended to be used for propaganda with seditious intent shall be contraband goods under the Post Office and Customs Acts. Clause 2 defines the expression "seditious intent." The definition embodied in the Bill expresses the common law of England as laid down in numerous decided cases, and summarised in Lord Halsbury's Laws of England, and in Stephen's Digest of the criminal law. Clauses 3, 4, and 5 deal with powers of search and arrest, and penalties and limitation of prevention. Clause 6 allows that the Bill shall be made applicable to the Irish Free State by Order in Council. It also sets out the short title of the Bill, "The Seditious Propaganda Act, 1922." This then is the whole scope of the Bill. The House will have observed what it sets out to do is to prevent the receipt and use of funds
1210
from alien sources for the purpose of Bolshevist and seditious propaganda in this country. As the House may be aware, the ordinary law provides no penalty whatsoever for the introduction of money or property for seditious objects. So long as the Defence of the Realm Act was in force there was no need for any law of this kind. But this defensive measure no longer exists, and meanwhile Communism becomes further entrenched, until it may happen that the Government of the day may be forced to pass panic legislation. Panic legislation is belated and often a deplorable way out of a crisis which should have been foreseen and guarded against in calmer and more dispassionate moments. I venture to believe that every constitutionally-minded citizen will support me in this effort to prevent this old country of ours from being politically and morally disorganised and Bolshefied, with all the inevitable accompaniments of pillage, murder, misery and starvation. There are, no doubt, some people who will take the view that convictions may be difficult to procure, and that therefore it is of little use to attempt to pass legislation which is, or may be, of a contentious nature. Let me remind these people that prevention is better than cure, and the mere fact that legislation existed in concrete form to deal with cases of wrongful importation would act as a considerable deter rent. All thieves are not caught, but there is less thieving, because it is a criminal act, and I ask hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches who cheer that remark to consider and ponder upon it. These, then, are the purposes of the Bill. Let me now state, as briefly as possible, the chief reasons for introducing it. First and foremost it is common knowledge that alien moneys and property have been entering this country with the object of fomenting Bolshevist disaffection and propaganda. I go back to 18th November, 1920, when the Home Secretary, replying to a question whether large sums had been sent over from Russia for Bolshevist propaganda, stated:
"It has been ascertained that a sum of rather more than £40,000, derived from the sale of precious stones sent from the Soviet Government, was invested by Mr. F. Meynell in Exchequer Bonds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1920; col. 2080, Vol. 134.]
This answer implies, though it does not expressly say so, that this money was

1211
being used for Bolshevist propaganda Later, on 20th April, 1921, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, replying to a question, said:
"My attention is constantly directed to the Bolshevist propaganda in this country. … An accurate estimate of the amount spent cannot be given, but in December last a Bolshevist agent stated that it exceeded £23,000 a month. … There is evidence that some, at any rate, of the money came direct from the Moscow Government, but that was before the signing of the Trade Agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1921; col. 1883, Vol. 140.]
It is within the recollection of the House that subsequently Lord Curzon, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, wrote to Mr. Krassin definitely accusing the Moscow Government of having broken their pledge not to foment agitation within the British Empire. There is not yet trust in the faith of the Russian Soviet Government in this respect, as evidenced by the inclusion in the recent Cannes Resolution of a provision of protection against Bolshevist propaganda. The same question was even more recently discussed at Genoa. In addition, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the famous libel case brought last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). In the course of his cross-examination, the right hon. Gentleman stated:
"I have no hesitation in saying that Russian money at the moment is subsidising the Communist movement.
Sergeant Sullivan: The Russian rouble is extremely depreciated.
Mr. Thomas: But the jewels are advanced in value."
This case is still proceeding, and we may yet hear interesting developments from it. Let me instance one more proof, and a very important proof, that legislation is necessary. This proof comes from His Majesty's Government themselves, and it is evidently inspired by inside information. In reply to a supplementary question, on the 25th April, 1921, the Home Secretary stated:
"As to the law, I do not think it is sufficiently strong at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1921; col. 35, Vol. 141.]
If over one year ago the law was not sufficiently strong, it is obviously not sufficiently strong now. It is just a little over a year since those significant words were spoken, and yet the Government have taken no steps to pass any legisla-
1212
tion in order to meet the situation, although—I say this with a sense of responsibility—I believe that the movement of Communism in this country is stronger than it was in April 1921. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, go and find out. These are the reasons why I have introduced this Bill, and why I ask the House to give it a First Reading. It is a Bill which I have shown is long overdue, and I hope that the Government may see their way either to adopt the Bill as their own child or to grant such facilities that it may become law. I regard it as a very fortunate coincidence that I should be introducing this Bill on Empire Day, for it is the British Empire that the Russian and German propagandists wish and are determined to undermine and to overthrow. They know that the best way to achieve this is to destroy the foundations of the parent country. I feel Therefore that I shall have support for this Bill from all those who believe that the future peace and prosperity of the world depend upon a strong British Empire.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It may seem somewhat ironical that my hon. Friend in introducing this Bill should have quoted me it support of it and that the party for whom I am speaking should have asked me to oppose it. I want, in the first place, to make it perfectly clear that we are anxious as any Member or any party in this House to stop seditious propaganda, but I ask the House to note the fact that the gentleman responsible for the introduction of the Bill bases his case on questions to the Government and their answers. In other words, he is moving a Vote of Censure on the Government.
Mr. MURRAY: I based it, not only upon questions put to the Government and their answers, but also upon questions put to and answers given by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. THOMAS: I have never put a question in this House on the subject.
Mr. MURRAY: I did not say so.
Mr. THOMAS: My action in this matter has been taken outside, and I shall continue to follow my course. I said that this is a censure on the Government. If what is taking place, as my hon. Friend alleged, be a danger to the State, and if, as I believe, he is honest in his belief, that there is something seriously taking place, I put it to him that, in substance, he is

1213
saying that he as a private Member is going to ask the House of Commons to do that which the Government themselves refuse to do.
Mr. MURRAY: That is quite right.
Mr. THOMAS: That is exactly our case. We believe that, if the Government themselves are aware of what is taking place, if they believe that it is against the Empire, and if they have the proof, they are wanting in their duty not to come forward and deal with the question themselves.
Mr. MURRAY: Hear, hear!
Mr. THOMAS: it is not for a private Member to deal with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In the second place, I want to submit that the language may be open to a construction that would be ruinous to the working-class movement as a whole. Here is a Bill to prevent seditious propaganda. If it were limited to any Government sending money to this country, I would not only not oppose it, but I would wholeheartedly support it, because it is not the duty of any Government to interfere with the internal affairs of another. It is not the duty of Russia to interfere with us, and it is not our duty to interfere with Russia. My hon. Friend, however, realises that the International Trades Union Movement sends money to this country, and they are entitled to send money to this country for legitimate purposes. [Interruption.] Are we going to allow anyone to interpret what is seditious? There are many people who would make the propagation of trade unionism seditious. [Interruption.] We had a Bill introduced last Friday, and many supporters of it did not hesitate to say that their only object was
to make it difficult for the trade union movement to support the Labour party.
Mr. STANTON: Nonsense!
Mr. THOMAS: I am stating my views. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Stanton) is himself a judge of manners, and I do not propose to quarrel with him.
Mr. STANTON: You might as well not. If I am insulted, and hear all sorts of names shouted at me from the other side, am I not permitted to bully them back a bit in their own way?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member himself began interrupting. When only 10 minutes are allowed, there ought to be no interruption.
Mr. THOMAS: I therefore say that we ought not to give a First Reading to this Bill. There is no Member or party in this House that can claim a monopoly of patriotism or love for the Empire. No section of the House can say: "We alone are the guardians of the British Empire." We are just as jealous for the British Empire as the Mover of this Bill. We are anxious to see it preserved, but, equally, we want to see some individual liberty. We believe that this is a dangerous Bill. We believe that, if the things foreshadowed by my hon. Friend are true, it is for the Government themselves to take action, and for that reason we shall vote against the Bill.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the importation from overseas of money, valuable securities, or property intended to be used for seditious propaganda and for purposes connected therewith."
The House divided: Ayes, 221: Noes, 77.

Division No. 120.]

AYES.

[4.15 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Breese, Major Charles E.

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Briggs, Harold

Clough, Sir Robert

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Barnston, Major Harry

Brown, Major D. C.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Bruton, Sir James

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beats

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Burdon, Colonel Rowland

Cope, Major William

Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Betterton, Henry B.

Butcher, Sir John George

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Bigland, Alfred

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

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

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

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

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Casey, T. W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Cautley, henry Strother

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

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

Brassey, H. L. C.

Cheyne, Sir William Watson

Doyle, N. Grattan

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Lloyd, George Butler

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Eiveden, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Lorden, John William

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Rodger, A. K.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Forestier-Walker, L.

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Forrest, Walter

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

Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Stanton, Charles Butt

Gardner, Ernest

Manville, Edward

Steel, Major S. Strang

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Stevens, Marshall

Gilbert, James Daniel

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Stewart, Gershom

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Matthews, David

Sturrock, J. Leng

Goff, Sir R. Park

Middlebrook, Sir William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Sugden, W. H.

Grant, James Augustus

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

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

Mond, Rt. Hon, Sir Alfred Moritz

Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Morrison, Hugh

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Mount, Sir William Arthur

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)

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

Nail, Major Joseph

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Neal, Arthur

Tickler, Thomas George

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

Townley, Maximilian G.

Hallwood, Augustine

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

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

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen.J. (Westminster)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Waddington, R.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Nield, Sir Herbert

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Waring, Major Walter

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Hinds, John

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

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

Parker, James

Wheler, Col. Granville C, H.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pearce, Sir William

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Hood, Sir Joseph

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Piks

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & cl'ckm'n.w.)

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

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Pennelather, De Fonblanque

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

Howard, Major S. G.

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Perring, William George

Windsor, Viscount

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Winterton, Earl

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

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Wise, Frederick

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Wolmer, Viscount

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Pcwnall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Preston, Sir W. R.

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Kidd, James

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Purchase, H. G.

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement

Raeburn. Sir William H.

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Remer, J. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lindsay, William Arthur

Remnant, Sir James

Mr. Gideon Murray and Colonel

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Renwick, Sir George

Gretton.

NOES.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Banton, George

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hallas, Eldred

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Halls, Walter

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hayday, Arthur

Robertson, John

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Hirst, G. H.

Sexton, James

Cairns, John

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Shaw, Thomas (Preston}

Cape, Thomas

Hogge, James Myles

Spoor, B. G.

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Hoimes, J. Stanley

Sutton, John Edward

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Irving, Dan

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

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

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

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Kenyon, Barnet

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Kiley. James Daniel

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Finney, Samuel

Lawson, John James

Wignall, James

Foot, Isaac

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Galbraith, Samuel

Lunn, William

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

Gillis, William

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

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

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Myers, Thomas

Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Kennedy.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gideon Murray, Sir John Butcher, Colonel Gretton, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Sir Percy Newson, Sir Rhys Williams, Mr. Seddon, Lieut.-Colonel Ashley, Mr. Gould, and Brigadier-General Sir Owen Thomas.

SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA.
  SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA BILL,
  "to prevent the importation from overseas of money, valuable securities, or property intended to be used for seditious propaganda; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [BILL 136.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL.
Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move
"That leave be given to bring in a. Bill to suspend temporarily the spring register of electors prescribed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918."
This Bill, if brought in, will be of the shortest, and the arguments in its favour are very simple, so I shall not occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes. The sole object of the Bill is economy. The economy to be effected is not very great, but it is, at least, an economy to which there can be but very little objection. I wish to place the case, as far as I know it, perfectly frankly before the House, and to state the only arguments which have been mentioned to me against the Bill. There is one which I may dismiss in a moment. It is the argument that, in this time of unemployment, it will, perhaps, slightly tend to increase the unemployment in the printing trade. Surely, however, to keep going an expense of this kind for that purpose would be one of the worst possible forms of State doles. The only other objection to the Bill has been that, in the case of the very few persons who will be affected, they may just fail to get on to the register until six months later than they otherwise would have done. That, however, is very seldom likely to happen, for it is, I believe, only once within the last 30 years that a Parliamentary General Election has taken place otherwise than at a time when it would come upon the autumn register.
1218
I should like to say just one word as to how this question was first raised in the House. I believe it was first raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) in a question which he asked before November, 1920. In November, 1920, I addressed a question to the then Leader of the House, as to whether the Government would bring in legislation to effect this economy, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that, in view of the big saving likely to be effected, the Government would be very glad to do it if they were satisfied that there was a sufficient body of opinion in its favour in the House. The remarkable thing is that, within a very short time of that answer being given, I was able to obtain nearly 300 signatures in approval of that proposal from Members of every party and every section without exception, including the Labour party; and I received refusals from less than six people. I am not sure whether there were four or five, but there were less than six Members of the House who refused. Therefore, I venture to hope that on this occasion the House will give leave to bring in this Bill, and that by that means the Government will have such an expression of opinion as will enable them to effect this small economy and to effect it in a way which can bring hardship upon nobody whatever.
Mr. HODGE: I think if anything could be said that was pertinent to these introductions under the Ten Minutes Rule the House, and private Members of the House, have a right to object to these Bills being brought in in this way in the absence of members of the Government. The Leader of the House is not here, and this is a question entirely affecting the electorate by which this House is elected. As a matter of fact, the autumn register is at present in preparation, and this spring register which the hon. Member wants temporarily to suspend is probably the register upon which the next General Election will take place. That is almost certain. I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind. He puts it forward as an economy—the saving of a small sum of money. You would save a great deal more money if you got a register sufficiently up-to-date to get rid of this Government altogether—to get rid of all its extravagances and all its

1219
promises. That would be a much more effective way of dealing with the matter than trying in a ten minutes speech to achieve a small economy, which would undoubtedly effect the very thing in employment which the hon. Member suggested, and in the absence of any responsible Minister—I repeat in the absence of any responsible Minister—because if there had been any Minister present who felt the responsibility that ought to attach to him when this was introduced, he should have spoken instead of me. So I say in the absence of any responsible Minister the House ought to reject this Measure on these grounds. It is the duty of this House to the elector ate to see that the register at all times is the most efficient and most complete which can be provided.
Mr. BOWERMAN: On a point of Order. Is it customary when a subject has been considered by a Committee of the House, as this subject has within the last two or three weeks, that an endeavour should be made to anticipate any recommendations which the Committee may submit?
Mi. SPEAKER: The Standing Order relating to Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule is quite general. I do not think there is any right to stop a Bill on the ground that its substance has been considered by a Committee upstairs.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to suspend temporarily the spring register of electors prescribed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918."
The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 112.

Division No. 121.]

AYES.

[4.34 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas 3. S.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Lindsay, William Arthur

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Lloyd, George Butter

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Elveden, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M

Lorden, John William

Barnston, Major Harry

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Loseby, Captain c E.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

Fell, Sir Arthur

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

Forestier-Walker, L.

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Forrest, Walter

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Bigland, Alfred

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

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

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Ganzonl, Sir John

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E

Gardner, Ernest

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Gee, Captain Robert

Matthews, David

Brassey, H. L. C.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Breese, Major Charles E.

Glyn, Major Ralph

Molson, Major John Elsdate

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Goff, Sir R. Park

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Briggs, Harold

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Morrison, Hugh

Brittain, Sir Harry

Grant, James Augustus

Mount, Sir William Arthur

Brown, Major D. C.

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Bruton, Sir James

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Nail, Major Joseph

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

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

Neal, Arthur

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Gretton, Colonel John

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

Burdon, Colonel Rowland

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

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

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Hailwood, Augustine

Nicholson. Reginald (Doncaster)

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

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Oman. Sir Charles William C.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Hinds, John

Pearce, Sir William

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

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

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

Clough, Sir Robert

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

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hopkins, John W. W.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Hurd, Percy A.

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Cope, Major William

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Preston, Sir W. R.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Jesson, C.

Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Remnant, Sir James

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Renwick, Sir George

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Kidd, James

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Davidson, J C. C. (Heme! Hempstead)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Larrror, Sir Joseph

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

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

Rodger, A. K.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Windsor, Viscount

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Winterton, Earl

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Tickler, Thomas George

Wise, Frederick

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Townley, Maximilian G.

Wolmer, Viscount

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

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

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Tryon, Major George Clement

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

Stanton, Charles Butt

Waddington, R.

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.

Waring, Major Walter

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Stevens, Marshall

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Stewart, Gershom

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Sugden, W. H.

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sutherland, Sir William

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Mr. D. Herbert and Colonel

Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry

Assheton Pownall.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Purchase, H. G.

Santon, George

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Grundy, T. W.

Remer, J. R.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Halls, Walter

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hayday, Arthur

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

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Robertson, John

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Henderson. Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hirst, G. H.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Sexton, James

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hoimes, J. Stanley

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Cairns, John

Howard, Major S. G.

Spoor, B. G.

Cape, Thomas

Irving, Dan

Sturrock, J. Leng

Casey, T. W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sutton, John Edward

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Johnstone, Joseph

Taylor, J.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

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

Davies, A, (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kenyon, Barnet

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

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

Kiley, James Daniel

Wallace, J.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Edge, Captain Sir William

Lawson, John James

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Lunn, William

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Evans, Ernest

Mallalieu, Frederick William

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Finney, Samuel

Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

Wignall, James

Foot, Isaac

Mills, John Edmund

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

Galbraith, Samuel

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Gilbert, James Daniel

Myers, Thomas

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

Gillis, William

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

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

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

O'Connor, Thomas P

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Parker, James

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—

Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Herbert, Sir William Bull, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Nall, and Colonel Burn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL).
  "to suspend temporarily the spring register of electors prescribed by The Representation of the People Act, 1918,"presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House a couple of questions relating to business. I wish to ask first in regard to to-morrow, and then in regard to the business to be taken on the Order Paper of to-day. May I ask whether the House is to have the advantage of the Debate to-morrow being opened by the Prime Minister?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I had proposed to make a statement on this subject before I received notice from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and before I read the letter addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in the morning

1223
papers. I had an opportunity of reporting to the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon the strong desire of the House that he should himself open to-morrow's Debate by a general statement on the course of events at the Genoa Conference, and on the results achieved by it. On being made aware of the strength of that feeling, as expressed in all quarters of the House, and especially by those who had throughout given to him their warm support, the Prime Minister authorised me to say that he would most certainly defer to the wishes of the House. The Prime Minister will accordingly open the Debate to-morrow, but reluctant as he would be to trouble the House with two speeches on one day, he counts upon the House to allow him a reply, should the course of the Debate or the criticism directed against him render, in his opinion, a second speech necessary.
Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, may I ask what Orders the right hon. Gentleman proposes to ask the House to take, and will he take note with regard to No. 6 (Harbours, Docks and Piers Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill that there will be very considerable opposition on this side of the House to that Order being taken at a late hour?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will defer to the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will not attempt to take Order No. 6 after 11 o'clock. With that exception, I propose to take the first 11 Orders on the Paper.
Mr. S. WALSH: I would like to say that we had no intention to be discourteous by the insertion of the letter which appeared in the public Press this morning. A similar communication was sent from the Labour party's room to the right hon. Gentleman in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting yesterday evening.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it was posted at seven o'clock yesterday evening, when both of us appear to have been in the House, and I was here until the rising of the House. The letter only reached me this morning after I had read it in the Press. I at once accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and I knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
1224
Platting had no intention of being discourteous.
Mr. HOGGE: May I ask why the Leader of the House, on two separate occasions, gave the House the impression that the Prime Minister in the first case would exhaust his right, and to-day he says that he can only speak if the House allows him? Does not the Leader of the House know that, in Committee of Supply, the Prime Minister can, with file Chairman's permission, speak as often as he likes?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that the House is very much interested in debating this point, but I originally contemplated that Members of the Opposition desired to put down a Motion in regard to Genoa, and when I spoke of the Prime Minister exhausting his right to reply the other day, that was one of those lapses of memory that occasionally occur to hard-worked men. I was referring to my original idea that the Debate would be upon a Motion and not upon a Supply Vote. As regards my statement to-day, the hon. Member apparently fails to appreciate the Prime Minister's mind. The Prime Minister feels that to open a single day's Debate with a speech perhaps of an hour's duration, and then in the course of the same Debate to make another speech occupying an hour, is imposing a large draught upon the time of the House. The Prime Minister is well aware that he has, like all of us, the right to speak as often as he is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, or the Chairman's eye in Committee, but it was a feeling of deference to the House, and a desire not to impose unduly on the House, that caused him to ask me to explain that he would ask the indulgence of the House if he had to make an unusually long draught on the time of the House tomorrow in the course of the Debate.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I wish to draw attention to the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, which says,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order."
The Standing Order referred to says that such a Motion may be made and passed for the exemption of any "specified business." I submit that to put in the words "Government Business" is not a compliance with the terms of the

1225
Standing Order, which says "specified business." In support of that I will point out that if we read it literally it would suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule for 18 Orders. We have been told that only six are to be taken to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, 11."] I understand that 10 are to be taken, and I submit that to put down the Motion in such general terms as "Government Business," when the Standing Order says "specified business," renders that Motion open to debate and is not in compliance with Standing Order No. 1.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member will look up the records, he will see that this Motion is quite in common form. I have a recollection of his making the same point with my predecessor.
Captain BENN: No.
Mr. SPEAKER: At any rate, it has been raised, and a ruling has been given more than once that this form of Motion complies with the Standing Order.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, as we hope, will speak twice to-morrow, and if it be obvious that there are many Members who wish to take part in the Debate, will the Government consider the desirability of giving a second day for it, especially as we have had no statement from the Prime Minister for more than two months?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The second day could only be Whit Monday.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Government, I believe, attach some importance to the Conference at Genoa, and is it not worth while giving a second day for the purpose, if it is found to be in the interest of the House and of the country?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If time were unlimited, it might be worth while, but time is not unlimited and, as the hon. and gallant Member must realise, Friday is not at my disposition.
Sir D. MACLEAN: There is one point about the Debate which I should like to urge. I presume the Government will not endeavour to take the Foreign Office Vote to-morrow, as we naturally wish it to be put down again before Supply be closed.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think it would be convenient to leave the Foreign Office Vote open, but I will put in a plea at this stage that if the Foreign Office Vote is closured when Supply days are ended, the right hon. Gentleman will not bring it up under the title of undiscussed Votes.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: There are many other questions of foreign policy which many Members of the House wish to discuss and which are entirely unconnected with the Genoa Conference. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the Foreign Office Vote is put down for another day, I do not mean necessarily immediately, in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing these other questions among which I have, of course, in my mind the policy of the Government in regard to the Near East, and especially in the light of the awful revelations of new Turkish butcheries?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not have any objection to putting down the Foreign Office Vote for every allotted clay if it be the wish of the House, but the hon. Member knows how Votes are fixed for discussion.
Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that to-morrow will not be an allotted day? It is obviously an occasion chosen for a very special subject for the convenience of the Government, and should not, therefore, in the ordinary course, be an Allotted day.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Debate is fixed not for the convenience of the Government, but at the special desire of the House. Of course, it will be an allotted day. Allotted days are for that purpose. My hon. Friend seems to share the fallacy which is growing in this House that if there is a real desire to discuss anything, it is an unsuitable subject for an allotted clay.
Colonel GRETTON: Obviously tomorrow there will not be by any means a financial discussion for the purposes of the Estimate, and therefore it is not an occasion, as I contended, which can properly be treated as an allotted day. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that point?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend has been a Member of this House for a very long time, and

1227
he knows it is the pleasure of the House habitually to discuss grievances on Supply and not finance. If every time a grievance is discussed the day is not to be counted an allotted day, the rule as to Supply will be reduced to a perfect farce.
Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand then that the Genoa Conference is a grievance
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend so regards it.
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. Chamberlain.]
The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 77.

Division No. 122.]

AYES.

[4.43 p m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

Edge, Captain Sir William

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Elveden, Viscount

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Lindsay, William Arthur

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Evans, Ernest

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Barlow, Sir Montague

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Lloyd, George Butler

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Barnston, Major Harry

Fell. Sir Arthur

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

Barrand, A. R.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Lorden, John William

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Lort-Williams, J.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.>

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Forrest, Walter

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

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

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Gardner, Ernest

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Gee, Captain Robert

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

Bird. Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Gilbert, James Daniel

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Mailalieu, Frederick William

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Glyn, Major Ralph

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

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Got!, Sir R. Park

Manville, Edward

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Brassev, H. L. C.

Grant, James Augustus

Mason, Robert

Breese, Major Charles E.

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

Matthews, David

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Briggs, Harold

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

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Brown, Major D. C.

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Bruton, Sir James

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Buchanan, Lieut-Colonel A. L. H.

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

Morrison, Hugh

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Mount, Sir William Arthur

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Hailwood, Augustine

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Burdon, Colonel Rowland

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

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

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

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Nail, Major Joseph

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Neal, Arthur

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

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

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

Casey, T. W.

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

Hilder Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm Ladywood)

Hills, Major John Waller

Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

Cheyne, Sir William Watson

Hinds, John

Palmer, Brigadier-General G L.

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

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

Parker, James

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard

Pearce, Sir William

Clough, Sir Robert

Hood, Sir Joseph

Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Hopkins, John W. W.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings;

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Howard, Major S. G.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton,

Cope, Major William

Hunter. General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Philipps Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Hurd, Percy A.

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Johnstone, Joseph

Pratt, John William

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

Preston, Sir W. R.

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

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

Keilaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Kidd, James

Remer, J. R.

Remnant, Sir James

Stewart, Gershom

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Renwick, Sir George

Sturrock, J. Leng

White, Col. G- D. (Southport)

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Sugden, W. H.

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

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

Sutherland, Sir William

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

Windsor, Viscount

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

Taylor, J.

WInterton, Earl

Rodger, A. K.

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Wise, Frederick

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhlil)

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

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

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

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Tickler, Thomas George

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Scott, A, M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Townley, Maximilian G.

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Waddington, R.

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

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

Wallace, J.

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Younger, Sir George

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Stanton, Charles Butt

Waring, Major Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Steel, Major S. Strang

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

McCurdy.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hartshorn, Vernon

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Banton, George

Hayday, Arthur

Rendall, Athelstan

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprino)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hirst, G. H.

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Robertson, John

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Hogge, James Myles

Sexton, James

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Irving, Dan

Spoor, B. G.

Cairns, John

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sutton, John Edward

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

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

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

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kennedy, Thomas

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

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Kenyon, Barnet

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Kiley, James Daniel

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Kinney, Samuel

Lawson, John James

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Galbraith, Samuel

Lunn, William

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Gillis, William

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

Wignall, James

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

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

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Mills, John Edmund

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pintypool)

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

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

Grundy, T. W.

Myers, Thomas

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

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Mr. Cape and Mr. Foot.

Halls, Walter

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

BILLS REPORTED.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Water) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Bradford Canal (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [Lords]).
Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]).
Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (VENEREAL DISEASE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 30th June, read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Watson Rutherford to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill); and Mr. T. P. O'Connor as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Anglo Persian Oil Company (Payment of Calls) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Bill [Lords], the Bread Acts Amendment Bill, and the Gaming Bill [Lords]): Mr. Murchison; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Bread Acts Amendment Bill only): Sir Kingsley Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Law of Property Bill [Lords]): Sir Douglas Newton; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Royds.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS,
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

"1. That, in the case of the Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit.

2. That, in the case of the London Electric and City and South London Railway Companies, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to convert the existing capital of the Croydon Gas Company; to authorise the raising of additional capital; and for other purposes." [Croydon Gas Bill [Lords.]
CROYDON GAS BILL [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members, being present—
5.0 P.M.
Mr. MARRIOTT: I was speaking of the Bill of 1919, and reminding the House that there was, as I believe, general agreement as to the insistent necessity of an ampler and cheaper supply of electricity, but there was a very wide divergence of opinion as to the means by which that end was to be attained. At the time the Bill was introduced those who were responsible for its introduction, the Government of that day and of this day, were still under the spell of the collectivist idea, an idea which has now had to be abandoned under the stern discipline of experience. Had the Bill of 1919 been passed in its original form, it would undoubtedly have led to the ultimate nationalisation of the electrical supply industry, both as regards the generation of electricity and its distribution. In my opinion, and in the opinion of others much better qualified to judge, that would have meant not progress in the electrical industry but absolute stagnation. It was on that ground that we opposed it. The Standing Committee which sat on the Bill upstairs occupied several months,

1257
and in the course of the discussion and examination of the Bill it was practically turned inside out. It was subjected to further amendment, very properly I think, in another place before it became an Act, and it was virtually transformed into a voluntary instead of a compulsory scheme. In particular, the compulsory setting up of District Electricity Boards, an essential part of the original Bill was, I think very fortunately, dropped, and in that way not only the Government, but what is much more important, the country, was saved, as I think, from a very disastrous experiment. Did the Government show us any gratitude for the escape which undoubtedly they had? Did they profit by the wisdom of their successful opponents? I think that they only betrayed their obstinacy by bringing in the abortive Bills of 1920 and 1921.
Let me remind the House briefly of what actually was done. Under the Act of 1919, which has led up to the introduction of this Measure, the Electricity Commissioners have been set up—that was the central feature of the modified form of the Act of 1919—to promote, regulate and supervise the supply of electricity under the general direction of the Ministry of Transport, and, in due course, the Electricity Commissioners presented a very elaborate and interesting Report. As far as my information goes, the Electricity Commissioners have been mainly occupied in mapping out provisional electricity districts, and in holding a number of local inquiries both into the boundaries of these districts, and also for the consideration of schemes for improving the supply of electricity in those localities. I believe that eight or 10 of such local inquiries have been held, and I may draw the attention of the House to the three last, and I think the three most important of these inquiries. One was held in the city of Birmingham in November, 1921, when a municipal authority and a power company submitted to the Commissioners a voluntary scheme for the setting up of an advisory committee instead of a joint electricity authority for the South-West Midlands electricity district, and I believe that that scheme is still under consideration by the Electricity Commissioners. The point to which I wish to direct attention is the submission of a voluntary scheme for the setting up of an advisory committee
1258
and the rejection of the principle of a joint electricity authority.
The next inquiry was held in Manchester, quite recently, to consider a scheme for the South East Lancashire electricity district. There again those best acquainted with the local conditions and requirements were absolutely opposed to the setting up of a joint electricity authority, and suggested, as in the case of Birmingham and the South West Midlands, the setting up of a joint advisory board on the voluntary basis, and I understand that the same thing happened at the most recent of these inquiries, which was held in regard to the North Lancashire and South Cumberland electricity district. What is the moral to be drawn from these cases? The obvious and unmistakable moral which I think the House may fairly draw from the history of these recent inquiries is that the most progressive industrial districts are strongly opposed to the setting up, not only of the district boards, which were originally proposed in 1919, but even of these joint electricity authorities on anything approaching a compulsory basis. What they are anxious for is co-operation between the authorised undertakers, of course on a voluntary basis.
Why do the great industrial areas of Birmingham, Manchester, and the North Lancashire district object to these joint electricity authorities? For this reason: these areas are supremely anxious to go ahead with the development of electrical energy, but they are convinced that the best hope of rapid progress in this direction is to be found in the encouragement of private enterprise, and they see in these joint electricity authorities not a guarantee of rapid progress but the certainty of delay and the probability of a timid handling of this great industrial problem. The object of the Bill now before us was explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport very briefly but clearly in a single sentence:—"The object of the Bill was the development of the electrical industry and the provision of a cheap supply widespread throughout the land." I am personally rather sceptical as to whether the Bill will attain that object, for there is nothing in the Bill to protect the consumer, the public, against apathy and inaction on the part of any electricity

1259
authority, against stagnation in industry. There is nothing to insure the attainment of that which is the professed, and no doubt sincere, object of the Bill.
It is of supreme public interest that there should be obtainable a cheap supply of electricity. The consumer cares comparatively little how that object is attained provided that it is attained, but there are two other interests to be considered in relation to the Bill. First, there is the interest of the industry which has been the pioneer in this great development, the interest of the electrical industry itself, and there is—and for this the House ought to be still more anxious—the interest of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. What the industry needs is obvious. Its interests are identical with those of the consumer. It wants a chance of rapid development and it believes that the possibility of rapid development of electrical industry depends on three things—on security, on freedom and on finality. I submit that we should be in an infinitely better position to-day as regards the supply of electrical power if the whole of this matter had been finally disposed of in 1919, and if the Government had not put local authorities, and private companies, into a state of feverish apprehension by the futile and abortive Bills of 1920 and 1921.
I draw a distinction in this matter between the Government and the Electricity Commission. I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the way in which the Commissioners have performed their duty since they were set up. They are not only men of the highest technical and scientific eminence, but I believe that they have interpreted their functions in a spirit of modesty and consideration for all parties concerned. But there is one more interest with which the House is concerned, which is the most important of all. This House represents the taxpayer, and indirectly the ratepayer, and this is my own primary interest in this matter. In this Bill there is a number of Clauses dealing with financial provisions. In the first Clause of the Bill power is given to the authorities to borrow money in such manner and subject to such conditions, and so forth, to borrow temporarily and issue bonds, to make arrangements with banks, in fact, to borrow money for the development of the industry. Clause 2 provides for the
1260
temporary suspension of the Sinking Fund, on unremunerative undertakings, for a period of five or six years—a rather doubtful financial provision—and then, most important of all, Clause 5 gives power to authorised undertakers to do various things—lend money to the joint electricity authority and subscribe for any security issued by the joint electricity authority, or to guarantee, or join in guaranteeing the payment of interest on any money borrowed by joint electricity authorities. These are very considerable financial powers. They reproduce, I think, some of the worst features of the Bill of 1919. The district electricity boards have gone, but in their place, as I have already hinted, we have the joint electricity authorities, who are put virtually in the same position as the deceased boards. They are to be financed by the local authority on the security of the rates. It has been computed by a very acute financial critic that this will mean an initial outlay of £110,000,000.
"So far"—
I am quoting from his report—
"the Electricity Commissioners have divided the country into 16 electricity districts, and it is probable that there will be six or eight more making about 25 in all. According to the first annual Report of the Electricity Commissioners the capital expended on generating stations already in existence throughout the country was in December, 1918, £48,293,000. This expenditure has, certainly risen by now to over £50,000,000, and to this must be added the cost of various transmission lines, transforming apparatus, etc., say, another £10,000,000. That makes £60,000,000 to be paid by the joint electricity authorities, if they are to take over, as they have power to take over under the Act of 1919, the existing generating station transmission lines, etc. Then it is conceivable that each joint electricity authority will erect and equip a new generating station and lay down new transmission lines. Those will cost a further £50,000,000 at a low estimate, an average of £2,000,000 per station for each district."
So that, altogether, the joint electricity authorities will have to borrow the colossal sum of £110,000,000. That is a gigantic experiment in municipal trading. I ask what possible control is to be possessed by this House over the expenditure of this vast sum of money? That point was very fully and admirably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). Under this Bill all financial power is given by way of resolution of this House. This House, if it passes the Bill, will

1261
part with all financial control other than that which is maintained by the passing of a resolution in the ordinary way with which Members are familiar. I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would not be prepared to give an undertaking to the House, before we go into Committee on the Bill, that that financial procedure will be altered, and that in place of procedure by resolution we should in every case proceed by way of provisional order. If my hon. Friend would be good enough to give that assurance it would very greatly curtail discussion both here and in Committee.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I thought I made it clear in my opening statement, in submitting the Bill for Second Reading, that it was the desire of the Government to retain Parliamentary control. I am advised that we have done that. As has been said, this is a matter of very great importance, and I am quite prepared to consider any Amendment which may be put on the Paper in Committee upstairs, with a perfectly open mind, in order to secure that reasonable and adequate protection is given to this House to control expenditure undertaken by these authorities. I do not think my hon. Friend ought to press me to say that I will accept a particular form of procedure for effecting that purpose; but I want to make it abundantly clear that in some form or other the Government desire to give effect to the perfectly proper wish of Parliament that these questions of great financial interest should have Parliamentary control and Parliamentary sanction.
Mr. MARRIOTT: I am very much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his intervention. I rather hoped, although it may seem ungracious even to express the hope, that he would have been able to give the House a more definite assurance in this respect, and would have accepted the suggestion that the procedure should be by way of provisional order rather than the procedure provided in the Bill. I put it to the House that this is a matter of very large public policy, and that this Bill, to the Second Reading of which I do not propose to object, should receive very careful consideration when it goes elsewhere.
Mr. GILBERT: As a member of the London County Council I wish to support the Second Reading of this Bill. The House knows that there is a group of London Members who meet specially to consider Bills which affect London. They met recently in order to receive a deputation from a committee of the London County Council who have specially watched this matter. The chairman of the Electricity Committee attended before the group and produced a report from the London County Council of their special Committee on London Electricity Supply. It contained a resolution as follows:
"The Committee recommend to the Council that the Council welcome the introduction by His Majesty's Government of the Electricity Supply Bill, 1922, supplementary to the Act of 1919, and urge upon the Government, in the public interest, to take every step in its power to ensure this Measure becoming law in the present Session of Parliament."
In support of that resolution the chairman of the County Council Electricity Supply Committee made an able statement to the London Members as to the present position of electricity supply in London. I am sorry to say that the London Members forming the group were not unanimous, but I think we were all very much impressed by the statement made to us. The London County Council is very much interested in electricity supply, because it is the purchasing authority of a good many of the present undertakings to the year 1931, and has, under the Bill of 1919, put up a scheme to the Electricity Commissioners. If that scheme is accepted by the Commissioners, it will provide a working arrangement, so far as the larger district of London is concerned. In that district there are 83 different suppliers of electricity. Of these, 41 are local authority suppliers and 42 are company suppliers. Anyone who has given the slightest study to the question of electricity realises that if we are to have cheaper electricity we must have larger areas of supply and larger means of supply, and there must be some kind of working arrangement by which a great many of the smaller municipal and company supplies are scrapped and the supply dealt with from a larger supply station.
London electricity supply has been chaos from the time when electricity was first introduced into London. We have numerous municipal supplies, some of

1263
them small and some of them very good. Some of them have one maximum figure as the price they can charge and others have a smaller maximum figure. In practice you have different areas supplying electricity and some of them have flat rates which are different from those of other areas in the immediate neighbourhood. The same criticism applies to the companies. You have different maximum prices of supply and different prices at which they supply customers. In the outside London areas the thing is even worse. In the municipal corporations, in the larger electrical supply area of London, you have a great variety of maximum prices, varying in some cases from 8d. to 10d., and you have the same variety of price for customers in the outside municipal corporations. The same thing applies to the urban district councils which supply electricity. Those of us who have taken any interest in the question, from the London point of view, are convinced that it is necessary that something be done on the lines of the Joint Commitees which have been approved by the Electricity Commissioners in other parts of the country.
Last week I listened with great attention to the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) and the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson), both of whom spoke against the Bill. They are both London Members. I did not gather that they put up any scheme which would give London cheaper electricity, as against the scheme either of the 1919 Bill or the present Bill. If you are to have the best method evolved in London and the Greater London area, and you have these voluntary Joint Committees working effectively to give the consumer cheaper electricity, there must be financial powers such as those provided in the Bill. I support the Second Reading. The points raised by the hon. Member for Hampstead and by the, last speaker are Committee points which can be dealt with upstairs.
Mr. G. BALFOUR: By leave of the House, I will say a few words which may shorten the Debate. In view of the observation made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that if financial powers are not preserved to this House over the operations of the Joint Electricity Authorities,
1264
he is prepared in Committee to see that ouch financial powers are preserved to this House, I shall be only too pleased, by leave of the House, to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
Mr. L. MALONE: The withdrawal of the Amendment does not in any way affect my attitude towards the Bill. In fact, I think that the assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has given makes the Measure even more reactionary than it was. Recently, when passing Gwydyr House, where the Electricity Commissioners are housed, I noticed that its porch was lighted by a lamp with an upright incandescent gas mantle, that on the side of the door were two old-fashioned torch snuffers and an old-fashioned crank bell—the sort of bell you pull without effect, and pull again savagely only to feel heartily ashamed of the result. I hope that those things do not indicate the way in which the Government would equip the Electricity Commissioners with the latest type of machinery. This Bill is one of the latest attempts of the Government to yield to the pressure of powerful vested interests. It subordinates the general welfare of the community to private vested interests. It is a step back on a step back, if such a thing be possible. It is a step back on the 1919 Act, which was in turn a step back on the promises of a new land which were given by the Prime Minister before the last General Election. The House will remember that on 16th November, 1918, at the Central Hall, Westmister, we were promised great things. Firstly, in the matter of agriculture, the Prime Minister said that £300,000,000 worth of the produce of the soil was imported from abroad, the production of which here would employ many thousand more hands in the healthiest of all occupations.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I must ask the hon. Member to show some relevance in his observations to the supply of electricity.
Mr. MALONE: This particular speech gave us great promises, not only as regards agrciulture, but as regards transport, a housing scheme, the maintenance of wages at a high level, and, lastly, an electrical power scheme. This Bill represents one of the last broken pledges of the

1265
present Government. The Bill itself does, indeed, provide certain financial powers, the absence of which rendered the 1919 Act almost ineffective, and, poor and truncated as that Act was, the new financial powers are all to the good. Half a loaf is better than no bread. On that ground I shall support the Bill as it stands now. In fact, I have been asked by my local authority to support the Bill, and I shall do so, but I shall also express my views upon it. The financial powers given by the Bill are more than outweighed by the retrograde Clauses which give further powers to the big electrical interests in the country, to obstruct the efficient national development of electrical supply. In the Debate the other day the Parliamentary Secretary gave us some account of past events, and I wish to dwell for a moment on some of these. We have in this Bill an instance of the continual pushing of the national aspects of the problem into the background. The Report of the Advisory Council of the Ministry of Reconstruction on Electric Power Supply in 1919, following the Reports of the Williamson Committee, the Coal Conservation Sub-Committee and the Board of Trade Committee on Electrical Trades, all took the wide national view of the development of electricity. All these Committees realised the appalling waste both of fuel and of labour and the inefficiency of the existing system. They realised the unnecessary expenditure of capital and the increased cost to the consumer to pay the dividends of inefficient private undertakings.
If I may quote one or two figures, I think I can show the relation between private enterprise and public enterprise. The last pre-War figures I have been able to obtain show that the capital expenditure per kilowatt of maximum load by local authorities—that is public bodies—was £96, while that of private companies was £153. The working expenses per unit sold, in the case of local authorities or public bodies, was 0·80d. and of private companies 1·27d. The average charge per unit was 1·70d. in the case of local authorities and 2·52d. in the case of private companies. These figures are taken when the load factor, that is to say, the ratio of actual to possible output of units by the plant installed, is practically the same in each case, so that there is no excessive charge caused by running high power plant to produce
1266
a low output. As a matter of fact, the load factor was 20·68 per cent. in the case of the local authorities, and 18·53 per cent. in the case of the private companies, so that the two plants are practically the same. I could, if I had time, quote several other instances by which it is clearly shown that great economy results from public enterprise in the electrical world. All the committees to which I have referred urge the need for unified national development of electricity as a means of extending the productive resources of the country. There are a great many ways in which the country will benefit by real national electricity development. The extent of which electricity may be further applied to mechanical production, improved railway service, electro-chemical and metallurgical processes, to agriculture and to domestic labour-saving apparatus, is altogether incalculable. These committees saw how far behind this nation was in the development of electrical power, as compared with other nations. They realised in the stress of the War emergency how urgent it was for this nation to develop its resources. They made recommendations, and as a result of those, and in the glory of the 1918 election, the 1919 Bill was drafted.
The Parliamenary Secretary has described the fate of that Bill. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) on the 12th May, in moving the rejection of the Bill, dwelt with pleasure on the fact that he and his friends began the work which was completed by the Noble Lords of eviscerating this Bill, so that it emerged "in a manner that would not do any particular harm," as he said. I may add that as it stands it will not do any particular good in developing on a broad, comprehensive, national scale the electrical organisation of this country. As regards electrical organisation we shall be left with the chaotic system which was condemned by the Committee in 1919, a Committee presided over by Sir Henry Birchenough, an eminent business man, who is a director of, I believe, more than 12 public companies, and is not surely a man whom the hon. Member for Hampstead would regard as an unpractical visionary. Now it is complained that nothing has been done, and the complaint is made by the very people whose object was, and still is, to prevent anything comprehensive or constructive being done at

1267
all. Now we have to-day this Amending Bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary explained, the Noble Lords in 1919, among other iniquitous actions, cut out the financial Clauses. Now in a sort of halfhearted way, the financial Clauses are going to be restored. An attempt is to be made to restore the dynamo which had been previously removed in order to prevent the machine from working, but the dynamo which is to be put back, is so small that there is great danger of the armature fusing, without very much current being produced. The Bill is being sent back, if I may mix my metaphors, with so many spokes in the wheel that I doubt if it will last very many more Parliamentary Sessions.
Any one who has read the reports of the Debates on this Bill, in another place, will agree that the object openly avowed by several Noble Lords was that of providing better protection for private electricity companies and concerns. That appears to me to be the special object of Clauses 10 and 16 of the Bill, and probably of Clauses 9 and 12 also. We ought to look at the electrical organisation of the country from the point of view of the nation as a whole, and not from the point of view of a few companies and vested interests. There is a good deal of opposition from companies which are making money out of the poor consumer by charging higher rates than would be charged for electricity supplied by national or municipal undertakings. There is also a good deal of opposition from the gas and coal interests, because they see that if electricity is developed in the way it should be, they will suffer, because we shall have them replaced by power stations driven by oil engines. I hope the House, before it passes the Bill, will realise that it is a reactionary Bill, bolstering up the vested interests of this country. We have gone back on the proposals of the Reconstruction Committee appointed at the end of the War, the proposals of a Committee composed of very eminent business men, men whose visions were clarified and broadened and who appreciated the fact that it was possible to organise nationally more efficiently than to allow development to proceed by way of private interests and private rights. The 1919 Bill, as finally passed, was one retrograde step.
Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. Is not this entirely outside the scope of the Bill, which is confined to a very simple matter, namely, the powers of the electrical authorities and does not deal with the whole question?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the Second Reading of a Bill it is in order to suggest alternatives.
Mr. MALONE: I was saying, in conclusion, that the 1919 Bill was a definite retrogressive step away from the new world and away from the promises made by the Prime Minister. This Bill is another step in the same direction. It represents one of the last pledges this Government is able to break. There are very few pledges left, for them to break, and this is one of their last efforts. To one who looks for the development of industry in all spheres for the public good rather than for the development of private interests, this Bill is terrible. It is terrible to see national needs sacrificed more and more by the Government to private interests and private rights.
Major GRAY: I am always deeply interested in the versatile political mentality of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone). I understood from one of his statements that he is anxious to support the Bill, but from first to last every sentence he uttered was condemnatory. A strange mentality that!
Mr. MALONE: I think I said that half a loaf was better than no bread.
Major GRAY: I also understood the hon. Member to say that, acting at the behest or request of a local authority, he was supporting the Bill, but his own private opinion was that it was bad. That, also, indicates a mentality which I cannot quite understand. I noticed, too, references to a certain election in which I think the hon. Member himself took part, and had he not supported the principles which were then enunciated by the Prime Minister, he would not have had the honour of sitting in this House.
Mr. MALONE: I still believe in them.
Major GRAY: It seems strange then that still believing in those principles the hon. Member is still here. That makes my confusion worse confounded. Let me pass from his comments upon the Bill, which really were of no serious import-

1269
ance, to the Measure itself. May I, in the first place, urge my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to be careful and cautious as to how far he pledges himself or the Government in regard to procedure under this Bill. The question at issue is really a Committee question, and not an important Second Reading question,i.e., whether the procedure will be by Special Order or by Provisional Order. As I understand it, a Special Order provides the minimum of delay, the minimum of expense, but also the minimum of Parliamentary control, while a Provisional Order can be described as providing the maximum of delay, the maximum of expense, but the maximum of Parliamentary control. I think it will be for the Committee, therefore, to consider very carefully how far it would be prepared to take the advantages of the one or the advantages of the other system. It has always been a disputed point in this House which of the two forms of precedure should be adopted, and I can only hope that caution will be exercised and no definite pledge given, in order that it may be carefully discussed in Committee with an open mind. There is only a sentence or two more that I need utter, because I do not wish to indulge in an oration on a Bill which is practically agreed by the whole House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
The hon. Member for East Leyton appeared to condemn this Measure because it will not go sufficiently far in favour of municipal as against private enterprise. I should not have attempted to take any part in this Debate but for the fact that the largest municipal authority in the country, the London County Council, is strongly in favour of the Bill and anxious that it should be passed at the earliest possible date. In saying that, I am afraid I shall have aroused the suspicions of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but may I explain to him two reasons why the LondonCounty Council is anxious that this Bill should proceed, and then I am sure that his fears will be allayed? The first is that this Bill proceeds on a voluntary basis, and the second is that one of the Clauses in the Bill provides that these enterprises shall be self-supporting and shall not throw any charge upon the rates. The fact of those two provisions being enshrined in the Bill ought to placate the right hon. Baronet. The condition in
1270
London is really so chaotic that we should welcome any Bill which showed a way out of the difficulties with which we have had to contend for years. There are 83 authorities, big and little, efficient and inefficient, and hanging over the heads of many of them is the possibility of purchase by the London County Council in a few years' time. They do not know whether or not the County Council will give notice in 1928 that they propose to exercise their powers to purchase them, and how can authorities, whether private or municipal, develop their generating stations and their distribution of electric energy with the great uncertainty as to the future which they must inevitably feel when they are so uncertain whether they can continue to work on their own lines or whether they will be taken by compulsory purchase? If this Measure passes, that power of compulsory purchase will be transferred to the Joint Electricity Authority for the Greater London area, and one of the difficulties in the way of development will pass away.
Sir F. BANBURY: The power of purchase would merely be transferred from one body to another.
Major GRAY: The power of purchase would no longer remain with the London County Council. It would be, it. is true, transferred to the Joint Electricity Authority for the area of Greater London, but that authority would have to proceed in accordance with a scheme which must be subsequently submitted to this House, and, as I gather, such power could not be exercised until that scheme had been approved and until the Clauses of this Bill have been put into operation and the finance necessary for the purpose had been secured, either by contribution or by loan, or in some other form. The real point is this. The Act of 1919 set up machinery which is practically inanimate. This Measure breathes into that inanimate organisation the breath of life. It gives the electricity authorities power to function. At present they can form their schemes, they can constitute their authorities, they can delimit their areas, but little can be done in the way of developing great electrical enterprises, and, speaking from the point of view of our Council, we do realise how largely dependent this great city is upon a better and a larger supply of electrical power. We know from painful experience during

1271
recent years that we have much plant which is obsolete and which ought to be eliminated; we have much which ought to be developed; and we are conscious of the fact that new generating stations ought to be established and properly equipped for the discharge of the great duties required for the development of power in this great city. Therefore, looked at altogether from the view of the consumer in Greater London, sweeping aside all considerations of private or municipal enterprise, anxious only for the well-being of the user of electricity, my Council has asked me to give this Bill most cordial support, and, unlike the hon. Member for East Leyton, I am able to do that, to satisfy My local authority, and to satisfy my own conscience at one and the same time.
Mr. KILEY: I have been requested by my local authority, the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney, who, I believe, have the largest electricity generating station in the County of London, to give support to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am all the more glad to do that for the reason that I believe it will bring about considerable improvements in the electricity supply of the great County of London. It has been my privilege for some years to occupy the chairmanship of an electricity committee, and the amount of waste in the generating and distributing of electricity in the County of London is appalling. I can endorse every word that has been said as to the desirability of a speedy improvement, which can only have one result, that of adding to the convenience and health and comfort of the great population of London. It is for that reason that I rise to give support to the Second Reading of this Bill, reserving, as I am bound to do, for the Committee stage certain important Amendments which I desire to move, especially in relation to Clause 16, but as the Minister in charge of the Bill has expressed his willingness, on the Committee stage, to give consideration to Amendments which are important and of substance, I will not dwell in detail upon them at this stage, but reserve them for the Committee stage, relying, as I do, en the consideration of the Minister in charge when that time arrives.
Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the Minister in charge of the Bill has given certain undertakings to the House, and
1272
therefore I do not wish to make any lengthy speech upon the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not know that I should have risen at all but for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray). I do not know that I care any more for the Electricity Commissioners than for the London County Council. I do not like either of them, and I do not think they should have to deal with matters which ought to be dealt with by private enterprise. I think, on the whole, I would even prefer the County Council to the Commissioners in certain circumstances, because at any rate we should be able to get more knowledge of their proceedings than we should have of the proceedings of the Commissioners, but, in any case, in my opinion, both of them are bad. I would like to get rid of both of them and go back to the old days when we made prosperity in this country by private enterprise. The hon. and gallant Member told us that one of the questions was whether tile action of the Electricity Commissioners should be by Provisional Order or by Special Order, and I realise that he did not express any opinion himself as to which was the better method, but he gave an indication—at least, I thought so—because he laid great stress on what he said was the effect of a Provisional Order, which had the maximum of delay with the maximum of expenditure, whereas a Special Order had the minimum of delay with the minimum of expenditure. To a certain extent that may be true, but the Special Order is practically useless, because it comes on after 11 o'clock at night, when everybody is tired, and you can only ascertain by going to the Clerks at the Table and asking whether anything has been deposited.
Mr. NEAL: They are placed on the Order Paper of the House.
Sir F. BANBURY: I know, but you do not see them. In these days, when the Order Papers are so bulky, even I, with some knowledge and experience of the House, can never find anything in them, and I can only find out by going to the Clerks at the Table, whom, as a rule, I do not like to disturb. They are extremely courteous, and I do not like to disturb them unnecessarily, but the vast mass of Members do not in the least know what is going on. If they find out that

1273
there is such an Order on the Paper at about five minutes to 11, they say, "I have got to catch a train," or "I have been here since 11 this morning on a Committee." On the other hand, if you proceed by Provisional Order, there is some opportunity of a certain number of people knowing what is going on, and in that way you do keep the control of the House. I wish the House to understand that personally I object to all these Bills, and I objected to the Bill which was introduced some two or three years ago on this subject. Hon. Members of this House then said what wonderful things were going to happen in the way of harnessing the water, and how we could not do without it, but those things did not happen, and we are all right as we are. I believe this sort of thing can only result in loss to the people who invest their money and in loss to the State.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. AMMON: The House always listens with pleasure to the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), for, after all, he is the one living link we have with mediaeval times, and I am sure that whatever differences of opinion we may have, the House would be very sorry to be deprived of the pleasure of e contrast afforded by the right hon. Baronet from time to time. I rise to join my voice in hoping the House will pass this Measure, with reservations in Clause 16, because really it is the outcome of an agreement. The London County Council have unanimously agreed on this scheme, and while I quite agree with the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) that this Bill does not come up to the scheme of 1919, here, at any rate, is a vast improvement on conditions as they are. Although the right hon. Member for the City of London would rather we went on with the 84 conflicting authorities in London, some of us think it is not good business, as well as not making for progress in the right sense of the word. At present we are not able to develop our electricity undertakings in any part of London, and the London County Council have again and again found itself in great difficulties with regard to other local authorities. In the report of the Special Committee of the London County Council, it is pointed out:
"The alternative, so far as London is concerned, will be to continue the present haphazard and disconnected arrangements,
1274
involving extravagant and piecemeal expenditure, and the deferment of essential schemes of improvement until the time arrives for purchase as at present provided for."
I should have thought that as the present arrangements are extravagant and wasteful, we should have had the support of the right hon. Member for the City of London, if only on grounds of economy, because this scheme certainly does make for economy and efficiency. The position of this House is quite safeguarded. The London County Council will have to come to this House for sanction for all capital expenditure involved in connection with the rendering of such assistance as may be required, and that, after all, is conserving all we have any right to expect. Some of us are not agreed on all the Bill. For instance, Clause 16, I think, does require a considerable amount of modification, but that is a matter for the Committee. Anyhow, we hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and help forward very considerably what has been required for many years in London, namely, a consolidation scheme, in order that we may get along with the necessary works, which have been hitherto deferred, and which are obstructing some of the local authorities, as well as large private electricity undertakings. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill, and trust the House will give it unanimous support.
Major BARNES: I am no unfriendly critic of this Bill, and I am not likely to offer any criticism that will distress my hon. Friend who is in charge of it. But what does give me a little concern is what gives the right hon. Baronet opposite pleasure. What delights him is that these concerns are going to be self-supporting, and are not coming on to the rates. That is under Clause 17, but it is just that Clause 17 which gives me a little disquietude, because I find embodied in this Bill that entirely novel proceeding in connection with business undertakings which this House inserted in the Railways Act. There we laid it down that the railway companies were to be allowed to make such charges as would ensure to them not less than their receipts in 1913. When we were discussing the Bill, a great many Members of the House felt rather anxious, I think, about that provision, and the effect it was likely to have. So far as I can read this Bill,

1275
these authorities are going to have even more favoured-nation terms than the railway companies got. Whereas under the Railways Act all that the railway companies got was a guarantee, as it were, of net receipts, under this Bill these joint electricity authorities are to be allowed to make such charges as will cover everything that is likely to come up against them. It seems to me that does remove it entirely from the category of business undertakings, and makes them really more of—I hardly know what is the apposite word to use. There is no more a question of a balance sheet; it is a question of a budget. All that they have got to do is to add up on one side all their interest charges, their sinking fund and costs, and so on, and fix their prices to cover that.
That appears to me to be a course of conduct which, I confess, I can hardly see how you are going to avoid, because the very essence of this Bill is to rule out all competition. You cannot have any more competition in the matter of the supply of electricity, I gather, in an area, if this Bill goes through. Competitive prices are ruled out. If we do not get them now, we certainly will not get them under this Bill. I think in Committee we shall have to consider very carefully whether this Bill does contain all the safeguards to the consumer that ought to be in it. We do want to protect the people who are going to draw on these concerns for power or lighting purposes from being loaded up with prices which arise either out of over-capitalisation, dead capital, inefficiency in administration or matters of that sort. That is really the only comment I desire to make upon the Bill, and I make it in no unfriendly spirit. But it is a matter to which I think the attention of the House should be directed.
Mr. J. JONES: Representing one of the outside London authorities which happens to be a great electricity authority, although not so great as the London County Council, I want to give my poor praise to the Bill so far as it goes. A mountain has been in labour, and we are now dissecting the mouse. But some of us are rather surprised to discover some of the great economy Members of this House are opposing this Bill, which leads directly to economy in public administra-
1276
tion. As has been already said, there are 84 public and private authorities in London dealing with the supply of electricity in the London area. In my own constituency we have two—a private company, with one of the largest stations in the country, and we have our own municipal generating station, and I venture to suggest that any economist who studied the matter seriously, would realise that either of these, properly developed and organised, would be capable of supplying us with all we wanted. Therefore, I should have imagined that those who claim to be the particular representatives of the principle of economy would have supported us in the proposition for co-ordination. If we cannot do it nationally, we should do it locally so far as possible. I am a believer in public enterprise. Among the people from whom I come there are a very large number in favour of municipal enterprise in this matter, but we quite realise that very large sections of the country are not with us, and we are not going to insist upon our own ideas against the ideas of everyone else. We take the best we can get, and make the best bargain possible, and we claim that this Bill represents a bargain. Of course, it is nothing like the promises we were given at the end of the War. Promises are now like addled eggs; and the chickens are coming home to roost.
We want to realise, so far as we are concerned, we are all here representing constituencies interested in a matter of this character. Some of us have had the opportunity of reading the works of great men on electricity, and we were told that the best way to get cheap electricity was to have it in the widest possible way, and that the greatest economy could be secured by utilising natural resources. I once read Lord Kelvin on the subject. I am not much acquainted with the aristocracy, except when they present us with free literature. He said at one time there was sufficient water power in the Avon or the Severn to provide practically the whole of Great Britain with the necessary electrical power. I do not know whether he was right, because I cannot enter into competition with him on the subject, but I know the huge total amount of power which is absolutely thrown away in this country and that the time has arrived when we ought to be conserving our energy, and pro-

1277
ducing power at the cheapest possible price. I say that any opposition to this Bill is not coming from those who call themselves economists, but simply those who are defenders of private vested interests, as against the progress of the community. Some of the members of my union are opposed to a Bill of this kind. They oppose the development of electricity. If I were speaking for them I should oppose the development of electricity because they are gas workers, but I am not taking up the attitude of my right hon. Friend. I do not put the interest of the members of my union against the public interest. I am standing out for the communal interest, believing that eventually the best interests of the community will be the best interests of the worker, and that we should get the organisation of industry under proper conditions. Therefore, in so far ash this Bill makes for economy in production, reorganisation and the prevention of overlapping, I am in favour of it, and my only regret is that it does not go far enough in the right direction.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL [Lords].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [15 th May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Mr. G. Balfour.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. MARRIOTT: The House generally will agree that this Bill has been already shorn of its most controversial features, but it still raises issues of very great importance, not only to the electrical industry but to the whole future of industry in this country. The Bill comes before us to-day in a relatively modest guise. In its present form it might almost be described as the remnant of a remnant, if not the torso of a torso. Still, it is a measure of great importance, and is entitled on that account to something more than that portion of Parliamentary time which it has so far occupied. This Bill is an amplifying and amending Bill, and it is impossible for the House to understand it without some passing reference to the Measure which is described in the Bill as the principal Act. The House will remember that in the first Session of the present Parliament there was submitted an exceedingly elaborate and ambitious scheme for dealing with this subject. The scheme of that Bill, now known as the Act of 1919, was based upon the recommendations of a very important Committee which, in 1919, issued its Report, namely, the Electric Power Supply Committee.
  That Committee virtually recommended that three important principles should be accepted. In the first place, the Committee recommended that there should be set up a new body, to be called the Electricity Commissioners, in whom were to be vested powers for regulating, encouraging and controlling the generation and distribution of electricity in the United Kingdom. That was the first principle embodied in the Act of 1919. The second recommendation was to divide the United
  1256
  Kingdom into certain convenient electricity districts, which were suitable in the technical sense for the economic-generation and distribution of electricity. That also was a feature of the Act of 1919. The third main recommendation, which was made a feature of the Bill as originally introduced, was to set up a District Electricity Board in each of the electricity districts. It was to be the function of that Board to be responsible for the generation of electricity in the district, to purchase all the generating stations in the district, except the private generating stations, to establish new generating stations, and to own and control the main transmission lines in the district. These district boards were to make no divisible profits, but were to be financed by funds raised with Government assistance, except where it was possible and desirable to finance the Boards locally.
  I, with many others, took very strong exception to some of the main provisions of the Bill as originally introduced in 1919. There was general agreement in the House as to the insistent necessity of an ampler and cheaper supply—

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill originates in one of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee who, when reporting on National Health Insurance, recommended that certain supplementary special grants, which had been paid in the past by the Exchequer, and which were in addition to the statutory grant under the National Insurance Act should be discontinued, and that the amount of these special grants should, in future, be defrayed out of Insurance Funds. The total amount of these special grants was approximately £2,150,000 per annum, made up in the following way: £1,700,000, the State contribution towards the cost of medical benefit in excess of the statutory proportion of two-ninths; £100,000, the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Health on behalf of approved societies and insurance committees for
1278
the Regional Medical Officers and the Index Clearance Branch; and £350,000, the amount of the State grant to the Women's Equalisation Fund, which was set up in order to assist approved societies in meeting claims due to extra sickness among married women members. The total therefore under these three different heads amounts to £2,150,000. When it was considered how this money should be found, the Geddes Committee recommended that it should be found by increasing the contributions in respect of insured persons by one penny per week—a halfpenny by the employer, and a halfpenny by the insured person. In the present time, when, owing to our exceptional unemployment distress we have had to raise the contributions both of employers and employed for unemployment insurance to figures very far in excess of what was originally contemplated or what should be necessary under normal circumstances—with these contributions for existing national health insurance forming the really serious burden on industry that they do—although I was prepared to put forward and have drafted a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Committee I felt strongly, and so did others connected with national health insurance, that if some temporary measure could be found to avoid an increase in contributions it would be a very good thing and would solve a very difficult problem.
In consequence of this feeling, a meeting was held of the consultative council of approved societies, which is fully representative of all types of societies—the trade unions, the friendly societies, and other great societies like the Prudential and similar organisations dealing with National Health Insurance matters—and several conferences followed, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that, while in the interests of national economy the State should no longer be called upon to find these special grants, some other scheme should be devised rather than one which involves increasing the contributions. The council, therefore, on behalf of the approved societies, submitted an alternative scheme, and this is the scheme which is embodied in the Bill. It has been endorsed by the societies generally.
Sir F. BANBURY: What Clause is the right hon. Gentleman dealing with?
Sir A. MOND: Clause 1. The proposed increase of contribution has for the moment been abandoned, and the present Bill provides that the total cost of the special Exchequer grant, apart from the women's equalisation fund—of which I shall say something a little later—shall, as from 1st April, 1922, be a charge on the benefit funds of the societies during the continuance of the present contract with the medical profession. The House is probably aware that the contract with the medical profession as to their remuneration for national health insurance services varies from time to time. I made a renewed contract some time ago with the representatives of the medical profession on a reduced scale, which will continue to 31st December, 1923, when, of course, it will be subject to review in the light of the conditions then prevailing. On the question whether a proposal to take the money required during that period and provide these grants from the societies is actuarily Bound and such as either to impoverish or embarass the approved societies to the extent of imperilling the financial position—which, I am glad to say, we have succeeded in building up in the national health insurance scheme, and which, of course, it must be always our desire to protect at all costs for the benefit and certainty of all insured in this scheme—
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Where is the hon. Gentleman taking this money from?
Sir A. MOND: From the benefit funds. I will come to the matter in a moment. The further to satisfy ourselves on this point I asked the Government Actuary, Sir Alfred Watson, very carefully to go into this whole question. He did so. He made a report to me as Chairman of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and this has been circulated as a White Paper. Sir Alfred Watson, in his report, points out that
"In addition to nearly £8,000,000 in surpluses amongst the societies in Great Britain which was carried forward at the last valuation, over £6,000,000 in Contingencies Funds has been accumulated by the societies and was transferred almost intact to the benefit funds of the societies on tat January, 1919."
This was the surplus fund of the societies available in excess of their liability for benefits, and this includes the additional benefits made after the last valuation—
1280
a total sum of £14,000,000. These are very imposing sums, and I am glad to realise that the finance of the National Health Insurance Fund has been so conducted as to allow large funds to be accumulated. In view of these accumulated funds, the Government Actuary advises that the extra charge imposed by the Bill upon the funds of the societies can be safely borne subject to the time limit mentioned in the Bill, that is December, 1923. I am not prepared to go further than that statement. I want to make it quite clear that the Bill will not in any way affect the operations of the schemes of additional benefits which have been recently declared by the societies and branches. This is money surplus to those claims, and there is no question of any of the claims being diminished.
When this proposal was put forward by such an important and representative body as the consultative council of approved societies I was entitled, in fact, I should have been very foolish not to accept what was, in fact, a very generous proposal, as I recognise it, on their part. They felt as strongly as I did that to levy an additional contribution upon employers and employed for such purposes at the present time would be a most injudicious thing to do. Their advice on a subject of this kind I should be the last person lightly to disregard. The financial stability of the scheme, I think, stands beyond all question. I do not think there is any doubt whatever as to the financial stability of the proposal. Even with these amounts, the surplus will still stand well over £12,000,000 over the actuarial liabilities of the approved societies. There has been some little misunderstanding about the procedure that has been adopted. Two alternative suggestions were made that the money should come, not out of this fund, but out of reserve values.
Mr. THOMAS: Reserve value?
Sir A. MOND: Yes, reserve values, and I would point out the very serious objection to taking it out of the sinking fund. I will go into that with my hon. Friend if he thinks it worth while, because that point was considered. Under the present proposal the money which will be paid for these medical benefits and coming from the funds of the approved societies will Toe treated in the general account in the same way as

1281
any other benefit payment. That is to say, they will automatically carry with them the two-ninths of State grant, which will be created when the time comes and be placed to the surplus value. If the whole financial burden were placed on, the sinking fund the following result would happen. The societies would lose the State grant of about £800,000 or £900,000 which they are keeping under this Bill. There would be no money towards the redemption of the sinking fund until the end of next year, and the fund would default in payment of interest, and there would be a shortage of nearly £1,000,000 in the sum required for interest payments. If the present sinking fund fails to be redeemed in 1953, if this further liability of over £3,000,000 were placed upon it, and this sum is not found, the interest will amount in 1953 to over £9,000,000 in addition to the amount required for redemption; which will mean the postponement of the redemption of the sinking fund for many years after 1953. These reasons, I think, are conclusive against those who have made that suggestion, and some of whom have discussed with me at considerable length. It was these reasons which led the Consultative Council, who, after all, are the experts in this matter, to put forward the proposals which they put forward instead of putting forward proposals for dealing with the matter from the sinking fund.
In dealing with the general aspect of this question, I think I should say a word on the subject which naturally arises in connection with this Bill. I am given to understand that there is a certain amount of apprehension existing in the minds of the medical profession that the present Bill may make some change, or enable it to be made, in the arrangements for the control of the medical benefit. I have already said, in answer to questions in the House, that there is no word in this Bill which modifies the existing statutory provision for the control of medical benefit, and I take this opportunity of formally repeating that statement. Having regard to the provision in this Bill for contributions in relief of State expenditure from the surplus funds of approved societies, I think that it is no more than fair and reasonable to-day that I shall give the societies an opportunity of expressing their views before any new
1282
terms of service are made with the panel practitioners on the expiry of the existing contract of service. But the responsibility for accepting those contracts rests and will continue to rest with the Minister of Health.
A question has been raised as to the possible implications in the words "subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in Clause 1, Sub-section (1,a) of the Bill." These words are intended solely to provide for the detailed conditions which may arise in the field of administration. They are certainly not to be used in any way inconsistent with the principle which I have just been enunciating. This deals with the first section of the expenditure, namely, the State contribution towards the cost of medical benefit. There is the further point which I was dealing with, namely, the expenditure of £100,000 incurred by the Ministry of Health on behalf of the approved societies for the regional medical officers and Index Clearance Branch. I do not think that anybody can cavil at this, because the medical officers who are appointed do really save time and a very large amount of money, by getting people off the books who would otherwise be there costing a large amount of money. I do not think any objection can be taken to that. Then I come to the question of the Women's Equalisation Fund (Clause 2). We started originally with the idea that to take women into the approved societies the same as men was a very dangerous thing and would lose a great deal of money, and that therefore an Exchequer grant would be necessary. The Exchequer grant of £350,000 to this fund disappeared in January last, but there is a surplus of something like £2,000,000 to enable any deficiency to be met which might arise under this heading. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), deals with the question of payment by approved societies to insurance committees of an increased contribution in respect of the cost of medical benefit and administration expenses. Sub-section (2) of the same Clause provides for the whole of the payments being made out of the Insurance Fund.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 because it says that these sums are to be payable "From moneys provided by Parliament." I want to know how much will be provided by Parliament.
Sir A. MOND: The amount is two-ninths. When the Act was originally passed, the State contribution was two-ninths. Then in 1918, to meet the expenses of the doctors, a special Exchequer allowance was made for medical services, and we are now doing away with this special grant amounting to £1,700,000, and also the special Exchequer grant to women.
Major FARQUHARSON: There was a considerable reduction made recently in medical treatment which will certainly have some bearing on the figures now before the House.
Sir A. MOND: That has already been discounted. My hon. Friend is aware, I am sure, that the medical fees are still very much higher than in the time of the 1918 Act. I am pleased to say that I have got the medical profession to reduce their fees somewhat, but it still leaves necessary the figures with which we are dealing under this Bill. When we get to a more stabilised condition, I hope we shall be able to get more to the normal state of things under which this Act was originally framed. Clause 2 deals with the Abolition of Women's Equalisation Fund, and Clause 3 deals with another point which hon. Members will recollect came up last year under the Geddes Report. Owing to the very large amount of unemployment from which we have been suffering for the last two years, we have had some difficulties in regard to members of approved societies getting into arrears under their Health Insurance, and getting into a position where they would drop out of benefit. Hon. Members will recollect that question was raised last year and was dealt with temporarily at that time.
Under the financial scheme of the Insurance Act an insured person's benefits varied according to the number of contributions he had paid, and if he had less than 26 contributions credited to him, he was not entitled to any cash benefits for the following benefit year. A considerable number of persons are in that position, and as a consequence would not be entitled to any cash benefits during the next year. That is a serious matter which has been confronting approved societies, and we have been trying to find some way of meeting the difficulty. Fortunately we have been able to find a method of deal-
1284
ing with this problem. The Act of 1918 deals with the question of unclaimed contributions, and these have been constantly growing, and now amount to a very large sum of money. We are now taking power under Clause 3, up to the 31st December, 1922, to vary the provisions of the 1918 Act as regards the disposal of such contributions, to enable us to make such payments to approved societies as will enable them to pay cash benefits to those who would otherwise not be entitled to them owing to loss of employment.
Mr. SWAN: Are we to understand that out of that fund men who have been out of work 14 or 15 months and fall sick will receive benefit.
Sir A. MOND: Those who have fallen into arrears and have not paid contributions for 26 weeks will be able to receive cash benefits tinder some scheme which will have to be arranged, although it will not be full benefit. That fund, which now amounts to something like 12,000,000, has accumulated through people not sending in their stamped cards, and we thought there could be no better purpose to devote this money to than dealing with this very serious condition of things, and helping those who have not been able to pay up their 26 contributions, and they will now be entitled to receive cash benefits during the next year.
Mr. SWAN: And they will still be considered insured persons.
Sir A. MOND: Yes. Under the Act they were entitled to medical benefits, but not to cash benefits. This measure will enable them to receive cash benefits as well as medical benefits, and I think it is very important that such provision will be made for them, and it is for that reason that we have introduced Clause 3 into the Bill. With regard to the main provisions of the Bill, I hope that they will be treated by the House as being generally agreed between those representing the great mass of insured persons who are responsible for the funds of approved societies and my advisers and myself. It is very important and urgent that this Bill should pass into law as early as possible. It will effect very considerable economies, and I wish to fully acknowledge the noble hearted way in which the representatives of approved societies have come to my assistance in this matter, for they have acted with a gene-

1285
rosity for which I wish to thank them. I think their appreciation of the position of natonal finance does credit to their wide outlook upon national affairs.
Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will be duly noted by the approved societies, but it is necessary, after all, whilst congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon sticking very rigidly to his brief of what is a very difficult and technical point, to bring the House back to the facts of the case, because the passing of this Bill is a clear violation of Government pledges to approved members. Curiously enough, when the Geddes Committee considered this matter, I do not know of any approved society, or anyone responsible for the administration of the Act, who was called before them to give an opinion. It may be a good thing to have such confidence in this Committee, and to feel that they would give an impartial judgment, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to claim that they knew anything about the Act and its administration, and they have arrived at definite conclusions without even consulting anybody connected with the administration. That is the first point.
The Minister of Health came down to the House of Commons immediately following the Geddes Report, and presented a Bill to give effect to that Report by an increased contribution. I asked whether the Consultative Committee of which he has now spoken in such high terms of congratulation had been consulted, and whether they know anything whatever about the introduction of the Bill, and he replied that they did not. Without consulting anybody the Minister of Health acts on their Report, brings in a Bill and does not consult those responsible for the administration of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated this afternoon that he has not consulted those who are the best judges of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman read to us this afternoon a quotation from Sir Alfred Watson. He told us that as the Minister responsible he wanted to ascertain the actuarial situation, and he had consulted Sir Alfred Watson on the matter, and he read to us a letter from Sir Alfred which says, of course, that the approved societies can stand it and that there is plenty of money to deal with this ques-
1286
tion. Sir Alfred Watson wrote to the Geddes Committee on this very point immediately their proposals were made, and he said:
"I should not be justified in advising that the funds of Approved Societies can bear this extra burden without an increase of contributions."
This Bill does not provide for an increased contribution. Sir Alfred Watson says in the letter which was read to us this afternoon that the societies can bear the burden. Three months ago he said he would not be justified in advising that they could bear it without an increased contribution. The surplus of each society is the property of the members of that society. It cannot be assumed from this fact that there is any general redundancy of contributions of which advantage might be taken. To resort to this surplus in order to meet a new general charge would therefore only be possible if a partial pooling of the funds were to be adopted. But this would mean a fundamental change in the system of National Health Insurance. It would impose a serious burden on particular classes of assured persons, and it would be very difficult to justify. Sir Alfred Watson months ago said to the Geddes Committee, "This is my considered judgment," but this afternoon we have the Minister quoting from a letter in which he says, in substance, "I am perfectly sure that this is not only sound but that it can be financially upheld."
Sir A. MOND: I said that in the letter which Sir Alfred Watson wrote to me guarded himself by limiting the application of his statements to December, 1923. He did not say it as applying to a permanent settlement.
Mr. THOMAS: I am dealing with the facts as I find them. Why did the right hon. Gentleman a few weeks ago introduce a Bill to increase the contribution I He based it on Sir Alfred Watson's opinion, and if Sir Alfred is to be quoted in one connection, we are entitled to quote him in another. The fact of the matter is, that this Bill violates every pledge that was made to the insured person; it is "a robbing of the hen roost," of which we have heard so much in late years. When the National Health Insurance Act was passed through this House, everyone supported it, and everyone agreed that there ought to be an

1287
advantage to the society which administered its affairs soundly and economically. It was pointed out from all quarters of the House that it would be a bad thing unless there was some inducement for societies to administer their funds economically and to stop all abuses. In order to meet that, provision was made in the Act that the society that showed a surplus at the end of the valuation period could use that surplus for the particular and exclusive advantage of its members. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman where is this money to come from?
Sir A. MOND: From the surplus.
Mr. THOMAS: Yes, but the Minister knows there are three funds, and there is not a word in the Bill as to where this money is to come from. Let me ask him which of the three funds it is to come from? Is it to come from the aggregate surplus of the societies? Is it to come from the disposable surplus, or is it to come from the non-disposable surplus, which amounts to nearly £8,000,000? As a matter of fact, I believe it is to be taken from the last named. I do not think the Minister himself really knows, but it is important that we should know. It is no good talking about it coming from the surplus when there are three different surpluses.
Sir A. MOND: It is to come from the aggregate surplus. That is shown in Sir Alfred Watson's circular.
Mr. THOMAS: The aggregate surplus amounts to £16,850,000. There is a disposable surplus of £9,000,000 which the administrators of the societies are to deal with, and then, in addition, there is a sum of £9,000,000 which the societies are always told is not disposable, and must not be used. We have always been told it is kept for safety. It is what is called "a safety valve." Is the money coming from that fund, because if it is, then clearly it is a violation of all the pledges and promises made to the members of the societies. My right hon. Friend says there is a fundamental objection to taking it from the reserve fund. When did the Government discover that objection? It is a new theory. One would assume from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he has gone carefully into this matter, and that the proposal was so funda-
1288
mentally wrong that he turned it down. But that was what he himself did in 1916. He then actually took the reserve to make up a deficiency, and I put it to the House that that could be done again. We do not for one moment suggest that the agreement between the doctors and the approved societies should be broken. Well, I will not call it an agreement, it is an arrangement. We wanted an agreement. It is the existing condition under which the doctors serve, and no one suggests that that should be broken. But while this Bill is limited in its application to 1923, we want an assurance that, in 1923, when we come to review the situation, those who have paid the piper shall at least have an opportunity of calling the tune. In other words, whilst the existing agreement with the doctors is to continue until 1923, we want that, when that time comes, the approved societies shall themselves have a voice in determining the new arrangement, whatever it may be, between the doctors and the insured people.
Major FARQUHARSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean a voice independent of the voice of the Minister of Health?
Mr. THOMAS: No. The approved societies find the bulk of the money today. Prior to the passing of this Act the panel doctor in making his arrangement with the Hearts of Oak or any other society made the arrangement directly with those who were paying. Today that is not so and the insured member and the approved society have very little voice in the matter. We feel we are not only entitled to have a voice, but that we are also entitled to say something definite at that period. The difficulty we are in to-day is this. The Government committed themselves to accepting a certain proposal. I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend says that it would not only be a mistake but it would be madness to increase the contribution to-day, for the burden that both the employers and the workpeople are bearing is so heavy that any attempt to increase it at this moment would be fatal. Are the Government themselves taking the right course in breaking what, after all, was a definite promise to these people? It may be true that the sum of £2,000,000 is involved. That is a great amount of money, and it is well worth

1289
making every effort to save it. But in the end if you create in the minds of the people of the country an idea that the word of the Government cannot be depended upon, that the Government cannot be trusted, and that, when it suits it, it violates its own pledges, promises and laws at the end you will lose far more than £2,000,000.
What is more the Minister in charge ought to feel proud of the care exercised by the approved societies. He knows perfectly well that large numbers of these officials work unstintedly, some at low salaries and others voluntarily, in order to build up a strong position for their own society. They feel proud of being able to go to their members and say: "We, by our careful administration, have succeeded in saving so much." That is something which ought to be encouraged and it is something which this House ought to be very chary of interfering with. The effect of this Bill is going to dishearten these people. It is going to create a feeling that they ought not to make an effort such as they have made in the past. I do not think it would be wise to divide against this Bill, but it will have to be carefully considered in Committee and we must secure a definite guarantee about our position in 1923. Above all, the source from which this fund is to be taken must be clearly laid down. As I have said, I feel unable to vote against the Second reading of the Bill, but I reserve to myself the right to go into more details in Committee. I cannot but deplore the fact that once more we have an illustration of lavish promises made not in 1918 only, but in 1912 and 1914 to the members of the approved societies now being ruthlessly broken by the Bill which we are asked to support.
7.0 P.M.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: I am obliged to the Minister in charge of the Bill for the complimentary remarks he made in the course of his speech, in which he recognised the indebtedness under which he laboured to the approved societies and to the members of the Consultative Council for the services they had rendered him in a very difficult situation. I hope that during the progress of this Measure, and before the final settlement that may be arrived at, he will have regard to what he has already said and be prepared to keep certain pledges that have
1290
been made and which have a direct bearing upon this matter. Speaking on behalf of the approved societies, I have to say that when the Geddes Committee's Report came before us we were very much concerned. May I remind the House of what the Geddes Committee actually said upon this matter? They recommended that the Exchequer should be relieved of the special grants, amounting to about £1,760,000 per annum, toward the cost of medical benefit in excess of the statutory proportion of two-ninths, and of the cost of the regional medical officers so far as it was not already met from the Approved Societies Fund. That is the origin of the Bill before us this afternoon and the Minister of Health, in considering that, as has already been observed, came down to the House with a proposal to increase the contribution in relation to National Health Insurance by ½d. per week from the employer and ½d. per week from the employee. We strongly felt that that was a mistaken course; that in the present economic conditions with a great volume of unemployment, and knowing that still in the country there were elements of resentment against National Health Insurance—I would have the Minister realise that it is not regarded with abounding satisfaction—knowing as we did, from our experience, the feeling that would be engendered, we were strongly moved in the direction of urging that that proposal should be withdrawn. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who has just spoken, asked if there were not another way than that suggested under this Bill. He asked if it were not possible to meet the situation by extending the sinking fund for a further period. I am not going to vote against this Measure, nor am I going to advise the House to do so.
I want the House to realise that we have endeavoured to exhaust every reasonable means before we have come to the point we have reached to-day. We urged that there should be an extension of the period of the maturity of the sinking fund. I am bound to say that, after going into the matter and having careful expert advice, we had to realise, after all was said and done, that probably these societies would materially suffer by extending this redemption even beyond the period it now has to run. Therefore, while we were opposed to the 1d., and

1291
while we had to realise that it was a mistake to deal with the reserve values, yet in a spirit of loyalty, and in a desire to assist the Government, we were prepared to consider alternative proposals. The Minister of Health has said kind words regarding the approved societies. The approved societies to-day are prepared to agree to a suggestion with regard to a certain benefit under the Act in respect to which they have very considerable feeling. If there has been one benefit more than another, under the National Health Insurance, which has caused us consternation and feeling, and which has created difficulty, it is, and I say it with great respect, the administration of the medical benefit. We are asked to shoulder a burden of £1,760,000 per annum in relation to a benefit which we think ought to be materially improved. I wish to say, and I do not want to be taken as speaking harshly, that if that benefit cannot be improved, and if it is going to continue in the future as it has been in the past, we should be glad to be rid of it altogether and to make other arrangements to safeguard the rights of our members and to obtain medical benefits for them.
We are asked to consent to £1,760,000 per annum coming from the unappropriated surpluses under the National Health Insurance. I do not 'believe that it will do hurt or harm to any individual insured person. The appropriable surpluses under the last valuation have been ascertained, and the additional benefits, whether in money or kind, are now being administered throughout the country. As we have heard, there is still in the Fund a vast sum of money, unappropriated surpluses which, under the advice of the Actuary, and quite correctly so, are kept for the purpose of safeguarding the Fund. The proposal is that the money coming from that source, together with that from the abolition of the Women's Equalisation Fund, shall be appropriated to meet the amount of which the Government will be relieved up till the end of 1923. With that we are in agreement, on one consideration. The Minister of Health has already promised that at the end of 1923, when it is proposed to enter into new agreements with the medical profession, that the approved societies of the country shall be consulted. I do not regard that as a very extortionate demand. It seems
1292
to me an exceedingly reasonable thing to ask. I would not even go so far as the right hon. Member for Derby and say that he who pays the piper should decide the tune. I would ask, however, that we should come into some reasonable connection with the medical profession, a connection that hitherto we have never had. Instead, we have always been kept at arm's length, and our friends of the medical profession would have nothing whatever to do with us.
I want to ask the Minister to-day again to reaffirm his decision, having once announced it. I ask that, with a view to obtaining the Second Reading of the Bill, he should say in this House that that is his determination, because already the medical profession in the country are taking exception to it. At an interview which took place not long back with the right hon. Gentleman's chief advisers there was an attempt made to get that promise withdrawn. I hold in my hand an extract from some of the remarks made at that meeting by the secretary of the British Medical Association, in the course of which he said:
"Ministers may come and Ministers go, but we know from what we have seen of the approved societies that if you give them an inch they will take an ell, and we are not prepared to give them that inch."
That is a remarkable statement to make. If that is true, I say it quite deliberately, the approved societies could have said something very much stronger, and something very much more pungent regarding the medical profession. Whenever have they given us an inch? Whenever have they given us a fragment of a fraction of any period of measurement? Yet the charge is made that we are taking an ell in respect of matters over which we had no control.
That is the only one thing on behalf of the approved societies that I ask. It is that the Minister shall again say, when the arrangements are come to at the end of 1923, that we shall be taken into consultation. Unless we have that deliberate promise, and unless that promise is kept, I want whoever may be in charge of the Ministry of Health at that time to appreciate the fact that the approved societies will put up the strongest fight of their lives to ensure that not one farthing more shall be taken from their funds. As one who, in a humble position, has the opportunity of

1293
advising them, I should advise that not another farthing of the money they have won for themselves should be paid. After all, from whence have these surpluses come? They have not come from the medical profession, nor have they fallen from the ethereal blue. They are the result of the careful administration and of the hard, honest, and thorough work of thousands of officials throughout the country who have had to operate this Act, smothered, as they have been during the last few years, under an avalanche of regulations which might well have sent mad the sanest men in this country. The fund is the result of their careful and deliberate work. It may be a hen-roost, and at the moment it may be raided, and we are prepared, in the exigencies of the situation, to allow it to be so raided; but we will see that in the future there shall be no raiding, because if it is a question of raiding surpluses, then we can, if we care to do so, take measures and means whereby no surpluses shall arise.
There is another point that I hope the Minister will consider, and I say it with great respect. I want his Consultative Council to obtain the greatest possible confidence throughout the country. I have met certain bodies in this country who feel they are not properly represented, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention in that direction. I hope he will see that the interests, whether agricultural, industrial, or whatever they may be, are properly represented on the Consultative Council, because so much depends upon the advice of that body. The right hon. Member for Derby said that the approved societies have not been consulted. We have not made any clamorous demand to be consulted, because we have been prepared to leave the settlement of this case in the hands of the Consultative Council. Let us see to it, however, that it is a strong and representative Council, and one in which there is unbounded confidence. Then many of the difficulties in the future will be removed.
Mr. CAUTLEY: I desire to induce the House, as far as I can, to consider very carefully where it is being led by the Minister of Health. The House will recollect that the Insurance Act was based on a most careful actuarial valuation. A system was set up which, in effect, constituted a contract made by
1294
the State with every insured person and employer, who became bound to contribute to the Insurance Fund. The terms of this contract were laid down, and one of those terms was that the surplus of the benefit fund, which might accrue after paying expenses, should belong solely to the individual society in respect of which it accrued. That is the principle of the Insurance Act, which is a contract in the strictest sense of the word. It seems that in 1918 the doctors required to be paid further fees. The Government at that time respected that contract, and by an Exchequer grant they provided the necessary money to pay the increased cost of the medical service.
Since 1918, and up to the present time, the present Minister of Health has succeeded in reducing to sonic degree the medical fees of the doctors who work this insurance. Allowing for that diminution of the fees there remains a total sum amounting to 2s. 6d. per member of every approved society in the country which, in the ordinary course, would be found by the Exchequer grant. The Minister now asks the House for a reversal of that policy. He asks the House to agree to disregard the contract that he made with every insured person. He means to raid the benefit fund of every society, and not only the surpluses, but to raid those societies which have no surplus, and to require from them a further payment of 2s. 6d. per member per year, which was never taken into account when the original actuarial valuation was made which was the basis of the original Insurance Act. I say that to do any such thing would be wrong in principle, and will tend to cause the insolvency of the societies. It may be the first step towards that insolvency. It cannot be done rightly, and it is a very dangerous course to pursue. The Government are doing it, no doubt, with a view to economy, and Sir Alfred Watson made a Report to the Geddes Committee, during their investigation, as to whether any economy could be effected in the administration or working of the Insurance Act. I did not hear all that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), but, if he referred to that Report, I hope the House will forgive me if I read six sentences from what Sir Alfred Watson then wrote. The first sentence which I will read is this:

1295
"I should not be justified in advising that the funds of Approved Societies could bear this extra burden without increase of contributions."
That bears out the first point. I made, that the actuarial valuation was so carefully considered at the time that it was impossible that it could stand any extra charge upon it. The Minister of Health will, no doubt, retort, "Oh, but the working of the Act shows that it can." I disagree with that suggestion entirely. I would ask the House to recollect that during the years up to the time when the valuation was made on 31st December, 1918, everyone was employed, we had constant increases in wages, and people were better fed and better clothed, and lived under better conditions, than had ever been known in this country—a state of things which, as far as I can see, is economically unlikely to occur again for some time. If the insurance scheme was to be solvent and prosperous, it was certain of being solvent and prosperous during those years. As has already been mentioned, the Minister knows this. He is as far-seeing a man as any in this House, and he brought in, on Sir Alfred Watson's suggestion, a scheme by which he was to save this money by providing that the contributors—employers and employed—should each pay an increased contribution. There was, however, a great outcry at that, and rightly so, because under the conditions of life now, and considering the increased contributions in respect of unemployment benefit, it is practically impossible that insured people should pay a larger contribution; but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well in his heart that that is the only way in which it could be done without breaking the contract with the insured persons. The next sentence which I will read from Sir Alfred Watson's report is this:
"The surplus of each society is the property of the members of that society."
That bears out my statement that it is part of the contract that any surplus belongs to the individual society, and that was the basis of the Act, the object being to insure careful and economical administration, so that every advantage so gained would go to the benefit not of the whole of the insured people of the country, but of that particular society which had made the economy. The next sentence is:
1296
"It cannot be assumed from this fact that there is any general redundancy in the contributions of which advantage might be taken"
That was written when the Geddes Committee was sitting last year, and after Sir Alfred Watson had had before him the results of all the valuations of all the societies in the country which he himself had been instrumental in making on the 31st December, 1918. The fourth sentence is this:
"Resort to surpluses to meet a new general charge"—
and this is a case in point—
"could only, therefore, be possible if a partial pooling of funds were adopted."
The Act does not provide for any partial pooling, or any pooling at all, and it is contrary to Sir Alfred Watson's own advice that the Minister is bringing forward this proposal. It is not putting a charge on to the extra surplus, if I may use the expression, nor on the surplus at all. The whole of the surpluses shown by the valuations made under the direction of Sir Alfred Watson have been divided into two parts, the disposable surplus and the surplus to be kept in hand. The disposable surplus is being used for benefits, the other is being kept in hand, and the Minister suggested that it was only on this extra surplus that this charge is coming. That is not so at all. The Bill says that every member of every society, whether there is any surplus or whether the society is working at a loss, as some of them have been, would have to pay this extra charge of 2s. 6d, a member. Then. Sir Alfred Watson goes on to say:
"This would amount to a fundamental change in the system of National Health Insurance."
The last sentence I will quote is this:
"It would impose a serious burden on particular classes of insured persons, and would be difficult to justify."
These sentences are dead against the proposal which the Minister now makes. How does the right hon. Gentleman attempt to justify it? He attempts to justify it by saying that the Advisory Committee of Approved Societies have approved of it. But who are they? They are the nominees of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Sir A. MOND: No; they are the representatives of all the great approved societies of the country.
Mr. CAUTLEY: Of course, I admit that they are chosen by the approved societies, but they are nominated by the right hon. Gentleman. What I said was that they are the nominees of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. GRIFFITHS: They are nominated by the societies first.
Mr. CAUTLEY: I sit on that side of the House which some people say is not democratic, but, whatever the hon. Member opposite may say, I object to nominated members, and I do say that, if the Minister is going to put forward this Bill as having the approval of the approved societies it ought to be the approval of all the approved societies iii this country, who ought to have some right of representation and some power of saying what they think of this Bill. I am not speaking for the large societies. I have ventured to speak here rather more on behalf, so far as I can, of the small rural societies in this country. When the Act of 1911 was passed, I was instrumental in forming the small societies in my own county into a county association. I have seen the practical working of the Act, and, so far as the agricultural districts are concerned, the results of our valuation come out extremely well. Our surpluses, however, are relatively small, and the great difficulty that we have is that of competition from the large societies, like the Prudential and others, who pay agents, which we cannot do, who come running about all over our rural districts. One of the real advantages that we have is that we are enabled to pay better benefits from the contributions than most of these societies in the large towns can do. Therefore, having regard to the smallness of our individual societies, this is going to be a most oppressive burden on all of these small societies, and, so far as our county association is concerned, owing to the smallness of our societies and the fact that we have to meet this competition of the larger societies, it will take away a great deal of the advantages that we possess. It is mainly, however, on the larger ground that I say that this proposal is not justified for any reason that the Minister has given. I am not satisfied that this money cannot be raised by some prolongation of the redemption period of the reserve values formed when the original Insurance Act was passed.
1298
If the Minister can tell me that this is a question which can be thrashed out in Committee, I shall not take the step of voting against the Bill, because I should like him to find this money, but without injustice to the existing societies. If he cannot tell me that this matter can be raised in Committee and thoroughly threshed out to the satisfaction of the Committee, I shall feel bound to vote against the Bill.
Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
This Bill raises questions of very great importance, and I hope they will receive the careful examination of the House. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. The Bill is important because, on the face of it, it transfers from the Exchequer to the approved societies a liability to pay something like £3,500,000. It has an importance, however, beyond that. It is important because it illustrates, to some extent, the Government's whole method of dealing with approved society finance, and it is also of importance in a further sense, because, in my opinion, it raises the whole question of the future of the doctors in their relationship to the approved societies. That has to be considered now, and I hope it will be considered by the House, and that we shall have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman before this Bill is allowed to go very much further. The right hon. Gentleman, in recommending the Bill to the House, has practically told us that it is an agreed Bill, and that we need not waste very much time in considering it. That is practically the effect of much that lie has said, and, in my opinion, it is typical of many of the methods to which we have become accustomed from the present Government. They meet interests outside, they make a deal with them, and then they come down to the House and ask the House to register that deal; and they seem to think that we are trenching upon someone else's preserves if we venture to criticise or to ask that the Government or their representatives shall explain the Bill which is thus put forward. I hope the House will insist on a full and careful examination and explanation of every Clause of this Bill, and

1299
also of the other questions which, to some extent, lie outside the Bill, but which are bound up with it.
I agree practically with what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me, but I want the House again to consider what the right hon. Baronet has said. He says the Bill is agreed because it has been approved by a certain body which is called the Consultative Council. The members of this Consultative Council are men appointed by the right hon. Baronet, creatures, without disrespect to him or to them, of his own, who may not be re-appointed, and probably would not be re-appointed if he did not think they were good members of that Council. But, apart altogether from that, he said they represented the approved societies, and indeed he said this scheme was approved by the Council on behalf of the societies. I think there are something like 24 to 30 members in this Council, and there are thousands of approved societies. How can the right hon. Baronet say that a body consisting of 30 people, nominated by him, not representative of the societies at all, not even appointed or approved by the societies, can commit thousands of approved societies all over the country? It is a physical impossibility, and he has no right to say this is a Bill which is approved and agreed to by the approved societies. They have not been consulted. The right hon. Baronet gave the House to understand that they had been consulted. I think the recommendations of the Geddes Committee were published, and three days afterwards this Consultative Council met and considered the question of this Bill, and made their recommendations. How was it possible for a body of that kind to give a decision which could be at all representative of the approved societies? They had no time to consider it. They had no time to consult the societies of which they themselves were members, and it was quite impossible for them to give any decision which could in any way be said to reflect the opinion of the societies behind them. Even supposing this Council were able to give a decision which would be binding on the whole of the societies of the country, from my information I think the right hon. Baronet was quite wrong in saying that even this non-representative Council assented to the Bill.
Sir A. MOND: The Consultative Council assented to the Bill. Schemes were considered and proposed by them. They had a number of meetings, and after they had come to their decision I met the full Council and had a two-and-a-half hours' discussion on the subject.
Major WOOD: I have been in communication with many people who are directly interested in this question, and my information is that this scheme did not originate from this Council at all, but that the right hon. Baronet informed the Council that the Government were determined to make them swallow the matter.
Sir A. MOND: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must allow that I know more about what happened than his peculiar sources of information. That statement is absolutely without the slightest foundation. I introduced a Bill into the House for increased contributions—the only method I can see at that time of carrying out the proposals of the Geddes Committee. The Consultative Council met, and after a series of meetings reported to me that they objected to the increase of contribution and they proposed this scheme. After they had come to that conclusion I met them myself and had a considerable discussion of the matter, and they unanimously asked me to accept this scheme. I should never have dreamt for a moment of forcing a scheme of this kind upon the approved societies.
Major WOOD: I do riot think that explanation makes any difference to my argument. My point is that the right hon. Baronet gave it to be understood that the Government had made up their minds that this burden of £3,500,000 was to be transferred from the Exchequer to the approved societies. The approved societies, therefore, had to swallow it, and all the right hon. Baronet did was to give them an option of electing in what form they would take their medicine. I think if he will consider it I am not misrepresenting him. Certainly I do not desire to do so. It is the last thing I should like to do. That is the submission I make as to what really happened, and what the approved societies have said was that of the two schemes the one embodied in the Bill is the less evil. Of course, if they could have their way they would have neither. If the right hon. Baronet says, "We have

1301
made up our minds to do this," naturally it is not for the approved societies to say they will not agree to it, when they know that if they do not agree to it they will be landed in something else which will be even worse. They have simply agreed to this scheme as being not so bad as the one which was originally put forward by the right hon. Baronet. If the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me had not read that paragraph from Sir Alfred Watson's letter to the Geddes Committee I would have done so, and I should like every hon. Member who desires to get in small compass the arguments against the Bill to read the paragraph in the letter, because that is practically the whole case against the Bill. The right hon. Baronet never alluded to the first letter from Sir Alfred Watson, and made no attempt to explain the inconsistencies which, in my opinion, exist between that letter and the subsequent memorandum which was sent out as a White Paper along with this Bill.
The Actuary in the memorandum agreed to this Bill—and it was a very half-hearted blessing in my opinion—on the definite understanding that it was going to be limited in its amount and temporary in its operation. It inaugurates a new scheme which must lead to something else, and if we are going to approve of this we ought to know what is to be behind it. The Bill proposes to make a raid upon certain funds. A short time ago, after the last valuation of the assets of the societies, the Actuary said he would not allow societies to pay out all the surplus which they had accumulated. He allowed them to pay out a certain amount, but beyond that he said it would not be safe to go. How is it that if it was not safe to go further a few months ago it is now safe to go very much further and to make an inroad to the extent of £3,500,000 on these funds? I gather that the Government put forward the view that it is possible and it is fair to raid the surplus funds because they have been to a large extent created by the War. I agree that the surplus funds of the societies are perhaps larger to-day than they would have been if there had not been a war, but on the other hand the War has created many liabilities on these societies which have to be met. Thousands of insured persons have returned to their ordinary work very much impaired in health and they
1302
are a very much heavier burden on the societies than ever they were before. They are going to come back continually on the societies as the result of their war experience and of the bad health which they now enjoy, and that will go a long way to cut into these surpluses which the war may have helped to accumulate.
But there is another question. Last year the right hon. Baronet introduced, and the House passed, at his instigation, the Prolongation of Insurance Act, and that put upon the societies the obligation to find a great deal of money for benefits to members who have really fallen into arrear and would have fallen out of benefit altogether. These were extra benefits which were not contemplated by the actuaries when they drafted the scheme behind the Insurance Act. These are two additional burdens which have come directly as the result of the War, and will in time more than take away any surplus which may have been heaped up as the result of the War. These funds of the approved societies are moneys which, in the case of a large part of the working-class community, are their last stay and practically their only protection against days of illness, and to take away that money which belongs to them and has been accumulated by them on the faith of the pledges given by the right hon. Baronet and his predecessors, is to try to help the general taxpayer at the expense of the poorest classes of the community. No one suggests for a moment that this Insurance Scheme should not be self-supporting. I do not think any approved society suggests that the Exchequer should have to beat this 2s. 6d., but the Exchequer definitely, of their volition, accepted this burden without consulting in any way the societies. The societies believe that a very bad bargain was made, and if it had been left to them there would have been no 2s. 6d. to pay at all. But the right hon. Baronet made a bad bargain. Now he finds that the finances of the country are in a bad state, and he desires to put off on to other shoulders the result of this very bad bargain which he has made.
One of the objections which I take to the method adopted by the right hon. Baronet is this. He tells us that he has made an agreement with an outside body. We never know what may have passed between him and that body. We never

1303
know on the basis of what consideration this body may have agreed to the proposal which he made or the proposal which was put before them. As I understand it, the consultative council gave the somewhat qualified agreement that they did give on the expressed understanding and undertaking by the right hon. Gentleman that when the present agreement runs out at the end of next year the approved societies will be consulted with regard to any new agreement. The doctors, so far as I know, repudiate that. They say that the right hon. Gentleman can make any agreement he likes with the approved societies, but they as doctors will have nothing to do with negotiations with approved societies. Which is it? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us more information about this very important point. It may not seem of as much importance to-day as it will latterly, but it is a very great question of vital interest, not merely to doctors but the whole of the approved societies of the country. I hope we shall have a great deal more light thrown upon this subject before the Bill is allowed to pass.
I have no objection to Clauses 2 and 3, but I have some objection to Clause 4, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to mention that Clause. In Clause 4 there is a discrimination made in favour of England and against Scotland and Wales in regard to the amount of money which is going to be paid. In England the amount is 2s. 6d., in Scotland 2s. 11d., and in Wales 3s. 1d. What is the reason for that distinction? Many people will be inclined to support the Bill merely because they consider it is a question of economy. There is no economy in this Bill in the sense that it means that we are going to spend one penny less. This £3,500,000 is going to be spent. Real economy means lack of spending, the fact that you are not to spend the same money that you were spending before. There is no economy of that kind involved in this Bill. The money is going to be spent as it was before. The only difference is that the right hon. Gentleman is going to move it from the Exchequer. It is no more economy than it would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down and say that certain charges which previously
1304
had been placed on the national Exchequer were in future to be placed on the local rates. That is a complete analogy of what is being done in this case.
There is another point of a somewhat different nature, and it is a very important point. Under this Bill, the Government are going to postpone certain charges which fall in the present financial year and the next year to a date beyond the next valuation. Why should the right hon. Gentleman ask us to approve of the postponing of payment of debts which are incurred in the present financial year? We heard a great deal about the payment of debt and the postponing of obligations when we were discussing the Budget. Here is a case where the Government definitely and deliberately ask the House of Commons to postpone the payment of nearly £1,000,000 to a few years hence, although the whole of the money is going to be spent and the liability incurred in this year and next year. That will increase the burdens on the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few years hence, and, if one can judge things aright, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day will have trouble enough without having trouble created for him by the present Government. It would be a mistake for the House to approve of the Bill at this stage, and that is why I move its rejection.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
The House will recall that 10 years ago a distinguished Member of this House stood at the Treasury box and preached the gospel of 9d. for 4d. To-night, 10 years later, a Minister of Health reduces the 9d. for 4d. and inclines to the view that approved societies should now come to the bare economic financial status of 4d. for 4d. That is the tendency of this Measure. A great deal has been said about the consultative council. I do not wish to be as harsh on the consultative council as some hon. Members, but I do say that the right hon. Gentleman, when he saw the consultative council, put to them only two alternatives—the Government had decided on the first already—that either the approved societies were to find an increase of 1d. contribution per week, or this Bill must be passed. That was after the Government had decided to relieve the Treasury to the extent of £1,750,000. The principle of this Measure

1305
is exactly the same principle as the proposal of the Government to deal with the superannuation of teachers. It is the principle of taking pence from the insured population of this country. It means raiding funds which are provided for sickness, maternity, dental and optical treatment, and the Government takes, that money, the money of the poorest population of the country.
Sir A. MOND: What about the Government grant? Is not that for the poor of the country?
Mr. DAVIES: That does not alter the argument.
Sir A. MOND: It does.
Mr. DAVIES: This House accepted that liability when it passed the first Insurance Act. When it passed that Act, with its Amendments, it adopted this philosophy, that the sickness of a workman was not of necessity to be a liability on the workman himself, but that the employer, the industry, and the State must come to the aid of the person insured. Now the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill violates that principle.
Sir A. MOND: Not at all.
Mr. DAVIES: I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to confess that the consultative council as it now stands cannot possibly represent the views of the approved societies of the country. I do not say that that is the fault of the Minister—I think the council was there before the Ministry of Health was established—but I do think that the Minister ought to take steps and try to secure a democratic representation on that consultative council. It will astonish the House when I say that I hardly think that a single member of the consultative council is insured under the State health scheme. Consequently, they cannot represent the views of the insured population. If the consultative council is drawn from the approved societies, what are the approved societies? The biggest approved society in this country is the Prudential Approved Society. If a managing director of the Prudential Approved Society is on the consultative council, surely he cannot represent the insured population of the country. How could he? He cannot represent their point of view. He is not insured. He does not mix amongst them. All he does is to help pass resolutions
1306
once a month in the management committee of the approved society.
A great deal has been said about the Actuary's report. This is not the first time the Government has ignored an Actuary's report. The Government take no heed of actuaries' reports. If they decide upon a certain issue, as they have done in this Bill, they will flout anybody and anything. The Actuary has given later figures than the quotations already given, and he has pointed out a very significant fact which ought to be borne in mind by the Minister and the House. The approved societies were valued to the end of the year 1918, and it was then found that they were in a good way financially, but since the approved societies were valued to the end of 1918, sickness benefit has increased by at least 50 per cent. in all the approved societies, owing to lack of food and decent shelter for our people, consequent upon unemployment. I can imagine that when the next valuation takes place at the end of 1923 all the money, and more, that the Minister is now proposing to take from the funds of the approved societies will be required in order to make good the financial position at the end of that valuation period. The Actuary hints at that problem.
Whatever the opinion of other hon. Members may be, I hope that the House will divide on this Bill. The insured population of this country are not affected as intimately by these proposals as were the teachers. The teachers were affected intimately because there was a proposal to take 5 per cent. off their wages; but this fund which the Government is raiding in this Bill is too far removed and too technical for the average insured person to understand exactly what the Minister is doing. Something has been said about the doctors. The doctors are represented in this House. They have taken up rather a strange attitude towards the approved societies in dealing with this Bill. The doctors, so far as my knowledge goes, are the only people in this country who are paid wages, and who are not employed by anybody. They decline to be employed by anybody.
Major FARQUHARSON: Every panel practitioner has to enter into a very definite contract of service. Surely that is a contract of employment?
8.0 P.M.
Mr. DAVIES: When a person is employed he can be dismissed, but the doctors cannot. The doctors under State insurance draw their salaries, and certainly they ought to be well paid. But I do say this, that the panel system under the State insurance scheme is a failure. It could be proved that prior to the advent of this system the doctors for less money gave to the same patients whom they are now treating better service than they are giving now for more money. I trust that when the doctors come to negotiate again the Minister will take heed of the fact that approved societies are determined, as they are the people responsible for finding the money to pay for medical attention, to have a say in dealing with the doctors in this connection. I know the attitude which the doctors have taken up, but that attitude has got to be altered, if doctors are to continue to treat the members of approved societies.
The Minister, in bringing in this Bill, shelters himself behind the decision of the Consultative Council. That is a cowardly thing to do. The Government, by bringing this Bill before the House, is inflicting an indirect penalty on the insured population of this country. The insured population are the people who work, and only the people who work. The non-manual worker, who is in receipt of wages beyond £250 per year, does not contribute under the State Insurance Scheme It is the worker who contributes under this scheme. For 10 years he has been compelled to contribute, and he has built up a surplus on the understanding that it would be available for additional benefits for him by way of optical, dental, and hospital treatment, and other things that go to make up the new Jerusalem of the distinguished Welshman to whom I referred a few moments ago. But this new Jerusalem is now to be destroyed by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Death would be a more appropriate title for the present Ministry, owing to the way in which it is proceeding now. Whatever may be done this evening I trust that there will be in power some day a Government who will take a different attitude with regard to the health of the people. During the War the Government were responsible for maiming and bruising thousands of the folk who are expecting to receive
1308
money in future by way of additional benefit. I protest in the name of a large number of insured people in this country against the provisions of this Bill, and I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
Dr. FARQUHARSON: It has been said by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that doctors are represented in this House. I would remind him that there is no such thing as vocational representation, and while I happen to be a doctor my representation is that of an ordinary constituency. I make this statement, not in any sense as a rebuke of the hon. Gentleman's remark, but in order to make my position clear in the observations which I am about to make. Nothing has given me greater regret this afternoon than to notice the ease and the avidity with which certain Members chose to attack the medical profession. Not only it is the individual members of the medical profession whom they seek to attack, but they seek to attack the whole medical profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If approved societies simply desired to improve the medical service by getting rid of black sheep in the medical profession they would find no more hearty co-workers than the great rank and file of the panel practitioners in this country. The medical profession are very desirous of improving the medical service. The medical profession recently agreed voluntarily to a very considerable diminution in their remuneration, amounting, I think, to about £1,250,000. That is a very large sum of money which the doctors are giving up voluntarily.
Let no hon. Member forget that the doctors are a very important part in the mechanism of the administration of the National Health Insurance. I submit that one of the causes of the splendid surplus which many societies now possess is, to a very considerable extent, to be found in the most effective work done by the medical profession under the Act. One hon. Member uttered what I may describe as a threat, that if they do not get the doctors by the throat by the end of 1923 and make them do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said they did in the old days, the approved societies would take this money and keep it. But those were the old days. There was no State element and no employer element. Now the

1309
approved societies say, "We shall sweep away the right of the State and the right of the employer and we shall dictate terms to the doctor." I wish to express gratitude to the Minister of Health for what he has said. There has been undoubtedly an uneasy feeling in the medical profession and I suggest to the House rightly so, because not so many years ago doctors were slogging along at 1s. 6d. or 2s. 6d. per annum, attending individuals year in and year out for these sums. Does the House want a return to these conditions? I think not. I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the medical profession for his attitude in reference to those fears of being put again under the heel—it was nothing more or less—of the clubs.
I once was a club doctor myself, and I can assure the House that no harder work was ever done for a more miserable pittance than was done in those days. If the approved societies wish to return to those conditions, and to force the medical profession into that position, it will be a fight to a finish. The insured person will suffer. To the glory of the profession, doctors will never refuse to attend the person who is ailing or sick, whether they get something or nothing. Rut are these men to be treated harshly? I have no mandate to speak for the profession, but I believe that they will hear with great gratitude the frank statement of the Minister of Health that they will not have to meet that point of view. And I have not the slightest doubt that when the time comes to recast the figure, it will be done in a fair, straightforward manner. The medical profession will not object to approved societies having access to the Minister. Why should they object? The Consultative Council, under the Ministry of Health Act, have no right of access of their own initiative to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has decided a point of great importance in constitutional procedure. He told us in effect that the Consultative Council, representing approved societies, have the initiative of access to him. I hope that in time to come the Conultative Council representing the doctors will also be granted the same degree of access. I am content with the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. The profession wish to dictate to no one. I hope that hon. Members will cease attacking the medical profession on the ground
1310
that their ranks contain a few black sheep, of which the profession are anxious to get rid. Let this purely financial transaction be decided on its merits without making an attack on the profession which has served the country so well.
Mr. HURD: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give special attention to the rural aspect of this question. There is a strong feeling in rural areas that they are not so well looked after as they might be. I have received to-day representations on this point from the body that specially represents the working farmer. I have not time to develop the point except to make this suggestion. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman when reconstituting his consultative council, as he proposes to do, to give the rural societies more adequate and more direct representation, so that their views may be more fully represented than is now possible?
Sir A. MOND: Rural societies have a representative on the consultative council now.
Mr. HURD: The fact remains that throughout the rural areas there is a strong feeling that their special case is not properly put before the consultative council. When the right hon. Gentleman is reconstituting that body I would ask him to give special attention to that particular aspect of the case.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I desire to refer to one or two financial considerations. During this Debate many hon. Members seemed to take it for granted that the whole of this 2s. 6d. special grant was coming out of the funds of the approved society. I think that the speeches made have tended to convey that. That is not the case. We had several plans. We have first had the plan of the Geddes Committee. Under that plan there was to be an extra contribution paid for this 2s. 6d. and the State were not to contribute, as in the case of other contributions, the two-ninths from the Exchequer. That was refused by the approved societies, whether rightly or wrongly I cannot say. Then we had the second plan.
It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

INTERNAL CURRENCY.
Mr. HAILWOOD: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations, profiteering, bankruptcies, and stagnation of trade are caused by the fluctuating purchasing power of the Internal Currency being based on an article of no value like gold; that these evils, and their consequent cost to the State, can be almost eliminated by basing the Internal Currency on a commodity of constant, real and stable value like wheat, such Internal Currency to have a day-to-day exchange rate with our present External Currency based on gold for the purpose of foreign trade; and that the Government be asked to take steps to inquire into the best means of establishing such a currency at an early date."
I do so with a feeling that I am asking the House to agree to a very big revolution in our monetary system, a revolution which will have far-reaching consequences in many aspects of political and social life. Yet I am convinced that this revolution will be brought about so gradually and in such a way that hardly anyone will notice that anything has happened. I am constrained to feel confident that the general body of the people would be only too glad to accept it. I wish to stabilise the currency of this country. I direct the attention of hon. Members particularly to the internal currency, as distinct from the external currency, which may be used for export and import trade. I believe that there are great benefits to be derived from stabilising our internal currency. I believe that nearly the whole of our industrial trouble arises from the fluctuating purchasing power of our internal currency, and that if we can stabilise that currency a lot of our trouble would vanish. It is within the memory of all of us how a rapid rise of prices, during or after the War, was the cause of innumerable strikes, when men were striving to keep their wages level with the ever increasing cost of living. We have only to look around to-day to see the appalling spectacle of 1½ million or 1¾ million or two millions of unemployed. I attribute the whole of this trouble to the fluctuating purchasing power of our internal currency.
This is a question which I find most people are somewhat frightened to discuss. It is looked upon as though it were a question of high finance, which must not be thought about for a moment except by those whose business it is to
1312
deal in high finance—as though it was something altogether outside the realm of ordinary individuals. I intend to speak in simple and direct language on this question, because it is the only language I know. I hope to show that this is a, question in which all of us ought to be deeply interested. From time to time we spend millions of money on various schemes to relieve unemployment, and we try all kinds of panaceas for settling wage disputes, when the essence of the whole thing is that the value of money has altered, and all the machinery is set in motion in order to bring about a levelling up of the purchasing power of the workmen's weekly wage.
I want to base our internal currency on wheat. I move this Resolution because I believe that wheat is of constant and stable value as distinct from any other article. It is the most valuable of all articles that have a price. It is by the providence of Almighty God that He has always made the most valuable article the cheapest. The most valuable thing we know is fresh air. A man could live for about seven minutes if be were deprived entirely of air. The next thing is water. A man might live for seven days without water. But he could not live without food for more than seven weeks. Bread forms the most important article of the lot. It is described as the staff of life, but it is something more. It has a stable and definite value, in so much that in a country like this there is a definite quantity consumed, no matter bow prosperous or how poor the people may be. If we refer to other articles, whether clothing, or hats, or jewellery, we find that the quantity consumed or purchased varies to a great extent with the affluence of the people who make the purchases. No such condition ever enters into the brain of those people who purchase bread. They purchase a definite amount to satisfy their requirements, and whether they be in work or out of work, whether they be enjoying high wages or low wages, practically the same amount of bread is consumed. Therefore 'bread has a definite value to the community with which no other article can compare.
I want to show how definite is the relationship between bread and wages. Let us go back to the period before the War, when wages were in the neighbour-

1313
hood of 30s. a week. In this country bread was then about 5d. for the 4-lb. loaf. If we take the period when wages reached their highest point, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £4 10s., we find that the price of bread was 1s. 3d. Bread trebled in price along with wages. To-day we can state roughly that wages are in the neighbourhood of £3, and the price of bread is 10d. If you divide 30s. by 5d., or £4 10s. by 1s. 3d., or £3 by 10d., you find that in each case you get 72 as the resultant figure. That is to say, it takes 72 4-lb. loaves to furnish an average week's wage for the community. In other words the real wage of the community remains fairly constant. Yet we have to go through all these interminable strikes and lock-outs and unemployment in order to adjust wages to this level, simply because the purchasing power of the currency has been fluctuating in the meantime. All of us are familiar with the Board of Trade index figure of the cost of living and we know the efforts that are made to put wages on a parity with the index figure. The hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Sir T. Robinson) was the first to introduce a sliding scale and to apply it to the workpeople under the Bradford dyers. That example was rapidly followed in branches of the cotton trade—bleaching, dying and finishing. In fact, most branches of the cotton trade have their wages regulated on the index figure of the cost of living. We all remember the railway strike in connection with which a settlement was reached on the basis, that the wages should be regulated by the Board of Trade index figure of the cost of living. I might mention many other trades which have established this custom of arriving at settlements with their workpeople.
The Board of Trade figure forms a very good index as to how wages should be regulated. I do not wish it to be inferred from anything I say that I wish either to press down wages or to raise wages. I am trying to look at the matter from an economic point of view, and these are considerations with which we must grapple. The difficulty in connection with the Board of Trade index figure is that it is several months behind the wheat market, and it is this period of several months which causes all the trouble in the matter of unemployment. I believe we have very little control over wages.
1314
We may have our well-organised trade unions, we may have our trade boards, we may have our Ministry of Labour, but all these have very little effect on the course of wages. Wages keep constant from one week to another, except that between one generation and another, as inventions are brought out, we find differences. We have coal, then steam engines, electricity, gas, up-to-date machinery, the better equipment of factories, better organisation, and so on, and all these things tend to the betterment of the conditions of the people, as between one generation and another. No one will contend for a single moment that people in the time of our fathers or grandfathers were as comfortable, or worked under such conditions, or enjoyed such wages as they do to-day. But no one would be stupid enough to contend that when wages rose from their pre-War level, in the neighbourhood of 30s. to their highest point which was £4 10s., that the working people were therefore three times better off. No one would be stupid enough today to say that the working people of this country, though their wages are twice what they were in pre-War times, are twice as well off. The real wage has remained constant throughout the whole period.
We cannot spur ourselves to the effort of bringing about brighter days better than by dwelling for a few moments on the miserable conditions of the past and present. I do not believe, as some people do, that we should fold our arms and say all this is due to the War, and in time everything will become right. There must be a cause for all this trouble in our land, and it behoves us to turn our attention to finding out that cause. It is quite a common thing among certain sections of the community to curse our present industrial system and to plead for a Socialistic era when Capitalism will be abolished. Although I am no Socialist, yet, if one stops to think, one must feel that there is a great deal in our present system of which we should feel ashamed. I believe our present system is right, generally speaking, but that in certain respects there is something radically wrong which should be adjusted in order that the difficulties under which we are groaning may be put right. Nor is it sufficient to say that it is because we have come through a war that we have all these

1315
troubles. I remember processions of unemployed long before the War. We had our periods of trade depression long before the War; in fact, when the Employment Exchanges were established, about 1910, we had a big percentage of unemployed, and the establishment of the Exchanges was one of the steps towards eradicating that evil. If this evil existed before the War, and if the Employment Exchanges and other attempted remedies have failed, I think it is time we set about getting at the root cause and endeavouring to eliminate it.
It is often said that the rise in wages caused the increase in the price of food. I wish to refute that entirely. The cost of food commenced to advance before any -movement in wages took place. Immediately after the murder at Sarajevo, several weeks before the War, the flour market began to rise, and it continued to rise, and eventually other things followed suit, and it was some time after before there was any movement to increase wages. In fact, employers of labour in the early days of the War, took rather the opposite course by dismissing numbers of their staffs and reducing expenses, thinking there would be no trade. We are all familiar with the ever-recurring strikes we witnessed in the course of the War in order that the people of the, country might wring from their employers something like an approximate wage compared with the ever-increasing cost of food. Like the swing of the pendulum, it is quite possible that the movement in this direction went too far. However, we know that at first the employers resisted these demands and strikes took place, but after a time the employers became so compliant that they granted demands for increased wages almost without any question, until the cost of production reached such heights that there was no market to purchase the goods. During all this period we had no such thing as -unemployment. The index figure of the cost of living was steadily rising. The wheat market was steadily rising. There was no unemployment, but we had strikes by means of which people endeavoured to keep wages up to the level of the cost of living.
I should like to point out another aspect of this question, namely, the terrible amount of valuable time wasted during the War in negotiating on, and trying to
1316
fix up, these wage disputes. People had to travel to London to attend Industrial Courts, and Conciliation Boards called together by the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade, and that must have entailed enormous expense both to the employers and to the employés. All this waste of time and money should be eliminated. The cost of wheat rose from 6s. 10d. a cental of 100 lbs. in 1914 to 16s. 3d. in June, 1917. After that, the Government stepped in and controlled the wheat and flour prices. It is very difficult to trace the progress of the wheat market until we come to June, 1921, when control may be regarded as having ceased. We do know that flour rose to the price of 86s. per sack, or something like 3¼ times its pre-War price. The index cost of living at the Armistice in November, 1918, was 120, but eventually it rose to 170 in October, 1920, and to 191, the highest point, in November, 1920. I want to impress this date particularly on the memory of hon. Members in this House—November, 1920—because it was the highest point in our cost of living, but it is memorable for something else. We passed an Unemployment Insurance Act in November, 1920, and we put 11,000,000 of people under the Act, as against something like 4,250,000 previously. We did this because it was foreshadowed that we were likely to have a very bad time in the industrial world, and that we were likely to have a very bad period of unemployment. Unemployment really commenced at that point. Just as the index cost of living had got to its highest figure, so unemployment on a big scale commenced from that particular date. The index cost of living fell from that time, and unemployment rose. In May, June, and July of 1920 the percentage of unemployed in this country was something like 2·6 or 2·7; in September it was 3·8; in November it was 3·7, but in December, immediately after the. Unemployment Act was passed, our unemployment rose to 5·8 per cent., and in January, 1921, it was 8·1 per cent. In February it was 9·5 per cent., in. March 11·3, and after that we entered on the period of the coal dispute, and I will leave out the figures for the intervening period and turn to September, when it had risen to 12·2 per cent., as compared with 11·3 in March. In October it was 12·8, in November 15·7, in December 16·2; in January, 1922, it was 16·2 again, and then it ceased to rise.

1317
Now let us turn to wheat for something like the same period. In June, 1921, the cental of wheat on the Liverpool market cost 17s. 1d.; in August it had dropped to 14s. 7d., in September to 13s. 8d., in October to 10s. 7d., and in November to 10s. 2d. November, 1921, was the lowest point we have yet touched with regard to wheat since the War. As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, the cost of living figure is several months after the wheat market, and I will explain that as I go along. It takes at least two months before a fall in the price of wheat is really reflected in the index cost of living, and, as hon. Members know, the index cost of living forms the basis of wages in a good many industries. The index cost of living may not be published until the middle of the month, and an alteration in wages does not take place until the following month; consequently, there is another month gone before the figures reflected in the index cost of living affect wages. Again, it takes one, two, three, or four months to manufacture goods or a certain piece of machinery, and it is all these months more before the lower price of wages can be incorporated into a manufactured article that we are trying to sell. November, 1921, is just as interesting as November, 1920, insomuch as we touched the lowest point in wheat at that period, and after that it commenced to rise. Now it has fallen again, but even to-day it is higher than it was in November, 1921, so that we can regard November, 1921, as the steadying up of the heavy slump in wheat prices, and we might say that it corresponds with the increase of unemployment, because since the turn of the year the figures of unemployment have commenced to fall while the wheat market is tending to rise, and if we could eliminate the discrepancy of these few months between the price of manufactured articles and the price of imported wheat by altering our currency, I believe we should have solved the whole of this trouble. The cost of living figures commenced to decline after November, 1920, their highest point having been 191, and they have steadily fallen, except during the coal dispute, to January of this year, when the figure was 92, and to May, when it was 81, so that we can regard the index cost of living as having steadied up a few months after the steadying up of the wheat price, but, as I say, it takes two
1318
months before an alteration in the cost of wheat is reflected in foodstuffs, and another month before the cost of living is reflected in reduced wages, and the sliding scale Board of Trade index figure three months after the fall in wages.
When a merchant buys a cargo of wheat, he is buying nothing more nor less than a cargo of labour. Wheat comes from all the ends of the earth to such a port as Liverpool. We have wheat from Canada, from Australia, from Argentina, from Austria, from Hungary, and, in normal times, of course, from Russia, and we also have the home-produced wheat, so that really we get a test there of the price of labour from all parts of the earth in competition one with the other—the real test of what labour is worth at the moment—and it stands to sense that if a manufacturer or a shipper is trying to ship goods, and his costs are based on costs very much higher Which obtained for several months previously, he cannot sell his goods, and after all we import wheat into this country, we import foodstuffs, and we export manufactured goods, and the one eventually has to pay for the other. To my mind, it is because of this disparity between the two that we have this question of unemployment in our midst, and if we could so arrange that these two were always at a parity, I believe that trade would be far more regular and far steadier than it is to-day. We have various causes put forward as to why shippers cannot sell their goods, but I am quite convinced that the real reason is because to-day they are not of the right price, or, at any rate, they have not been in the months which have preceded. We are somewhat near the right price for selling. I was talking the other day to a merchant who told me he was nearly concluding very big transactions in the Eastern market, because his prices were very near the line of prices at which people could buy. I believe there is no such thing as the state of trade being in such a way that there is no market. I believe there is a market at all times at a price, and I believe that we ought to strive to have our goods constantly at the price at which we can export them.
The slump in wheat was arrested last November at 10s. 2d., and the cost of wheat now is 12s. 6d. If we compare the present cost with the pre-War cost, we shall find that to-day it is 81·7 higher

1319
than it was before the War, and that the index figure of the cost of living is a little over 81, so that the increase to-day in the price of wheat almost exactly corresponds with the index figure of the cost of living, and we must bear in mind that, perhaps, rent and some other things have not risen with the cost of living. But with these considerations, we might say the one thing exactly balances the other to-day, so that wheat does really form a true index eventually of the cost of living, only, as I say, it is two or three months in advance of the Board of Trade figures, and that is where all the trouble lies.
I may be criticised for wishing to alter the standard of our internal currency from gold to wheat, and no doubt a good many people do not know that gold has not always been the standard of our currency; in fact, I suppose that, prior to 1871, we were the only country in the world that had a gold standard, and it was not until after the Franco-German War, when the French peasants brought out the gold they had hoarded—and although the French Government did not pay it direct to Germany, but bought bills of exchange with the currency, and liquidated their debt to Germany—that Germany established her currency on a gold basis. Then France, and other nations in quick succession, followed, by establishing a gold basis. There is no doubt about it that when we were the only nation on the earth with a gold currency, we made very very rapid advance in our industrial life, and our trade boomed right up to 1871. It is very questionable, after gold became common in other countries, whether the advantages to be derived from the gold standard continued as they had done before, but I do not wish tonight to enter upon that question, because, after all, it really affects the external currency rather than the internal currency. The whole of my remarks have been diected to showing that it is the internal currency which is at fault, and I contend that we ought to arrange to have the internal currency based on wheat, and to leave the external currency based on gold as to-day, and to have a day-to-day rate of exchange between the two.
To some people it may seem somewhat appalling that we should establish another exchange in this way; but, so far as the ordinary people of this country are con-
1320
cerned, the people who draw wages and the people who do trade within the country, they would not know anything had happened. The currency would remain just as it is, and the people who conduct an export or an import trade are the only people who would have to take into account this day-to-day exchange. I think it quite possible to establish, we will say, the Treasury notes on wheat, and to leave the Bank of England notes based on gold, and to have a day-to-day exchange between the two, according to the rise or fall in the price of wheat as compared with gold. In this way we should stabilise the internal currency, and there is no reason on earth why the Government cannot substitute one article as well as another as a backing for their Treasury notes. As a matter of fact, of course, there is not the full value of gold in the Bank of England or at the Treasury against these notes. Before the War we had something like 52½ per cent. of gold against the notes that were issued by the Bank of England, and we know the tremendous rush when war was in the air to abstract this gold from the Bank of England. We know that it fell something like 14 points in the course of a week, and in the next few days it fell still further. Then our stock of gold was rapidly melting, and if it had not been for the Government taking the drastic step of declaring a succession of bank holidays, and issuing a big number of postal orders until we provided currency notes, it is quite certain there would have been no gold left in the Bank of England.
Fortunately for us, America in those days was a debtor country rather than a creditor country, or she would have abstracted the gold very quickly. Being a debtor, she was unable to do so. We successfully brought in currency notes, and no one ever doubted for a single moment the stability of those notes. No workman, when he is paid his wages in notes, has any doubt that a note is worth what it is stated to be worth on the face of the note. The only thing he knows is that all through the War he was able to buy less with those notes—that the purchasing power became smaller and smaller. But so far as confidence was concerned, no one for a single moment had any doubt about the stability of the Government, and of it being able to back up our Treasury notes. So that it is not a question of credit. It is not a question

1321
of confidence in the Government. It is question, after all, of what is behind the notes with regard to their real purchasing power. And it is just as easy if the Government at one time have gold behind the notes and at another time no gold, and nothing practically but credit. If they can do this, it is just as easy for them to put a definite article of value, like wheat behind the note and to say, "This note issued represents so many pounds of wheat." Sup posing this change were made when wheat was in the neighbourhood of 10s. a cental, it would be possible to issue a Treasury note to say that this should always represent a cental of wheat, and then a rental of wheat could always be purchased by a Treasury note and 1s. could always buy 10 lbs. of wheat. Did we care to introduce the decimal system, such as is recommended by Mr. Harry Allcock, of the Decimal Association, and divide 1s. into 10 instead of 12 pennies, and incorporate the two at the same time by making a pound of wheat represent one penny, it would simplify a lot of calculations throughout the land, it would simplify the arithmetic in our schools, and another step forward would be taken. This is, of course, apart altogether from the policy which I am advocating, and it need not be incorporated unless any Committee which inquired into the matter decided that it should be done at the same time. How is it that a Treasury note at one time buys a certain quantity of food and at another time buys something quite different?
I have here a golden sovereign in my hand. I suppose that before the War no one doubted for a single moment that it represented a sovereign, and contained something like a sovereign's worth of gold. If it had been legal to sell a sovereign it could have been sold for 19s. 6d. However, there is the sovereign, and it represents the labour employed in the mines in getting the gold out and other expenses of bringing it here and minting it. In other words, it represents right up to the hilt what it would cost to produce. If the Government had issued a Treasury Note or Treasury Notes corresponding to it, those Treasury Notes would have paid labour just as much as the sovereign did. How is it that things go wrong afterwards? While we offered a Treasury Note in 1913—supposing we
1322
had had them—and we could have got a man to get the gold out of the mine and this sovereign could have been exchanged for that Treasury Note, no one would contend that in November, 1920, when the cost of living reached such a high figure that the man would have worked to get the same amount of gold out of the ground for his Treasury Note! The reason is that gold may be produced at one time and may represent a coinage of five, six, eight or ten years later. Conditions may have wholly changed. Wheat is never hoarded during the whole length of that time, and wheat represents the immediate cost of labour at the time it is grown.
Suppose one hundred men produced wheat enough to fill a ship, and the cargo of wheat is bought for a certain amount of money in a certain year, say, in Liverpool. The following year there is something different in the harvest. If there is only half a shipload of wheat, these men have worked just as much as before, and you have to pay just as much for that half shipload as you have for a shipload. There has been the same amount of labour put into the matter in the half shipload as the year previous for the shipload. In other words, wheat always represents the labour that it has taken to produce it. Harvests may vary from one time to another, and in one part of the globe and another, but they have always got to be paid for, and the people who produce the wheat have to be paid for their labour irrespective of the quantity of wheat which may be produced. That is why it is wheat is a more stable article than gold. Gold, really, is of no value except its exchange value in the purchasing of commodities. Wheat is an article of real value. I think I have made out my case sufficiently well to impress its cogency upon hon. Members who have done me the honour of listening. At the end of my Resolution I ask that the Government should inquire further into this matter, in order to find the means of stabilising our currency by basing it on wheat. I quite see that this question will have to be inquired into by bankers, wheat brokers, millers, representatives of labour, and so on, in order that we should thoroughly understand the new system before it comes into operation. I have, I think, made out a case for inquiry.
9.0 P.M.
There is another aspect which I want' to put particularly before the Committee,

1323
and that has relation to our National Debt. To a great extent our National Debt was borrowed at a time when the cost of living was very high, when wages were very high, and when the currency was inflated more than it is to-day. Time goes on, and if the wheat market should come down to its pre.-War level, supposing wages fall to their pre-War level, we shall have a far more difficult job to pay off the National Debt than we have to-day. Say the Government borrowed money at 4½ per cent, or 5 per cent. and wages were in the neighbourhood of £4 10s., that would mean that a man would have to work a week in order to pay the interest on £100 of National War Loan. If wages fell back to 30s., to pre-War level, it would mean that a man would have to work three weeks in order to pay the same interest on the War Loan. I do not wish in any way to repudiate the National Debt, and I do not wish, and I would never advocate it, of reducing the interest on the National Debt. A bargain is a bargain. A contract a contract. They must be honoured. But if our currency had been based on wheat we could continue to pay the interest on the National Debt, and as the wheat market fell it would become easier and easier to pay that interest. The Government would gain on the transaction.
There is no reason why, if this policy he adopted, the Government should not refloat the National Debt when the new currency is established and refloat it on a new basis of paying off the National Debt with the new money so borrowed. The owners of bonds would be guaranteed their 4½ and 5 per cent. interest, as the case might be, and it would have a real stable value. They would always be able to purchase with that money the same quantity of foodstuffs or clothing, because all these things come into line. Again, let us look at the position of the Government in regard to taxation and the salaries that they have to pay to the Civil Service, the postal workers, and so on. The Government always manages to be several days behind the fair—if not several months! We know that when we have got through the boom, postal and telegraph rates, and so on, were put up at a time when the Government should have reduced those rates. We know the discussion we had last week with regard to
1324
the 5 per cent. off teachers' salaries. We know that civil servants' wages or salaries did not rise anything like as rapidly as labour outside. The labourer was the first man who was able to get his wages moving because he was on an hourly contract, he could move his labour and could take advantage of the rising market. There is no other Government that civil servants could be employed by and consequently they had to agitate, and it was not until after the War that they got anything like recognition, and for some years to come they will enjoy these higher salaries.
But if the Government base the currency on wheat as the wheat market fell so their costs would fall at the same time. Our exporters and manufacturers, although their costs would remain in terms of the internal currency just the same, they would pay the same wages and the same prices for raw material by the very fall in the exchange value of the internal currency on external, and they would be able to quote a lower price for shipment abroad, and automatically their costs would be reduced. To-day they have to call in the colliery proprietor, the trade union leaders and the various individuals from whom they buy raw material, and try to barter down the present-day prices in order to be able to export. Under this scheme their costs would be reduced while paying exactly the same for everything, and I believe it would tend to the abolition of strikes and to doing away with profiteering, because, after all, that is a sort of adventitious gain which comes through the difference in the value of money. It will do away with bankruptcy and heavy losses in business, because if this came about through the slump people cannot sell their goods, and I believe it would make us a far better country.
Just as we were the first to start a currency based on gold, I believe that if we based it on wheat we should make rapid strides because of the contentment of our people, and because our manufacturers would be able to quote more quickly up-to-date prices. Hon. and learned Members of this House who have had anything to do with deeds connected with land must have noticed from time to time how tithes are based on the cost of wheat, and how payments of certain kinds for land are based on the average

1325
cost of wheat for that year's harvest. Consequently this is no new thing, because people of old knew what real values were, and we have now departed from that, and this has brought on a lot of industrial trouble. I believe that this change could be effected with great benefit to the community, and for these reasons I commend it with great confidence to the House.
Mr. A. J. LAW: I beg to second the Motion.
Mr. W. GRAHAM: However much hon. Members may disagree with the principles put forward by my hon. Friend who introduced this Motion, I am sure we shall all join at once in paying the warmest tribute to the sincerity with which this Motion has been urged. Having paid that tribute, I am afraid that I must almost at once disagree with very nearly every argument which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. I want in a very few remarks to submit two considerations which appear to me to offer a final reply to his proposal. Before doing so, however, there is one remark made by the hon. Member which appears to me to represent a fallacy on which he based a very large part of his argument regarding the index number.
As I understood his case, he said that there had been a certain constancy in wages. If we take the period between 1801 and 1914, prior to the outbreak of War, and take the testimony of one of the highest authorities on the subject in this country, we have this result, that during that time there was practically a doubling of nominal income in actual money and there was also, roughly, a halving of prices. This means that in material things the people in 1914, prior to the outbreak of War, were four times as well off as they were in 1801, subject to this qualification, that during that long period of very nearly 115 years there had been practically no change in the proportions in which the total annual income of the people had been distributed amongst the various sections of the people. In regard to the case for the index number which the hon. Member made with great clearness in the early part of his speech, these facts go a long way to undermine his case.
The two points, however, on which we can reply with most effect to this pro-
1326
posal are these. In the first place my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension as regards the power and effect of the currency in this country or in any other. In the second place if we have to choose between a gold and a wheat basis, I think very few people would hesitate in deciding in favour of the gold standard. Let us take the first point which my hon. Friend made, namely, the power of the currency. If I understand my hon. Friend's argument it amounts to this, that currency for the time being becomes the master of the situation. The real truth is that in any healthy economic organisation the currency should be the servant and not the master, although I agree that conditions arise, and in point of fact did arise during the War, and exist even now, in which the amount of currency was so, increased as to lead to a certain degree of inflation and to a rise in prices, and perhaps to introduce an element of speculation and disease into the economic system of this country and others during the War period.
But normally that should not be the result. Currency should be issued in sufficient quantities to provide for the free exchange of the commodities, and, above all, it must have behind it some commodity which is recognised, and to which it may be related as a kind of standard. That is the presentation of the-golden sovereign for a note if we ask for it in the ordinary way. It is perfectly plain that a very large part of my hon. Friend's case rests upon a fundamental fallacy upon that point. Only temporarily and under the difficult conditions I have mentioned can you say that currency gets the upper hand and becomes a dangerous force, and those conditions would tend to be remedied when we fall, back on the well-known remedy for diseases of that kind—when we stop our Government borrowing, when we balance our Budgets, when we work hard, and when we all economise publicly and privately as far as it is possible. That is the one thing which in the last resource will enable the whole structure of the world currency to be put on a proper foundation.
I assure my hon. Friend that this, of all times, is not the proper time to

1327
embark on the character of enterprise he would have, us follow. In the second place, would my hon. Friend gain anything at all by the substitution of wheat for gold? Let me say at once that those of us who give an orthodox support to the gold standard are not like many of the defenders of that gold standard, committed to gold as a commodity. You must have come kind of basis which will respond to certain tests. Those tests are that you have sufficient quantities of the commodity, that it must be universally respected and recognised, and that probably from some points of view it must have a kind of value in itself, although in making that statement I do not put forward any case at all for intrinsic value. In gold you certainly have a commodity which is universally respected. Before the War there were, I think, only two countries in the world which were not on a gold basis, and since the South African and other mines have produced gold in large quantities, there has been such quantity as has led very largely to the disappearance of the controversy on bimetallism. Taking these considerations in favour of gold, let the hon. Member ask himself whether the same things can be said truly of wheat. For example, you must hold considerable reserves, and I would ask how are you going to do that with wheat? There is a question of the convenience of handling large quantities, and I should think it would take enormous warehouses, bigger than anything one can readily contemplate to store sufficient quantities of wheat to form the necessary reserve. But I do not rely on arguments of that kind, as my hon. Friend may have some other device. If we tie ourselves down to something which is in the phraseology of this Resolution a standard more or less permanent in value, then I think it is very difficult to say that we can apply that phrase to wheat. After all, recent writers have pointed out that there may shortly be a world revolution in wheat itself, due to the fact that certain Eastern countries which have not consumed wheat on any large scale in the past, are now starting to consume it in large quantities, and that will have an important bearing on this question.
1328
The real reply, however, is that you can only effect that change with any degree of safety, and I do not think it possible, if it were built on a universal tendency in the same direction. I see no movement in that direction. On the whole, the gold standard, as the world standard, has been confirmed and established by that remarkable memorandum which has been issued by the Financial Commission at Genoa, and that is the clearest and plainest reply to my hon. Friend. With very great sincerity, and I think I can speak for many of my Labour colleagues on these Benches, I think we can agree that the general control of credit and currency in this and in other countries is a question which deserves to be very much better understood by the people of all countries. There is no doubt that in recent times vast changes have been brought about by the artificial conditions of war, and these have produced problems of international significance. I entirely agree with that part of my hon. Friend's criticism, although I do not think he has offered the House a remedy for it.
In conclusion, he in reality throws us back on a very important change that has come over the banking and financial system of this country. Years ago there was a comparatively large number of banks, and there was a certain amount of banking competition in the provision of credit and the rest. Everyone who knows anything of banking to-day is aware that the banks are very largely amalgamated and that there are now only five or six leading concerns, and, above all, in banking and in the provision of credit there is very largely a common programme which, practically speaking, does not admit of any competition at all. These are important points, and I venture to suggest it is only by a scheme for the control of credit in this country and, above all, for a greater democracy in our financial system and a better knowledge, that the remedy lies. I beg the hon. Member to believe that if we differ from him, we do so for this reason, that if he tries to proceed on wheat, he is simply pursuing a shadow while the substance lies in the line of the remedy I have inadequately summarised.
Mr. MALONE: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who moved

1329
this Resolution on taking an advantage of the position he won in the Ballot to bring the question of currency before this House. It is a very important and very vital matter which, in fact, is now never discussed at all by this House, although it is at the root of a great many of our troubles, both national and international. I want to point out some of the bed-rock fallacies underlying the Motion we are discussing to-night. I can only agree with one point, and, but to some degree with that point, which is that various causes of distress, unemployment, and so on, are due to the exchanges and the fluctuating purchasing power. I shall develop that before I sit down. I should like to point out that wheat is no more stable than gold, and if it is introduced as a standard it will be found that it is not anything like as stable as gold. It may be thought that it is more stable, because people have in mind what happened during the War. During the War, when wheat was rationed and the prices of wheat and bread were fixed, it is possible that the wheat standard was stable, but normally wheat is one of the most sensitive productions. I should think that the hon. Member for the Ardwick Division (Mr. Hailwood), who moved the Resolution, knows, from his own personal knowledge, that the reason for that is that while the demand for wheat is steady and unelastic the supply varies with the harvest and the seasons, and varies from season to season. Under a wheat standard a good harvest would produce a rise in prices, and possibly a proportionately smaller rise in wages. A bad harvest would produce a fall in prices, and a greater fall in wages.
The reason why gold has been adopted as a standard is because the gold production of the whole world is steady and the total production of gold is small compared with the total amount of gold in circulation. If wheat were adopted as a standard the amount of wheat in circulation would be an enormous proportion of the total amount of wheat. As a matter of fact, much higher financial experts than hon. Members of this House have already thoroughly thrashed out the question of standards. Such high financial experts as Professor Gustav Cassel and the others who constituted the Second Commission at Genoa have definitely decided, in their fifth Resolution:
1330
"That gold is the only common standard which all European countries could at present adopt."
When these experts, who have written and spoken a great deal about it in the last two or three years, come to that con-elusion, I am sure there is something in it.
Mr. HAILWOOD: They were referring to the international market, and not to the internal market.
Mr. MALONE: Before I sit down I will try to show that you cannot have a different standard for an internal market and an external market. There have been many changes in currency. Years ago we used to have shells and bangles as our coinage. Now it is found more convenient to have small valuable articles called sovereigns, which you have in your pocket. Another difficulty with a wheat standard would be what would happen when the wheat was consumed. Perhaps I was rather dense in appreciating the point of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, but I cannot understand what would happen when the wheat was consumed.
Another point, and probably one of 'the most vital, which occurs to me is the fact that this change would put great power into the hands of the landlords all over the world, who now own the wheat-producing districts in the different countries. It would tend to a corner in money, to a corner in our financial situation which would have a most disastrous effect on the country as a whole. The financial difficulties in the way of adopting the wheat standard are much greater, and the dangers to which the hon. Member for the Ardwick Division refers in his Motion—strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations, and so on—are not really due to this cause. If you want to know what really is the cause of all these things you have got to go far deeper than the question of whether gold or wheat is or is not to be the standard. I should like to quote an extract from a speech made by Mr. D. M. Mason, the Chairman of the Sound Currency Association, at a meeting held at the Cannon Street Hotel, on Tuesday, 25th January, 1921. He quoted from a paper written by Mr. Daniel Webster, in 1832, as follows:
"A disordered currency is one of the greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social

1331
system, and encourages propensities destructive to its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy, and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation."
I would ask hon. Members to take notice of this—
"Of all the contrivances for cheating the labouring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is most effectual of inventions to fertilise the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."
If it was true in 1832, it is very much truer in 1922. The hon. Member has hit on that point, but I think he only grazed the outside edge of it by referring to the question of gold standards. I was interested in his figures regarding inflation in the last few years, and I shall read them in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. What always strikes one, however, is this. Whenever inflation goes on, and prices go up, wages lag behind; they never go up in the same ratio or equally as prices go up. When prices come down they are only a few months during which wages are at all compatible with prices, because they very soon decrease.
One of the real reasons for the present disorganisation of the currency system is the enormous inflation that has taken place in every country in Europe. There is not a single country in the whole of Europe, except Russia, which has a sound basis for the paper currency which is issued. Hon. Members may doubt that, but in Russia, I believe, a good many of the industries have been nationalised, and so, theoretically at any rate, there is a backing for the paper money that has been issued there. It is contended by some people that in this country we have a backing for all the money that has been issued, but that is a complete fallacy, because not only £325,000,000 worth of Treasury Notes, but the whole of the War Bond issues, are really fiduciary issues. Practically the whole of the £7,000,000,000 of War Stock issued has really nothing behind it at all. The backing is really the credit of a future Government, but there is no backing at all behind it any more than there is behind the enormous paper issues in Poland, Germany, Austria, or elsewhere. The issue of War Loan is really nothing more nor less than a book transaction which took place during the War. When the War munitioneer and
1332
other people were paid by the Government the bank made a book entry to the credit of their account, and in return a piece of paper was handed to them from the Government office. That is all that happened.
Another point on which I join issue with the Mover of the Resolution is in regard to his suggestion that you can have a different rate of exchange for internal or external currency. Anyone who has had anything to do with the City and banking knows that it is absolutely impossible to have different systems of exchange inside and outside the country. I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever been inside an office in the City where they deal with foreign exchanges, and has seen all the complicated machinery for communicating with offices, not only in the City, but in every capital in Europe and also in the United States, all the complicated machinery of arbitrage, and so on. If he had, he would realise how absolutely impossible it would be to have one system inside the country and another outside. In a pamphlet circulated to Members of the House the other day, all this very complicated question of exchanges was lucidly described. It was written by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel), and is entitled "Currency and Exchange." I should like, if I may, to quote one or two sentences from it to show how complicated and highly skilled this matter is. The hon. Member for Putney is, as all hon. Members will admit, one of the greatest experts on these matters in this House. He said:
"Exchange is one of the most complicated, speculative, elusive and dangerous businesses. It requires the most experienced, cool-headed, constant attention to market conditions all over the world. You have to watch the price of silver and the price of gold; you must know the price of grain in America, in Australia, in Argentina, in Russia, Rumania, etc. You must know the price of cotton, and, in fact, of every staple commodity in different parts of the world. You must know the seasons for shipping them, so that you have your currency in such places as it is required at a given time. Exchange, in fact, is a fine art."
Anyone who knows anything about exchanges will agree that you cannot possibly have separate systems of exchange inside the country and outside. The real solution of the problem, which the hon. Member is trying to solve, can, I am sure, be found, and I think that

1333
some Governments are—I have yet to learn that this Government is—trying to find a solution. The real solution would be to try to balance the Budget, to try to pay off the.War debt—which our Government is not doing and has definitely declared that it is not trying to do—and also to try either to fix the exchange or, in the case of countries where the exchange is very much depreciated, to try to raise it. I know that this is a very a abstruse matter, but, as far as I can see, from the quantities of literature and memoranda that have been issued by the great experts, more and more public opinion in the different countries is coming round to a definite policy in this matter, and that policy is, brat countries like ours, and neutral countries where the currency is not depreciated, should try to fix their exchanges at something reasonable, and that other countries, where the exchange is greatly depreciated, should try to raise it to some extent. It is, of course, rather difficult to restore the pre-War gold value, and I do not believe it to be at all necessary to return to absolutely the pre-War gold value. There are a good many bankers in England who still think it is, but I think that in another year or two, when they find it to be quite impossible, the majority will probably agree on some reasonable figure.
Then it is said that endeavours ought to be made to raise the level of the exchanges in order to improve the unearned incomes of people having capital and of small rentiers. There are certain points which we must consider in that regard. First of all it is not really so very necessary to increase these people's incomes from pre-War investments, because the pre-War investment market has been largely swamped by War investments in almost every country, and, if any attempt were made, in a country like France or Italy, to bring the franc and the lire up to the pre-War value, those countries would be faced with the alternative either of revolution or of the urgent necessity for a very drastic capital levy. I think that people generally in different countries are coming to see a solution in all these matters, and the Financial Conference at Genoa is a landmark on that road. The difficulty, however, in regard to which I should like the representative of the Government, if he takes part in this Debate, to give us
1334
some guidance, is as to how these resoluions are going to be put into practice. We have had these pious resolutions about finance, exchanges and credit ever since the Brussels Conference, if not earlier, but it is no use passing pious resolutions if no one is going to act upon them. I should, therefore, be glad if the representative of the Government, should he be able to find time to reply this evening, would give us some indication of what he looks to in the future.
Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The House appreciates the wide interest and deep knowledge of the subject possessed by the hon. Member who opened this Debate. Some hon. Members, no doubt, will differ profoundly from him in his conclusions, but I understand that one of his objects is, by the adoption of the principle which he sets forth, to stabilise the currency. He stated that the Bank of England note would be on a gold basis, while Treasury notes would be based on wheat prices. There would, therefore, be circulating in Great Britain these two currencies, each with a different basis of price to be fixed from day to day. I do not think that that would tend to stabilise the currency and create the confidence which the hon. Member is anxious to secure. He traces strikes, lock-outs, unemployment and other economic evils to the fluctuating purchasing power of the internal currency being based on an article of no value like gold. I wish our economic troubles could be so determined. To my mind there are two main factors—there are several others—which have caused, and are causing to-day, distress in our country. For several years the nation spent large sums of borrowed money and poured out the accumulated savings of the past. While, on the one hand, borrowed money was being poured out, production of goods was being decreased, and that was bound in the long run to increase prices. Therefore, it is owing to the increase in the price of goods that we have the strikes, lock-outs, unemployment and other evils referred to in the Resolution. Undoubtedly another main cause has been the wastage of war. These two main factors account to-day for the world-wide distress with which each country is faced.
The hon. Member also stated that Treasury notes were always worth their

1335
face value, but from time to time they depreciate, and have depreciated, heavily in value, and to-day their value, in comparison with the American exchange, has depreciated by about 15 per cent. They are, therefore, not a certain and fixed medium, but are dependent upon the day-to-day course of prices. The hon. Member went on to argue that the National Debt, which was borrowed at a time of inflation, would be decreased if his principle were adopted. He pointed out that he had no desire to repudiate the interest on the National Debt; but, as prices of commodities fall, and as the rate of interest falls, will not the rate of interest to be paid to the holders of the National Debt also fall when the loans fall due? War Loan will fall due in 1929. If the price of money at that date is lower than 5 per cent., the Government of that day will offer to the holders of that stock a lower rate of interest than 5 per cent. It may be that a higher rate will be necessary, in which case a higher rate will be paid.
No one will state that there may not be evolved in time a better basis than gold. No hon. Member in any quarter of the House desires to-day to change the basis from gold to wheat. A similar question excited great interest 100 years ago during the time of the Napoleonic Wars. We had the well-known Bullion Report of 1810, which advocated a return to the gold standard. For several years after the issue of that Report, Members of Parliament and leading merchants in the City questioned that basis, but in time the principle was established and about 1817 this country returned to a gold basis. It is in the interest of this country that we should return at the earliest possible moment to a gold standard. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) endeavoured to push on one side the effect of paper currency on prices. I rather differ from him. There have been tables published and circulated to Members of the House which clearly reveal that, as paper currency increased, prices rose in that proportion. In America, where the paper currency increased by 73 per cent., the price of food rose by 81 per cent. In Great Britain the paper currency increased by 144 per cent. and the price of food by 117 per cent. In Italy the paper currency increased by 340 per cent. and the price of food by 200 per
1336
cent. I quote the figures from the Command Paper of November, 1919. That clearly reveals that, as the curculation of paper money increased in each country, prices went up autom4otically. My plea is that we should return to the gold standard, that we should deflate our currency and seek to increase the purchasing power of the gold sovereign once again. It is vital for Great Britain, a great exporting country to follow steadily and surely the policy of deflation. That can only be secured by a real surplus of revenue over expenditure. The Government to-day appear to be violating that principle. There cannot be steady fall in prices unless the Government, return to the first principle of economic law, that a nation must live within its yearly income.
It is impossible to stabilise the exchanges while paper currencies are being increased and Budgets are not being balanced. If each nation will balance its own Budget it will be possible to stabilise the exchanges between one nation and another. My plea this evening, therefore, is the old doctrine of 100 years ago, the doctrine that a nation must live within its yearly income, and that at the earliest possible moment we should return to a gold standard and a convertible paper currency and by that means lower the price of food, which will be a great advantage to our industrial classes. Any policy of inflation is of great advantage to the holders of commodities all the world over. Those who suffer are the labouring classes. You may increase the supply of paper currency for your own satisfaction, but in the long run what the working classes desire is a plentiful supply of food at reasonable prices. Any tampering with the currency is only concealed taxation. I might point to Russia and Poland. Even France to-day is not balancing her Budget by many hundreds of millions a year, with the natural result that the prices of commodities are falling much more slowly than in Great Britain. Let us therefore lay hold of the doctrines which have made Britain great—the doctrines which have been handed down to us by Cobden, Bright, Gladstone and the statesmen of the past—of not violating in any degree economic laws and the principles laid down by Adam Smith and others and by that means secure to this country, which is dependent upon her export trade, the great advantage of

1337
being able to buy in the markets of the world such commodities as she desires at the lowest possible price.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose to deliver a lecture either upon st andardising the exchanges or upon the currency question. I propose to deal with the Resolution which is before the House. It divides itself into two parts. The first part says that in the opinion of this House strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations, profiteering, bankruptcies and stagnation of trade are caused by the fluctuating purchasing power of the internal currency being based on an article of no value like gold. First of all, they are not based upon an article like gold, and, secondly, I think if my hon. Friend who moved the Motion filled his pockets with gold he would get more for the contents of his pockets than if he filled them with wheat. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that there are two mis-statements in the first paragraph. First of all, the purchasing power of the internal currency is not based on gold, and, secondly, gold has a value, as anyone would say if he had any gold, and one of the great reasons why the purchasing power of the internal currency is not based on gold, is that gold is so valuable that we cannot get it. Therefore I think the first two statements of my hon. Friend are erroneous. Then he goes on to say that these evils and their consequent cost to the State can be almost eliminated by basing the internal currency on a commodity of constant, real and stable value like wheat. Is wheat an article of constant, real and stable value? I remember buying wheat in 1895 at 18s. a quarter. I remember selling wheat last year at 96s. a quarter.
Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: Profiteer!
Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no. It was worth a great deal more. I remember selling wheat this year at 48s. a quarter.
Mr. HAILWOOD: That is the price and not the value; it is value I was referring to.
Sir F. BANBURY: I have always found that the value of an article is what I could get for it. I might say, "I have an article to sell. What I shall get in the market for it is five sovereigns,
1338
but the real value is 50," but I never found anyone who would give me 50. If I go to my hon. Friend next year and tell him I have 300 quarters of wheat to sell, and the real value is 100s. a quarter, he will not give me 100 shillings if he can buy them from another farmer for 50 shillings. He does not contradict me. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that what we have to consider is not real value or nominal value, but what the article will command in the open market. I have endeavoured to show that wheat has fluctuated during the last few years from 17s. a quarter in 1895 to 96s. a quarter, and that the honest farmer could have got much more if it had not been for the intervention of the Government. The price has now gone down to something like 48s. I sold my wheat last year at prices ranging from 48s. to 56s., or an average of 52s. Some people were not so fortunate. There is as much fluctuation in the price of wheat as in the price of any other article.
I should be glad to support my hon. Friend if I thought he was right. He says that if we base our internal currency upon wheat, we shall eliminate strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculation, profiteering, bankruptcy and stagnation in trade. He would do away with the Prime Minister at once. What would be the use of the Prime Minister? Nobody could be more anxious to achieve that desirable result. We are asked to conclude that gold is of no value. Having concluded that gold is of no value, we are asked to conclude that wheat is of "constant, real, and stable value," and having come to these two conclusions, what is it proposed to do? We propose to base our foreign rate of exchange, which is most important, upon gold, which is of no value. For our foreign trade, which is the most important matter which concerns this small country, which depends upon foreign trade to a very great extent for its existence, we are going to base our exchange on something which we have previously said is of no value. I think it is unnecessary after the remarks I have made, that we should ask the Government to take steps to "inquire into the best means of establishing such a currency."
10.0 P.M.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): On

1339
such a subject as this, and on this occasion it is not my intention to trouble the House for very long. I feel the more able to do so because it so happens that most of what it appeared to me ought to be said has already been said by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). In those speeches which he makes, which are of such value in our Debates, the further he proceeds into the region of pure reason, for which he is so well qualified, and the further he passes away from the troubled ground of practice, the more we on this side find that we are able to agree with him. The House will have appreciated not only the almost liturgical sonority of the terms of my hon. Friend's Motion, but the great wealth of argument with which he has developed it, and although the general expression of opinion has not, on the whole, moved in his direction, he will, nevertheless, have the satisfaction of knowing that he has raised a most interesting discussion. Into the actual criticisms of the theory of his Motion, I will not trouble the House by going any further at the present time, because I think they have been expressed, with far greater clarity than I can hope to express them, by other hon. Members. Indeed, they so amply covered the ground that it leaves very little to be said upon the pros and cons of the economic merits of this proposal.
We are all agreed as to the gravity of the evil, and we agree that the hon. Member who moved the Motion has put his thumb on one of the greatest difficulties of the times, namely, the fluctuation of the currency. We do not agree with him as to the remedy, but we agree with him as to the magnitude of the evil. We know that it is a matter which must occupy the attention of anybody who soberly desires to try to remedy some of the hardships, misfortunes and evils of the times. That any single Government, Parliament or nation can arrive at a solution is impossible. That fact has been brought out by other speakers. It is in the direction of international action, as is now so fully realised, that all effort must be made in order to find a remedy common to all Europe, which alone can make any very great alterations for the better. As to what the direction should
1340
be, I am in most cordial agreement with some hon. Members, and I think I may say that it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that whatever attractive economic theories there may be, some are more attractive and some less, the common sense present position is this—unstable as currency and exchanges are, the practical thing to do is not for the present to trouble ourselves with utopian ideals, but to try to get back to that greater measure of practical stability of currencies and exchanges which was accorded us by the gold standard before the War. That is the direction in which to move. When you slip off a rock into the water, at any rate, get back on to the rock again before you begin to think of the path that you are going to follow in the future. With regard to the method by which that is to be done I have been asked what practical course can we suggest. The only practical steps which seem to, promise much, and which do promise greatly, are those steps which have been outlined by the recent Financial Commission which met at Genoa. I do not know whether the House is acquainted with the recommendations of that Commission. The very first of them shows that before that Commission of experts this question of the instability of currencies assumed first place. They report:
"That an essential requisite for the economic reconstruction of Europe is the achievement by each country of stability in the value of its currency,"
This very problem which has exercised us to-night was put in the forefront of the discussion as to the practical steps which are to be taken in order to secure stability. It is realised, and I am sure realised correctly, that measures in this matter can only be adequately designed and can only, probably, be efficiently carried out by the central banks of Europe. So the first step to be taken is to have a meeting of representatives of the central banks in order to devise what those methods should be. Various principles have already been agreed to and laid down as to the direction in which the central banks of Europe should move, in the effort towards stability. The first of them is the acceptance, in Resolution 5, of the principle that gold is the only common standard which all European countries can at present agree to adopt. Whatever we think of the theoretical

1341
basis of the gold standard that is the practical effect. It is probable that some countries are more advanced than others, but in general gold is the only acceptable measure of value throughout Europe. Further, the actual machinery by which it is hoped to carry out this movement in the direction of stability is based upon a return to the use of the gold standard. That must mean an International Currency Convention which must be designed to centralise and co-ordinate the demand for gold to avoid the fluctuations in value to which the hon. Member has referred
Mr. MALONE: Is this Convention going to be regulated entirely by the conference of bankers, or what, say, if any, will the Treasuries or Governments of the different countries have in controlling them?
Mr. YOUNG: Of course, the representatives of the central banks would simply act in their capacity of experts, with the normal relation of experts towards the effective authorities of the countries concerned. That is the programme of the compaign for that congress. I agree that that campaign should be left in the right hands, the hands which alone will be able to deal with the indications contained in this extremely important and valuable document giving an outline of what is the right way to take in going back towards the stability of the gold standard. We have to get back to that before we consider any fresh measures. Currency questions are all in that position. I must not discuss it any further except to add my word of confirmation to those opinions which have been expressed in the course of the Debate, that important and attractive, as all currency questions are at the bottom, you always get back to the same belief that currency difficulties are essentially a symptom, and the root evil of which they are a symptom, are that all over Europe, here and there national Budgets do not balance, all over Europe there is urgent necessity for the reconstruction of capital works in order to increase production, and all over Europe there is still urgent necessity for saving in order to husband our wealth for the reconstruction of the work.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sorry that I was not in the House to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for the Ardwick Division of Manchester (Mr. Hailwood). I was anxious to find out
1342
what he had to say about two parts of the Resolution—one that in which he said that gold was of no value, and the other which stated that wheat was of constant value. But I think that the House should be grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this question, and given the House an opportunity to discuss what, in the minds of a great many Members, is a subject of very great importance. I am sorry that it does not evoke more interest among the general body of Members. I regret that the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) should have disposed, as he thought, so easily of any arguments about the national danger such as were advanced by my hon. Friend. On the other hand, I would regret if we were to be in the position that it should never be assumed that any man should make any suggestion or bring forward any proposition, for two reasons; first, because of his youth, and second, because of the originality of his proposition. No one would say that a proposition with regard to currency brought forward by any hon. Member representing such an important constituency as the City of London should be considered as of no importance, and yet I would remind the House that, when we say that there is only one possible doctrine and that is the gold standard, I have heard an hon. Member who was a representative of the City of London put forward a suggestion which was almost as original, though it was not quite the same proposition, as that now put forward by the hon. Member for Ardwick.
I am not at all in agreement with those hon. Members who say that, because we have adopted that doctrine, therefore there is only one possible sound policy for this country to adopt, and that is to return at once to the gold standard, and that because we have been taught that as a creed therefore it is of necessity right. I was taught the creed when I was a child, and I was taught also other creeds about political economy and gold standards, but I am not so sure now that those lessons were so sound as I thought in those days. Since the War we have had in this country the opportunity of testing that particular doctrine which has been supported especially by the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), who says that we must get back as quickly as possible to our pre-War standard of the value

1343
of gold. I am not so sure whether we have not been altogether too quick, after the devastating War which we have gone through, in trying to get back to that standard. In support of that argument I would refer to our position. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) assumed that paper money in this country can be exchanged for gold. That is not so—
Mr. W. GRAHAM: The point I was making was as to convertibility.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that the argument really was that the policy of bringing our paper issue nearer to the point at which it could be exchanged for gold would put us in a better position than the country which did not adopt that policy. What are the facts? The two countries whose paper issues is least in proportion to their gold reserve are the two countries where they have the greatest amount of unemployment. Take the United States of America. We have been told often that they have about 5,000,000 unemployed there. I have taken care to investigate the matter, and I am told that that is not so, and that the actual number of unemployed people in the United States of America at present out of a population of 100,000,000 is about 2,500,000. At any rate, their unemployment is nothing like as great as our own. But when we look on the other side of the Channel, to France and Germany, we find that the relation of their paper to their gold is much greater than the relation of paper to gold in this country. Yet they are in a considerably better position than ourselves with regard to unemployment. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When people tell me that I am much better off, I would be inclined to believe it if I could see some positive proof of it. No one will suggest that the late Member for the City of London, the Earl of Balfour, who went to America and came back with such laurels, is a man whose opinion would be lightly held in this House. When he suggested a change in currency, many years ago, he was almost isolated in his views. I believe that if someone of great authority were to make a somewhat similar suggestion to-day it would be much better received than it was then.
Every new policy in its inception, or nearly every original proposal, is un-
1344
popular. It needs a man of great courage to preach any doctrine which has not been handed down from generation to generation. People are told that they should get back to the gold standard, the idea being that the supply of gold can be relied on, and that it is not likely to be so changeable as to cause violent fluctuations. If that is put forward as a sound argument why not carry it a bit further? Why not use something as a standard which is of greater value? Why not adopt diamonds? It may be said that it is an illusion to suggest that we could use wheat as a standard. There is, at any rate, something to be said for careful consideration being given to what is a question of paramount importance in the reconstruction of the world. The resolution declares that, if adopted, it would do away with many of the evils from which we are suffering. I should he very glad to support it if I thought it would. But I agree with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is only one remedy. Fluctuating exchanges, I admit, are not a cause they are simply a symptom. The only remedy for our trouble is to be found in hard work and peace. We must have peace amongst the countries of the world before their currency can begin to be stable again. We must also have peace in our own industries. When so much work is stopped we lose a great deal of purchasing power for other industries. We must start at rock bottom if we are to get any decided improvement. I think we are making a grave mistake in assuming that there is only one way of remedying the evils connected with currency.
Could the Government not see their way to appoint a Committee to look into the matter carefully? They have appointed Committees to deal with questions of far less importance. When people are told they have a certain standard of currency, they would like, sometimes, to have a look at it. How many hon. Members here to-night could produce a sovereign? I question if there is a single one who has a sovereign in his pocket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] Then you are very lucky. I have not seen a sovereign for years, and I am very glad there is so much wealth on the Labour benches. I always thought hon. Members there were like myself, and seldom enjoyed the pleasure of seeing gold.

1345
Surely, our standard ought to be something with which people are familiar. It is no use to say that gold is the standard in this country. It is not, but we see silver very often. The standard should be something of which the people have a real knowledge and which they can use as a commodity day by day in exchange for articles of everyday use. Our standard of measure is something everybody knows. No man needs to be told the abstract meaning of a "pint of fourpenny" or anything of that sort. There is something to be said for having a standard in currency which everybody knows and can use. I hope the Government will see their way to discuss once again the probabilities, the advantages, and, if you like, the disadvantages, of introducing a standard currency in silver along with gold. I believe if they did that it would help the flow of currency throughout the world. Remembering that the nation which did not subscribe to the proposals at Genoa—and these, we are told by the Financial Secretary, represent the last word—is the nation that has control of the greatest quantity of gold in the world, there is something to be said for giving the other nations of the world a chance to decide what their currencies shall be.
Major BARNES: However discouraged the Mover of the Resolution may be, by the fact that very few Members of the House will be found to agree with him, I think he will find a great deal of consolation in the thought that at all events the disagreement has been of the most courteous kind, and everybody has recognised the sincerity and ability with which he has advanced the theories embodied in his Resolution. I think he will find still greater consolation in the fact that in introducing this Resolution he has enabled us to have a very interesting and useful anticipatory Debate upon what happened at Genoa. The House is indebted, not only to him, but to the Financial Secretary for bringing that aspect of the matter so clearly before us. The Financial Secretary paid a tribute to the hon. Member by saying that, while he disagreed with the methods he proposed, yet in the Resolution he had put his finger upon a matter of the greatest moment at the present time. How true that statement is, one can see by comparing the Resolution of the hon. Member with what is reported in the papers relating to the
1346
International Economic Conference at Genoa with respect to this very question of currency. The Mover of the Resolution was, of course, more concerned with the domestic affairs of his own country, and very properly so. At Genoa, there met a body of men, concerned not with relieving their own particular countries of these distressing factors, set out so categorically and so strikingly in the Resolution, but who were concerned with the question of the whole economic reconstruction of Europe. While differing as to method from the hon. Member, they came to the same conclusion that he has come to,i.e., that this is only to be attained by the achievement in each country of stability in the value of its currency. If I read the first Resolution, hon. Members will see that it graphically expresses that. It says:
"The essential requisite for the economic reconstruction of Europe is the achievement by each country of stability in the value of its currency."
Those words, "economic reconstruction," are dry and academic words, and they do not bring forward the situation in the picturesque and dramatic way in which the series of words that has been used by the hon. Member opposite does. He does not speak about "economic reconstruction," but of all the evils that befall a country that is in the position of needing such a reconstruction—" strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations," and the rest. The Mover of the Motion has more courage, and perhaps more imagination, than the bankers who met at Genoa, and he sets out in a very few lines what they felt it necessary to set out in some three or four pages, and one cannot but wish that he was right, and they were wrong, because he opens out to the House a very short and what seems, on the face of it, an easy road, whereas when one reads through these resolutions and realises the programme laid before the world by the Genoa experts, one feels that the happy day we all want to bring about is very considerably in the future. We were favoured by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with one or two extracts from these Resolutions, and I think no disservice would be done to the House at this time by bringing more of them to its notice. Some of the most pertinent of them are those which were omitted and not those quoted by the Financial Secretary. Here is a Resolu-

1347
tion. I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has read it.
Sir F. BANBURY: I said nothing about Genoa. I thought it would have been out of order to have done so.
Major BARNES: I gather that in this case the thoughts of the right hon. Baronet in regard to the rules of order were not as accurate as they usually are. The first Resolution I have here will, I am sure, meet with the whole-hearted assent of the right hon. Baronet. It says:
"So long as there is deficiency in the annual Budget of the State which is met by the creation of fiduciary money or bank credits, no currency reform is possible and no approach to the establishment of the gold standard can be made. The most important reform of all must therefore be the balancing of the annual expenditure of the State without the creation of fresh credits unrepresented by new assets. The balancing of the Budget requires adequate taxation, but it Government expenditure is so high as to drive taxation to a point beyond what can be paid out of the income of the country, the taxation itself may still lead to inflation. Reduction of Government expenditure is the true remedy."
The path marked out by this Resolution is a stoney one, and can only be trodden with very great difficulty indeed, for it involves what these gentlemen at Genoa tell us—a reduction of Government expenditure. In dealing with this question, we have an advantage, and it always is an advantage, which has never been more completely and properly recognised in this House than by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-night, when he referred to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). In that speech, which, I think I may say, disposed pretty effectively of the ideas advanced, and the arguments employed, by my hon. Friend opposite, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh referred to the very important part played by the banks of the country with regard to this matter of currency. In drawing attention to that fact, without having had the advantage of seeing the Resolutions that are embodied in this Report from Genoa, he was drawing attention to what these Resolutions have certainly very strikingly set out, and that is the enormous part which banks at present play with regard to this matter,
1348
and which, if these Resolutions be carried out, must be a much greater and more important part still. It is held out to us here that, so far from being able to achieve reform in our currency by merely changing our gold to wheat, we can only do it by very considerable extension of the present organisation existing amongst banks.
Somewhere, quite recently, I saw attention drawn to the fact of the great reduction in the number of private and competing banking houses in this country. At the present time, I believe not more than five or six really control, at all events, the internal banking transactions in the country. Under these Resolutions, it is suggested that we shall never really get any stability in exchange, any really constant relationship between the currency of one country and that of another, unless there be something in the direction of an international organization established, and that the great part which this organization is to play is in the direction of centralizing and co-ordinating the demand for gold. There has been recognised, what has been pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite in moving his Resolution, that there is fluctuation in the value or the price of gold, and that that fluctuation leads to results which it would be as well if we could avoid. Steps are evidently going to be taken to meet that, so far as possible. I do not know whether that means that there is to be a corner in gold, as there has been sometimes a corner, or attempted corner in other commodities; but if that be the real meaning of this, one can see that it would, of course, have the effect, as a successful corner must always have the effect, so long as it can be maintained, of maintaining prices at a regular level, and the result attained by this operation on the part of this international Convention supported by all these banks might be attained with regard to gold. Whether that will not carry with it some disadvantages as well as advantages remains to be seen, but I would like, before leaving this point, to draw attention to another statement which has been made, and in which, I think, there is a good deal of truth, and that is that fluctuations in prices are not conditioned solely by questions of currency. They are also affected by the expansion and contraction of credit which is in the power of the banks. Currency

1349
does not appear to me to be under any different law than commodities in this respect. The more commodities there are in a free market the cheaper they are. The more currency there is issued the cheaper it will be. But if you restrict your currencies and at the same time allow indefinite expansion of credit by the banks, I think it may very well be that you will still be exposed to these fluctuations in prices. That this is recognised will be seen by reference to the Eleventh Resolution of this Conference, which in paragraph 7 of the Resolution says:
"Credit will be regulated not only with the view of maintaining the currencies at par with one another, and also with a view to preventing undue fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold. It is not contemplated, however, that the discretion of the Central banks should be fettered by any definite rules framed for this purpose, but that their collaboration will have been assured in matters outside the province of the participating countries."
I must confess I was a little surprised to find that with the hon. Member's knowledge of what took place in respect to tithe he still adhered to his position. I should have thought very little study of what had occurred with respect to tithe would have convinced him that his proposal is not one likely to achieve the end at which he aims. What was the condition—what is still to some extent the condition—in respect to tithe? Here was a class of people whose income was based on that condition in which the hon. Member opposite would like to see all our incomes based, and that is on wheat, not gold. The income did not fluctuate with the production of gold; it fluctuated with the production of wheat. If wheat prices rose or fell, their incomes rose and fell. They were in that happy state, and as a body they were in a position, one would suppose, to know what was best. I refer to the clergy. What did they do? Under the Tithe Commutation Act they endeavoured to put an end to the principle upon which their income was based, and to stabilise it by fixing on a certain year and saying that their income should be based on the income of that year. During the War what happened? The price of wheat, rising as it did, brought their incomes up to a very high level. What did this House do then? It was against—
Mr. SUGDEN: They patriotically accepted the decision of this House.
Major BARNES: I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has just said. I think the tithe owners accepted with trustworthy loyalty the decision of the House. It was accepted by them, although it was felt to be a hardship. The point I was making is that this section of the community had their incomes based on the principle laid down in this Resolution, and so far getting away from fluctuations you had fluctuations of so serious a character that on three occasions Parliament had to intervene and deal with them. For these reasons I regret that I am unable to give my support to this Motion.
Sir MARTIN CONWAY: It has been the attempt of mankind ever since the dawn of civilisation to find a method of measuring things, of measuring time, space, weight—measuring everything—and a wise man has described science as measurement. The attempt to measure value has been one of the most difficult problems mankind has had to face, and man is always endeavouring in every respect in relation to every category to get some system of absolute and accurate measurement. We have been under the impression that a two-foot rule was a fairly absolute basis of measurement of length until Einstein came along, and he has shown that a two-foot rule is only a relative and not an absolute basis of measurement.
We have tried to measure value in all kinds of ways. The simple herdsman, in the ancient world, took the ox as the unit of measurement, and I have read an interesting work by Professor Ridgeway, in which he endeavours to show, and I think has shown, that the original basis of coinage in the ancient Greek world was the value of an ox. That was the unit of value adopted by early civilisations. My hon. Friend is desirous of going back to something of the same kind as that on which the original basis of coinage was fixed, and instead of measuring by an ox, he is going to measure by a quarter of wheat. The African savage measures by cowries.
My hon. Friend, in introducing this question this evening, has been actuated by a very natural human desire, and that is to find something that will measure

1351
value, that will have less elasticity, less stretching power than any basis of value at the present time employed. If our two-foot rule was a piece of elastic, which could contract, it would seriously upset the survey of our fields, and that is the kind of thing that would happen when the value of our money changes so rapidly and so widely as it has done in recent years. If we were to substitute the new unit, the new measuring stick, as suggested by my hon. Friend, I gravely doubt whether it would have the effects he claims for it. However, I think we may be thankful to him for proposing the problem and leading us to consider and on the whole to reach broadly the general conclusion that no substance has yet been found which affords a more stable, though still a shifting, basis for the foundation of measurement than gold. All measures are relative. Whatever you use for your measuring stick, in a changing world, is itself a changing thing. The more rapidly the world about us changes, the more certainly will your measuring stick change. If you wish to have a stable system of measurement you must get into a stable world. Your system of measurement in this changing world will keep on altering its value. You are living in a world in which nothing is stable. If you are to have stability in measurement you must have stability in the things you measure. You can only reach that stability in a world by the exercise of old-fashioned virtues, hard work, saving, honesty, kindliness one to another, common co-operation for a common purpose, the sharing of work and the sharing justly of the results of labour; and in proportion as you exercise these virtues so in proportion will our world once more become stable and our instrument of value measurement will become stable with it.
Captain MOREING: The hon. Member who drafted this Resolution appears to have been labouring under a misapprehension in that he thinks our currency troubles are caused by having a gold standard, whereas they are caused by the fact that our paper currency is not linked up properly with our gold currency. If it were, the fluctuations would be well within the ordinary issues with which the trade of this country is capable of dealing. I would remind the House that all these attempts at restor-
1352
ing prosperity by monkeying with the currency have been tried by every nation after every war. The universal experience of the world has shown that you cannot re-establish the prosperity or stability of any country unless and until your currency is based upon an article of relative stability, such as gold. As the last speaker has very truly said, all measures of value are relative, and we cannot find any absolute standard.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hail-wood) one question. Does wheat fluctuate in terms of gold or does gold fluctuate in terms of wheat? If my hon. Friend can answer that we shall have got to the basis of the whole question.
Mr. MILLS: Practically every hon. Member will join in thanking the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood) for bringing forward a Resolution of this character. We have drifted very far from the mentality of the immediate post-War period, and within the last few months hon. Gentlemen with a big reputation in the commercial world who have come to this House and have made suggestions for varying the standard of value from gold to silver. Now we have a Resolution suggesting some other standard of value by which we might approach something like stability. I was amused at the remarks of an hon. Member opposite for English Universities (Sir M. Conway), who concluded a very learned dissertation on the beginnings of values by dragging in by the scruff of the neck, if I may say so, the latest development of the theories of Professor Einstein. He wound up with a most inane disquisition—if I may say so without offence—as to some method by which world values might be stabilised. He is apparently of the opinion that international value might be stabilised if only there were international goodwill, regardless of the fact that even with international goodwill we might still have a standard of value which would yield profit to one race and not yield a subsistence value to the people of another race. It seemed to me, from these disquisitions, that the end of his speech was far from being of the quality of its earlier portions.
I think if we could devote a couple of evenings to a Resolution such as this, and have the views and opinions of some

1353
of those people who have secured high prominence in the councils of this and past Governments, it would be of great value. Equally we might have the views of an eminent hon. Member of this House, an eminent banker, who circulated to every hon. Member his opinion on currency and exchange. In the course of that pamphlet he says, I think, that one damned fool can sell and buy one hundred times more in one year than the finest salesman in the world can sell in 12 months. That may be perfectly true, but when we are attempting to secure some understanding of what it is the world is wanting, I think that to ask us to commit the House in a Resolution brought forward at 8.15, carrying with it, as it does, all its vast implications as regards this particular theory of values, is really requiring DS to do something more than we ought to be called upon to do. Although I am a layman in the matter of finance, I do not intend to perpetrate the old atrocity about knowing more about the need of finance than the art of finance, but I do say that it seems to those of us who come to this House with some real endeavour to understand exactly what it is that makes so much difference to the values of the world, and makes so much mischief in the relationships of the peoples of the world, that, if we could have some light thrown upon causes by those who move, not only among Governments, but among world bankers and world aggregations of labour, we might be able to move towards such an atmosphere of enlightenment that we could pass a Resolution which might commit us, not to something that would be suicidal, but to something that would ultimately lead us out of the morass in which we are at present. There is no doubt that we are in a morass. In one week of six days, in a city where I was last year, I saw the value of the coinage depreciate from 6,300 marks to the £ to 9,800, and by November of the same year it had depreciated to 26,000. In circumstances Mice that, it is obvious that there must be some discussion and some solution, if we are ever to get back to conditions in which one country can trade with another. At the present moment, if a British mechanic went to work for no wages at all, the employer could not compete with Eastern Europe, although many employers, taking, so to speak, the line of least resistance,
1354
without attempting to put pressure upon those who can control international currency, turn round and, by the process of starving and gradually reducing the standard of living of their own workmen, feel somehow, in some stumbling way, that they are doing something to come into line with the cost of production in other countries, where it is known that the war conditions have practically made chaos of the whole of the pre-War currencies, which worked, if one may say so, with incredible smoothness before the War. For these reasons, I do not feel that one can support this Resolution, with all its implications, although I welcome the opportunity of debating it, in the hope that at some time or other we may have the opportunity of adopting a Resolution which, after all, will lead us along that line of thought; and that, if it be stimulated in this House, will do every hon. Member a lot of good.
Question put, and negatived.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate Mood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday (14th June).

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Question again proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
11.0 P.M.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the Debate was interrupted at a quarter-past eight. I was trying to get a little information in regard to what the burden on the Exchequer would he under this Bill. The trend of the Debate is rather in the direction of trying to show that the whole of this 6d. was coming out of the funds of the approved societies.

1355
So far as I understand the situation, the first plan brought forward by the Government was that the whole of the 2s. 6d. was to be paid by the contributors to the scheme. In that case the State was not going to pay the two-ninths, which is the usual proportion paid by the State in respect of contributions. The Government has now produced its second plan under which the half-crown is now to be paid by the approved societies, but the State is coming forward and is going to pay two-ninths of that amount. I want to ask what is the cost actually going to be to the State. The Ministry of Health have not asked for any sum of money towards this half-crown which is coming out of the funds of the approved societies, and under this Clause apparently there is a provision that the payment may be deferred to any date and the whole thing is going to be done by regulation in the Ministry of Health:
"There shall be credited to each society out of moneys provided by Parliament in such manner and at such times as may be pre6crihed by Regulations"
to be made by the right hon. Baronet himself. The sums are to be calculated in a certain manner, again by regulation. So far as I can see it is not going to be statutory at all. The whole of this money is going to be regulated by means of regulations of the Ministry of Health. According to the Bill, the Regulations are not to be laid on the Table of the House. There is no provision that the Regulations shall be so laid in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of reviewing them and amending them if necessary. We do not want to see Government Departments making legislation. This House and the other House are the places for making legislation. In every Act of Parliament passed during the last few years dealing with National Health Insurance and housing there has always been a Clause to the effect that Regulations under those Acts should be laid on the Table of the House, and I do not see why my right hon. Friend should bring in this Bill, which is the sequence of the other Acts in regard to National Insurance, and should leave out that most important Clause dealing with Regulations.
I should like information as to the cost. I do not know why it is to be postponed. So far as I can see, the approved societies
1356
may be out of their money for years to come. This is one of the Geddes recommendations which has not been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has not carried out another recommendation, in regard to the Audit Department, the expense of which, rightly or wrongly, was to be paid by the approved societies and not by the State. As the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to effect these savings recommended by the Geddes Committee, it is all the more important that he should try to effect further economies in his Department. I cannot understand why there is no Clause in this Bill dealing with Service men. I mentioned it before and my right hon. Friend received it more or lees sympathetically, but nothing has been done. When a man joins the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, he immediately goes out of unemployment insurance. There is no more clerical expense incurred in connection with the man until he is discharged from the service and goes back into unemployment insurance. Why cannot the same be done in regard to health insurance? It is ludicrous that sums of money should be spent in this way with respect to soldiers, sailors and airmen. It entails a great deal of clerical work and cross-accountancy between the Ministry of Health, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and approved societies. The man gets no health insurance benefit while in the process; the only benefit is maternity benefit. Arrangements ought to be made so that on joining the Forces a man goes out of health insurance. By that means the right hon. Gentleman would get rid of a great deal of unnecessary clerical work and staff. When the men leave the Forces they could come into health insurance again, and certain credits could be put to their account.
Captain FITZROY: I understand that since the introduction of this Dill an agreement has been come to with the friendly societies that the deficiency in the fund up to 1923 shall be made up, instead of by a further contribution from the members and employers, by a raid upon the unappropriated surplus fund accumulated by the various societies. I do not know whether it is a fact, but there is in the minds of members of rural societies a feeling that through better conditions of health and less sick-

1357
ness, or through some other cause, the funds accumulated by the rural societies are greater than the funds accumulated by societies made up chiefly from industrial members. I do not know whether that is so or not. I understand that from the actuarial point of view it is almost impossible to decide whether the sickness is greater in rural areas than in industrial centres. At any rate, there is a feeling in the rural population that if this unappropriated surplus fund is raided for the purpose of making up deficiencies, they will be unfairly treated. The only point I want to impress on the Minister of Health is this. We understand that this agreement has been come to in consultation with the Consultative Council. Both employers and workers in rural districts have the idea that they are not properly represented upon the Consultative Council. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament there will probably be a reconstitution of this Council. If that is the case I want to impress on the Minister of Health that he should take into consideration the suspicion that exists in the minds of rural workers and that in the appointment of members of the Consultative Council he should make certain that the rural societies should be amply represented.
Mr. MYERS: When everything that can be said in support of this Bill has been said it is simply another example of the Government running away from a bargain. The Government have undertaken financial responsibility to the extent of £1,750,000 for the support of this fund for medical benefit, and having undertaken that financial obligation they, at the request of the Geddes Committee, propose to throw it on the approved societies. That is an accurate interpretation of the position. In addition to the £1,750,000 there is another item of £350,000 contributed by the Exchequer to the women's equalisation fund. This is going to be taken away on the ground that it is not now likely to be required. Is there anyone with knowledge of the administration of any approved society who can say that it is not likely to be required? The Geddes Committee say:
"It was found in practice that the sickness claims of women, especially married women, greatly exceeded the original actuarial estimate."
1358
It was on account of this fact that this £350,000 had to be provided. But later on the Geddes Committee say:
"In 1917 fears, which subsequent events have shown to be quite groundless, were entertained that the finances of many of the approved societies would be disastrously affected."
Why were those fears removed during the period of the War? For the simple reason that most of the women of the country were recruited into the various spheres of employment. They worked at comparatively fair wages. They had not time to be sick. Everyone acquainted with the administration of approved societies knows that during the War the lowest rate of women's sickness benefit was touched; since the inception of the Health Insurance Act. That situation does not now prevail. The terrific strain imposed upon our women-folk by their labours during the War lowered their vitality considerably, and exactly the same position which prevailed in prewar days, from the point of view of the pressure of women's benefit on our approved societies, is likely to prevail in the days to come. Even now, there are direct evidences of the upward tendency of sickness benefits paid to women by the whole of the approved societies. The strain on approved societies' funds is much greater now than it was at the time of the Armistice and immediately after. There is every reason to believe that this strain upon the funds by the women, if this £350,000 be taken away, will cause a demand for sickness benefit above the normal. But, it is said, admitting that to be so, have not the approved societies fairly substantial surpluses to draw upon? Here, again, before anything drastic is done it is as well to know the conditions under which the surpluses have accrued. The Geddes Committee say:
"These surpluses are largely due to the War."
We agree. Many of our men went overseas. They left their employment. The women-folks were roped into various occupations; employment was regular; contributions were at their maximum; there were no arrears; there were no blanks on the insurance cards. Contributions were at their maximum and the rate benefits was at the minimum. We could not help accumulating surpluses in those days. What is happening now? We hay a large number of men hack from

1359
the war. They are in a low condition of physical efficiency and are more liable to be thrown on the funds of their societies. There is much unemployment. Cards are being handed in with many blank spaces upon them. Benefit payments are increasing. The benefits paid in 1920 were considerably more than those paid in 1919. No doubt the Minister of Health will tell us that the benefits paid in 1921 were more than those paid in 1920. Benefits are going up and contributions are coming down. You have, therefore, quite a different set of circumstances from those which prevailed when the surpluses were created. If an opinion of mine does not carry sufficient weight I will quote a gentleman who is, I am told, the medical adviser to the Ministry, Sir Arthur Robinson. Speaking at an interview with the medical profession on 30th March, he said:
"I think, in fairness, it should be said, although the societies have, at the moment, large accrued surpluses, they are going through a difficult time, and they have extremely difficult times ahead of them."
That supports, I think very effectively, the point which I have just presented. I will make the supporters of the Bill a present of the assumption that none of these considerations will arise. The surpluses are there intact, but again I suggest—assuming that to be the fact—there is no justification for making any attack upon those surpluses. What were the approved societies, and the country, led to believe was going to be clone with these funds? From every platform in the country at the inception of the National Health Insurance Scheme, people were told "Manage your societies well; look after efficient administration and when the first valuation comes round and you come out on the right side, the surplus funds will be utilised in extra benefits which the Act itself does not provide for, and those who administer the societies best will bring to themselves the greatest number of members and advantages will accrue all round." No one knows better than the Minister that the approved societies in the country to-day are making plans and in many instances carrying out schemes of additional benefit, based on the existence of these surpluses. I should have thought that the custodian of the health of the community, as personified in the Minister of Health, would desire to encourage this tendency on the part of
1360
these bodies, in the direction of improving the health of the, community by ameliorative or administrative measures. I imagine that should have the loyal and full-souled support of the right hon. Gentleman's department. Yet here we have the Minister and his department not only putting obstacles in the way, but actually assisting the Government of the day in appropriating these surplus funds for other purposes—purposes for which they were never intended. It is an astounding fact to find the Minister of Health on the side he is on in this matter.
It is urged that this call is going to be made on the surplus funds of the approved societies, but are we quite certain that every society has a surplus? We gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that no extra call would be made upon any one society or any number of approved society members. How are we going to get a proportion of this £1,750,000 from those societies which have a deficit upon their valuation? I am acquainted with a society which has a deficit upon its last valuation. I do not think it is the result of bad management, though I do not know. Anyone acquainted with insurance knows that the success of a scheme depends upon the spreading of the risks. Insure one particular section of the community and the risks become greater. I am referring to a particular industry which has its own approved society and this industry is susceptible 10 broken time for ill health and the like. Those who know the administrative work in connection with approved societies, in regard to insurance, would expect a deficit in that particular case. They have a deficit. What is going to he done? I take it that every member in that society will be called upon for half-a-crown. I invite the Minister of Health to suggest what is to be done.
Sir A. MOND: When the hon. Member has finisher. I will answer.
Mr. MYERS: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what will happen to this society which had a deficit at the last valuation, and how they are going to meet their contribution towards this £1,750,000. It is said also that the proposal in this Bill has the sanction and approval of the approved societies. The approved societies do not accept this consultative council as speaking in their

1361
name, and by no stretch of imagination can a Director or Chairman of a big financial or insurance corporation, because it happens to have interested its-self in National Health Insurance, be said to be speaking in any connection whatever for the members of the approved societies that he knows nothing about. We do not accept any expression from this particular body as being the voice of the approved societies. Further, even if that is so, I do not think it is a fair proposition to make when it is suggested that the approved societies of the country have agreed to their funds being raided for this money. They had a very uncomfortable alternative presented to them, and that was that they had either to agree to this money being lifted from their surplus funds, or they had to agree to an extra weekly contribution, and they took the line of least resistance. The members of the approved societies would have well understood that frontal attack, and it is very likely it would not have succeeded, but when the Minister makes a raid on their accumulated funds he comes round the corner and does not make a frontal attack, and the members do not see him coming, and they do not see him walk away with the swag, and consequently there is not that opposition from the approved societies that there would be if he made a direct demand for this contribution.
Before we touch the funds of the approved societies in this way, there are two matters in connection with the administration of this Act which require immediate attention. I have said in this House before, and I repeat it, that the connection of the large collecting societies with the national health insurance scheme has not been good for its administration.
These great collecting societies do not work this scheme because they love it, or because they want to make the best of it; they work it as a side-line to help their own business, and while that condition of things prevails in this country we shall never get the best out of the national health insurance scheme, and the sooner we can remove its administration right away from these great capitalistic, monopolistic collecting societies, the bettor it will be, not only for the Ministry of Health but for the approved societies. There is another matter that requires attention, which has
1362
been referred to twice during this discussion, in a political sense from tans side, and from another point of view by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Dr. Farquharson), and that is the operation of the medical benefit through the medium of the panel system. There is not an approved society in this country to-day that will give its blessing to this principle of panel patients, and it is carried out in a way that was never intended at the inception of this Act. Was it ever intended at the inception of the National Health Insurance Act that a doctor should have two kinds of patients—panel patients and ordinary patients? Was it seriously intended that we should walk into the surgery of a medical man and see a notice in cardboard nailed upon the wall, "Panel patients from 9 to 10," or "Panel patients Wednesdays and Fridays only"? It is an intolerable condition of affairs, and it ought not to he tolerated, but I am afraid it is rather too general in its operation. Before we can get the best out of this Act, we shall have to tackle these huge monopolistic collecting societies, and deal effectively with the question of panel patients.
It is said that this call is being made on the approved societies fund in the interests of economy. As a matter of fact, there is not any economy. We are not saving anything. We are simply taking the money from one person instead of someone else. The money is being expended just the same. True economy in these clays is not always in the actual saving of a sum of money. When you get into public health administration, if my opinion be worth anything at all, the truest economy is to be found in judicious expenditure, and where could more true economy be found than the approved societies of this country? What better avenues of economy could be secured than in spending surplus money in approved channels of administrative ameliorative work, whether in more sanatorium benefit, increased maternity benefit, dental treatment, provision of spectacles and the like, to make up for the shortcomings of the Minister of Health and his Department, and to make up for the shortcomings and the economics that are being effected on the school medical side? This is another of the lop-sided views of economy. It is not going to be an economy. The Government have no right to touch the

1363
surplus fund of the approved societies. It is not safe to do so, having regard to the prevailing conditions. We can tell the Government where economy can be effected, but it is not in the quarter where the Government are prepared to act. Their economy never moves in the direction of the pounds of the wealthy, but always in the direction of the pence of the common people.
Mr. T. THOMSON: In the earlier stages of this Debate there was considerable conflict between the Minister in charge of the Bill and my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection as to what the consultative council had really decided. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has shown clearly that the consultative council did not speak for the whole of the approved societies. It is not of the greatest importance what the consultative council did or did not decide, but it is for this House to settle whether the proposals the Minister is now making are fair and sound proposals, and based on sound finance. These arrangements are made outside this House, hut that does not relieve this House of the responsibility of deciding as to the wisdom and justice of a course recommended by any Minister. The House no doubt will recollect that only a year or two ago that the reserves of another insurance fund were raided for quite a useful purpose under the Unemployment Insurance Act. We remember well how the balance that had been accumulated were dealt with, and what disastrous results followed in the bankruptcy of that fund. The House should consider carefully whether it is not folly in the same course here; that by this raiding of sinking funds and reserves it is not rather keeping towards bankruptcy, and entirely destroying the sound financial basis of these insurance schemes. A more honest policy I submit would be for the Minister and the Department to have faced the responsibilities that they have incurred, and to have found the money for the bargains which they have made.
I see from the White Paper that the reason given for this extra charge is the arrangements that have been made with the doctors. These arrangements may have been, probably were, not excellent,
1364
but they were not made by the approved societies, but the Minister, and the Minister having made them should keep his bargain. At the same time this should not relieve him of the responsibility of keeping his bargain with the approved societies, and maintaining the basis on which these schemes were originally arranged. Reference has been made by previous Members as to the possibility of further calls upon the funds of the societies. One to ill health following on the War. There are further drains there likely in the coming year. We have been passing through a time during the year, and now too, of a period of heavy unemployment. That means that the people as a whole are not getting that nourishment and support that they require, and that we are laying up for ourselves a period when the ill health of the nation will be infinitely greater than it has been in sapped physical reserves due to bad nutrition. This depletion of reserves is against the original bargain, and we have no right to rob the funds and take money which will be required in order to maintain these services on a sound basis as an insurance scheme. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. In reply to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) the right hon. Gentleman said that was not going to mulct the approved societies that had no surplus. He may not take it from any particular approved society. He has told us that he is taking it from reserves that have been accumulated by the societies. It is immaterial whether the Minister robs one particular approved society or another, if he is taking it out of reserves he is taking it out of the money of the approved societies and putting on them a burden which it was never intended they should bear. Real and true finance will be to continue on the lines that it has been continued on, and not to follow blindly the advice of the Geddes Committee. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman comes forward at this particular juncture? Why is it that when the payments to the doctors have been less? I think that this is unsound finance and I ask the House, at this time, to prevent this robbery of reserves that were intended for another purpose.
Sir A. MOND: The debate has continued some considerable time, and as I have been asked a number of questions I think it is right that I should reply to

1365
some of the important points raised. We have to make economies so as to reduce the burden of taxation. I am aware that when a Minister commences to economise that he is always told that there is one subject on which he must not economise and that is the one Members are interested in, and that there are plenty of other ways in which he can economise. It has been said that I was tender for the pockets of the rich and the opposite in relation to the poorer classes—
Mr. N. MACLEAN: Nobody said that!
Sir A. MOND: Yes, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman's doctrines, there are too few rich men in this country to effect large results by his suggestion.
Mr. MACLEAN: There are more now than in 1914.
Sir A. MOND: There are fewer.
Mr. MACLEAN: What about the banks?
Sir A. MOND: I do not think we should benefit the approved societies if we made a raid on the banks. What really is the question with which I have been faced? I frankly admit, of course, that it would be very much more pleasant not to be faced with these troublesome and difficult problems. It would be infinitely more pleasant to me, as Minister of Health, to be working out the schemes for additional benefits of all kinds which we have at the back of our minds, and which we should all very much desire to see carried out. Unfortunately, at the moment I am not in a position to do that. We are in a condition of financial stringency, and we have to endeavour to achieve economies and reductions in taxation.
The question arises, how can these economies be carried out? There are only three methods of doing this. The first is by reducing benefits; the second is by increasing the contributions, and the third is by using some of the very large surplus funds which, fortunately, the societies have been able to accumulate (during good years, for a temporary period—and I emphasise the word "temporary"—in order to meet the difficulty. Nobody has advocated a reduction of benefits or a reduction, even, of the additional benefits that have
1366
been lately granted. I frankly admit that a proposal to increase contributions would meet with opposition, and naturally so.
The proposal to adopt the method contained in this Bill, despite all that has been said in this debate, came almost unexpectedly to me on the initiative of the Consultative Council itself. I have heard a great deal about the Consultative Council to-night which has very much surprised me. I cannot understand hon. Members who have a knowledge of the approved societies, and of their own societies, being entirely unaware either who is representing their societies on the Consultative Council or what nominees they have offered to the Ministry of Health as their representatives. All the appointments of members of the Consultative Council are the result of nominations of groups, not of the big monopolistic bodies, but of all the different classes of the Approved Societies. Their names are well known to anyone who has anything to do with the Friendly Societies or the trade unions of this country. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) is himself a member of the Consultative Council. He was not present at the meeting which approved this scheme. I think it is a little hard when a member of my own Council, who is also a leader of the Labour party, comes here and opposes the scheme of a body of which he is a member. It really makes our work a little difficult. I do not claim that the Council represents every approved society, but that it represents the vast body of the great Friendly Societies and of the trade unions. After all, I am a member of no less than three Friendly Societies myself, and I have been so for many years, so I know something about Friendly Societies. If a man is a member of the Manchester Unity it is absurd to suggest that he is antagonistic to the approved societies of this country. I would ask hon. Members to go back and consult the approved societies up and down the country, and to tell me what they think. I felt, as I said in my opening remarks, that I could not possibly reduce the benefits unless the suggestion to do so came, not under pressure, but as what I might call a free and willing gift and offering. After going up and down the country they found that this scheme

1367
was accepted, and that fact remains. Really I have had no representations from those who represent the approved societies against this scheme and I cannot understand that hon. Members who have spoken against it to-day represent any recognised group of societies.
Major M. WOOD: They have not had time to consider the scheme.
Sir A. MOND: They have had a good many weeks to do it.
Major WOOD: Before the societies can express an opinion on the scheme they must have a general meeting to consider it and there has been no time for that.
Mr. BROMFIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the Consultative Council has made inquiries among the approved societies and got their opinion? As secretary of an approved society—and there are several more sitting on these benches—I definitely make this statement that no approach has been made to the approved societies on this matter.
Sir A. MOND: Of course there are a good many approved societies—
Mr. BROMFIELD: There are hundreds.
Sir A. MOND: I am a member of the Manchester Unity. Many of the societies are represented on the Consultative Council, and as far as I can ascertain all possible steps are taken to secure their opinion on the scheme. I rather resent the idea that I am putting forward views opposed to those of the Consultative Council, or that I am putting forward a policy which Members seem to think is financially unsound. I will simply say this. There has been a good deal of divergence of opinion as to the Government action, and attention has been called to differences between the report he made to the Geddes Committee and the letter written to me by Sir A. Watson. If hon. Gentlemen will read the papers carefully they will see that that divergence of opinion exists much more in imagination than in fact. Sir Alfred Watson points out to the Geddes Committee that there is not sufficient money in the surplus to meet these charges if they are to be put on to the approved societies permanently, and that if they are to be permanent there will have to be an increase of contributions. He has not diverged from that view in
1368
the letter he has written to me. I think I am bound to urge that the opinion of Sir Alfred is entitled to consideration. If hon. Members will look at the letter of Sir Alfred they will sec it is clearly stated that he would only allow the present Bill to operate till the end of 1923, and that he says that if he does not limit the amount to be taken from the surplus existing to-day by that time limit it will impair the financial stability of the existing system. I think hon. Members will readily understand why I take this view. It is of the greatest importance to millions of people who are contributing in order to receive benefits from our insurance system that they should not have any doubts as to the undoubtedly strong financial position the societies are in. I am not saying that merely for the purpose of securing a debating point in this House. I say that unless this can be done without affecting the security of the insurance scheme I would not be standing at this Table to advocate it. I hope the financial stability of the scheme will not be questioned or impaired.
The result can be seen from the figures relating to the surplus. I am fully familiar with the tendency to increased expenditure in approved societies owing to the large number of claims now made, but in spite of that I can say their position will be in no way impaired by this scheme. Hon. Members have pointed out that the surplus belongs to individual societies. That is the ease. There can be no question of pooling. It has been pointed out that a certain number of societies have no surplus and may have a deficiency, and I was asked how are you going to prevent either reducing their benefits or imposing an additional levy on the members. The answer is that we have what is known as a Central Fund which now stands at £2,000,000. This Central Fund has been accumulated in past years for the purpose of assisting societies which show a deficiency, not due to mal-administration, and it is out of this Fund that we propose to provide for those societies which on the last valuation—and they are few in number—showed a deficiency or have not a sufficient surplus for the purposes of this scheme. No member need fear that he will be called upon to pay a penny piece more if this Bill passes into law. A number of questions have been put as to where the money is to come from. My

1369
right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) pressed this strongly and elicited from me answers which fear he did not think satisfactory. The money comes out of the Reserve Funds of the societies. The societies have Contingencies Funds to which was recently transferred £7,000,000. Then there is the non-disposable surplus from the last valuation. When it is called non-disposable it means that it was not allowed to be distributed as additional benefits. The surplus for the last valuation was very large and, of this, about £9,000,000 was allowed to be distributed in additional benefit, but nearly 18,000,000 was retained as a reserve. That and the £7,000,000 transferred from the Contingencies Funds makes the total of £15,000,000, and it is out of this that the money is to come for this Bill.
The hon. Member for the Spen Valley has commented on the £350,000 advanced to the Women's Equalisation Fund. Apparently he thinks that when women have no work to do they come down and claim sick benefit, and if one can only employ them sufficiently in factories they are never ill. We have spent money generously in getting women out of the factories into the health section. I am afraid I cannot agree with the criticisms of the hon. Member. If he will look at Sir Alfred Watson's letter he will see we are providing a million pounds of reserves value which we think will be ample to deal with this problem if it arises, in order that no further claim shall be made on the approved society. There need be no anxiety about that.
12 M.
One or two rather important questions of principle have been raised. The Government have been accused—an accusation to which we get somewhat hardened, because it is one of the easist to make—that we have once more broken pledges, which were not given, and that we are for ever tied to any scheme which is once introduced under entirely different circumstances. An hon. Member made a very rhetorical speech, reminding me of the land of his origin in which he condemned me, I believe, to be the Minister of Death. He said the original Act had been departed from. Of course he is quite wrong there. He spoke about the 9d. for 4d. That is not touched at all. What we are dealing with is some-
1370
thing a great deal more than that, and that is the increase made, not in the original Act, but in 1918. It was no part of the original Act or original bargain, if bargain you can call it. There are three parties—the State, the employer and the employed contributor. Hon. Members opposite have assumed all through the Debate that the surplus funds are the result of the contributions merely of the employed contributors. They give no credit whatsoever to the fact that the employers and the State have contributed to the surplus. They merely denounce us for taking away money which we, ourselves had paid into the fund. It is very fine from the platform point of view, but it will not do in a serious financial argument. This is a joint fund. We are not altering the philosophical principle, if there ever was any philosophy in the. Bill. [Interruption.] There has been a great deal of very valuable fruit from the Bill. What we are altering is the rates of contribution by the various parties. We are removing extra grants which we gave in a moment of affluence and which we can no longer afford. Hon. Members opposite will say, "If you had only let us get the doctors we would have got them a lot cheaper," and nastier, perhaps, "and then you would not have to find any money." I am not going back on that controversy now. There are plenty of hon. Members who know how nearly the whole scheme broke down. In spite of the denunciation of the Panel system I have yet to learn from any source any better scheme which is to be devised. I do not think it is seriously contended by any who knew anything about the old club practice in the old days that the medical service maintained in those days was really equal or superior to the practice which is being carried on to-day. I do not think that can really be seriously contended and I do not think the people who benefit from the medical service to-day would adopt the somewhat harsh attitude that some hon. Members have adopted towards the medical profession to-day. I have given that undertaking to those who represent the approved societies that when the time comes for endeavouring to arrange new terms with the medical profession I will consult them. I will attach full weight to all the views they express with their long experience. The power of deciding the

1371
terms is left with the Ministry and me, and that is a power which I cannot surrender, and if it was surrendered the Insurance Act as we know it would fall to the ground. As long as the Act which this House has passed remains in existence the responsible Minister cannot leave in other hands the settlement of the very important question of not merely the terms but the willing service and the readiness of the great medical profession. That is a full and frank explanation of the position.
Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Baronet kindly explain why a differential rate has been made in Scotland and Wales as against England?
Sir A. MOND: It is merely that in Scotland and Wales the populations are more scattered and the roads and distances are rather longer and the mileage rates work out at a higher rate than in England. It is a question very largely of the miles a doctor has to travel.
Major M. WOOD: Why should not London contribute to that as well as, say, Edinburgh?
Sir A. MOND: Because Scotland has a separate fund.
Sir R. THOMAS: Is it possible for the House to be supplied with the method of arriving at these expenses? For instance, Cardiff, where the Health Administration is the worst in Wales, is a very large city, and surely the expense there cannot be more than, say, at Liverpool.
Sir A. MOND: I should be able to deal with that point a little more fully in Committee than at this late hour of the night, but it has all been worked out. It is just a mathematical calculation, and there is nothing more in the point. Another hon. Member made some very useful suggestions. His point about Army men is being considered at present, and I hope it will lead to a fruitful result. He asked what amount of money the Treasury would have to find. I think it is clear that the societies will get a two-ninths' grant. It is only a question of a postponed date. The societies are to be credited year by year for five years from 1925 onwards. I think it is £180,000 a year. When the next valuation comes they will be
1372
credited in the usual way, as they are now, with the two-ninths' grant. That will mean, with interest, that the societies will receive £800,000 or £900,000 as a grant which will be taken into account as an asset at the next valuation. We do not propose to deprive the approved societies of the Treasury grant for the reason that they have come to our assistance. Instead of keeping the money in their funds, they are paying it out in this work, and that is one of the chief reasons why the idea that we should take money from the reserve fund would have left the societies £900,000 worse off than they are under this scheme. When an important deputation came to see me with the proposal that instead of taking the money for surplus benefit we should take it out of the Reserve, I pointed out the loss the societies would incur, and they agreed with me to withdraw their proposal, which has already been considered by the Consultative Council and rejected on that very ground.
Mr. MILLS: Will it be the Reserve Fund or the Reserve Balance.
Sir A. MOND: The Reserve Redemption Fund. There are many points which will have to be considered carefully in Committee, and I am willing to consider any improvement that can be made. There may he a little anxiety lest this may he the beginning of incursions on funds which have been carefully hoarded by the societies, partly as a result of the meritorious work they have done. I can assure hon. Members that that is not in our minds. We want to bridge over a difficult period. I admit that this cannot be a permanent solution. The choice was between a temporary solution, and waiting to see how things would turn out in 1923, or immediately trying a solution for which the time was not really ripe, because it would have brought into a good deal of discredit, and would have damaged the approved societies and put another burden upon people who find it difficult to struggle on. Hon Members must see when the time comes that those who represent these interests are in a reasonable spirit. Some hon. Members may feel bound to go into the Lobby against the Second Reading of the Bill, and after they have demonstrated their feeling in that way I hope they will assist

1373
me in passing what will be a useful Act of Parliament.
Mr. G. BARKER: I disclaim any responsibility for the House discussing this matter at 10 minutes past 12.0. The Labour party is accustomed to this kind of treatment. If there is any attack to be made on the working classes it is made in the early hours of the morning. When the Government wanted to decontrol the mines they kept the, miners' members here all night. When they were dealing with the wages of the agricultural labourers they did the same kind of thing. There is no other section of the House which is treated so badly as the Labour party in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress upon the fact that he had the approved societies behind him. I was very much surprised to hear that statement, and I did not credit it. I made inquiries, and found that one of the hon. Members behind me had a, communication from the Hearts of Oak Society asking Members to oppose this Bill. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has the approved societies behind him. As a justification for introducing this Bill he referred to the White Paper but did not read this paragraph:
"Having regard to the fact that the acute and prolonged unemployment from which the industrial community is now suffering has imposed a heavy loss of contributions upon the societies, and may indirectly bring about other serious losses, it is evident that the greatest care must be exercised in the imposition of new burdens upon the societies."
In face of that warning the right hon. Gentleman brings in this Bill. He will go down to posterity as one of the greatest raiders that ever sat on the ministerial bench. He has raided the funds of Local Authorities until they are bankrupt. I make no apology for opposing this Bill at this ho6ur of the morning. If I were younger, he would not get his Bill for a very long time. In the year 1914, £11,000 was all the money paid by the Government towards maternity and child welfare schemes, and in that year the death-rate of children per thousand was 104. Through the benefits derived by the women and children from this fund, the death-rate of Children was reduced to 79 per 1,000 in 1920, and to 83 per 1,000 in 1921. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is sacrificing the women and children of the country on the altar of a sham economy. He has stated that the approved societies are behind the Bill. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name the approved societies that are in favour of the Bill.
Sir A. MOND: Not Hearts of Oak!
Mr. BARKER: There is no benefit in the, Bill for any of the approved societies, and they would be very simple if they were in favour of it. I hope the House will reject this Bill. It will do no credit to the Government if passed, and it will do a very serious injury to the women and the newborn children of this generation.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided Ayes, 113; Noes, 52.

Division No. 123.]

AYES.

[12.15 a.m.

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Cope, Major William

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Grenfell, Edward Charles

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

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

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

Hallwood, Augustine

Barlow, Sir Montague

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Barnston, Major Harry

Doyle, N. Grattan

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedlord, Luton)

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Henderson, Lt.-Col. v. L. (Tradeston)

Betterton, Henry B.

Elveden, Viscount

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Evans, Ernest

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Bird, Sir William B. HI. (Chichester)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir 1. A. (Midlothian)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Breese, Major Charles E.

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Forrest, Walter

Hudson, R. M.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Bruton, Sir James

Ganzonl, Sir John

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Gee, Captain Robert

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Carew, Charles Robert S.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Lloyd-Greame, Sir p.

Casey, T. W.

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

Lort-Williams, J.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Cotfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Gregory, Holman

McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Remer, J. R.

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Molson, Major John Elsdale

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

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Windsor, Viscount

Nail, Major Joseph

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D

Winterton, Earl

Neal, Arthur

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Wise, Frederick

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

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

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

Parker, James

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Steel, Major S. Strang

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Perkins, Walter Frank

Sugden, W. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Sutherland, Sir William

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)

Dudley Ward.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hartshorn, Vernon

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Amnion, Charles George

Hayday, Arthur

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Banton, George

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Sexton, James

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, G. H.

Sitch, Charles H.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hogge, James Myles

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Lelth)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Sutton, John Edward

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Swan, J. E.

Bromfield, William

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Cape, Thomas

Kennedy, Thomas

Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Kiley, James Daniel

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

Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lawson, John James

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Lunn, William

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Foot, Isaac

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Gillis, William

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wintringham, Margaret

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Mills, John Edmund

Grundy, T. W.

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Myers, Thomas

Major Mackenzie Wood and Mr.

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

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Rhys Davies.

Halls, Walter

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and if the House gives me a few moments, I can explain the object and extent of the Bill. It proposes to remedy what, in Scotland, at any rate, has proved to be a defect in the Act of 1918. Two series of Statutes—the Education Acts on the one hand, and the Employment of Children Acts on the other—are directed towards restricting or prohibiting the employment of children of tender years during school hours and otherwise. The Employment of Children series restricts or prohibits what is known as street trading, and a difficulty has arisen in the administration of the Statutes in this respect in Scotland. A number of years ago the age of prohibition in connection with the employment of children in this way was, in Scotland, up to 11 years. Since then a number of Statutes have been
1376
passed raising the age, and in 1910 or thereabouts a Departmental Committee reported against the employment of children in street trading in any form up to the ages of 17 for boys and 18 for girls. In 1918 an Education Act was passed, and the opportunity was taken—as was thought—to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee. If hon. Members will look at Clause 1 of the Bill they will see the present position of the law. As things stand, under the Act of 1903, as amended by the Act of 1908, it is provided that
"no child or young person under the age of seventeen shall he employed in street trading."
It was, no doubt, the intention of Parliament that full effect should be given to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. In what respect has it failed? It has failed in this respect. The Scottish Courts have held that while Parliament intended there should be a prohibition upon children either being employed by others, or engaging themselves, in street trading, the Act is—and I do not quarrel with the decision of the Scottish judges—defective in that the words
"no child or young person … shall be employed in street trading,"
limit its application to cases where the child or young person is employed

1377
by or in the service of another. Accordingly, the Act has failed to strike against the very numerous cases of young people who engage in trade by themselves on their own account. That is the whole point, and we propose, therefore, to remedy this defect which has emerged in Scotland by amplifying the definition, or rather the provision, of 1918, and making it strike, not only at the employment by others of children of tender years, but also against young children or young persons engaged in street-trading on their own account. That is the inception of the Bill, and I think the House will take it from me that the remainder of the Bill is executorial and consequential on the proposal referred to. That is the only effect and intention of the Measure, which is put forward in the hope that it will be non-controversial, and that the House will agree that in promoting the Bill we are only seeking to give full effect to the recommendation which it was thought in 1918 had been sanctioned by Parliament.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not wish to oppose the progress of the Bill at all, but merely to say that such information as has come to my knowledge, or been sent to me, is entirely in favour of the Bill, and I wish it a speedy passage.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is a very simple Measure, with a very small point, which I think is adequately explained in the Memorandum to the Bill printed on the outside. Under the Government of India Act, it is laid down that one of the qualifications for appointment as judge of a High Court shall be that the person so appointed shall be 10 years a pleader of a High Court. Since the Act was passed the point has arisen as to whether it is clear that when a Chief Court is converted into a High
1378
Court, which has taken place recently, the position of pleader in a Chief Court counts towards the 10 years. This Bill proposes to remedy that doubt both as regards the past and future, and thereby to remove the doubts which have arisen. If the Bill were not passed, it would mean that Indian pleaders who had been pleaders in a Chief Court, where that Chief Court was turned into a High Court, would be prevented for some years from receiving these appointments, and pleaders would have to be brought in from outside, which would obviously be undesirable.

SALE OF TEA BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is another small Measure to which I hope the House will agree. It is a small but necessary reform, and one very much overdue, from the legislative point of view. It is founded on the Report of the Select Committee on Short Weight, which reported in 1914. That Committee was under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson), and they found, after an investigation of the conditions under which trading was carried on, that one of the most conspicuous examples of trading, which was not entirely satisfactory from the consumers' point of view, was the sale of tea by gross weight. The sale of packet teas bad been enormously increased in the years before 1914, and the competition between the different members of the trade had led, on the one hand, to the cutting of prices and, on the other hand, in many instances, to the reduction of the quantity of tea actually contained in the packet, so that when a person bought, he might not in fact be buying, as he thought he was buying, a pound of tea. It is in order to try and remedy this defect that this Bill is introduced.
I want to say that, in introducing this Bill, I am not casting any reflection upon the grocery trade as a whole. The grocery

1379
trade during the War conducted their business in an extraordinarily fair manner. Actually, however, as the statute law stands a man who sells tea by gross weight is not committing any offence unless he actually leads the purchaser to believe that he is in fact receiving net weight when he is receiving gross weight. Unless he does that he is committing no offence according to the Statute. But he is committing an offence against an Order issued by the Food Controller in 1917. That Order provides, as this Bill provides, that tea shall only be sold by net weight and that when any statement is made on the package of tea as to the weight in that packet, that statement shall be a true statement of the actual net weight contained in the packet. I hope and believe that the Bill will prove non-controversial. The experience gained in the administration of the Order goes to show that it is one which is not objected to by the trade as a whole and that it operates substantially for the protection of the public.

SUPPLY [23rd May.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.
  Resolutions reported,

  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,483,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants in aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £790,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,926,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of wages, etc., of officers, seamen, and boys, coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £2,930,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,938,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), officers, which wilt come in
  1380
  course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £668,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

SUPPLY [17th May.]

  UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.
  Resolution reported,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a grant in aid to the Government of Northern Ireland in respect of compensation for damages arising out of the disturbed condition of Ireland."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Captain W. BENN: When this matter seas debated in Committee a complaint was made that the provision in this Vote did not allow for any compensation to the Catholic workers of Belfast who had suffered injury in their property, and sometimes in their persons, owing to the disturbed state of the country. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote intimated that some steps would be taken to deal with these cases. I think he went so far as to say he would introduce a Supplementary Estimate. He was answering a question which had arisen, and this would be a suitable opportunity to amplify his statement.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): In so far as any expelled worker has suffered injury in his person or property, which injury has been deemed malicious by a county court in any of the Six Counties, he, is entitled to his share in the £720,000 which we are now discussing on the Report stage. I have already introduced an Estimate for £1,500,000, of which £500,000 is entirely for the relief of workers in Belfast, and it is in part precisely for these expelled workers that the Estimate will come before the Committee.
  Mr. MILLS: I would like to have a little explanation regarding this money.

  1381
  Hundreds of the men affected are members of the union of which I am a member. I would take the case of a pattern maker or tool maker, men who have to pay 2130 or £160 of their own money into their own tools. Many of these men have had their tools wantonly destroyed, and in some cases have been Hung 120 feet over the side of a boat into the dock. They have never been able to claim in respect of these tools, though to men like them it is a, matter of life and death. They may never have the opportunity to replace the fools they have lost. I think the Chief Secretary might give us more detail. The loss of a kit of tools is very serious. An ordinary micrometer would cost something like three guineas to-day, and there are many thousands of such tools concerned.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is the Report of a Vote to relieve the taxpayers and ratepayers of Northern Ireland from the burden which certain judgments of the Court have put upon them for malicious injuries. In so far as cases, such as that mentioned, come within that category, it would be, of course, in order to discuss them. It would not be in order to discuss cases which have not formed the subject of judgments by the Courts in Ireland.
  Mr. MILLS: Is this not this in fact a Bill of Indemnity? If the House passes this are we excluded from pointing out any acts of injustice which have not been remedied?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The other Vote which has been referred to, and which has not yet gone through Committee, will be the opportunity.
  Captain W. BENN: Is this £750,000 only to indemnify Northern Ireland for judgments delivered, or is it a grant-in-aid in respect of points such as have been raised?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: This £750,000 is a Vote which is the result of an agreement between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. It is a payment to the Northern Government to relieve the ratepayers of Northern Ireland of awards, or partly of awards, for malicious injuries, up to 14th January of this year.
  1382
  If any expelled worker has a claim, or rather has an award allowed by any County Court, he, to sonic extent—to what extent I cannot say—will be a sharer in this. May I say this question of expelled workers can be raised on the Estimate still before the Committee of a million and a half, half a million of which is for relief of workers in the northern area, and under the agreement between the Chairman of the Provisional Government and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Precise arrangements are made for these specific workers, whose experience is one of the most regrettable of many regrettable incidents. But that is the Vote upon which it can be specifically raised.
  Mr. SWAN: It does not treat the cases of workers who have been thrown out bag and baggage out of work and who have suffered severe personal injury.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that would not be in Order.
  Mr. SWAN: Is it possible or has it been possible for them to have had their cases tried before any of the Courts? That is the point. We want these to be considered in the category of relief workers for the injury done to them.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SUDAN LOAN (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Captain W. BENN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I understood, I am subject to correction, that when the Leader of the House raised the question with Mr. Speaker at Question Time to-clay, he was not proposing to proceed to put Order 10.
Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Order No. 11 was the one mentioned, and

1383
clearly understood on both sides of the House. I would like to point out that this Order 10 is entirely uncontroversial.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes before One o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  INFANTRY OFFICERS (MILITARY ENGINEERING).
  INFANTRY OFFICERS (MILITARY ENGINEERING).
  OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION).
  OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PRIZE MONEY.
  PRIZE MONEY.
  CONDENSED MILK.
  CONDENSED MILK.
  ADMIRALTY PROPERTY, SOUTHERN IRELAND.
  ADMIRALTY PROPERTY, SOUTHERN IRELAND.
  HOLTON HEATH CORDITE FACTORY.
  HOLTON HEATH CORDITE FACTORY.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WOUNDED OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  WOUNDED OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORY, CARDIFF (MR. T. DANIEL).
  INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORY, CARDIFF (MR. T. DANIEL).
  CIVIL SERVICE ARBITRATION BOARD.
  CIVIL SERVICE ARBITRATION BOARD.
EGYPT.
  ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
  ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
  CONSTITUTION COMMISSION (SUDAN).
  CONSTITUTION COMMISSION (SUDAN).
  SUDAN (LORD ALLENBY'S ADDRESS).
  SUDAN (LORD ALLENBY'S ADDRESS).
  MINORITIES (BRITISH PROTECTION).
  MINORITIES (BRITISH PROTECTION).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH REFUGEES).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH REFUGEES).
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  POSTMASTERS' SALARIES.
  POSTMASTERS' SALARIES.
  NATONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  NATONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  LOTTERY TICKETS AND ADVERTISEMENTS.
  LOTTERY TICKETS AND ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MIDLAND AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAYS (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION).
  MIDLAND AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAYS (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION).
SCOTLAND.
  PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY FOR HEALTH.
  PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY FOR HEALTH.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES (ACCOMMODATION).
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES (ACCOMMODATION).
  SASINES OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  SASINES OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  GERMAN REPARATIONS (ALLIES' INDEPENDENT ACTION).
  GERMAN REPARATIONS (ALLIES' INDEPENDENT ACTION).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP).
  HOUSE REFUSE, CRAYFORD AND DARTFORD.
  HOUSE REFUSE, CRAYFORD AND DARTFORD.
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
  ENGLAND AND BELGIUM (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS).
  ENGLAND AND BELGIUM (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS).
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORTS).
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORTS).
  LUXEMBURG RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).
  LUXEMBURG RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  QUARTER SESSIONS (APPEALS).
  QUARTER SESSIONS (APPEALS).
  MOTOR-CAB DRIVERS (SUMMONSES).
  MOTOR-CAB DRIVERS (SUMMONSES).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (DOMESTIC SERVICE).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (DOMESTIC SERVICE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURNCE (SOUTHERN IRELAND).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURNCE (SOUTHERN IRELAND).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD WOOLAVINGTON.
Sir James Buchanan, Bart., having been created Baron WOOLAVINOTON of Lavington in the county of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SHEFFIELD GAS COMPANY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SITUATION IN IRELAND.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire, with your Lordships' leave, to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith have accepted the invitation of His Majesty's Government to come over this week in order to discuss the situation in Ireland; and, generally, whether the Government have any statement to make on the Irish crisis?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Marquess for the courtesy with which he informed me of the question which he proposed to ask the Government. I deal specifically with a specific question. Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins have been invited, as have all the Irish signatories of the Treaty, to attend in London at the earliest possible moment for a conference with the English signatories of the Treaty. An intimation has been received that Mr. Griffith and Mr. Duggan will cross from Ireland to-night, with a further intimation that, while Mr. Collins cannot, having regard to his public engagements, cross tonight, he will hold himself in readiness, should his presence be urgently required; to cross for the week end. I think it highly probable, so far as one can in such matters forecast the future at all, that his presence will be discovered to be urgently
  640
  necessary, and therefore, in my anticipation, it is reasonable to suppose that the Irish signatories of the Treaty will meet the English signatories of the Treaty in London during the present week end.
  The noble Marquess has asked me a further question, whether I desire on behalf of the Government to make any statement in relation to the Irish question. The contingent gravity of that which has been said and that which has been done in the last few days, both in the North and in the South of Ireland, is apparent, and needs no elaboration at my hands. What is its full significance will be elicited more plainly as the result of the discussions which will take place at the week end. To me, at least, it would appear to be certain that at a very early date next week there must be full and grave discussion of the Irish question in this House, and I would suggest to the noble Marquess that, observing, as he will have the opportunity of observing, the progress of events, informing himself, if he thinks it useful to do so, by consultation with myself or with any other Minister, of that which makes an occasion suitable or unsuitable, he should take an early opportunity next week of raising this question, or this series of questions, on a more elaborate scale, and in circumstances which will render a full discussion convenient.
  In the meantime, for reasons which I am bold enough to think will recommend themselves to most of your Lordships, I would rather deprecate discussion upon any isolated branch of the subject. I observe that my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson, has a Question on the Paper for to-morrow. I am perfectly prepared to give him all the information at the disposal of the Government in relation to that Question to-morrow, if he thinks it proper, in the circumstances with which I have dealt, to put it, but on the whole I merely suggest, or commend to his consideration—I do not put it so high as a suggestion—whether there might not be some public purpose attained by postponing the whole of our discussions on these very grave and disputable matters until such an early day next week as the development of events suggests to him.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I appreciate, of course, what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said concerning a more extended discussion

  641
  next week. I understand, from the usual channels of information, that it is intended that a statement shall be made by the Colonial Secretary in another place on Monday. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor would wish us to wait for that statement, or whether he proposes to make a contemporaneous statement in your Lordships' House. If he took that course, it would provide an opportunity for discussion, but be spoke as if it were not quite certain on which day he would be prepared for such a discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did speak, in point of time, with a slight degree of ambiguity, because I was not in my own mind quite satisfied as to when a conclusion would be reached in the Irish discussion, having regard to the date of the arrival of Mr. Collins. The noble Marquess is perfectly right when he says that the existing arrangement is that the Colonial Secretary will make a statement in the House of Commons on Monday. That is his present intention, subject, of course, to revocation or postponement. But if it were the desire of the House that there should be a contemporary discussion here—I speak, of course, in the presence of my noble friend who is at the moment leading the House, and I do not claim to know what his view would be—if there is a general desire that the statements should be contemporary, I do not think that we should stand in the way of such a wish. On the other hand, noble Lords might think that there was possibly an advantage to be gained in having had not only the discussion, such as it may be, elsewhere, but also forty-eight hours' further experience of the situation, which, believe me, changes from day to day, almost from hour to hour.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the result of this conversation is that the Government rather indicate that the discussion in your Lordships' House upon Ireland, if there is to be one, should take place on Tuesday or Wednesday. In those circumstances, I would ask my noble friend who is leading the 'House what he proposes to do in respect of the Allotments Bill? So far as I am concerned, I may mention that I have conferred with my friends, and If see no great objection to taking the further stages of the Bill on Monday, which was, I think, the original intention of my noble friend.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, if I may regularise the matter to that extent, I will make the Motion which stands in my name and make a statement. The Motion, of which Notice has been given, is that Standing Order No. XXI be dispensed with for this day's sitting; and that the Motion for the House to be again in Committee on the Allotments Bill [H.L.] have precedence over the Motion for the House to be put into Committee on the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [H.L.] and over the Motions of the Lord Muir Mackenzie and the Lord Islington.
  This Motion substitutes the Allotments Bill for the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill in the order of precedence on the Paper. I remember that my noble friend, Lord Dynevor, suggested last night that Monday would be too soon to proceed with the Allotments Bill, but I am glad to gather from what my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, has just said that there has evidently been some adjustment of the conference which is to he held, making that course possible. In that case, I invite your Lordships to meet on Monday to take the Report stage of this Bill, and, in deference to what Lord Crewe said yesterday, I would suggest that the Third Reading should be taken, preferably on Tuesday, or, if necessary, on Wednesday, the last day of the month. In that case your Lordships will be sitting for the first three days of next week, and it will be for your Lordships to determine, after watching the progress of these Irish discussions, upon which day you would desire to invite the Lord Chancellor to make a statement on Irish matters.
  There is one further point about the Allotments Bill. Yesterday, in response to appeals made from various quarters of the House sonic time before, Lord Ancaster announced that he had a number of consolidation Amendments that he was prepared to put into the Bill. There are three or four folio typewritten pages of those Amendments. He will be prepared to hand them in to-night at the conclusion of the Committee stage, or else, if on reconsideration your Lordships should prefer it, the notice being rather short, my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, would insert the Amendments in the House of Commons, and they would then reach your Lordships as Commons Amendments to a Lords Bill. My own strong preference is that they should be

  643
  inserted in this House, but if any body of your Lordships desire that the other course should he followed, my noble friend, Lord Ancaster, would be prepared to concur.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be dispensed with for this day's sitting; and that the Motion for the House to be again in Committee on the Allotments Bill [H.L.] have precedence over the Motion for the House to be put into Committee on the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [H.L.] and over the Motions of the Lord Muir Mackenzie and the Lord Islington.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know what Lord Muir Mackenzie has to say to that method of dealing with consolidation Amendments. The usual plan is to send consolidation Amendments before the Joint Committee.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: But, my Lords, this is only doing a certain amount of consolidation of existing statutes. Further consolidation of enactments relating to allotments and small holdings probably will be necessary. I think I have indicated that we want to get the Third Reading of the Bill before the Whitsuntide recess.
  THE DUKE of BUCCLEUCH: Is it proposed to take the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill before Whitsuntide?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, not before the Whitsuntide recess.
  LORD DYNEVOR: I understand that a certain amount of consolidating of existing Acts of Parliament will be moved by Lord Ancaster, but is there no possibility that existing Acts of Parliament will be altered by Amendments to this Bill?
  THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The answer is that the Amendments would have to be varied. Either rightly or wrongly, we think that the most convenient thing would be that we should get this Bill through, and so know how the law stands, and how your Lordships wish it to stand, and then deal further with the very complex question of the tenure of small holdings and allotments. Nobody knows what is a small holding and what is an allotment, and what is an allotment in a cottage garden, and what is a cottage garden, and the tenure relating to those different subjects. When
  644
  we have this Bill through Committee we hope we shall be able to place Amendments on the Paper for Report stage—I do not think they would be of very great importance, but they would be of certain length—to put the whole question of the tenure of these different classes of allotments upon a comprehensible footing. Of course, as the noble Earl who leads the House has said, there is the alternative of merely passing the Bill through this House, dealing with the other matter in the House of Commons, and then bringing it hack here as amended in the House of Commons. But from what has already happened I think noble Lords regard the first arrangement as the preferable one.
  LORD BLEDISLOE: Of the two alternatives, I favour the first, because I think the Allotments Bill should be thoroughly dealt with by your Lordships before passing to another place; but if the consideration of Amendments on Report is going to be restricted and fettered in any way owing to this production of consolidation Amendments between the two stages, I prefer the other alternative.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I can give your Lordships an assurance that the consolidation Amendments will in no way fetter you in dealing with the whole case on its merits on the Report stage.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH OFFICERS AT KASUR.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for India—

1. Whether the military and civil officers in charge at Kasur at the time of the Punjab rebellion—Lieutenant-Colonel MacRae, I.A., and Mr. Marsden, I.C.S.—were censured for "improper and injudicious" conduct by direction of the late Secretary of State, by which their careers have been seriously prejudiced.

2. Whether their alleged offence was to order three strokes of the cane to

645
three boys from each of two large schools, the pupils of which had formed part of a violent mob that killed two British warrant officers, wounded several British officers and men, attacked an English lady with her children, and burned the railway station, Law Courts, and post office.

3. Whether, beyond being examined as witnesses by the Hunter Committee, these officers were ever allowed to offer any defence of their action.

4. And whether, as no condemnation of that action was forthcoming in the Report of the Hunter Committee, while the Minority Report recorded the incident inaccurately, the grave injustice accorded to these officers will now be redressed.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main points in connection with this remarkable case are presented in my Question, but there are one or two other circumstances which throw light upon them, and of which I think the House should be made aware. Kasur was under Martial Law at the time, and the headmasters of these two schools, the pupils of which were quite out of hand, applied to the officers in charge to give them the necessary support. These officers, therefore, had to do something, and they asked the headmasters to produce before them the chief offenders. The headmasters selected six small and weakly-looking boys, and the officers very properly rejected their choice, and themselves selected six of the older, bigger, and stronger-looking boys, and those boys received three strokes of the cane each. That punishment was not inflicted in public, as the Secretary of State most wrongly stated in another place, but was administered in a square formed by pupils of the schools, and inside the station enclosure.
There was a very significant sequel to this incident. The Education Department, which controlled the municipal school but not the other school, came to the conclusion that the punishment administered by the two officers was entirely inadequate, so an inspector, a Hindu, and a Mahomedan assistant arrived and proceeded to administer justice. Some of the pupils were expelled, many others received ten strokes of the cane, and the school itself, including the staff, was quite sharply disciplined. I might mention that one of the pupils of this school was convicted of murder. In
646
November, 1919, Mr. Gandhi, who was at that time a valued friend of the Secretary of State, visited Kasur, and congratulated the people on having such a "fair-minded and sympathetic officer" as Mr. Marsden. Those were the actual words of the Mahatma himself, and that was long after the offence for which Mr. Marsden was censured.
The English lady referred to in my second Question, with her three children, was rescued only just in time by the courageous action of Indian officers who proved loyal throughout the rebellion. One of these Indians gave evidence before the Hunter Committee. He has since declared that his life was made hell and he had had two houses burnt over his head, so futile was the protection we gave to Indians who proved staunch to us during the rebellion. The Hunter Committee made no comment whatever on tins Kasur case, and the authors of the Minority Report, who constituted the prosecuting Counsel, reported the case inaccurately and made no mention of the proceedings of the education inspector. I might mention that two of these prosecuting judges have since been made into Ministers. Now the Secretary of State, in a very extraordinary speech, in the Dyer debate on July 8, 1921, said that "if you take school-boys from school, guilty or innocent, and whip them publicly—these were not whipped publicly—you are indulging in frightfulness." I n other words, he classed this incident with the sinking of the "Lusitania" and the hospital ships, and the outrages at Dinant and elsewhere. I wonder what Doctor Keate, the headmaster of Eton, would have thought of such a pronouncement as that. It has been said of Dr. Keate that he once flogged soundly ten boys who had been sent up to him for preparation for confirmation.
The true inwardness of the pains and penalties inflicted on British and Indian officers who only tried to do their duty at a most critical time, is explained by Mr. Rushbrook Williams, who is the official historian of the moral and material progress of India in the year 1920. Mr. Williams writes thus—
"By the end of the period under review many of those whose conduct had been censured by the Hunter Committee had left India on Government service. The balance had undergone either penalties or severe censure from the Government, and, as to the serious effects of such censure upon the personal happiness, the immediate position, and the future prospects of an officer it is wholly unnecessary to enlarge."

647
Then he went on to add these significant words—
"But, as must generally be the case under a centralised government, the distasteful work of punishment was performed without that parade of ostentation which alone might have satisfied Indian opinion."
The evident cue of this official writer was to take as much credit as possible for ruining the careers of British and Indian officers who had saved many thousands of lives during the rebellion, and also to apologise for the absence of ostentation in the methods of punishment.
Of course, that did not satisfy in the least what Mr. Williams called "Indian opinion," and the extremists, as we all know, have been howling for more blood ever since then. It did not occur to him that, though it must be very gratifying to those extremists to see the result of their influence, they, being Asiatics, must feel strong contempt for a Government which threw over its own officers. I am sure the noble Viscount, the late Viceroy, could not have approved of these sentences, because, on October 25 last, he said—
"I assured Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, and I assured, through a Resolution of the Government of India, his officers, that they would have unwavering support in any action they thought it advisable to take."
In this Resolution, I believe—though I am not quite certain—the words "however drastic" occurred, and I am certain that the noble Viscount could not consider administering three strokes of the cane to six boys to be anything in the nature of a drastic punishment.
This plea of mine may seem belated. These officers were sentenced, unheard, two and a-half years ago. But it would have been useless to plead their cause under the late régime, and I do so now, as I hope that the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State, will give it his close personal attention, and that he will not hesitate to remove the stigma from these officers, if he finds on examination—as I think he must find—that the sentences were wholly undeserved. These two officers, and many others in India, feel a burning sense of resentment at the treatment they have received and the feeling throughout the public ervices in India is, at the present time, much more serious than is realised in this country. If the noble Viscount can and will do anything which will
648
restore confidence to the British and Indian officers who have suffered so severely at the hands of his predecessor, and if he will do so quickly, he will render an invaluable service to India and to the Empire.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, these personal issues are always difficult to deal with across the floor of the House. Your Lordships will naturally, and inevitably, have sympathy with officers whose actions, done in perfect good faith, have had to be reprobated by the supreme Government. But, while your Lordships have sympathy with these officers, I am sure I can count upon your having consideration for the position of those who were in authority, and had to deal with the case. In the first place, we had a disagreeable, a distasteful, and a difficult duty to discharge. It was impossible for us to refuse to express an opinion on matters which were disclosed in a public document which had been drawn up at our request—I refer to the Hunter Committee's Report—and I hope to be able to show your Lordships that it would be difficult to contend that the Government of India could have come to any other decision than the decision they came to in this particular case.
I want, now, to come to the Questions seriatim which the noble Lord has addressed to my noble friend, the Secretary of State for India. I will deal with the first one. I take full and undivided responsibility for the action in this case. The late Secretary of State for India gave no directions whatever to the Government of India with regard to what we were to do as a result of the Hunter Committee's Report; and I strongly suspect that the late Secretary of State for India was unaware of what decision we had come to until we ourselves had informed him from India. I think that disposes of the Question which Lord Sydenham has asked, as to whether these officers were censured for improper and injudicious conduct by direction of the late Secretary of State, to the serious prejudice of their careers.
I come to the second Question, and, if your Lordships will look at it, I think you will realise that it has been couched in terms of prejudice. What I mean by terms of prejudice is this. It has been put in such a way as to make it appear as though after these very serious outrages at Kasur this slight punishment was the only

649
action taken for the punishment of those who were guilty of those outrages. May I tell your Lordships straight away, as regards the outrages at Kasur—I speak without the book, because I have not got the exact details—that to the best of my recollection there were six or more men executed in respect of the murder and murderous assaults.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will give the figures.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: That will relieve me greatly. There were many imprisoned and, as a matter of fact, some boys who were found guilty of taking part in these outrages were arrested and were sentenced. To continue the story with regard to this particular school, there were difficulties in this school, and the headmaster said that he was not able to manage the school. Then it was suggested by the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Marsden, I think, to Colonel MacRae, who was in charge of Martial Law in that district, that certain boys should be pick-N1 out for punishment. The evidence of Colonel MacRae, given before the Commission, was as follows:—
"Q.—Then on the 18th some schoolboys were flogged, and you gave directions that the biggest six boys were to be selected for that purpose?
"A.—I said, 'Generally speaking, take the six biggest.' The misfortune was that they happened to be big.
"Q.—It was irrespective of whether they were innocent or guilty; because they were big they had to suffer.
"A.—Yes.
"Q.—Do you think that is a reasonable thing to do?
"A.—Yes, I think so, under certain conditions.
"Q.—It was a mere accident that a boy being big should invite on himself punishment?
"A.—It was his misfortune.
"Q.—His misfortune was that he was big?
"A.—Yes."
When we had this case before us on the Commission's Report we took no exception as a Government to the fact that punishment was inflicted, but what we had to consider as a Government was whether we should, as the Government, say that vicarious punishment, arbitrary selection of certain boys irrespective of whether they were innocent or guilty, was a thing upon which we could express no opinion, and we informed the officers that we thought their action was improper.
650
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, has quoted in his Question the words "improper and injudicious." I am not sure whether those were the words. I noticed that the Lord Privy Seal, in another place, referred to some of these actions as ill-advised. Whether they were improper, or injudicious, or ill-advised—I do not know what epithet you are to apply to vicarious punishment—I should like to say that no other penalty was imposed at all on these officers. We merely told them, as a matter of course, that we thought the action they had taken was improper. When you put yourselves in the position of a superior authority, I doubt whether it can be seriously contended that the method of vicarious punishment can ever be right or wise, and, if it is wrong, I do not think that the epithets which have been applied to it were really misapplied.
Now, may I say a word on the third Question of the noble Lord, which really deals with the procedure which was adopted in this case? I must frankly state at the outset that I am unable, of course, to trace this case from the very beginning; I can only speak of my own knowledge when it appeared before me. But the ordinary procedure in a case like this would be that all the reports and all the documents in the case would be examined in the Home Department. The head of the Home Department would then make a recommendation upon the action that he thought should be taken in the case. Now I can say that I come in. I assume that was the case. As to whether these officers were seen or not in the Home Department, I cannot tell your Lordships of my own knowledge; I can only say that all the reports—their reports probably—and documents in the case would have been examined in the Department. Then the Home Member would make his recommendation, and that would come up to the Viceroy, and the Viceroy would order—as I ordered then—that the recommendation with all the papers should be circulated to the different members of Government. Then they would have an opportunity, each one of them, of expressing their opinion upon the case.
When that procedure had been completed we should take the case in Council. I recollect very well that these cases were very carefully considered in full Council and at great length. When we came to a decision, that decision was communicated

651
to the local Government in the case of Mr. Marsden, and to the Commander-in-Chief, who would communicate the decision of the Government, in the case of Lieut.-Colonel MacRae, to that officer. Looking back at some of the papers I have, I note that the decisions in these cases were not made public until February 19, 1921—last year. I am positive that we came to a decision in this case in the previous year, and probably fairly early in the autumn, for this reason, that I know they were adjudicated upon by Sir George Lowndes who was then my Law Member, and he left on December 31.
As soon as the decisions in these cases were communicated to the officers in question it was open to them at once, long before any publication was made, to appeal to the Government. They could have appealed to the Governor-General in Council, in which case we should certainly have heard them; and if they had appealed to the Governor-General in Council and had not received satisfaction they would have had their personal appeal to me. As regards the first course, though I cannot charge my memory with it, I am not aware that they ever appealed to the Governor-General in Council. I cannot charge my memory with that at all, but I am absolutely positive that they made no personal appeal to me. And I can say for myself that during my five years of office as Viceroy I am not conscious of ever having refused a single application, on the part of any officer who thought he was aggrieved in any matter, for a personal interview with me, and I should have been only too delighted had these officers asked to see me personally.
Those personal interviews are not always pleasant; in fact, very often they are the reverse of pleasant; but I always felt that whether one was able to give a decision which pleased the officer or displeased him, he always had a certain amount of satisfaction in having been able to get to the head of the Government of India and have a personal talk over his grievance. Therefore, I can say with regard to my own personal action that I am positive that no appeal was ever made to have an interview with me personally. The truth is that in this case there is really no dispute as to the facts. It is not the punishment that was objected to but the method of that punishment, and I have never heard it disputed that this particular method was adopted; so that the facts are not in dispute.
652
Now let me come to the last Question asked by the noble Lord. It is in these terms:
"And whether, as no condemnation of that action was forthcoming in the Report of the Hunter Committee, while the Minority Report recorded the incident inaccurately, the grave injustice accorded to these officers will now be redressed."
It is perfectly true that there was no specific mention of this case by the Majority Report of the Hunter Committee. It was mentioned only in the Minority Report. But is it seriously contended that when a Government has instructed a Committee or a Commission to report to it, it is to look solely at the Majority Report and to pay no attention to the Minority Report? I think the noble Lord who has asked this Question is not always in the majority in his opinions in this House, and I am sure he would be the first to protest if his views in the minority were not given the due weight which attaches to them, by the Government of the day to whom his remarks have been addressed.
Apart from that, I would like to say that it is true that the majority did not mention this specific case, but they did make some very trenchant remarks on flogging generally in the Punjab. May I read their finding on that subject to your Lordships?
"The impression made upon our minds by the evidence is that there were too many sentences of flogging pronounced. From an examination of the cases of flogging inflicted for breaches of Martial Law orders it appears that the punishment of whipping was regarded as probably the most efficacious and convenient method of summarily dealing with most minor breaches of the Martial Law regulations."
Then they proceed to give instances, and they conclude by saying:
"In view of the strong feeling in India against corporal punishment, we think it would be advisable that some restriction should be imposed on the discretion of area officers in giving sentences of whipping."
So that they did express their view strongly on the general policy of whipping which had been resorted to.
What are the inaccuracies of which the noble Lord complains in the Minority Report? In the Minority Report it is said that six boys were sentenced to six strokes each. As a matter of fact, what happened was that three boys were sentenced to six strokes and three boys were sentenced to three strokes. That is the inaccuracy on which, I presume, the noble Lord lays some stress. I will not trouble

653
your Lordships any further with regard to this case. The noble Lord has asked that justice should be done, and do not for one moment suggest that if an injustice has been done it should not be remedied, and remedied at once, and if my noble friend the Secretary of State for India thinks that, an injustice has been done I shall be only too pleased for him to direct that it shall be rectified. I appear at this table this afternoon not to make a case against these officers, but to endeavour to put before your Lordships the position of the Government of India when it was face to face with this particular Report of the Hunter Commission. I hope I have put it temperately and fairly. I certainly have no wish in any way to make the worse appear the better cause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, it is seldom that we have in this House the advantage of hearing so full and clear a statement as that to which we have just listened, from a high official like an ex-Viceroy of India, who took so responsible a part in the events to which my noble friend, Lord Sydenham, has alluded. His reply really renders it unnecessary for me to be so full as I otherwise might have been in giving an account in answer on the facts of the case. He has spoken not only with an authority but also with a knowledge with which I am unable to speak on this subject.
These Questions refer to matters three years old in India, and to facts and details many of which are not within the knowledge of the India Office itself, and could only be acquired after some research by the Indian Government itself. I think it is fair to the officer to say at the outset that I was able to see, for a few minutes, Mr. Marsden himself. It might have been thought that an aggrieved officer was anxious that his case should be brought before your Lordships' House, and I have his direct authority for saying, because I asked him, that he had no part whatever in urging that this matter should be brought before your Lordships' House. I think it fair to say, in justice to him, that the whole responsibility as to whether this action is considered wise or unwise by your Lordships will rest on the noble Lord who has introduced the subject here.
I think the best thing that I can do is to answer carefully and categorically the
654
specific points raised in the Questions by the noble Lord. First as to the censure "for 'improper and injudicious' conduct by direction of the late Secretary of State by which their careers have been seriously prejudiced," I ought to give the House the actual words of censure which were passed upon these officers. There is, first of all, Mr. Marsden—
"The Government of India have asked the local Government to inform this officer that his action was improper, and that the Government of India disapprove of it."
The same words were used to Colonel MacRae through His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief. The inference drawn by the noble Lord in his Question is, "by which their careers have been seriously prejudiced." I should like to give the most emphatic denial to that statement. The noble Lord himself is sole author of the doctrine that the careers of these officers have been "seriously prejudiced" by this action. I should like to say emphatically that that is not so. I think it rather unfortunate that a statement of that kind should have appeared on the Paper, because it might suggest to those who know the authority with which the noble Lord speaks on this subject that there was something in this statement.
I should like, therefore, to give your Lordships, as hearing upon that point, an official statement that was communicated to Mr. Marsden from the Government of India in which, among other statements, these words were used—
"The Government of India are quite prepared to concede that the work done by Mr. Marsden at Kasur during the disturbances and their sequel, taken as a whole, was praiseworthy, and entitled to share in the general encomium passed on the work of civil officers in a paragraph of their Dispatch."
Your Lordships will see that though it would appear by this Question that all that happened to this officer for his action in this disturbance was that he was censured, the real fact is that the Government of India exercised great discrimination, and gave him a full and wide approval for much of the action that he took in these difficult circumstances. Moreover, the final words of the statement are:—
"I am to request that Mr. Marsden may be informed of the views of the Government of India, and assured that in so far as his future career in India is concerned his general record will be taken into account, and not this particular incident alone."

655
I think I am quite justified in saying that it is very hard indeed of the noble Lord to suggest, after the statements and communications that have been made to this officer, that his career is seriously prejudiced.
The next point is as to the alleged offence. Two points made by my noble friend, Lord Chelmsford, render it unnecessary to say anything. The first is as to an alleged inaccuracy in the Minority Report which has been, according to my information, quite accurately answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. I may say that exactly the same criticism as was made by him suggested itself to my mind. I am sure the inference to be drawn was not intended by the noble Lord, but anybody who was ignorant of the situation would draw the inference that these very grievous actions had been taken by this mob, and that practically the only punishment accorded was six strokes with the cane to these different boys. Though not intended, that certainly was the impression that came into my mind. I do not want to give the figures, but I think it is important to assure your Lordships that, on the contrary, very grave action and very severe punishment indeed was meted out to the authors of these particular outrages. In fact, no fewer than twenty-six persons were sentenced to death, and seventeen to transportation for life, and eleven of these persons were actually hanged for their share in these operations.
Again, there is, I understand, evidence that the boys in these schools joined with this mob; yet, I should like to correct another inference that might be drawn from the particular form in which this Question is asked. My information is that the punishment awarded to these boys had no connection with outrages committed by boys, or by the school, in conjunction with these mobs, but, as the noble Viscount has related—and I think the noble Lord told us—the place was put under Martial Law, and the request was made by the headmaster to deal with his school because the boys were out of hand. These two subjects ought, therefore, to be disconnected in the minds of your Lordships in considering this point.
As to the Question about being examined as witnesses, it has been stated that action was taken on the Minority Report of the Hunter Committee. That was not so. These officers had an opportunity and did give oral evidence before
656
the Committee, as well as making written statements. But the actual points of procedure are of less importance because there is no dispute as to the action taken, and any sort of inquiry could only elicit again precisely the same facts as were elicited by this Inquiry. There is an admission by both sides that the facts are proved.
The last Question of the noble Lord is whether "the grave injustice accorded to these officers will now be redressed." The noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, has clearly stated what particular issue is involved in these cases. I have stated the position of these officers, and how their action was regarded by the Government of India, but I am not certain what course I am asked to adopt by Lord Sydenham. Really, there is only one course he would wish me to take, and that is for the Secretary of State, in spite of the facts and in spite of the question of vicarious punishment, to announce, three years after these events, that he disapproves of the action of the Government of India, and that the actions of these officers were proper and judicious. That is a statement which, I think, your Lordships will hardly expect me to make.
Reference has been made to a communication made this morning to the Government of India by an official. I do not know whether there are any new facts, but my intention is to find out by inquiry from India what steps have been taken. On the facts stated I think it would be impossible for any one, anxious as he may be to do justice to officers in India, to reverse the decision of the Government of India arrived at three years ago when they were in full possession of all the facts.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I came utterly unprepared to speak on this Question, but really I cannot leave matters as they are after the speeches of the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State, and the noble Viscount, the late Viceroy. I do not know whether your Lordships have been able to follow this Question with the slender material before you, but I can assure you that the two speeches to which we have just listened will be profoundly disappointing to those who do know the facts and are serving in India. Your Lordships can appreciate how little satisfaction is to be obtained from the sarcastic inquiry with

657
which the Secretary of State concluded his speech.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was not sarcastic.
LORD AMPTHILL: He enquired whether Lord Sydenham expected him to say that the action of these officers had been proper and judicious. Do your Lordships imagine that any such information was expected by the noble Lord; and is it not a matter of common sense that the proper remedy for a censure which has been unjustly pronounced is simply a withdrawal of that censure? You do not reverse the terms in which it has been given. Lord Chelmsford said, most unfairly I thought, that the Question was couched in terms of prejudice.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: The second part of the Question.
LORD AMPTHILL: And he went on to give his version of the story. As Lord Chelmsford has accused my noble friend of prejudice I must tell your Lordships that the noble Viscount left out half the story, and without knowing the whole of the story your Lordships are not in a position to judge whether the noble Viscount's remarks were worthy of the applause you gave. This is what he left out. After the disturbances had been suppressed the headmaster of the school asked for a military guard, because he could not keep his pupils in order. Lord Chelmsford said nothing about that. This request, naturally, could not be granted, and so Mr. Marsden and Lieutenant-Colonel MacRae suggested that the school should be paraded at the railway station. The masters were then asked to produce the culprits, but were unable to do so. On being further pressed they dragged out the four most miserable, ill-clad, and weakly little boys they could find. Would any Englishman have taken these small weaklings for punishment? The obvious answer is, No. They would have asked for the big boys who were the leaders.
I am not going to go into the question of vicarious punishment. No doubt, many of your Lordships have theoretical opinions on that subject, but I would remind you that it is a principle which is accepted, and necessarily accepted, all over the world in every sort and kind of circumstance. It has been accepted in all ages, and whatever your Lordships may say it will continue. When you have a mutiny or rebel
658
lion you naturally punish the ringleaders; and that was done on this occasion. But to talk of it in terms of prejudice as vicarious punishment, and suggest that this is a kind of thing which any reasonable and fair-minded man would object to ipso facto, is simply absurd.
I come to the first part of the Question which asks whether this was done by direction of the late Secretary of State. Lord Chelmsford says it was not; but against that you have the fact that the late Secretary of State, in a Despatch, I think it was of May, 1920, complained that these cases under Martial Law, and other cases, had not been visited with censure as they ought to have been, and directed that it should be done. I naturally assume, although he did not give directions, that in this particular case they were to censure Mr. Marsden and Colonel MacRae, and that he did give directions that a number of officers, who in the opinion of the Hunter Committee were not deserving of any blame at all, should nevertheless be censured; and it was done.
The noble Viscount, the late Viceroy, says that the Government cannot refuse to express an opinion on a matter referred to in a public document. We have all known Governments make such a refusal, and the answer to the noble Viscount is that if you set up a Committee to form a judicial opinion on any question, and it reports as a Majority and a Minority, you act upon the opinion of the Majority. There is no necessity, whatever, to be guided by the opinion of the Minority as well. It is deeply disappointing that the Secretary of State, when he had a great opportunity of showing his attitude towards these questions, should have adopted a tone which will carry profound disappointment to all those fellow-countrymen of ours who are serving in India, and bearing the great burden and anxiety of administration at the present time.
I hope that, in spite of what he said, he will still feel it his duty to look into this question, and see whether it is possible to withdraw the censure. He stated among other things that it would not affect their careers. There, again, we have the statement of the Government of India itself. The Government of India, in their Report for 1920, have put it on record that such censure must affect the future career of the officer censured. In spite of that, we have the statements of Lord Chelmsford and

659
Lord Peel that a little censure of that kind is of no consequence whatever.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I must correct the noble Lord. This is not my statement. It was an official communication made by the Government of India to the officers concerned. It does not rest upon my opinion at all.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: Only as a personal explanation, I can assure your Lordships that I put before you all the facts I had in the document at my disposal, and the only document I had at my disposal was the Hunter Report, in which nothing of what the noble Lord has told your Lordships just now has appeared. If it had appeared there, I should certainly have placed it before your Lordships.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I am a little disappointed that the Secretary of State for India will not bring his fresh mind to hear upon the matter. I think that if he did so he must come to the conclusion that vicarious punishment is the commonest way of dealing with matters of this kind. What is the moral? If these two officers had taken the weakly-looking boys selected by the headmaster and given them the three strokes, they could not have had any censure passed upon them. I cannot think the censure is such a light thing as the Secretary of State for India seems to think, because we have the official report of the historian of the progress of India in 1920, which points out how it must affect their happiness, present and future, and their future prospects. I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not been able to receive this Question a little more sympathetically. I should like to say that I made a mistake in thinking that the Secretary of State had been responsible for these sentences. The noble Viscount, the Viceroy, has frankly taken all the responsibility upon himself, but I was induced to believe that the Secretary of State had done so by the extraordinary strength of his language in regard to this case in the Dyer debate in another place.

PALESTINE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether, according to the latest census returns, the population of Palestine consists of 77 per cent. Moslems, 11 per cent. Christians, and 10 per
660
cent. Jews; and, if so, whether the Government cannot guarantee that this proportion will be maintained in the Legislative Council. From an answer which I received in this House a fortnight ago, it would appear that the members of the new Legislative Council of Palestine are to be allotted, not in accordance with the numbers of the electorate, but with the number of voters who actually go to the poll. I venture to think that this introduces a new and perhaps a dangerous doctrine with regard to the policy of representation, and it would be more desirable if members were allotted to constituencies in the ordinary way.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I do not quite know what my noble friend means by "the ordinary way," but I am informed that the figures in his Question are substantially correct. As to the second part of his Question, namely, what guarantee the Government can give that the proportion of citizens defined by their religious convictions will be maintained in the Legislative Council, he put that question ten days or a fortnight ago, and I have nothing further to reply to it. I cannot guarantee that the political obligation will correspond with the religious conviction of that community. I would add that the details of the proposed Electoral Law are still under examination, and no further statement on the subject can be made at present.

ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE had given notice to move, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
". It shall be the duty of the council of every borough, county borough, and urban district having a population of twenty thousand and upwards, to take such steps as may be necessary to acquire land either within or outside its administrative area at a reasonable price uninfluenced as far as possible by its prospective value for an industrial purpose, with a view to the establishment thereon of allotment gardens on an economic basis, if and as thereafter the needs of the local population so require."
The noble Lord said: I am advised by some of my noble friends, who are in sympathy with the object of this Amendment, that it has not been sufficiently

661
clearly expressed, so I propose, with your Lordships' leave, to move it in the following form:—
"It shall be the duty of the council of every borough, county borough, and urban district having a population of twenty thousand and upwards, to take such steps as may be necessary to acquire land either within or outside its administrative area at a reasonable price, with a view to the establishment thereon hereafter of allotment gardens on an economic basis, if and as the needs of the local population so require."
I may remind your Lordships that the great difficulty which arises in the case of allotment gardens outside a great urban area is that of acquiring the land at anything like an economic value, bearing in mind that the rents charged to the allotment holders are bound, if it is to be an economic proposition, to be based upon the price paid on the acquisition of the land.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has recognised that in the Report which he and his colleagues have signed and submitted to Parliament. Paragraph 18 of that Report is as follows:
"The evidence we have received from the representatives of the allotment holders has been unanimous as indicating a keen desire for security of tenure."
They go on to say in the same paragraph:—
"In order that such security may be given, however, it is necessary that land should be purchased by the local authority or by an allotments association. We are strongly of the opinion that local authorities should adopt a lung-sighted policy in this matter, and purchase land for allotments where practicable, within or on the outskirts of the town."
My new clause is moved with the object of asking the Government to put into operation that very strong expression of opinion of the noble Earl opposite which I have just read.
Under the present system, as your Lordships will realise, when there comes an urgent demand for allotments, land has suddenly to be acquired, land of high capital value, based upon its value for industrial purposes, and it has to be let or sub-let to the allotment holders at rates which they find it very difficult to pay. Local authorities already have these powers, but there is no statutory obligation upon them to take this long-sighted view and acquire land either by purchase or on lease in what I may call the outer zone around the boundaries of their closely populated areas. It is with that object that I move this Amendment, and I may remind the noble Lord opposite that there is already
662
a valuable precedent for such a clause as this in Section 8 of the Ministry of Agriculture Act, which provides that local authorities in similar fashion shall take such steps as may be necessary to develop rural industries and social ventures in rural localities. I hope that your Lordships will favourably consider this Amendment, and, in order to make it less difficult for those who follow us when future legislation has to be submitted on this subject, that you will pass the Amendment, and put this obligation upon local authorities of urban areas.
Amendment moved—
After clause 3, insert the following new clause:
"It shall be the duty of the council of every borough, county borough and urban district having a population of twenty thousand and upwards, to take such steps as may be necessary to acquire land either within or outside its administrative area at a reasonable price, with a view to the establishment thereon hereafter of allotment gardens on an economic basis, if and as the needs of the local population so require."—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD CLINTON: Before the noble Earl replies, I wish to add one word to what my noble friend has said upon this Amendment, and to remind your Lordships that under the principal Act, the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908, a council is prohibited from purchasing land at all for this purpose, unless it can do it at a price for which it may expect to be recouped from the rents of the allotment holders. It seems certain that the land now under allotments will, in the course of a few years, be required for building or industrial development, and that the present holders will have to be dispossessed, and other land found for them. Unless the local authority looks sufficiently far forward and gets on to some area of land which has now not obtained its full prospective building value, they will then have to let the land at a price which it will be very difficult indeed for the allotment holders to pay. For that reason it seems essential that they should be instructed to take a long-sighted view of the matter, and acquire land well in advance of requirements.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): I honestly confess that I did not quite understand the whole purport and the actual working of the noble Lord's Amendment, because not only was it not

663
handed in until last night, but this morning, when I came down to the House, I found that the noble Lord had made alterations in it. It is, of course, a little difficult, with the complexities of the allotment law, and at such short notice, and with alterations at the last moment, to examine very closely what exactly will be the effect of the Amendment and what are the powers of allotment authorities at the present moment. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as it is.
It is perfectly right that in the Report of the Departmental Committee it is pointed out that it would be advisable for allotment authorities, especially in large towns, to look ahead as regards the provision of land for allotments. So far as I have been able to ascertain, at the present moment they possess such powers, and I think the noble Lord himself said so, because he said that at the present moment the Councils have power to acquire land, not only inside but outside their own areas, for the purpose of allotments. But he goes on to say that he wishes to make it a statutory duty or obligation, and I cannot accept the Amendment if that is its intention. Perhaps it was a pious aspiration which we expressed in our Report, that we hoped these authorities would look ahead, but they can do so now under their present powers, and I cannot accept an Amendment which would place such a statutory duty upon them.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I will not detain your Lordships more than a minute, but I confess that I heard the proposal of my noble friend opposite with some astonishment. I am very glad that he reminded your Lordships of the fact that there is power already under which local authorities can go outside their area and acquire land for certain purposes. Obviously, that is a necessary power to give to some authorities, who are circumscribed in their area; but may I point out what the Amendment means? It means that you are to make it a statutory duty, for all time, for local authorities to look ahead—to make it a statutory duty to speculate in land outside their area, and not with their own money but with the money of the ratepayers.
A local authority's first duty is to be the trustee, and the faithful trustee, of public money, which they can extract from the pockets of the ratepayers under compulsion. Yet it is actually proposed by my noble
664
friend that we are to make it a compulsory duty on them to speculate in land. It means, in all human probability, if this country goes on as it has gone on of late years and the population continues to grow, that some local authorities, looking ahead, under their compulsory powers will buy land and in a short time will find that it is worth a great deal more than they gave for it. They will sell it, but it does not follow that they will buy other land. This is speculation in land, which is the most dangerous form of speculation of which I know, and I hope that the local authorities will, as far as possible, be deterred by Parliament from doing anything of the sort.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I feel bound, after the very interesting and somewhat forcible speech of the noble Viscount, to remind him that he lives, I believe, about half-way between the Cities of Salisbury and Bristol. In the City of Salisbury the corporation has done exactly what I am suggesting should be indicated to all the local authorities in the country, and it has thereby not only satisfied its allotment holders on economic lines, but it has saved its ratepayers an enormous cost, which otherwise, during the last few years, would have fallen upon them. In the City of Bristol you are faced with a far more difficult problem. A large number of citizens still require allotments, and the difficulty there is that they cannot obtain land on anything like fair terms to the holders, because the industrial value of it is so high. I have been careful not to put the word "purchase" in my Amendment. I have used the words "to acquire" because they will enable the authority, at a peppercorn rent, to obtain a long lease of land outside their boundaries, and so to save the ratepayers in days to come from the heavy burden which has been incurred by some of our crowded urban districts.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4:
Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.
4.—(1) The period during which an order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments is under section one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, exempted from the requirement of submission to and confirmation by the Minister is hereby extended to the nineteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
(2) The restrictions imposed by section forty-one of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, on the compulsory acquisition of land

665
which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking shall not apply to the hiring of land by a council of a borough or urban district for the purpose of providing allotment gardens:
Provided that every such hiring shall be subject to a condition enabling—

(a) the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when reasonably required by the corporation or company for the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation or company; and

(b) nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the protection given by the said section forty-one to land which is the property of a local authority.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, counsel shall not be heard in any arbitration under this Act or as to compensation payable for land acquired for allotments under the Allotments Acts unless the Minister otherwise directs.
(4) Paragraph 2 (b) of Part II. of Schedule I. to the Small holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908, which restricts the breaking up of pasture compulsorily hired, shall not apply to land compulsorily hired for the provision of allotment gardens.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this subsection extends for one year the time under which local authorities are enabled to acquire land without any appeal from the owners concerned. At an earlier stage of the Bill the noble Earl in charge pointed out that there was a difference between this clause and Clause 1, because under Clause 1 the land was given voluntarily by the owner. So long as subsection (1) of Clause 4 remains, then for another year land can be taken under Clause 1 of the Bill without any appeal from the owners whatever. It wipes away the argument with regard to three months' notice, because under this clause it can be taken without appeal in the first instance. That power was first given entirely as a war measure because, as we all agreed, conditions were then peculiar, and we gave the power solely for the period of the war.
I suggest to your Lordships that conditions have now changed, and there seems no real reason why this power of taking land without any appeal should be continued for a further year. In the Report of the Departmental Committee reference was, I think, made to this question, and, so far as I remember, the noble Earl's Committee stated that they thought it would be a rather difficult, and perhaps an
666
inadvisable course, to suggest an extension of this period. In the end I forget whether they actually made a recommendation or not. I suggest to your Lordships that, now that war conditions are at an end, a power such as this, which enables land to be taken from an owner without any appeal, should not be extended for a further period.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 18 to 24, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. When the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, was passed there was a great cry to get the ex-soldier on to the land. We all sympathised with that movement. But there is now no longer any need for this power which allows a council to take land compulsorily without the sanction of the Minister. The time has arrived, in my opinion, when the landowner might be given some small protection.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I freely admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl in this Amendment. As a general rule I think it is a very great pity to allow a local authority to issue a compulsory order without reference to the Minister, and that there should be some court of appeal. We desire to extend the period chiefly owing to the fact that a very large amount of land, which is accommodating something like a quarter of a million allotment holders, will cease to be held by them in March next, and it is quite possible that them will be a good deal of hurry. We are now well into the summer, and it will be August before this Bill passes. There is no doubt that there will be a considerable number of cases in which a good deal of difficulty will be experienced in obtaining land. In fact, I am not sanguine enough to feel that land can be obtained for all the people who will be displaced next March. We are trying to give facilities so that as many as possible should remain.
We feel that during this next autumn and early spring a very large number of compulsory orders may have to be issued, very likely for land which is already held as allotments, and if every one of these orders has to be confirmed by the Ministry a considerable increase of staff will probably be necessary. Of course, we shall have to

667
send one of our out-door staff down to hold a meeting, a report will have to be sent to us, and very likely more than one meeting will have to be held in order to find out if there is other land available. In that way a certain amount of expense, and a good deal of delay, would be involved. It is for that reason alone that we consented to put into the Bill the provision that confirmation of these compulsory orders should not be required for another year. Therefore, though I sympathise with the noble Earl's object, I consider there is rather a special case at the present moment.
LORD CLINTON: There have been many measures dealing with the compulsory purchase of land, but I think the Act of 1919 was the only one by which it was permissible to take all classes of land, including parks and gardens, without any form of appeal by the landowner. Here there is a power to take land which hitherto has always been excepted from the ordinary provisions for taking land for allotments. This has only been done before for the specific purpose of doing away with the difficulty of settling the
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
ex-soldier, and we agreed to it for a period of two years only. At this stage I do not think we ought to be asked to extend the provision for a further period.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am bound to say I think there is a great deal of force in the noble Earl's proposal. The Bill gives unlimited powers to acquire land by compulsion, in circumstances which might be very peculiar and very unfortunate. Nobody can accuse me of being opposed to compulsion, where it has been found to be necessary, for the purchase of allotments, for I believe I was the first Member of Parliament who ever introduced a compulsory allotments measure—which, if I remember rightly, created some consternation in the mind of my noble friend's father. But at the same time I should find great difficulty in supporting the present Amendment, and I rather hope my noble friend will not press it.
On Question, Whether subsection (1) shall stand part of the Clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dewar, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Emmott, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Devonport, V.

Faringdon, L.

Knollys, V.

Gorell, L.

Peel, V.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Aberdare, L.

Islington, L.

Bradford, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Clarendon, E.

Brownlow, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Eldon,E.

Cawley, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Charnwood, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Strachie, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Stamford, E.

Colwyn, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Allendale, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Chaplin, V

Gainford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Churchill, V.

Harris, L.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M,

Hood, V.

Joicey, L.

Abingdon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough more.)

Lawrence, L.

Derby, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Long, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Novar, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Jersey, E.

Ullswater, V.

Raglan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Redesdale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Rotherham, L.

Mayo, E.

Barrymore, L.

Roundway, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Seaforth, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Ernle, L.

Terrington, L.

Strafford, E.

Erskine, L.

Wyfold, L.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, shortly before the proviso in subsection (2), after

669
"borough" to insert "county borough." The noble Lord said: It is clear that there is no difference in principle in this matter between a borough and a county borough or a large urban district, and I might remind the noble Earl that the Interpretation Act, 1889, makes the meaning of "borough" perfectly clear for all time in all future Statutes. First of all, it says:
"In this Act and in every Act passed after the commencement of this Act the following expressions shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them."
And at the end it says:
"The expression 'borough' when used in relation to local government shall mean a municipal borough. …"
To make it still more clear that a county borough is here excluded, the noble Earl has put in his Bill an interpretation clause in which it is stated that a borough includes a municipal borough and, therefore, necessarily excludes a county borough.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("borough") insert ("county borough").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am informed that this is not at all necessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The whole case is covered by the interpretation.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have taken great care to get legal advice on the subject and to look up the Statutes myself, and I think the least the noble Earl might have done, if only in response to my industry in the matter, was to tell me why he thinks the Amendment is not necessary.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am very sorry; I hope I have not treated the noble Lord with any disrespect; I did not wish to do so in any sense whatever. But there are a great many Amendments to this Bill and a great many were handed in very late in the day, and that is why—
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl has repeatedly referred to my Amendments as having been handed in late in the day. This Amendment has been on the Paper for over a week.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord informs me that he has taken legal
670
advice on this matter. I can only say that I have taken legal advice on the matter, and I am informed that these words are unnecessary. I have also taken the trouble to go into the question and find out about it, and, as I say, I am told that the words proposed are not necessary. I shall be very pleased, however, examine it again and, it necessary, to put them into the Bill on Report.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I shall certainly put this Amendment down on the Report stage and, perhaps, the noble Earl will be good enough to study the reasons which, during the last five minutes, I have given for moving this Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD BLEDISLOE: No, I really cannot, on principle, withdraw it. I am quite prepared to see it through.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I thought from what the noble Lord said that he was going to withdraw his Amendment now, and put it down on Report.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Very well, let it be as you wish.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: No, it is as the noble Lord wishes.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am afraid I do not know sufficient of the procedure of the House, but I will withdraw it if I have the right to put it on the Paper on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think my noble friend will see that the wiser course is to withdraw his Amendment now. There is no question of hostility between the noble Earl and himself about it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is merely a matter of drafting, and the noble Lord will retain his rights in regard to the next stage if he withdraws his Amendment now. There will be no prejudice against him on Report if he takes that step.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after "urban district" to insert "or by

671
the council of a county to whom the powers and duties of an urban district council have been transferred under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 24 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils' Association, who are anxious that it shall be made quite clear that they have under this clause the same powers as urban district councils have of acquiring land compulsorily. As your Lordships are aware, under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, there are certain lands such as parks and home farms and, in the case of a municipal corporation or a company, railways, docks or canals, which are exempted by Section 41 of the Act.
It is proposed by this clause, so far as urban district councils and boroughs are concerned, to remove that restriction where there is compulsory hiring for the purpose of providing allotment gardens. Therefore, it seems very desirable, in the case of a county council, that they should have the power that the urban council has, if the urban council default. In cases of default of an urban council it is necessary for the county council to come in and provide the allotments which the urban district council has failed to provide. I hope the noble Earl will see that it is very necessary to make it quite clear that the county councils have the powers, in cases of default, which are given by this clause to the urban district councils. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("district") insert ("or by the council of a county to whom the powers and duties of an urban district council have been transferred under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 24 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord has raised an interesting point in this connection, and I think the best course will be to accept his Amendment, subject to consideration on Report, so that we may look a little further into exactly how the law stands in regard to this matter. The position, as I understand it, is that the noble Lord's Amendment to Clause 4 is not required; that compulsory powers already exist; and that it is the law that a county council could act in default where the county council is the authority to which an appeal is given. Consequently, the words of the Amendment are not required in this clause. Moreover, I do not think
672
the Amendment can stand in its present form on Report, because there are certain cases in which the Minister, under existing Acts, has power to act in default. If you put in a provision to the effect that the county council have power to act in default you should also put one to the effect that the Minister has power to act in default. The noble Lord has a similar Amendment to a later clause. There, I think, his Amendment is necessary, because Clause 6 is an entirely new proposal in regard to procedure. My best plan will be to accept this Amendment. There is a point arising on both clauses, and on Report I can put in any Amendment which I think necessary to make the law absolutely clear.
LORD STRACHIE: I thank the noble Earl for saying that he will accept my Amendment subject to further consideration. Perhaps, between now and Report, he will be kind enough to allow me to talk to him about it, because I think he misunderstands the purport of this Amendment. It does not interfere with the Minister. All it does is to make it absolutely clear that the county council shall have the same powers that are given to an urban district council under this clause. The Minister is not brought into it at all.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I see the noble Lord's point.
LORD STRACHIE: It is merely a question of procedure. It is intended to make the matter quite clear and has nothing at all to do with the Minister.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "required" to insert "and intended to be used forthwith." The noble Lord said: Personally, I have every sympathy with corporations or companies desiring bona fide to resume possession of ground used temporarily for allotments, but it is only fair to ask that on such resumption, and before displacement of allotment holders, it shall be clearly intended by the corporation or company to use the ground for the purposes for which they have previously acquired it. There is nothing about which the allotment holders complain more strongly in these urban centres than the fact that companies and corporations acquire land by Statute.

673
for certain definite purposes, but are unable for some time to come to use the land which, in the meantime, is covered by brickbats and rubbish, and is not available for purposes of allotments. I hope the noble Earl, in the circumstances, will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, after ("required") insert ("and intended to be used forthwith").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I rise to a point, of Order. This is an Amendment to line 36, and there is an Amendment down in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport, which deals with the whole of subsection (2). That surely has priority over this Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think there is a precedent; both ways. It has been put down in this order to enable us to amend the subsection before we decide whether we will retain it or not. I think it will be your Lordships' pleasure that by the moving of Lord Bledisloe's Amendment Lord Devonport should not lose his right.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: With regard to the Amendment, it is reasonably clear that if land is required by a corporation for a particular use it is because it is intended to be used at a very early date for that purpose. I think the Amendment is unnecessary, and that it would be undesirable to put it in this clause unless it is inserted in all the other similar provisions. I suggest to the noble Lord that it is not really necessary in any of the clauses bearing on this matter.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not accept the noble Earl's view, but I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT VISCOUNT DEVONPORT moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment on behalf of the Dock and Harbour Associations of the kingdom, which embraces all the leading authorities, such as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Man nester Ship Canal, the Bristol Docks, the Tyne Conservators, and many others. I am aware that other interests are concerned, and that probably they will speak to tins Amendment. The object of the Amendment is
674
simple, and I shall state it, I hope, quite candidly. It is to preserve to the dock authorities the control over their lands which they at present enjoy under express Parliamentary sanction. The principal Act which deals with allotments is that of 1908. In one of its sections—I think Section 41—dock authorities are expressly exempted from its conditions. But under this supplementary Act that exemption, so far as hiring goes, disappears. In fact, this Bill seeks to repeal the exemption. My Amendment to leave out the subsection will operate to the extent of leaving us precisely as we are, maintaining the status quo.
In case it may be assumed that port authorities are hostile to the letting of allotments, and that they put. impediments in the way of people who desire to rent allotments, let me say at once that all the dock authorities endeavour to their utmost to meet any demand for allotments in any locality where they have land that is not being utilised, but they let always on one basis—I want to be frank about this—and that is that they shall resume possession "as and when required." There is no hostility on their part to the letting of their land for allotments, provided that they can maintain that principle, which my Amendment will maintain. That system of tenure has always worked well. There is nothing arbitrary about it, and the relations between landlord and tenant in that particular have been friendly, and, I hope, cordial. I have still to hear from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that he can adduce one single case where a public authority of this kind has ever acted in an unsympathetic or arbitrary way in dealing with allotment holders. I do not throw that out in the way of a challenge. I am certain that if the noble Earl had such a case, it would be his duty to cite it against the particular party, but from all the inquiries I have made I have never heard it asserted that any public authority, or any port authority, has ever objected to the letting of allotments.
Why do we then move this Amendment? It is because under the terms and conditions under which we hold these lands it is expressly understood that we use them for a particular and special purpose. We do not hold lands for amenity purposes. We are not sporting owners. All these lands are given to port authorities and public authorities for public purposes,

675
to be utilised to the public benefit. Hitherto, Parliament has realised this, and we fail to see, therefore, why a Bill of this kind should come and sweep away the whole of the statutory advantages that Parliament has accorded us. We have not stolen land, or wrenched land in an unfair way. It has been given to us after full and exhaustive public inquiry whenever Acts of Parliament have been passed under which we have been accorded an exemption.
Parliament has really recognised that the public authorities for which I am speaking should have an unfettered right to deal with their surplus lands as they think fit, and, accordingly, they have been expressly exempted from Acts of Parliament which apply to land under private ownership. In the celebrated Finance Act of 1910 the land of public authorities was completely exempted from the Land Values Duties imposed by that Act. There are other precedents I can quote in Acts of Parliament passed within the last few years. An Act was passed in 1909 dealing with road improvement and development, which gave powers compulsorily to acquire land for road development; it expressly excluded the lands of public authorities. The Housing and Town Planning Act, passed in the same year, gave to certain people the right to acquire land for that particular purpose. There again the lands of public authorities were expressly exempted, and even under the Defence of the Realm Act, in which extraordinary powers were given to the Government to take possession of land, and, if they liked, buy it compulsorily, it was laid down that where they took possession of the land of a port authority or a public authority they were bound to return it within three months after the termination of the war. I have said enough to show that these public authorities have been placed by Parliament in a specially protected position; some may say a specially privileged position, but I do not think that can be urged against us in view of our record in relation to this Bill and allotments.
What will be our position if we fail in this Amendment? We shall come within the provisions of the Bill. Under this clause the Minister of Agriculture will be able to make an order at the request of someone compulsorily to hire the land of these public authorities, repealing the exemption we already enjoy under the principal Act. Having once issued an
676
order, when it comes to the question of re-entering, possession can only be resumed on the certificate of the Minister of Agriculture, that the land so let is "reasonably required for the purposes of the undertaking." Just fancy a great public authority having to go and prove, their word not being sufficient, that this land is "reasonably required." I have no idea what is the nature of the proof demanded, or the nature of the investigation in order to show whether we have a reasonable requirement to resume possession of land which has been granted to us for an expressed public purpose, to be used for the benefit of the public.
This will involve a great amount of delay, a great deal of correspondence, and certainly will beget friction. What object is to be gained? There is no particular object to be gained. In the Second Reading debate the noble Earl, speaking on this particular point, met some of the criticisms which have been made, and said that the renter of an allotment ought to be protected against the whim—that I think was the word he used—of a public authority. In the next sentence he said that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there would be no difficulty whatever. So for the isolated one-hundredth case the statutory position of these public authorities is going to be turned down.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I said that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the question whether the land was "reasonably required" would be settled out of court.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: Settled out of court! But why not settle it in the way we settle it now? Why not leave it as it is? I have been suite frank as to the terms on which we let the land. We let the land on resumption terms at will, and we do not dream of objecting to the payment of fair compensation. I heard a debate last evening as to whether the radius of compensation in the Bill is wide enough. I do not know, but if you widen the radius of compensation we shall not whimper. We do not mind that at all. We are prepared to pay compensation to everyone who has a right to compensation. All we want is to maintain our statutory position, confirmed over and over again by Acts of Parliament.
When it comes to the question of being "reasonably required" I should like to

677
say a word about the appeal court before whom we shall have to appear, either by correspondence or in person. As regards a local authority the court of appeal is the Minister of Health; as regards a public authority, such as those for whom I am speaking, the Minister of Agriculture is the individual; I see also that the Government is interested. In Clause 15 it says that where any question arises as to whether land is "reasonably required," in the case of a local authority it is to be determined by the Ministry of Health; in the ease of a public authority by the Ministry of Agriculture; and where the landlord is a Government Department it is to be determined by a certificate issued by the Department. By an independent assessor? No; but by the Government itself. It would be very interesting to hear what the noble Earl is able to urge for this privileged preference for a Government Department. The Government has to say "Yes" or "No" on sight. It would be impertinent for me to measure the public authorities against the Government, but I really think that if the Government are so self-satisfied as to their own power to decide this matter without having an independent tribunal, they might at least leave us where we are at present.
I notice another extraordinary inconsistency in the subsection that I am seeking to destroy. The land of local authorities cannot be compulsorily hired. These bodies are exempted. We are exempted now, but our exemption is to go. The position is that in a few clays we shall be treated worse than a district council. These great public bodies that had statutory exemption for so long will find themselves, if we fail to get rid of this subsection, in the sorry position that, whereas the land of a district council cannot be compulsorily hired, the land of a great public authority can. I will not detain your Lordships except to say one further word. I noticed yesterday, when I was speaking on the first Amendment, that my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, and, I think, Lord Dynevor, asked why public authorities should have any exemption at all. That point was put also, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who was speaking, of course, on behalf of the landlord, who, he said, was attacked in this Bill. The noble Earl admits that. Would he mind my replying in the tu quoque manner, and asking why landowners should be exempted? In the very section of the
678
principal Act where we, the dock authorities, have exemption, the landowners also have exemption, and that exemption is not to disappear.
The noble Earl probably knows the section to which am referring; it is Section 41 of the principal Act, which says that—
"No land shall be authorised by an order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house —"
and so on, and, further on, exemption is accorded to public authorities. I do not want that exemption destroyed, but I think it is a fair reply, when it is asked why public authorities should obtain an exemption, to say that, if there is to be an exemption, it should be made applicable to all. I beg to move.
Amendment noved—
Page 4, lines 25 to 43, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Devonport.)
EARL STANHOPE: I am very glad to take up the challenge of the noble Viscount here and now. The reason why an exemption is given to parks and pleasure grounds is that they may be preserved for that purpose. The reason why exemption is taken away from docks and harbour companies is that the land which had that exemption is not required for the purposes for which exemption was granted. The moment it is required for docks, harbours or railways, they have power under the Bill to regain it forthwith. It may be pointed out that the word "reasonable" has come out, and I fail to understand, therefore, why the noble Viscount is so frightened of having to appeal to a Minister. As I understand it, he will not now have to show whether the appeal is reasonable or not, but merely that the land is required.
There is this further point. The noble Earl said that no authority had ever dealt unfairly with allotment holders. If he had included local authorities, I should have said that I have had two cases brought to my notice quite recently by officials of the National Union of Allotment Holders which were among the most scandalous I have ever heard of.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: Were they public authorities?
EARL STANHOPE: They were local authorities, not public authorities. I do

679
not know whether there are any cases against public authorities; there may or may not be. At any rate, the National Union of Allotment Holders, when I asked them if there were any cases of land being regained and then not used, gave me those of local authorities and not of private owners. It seems to me that that disposes of the whole essence of this Amendment.
The noble Viscount quotes precedents from Acts of Parliament which have been passed in recent years. I do not wish to bring controversial matters into this discussion, but I would point out that every one of the measures to which he referred was passed by a Radical Government. A Radical Government always attacks private ownership. The trend of legislation under Radical Governments ever since they came into power has been either to put land under public authorities or, at any rate, to cripple the rights of private owners. We see the result in the state of land at the present time. I do not want to go further into that, but when the noble Viscount quotes authorities of this kind, I want to know whether there is any real reason why a difference should be made between private owners and public authorities. If he can show that land is going to be taken under this clause, and that the public authority will be unable to regain it for the purpose for which it was required, then I think he has made out his case. But I listened to him attentively, and I am bound to say, with all clue respect to the noble Viscount, that I did not get that impression.
Loan DYNEVOR: Apart from the merits or demerits of this Amendment, I should like to put right one misconception which I think has arisen in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport. If I understood him rightly, he said that a private park could not be taken for allotments. It is perfectly true that it was exempted under the principal Act, but if he will turn to the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, he will see that that particular section has been repealed.
LORD CLWYD: As I have also put down this Amendment, I may be allowed to say one or two sentences upon it. I have already more than once indicated my view that there is a clear distinction between the two cases of privately owned land and land which is held for public purposes. The question which we have particularly to
680
consider and to decide is the comparative weight of these two interests; the interests, on the one side, of a private individual, and the interests, on the other side, of a public body which holds its land for public purposes. I would remind the House that, at all events in the past, Parliament has recognised this distinction. I will not recall again the very many Acts of Parliament in which the distinction is expressed and embodied, but I should like to say—and I speak, as I said yesterday, as one who is in no way officially connected with dock and harbour boards or with railway companies, but as one who holds a very strong view as to the importance of the interests which they have to safeguard—that the record of these public authorities is one which ought to have sonic weight with us in deciding the question raised by this Amendment.
As my noble friend, Lord Devonport, has said, I do not think that there is a single case on record of a complaint having been made that the land of these public authorities has been unreasonably withheld from use for the purpose of allotments. Having regard to the recognition afforded to these public authorities, and the desirability of avoiding friction in this matter as far as possible, I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, when he comes to reply, will be able to give a favourable opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: Surely the Bill as it stands fully recognises the particular position of a statutory company that has taken land for statutory purposes. Subsection (2) first of all refers to the restrictions imposed by Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act on the compulsory acquisition of such land. That is quite proper, and that is the law at the present time. The noble Viscount, Lord Devon-port, would not seek to interfere with that. But the subsection goes on to say that the restriction "shall not apply to the hiring of land by a council of a borough or urban district for the purpose of providing allotment gardens." Therefore, the only power with which we are dealing here is the power of hiring land by a council of a borough or urban district for the purpose of providing allotment gardens.
Now how is the statutory position of a company perfectly safeguarded? I take out the word "reasonably" which is to be deleted, and the clause reads:
"Provided that every such hiring shall be subject to a condition enabling—

681
the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required by the corporation or company for I the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation or company;"
Therefore, all the powers which these companies now have to resume possession of land would be fully and absolutely preserved under the terms of the Bill as it stands.
If you entirely preserve the statutory position I feel that it is not right to draw a distinction between the different kinds of ownership, because as soon as you preserve those statutory rights these companies are in the same position as any other landowner; that is to say, they are open to let out that land for such public purposes as allotment gardens. It is their case that they do it, and are willing to do it, and why should not a borough or urban council be enabled to hire land from them, provided, of course, that their statutory ditties and purposes are absolutely preserved, and that they can resume possession when the land is required for their statutory purposes I entirely object to the word "reasonably" and I understand that it has gone.
LORD JOICEY: I understand what my noble friend says, but there is one very important point to which he has not alluded. Certain duties are thrown upon various public authorities to carry out certain works, but while land may be bought for special purposes, in other cases it is bought for the general use of the railway, so that it may carry out the particular duties which Parliament has thrown upon it. There are cases where it is absolutely necessary that things must be settled quickly. I have known of eases where, after an accident has taken place, it has been absolutely necessary within forty-eight hours to make a siding in order to avoid the risk of a similar accident.
LORD PARMOOR: They can do it in two minutes.
LORD JOICEY: Yes, but we have to give notice. No doubt Parliament in its wisdom had these questions put before it when it passed these Acts of Parliament, and when it exempted docks and railways from the operation of the Allotments Act, and I do not see why we should depart from that. I think it would be very unwise indeed to depart from the law
682
which has been so well laid down, not in one case but in so many. It is absolutely necessary that we should be able to deal with the thing very quickly. I have had some experience, because I happen to be chairman of one of the largest railways; we constantly have to decide things very quickly indeed. I am sure that if we put these companies under the ordinary obligation of a private landowner we shall interfere with the transport service in many cases. Therefore, I trust you will maintain the law as it is, and exempt port authorities and railways from interference in this matter.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I can assure Lord Devonport, and other noble Lords who have spoken on behalf of these large statutory companies, that I fully appreciate their ease, and all that they have said as regards the importance of the duties which they have to carry out, and also their sympathy towards the allotment movement. I cannot recollect that during the whole of the proceedings of the Departmental Committee a single witness complained against any of these statutory bodies, on the ground that they refused to let land for allotments, or endeavoured to put undue obstacles in the way of allotments.
Having said so much, I should like the noble Lord to consider another aspect of the question. In the first instance, the word "reasonably" will come out of the Bill. I had intended to make this Amendment all through, so that the clause will read "required" instead of "reasonably required." In addition to that, if this clause stands I also intend to ask the noble Viscount whether it will make any difference to his opposition if I should suggest that the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Agriculture should be the Minister to affirm an order in regard to transport companies, and that in every other case the order should be confirmed by the Minister of Health?
My reason for hoping that this subsection may stand in the Bill is this: Though it is perfectly true that it is impossible to bring evidence to show that these companies have not behaved well, we cannot be always certain that they will do so in the future. It was pointed out that there are cases of private companies who go in to supply water for a town, and for that purpose purchase a considerable amount of ground.

683
It is possible that such a company might be unwilling to let any of its land for allotments, although it might not go on with the building of its reservoir or works for ten or twelve years. Would it not be very annoying for all those interested in the allotment movement if they saw a piece of land, very suitable for allotment, and yet, owing to a provision in an Act of Parliament, found that there was no power to compel the company to let it?
In a case like that, as this clause stands, with the Amendment I have suggested, it does not seem unreasonable that the local authority should approach them and ask them to let the land. If they refuse, without giving any good reason, the local authority will then say: "Well, really, we think this is a very dog-in-the-manger point of view, and unless you give us a more satisfactory reason we shall serve you with a compulsory order." Before they could get a compulsory order confirmed, they would have to go to the Minister of Health and not to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Health would then have to decide whether there was any reason—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What Amendment is the noble Earl referring to?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not know that I have got it down on the Paper. I was only suggesting the Minister of Health instead of the Minister of Agriculture because Lord Devonport is objecting to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Health would then decide whether this order should be confirmed. When the lease is let under a compulsory order it would be perfectly reasonable to put in it any condition under that compulsory order for resumption of land for the purposes required. In some of these instances to which the noble Lord behind me referred, where the land was wanted immediately, there would be nothing to prevent putting in the lease a provision that if the land was urgently required for works in connection with the undertaking the company could resume possession at twenty-four hours' notice.
A point was raised on Clause 1, when this question was also mentioned. I then said that if railway companies, for instance, had been left in Clause 1, it was quite possible that if they had let the land on one of their embankments to people and their embankment began to slip, they might have to wait
684
a month. As a matter of fact, they would not, as we know, but I believe they would be acting illegally, and I thought it right, on Clause 1, to point that out to the House. But on this occasion I do not think there would be anything in the lease, and it would not be likely to occur. After all, these compulsory orders for leasing land are made under certain conditions. There is nothing to prevent the putting in of clauses giving a company power, in order to carry out their work, to re-enter at very short notice indeed. Though I admit a strong case has been made out for these companies, I think instances may occur where a good deal of land which might otherwise be used for allotments, which is a good public purpose, would be lost for that purpose.
A point was also raised as regards the local authorities being exempt. I think that was reasonable, because in almost every case the local authority would be issuing the compulsory order against itself, because it would be the allotment authority.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I suppose paragraph (b), which saves the case for local authorities, does contemplate the possibility of a local authority having a bit of territory under the jurisdiction of another local authority, which could not apply in any other case really. But, on the general question, I am afraid our position remains rather indefinite, even after what the noble Earl has said. He says that in the case of water you shall have the fiat of the Minister of Health. I did not quite understand whether it was to be the Minister of Health in the case of a railway.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I said the Minister of Transport.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It still remains the fact that we have had this exemption renewed over and over again, in a long catena of cases, in which, by common admission, there has been no ground for complaint, except in the one case of the kind of authority which is going to have its exemption continued. There remains the case of private owners, and it is a little hard to deny to us an exemption which they will continue to enjoy. I dislike speaking in this way of some of 'my friends and their beautiful estates. There are differences, no doubt, but there is going to be this invidious

685
distinction between one class of owner and another. And, after all this length of time, not a single case of arbitrary usage has been proved against them.
What happens in these cases? The railway companies and other similar public utility companies no doubt like to see their own employees with their little gardens on their little bits of spare land. I do not know that there exist so many of the very large spaces which have been referred to, and certainly the railway companies have not got them. It is true also that they do not always let to their own employees; but the spaces are let on perfectly well understood conditions, namely, that they should be resumed for railway purposes or for the purposes of the undertaking. Everybody concerned thoroughly understands what that means, and is perfectly well content to accept the precarious tenure which necessarily results. And I think that is a reasonable state of things, which ought not to have been interfered with where no case of public mischief or of arbitrary conduct is proved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The discussion has been a little complicated by the speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, because he has been perpetually hinting at certain provisions which are not before us. The whole of the case which Lord Devonport made turned upon the word "reasonably," because if "reasonably" is struck out of this clause, as it was struck out on the Motion of my noble friend behind me in a former clause, all the provisions in Clause 15 providing for going before a particular Minister to get a certificate fall to the ground. It all turns upon the word "reasonably." Clause 15 (2) would have to go out; consequently—
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: We were distinctly told last night that "reasonably" could be replaced by "bona fide."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had not forgotten that. The noble Lord might trust me for that.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Yes, but it creates a very different impression.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I want to put myself right with the noble Viscount, and also with my noble friend, Lord Stuart of Wortley. I am entirely in favour of these great public companies having power to resume possession of their land the moment they require it. I do
686
not want them to go through any procedure at all. I want them, when they require the land, to have it, and if the word "reasonably" were struck out of this clause, and none of the vague substitutes of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill were put in, that would be the effect.
Then the clause would read, after the proper consequential Amendment has been made—
"The corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required by the corporation or company."
There would then be no question at all; whenever they required it, they would resume possession of the land. That is what ought to be the case. It should be so also in the ease of private owners. They all ought to have the land back when they require it for the legitimate purposes of building or development, or for the work of the company as the case may be.
My noble friend and I are really agreed. I should like my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment, and to let us strike out the word "reasonably" and be done with it. That, I believe, would interpret the general feeling of your Lordships. What we want to do is to make all the land we can available for allotments, but where the land is really required for some other purpose—for building, or for any other legitimate purpose—then it should be capable of being re-acquired without any formalities at all. That is the position which we occupy, and I should have thought that it was quite a simple position. I hope that we shall tot be forced to divide against my noble friends with whom we really agree. I hope they will withdraw their Amendment, and leave us, as we may if they withdraw it, to strike out the word "reasonably" and so put public companies and landowners on exactly the same footing. They are all anxious for allotments and anxious to carry out the public purposes with which they have been entrusted.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: If I may say so, the suggestion made by the noble Marquess is a very alluring one, but I should like to know before I accept it on what sort of ground we shall stand if we adopt it. Will the noble Earl be good enough to inform me whether, assuming that we accept the noble Marquess's suggestion, there will be any necessity for us to prove to anybody that the land is

687
required? That is the whole point. The noble Marquess suggests that if we get rid of the word "reasonably" there will be an end of it. But if the machinery remains we have still to prove that the land is required. I do not mind whether the word "reasonably" is kept in or not; it has no effect upon us. You can put in any other words you like in addition to "reasonably." What we want is to be free from any interference at all. Even if we strike out the word "reasonably," I suggest that we shall still be subject to tribunal jurisdiction, and that is where I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Marquess. Probably he is aware that we shall still be subject to tribunal jurisdiction. If that is so, our case is not going to be bettered, and I much prefer to take my chance on a Division. Perhaps the noble Earl can reassure me and say that if we agree to the deletion of the word "reasonably," there will be an end of the matter, and there will be no tribunal jurisdiction. But I fear that he cannot do that.
LORD JOICEY: I would suggest that the Amendment should be persisted in. The noble Earl made some remarks regarding the delay in getting possession of land by applying to a Minister. Evidently the noble Earl has not had much experience of dealing with Ministers or heads of Departments. I have had experience, and I have always found that it takes a great deal of time to get a decision from a Department or a Minister of the Crown. I can give your Lordships some very amusing instances. Where it was a question of great danger—a matter which we would have settled in two minutes in our own business—we had to apply to the Controller, and it took us six weeks to get a reply from him. Therefore, I cannot accept the statement that has been made that it can be easily done. If you have to apply to a Minister you will find that there will be a great deal of trouble, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I point out that there will be no application to the Minister at all. The provision is that every such hiring—that is, the hire of the ground—shall be subject to a condition (I am taking out the word "reasonably") enabling the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required. They will be in exactly the same position as they are in now.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Perhaps I had better intervene here as I do not wish that anybody should vote on this question under a false impression. I certainly did state that although the word "reasonably" was struck out of the previous clause, I should still have to consider on Report whether it would not be necessary to make some Amendment to show that there was a bona fide purpose to build, and I think I shall have to do so. I cannot give a promise that in this case I shall not also have to put in something to show that the company must make out that there is a bona fide case for resuming possession of the land, and that what will apply to a private person will apply to a company. Some of the noble Lords who are very anxious that these companies should be left out of the Bill are rather putting up cases which could not possibly occur. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Joicey) referred to the matter of sudden danger, and I think he quoted a case where the land was wanted and there was a sudden danger, I suppose, that a train might be derailed. Can any possible question arise in such a case that the land is required for a public purpose? Such a question cannot arise. If any question arises as to whether it is for a bona fide purpose or not it will be only in very exceptional cases, and then of course the plot holders who are being turned out will say: "No, this plea of bona fide business is only a trick to get us out of our plots." But as I say, that would only happen very occasionally. In the case referred to by the noble Lord nothing of the sort could happen.
Under the terms of this compulsory hiring I said first of all that I would have to go further than the noble Marquess, and to make further concessions. It is very irregular, but I did it in order to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport, whether he would withdraw his Amendment if I met him either to-night or at some future stage. One concession was to leave out the word "reasonably," and the second was to make the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Health, in either case, the authority which should confirm the order. Is it to be supposed that if any private undertaking was opposing the compulsory order the Minister of Transport would go over their heads, and say: "No, this is a case in which I shall confirm the order, because it is much more necessary that the people should have allotments than that the railway company should

689
have the sidings"? I am only putting the case as it appears to me. Although I admit that I have no evidence that these companies have acted unfairly in the past I still say that they may act unfairly in the future, and that people would ask—Why should their land remain derelict? But I say that the fears that exist as to the working of this clause are, to say the least, practically unfounded.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: If you are going to get rid of the word "reasonably," or if you are going to replace it by the expression bona fide or by what is, perhaps, a more appropriate word, "genuinely," I should like to know who is going to be the judge of genuineness. Is the noble Earl going to make the Minister the judge of genuineness?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Probably.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Then we have the same objection to this subsection as we had to the clause in regard to which the noble Earl gave way and said that our objection was reasonable. We have really to satisfy two Ministers, one at the beginning and one at the end of the proceedings.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: We have to satisfy the Minister of Transport that it is unreasonable to bring these people in.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD CAWLEY: From what I have heard to-day it seems to me that this Amendment ought to be accepted. The present law was made after full discussion. All these things which have been brought forward by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill were brought up, I have no doubt, when the present position of these companies was set up. There has been no grievance, and why are we asked to alter the law when there is no grievance, and everything has acted satisfactorily? If this clause is passed as it stands I think people will see that there might be Anyhow, I do not see the use of altering a law which is working so well, in such a way as to bring about many contentious cases.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that as a result of certain private discussions that have taken place it would be convenient if I put the first part of the Amendment in order that the word "reasonably" may remain open to discussion if the opportunity arises. For that reason I will put the Question, "That subsection 2 down to the end of line 32 stand part."
On Question, Whether subsection (2) down to the proviso shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42. Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Gorell, L.

Hylton, L.

Camden M

Allendale, V.

Lamington, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chancellor)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.),

Linlithgow, M.

Goschcn, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Salisbury, M.

Novar, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) (L. Chamberlin)

Peel, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Parmoor, L.

Ancaster, E.

Bledisloe, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Bradford, E.

Brownlow, L.

Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Clarendon, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Strachie, L.

Lucan, E.

Denman, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Onslow, E.

Dewar, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Stamford, E.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Portsmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Clwyd, L.

Ailsa, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Emmott, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V.

Ernle, L.

Devonport, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Abingdon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Faringdon, L.

Derby, E.

Long V.

Joicey, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Lawrence, L.

Aberdare, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Jersey, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Raglan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Askwith, L.

Rotherham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Barrymore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Mayo, E.

Cawley, L.

Sumner, L.

Morton, E.

Charnwood, L.

Wyfold, L.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I now beg to move that the word "reasonably" be struck out.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("reasonably")(The Marquess of Salisbury).
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL had on the Paper Amendments in subsection (3), to leave out "unless the Minister otherwise directs" and to insert "unless the judge of a county court having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situate, on the application of either party, certifies that the case is a proper one for the employment of counsel," and also to leave out subsection (3).
The noble Viscount said: This is really the same point that I raised on an earlier part of the Bill when the Government were good enough to accept my suggestion, which, very briefly, is that in certain cases the administration of the law should be in the hands of local people and not of the Government in Whitehall. My Amendment is to substitute for the appointment by the Minister appointment by a County Court Judge in his area. I know of no better authority than the County Court Judge, and I view with great alarm the steady growth of what I call the bureaucracy—the introduction in all these cases of a Government Department. It is not because I have no confidence in Government Departments or permanent officials; quite the contrary; but because I hold very strongly that it is no part of their business. It is not the work for which a Minister is appointed, or a Department set up. All you want in this case is the appointment of a reliable person locally selected. That can be done efficiently by a County Court Judge. Therefore, I suggest that where the special power is to be exercised the tribunal should be a local one and not one at Whitehall. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think it will be the most convenient course if I first put the Amendment to leave out subsection (3).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 1 to 5, leave out subsection (3)—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLSHIRE: Does that mean that counsel shall be heard?
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: No.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: The subsection says:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, counsel shall not be heard in any arbitration under this Act or as to compensation payable for land acquired for allotments under the Allotments Acts unless the Minister otherwise directs."
If you take this out does it mean that you can employ counsel?
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: No. The Bill goes on to say that counsel can only be employed by direction of the Minister. My Amendment is that counsel shall only be employed if an application is made to the County Court Judge, and he consents.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I honestly think you ought to have an independent opinion from the Minister. It certainly ought not to be left to a local man.
LORD JOICEY: These cases of compensation will be for very small amounts, and, in any arrangement you have it ought to be done in the cheapest way; otherwise, it will be a complete failure. I have never known compensation for an allotment going up to more than £20. If you employ people, Ministers, to settle what the compensation is to be, I am afraid it will be a complete failure.
LORD SUMNER: May I say a word on this point? The whole subject is so mysterious that I rather welcome that one part of it in which I begin to see a little light. The subsection says that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment counsel shall not be heard." Why are counsel struck out in this way? A solicitor can be heard, a land agent can be heard, the party himself, if he happens to be a counsel, can be heard, and the party himself, if he happens to be an infant, must, I suppose, be represented by someone, but is not to be represented by counsel. I do not understand the theory of this.
The Amendment proposes to ask the local County Court Judge whether or not

693
it is a proper case for the employment of counsel. That involves making an application to the County Court. Is counsel to be heard on that application? If so, is he to be paid for it? If he is not to be heard, someone else, a solicitor, must make the application. Is he to be paid? The County Court Judge must be told what the case is about, the situation of the land, and the circumstances that make it a favourable case for the employment of counsel. He will have to inquire into the whole of the facts. He will have to hear the case first, in order to decide whether counsel shall be employed, and then someone else will hear the case and the counsel, in order to find out how much is to be paid by way of compensation.
I do not wish to anticipate the words proposed to be introduced before the noble Viscount has had an opportunity of defending them, and, indeed, I must apologise to him for attacking his words before hearing his defence. But to my mind it only shows how undesirable it is to interfere with the employment of counsel at all. People are not such fools as to want to pay fees, which are not going to do them any good, and the real remedy is to say that the tribunal shall be entitled, or even bound, not to allow the costs of counsel against the other side. I cannot see why a man should not brief counsel if he likes, but the tribunal should be entitled to say that if he wins he shall not add the costs of his counsel to what he gets from the other side.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is a great deal in the speech of the noble and learned Lord with which I thoroughly agree. Most of the witnesses before the Committee, speaking in the interests of landowners and allotment holders, viewed with the greatest alarm the appearance of counsel on these small matters of compensation. It may be a wrong view, but they imagined that the appearance of counsel would add to the costs of the arbitration to an enormous extent. I mention, for the information of the noble and learned Lord, that there is a view amongst a large number of His Majesty's citizens that the employment of counsel is a costly affair. I do not know how it compares with the employment of land agents and valuers, who will have to give evidence in cases of this description. Having said that, I should like to thank him for the answer he has made to the noble Viscount, and the
694
good reasons he has given why I cannot accept the Amendment.
The whole of this subsection is really, to a great extent, declaratory of the existing law as set out in subsection (5) of Part I. of the First Schedule of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. That Schedule deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, whether for small holdings or allotments, and provides that the arbitrator shall not hear counsel except in such cases as the Minister otherwise directs. We are only following and declaring what we think is the law of the land. Some question has been raised as to whether this provision has been affected by the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, and though the Minister is advised that the Act of 1908 has not been so affected it was thought desirable to make the point clear as regards arbitrations on the acquisition of land for allotments, which usually does not involve any great area. In certain cases an ambiguity has arisen. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will come to a decision on the matter.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I do not want to press the Amendment. I confess I was a little surprised at the attitude the noble and learned Lord adopted. I am very reluctant to draw swords with him, especially in a matter which has a legal side, but I am quite unable to understand the difference he draws between an application made to the Government and an application made to the County Court Judge. In either case the application has to be made, and in both cases it will be made not in the manner he suggests but in the ordinary manner through the post. The whole question is which is the best form. I still think the County Court Judge is the best, because I am in favour of cheapness and rapidity, but if the Government prefer the words in the Bill I will not press my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does that refer to both the noble Viscount's Amendments?
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: Yes.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (4), and to insert the following new subsection:
"( ) No land shall be authorised by an Order under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts,

695
1908 to 1922, to be hired compulsorily for the purposes of allotments which at the date of the Order is pasture land unless the Minister is satisfied that no arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose of allotments to the pasture land proposed to be compulsorily hired is reasonably available for hiring by the Council."
The noble Earl said: The paragraph in the Bill which refers to the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, appears to me to be very complicated. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act itself is very difficult to understand, but this paragraph, as I read it, enables pasture land to be taken for the purpose of allotments. As your Lordships know very well, once pasture land has been broken up, it cannot be remade except at considerable expense and after considerable time, and my Amendment is merely intended to provide that pasture land shall not be taken for allotments unless no arable land is available. I have endeavoured to make it read so that if arable land is not reasonably available, if it is not close enough to be useful, pasture land can then be taken, so as to avoid cases of the kind where arable land is some distance away, and pasture land close at hand. I hope the noble Earl will accept my Amendment, which I suggest is a reasonable one.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 6 to 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have the same Amendment on the Paper. All I want to say is that I come from the West of England and can testify to the enormous amount of harm that has been done by the indiscriminate ploughing up of pasture during the last few years, harm which will take many years to remedy from an agricultural point of view. We ask that when there is a choice between arable land and pasture land, arable land shall be preferred.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not quite know whether the noble Lord appreciates the fact that, if grass land is compulsorily taken by an allotment authority, and broken up, as it must be, to enable it to be used for allotments, the owner is entitled to full compensation for any injury which is done to the land. The allotment authorities are perfectly aware of that, and will naturally avoid the acquisition of land which involves this responsibility, if other suitable land is available, and I
696
think it is quite unnecessary to dictate to them how they shall exercise these compulsory powers. They know they will probably have to pay a very large bill for compensation if they do take pasture land when other land is available, and they will naturally have to put it on the rates. As things are, I do not think that the owner can be hurt, and I cannot conceive of allotment authorities being so stupid as to take land for which they will have to pay heavy compensation if other suitable land is available. It is not necessary for me to accept an Amendment which would place on the Minister the difficult task of satisfying himself that no arable land is reasonably available. It would mean an Inquiry by the Ministry, and down we should have to go to hold an Inquiry which might be of considerable difficulty and length.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Will the noble Earl tell us who is to assess the compensation to be paid to the owner? A great deal of damage can be done to pasture which is extremely difficult to assess in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. I hope the noble Earl who moved this Amendment will go to a Division if it is not accepted, but I hope still more that the Government will accept it. It is of most vital importance that we should preserve our pasture, and if, as the noble Earl says, allotment authorities will not be so foolish as to take pasture if arable land is available, surely there can be no harm in accepting the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I should like to support what has just fallen from the noble Earl. It is true that this question of compensation is very difficult, but there is no doubt that in the past, in the West of England, we have suffered considerably from the fact that good pasture land was ploughed up by local authorities who knew very little about the matter and had no very good judgment. I mention that only as an illustration. If it is asserted that no available arable land is suitable, then pasture land ought to be ploughed up. There is no objection to that. But it seems reasonable to have a provision of this sort, so that local authorities shall not be misled, as they have been in the past, into ploughing up pasture without proper discrimination. The noble Earl says that the owner will receive compensation, but he must know that those of us who

697
have our best pasture ploughed up, and are then told that we can sow it again, a process which will take years and years, do not find this very much consolation. The noble Earl laughs.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am not laughing.
LORD STRACHIE: That is the experience we have had. Compensation never really represents the loss; it takes years to put down a good pasture. If my noble friend goes to a Division on this Amendment, I shall support him.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I can only say, in answer to the question of the noble Earl, that the person who assesses compensation is the arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919. I would add that from the evidence which we have had before the Committee, one of the most gross cases—indeed. I think there was more than one—was a ease where these compulsory powers were used and the landowner went to arbitration, and I was simply astounded at the award that was given by the arbitrator to the owner because his grass land was broken up. It was an enormous sum. I mention that only because noble Lords speak of grass land broken up during the war for which the owners have not received sufficient compensation.
Really, this is rather a different question. I do not wish to labour the point, because noble Lords must realise what the position is. There was a time when two million more acres of arable land were wanted, and, of course, grass land was ordered to be ploughed up. We need not go into that matter now. The small question we have to decide here is that a few acres of land, say even a hundred acres, are required for allotments and the allotment authority in the locality will attempt to find suitable arable land. They know well that they will have to compensate the owner if grass land is broken up. Is there not a prima facie case for the contention that they will all look about for some suitable arable land? Noble Lords seem to think that every allotment authority acts on the principle of going somewhere where they think they can cause most annoyance. The presumption is that, knowing they would have to pay compensation, they would avoid taking over pasture unless they were bound to do so.
698
Again, every time this land is broken up, the Minister has to send officials flying about the country in motor cars to discover whether there is any arable land more suitable. This will only perpetuate the system, which noble Lords very much deprecated on other occasions, of interference from headquarters, and it will also involve unnecessary officials travelling about the country. The owner gets compensation, and, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, allotment authorities, if they can find suitable arable land, will take it in preference to grass.
LORD PARMOOR: As the law now stands, under paragraph 2 (b) there is a restriction against breaking up pasture land unless it is necessary for purpose of allotments. Why could not the noble Earl leave the law as it is now? It is not a question of protecting pasture land, but of repealing a paragraph which at the present time, under the existing law, does protect it to that extent. Everything he said is in favour of that. Nobody wants large sums to be paid in compensation, or unnecessary damage to be done. The existing law is that you should nit break up pasture land if other land is available, and the best plan is to leave the law as at present.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think there is a difference. This is for allotment gardens, and you sec that in many cases the local authorities provide allotments which are pasture allotments, and may be anything up to five acres. They are really small holdings. It is perfectly reasonable to leave them in grass, if the tenants want them in grass; hut when you come to allotment gardens nobody wants them in grass.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope I shall not draw upon myself a special measure of the noble Earl's contemptuous eloquence, but I venture to think that he puts his reply upon the wrong ground when he suggests that what we are out for is large compensation for landowners.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I never suggested that.
Loup BLEDISLOE: What we say is that the loss of this old pasture land is a loss to the nation, and we in the West of England are beginning to realise that with ever-increasing force. When the noble

699
Earl suggests that the allotment authorities have sufficient local experience and technical knowledge to be able equitably to adjudicate upon this matter, I venture to think that he is misinformed. I should not trust the ordinary urban allotment authority to judge between the suitability of arable and pasture land. It is common knowledge also that for the first two years after you break up pasture land the manure value of that turned-up pasture is very considerable.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I was only trying to answer objections. If the allotment authorities did not know what they were about, probably they would have a clerk or somebody who would advise them, and who would tell them that if they took grass land it would be practically certain that they would have to pay a lot of compensation to the owner, and would then be unable to let it at an economic rent. I am certain that most allotment authorities are not anxious to take land which is going to cause them a loss and end in economic disaster.
EARL STANHOPE: I think the noble Earl has really answered himself. He says that these cases will be rare, and that there will only be an appeal to the Minister where the allotment authorities do not exercise their functions properly. It is obvious, therefore, that the officials will not be very hard worked by this Amendment, which I hope he will accept.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I hope that the Government will undertake to consider this Amendment between now and Report. I do not think my noble friend realises the desire that exists throughout the country that this old grass land should not be broken up. I am puzzled by my noble friend's attitude, because he has laid so much stress upon compensation. I venture to predict that if you are going to attach to all the sections of this Bill an obligation to pay very heavy compensation, you are going to dig the grave of the Bill
before it is brought into operation. My noble friend will be well advised if he agrees that this matter shall be reconsidered. The Amendment is of a most moderate character. It does not shut out the acquisition of pasture land, but only says that before you take it you shall try to get something else. In other words, it is a sort of index finger which seeks to point out to local authorities which is the wise course to take.
My noble friend says they will not want advice. I know something about local authorities, and of the influences often brought to bear upon them, although I desire to make no charge against local authorities. I doubt whether they will have clerks particularly acquainted with the subject under discussion, but I have no doubt that there will be somebody who will warn the local authorities that they will get into trouble if they take pasture land. The committee of a council may decide to buy a particular piece of land which happens to be grass land. The committee will report to the council, and then, may be, the clerk will tell the council that there is risk of heavy damage. This will frighten the council, and they will probably refer the matter back, and so it will be twelve months at least before you get any allotments at all. I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that he should accept this Amendment, or if that is too much for him to do at this moment, that he should promise that it shall be considered in a most friendly way between now and Report. I believe that when he gets among his colleagues over at Whitehall he will find that they 'are not so much alarmed at the Amendment as he is. Let us make as many friends as we can for the allotment movement, and do not let us start by making enemies of those who might so easily be made friends.
On Question, Whether subsection (4) stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Portsmouth, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stamford, E.

Gorell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Clarendon, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Erskine, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Lintithgow, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Lamington, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Abingdon, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Derby, E.

Long, V.

Parmoor, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Novar, V.

Raglan, L.

Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Jersey, E.

Brownlow, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cawley, L.

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sumner, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Powers of entry on unoccupied land.
6.—(1) The council of a borough or urban district may, after giving such notice of intention to enter as is hereinafter provided—

(a) enter upon any land to which this section applies for the purpose of providing allotment gardens thereon;

(b) adapt any such land for use for such purpose;

(c) let any such land for use by the tenant as an allotment garden or to any association for the purpose of sub-letting for such use, but so that any tenancy created by the council shall terminate at the date when the right of occupation of the council is terminated under this section;

(d) on the termination of such occupation remove any erection or work of adaptation making good any injury to the land caused by such removal.

(2) Before entry under this section, the council shall give not less than fourteen days' notice in writing to the owner of the land, in such manner as notices may be given to an owner under the regulations for the time being applicable to compulsory hiring of land under the Allotments Acts.
(3) The right of occupation of the council may be terminated—

(a) by not less than six months' notice in writing to that effect given by the council to the owner in manner aforesaid, and expiring on or before the twenty-fifth day of March, or on or after the twenty-ninth day of September in any year; or

(b) by not less than one month's notice in writing, given by the owner to the council in any case where the land is reasonably required for any purpose other than the use of the land fur agriculture.

(4) A tenant to whom land is let by a council under this section and whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the right of occupation of the council shall, unless otherwise agreed in the contract of tenancy, be entitled to recover from the council such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by the council.
(5) Any person who is interested in any land on which entry is made by the council under this section, and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall, if he makes a claim not later than one year after the termination of the right of occupation, be entitled to be paid by the council such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss, and such amount or amounts shall in default of agreement be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed, in default of agreement, by the Minister:
Provided that a periodical payment of compensation in the nature of rent shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section.
(6) This section applies to—

(a) land which at the date of the notice of intended entry is not the subject of a rateable occupation; or

(b) land of which at the date of the notice of intended entry the Minister is in possession by himself or any person deriving title under him under the provisions of section one of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, as explained by section thirty of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, and which when possession thereof was first taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulation was not the subject of a rateable occupation;

except land being the property of a local authority or forming part of any metropolitan common or any land subject to be inclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or any town, village, green, or recreation ground.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
The expression "rental value" means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land had continued in the same condition as at the date v-hen entry was made under this section, or at the date when possession thereof was so first taken as aforesaid, as the case may be.
The expression "rateable occupation" means such occupation as would involve liability to payment of the poor rate or any rate leviable in like manner as the poor rate.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved, in subsection (1), after "The council of a borough or urban district," to insert "or the council of a county to whom the powers and duties of an urban district council have been transferred under the provisions of sub-

703
section (2) of section twenty-four of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908." The noble Viscount said: On behalf of the County Councils' Association I wish to move this Amendment, which stands on the Order Paper in the name of Lord Strachie. It is only right that county councils should be in the same position as urban councils if they are called upon to administer the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, after ("district") insert the said words.—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL of ANCASTER: I think I told Lord Strachie that I accepted this Amendment, subject to reconsideration on Report, because I believe there is some question about the Minister.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "association," to insert "being an association to which land may be let by the council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919." The noble Earl said: The associations referred to in the Amendment are associations formed for the purpose of creating, or promoting the creation of, allotments, and so constituted that the division of profit among the members of the association is prohibited or restricted. It seems reasonable that this provision, applicable to land now bought or leased for allotments, should apply to land temporarily occupied under this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after ("association") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), after "land," where that word firstly occurs, to insert "if the owner be known." The noble Lord also had on the Paper Amendments to insert, at the end of subsection (2), "and if not known, in manner provided by section seven of the Agriculture Act, 1920," and "and if the owner be not known, by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of the land."
The noble Lord said: These two Amendments (for the third Amendment which I have on the Paper is an alternative to the second) deal with the case where an owner
704
of land is unknown. This clause refers to the acquisition of derelict land—the sort of land which may, or may not, be near a town, on which brickbats or rubbish are to be found, and in some cases, particularly in Essex, as Colonel Whitmore demonstrated on behalf of the Central Landowners' Association before the noble Earl's Committee, there are considerable areas which have been the subject of speculative enterprise during the last few years and the owner is not known. In such a case, I ask that the machinery which was contemplated by Section 7 of the Agriculture Act should be brought into operation, and that a copy of the notice should be affixed on some conspicuous part of the land, so that there may be no question as to whether the notice is inoperative owing to the impossibility of finding the owner of the land.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 37, after ("land") insert ("if the owner be known")
Page 5, line 40, at end insert ("and if not known, in manner provided by section seven of the Agricultural Act, 1920").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The section to which the Amendment refers has been repealed, and for this reason I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It is for that very reason that I put down an alternative Amendment, which is the third upon the list.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am sorry if I misunderstood. The Bill provides that notices are to be given in such manner as notices may be given to an owner under the compulsory hiring regulations made under the Allotments Acts. These regulations make provision for the case where an owner after diligent inquiry cannot be found, and I think, therefore, that the case of the unknown owner is already adequately provided for. I have a copy of the procedure which is adopted. I will read it:—
"(1) Every notice required to be given by a Council to an owner, existing tenant, or other person interested in land proposed or authorised to be hired, shall either be served personally on such person or sent by post to or left at his usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, if any such can after diligent inquiry be found and in case any such person shall be absent from the United Kingdom or cannot be found after diligent inquiry, shall be sent by post to or left with any agent ordinarily receiving the rents of the land on behalf of such person, and a copy thereof shall

705
also he sent by post to or left with the occupier of the land to which such notice relates, or, if there be no such occupier, shall he affixed upon some conspicuous part of such land."
LORD BLEDISLOE: Probably the last three words meet the case, if the noble Earl will substitute "premises" for "buildings." But all the first part is clearly inapplicable, because this is a case where the owner does not appear to exist at all and, therefore, there is no agent to collect the rents. However, I do not press it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does that apply to those three Amendments?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "twenty-fifth day of March" and insert "sixth day of April." The noble Earl said: This is consequential upon previous decisions of your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of March") and insert ("sixth day of April").(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (3) (b). to leave out "reasonably required for any purposes other than the use of the land for agriculture" sand insert "required for any purpose other than agriculture, and where a contract has been entered into for the sale or leasing of the land for such purpose the production of the said contract shall be conclusive evidence of the land being so required."
The noble Earl said: The situation has somewhat altered since this Amendment was placed on the Paper. It is a Land Union Amendment. At the time it was put down, as I have already explained to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, we had not received any communication f.com the National Union of Allotment Holders. I understand that a similar representation will be made in another place when the Bill comes up there. The whole motive of the Amendment is that landowners shall find it as easy as possible, and may be able as quickly as possible to get possession of land affected by Clause 6, which is in a somewhat different position from laud which is affected by other parts of the Bill. I
706
will not take up your Lordships' time because I hope and believe that an agreement will ultimately be arrived at. A clause was drafted at the conference between the Land Union and the National Union of Allotment Holders, and I hope that if I do not press this Amendment now the noble Earl will be in a position to give me an assurance that the whole matter will be very carefully considered elsewhere. It is perhaps too much to expect that it will be considered on Report. It is a very important matter, and the noble Earl will be rendering a very great service to Parliament and to the country if he agrees to the insertion of a clause in the Bill. I hope we may have some assurance from the noble Earl on the point.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 1l to 13, leave out from ("is") in line 11 to the end of paragraph (b) and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save later Amendments, I shall have to put it that the word "reasonably" only be left out.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am prepared to accept the omission of the word "reasonably." As to the second part of the Amendment, it has the object of making a sale one of the reasons for regaining possession of the land, and I could not agree to that. In view of what the noble Earl has said as to further consideration of this matter, I think he will not expect a longer reply from me on that question.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I do not intend to press this matter to a Division, but I am very sorry that the noble Earl has not seen his way to accept the latter part of the Amendment. In view of what has passed, the noble Earl, I think, understands that something ought to be done when this matter reaches another place. I am convinced, from what I have heard from the Land Union and the National Union of Allotment Holders, that an agreed clause which would protect the interests of both parties concerned could be arrived at, and I trust that either on the Report stage or in another place, an announcement will be made that such a conclusion has been reached.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out "any purpose/other than the use of the land for agri-

707
culture" and to insert "an industrial purpose." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am merely asking the noble Earl to make use of his own excellent definition in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill. What is said there is that the expression "industrial purpose" shall not include use for agriculture, horticulture, or the keeping and breeding of livestock. It is obvious that is just the very case which is intended to be met in this subsection. There is no particular reason why agriculture should be inserted and horticulture omitted, as well as the keeping and breeding of livestock. The wards "an industrial purpose" will not only make clear what he is driving at, but will also include the other semi-agricultural purposes which obviously are intended to be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 11 to 13, leave out from ("for") in line 11 to the end of line 13, and insert ("an industrial purpose").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The main difference here, as I think I have already explained, is that the agreement we arrived at, which was in the nature of a compromise, on the Allotment Committee was that this land was in a different position from that of the land under Clause 1. To start with, the allotment authority at rpesent can simply enter upon this land giving practically a fortnight's notice without any appeal whatsoever: therefore, we thought that the owner—and this was agreed to by the allotment representatives —ought to have a better reason for reentry on the land than under Clause 1. It may be unreasonable that that should be the case, but we did think, and I am still of the opinion, that the landowner should have more reason for entering on the land than under Clause 1.
In regard to the other question he has raised, I should be very pleased to look into the matter again before we get to the Report stage; but we are of opinion that a landowner should not re-enter for agricultural or horticultural purposes or for the breeding of livestock. We do not think that he ought to enter upon his land to turn it into a horsebreeding farm. If he is going to enter upon it again we think it ought to be entered upon for some other purpose than agriculture, because it is already being used for an agricultural purpose when under cultivation as allotment gardens.
EARL STANHOPE: That is exactly what the Amendment of my noble friend means.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The point which the noble Earl raised, as the House will no doubt have noticed, was not quite relevant to my Amendment. I do not dispute the desirability of there being much longer notice in this case where the land is derelict. The noble Lord was arguing with regard to one month as compared with three months provided in Clause 1. I do not argue that. It is only desirable when you come to the question whether land is required for a purpose other than agricultural. It clearly is intended that this special power should be reserved in the case where it is wanted for some clearly industrial purpose. If it is desired to be used for any agricultural purpose—using agriculture in the wide sense contemplated by the Interpretation Clause—then this other agricultural purpose, particularly horticulture, should be taken into account.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think it is clear. Let me quote a case. The owner could resume the ground for a football field, but he could not do so under Clause 1.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not think the noble Earl has given any valid reason why my Amendment should not be accepted, but I shall not challenge a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Earl said: I have put down this Amendment because I am afraid I do not understand the subsection. As far as I read this Bill the subsection refers to a capital loss which the owner of land might suffer. It says that any one interested in any land who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be entitled to be paid such amount, or amounts, by way of periodical payments or otherwise, as may represent the loss. I imagine that means the capital loss which would be suffered, and it is proposed that the person should be repaid by way of periodical payments. It goes on to say that the periodical payment of compensation shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section. As your Lordships will see in subsection (6), this clause only refers to land which is not in rateable occupation, and therefore is only what is termed

709
"derelict" land. If your Lordships turn to subsection (7), you will see that the expression "rental value" means "the annual rent that a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land has continued in the same condition as at the date when entry was made under this section." In other words, the rental value presumably is practically nil, because the land is derelict. What I fail to understand is how, if the value is practically nil, you are going to pay anything in order to meet a capital loss.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think the noble Earl did not understand the clause, and I confess that I did not understand his Amendment, so perhaps we are in the same position. Now that he has told me that the object of his Amendment is to get me to give an explanation of this compensation clause, I would point out that the subsection proposed to be left out is, in substance, a reproduction of the provision of the Corn Production Acts which gives a right of compensation to persons injuriously affected by their land being occupied under the Defence of the Realm Act. We are practically putting the local authority, in regard to this land, in the same position as that in which the Ministry is. The local authority will go on to these waste lands, and they will be placed in the same position in regard to them as the Ministry was placed in under the Defence of the Realm Act.
We are still clearing up many cases under the Defence of the Realm Act, and it is largely for the purpose of getting rid of these cases that we are trying to get this Bill through. We want to be able to settle our accounts. We are at present settling claims for compensation made by these people against the Ministry owing to our occupation of these derelict lands. Let me give an example. A man may have built a row of houses, and very likely spent some money in the development of the land. No more houses were built, and during the occupation of the vacant land by the plot holders the road which he had made has been dug up. When we give up the occupation of this land the owner comes to the Ministry —under this he will go to the local authority —and says that it cost him £300 to put down this road; that the plot holders have dug it up, and turned it into allotment gardens; therefore, he claims compensation. We are paying these owners compensation, and we think the local authorities, in cases where
710
the same thing is done in future, should also pay compensation if the property is deteriorated.
As regards the question of rent, I agree that it goes to the whole principle of this clause. There are many Amendments on the question of compensation to be discussed later. We anticipate that the rents paid by these allotment holders will be very small indeed. We anticipate that they will pay practically nothing but an acknowledgment rent. We do not see how an arbitrator can put it much higher. Still, there will be certain cases where a man's property has been deteriorated, owing to the act of the plot holder, and in those cases the owner should be compensated for the damage. I think that explains the position.
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid the noble Earl has not explained it. I still fail to understand how he is to pay by periodical payments of a peppercorn rent for a road which has been dug up. There will be a good many peppercorns before he has paid people out.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The words are "such amount, or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss."
EARL STANHOPE: Would the noble Earl look at the proviso: "Provided that a periodical payment of compensation in the nature of rent shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section."
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not think the noble Earl has gone far enough. The clause goes on to explain that "rental value means the annual rent that the tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land had continued in the same condition as at the date when entry was made."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Very often a road has been made.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It does not matter whether it is a refuse heap or a road. It is obvious, according to the definition, that there is no rental value in it.
EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps the noble Earl will consider it before Report. I can understand why he did not realise

711
the reason for my putting down this Amendment, but now that he sees the reason perhaps he will consider it between now and Report.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will consider it before Report, but I think the clause is all right as it stands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, towards the end of subsection (6), to leave out "or any land subject to be inclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or any town, village, green, or recreation ground," and to insert "within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or any land which is subject, or might be made subject, to regulation under an order or scheme made in pursuance of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or under any local Act or otherwise, or land which is or forms part of any town or village green, or any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation, or land forming part of the New Forest. (as defined in the New Forest Act, 1877), or of the trust property to which the National Trust Act, 1907, applies."
The noble Lord said: I have reason to believe that negotiations have taken place between the National Union of Allotment Holders, the Commons Preservation Society, and the Ministry on this question, and, without detaining the House, may I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he will accept this Amendment. Its object is to strengthen the clause, and to secure that no land in the New Forest shall be inclosed.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 7 to 9, leave out from ("common") in line 7 to the end of line 9, and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept the Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert "or land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway dock or canal undertaking." The noble Lord said: I hope I shall find the noble Earl in a more gracious mood towards this Amendment. I am moving
712
it in the form suggested by Viscount Devon-port as I think his words are more convenient than mine. Although I cannot swear that no railway has any derelict land within the wording of the clause I do not think any has.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert ("or land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway dock or canal undertaking").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept that.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at fire minutes to eight o'clock, and resumed at ten minutes past nine o'clock.]
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause—
"Where an order has been made for the compulsory acquisition of any land and notice to treat there under is not served by the acquiring authority within two calendar mouths of the said order or where confirmation of the said order is necessary, then from the confirmation thereof the same shall become null and void and no other compulsory order shall be made or confirmed with respect of the same land or any part thereof within three years from the date on which the order was made or where confirmation is necessary from the date on which the order is confirmed. For the purposes of this section, the periods of two calendar months and three years shall, as regards any compulsory orders already made, he respectively counted as from the date of the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause is to remedy a serious defect in the present law. There is no power which enables the owner to compel the acquiring authority to complete the acquisition of the land, nor can he compel them to withdraw, the result being that the land cannot be dealt with for development. I consider that a time limit in which the authorities should act is necessary, so that the land shall not be held up indefinitely. Your Lordships will, no doubt, notice that in this proposed new clause I have fixed that notice to treat should be given within two calendar months, and if it is not given within that time then the order should be null and void, and the same land, or any part thereof, should not be taken again within three years. I think it is very

713
essential that some clause of that kind should be put in the Bill, and I hope my noble friend will accept it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I thoroughly understand the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment, and with the first part of that Amendment, which deals with the time within which the powers conferred by a compulsory order can be put into force, I feel a great deal of sympathy, although I am inclined to think that the period of two months is rather too short. As the law stands all orders provide that the power shall cease to be operative at the expiration of twelve months, unless the Minister shall extend the time. Constantly, after a compulsory order has been made, negotiations for voluntary acquisition take place, and these may take some time. If the noble Lord would agree to three months instead of two months I am prepared to accept the Amendment down to the words "null and void," subject, of course, o any drafting Amendment which I may be advised is necessary.
I am, however, not prepared to accept that part of the Amendment which provides that no order in respect of the same land shall be made and confirmed within three years thereafter. It is sometimes found that an order is defective, or that the boundaries are not the best that could have been devised, and it may be perfectly reasonable that time original order shall be abandoned and that another order affecting the same shall be made. I do not know whether it would meet the views of the noble Lord if in this respect some provision should be made upon the general lines of his Amendment, but providing that a substituted order should not take effect unless it was confirmed by the Minister? I think that goes a very long way to meet the noble Lord. At the present moment a substituted order does not have to be confirmed by the Minister.
LORD DYNEVOR: I understand the noble Earl's point in altering the two months to three, but with regard to the omission of the words after "null and void," do I understand that he himself is going to bring forward some such new provision as he suggests?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes, that is the proposal—that we should amend the Act so that if an order is made, and then
714
alterations are made in it, so that a substituted order has 70 be made fur the same land, it would require fresh confirmation by the Minister. We will put down an Amendment to provide for that on Report.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, and to move the Amendment in the form proposed.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, inert the following, new clause:
(".Where an order has been made for the compulsory acquisition of any land and notice to treat there under is not served by the acquiring authority within three calendar months of the said lacier or where confirmation of the said order is necessary, then from the confirmation thereof the same shall become null and void").—(Lord. Dynevor.)
Clause 7:
Restriction of obligations of urban authorities to provide allotments.
7. The obligation of a borough or urban district under the Allotments Acts to provide allotments shall be limited to the provision of allotment gardens not exceeding twenty poles in extent.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 22, after ("of")insert ("a council of").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "shall," to insert "if the population exceed ten thousand." The noble Lord said: There are many urban district councils situated in the most remote rural villages. The urban district councils are merely the successors of the old local boards, and in a great many Statutes of this character the population is added in order to make it perfectly clear that the urban district is one of an urban character. Tire most rural parish in my neighbourhood is a so-called urban district, though it has no more than 120 inhabitants, whereas I live in a rural district with a population of 5,000. Obviously, therefore, "urban district" without some qualification is not quite a suitable phrase to use.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The clause under consideration, which is confined to borough and urban district councils, limits the statutory obligation to the provision of allotment gardens not exceeding 20 poles in extent. There is nothing, however, to prevent the authority providing larger allotments if there is any demand for them and the land is available. I admit that, as the noble Lord says, some rural districts are large, and some urban districts are small. I prefer, however, that the Bill should remain as it stands, and that the difference between urban and rural areas should be preserved. On grounds of logic I confess that the noble Lord has a good case, but I do not think the matter is of very great importance.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment. There is more than mere logic or uniformity in it. We have in this country a great many rural authorities, such as the one which my noble friend opposite describes, the population of which would fully justify their being made boroughs. Happily, as I think, a great many of the inhabitants of these rural areas do not desire that their areas should be made into boroughs, but if. Parliament continues to put powers into the hands of urban authorities which they withhold from rural authorities they will give an incentive to the rural authorities to request the Ministry of Health to make them urban authorities in order to get the right to exercise these powers. That is the last thing we want. Let us retain as much of the rural character of our country as we can. I can assure the noble Earl that this is not an unimportant question. It touches the whole system of local government, and the Amendment will not injuriously affect his Bill. In fact, I think that it would improve it. In those circumstances I would respectfully ask the Government whether they cannot see their way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept the Amendment.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Allotment committees of urban authorities.
8.—(1) The council of every borough or urban district shall, unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section, establish an
716
allotments committee, and all matters relating to the exercise and performance by the council of their powers and duties under the Allotments Acts as respects the provision of allotment gardens (except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred to such committee, and the council before exercising any such powers shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to the matter in question, and the council may delegate to the committee, with or without restrictions, any of their said powers except as aforesaid.
(2) An allotments committee established under this section shall comprise persons, other than members of the council, representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens in the borough or district provided that such co-opted members shall he less than one-half but shall not be less than one-third of the total number of the members of the committee.
(3) The accounts of any receipts or payments by or to a committee under powers delegated under this section shall be accounts of the council and made up and audited accordingly.
(4) In the ease of a county borough, the council may appoint their small holdings committee, if constituted so as to comply with the provisions of this section, to be their allotment committee under this section.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "district," to insert "with a population of 10,000 or upwards." The noble Lord said: The same point arises here to make it perfectly clear that the urban district is intended to apply to a district that is really urban and not to an ultra-rural district of the kind that I have described.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, after ("district") insert ("with a population of 10,000 or upwards").(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think this is consequential on the Amendment I have just accepted.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: This applies to the second of the two Amendments, I think?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes.
LORD ERSKINE LORD ERSKINE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "shall, unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section" and insert "may." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Dynevor and my own has for its object to leave borough and urban district councils a discretion as to the establishment of an allotments committee. The importation of

717
another certificate of exemption by the Minister of Health is, I venture to think, an unnecessary interference with the proper functions of local government by locally elected bodies charged by Parliament with local duties. It is evident that the multiplication of statutory committees tends more and more to make too onerous the duties that a local council is called upon to perform. There can he no doubt that in many cases the type of person whom it is desirable to have on local government bodies in the district is deterred from taking part in the local government of his district by the increasing calls upon his time which membership of a local body involves.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("shall, unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section") and insert ("may").—(Lord Erskine.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The clause in which these Amendments are moved—I think those appearing in the names of Lord Dynevor, Lord Erskine, The Earl of Malmesbury and Lord Bledisloe all go to the same point—is one to which the representatives of the allotment holders attach great importance. The committee over which I presided were furnished with some evidence indicating that there are councils entrusted with allotment powers who for various reasons do not take very active interest in the provision of allotments, and the representatives of the allotment holders press strongly the view that the allotment powers are unlikely to be administered generally in a sympathetic spirit unless a committee is constituted specially for allotment purposes, and that committee contains persons representative of the allotment holders in the district. I am dealing rather with the whole of the clause at the moment, because the question of co-opting members arises later.
At the present time an allotment authority has power to appoint allotment managers of the land acquired for allotments, but these managers, even if appointed, deal only with land already acquired and not with the question of the acquisition of land, which is the most important point. Although these allotment managers may include persons who are not members of the council, this provision is not regarded as satisfactory even if it were used to any large extent, which does not appear to be the case. Urban district councils have
718
power already to appoint committees for the exercise of any powers of the council, on which they can co-opt persons who are not members of the council; but this does not apply to borough councils.
I quite recognise the force of the argument that as a general rule local authorities should be allowed to manage their business in such manner as they think best, but experience has shown unfortunately that as regards the provision of allotments, which is undoubtedly a matter of considerable public importance, the existing position is not satisfactory taking the country as a whole. The allotment holders have strongly impressed upon the Ministry the view that if there were some committee on which the representatives of allotment holders were present, though not in such numbers as to be a preponderating influence, this would ensure prompt attention being given to the problem. Further, I think that the presence of these representatives on the committee, would tend to remove -friction which at present sometimes occurs, as the discussion by the committee would disclose to the representatives the difficulties which arise in the provision of allotments with which they are not at present familiar. The proposal to make the clause entirely optional would, in my view, largely, if not entirely, destroy the value of the clause.
There is an Amendment upon the Paper, I think in the name of Lord Strachie, to provide that the allotments committee may be an existing committee, or sub-committee of an existing committee. To this I should see no objection provided there was some arrangement by which the committee or sub-committee when called upon to deal with allotment matters contained some co-opted members representative of allotment holders. It may be that to some extent the inaction of local authorities has been due to the difficulties which have so far impeded the provision of allotments, and which it is hoped will, to a considerable extent, be removed by this Bill. But from the evidence placed before the committee it. has not entirely been due to this cause, and I think the allotment holders have made out a reasonable case for the proposition contained in Clause 8. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not take any action which would destroy the effectiveness of the clause. I am quite unable to accept either of the Amendments.

719
I have read this statement because it is rather important that the position should be definitely stated. We have now arrived at a very important Amendment, which is rather a dividing of the ways. First, I should like to speak as one who presided over this Departmental Committee on allotments. After a long fight upon this matter we came to the unanimous decision that allotment committees should be set up, and that it should be a statutory obligation. I think it is perhaps better that there should be co-opted members. On this Amendment we are discussing whether these local authorities may or shall set up these committees.
There is one argument to which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, referred on the Second Reading with very great force. He said that some important councils would be very indignant indeed if we ordered them to set up these statutory committees for allotments. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the allotment holders should be satisfied. A very strong case has been made out by the allotment holders for the setting up of these committees. I do not think that it would be fair to quote evidence from the Committee, because it was never published, but there is no doubt that there is an idea at the back of the head of a large number of men who have allotments, and who will be dispossessed in March next, and also at the back of the heads of other people who desire allotments, that the land is there, and that they could get it if the council was in the least degree sympathetic towards them.
All sorts of allegations are made. I will quote some of those allegations for the information of noble Lords. I do not know whether they are true or not. One sort of allegation made is that the question of allotments is referred to the parks committee or sonic other committee, and that the members of the committee, being unsympathetic, do not turn up when the question is to be discussed, and there is no quorum. The whole question is then postponed. I believe that if it was a statutory obligation that these councils should set up these committees, that would get rid of a great deal of prejudice and what I may call backstairs talk. These people would then no longer be able to charge their councils with the sort of subterfuges which they now allege are resorted to. They would know that there was a
720
committee to deal with the question, and they would also learn, if members were added to it representing the allotment holders, of the difficulties, especially in big towns, of acquiring land. It would do away with a good deal of ill-informed gossip.
I cannot place the question any more clearly before your Lordships. It is a very simple one indeed. It is a question whether Parliament should dictate to these local authorities, or whether the case of allotment holders for a statutory committee is strong enough. So far as the provision of allotments is concerned it is a very important provision, and I know that many people who possess allotments, and many who wish to obtain them, look upon this clause, with the word "shall" instead of "may," as their charter. Your Lordships must vote as you think fit. I shall vote against the Amendment and in favour of making it compulsory, and noble Lords who really believe in the importance of the allotment movement will support me in voting for the retention of the word "shall." By so doing they will do as much to promote the finding of allotments as by any other clause in the Bill.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I must support the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, though I confess I do so with considerable regret. It is not an invasion of the principle of local government; that would not be a correct statement. There are several Statutes which impose upon local authorities the duty of performing certain public functions, and it is laid down that the local authority shall operate through a committee. In this case, unfortunately, the Government have gone out of their way to tread on the toes of local authorities. This clause brutally tells local authorities that, whatever they think, they shall in future do so and so. I waited during the Second Reading debate, and also to-night, to hear the number of cases there are in which local authorities have been recalcitrant. I have not heard one quoted. I had the great advantage of interviewing two representatives of the Allotments Association. I pressed them on this point, but could get no information. They told me that land which ought to be let in allotments was not so let.
The noble Earl now tells us that this provision will smooth the path, and that allotment holders attach great importance to it. There is nothing truer than the old

721
adage that while one man can take a horse to water twenty men cannot compel the horse to drink, and you are not going to make local authorities provide allotments by saving that they must appoint a committee. The noble Earl has made it quite clear that those whom interests are mainly concerned with this legislation, attach immense importance to the retention of the word "shall." Speaking only for myself, therefore. I am inclined to think that the proper course is to support fie Government, although I do so with some regret, because I believe, for the reasons which I have given, that this Amendment is more likely to retard the growth of the allotment system than to expedite it. The Government have given grave consideration to the matter. They have been in consultation with those who are interested and therefore, with regret, but none the less with sincerity, I shall support them.
LORD STRACHIE: Having heard the concluding words of the noble Viscount, he would have given me arguments, even if I had not gone into the question before, for supporting my noble friend behind me. I intervene now for a few moments in order to state the view of the County Councils Association upon the question of local self-government. I can assure your Lordships that the County Councils Association, and I believe all county councillors, feel that this is a question which, as the noble Viscount, although supporting the Government, has said, strikes at the root of local self-government, and of the right of these important local authorities to manage their own affairs in their own way without interference from the central Government.
I will go further; not only is the County Councils Association desirous that the word "shall" shall be left out and "may" take its place, giving urban authorities option, which I am sure they would nearly all exercise, to set up an allotments committee as they think fit, but I am informed that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association are very strongly of opinion that they ought to have the right of appointing an allotments committee or not as they think fit. Some of these urban authorities and boroughs are very large indeed. The noble Lord has also referred to the question of occupation. There, again, there is an Amendment on the
722
Paper, and exactly the same feeling was felt by all representative bodies, from the County Councils Association down to the Urban District Councils Association.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not wish to interrupt, but I think the county councils are already under a statutory obligation to appoint a small holdings and allotments committee. This Amendment really refers to boroughs and urban districts.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRANALL: That is so.
LORD STRACHIE: But this goes a great deal further. You not only compel them to appoint it, but you compel them to have co-opted members.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I was dealing with the whole question.
LORD STRACHIE: That is a very different question. When the county councils were first set up, some of them may have been hostile to allotments committees. I would remind the noble Earl that the committee which the county councils are obliged to set up is a statutory committee dealing with small holdings. The noble Earl will remember that in those days there was very strong feeling against small holdings in certain areas, and it might well have been that the county council, as then constituted, would have, refused to set up a small holdings committee. All that has entirely changed. I believe a very small fraction indeed of any urban authority or borough to-day would refuse to set up an allotments committee or to refer the matter to a committee of some sort. All I can say is that such is the opinion of the County Councils Association, of the Urban District Councils Association, and of the Association of Municipal Corporations. All these great democratic bodies are entirely opposed to the view of the Government in this matter.
It is also said that the allotment holders will be badly treated. I would remind the noble Earl that these bodies are elected on democratic principles and have large electoral influence. He knows very well that it would be a brave man who set himself against the wishes of the allotment holders in any area. Certainly, he would lose his seat on any local authority. The allotment holders would have their remedy in turning

723
out any member who refused to set up an allotments committee, and I support this matter entirely in the interest of seeing that the local authority shall be masters in their own house, and not be affected by a Government office in Whitehall.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think Lord Strachie is under some misapprehension. This clause, as it now stands, imposes no fresh duty or obligation upon any county council in the land.
LORD STRACHIE: What I said was that I supported it on the principle of local government, I agree that it does not interfere with county councils, but they are supporting the view of the minor authorities that they should be masters in their own house.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It very seldom occurs that the County Councils Association takes a strong line in the interests of borough or urban district councils, but I think it is just as well to remind your Lordships that this does not affect the counties in the very least, nor do I think it is quite so brutal a clause as Lord Long said. He referred to the brutality of it. Your Lordships must recall that the power of exemption is contained in the clause. It is not an absolute rule. The words are "unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section." That gives any aggrieved borough or urban district a right of appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, and confers upon the Minister the right to say that this committee shall not be appointed. Supposing that busybodies in the City of London said that they wanted an allotments committee. The Minister, on being consulted, could then say that it was a frivolous matter, and grant exemption. Accordingly, I hope your Lordships will support the clause.
It is a matter which has aroused intense feeling amongst allotment holders throughout the country. The feeling does exist that there are cases where the interests of the allotment holders are ignored in a manner which is wrong, and I myself believe that the establishment of these committees, and the conferring of power upon the representatives of allotment holders to attend and state their grievances, will in this case, as in so many others, he sufficient to remove misunderstandings and backstair gossip, which do far more harm to the allotment movement than anything
724
else. The clause does not increase the power of authority, but merely says that if they fail to secure exemption from the Minister in charge, an allotments committee shall be established. I greatly hope that your Lordships will support the Bill as it stands.
LORD BLEDISLOE: While fully endorsing all that the noble Earl has said, I should like to express my astonishment at the support given to the Amendment by Lord Strachie as coming from the County Councils Association, because they have their own committees which stand on a similar footing. It is fully recognised that the county councils are in some counties largely composed of people who have not the faintest knowledge of land cultivation, and it is only right they should have associated with them persons who know their job, and if only these people can be brought into touch with the ignoramuses on the councils, the people with urban prejudices who know very little about the cultivation of the land, it will be better both for the urban element and for the allotment holders.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section." The noble Lord said: I do not quite see what is the object of leaving it to the Minister of Agriculture to exercise a discretion as to whether municipalities shall or shall not appoint a committee of this character. Either it is right to appoint an allotments committee or it is wrong, and it is difficult to see in what circumstances the caprice or the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture will operate to prevent a municipality from appointing an allotments committee. My argument, I think, is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the council will always be in the majority on these committees, and matters which they will decide will always have to be referred, as in the case of a county council committee, to the parent body. That being so, I cannot understand why the Minister, a person outside altogether, should be allowed to come in and say that in a particular case there shall be no allotments committee. I rather agree with my noble friend, Lord Long, that if there is to be a Minister at all—which I myself deprecate—it should be the Minister of Health rather than the Minister of Agriculture.

725
I cannot see what particular qualification the Minister of Agriculture has for this task.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("unless exempted by the Minister from the provisions of this section").—(Loral Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Though this is not a very important point I believe the reason the words were put in is that it would be rather ridiculous in the case of a place like the borough of Holborn, for instance, to say that it must have an allotments committee. I am very doubtful whether the borough of Lambeth is in that position. There are, I think, some cases where it would not be necessary to have an allotments committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL moved, in subsection (1), after "Minister" to insert "of Health." The noble Viscount said: I am extremely hopeful that the Government will accept this Amendment, especially after the speech to which I have just. listened from the noble Earl who leads the House, who, in some very interesting remarks, attached immense importance to this power of exemption, if I mistake not, with regard to the City of London, as did the noble Earl who has just sat down. They seem to he attracted to the City of London. I am somewhat appalled at the idea of the City of London desiring to be exempted from doing certain work and having to go to the Minister of Agriculture for permission. This really must have come in per incuriam, because the Ministry of Agriculture has no machinery for the purpose. How are they going to hold these inquiries? If you have a local authority which is determined or very anxious not to set up an allotments committee, you must have an inquiry. There is no machinery at present existing which is at once so efficient and so economical as the procedure of a local inquiry by the Ministry of Health, held by men who are accustomed to such inquiries, and who understand all the local circumstances. In this particular question, of course, expenditure and, therefore, rates are bound to play a prominent part.
There is a further reason. My noble friend, in the interesting speeches he has made during the course of this Bill through your Lordships' House, has made it clear
726
that the Ministry of Agriculture has been in conference with various outsiders, and is heart and soul in this project of getting land for allotments. This proposal would make the Minister of Agriculture litigant and judge in his own case, a thing which is ridiculous. The Minister of Agriculture would be as much interested as the prospective allotment holder; yet he is to be made the judge of whether or not the local authority should have exemption. I submit, with great respect, that the proposal will not hold water, and if you want to have this exemption at all you must constitute a proper authority for the purpose, and the proper authority is, I submit, the Ministry of Health, the Department to which ill these questions are referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, after ("Minister") insert ("of health").—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to add two words. What I may call the argumentum ad Holbornum which defeated me just now obviously defeats the intention of this clause. The fact that Holborn can never have allotments is a good and sufficient reason why it should not refer to the Minister of Agriculture of all people to decide upon its municipal affairs.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If it would meet the noble Lord I should be willing to insert "after consultation with the Minister of Health." I do not mind which comes first, whether it is the Minister of Health, after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Agriculture after consultation with the Minister of Health. I feel that if we entirely cut out the Minister of Agriculture there may be a certain number of boroughs who would try to slip out by going to the Minister of Health without consulting the Minister of Agriculture.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I do not quite know what my noble friend means. May I ask him whether this Amendment has been considered in the Department In that case he will be able to answer my question, which is this. He proposes that there should be consultation between the two Ministers of Health and Agriculture. Is this consultation between the Ministers to be before or after the inquiry is held?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: When it comes to the setting up 'of a statutory committee, if a borough council does not wish to set up a committee to fulfil that statutory obligation they then apply for exemption to the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Health would not grant that exemption till it had consulted the Ministry of Agriculture.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I am sure I did not make myself clear. The question I asked is not the one the noble Earl has answered. The question I asked was this. Assuming there is to be coalition between the two Departments, is that coalition to be effected before you have inquired into the local circumstances or after, awl before the decision is come to? It is a simple question, and can easily be answered. If the matter has been inquired into in the Department they must surely have made up their minds on this elementary fact. Let me put it more plainly. The local authority desires to be exempt. Under this machinery they apply to the Minister of Agriculture. He has to ascertain how the facts lie, and he would therefore hold a local inquiry. I want to know whether the consultation of the Departments is to be before the inquiry or afterwards. I have no arrière pensée or any trick in putting that question, and if the noble Earl will answer it I shall know exactly what to do.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The object of my noble friend, Lord Ancaster, was to avoid an analogous difficulty. Lord Long asked: "What is the good of the borough of Holborn talking to the Department of Agriculture; they know nothing about them. They have never been brought into conflict or co-operation. They are alien to one another." My noble friend has tried to meet that difficulty, and the analogous difficulty. The Ministry of Health can say: "You were asking us to conduct an inquiry into allotments raised by the borough of Holborn. We know nothing about allotments. We are not bucolics."
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: They were the authority for allotments for twenty years.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They are not so now. This duty has been taken away from the old Local Government Board
728
and deliberately put under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Health will say that the proper people to deal with the subject is the agricultural department. My noble friend suggests that the two difficulties should be avoided in a simultaneous manner if possible. As it stands now, if Holborn does not want to have an allotments committee forced upon it, it shall apply for exemption to the Ministry of Agriculture. My noble friend said that Holborn shall be entitled to receive exemption from the Ministry of Agriculture after consultation with the Ministry of Health. That means that upon receipt of an application for exemption those two Departments shall confer. The noble Earl suggests inserting, after the word "Minister," "after consultation with the Minister of Health," so that the exemption would come after the two Departments had considered the matter.
LORD HARRIS: What can be the object of bringing two Government Departments into a matter of this kind? If Holborn does not want to have an allotments committee what better chance has that borough by having two Government Departments dealing with it? And supposing the two Departments do not agree, who is going to decide? The Prime Minister?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will accept the Amendment if that is thought the more desirable course. There may be a case in which' some borough council which is not very keen on allotments may get at the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture may consider that particular council very remiss in the matter. The only thing we ask is that the Minister of Agriculture should be consulted.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "allotments committee," to insert "which may be an existing committee of the council or a sub-committee of an existing committee." The noble Lord said: I am following the precedent set up in 1918 during the debates on the Maternity and Child Welfare Bill. The question was then raised whether it was not very undesirable to force large local authorities to set up special committees when they had existing committees which could do the work very well. It is the same

729
here. There are existing committees which could deal with allotments without setting up a special body for the purpose. When the Maternity and Child Welfare Bill was being considered the actual words I have used in my Amendment were moved on Report by Mr. Hayes Fisher, who was then President of the Local Government Board. He said he had been convinced by the argument that it was undesirable to force local authorities to set up special committees. If it was thought right in 1918 then I think that fact may have some influence on the noble Earl in charge of the present Bill. There is no reason why local authorities should be forced to set up special committees when they have committees which could easily do the work. And there is also the objection of local authorities to so many committees. Members complain that they have to serve on so many.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 28 and 20, after ("committee") insert ("which may be an existing committee of the council or a sub-committee of an existing committee").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I have no particular reason for objecting to the Amendment. It is not very necessary, not will it be very convenient to local authorities. If the noble Lord presses it strongly, I will accept it. I am in rather a difficult position, because the next Amendment on the Paper, also in the name of the noble Lord, aims at excluding co-opted members.
LORD STRACHIE: Not excluding.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not know whether the noble Lord will press the Amendment, but if, later on, we exclude the co-opted members, which I hope we shall not do, it would be better to have an allotments committee set up ad hoc. If I give way to the noble Lord, and say it could be an existing committee, and then you knock out the co-opted members—
LORD STRACIHE: May I interrupt the noble Earl? My Amendment does not propose to knock them out. It only proposes to make them optional.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is much the same thing. Will not the noble Lord leave it until Report, and let us settle the question of the co-opted members
730
before we accept or reject this Amendment? I do not think there is any objection to it, and I know it is supported by these authorities, but I am in the difficulty which I have already explained to the House.
LORD STRACHIE: May I make a suggestion? If the noble Earl will accept this Amendment without prejudice to what may happen on Report, I will not move the other Amendment dealing with co-opted members, while reserving my right to do so on Report if I think fit.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Very well.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the first "shall" and to insert "may." The noble Earl said: This is the Amendment to which the noble Earl has just referred, and which also stands in the name of my noble friend, Lord Strachie. Your Lordships will, no doubt, gather that its object is to make the election or co-option of outside members of allotments committees optional. A good deal of discussion has recently taken place as to interference by Parliament with the local authorities. I think the noble Earl mentioned it himself, and I confess without hesitation that I think this attempt on the part of Parliament to interfere with the functions of local authorities is a very serious danger.
I do not want to repeat, nor do I expect the noble Earl to repeat, what was said when the subject was raised two or three Amendments back, but I do most emphatically say that to compel a local authority to co-opt on its body members representing certain clearly defined and specified interests is a most serious departure from the freedom which local authorities have always exercised in the conduct of their own affairs. I have here a letter addressed to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations, in which they point out, what I already knew, that it has always been the practice of Parliament to exclude from a local authority persons whose interests, whether through holding office under or by reason of a contract with a local authority, or otherwise, differ from and indeed may be directly contrary to those of the public and ratepayers in general.
My noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, a short time ago, alluded to the fact—I think he was speaking specially of a county

731
education committee, of which, I am sorry to say, I have had very considerable experience—that very often the co-opted members were some of the most useful and ablest members. That may be so sometimes, but in a very large number of cases I should entirely repudiate the suggestion. A short time ago I attended a meeting of the county council of which I have been a member for a good many years, and with others raised the question of educational expenditure, and we found that in many cases those most responsible for extravagance were co-opted members, who had no real practical knowledge of local government. Let me remind the Government and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that co-opted members are frequently faddists and enthusiasts of a most dangerous character. Here we have in this particular case a statutory order levied on a council—which again is not a county council— not only to co-opt members representing a certain interest upon its body, but, what is a far more serious thing in my opinion, laying down the exact proportion of the representation which they shall have. I do not want at this hour to labour the point, but I say that there are other people to be considered in this world besides the allotment holders.
I venture to think that in trying to please the allotment holders the Government are going to put themselves wrong with a large number of other people. We must remember that the allotment holders are not the only people who possibly may have haloes round their heads. We recognise that many allotment holders have possibly a very just claim, but you cannot do impossibilities, and I say that to place representatives of a certain interest in a particularly privileged position is contrary to all the traditions and customs of Parliament. I trust that the noble Earl in charge of the measure and the noble Earl who leads the House will give me some assurance that these particular persons whom it is sought to benefit will not have this particular privilege conferred upon them.
I would remind the noble Earl in charge of the measure of one thing more, and it is this: Supposing that there are a very large and representative body of people who have, or desire, allotments within the area of a certain council—I would ask, have they not got their own remedy when the election time comes? Have they not got their own remedy through the medium of their
732
own representative on that body One would think they were individuals unable to speak for themselves, whereas in my experience they are never very backward when they want anything. I trust that the noble Earl will see his way to make this clause permissive instead of obligatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I cannot accept the Amendment, because it is those very authorities who will not take any action whom we wish to force to take action. I do not know whether it would meet the noble Earl if the proportion of representation was decreased. But this question is considered to be of the very greatest importance by those people who wish to obtain allotments. The point is embodied in the Report of our Committee, the Government have accepted it, and I am bound to stand by it. The worst authorities who will not take any action are just the authorities who will not add co-opted members. The noble Earl exaggerates a little the power of these co-opted members. Everything they do will have to be subject to confirmation by the county council. I do not think they would have any power over finance, and it would do away with a great deal of misapprehension if these men were co-opted on to the committees.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I gather that the noble Earl sympathises with the object of my Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, I do not.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: At any rate, it is an entirely new principle to have a packed committee for this purpose—because it is nothing less. However, I have made my protest, and I leave it to the House to decide.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in Subsection (2), before "occupiers," to insert "and elected by the." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to make this clause really effective in securing the representation of the allotment

733
holders themselves. It seems to me very desirable, if you are going to have that delightful accord in the deliberations of these allotments committees to which reference has been made, that you should have the actual allotment holders on them, and not some agitator or some urban talker who is appointed from outside.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, after the second ("of") insert ("and elected by the"). —(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am in entire sympathy with the desire that these co-opted members should be representative of the allotment holders. I c4n honestly say that there is a great deal of difficulty in accepting this Amendment. It would mean practically that I should have to set up all the machinery for taking a poll and, incidentally, there would be the expenses connected with an election. It would be known in most boroughs who were the prominent people connected with allotments. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: Who is to decide whether they are representative or not, under the clause as it stands?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Although, as in many cases to-day, I remain wholly unconvinced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, may I suggest a middle course? If he will agree to it on Report I will not press this Amendment. I want to see persons who are allotment holders and who actually cultivate allotments placed upon these committees. And I would suggest that for the words "representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens" he should substitute the words "who are themselves occupiers of allotment gardens." That is, that all those who are added to the committee in this Capacity shill be allotment holders. If the noble Earl is prepared to accept that suggestion I will withdraw my Amendment and put down another in that form on Report.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not think that these are very important words. The noble Lord is, I believe, anxious to get this Bill and to provide allotments for allotment holders. If I were to promise to accept something of this sort on Report
734
it would be perfectly easy for another noble Lord to put clown another Amendment of the opposite character on the ground that some of these people had not been able to get allotments and are, perhaps, discontented about the matter. I am only putting a possible case, and I think that as a general rule those who would go on to the allotments committees by co-option would be the secretaries of the local allotment associations. A good many difficulties appear to be raised. It is possible that in a place which has been backward in this matter a particular man has taken a leading part in securing land for allotments, and it would be rather hard on such a man to say that he should not be co-opted on the committee because he was no— a plot-holder. I think the noble Lord will agree with me in that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is, perhaps, asking the noble Earl a good deal to ask him to pledge himself to take such an Amendment on Report. He might, I think, reasonably say that he would consider it before the Report stage. There is no doubt, of course, that the words in the Bill are open to a great deal of objection. I agree that it is not a very important point, but no one knows what is the meaning of the words "representative of the occupiers," and no one knows what is to happen if anyone challenges a man and says that he is not representative of the occupiers.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will consider the matter upon Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4), after "constituted" to insert "or augmented." The noble Lord said: It is quite clear that if a small holdings committee is appointed they will not be constituted with these co-opted members as is provided in the earlier part of this clause. In order, therefore, to ensure complete accuracy of language, I ask that these words may be added. It is a great pity that the small holdings committee have anything to do with it. If you are to make use of a small holdings committee you should take care that it is augmented by gardeners in the way suggested in the earlier part of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after ("constituted") insert ("or augmented").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think the Amendment is unnecessary as the committee would not be constituted so as to comply with the provision of this clause unless it comprised co-opted members.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I find it difficult to carry on this perpetual difference of opinion with my noble friend. I do not wish to prses the Amendment. I feel that my position is getting a very difficult one in regard to this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power for county councils to let land for allotments.
9. A county council may let land acquired by the council for small holdings for use by the tenant as an allotment, or to a local authority or association for the purpose of being sub-let for such use.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after "holdings," to insert "and already in use as arable." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that land which has been acquired by county councils for small holdings shall not be converted into allotments unless it is already arable land. It is connected with an earlier Amendment which was accepted by your Lordships in order to preserve pasture from being broken up for allotments when that could be avoided.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, after ("holdings") insert ("and already in use as arable").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This Amendment goes a good deal further than the Amendment already accepted, and I hope the noble Earl will not press it. Practically, it means that a county council which may have purchased land for the purpose of small holdings will not be
allowed to let a portion of that land for allotments. Does the noble Earl wish to say that a county council shall not be allowed to break up its own grass land? I hope he will not press that.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am bound to support this Amendment. It is apparent from what the noble Earl has just said that he does not follow the meaning of the word "acquired." County councils are in e habit not merely of purchasing land, but a the present time, to a preponderating extent, of taking land either on an annual tenancy or on a lease. It is obvious that if the landowner lets on lease a grass farm for small holdings to the county council on payment of an annual rent by the county council it is very unfair to him and may be to the detriment of the public interest that that land, without any compensation being paid to the owners, should be converted to arable land for a totally different purpose from that for which it was originally purchased. If the county councils are going to have these powers to convert small holdings into allotment ground at least there should be some proviso similar to that which I have on the Paper to the effect that if such land be pasture due compensation should be paid to the owner on its conversion into arable.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is another Amendment on the same subject, and I shall consider this question again. I do not wish to get into controversy, but are you going to lay it down, as this Amendment does, that a county council, if they wish to let some of the land that they have bought for allotments, shall not be allowed to break it up for that purpose? I cannot accept an Amendment like that.
EARL STANHOPE: If the noble Earl will change the word "acquired" into "purchased" I will withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Salisbury M.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Bledisloc, E.

Abingdon, E.

Brownlow, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Novar, V.

Clinton, L.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Gorell, L.

Stamford, E.

Harris, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Clarendon, E.

Long, V.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Derby, E.

Peel, V.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Strachie, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out "use," and to insert "cultivation," and to leave out "by the tenant." The noble Lord said: I should like to draw the attention of the House to what is actually contemplated in this somewhat extraordinary clause. Here are holdings that are provided with carefully selected tenants as farmers, a totally different class from allotment holders and it is to be possible for a county council to use these holdings as allotments. Not content with that, they may put the same tenants, chosen, possibly, as grass farmers, into these allotments to cultivate them as gardens. I venture to say that it is entirely contrary to the whole purpose of the Small Holdings Act that these persons, selected for one purpose, should remain for an entirely different purpose.
What I ask is that the land in the hands of these men should not remain derelict but should be actually cultivated. I am sufficiently acquainted with allotment associations in three different cities to know that if there is one thing that stands in the way of successful cultivation it is the wind-carried seeds blowing from a derelict allotment to one under cultivation. What I ask is that these allotments should not be disposed of in such a manner that they will not be cultivated at all.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("use") and insert ("cultivation") and leave out ("by the tenant"). —(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Thank you very much.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after "association" to insert "being an association to which land may be let by a council under the Small Holdings and
738
Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919." The noble Earl said: As I explained on a previous occasion, this is a question of certain restrictions on profits.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, after ("association") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE had given notice to move, at the end of the clause to insert "provided that if such land be pasture due compensation shall be paid to the owner on its conversion into arable." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to the same purport as that of my noble friend Lord Stanhope, on which the House has divided, and I do not propose to move.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause in agreed to.
Clause 11:
Limitation on expenditure on allotments and rents to be charged.
11.—(1) A council shall not take any proceedings under the provisions of the Allotments Acts relating to allotments, unless in the opinion of the council the expenses of the council incurred under those provisions (other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified) may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to be defrayed out of the receipts of the council under those provisions.
(2) For the purposes of this section, expenses and receipts shall be calculated in such manner as the Minister of Health may direct, and shall include expenses and receipts in respect of land acquired whether before or after the passing of this Act:
Provided that such expenses shall not include—
(a) expenses in relation to the acquisition of land other than the purchase price or rent, and other compensation payable in respect of the land;
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out (",and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "the best rent that can reasonably be obtained for such use" and insert "such rent as may be necessary to repay all costs incurred by the council in respect of such land and its adaptation, equipment, and maintenance as such."
The noble Lord said: I have been asked on behalf of the allotment holders to point out to your Lordships that it would be unfair to try to secure for these allotments the very best rent or rack rent that could be obtained, especially when there is a scarcity of allotments for a somewhat crowded population, where, in fact, the demand far exceeds the supply. In that case the operation of the ordinary laws of supply and demand would be unfair to the allotment holders, who would pay the best rent the municipality could screw out of them. Surely no one, not even, I venture to say, my noble friend, Lord Long, desires the municipalities to make large profits out of the allotment holders, and all I ask is that the rent should be no more than is necessary to repay all costs incurred by the Council in respect of such land, its adaptation, equipment, and maintenance as such. Unless they are prepared to say that allotment holders are to yield a profit out of their allotments to the municipalities, I feel sure the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("the best rent that can reasonably be obtained for such use") and insert ("such rent as may be necessary to repay all costs incurred by the Council in respect of such land and its adaptation, equipment, and maintenance as such").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think it is fairly clear that the object of this clause is not to exact a rack rent from the allotment tenants. One of the great proposals was that there should be what was known as pooling of rents. We did not like to lay it down in the Bill that the authorities were to pool the rents, but we considered it was a question that should be left to the discretion of the allotment authorities. There are cases where land has been acquired on very favourable terms, and the authority is able to let the allotments at very low rents. There are, on the other hand, exactly opposite cases, and we give power by this clause to the councils practically to pool their rents, and by increasing the rents of their low rented allotments to make the whole thing a financial success.
740
We intend that these allotments shall be let at a fair rent. We do not want the allotment authorities to become a sort of charitable institution, and to let the land for far less than the land is worth.
By this clause, we lay it down that the land shall be let at a fair rent, and we give a chance for the allotment authorities to put up the rents where the rents are very low, in order that they shall not be losers on other allotments, but shall make the scheme an economic one. The clause has been drawn with that object. It is not the intention that these allotments shall be put up to auction and a rack rent so obtained. It may be that the words of the Amendment are better than those in the Bill, and if necessary the matter can be further considered on Report. At the present moment I prefer the clause as it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to delay the Committee but I am afraid, from my reading of the clause, it does mean a rack rent. I gather that is not the intention of the Government, but if I am right the words of the clause are not apt, because they would secure what the Government do not want. I think the noble Earl had better look at the words of the clause again. As the clause stands it makes the allotment holder pay "the highest rent that can reasonably be obtained" in the market.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is not to be quite the highest rent that can reasonably be obtained, because it is limited by the words "for such use." That is a very important limitation.
LORD HARRIS: Why should not the authority get the best rent it can? If it does not, the difference is going to be paid by the ratepayers.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Rating of allotments.
12.—(1) A council providing land for allotments whether under the Allotments Acts or otherwise may by notice to the authority by which any rate is levied require that the council shall be assessed to the rate as the occupiers of the land notwithstanding that the land or part thereof may be let, and in such case the council shall for the purposes of any rate levied by that authority be deemed to be the occupiers of the land until the notice is withdrawn.
(2) The foregoing subsection shall apply to an association providing land for allotments in like manner as it applies to a council, if at the request of the association the authority by which a rate is levied agrees that it shall so apply.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after "authority," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "and made after the notice is given and before the notice is withdrawn." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the assessment to the county rates shall only take effect after the notice has been given and so long as the notice has not been withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 22, after ("authority") insert ("and made after the notice is given and before the notice is withdrawn").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is also a consequential Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 23 and 24, leave out from ("land") in line 23 to the end of line 24.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
". Where a council purchases land under the provisions of section thirteen of this Act, the council may re-sell such land on the same terms as acquired by the council to an Allotment Association whose rules conform to the regulations prescribed by the Treasury."
The noble Lord said: I have been asked, on behalf of the Bristol and District Small Holdings and Allotments Association, comprising a membership of over 17,000, to move this Amendment, in order to give power to a council, if they think fit, to re-sell land acquired to any allotments association whose rules conform to the regulations of the Treasury. It would be of great advantage in some cases where a council did not wish to have the trouble of managing the allotments themselves, if they were allowed to transfer them to a properly constituted authority under rules set up by the Treasury, and safeguarded in every way. In the majority of cases where you have a good allotments association
742
it would no doubt be more economical if the allotments were managed by the allotment holders themselves than if they were run by the council.
Amendment. moved—,
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Clause 13 does not authorise councils to purchase land, but only deals with their powers for borrowing money for the payment of the purchase money. When I came to consider the Amendment I had some difficulty in arriving at its precise meaning. An allotment authority which purchases land for allotments can sell the land to a recognised allotments association under Section 27 of the Act of 1908, as amended by the Act of 1919, and, if this power is considered inadequate, I should be glad to consider the matter further. For this purpose I would ask the noble Lord to put down an Amendment on Report.
LORD STRACHIE: I will do as re-quested by the noble Earl.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) In addition to the powers conferred upon them by any other enactment the Public Works Loan Commissioners may out of funds at their disposal advance on loan to societies on a co-operative basis having for their object or one of their objects the provision of profitable working of allotments which are entitled to any land for an estate in foe simple, or for any term of years absolute whereof not less than fifty years shall for the time being remain unexpired, and any such societies may borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners such money as may be required for the pure, se of such provision or profitable working of allotments whether in relation to the purpose of requisites the sale of produce credit banking insurance or otherwise.
"(2) Such loans shall be made in manner provided by the Public Works Loan Act, 1875, subject to the following previsions—

(a) Any such advance may be made whether the society receiving the same has or has not power to borrow on mortgage or otherwise, independently of this Act.

(b) The period for the repayment of the sums advanced shall not exceed years.

(c) No money shall be advanced on mortgage of any land solely, unless the estate therein proposed to be mortgaged shall be either an estate in fee simple, or an estate for a term of years absolute, whereof not less than fifty years shall be unexpired at the date of the advance.

743

(d) The money advanced on the security of a mortgage of any land solely shall not exceed one moiety of the value, to be ascertained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of the estate or interest in such land proposed to be mortgaged.

"(3) For the purpose of provision or profitable working of allotments every such society as aforesaid is hereby authorised to purchase, take, and hold land, and if not already a body corporate shall, for the purpose of holding such land under this Act, and of suing and being sued in respect thereof, be nevertheless deemed a body corporate with perpetual succession."
The noble Earl said: The idea of this Amendment is that a properly registered friendly society, registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, should have power to raise money from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purpose of purchasing land for allotments. There is already power under various Acts by which money can be advanced to societies of this kind. Under Section 49 of the Act of 1908 a county borough or urban district council has power to promote the formation of co-operative societies, and of making grants and advances thereto, and under subsection (4) of the same clause the Ministry of Agriculture have power, with the consent of the Treasury, to make similar grants. Also, under Section 53 of the Act of 1908, as amended by the Act of 1919, a borough or urban council may borrow to make grants or advances to co-operative societies. The object of this Amendment is that these societies should be able to raise money direct from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purposes of purchasing land for allotments.
On a former Amendment Lord Ancaster rather accused me of being against giving security of tenure to allotment holders. This Amendment was put down before he made those remarks, and that is my answer to that charge. I know of no security better than actual purchase, and this is an Amendment which would be very much appreciated by the National Union of Allotment Holders, and I hope very much that the Government will accept it. I have left one small point open in the Amendment. Your Lordships will see that in subsection (2) (b) I have not put any term of years within which the repayment of loans shall be carried out. I would suggest that it should be eighty years, as provided in the Bill, and if the Government will accept my Amendment I am prepared to agree to any term of years they suggest.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, will not accept this Amendment. We have quite enough loans to deal with in the present state of county finance without incurring more. In addition, I think at this hour of the evening it is rather out of time to try to induce the Government to give way on this point. County Councils and other local bodies are already quite heavily burdened enough in the matter of rates.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think there is something in what the noble Earl has said, but I am in a difficulty about accepting his Amendment for the simple reason that it has not been very long on the Paper, and I have not had time to communicate with the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who are the people who have the say in this matter, and not ourselves.
EARL STANHOPE: I am quite prepared to put the Amendment down on Report to suit the noble Earl's convenience.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Perhaps the noble Earl would kindly do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HARRIS: Am I too late to comment on subsection (2) of Clause 13?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes. I am sorry. I put the clause and then called on Lord Strachie. I did not know the noble Lord wanted to comment on the clause.
LORD HARRIS: It contains a most nefarious proposal.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but the noble Lord gave me no notice of any proposal.
Clause 14 (Provision as to parts of New Forest now used for allotment gardens):
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Amendments to this clause are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("1887") and insert ("1877")
Page 10, line 31, after ("1831") insert ("or any Act amending that Act").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause—
"To remove doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Act, 1919, do not apply to any allotment or allotment garden as defined by this Act."
The noble Lord said: I do not think that this Act should apply to allotments. Your Lordships may have noticed that I have put the words "to remove doubts" at the beginning of my new clause. That is because it is not quite certain whether this Act does or does not apply to allotments or allotment gardens. The words in the Act are very definite as regards market gardens, but the Act is silent as to allotments and allotment gardens, although I believe it really does apply to them.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.— (Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am in sympathy with much of this Amendment, but I cannot accept it in its present form. This is a most complicated legal point and I will not trouble your Lordships with the whole case in regard to it. So far as the Amendment refers to allotment gardens I see no objection to it. The noble Lord's Amendment states that it has the object of removing doubts. I do not think that is quite correct as regards allotments because that term is not defined by the Bill.
I could not accept the Amendment as it stands. If the noble Lord would leave out the words "allotment or" I would accept the Amendment. I think, however, before this Bill leaves this House it will be desirable to place on the Paper some Amendments which will remove other questions as to the distinctions between agricultural holdings and holdings such as allotment gardens which ought not to be treated as agricultural holdings, and thus enable the law as to these two classes of holdings to be consolidated in a satisfactory form. These amendments may render the noble Lord's Amendment unnecessary. I think, in view of the Amendments which I shall put down later, it would be better if the noble Lord raised the matter then.
LORD DYNEVOR: Shall I be able to see what my noble friend has to suggest before the Bill leaves this House, and have an opportunity of dealing with it? My noble friend says allotments are not defined in the Bill, but the word allotment is used continually in the Bill. Now we find that all our discussions on the word allotment are useless because no one knows what an allotment is.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am sure the noble Lord will be able to raise the question of allotments again. By the Amendments which I propose to consolidate the Acts an effort will be made to make clear what allotment gardens, cottage gardens, etc., are, and my noble friend will not be ruled out. I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, because "to remove doubts" is not correct. I could deal with allotment gardens now, but that would not cover the whole ease.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15:
Interpretation.
15.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—
The expression "allotment garden" means an area not exceeding forty poles which is cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable crops for consumption wholly or mainly by himself or his family;
The expression "council" in the case of a rural parish not having a parish council, mean the parish meeting.
The expression "industrial purpose" shall not include use for agriculture, horticulture or the keeping and breeding of livestock.
The expression "association" means an association formed for the purposes of creating or promoting the creation of allotments and so constituted that the rules thereof prohibit the issue of any share or loan capital with dividend on interest exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury;
The expression "borough" includes a metropolitan borough;
(2) Where under this Act any question arises as to whether land is reasonably required for any particular purpose, the question shall be deter-mined—

(a) where the landlord is a Government Department, by a certificate issued by the Department;

(b) where the landlord is a local authority, by a certificate issued by the Ministry of Health; and

(c) in any other case, by a certificate issued by the Minister;

and any such certificate shall be final and conclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("where the context permits")
Page 10, line 36, after ("is") insert ("wholly or mainly").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved after "vegetable" in subsection (1), in the definition of "allotment garden" to insert "or fruit." The noble Lord said: It is quite clear from the Report of the noble Earl's Committee that fruit is considered of at least as much importance in these allotments as vegetables.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 37, after ("vegetable") insert ("or fruit").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("wholly or mainly"). —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 2, after ("agriculture") insert ("and the expression `agriculture' includes forestry")
Page 11, leave out lines 10 to 16.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This subsection refers to the question as to whether land is "reasonably required," and as the word "reasonably" has gone, this becomes a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 22 to 32, leave out subsection (2).(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL of ANCASTER: Yes, I think the whole of this subsection comes out.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Short title, commencement, and repeal.
16.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Allotments Act, 1922, and the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, which relate to allotments and this Act may be cited together as the Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1922.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the day of nineteen hundred and.
(3) The enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: There is no necessity to postpone the operation of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, lines 8 and 9, leave out subsection (2). —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 12, at end insert the following new subsection:
("This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

Enactments Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

8 Edw. 7. c. 36

The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.

Subsection (3) of section 25.

Subsection (1) of section 27.

10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 76

The Agriculture Act, 1920

Section 11.

LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved at the end of the Schedule to insert:

9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 59.

Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919.

Section 16.

The noble Lord said: I am moving to omit Section 16 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. That section gives power to acquire compulsorily land forming part of the park or home farm attached to a mansion not required for the amenities of the mansion, and also a holding of not less than fifty acres. Prior to 1919 this land was excluded under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, for compulsory acquisition, and I maintain that this protection should be restored. There is ample land available, apart from these special holdings, for allotments.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, at end insert—

9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 59.

Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919.

Section 16.

—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This Amendment would include small holdings as well as allotments. I appeal to the noble Lord that it is not quite right to move such a substantial Amendment by merely including a provision in the repeal Schedule. If the noble Lord wishes to repeal Section 16 of the Act of 1919, I would ask him to do it by putting down an Amendment for the Report stage in the shape of a new clause, and, in order to bring it within the scope of the Bill, that he should restrict its application to allotments. What he proposes now is really outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD DYNEVOR: I appreciate the remarks of the noble Earl. It is possible that the Amendment is outside the Bill, and I will put down an Amendment for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION (AMEND- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TRAFFORD PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to the first sitting day after the recess at Whitsuntide.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.