Sitting of 24 July 1923

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Thornton Urban District Council Bill,
Rugby Urban District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 20th July, and agreed to.
Mid Kent Water Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be how read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways. and Means. ]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Southern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order).
As amended, considered; Amendments made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be
190
now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order).
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That, in the case of the West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82, 211, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill on Thursday next.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Church of Scotland Ministers' and Scottish University Professors 'Widows' Fund Order Confirmation Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RUHR OCCUPATION (BRITISH TRADE).
  Mr. FRANK GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he Can inform the House of the value of goods which have reached this country from the Ruhr since the 1st February last; whether he has any information as to the value of goods contracted to be sold in the Ruhr for export to this country prior to the 1st February and of which delivery has not been made;
  (2) whether he can inform the House of the value of goods for export from the Ruhr to this country for which the French authorities have granted licences since the 1st February, and the value of goods in respect of which the French have not granted licences; is he able to inform the House whether any British firms have received preferential treatment in this respect; and, if so, under what circumstances?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): It is impossible to give the statistics asked

  191
  for. But the information which I have received from the High Commissioner is to the effect that there is now no difficulty in securing licences for goods ordered before 1st February in respect of which the necessary information is forthcoming. There has been some inevitable delay owing to the large volume of work thrown on the High Commissioner, but he recently expressed the hope that all applications in respect of such goods made before 30th June would be dealt with by the end of July. I am not aware that preferential treatment has been accorded to any British firm.
  Mr. GRAY: Is it not possible for the Minister to say what is the value of goods which have in fact come out of the Ruhr district to this country under the supervision of our own High Commissioner since the 1st February last?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, that would be quite impossible. They do not come out under the supervision of the High Commissioner. When the licences are got through, these goods are exported from the Ruhr and the only information as to what actually comes out could only be obtained from the firms who have licences and have got the goods out.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been such serious delay?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that is an unfair reflection on the High Commissioner, who has had to deal with some-thing like a thousand of these cases. The traders who were on the spot will, I think, agree that he and his staff did everything possible.
  Mr. GRAY: But was there not in some cases a delay of five months?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, but it took a very long time to get the arrangements through under which the licences could be applied for by the importer. This involved negotiations with the French and German Governments.

  NATIONAL WASTE PRODUCTS, LIMITED.
  Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the books of the National Waste Products, Limited,
  192
  have as yet been deposited with the Disposal and Liquidation Commission in accordance with the instructions issued; and, if not, the reason for the delay in compliance?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir.

  GERMAN MERCANTILE MARINE.
  Colonel GRETTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the merchant tonnage launched in Germany during the past 12 months and the value in pounds sterling; the number and tonnage of the first-class liners launched in Germany during the past three years for the Atlantic trade and the value in pounds sterling; how many modern liners, and the tonnage, have been launched in Germany during the past three years for trading upon other foreign routes; and the value of such liners in pounds sterling?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The latest figures in my possession regarding vessels built in Germany relate to the calendar year 1922. During that year 685 vessels of 742,100 tons gross were completed, as compared with 397 vessels of 450,900 tons in 1921 and 330 vessels of 327,700 tons gross in 1920. I regret that I am unable to state the values of those vessels or the numbers of liners built for various trade routes.
  Colonel GRETTON: Cannot my right hon. Friend get the information asked for?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, I do not think I can. I have made inquiry as to the information available. I do not think I can get it. I do not know from whom I could ascertain what was the price at which different contracts were placed.
  Colonel GRETTON: Is it not possible to arrive at the value according to the prices which obtained in this country?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, but that is not what my hon. and gallant Friend asked for. If he puts it to me what is the value of 740,000 tons at the average price of British tonnage at that time, I might work out a rough calculation for him, but that is not what he asked.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that the Germans were able to build much more cheaply than the prices which ruled in this country at that time?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, that is so.

  MEASURING INSTRUMENTS BILL, 1922.
  Mr. HILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to introduce at an early date the Measuring Instruments Bill, 1922?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side on the 12th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    EX-ENEMY PROPERTY.
    Captain BERKELEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there have been cases of British-born subjects of ex-enemy parentage who served in the Allied forces in the War, but who have had their property subjected to charges under the Treaty of Peace orders?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to this question is in the negative.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the prolonged delay in meeting the reparation claims of British firms whose property was destroyed in Smyrna in the early days of the War is not only causing considerable personal hardship, but is also hindering the recovery of British trade there and elsewhere; and will he take steps to expedite a settlement in these cases?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Smyrna claims in question are included among the property claims upon the examination of which the Royal Commission is engaged, and which will be dealt with in their Report on Property Claims. Everything possible is being done to expedite consideration of these claims.
    Mr. THOMSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something more to render payment possible in view of the fact that this damage was done in 1915 and a payment on account of promise some months ago?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not know, in human affairs, what is possible beyond "the utmost possible."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have always found that officials are willing to do everything possible.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: They are already doing everything possible. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be singularly fortunate in having to deal with officials who are doing everything possible.
    Mr. THOMSONalso asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to relieve the anxieties of many widows in straitened circumstances, he will ask the Royal Commission on Reparation Claims to give an early ruling as to what are the exceptional conditions under which belated claims will be accepted for consideration, and particularly whether ignorance of the rights they possessed will be accepted as a valid reason for delay in submitting their claims?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Every step is being taken to expedite the work of the Royal Commission, but each belated claim must be dealt with on its merits, and I do not think a satisfactory result would be reached by the course suggested by the hon. Member.

    GERMAN NOTE (BRITISH REPLY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the draft reply of His Majesty's Government to the German note on reparations is being sent to the Governments of all the Allied and Associated Powers; and, if not, to which Governments it is not being sent?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The draft reply has been submitted to the Belgian, French, Italian and Japanese Governments. It has also been communicated to the United States Government for their information.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why have the other Allied Governments—Serbia, Rumania, Portugal, and so on—been left out? Are they not interested?

    RHINELAND.
    Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Prime Minister if he has any information regarding the possible formation of a Rhineland Republic at a very early date; and what attitude he proposes to adopt in such an eventuality?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the discrepancy between the present figure of the claims of British nationals against the Turkish Government, i e., £40,000,000, and the figure of £23,000,000 given by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade on 21st February, 1921, to Mr. A. Baldwin Raper?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. The second figure referred to relates to claims by British nationals in respect of damage in Turkish territory during the Great War, while the first figure includes also the estimated damage caused to British nationals by Kemalist operations and the Smyrna fire.

    GERMAN CREDITS (GREAT BRITAIN).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the large credits in sterling, estimated at many millions, held by Germany in this country, out of which she is purchasing any raw materials not locally obtainable which she requires to keep her industries in full operation; whether he is aware that, owing to these large credits in British currency, she is able to outbid our Allies, France and Belgium, in securing raw materials urgently needed by French and Belgian manufacturers; and whether any representations have been made to Germany as to utilising any of these large credits in this country for the payment of reparations?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as I am aware, the German Government has no such credits in this country. Any credits granted in the ordinary course of commerce to private persons would be for the purchase of commodities, and could not be diverted to the payment of reparations by the German Government.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, during the War, all British citizens had to mobilise their foreign credits and securities in order to lend them to the British Government? Why should not the same course now be insisted upon in Germany, whose citizens notoriously have enormous credits abroad?
    Mr. WISE: May I ask whether Germany has not recently sent a large amount of gold to this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When?
    Mr. WISE: About two or three months ago.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no information as to that. In reply to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), that is a matter for Germany. It was we in this country who mobilised the resources of our nationals in our own interests. We cannot compel the Germans to mobilise any credits there may be here and, if I may say so to my hon. Friend, I am not one who would desire to see German credits sent over here for the purpose he has suggested.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as Germany owes us large sums of money, sums belonging to German nationals might very well be used for liquidation of our debt?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These are matters of opinion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that, under the Treaty of Versailles, there was a lien in our favour on any such credits in this country; and it was by the action of the late Government that the lien was released?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think any question arising out of the Treaty of Versailles should be put on the Paper, so that the Foreign Office may see it.

    WOOL (GERMAN PURCHASES).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large quantities of Australian and other wool have recently been purchased in this country by Germany and paid for in British currency; and whether he can give particulars of the number of bales so purchased and the price paid?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures given in the British Trade Returns as to exports of wool consigned to Germany during the first half of the current year.

    EXPORT of Sheep's or Lambs' Wool to Germany during the six months ended 30th June, 1923 and 30th June, 1922, respectively.

    —

    January-June, 1923.

    January-June, 1922.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    Centals of 100 lbs.

    £

    Centals of 100 lbs.

    £

    Exports of British Produce

    50,978

    456,773

    67,240

    477,514

    Exports of Foreign and Colonial Produce

    640,309

    4,746,470

    680,288

    3,970,689

    Total

    691,287

    5,203,243

    747,528

    4,448,203

    CITY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of the City Life Assurance Company, 6, Paul Street, Finsbury, E.C., which recently went into voluntary liquidation, he can state the nature of the company's liabilities and the assets, respectively; and what action, if any, has been taken to safeguard the interests of policy holders?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The liquidation was compulsory, not voluntary, and the Official Receiver is acting as provisional liquidator. Until the directors' statement of affairs has been filed it is not possible to furnish information regarding the company's assets and liabilities. In the meantime an offer has been received from another insurance company to take over the liability under certain of the policies which were issued by the City Life Assurance Company, and that offer is receiving the consideration of the Official Receiver.
    I regret that I am not in a position to give the detailed particulars asked for in the question.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great soreness both on the part of France and of Belgium at being continually over-bidden by Germany owing to her large British credits?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the German people were only able to buy this wool because English exporters were prepared to sell it?
    Following are the figures referred to:
    Mr. SHORT: What action is the Department taking to safeguard policy holders? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that policy holders have paid anything up to over £100 and have no guarantee that their interests are safeguarded?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Is it a fact that a well-known company has already taken over a large number of these policies with a view to mitigating the loss which unfortunately so many have suffered?
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I called the attention of the House to the fraudulent business methods of this company during the Insurance Debates, and that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) also warned the House and the country of the financial difficulties of this company?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Questions about a company which is in course of liquidation had better be put on the

    199
    Paper. The answer to the first two supplementary questions is contained in the answer I have given.
    Mr. SHORT: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to tell us whether his Department is taking any interest in the matter and whether policy holders are to be safeguarded particularly under the provisions of the Industrial Insurance Act.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. Member will read the answerߞߞ
    Mr. SHORT: I have heard it.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Then he will have heard the action which has been taken. There has been a compulsory winding-up order; the Official Receiver is acting as provisional liquidator; an offer has already been made by an insurance company to take over policies, and that is being considered by the liquidator.
    Mr. SHORTrose—ߞ
    Mr. SPEAKER: This question has had five minutes by itself. Further questions would be most unfair to other hon. Members; they should be put down.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    BOATS' COMPASSES.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory type of compass carried in ships' lifeboats; whether any instructions relating to boats' compasses are issued by his Department; and, having regard to the fact that the crew of the"Trevessa"found these compasses in both lifeboats useless, he will now consider the advisability of issuing instructions regarding suitable equipment for ships' lifeboats both as to its care and use?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have no reason to think that the type of compass carried in ships' lifeboats is unsatisfactory, and am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Board of Trade instructions on the subject. The statement as to the compasses of the"Trevessa's"boats will be investigated at the Board of Trade Inquiry. It is the duty of the Board's surveyors, when inspecting a ship's lifeboats, to inspect
    200
    their equipment also. When an inspection was last made of all the life-saving appliances of the"Trevessa"they were found to be in accordance with the Board of Trade instructions.

    APPRENTICES (TRAINING).
    Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the manning of the mercantile marine by efficient navigating officers is of primary importance to this country and an obligation resting on his Department, he will lay before the House, for the information of its Members, the statutory requirements of the Board of Trade relating to the training of apprentices; and whether, in view of the clause contained in apprentices' articles of indenture, namely, that the said apprentices shall be taught the duties of a seaman, he is satisfied that such training is being efficiently carried out?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There are no statutory requirements of the Board of Trade relating to the training of apprentices. As far as I can judge, the efficiency of the training varies considerably. In some cases complaints have been made that it is not satisfactory. In others it is admitted to be thorough and efficient. The indenture is a contract, and the Board of Trade has no power to intervene.
    Viscount CURZON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the training of apprentices should be on the owners, rather than on the masters of ships?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not sure what my Noble Friend means by that. Under contracts of apprenticeship, instruction is to be given by the master. The chairman of directors cannot go to sea to instruct apprentices.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ARTILLERY CAMP, RHIWGOCH (ROAD).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the condition of the main road leading from Trawsfynydd, County of Merioneth, to the artillery camp at Rhiwgoch; and whether, in view of the fact that its unsatisfactory condition is due to the

    201
    extraordinary traffic to and from the camp, steps will be taken by the War Office authorities to contribute to the cost of putting and maintaining the road in proper repair?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The hon. Member had already called my attention to this matter, and I had informed him that I would make inquiries and let him know the result as soon as possible. A report has since been obtained from the local military authorities, and the matter will be considered in consultation with the Ministry of Transport.

    MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in view of the unpopularity of the Army Medical Service at the present time, he will recommend that young medical men shall be invited to serve three, five or seven years, with a gratuity at the end of service, so as to maintain a steady flow of young men into the service?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It is already open to Army medical officers to retire with gratuity after 8½ years' service. I do not think the shortening of this period is desirable, or administratively practicable, having regard for instance to the requirements of the Army in India.

    FIELD TRAINING, ALDERSHOT (STEEL HELMETS).
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is a Command Order that troops in the Aldershot Command must wear steel helmets during training; and, if so, whether, considering that this order entails very considerable physical discomfort to the troops, he will consider recommending the discontinuance of this order?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Command Order lays down that helmets will be worn for field training when ordered. Discretion is given to the unit commander to cancel the use of helmets on long or hot days. For obvious reasons helmets must be used for range practices. I am not prepared to recommend that the order should be varied. The military authorities are fully alive to the neces-
    202
    sity of securing the comfort of the troops by all legitimate means, and it would be no kindness to the soldier not to train him to carry the equipment designed for his protection on active service.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that during the recent hot spell troops marched for over 20 miles with steel helmets on their heads?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It is left to the unit commander. Obviously, in this hot weather, light apparel would be more comfortable than military uniform, but it is necessary that the troops, within due limits, should be trained under conditions of active service.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: On active service troops never wear steel helmets.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

    EDINBURGH CASTLE (GARRISON).
    Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can make any statement regarding the re-establishment of a garrison in Edinburgh Castle, so much desired by Scottish public opinion?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Arrangements have been made, and will come in to force at once, for the stationing in Edinburgh Castle of a detachment 31 strong. This detachment will find the Castle guard and the guard at Holyrood Palace. The detachment will be relieved once a week instead of every other day, and in addition once a month the battalion at Bedford Barracks will march with the relieving detachment to the Castle with band and pipers, and the band will play on the Esplanade while the guard is being mounted. In addition, there are at the Castle about 30 other soldiers employed at the Command Headquarters. I trust that these arrangements, to which much consideration has been given, will prove acceptable to Scottish public opinion. It is impossible to do more without both interfering with the training of the battalion at Redford and putting the Castle garrison into unfit quarters.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman remember that the Scottish motto still remains Nemo me impune lacessit?

    RHINELAND ARMY (PAYMENT).
    Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the continued daily decline in the value of German marks, he will reconsider the decision to continue to pay British soldiers of the Rhine Army in marks and will now introduce payment in sterling?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): I cannot accede to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that we should pay in sterling. But, in view of the further rapid fluctuation in the value of the mark, the question of making some change, in order to safeguard the soldier's interests, is now under active consideration, and I hope to be in a position to announce a decision next week.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: How often is the mark revalued for the purpose of payment?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Once a week.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Could it not be done once a day?

    AIR FORCE OPERATIONS, NEAR EAST.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the British forces in Iraq have been in action during the present year in that country; if so, under what circumstances; and whether any casualties were sustained?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): I have been asked to reply. One of the air expeditions mentioned in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on the 12th April, 1923, took place in January of this year. Since then operations have been undertaken for the purpose of re-occupying certain districts in which hostile elements had established themselves and were interfering with the administration of the country. The casualties were: officers, none; British other ranks, one killed, seven wounded; Indian other ranks, nine wounded.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did these operations include tax collecting expeditions which we have been sending out lately?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, there have been no tax collecting operations. This information is for the most part restricted to operations undertaken in Kurdistan.

  SCOTLAND.

    EDUCATION CODE.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is aware that there is almost unanimous opposition to the new Code of Regulations for Scottish schools placed upon the Table of this House on 6th July; and what steps does he propose to take to get the approval or otherwise of this House to these Regulations?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have taken the usual step to obtain the approval of the House by laying the Code on the Table.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the Solicitor-General aware that under the section, under which the Regulations are placed upon the Table, there is no method of protesting unless we get the consent of the Government to discuss the Regulations? [HON. MEMBERS:"NO!"] Is he aware that a promise was given in this House on the 18th instant by the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health that in due course the House would have an opportunity of showing its approval or disapproval of the Regulations?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: My hon. Friend will remember that a very large part of the discussion on the Scottish Estimates was taken up by the question of the code. He is also aware that there is very great pressure on Parliamentary time. I will consider the point which he raises and give him an answer within the next day or two.
    Major M. WOOD: Does the Government propose to impose this code on Scotland, in spite of the fact that almost the whole of the Scottish representatives have condemned it?
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that almost every education authority and every school management committee in the country have condemned it?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the code, as we now have it, was not in existence when the Scottish Estimates were under discussion, and that there was only the draft code?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The date of the Scottish Estimates was selected at the instance of the Opposition. I demur entirely to the view that educational opinion in Scotland is strongly against the new code. Within the last few days I have only received a circular from one education authority in Scotland on the subject.
    Mr. HARDIE: Which one was that?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The City of Glasgow. But I will consider whether an opportunity can be given to discuss the matter, which was very fully debated on the Estimates.
    Major Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the decision of the Government likely to be reviewed if a sufficient number of education authorities in Scotland communicate their views?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that a Scottish Education Bill came from the House of Lords the other day, and in view of the fact that Scottish opinion was strongly against it the Government pledged themselves to drop the obnoxious clauses? Is it not also a fact that every single Scottish representative from every corner of Scotland is opposed to this proposal?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: It is the duty of the Scottish Education Department to administer education in Scotland, after going very carefully and fully into the whole matter. With regard to the Clauses in the Bill to which my right hon. Friend refers, opinion in Scotland is very much divided upon the matter.

    JOHN M'PEAKE (ARREST IN GLASGOW).
    Mr. MUIRasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is aware that John McPeake, who was born and brought up in Glasgow, was recently arrested there and charged with the theft of an armoured car from the Irish Free State Government; that the charge of theft was departed from, or dropped, owing to the failure of the military witnesses of the
    206
    Irish Free State to give evidence; that John McPeake was thereupon discharged, but immediately rearrested in Glasgow without any fresh charge being preferred against him and transferred to Ireland; and that he is now held in custody by the Free State authorities without being brought to trial; will he state on whose authority the arrest was made; if any charge has now been made; and, if so, what charge?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: John McPeake was arrested by the Glasgow police on the 21st June on a charge of intimidation. While he was being detained on this charge, information was received that he was wanted by the Irish Free State authorities on a charge of theft of an armoured car and machine gun at Cork in December last. In view of the greater seriousness of the Irish charge, the Scottish charge was dropped, and McPeake was on 26th June handed over to an Irish escort in pursuance of a warrant granted by an Irish magistrate and endorsed in Glasgow in accordance with the ordinary statutory procedure. McPeake has not returned to Glasgow and has not been rearrested there. I am not aware as to the course of the proceedings against McPeake in the Irish Free State.
    Mr. MUIR: Cannot these matters be dealt with in a constitutional way? Can the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that a younger brother of this man who went over to Ireland to try to obtain some information about his brother has been arrested and is held there, although he is a British subject?
    Mr. J. ROBERTSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that McPeake, after being charged, was released, on the charge being dismissed, and was then rearrested by the Irish authorities and is now detained in Ireland? Will he have inquiries made into this imprisonment of British subjects in Ireland?
    Mr. MUIR: Is the Solicitor-General aware that this man McPeake, although the charge has not been made openly against him, is in danger of death, and, while conforming to the Regulations of the Free State, is it not essential that we should safeguard the interests of a British subject so far as the law is concerned?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: So far as the Scottish Office is concerned, the procedure followed in this case is perfectly regular.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it competent for the Free State authorities, having received a prisoner on a certain charge, afterwards, when that charge had been dismissed, to rearrest him on another charge? Is not this case subject to the rule relating to extradition that, if the charge on which extradition is granted is withdrawn, the person who has been charged should be returned to the jurisdiction from which he has been taken?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: That does not in the least arise out of the answer to the main question.
    Mr. HAYES: Are we to understand that the warrants issued by courts in Ireland are recognised by courts in this country, and in that case is there any reciprocity of arrangement by which warrants issued in this country for the arrest of people in Ireland are to be recognised by courts in Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

    MINERS (INCAPACITY).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health how many miners in Scotland at present incapacitated for work owing to injuries received in the course of their employment are in receipt of parish relief on account of their being so incapacitated?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I regret that the information asked for is not available. It could only be obtained by calling for special returns from parish councils, and under present circumstances my Noble Friend does not feel justified in adding to the already heavy pressure of work falling upon these authorities.
    Mr. HARDIE: Are not the returns for accidents already available so that there is no question of not being able to obtain the materials necessary to give information asked for?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: No. It would be necessary to have special returns made.

    CROFTERS.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware of the condition of the crops in the crofting counties of Scotland owing to the cold and wet weather during the summer; whether the Board of Agriculture have at their disposal adequate funds to carry out their obligations under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, and The Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, towards smallholders in the event of the failure of the harvest; and whether fresh consideration will be given by the Board of Agriculture to schemes for the construction of roads which are much needed by the agricultural communities in Caithness and Sutherland, and would go far towards relief of the distress and unemployment which a bad harvest would cause?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am aware that the weather so far has not been favourable to agricultural crops in the crofting counties and other parts of Scotland. I am informed, however, that at the present time there is no justification for assuming that the harvest will be a failure in the crofting counties. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Board of Agriculture's Grants under the Acts of 1897 and 1911 are not made, generally speaking, for the relief of distress due to bad harvests or other temporary causes. No part of the Board's funds has, therefore, been specifically earmarked for the relief of distress in the contingency mentioned. For the purpose of assisting agriculture, the Board have power under the Acts of 1897 and 1911 to make grants towards the cost of constructing roads, and in the present year they have offered to the County Council of Caithness the sum of £4,520 in aid of the construction of seven roads. This offer has been accepted. For the reasons which I have indicated, the last part of the question is a hypothetical one, and I can give no undertaking that the counties mentioned will receive special consideration in the present year in the absence of very exceptional circumstances.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it was never suggested that those funds should be used for the relief of distress, but that

    209
    they should be used to provide seed, according to the provisions of the Act mentioned, if the harvest should fail?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The harvest, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend, has not yet proved a failure, and it is not anticipated that it will.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, whether he is aware that the crofters on the Symbister and Busta estates in Shetland have, owing to the bondholders on the estates foreclosing, been warned by an Edinburgh company holding the bonds that unless they purchase their crofts at 25 years' purchase they may be evicted; whether the Secretary for Scotland will take action to assist the crofters to retain their holdings; and when legislation will be introduced to amend the existing law on the matter?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I understand that some communication has been received by crofters on these estates, but I am not aware of its terms. I would remind the hon. Member, however, that a crofter can only be removed from his holding in the event of breach of the Statutory conditions or of resumption being authorised by the Land Court for a reasonable purpose on the application of the landlord. If such an application should be made with regard to any holding by a purchaser who has no other landed estate and intends to reside personally on the holding, his proposed occupation would be deemed a reasonable purpose, and my Noble Friend would have no power to interfere or to assist the present tenant to retain his holding. It does not appear, however, that that situation has arisen, and it may not arise. My Noble Friend regrets that he cannot at present give any undertaking with regard to the introduction of legislation on this subject.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at the present time very serious discontent exists in Shetland over this matter, and will he represent to his Noble Friend the necessity of introducing legislation to amend the existing law at an early date? If such legislation cannot be introduced this Session, will he do so next Session?
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the condition of the crops in the crofting counties of Scotland, owing to the cold and wet summer, renders these counties liable to distress and unemployment in the winter; whether his attention has been drawn to the Interim Report of the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation (Cmd. 1842), dated 29th March, 1923, Section 39, headed Relief of Rural Unemployment; and whether, in view of the importance of an extension this winter of the operations of the Forestry Commissioners in these crofting counties, he will sanction at an early date the scheme submitted to him in April last by the Forestry Commissioners?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of the expenditure to be incurred next winter on special unemployment works in urban and rural areas, and the proportion of this expenditure to be devoted to forestry schemes is now under consideration by a Committee of the Cabinet.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is there to be no reply to the scheme submitted by the Forestry Commissioners in April last until the Cabinet Committee has reported?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On behalf of the Cabinet Committee I have communicated with the Chairman of the Forestry Commission.

    LICENSED PREMISES HOURS, SELKIRK.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, in view of the fact that special permission was granted by members of the Licensing Court to each of the hotels and public houses at Selkirk for the three days, 14th, 15th, and 16th June, extending the hours of sale from 9 to 10 p.m., notwithstanding that the police reported against the granting of the applications in respect that they were not authorised by Section 40 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and as no public or special entertainment was taking place within the licensed premises within the meaning of the Act, he will institute an inquiry into the matter with a view to maintaining proper police administration within the burgh?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: As my hon. and learned Friend

    211
    is aware, the grant of special permissions is a matter in the discretion of members of Licensing Courts, and no question of police administration appears to be involved. If, however, my hon. and learned Friend will supply me with the information on which his question is based, my Noble Friend will consider whether any inquiry can usefully be undertaken.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is it not a fact that, in granting special permission of this character, the police are consulted, and their opinion is taken; and when their opinion is flouted, should not the Scottish Office interfere?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The granting of special permission is a matter within the discretion of the licensing authorities, but if my hon. and learned Friend will supply me with the information on which the question is based, my noble Friend will see if inquiry can usefully be made.
    Mr. MILLAR: I will certainly do that.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES COMMITTEE).
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether any representative of the Scottish local authorities has been appointed to the Committee on Supplies of Building Materials; and, if not, whether, in view of the special interest which the local authorities have at present in the question of building and of the need that they should be kept closely informed as to the national situation as regards building materials, he will add such a representative to the Committee?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Interim Report of the Committee from which he will see that they propose to publish tables at monthly intervals indicating the current prices of building materials. By this means local authorities will be kept informed as to the situation and no addition to the personnel of the Committee appears to be necessary.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the learned and hon. Gentleman state what reason there is why a representative of the Scottish local authorities should not be placed on this Committee, seeing that they are the parties principally concerned in the question of building?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating the question.

    GOVERNMENT OIL-BORING.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary for Mines the amount realised during the year ended 31st March, 1923, by the disposal of the Government buildings and plant previously utilised in the Government oil-boring schemes, the amount due at that date for charges raised for interest on Exchequer advances and administrative expenses, and the total loss on the undertaking as at that date?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX (The Secretary for Mines): The approximate amount realised during the year ended 31st March, 1923, by the disposal of Government buildings and plant utilised in the Government oil-boring experiments was £25,000. The amount reserved for interest on Exchequer advances and on administrative charges amounted on 31st March, 1923, to £104,903. The total loss on the undertaking at that date, including such interest, was, approximately, £678,000.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PIT-HEAD BATHS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he has yet considered the question of amending Section 77 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act in reference to pit-head baths; if not, will he consider the question as early as possible in the light of his recent experiences when visiting collieries where pit-head baths have been established; and will he assure the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to make provision of baths compulsory at all new collieries?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply that I gave on the 12th June to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson), but the hon. Gentle-

    213
    man may rest assured that the desirability of the further extension of the provision of pit-head bathe will not be lost sight of.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that 1923 values have made the 1911 Act in regard to pit-head baths obsolete? Is he not aware that there is a growing demand throughout the whole coalfield for pit-head baths and that it is the duty of his Department to cultivate that demand?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better make that speech later on.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Arising out of that reply—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better await the Debate this afternoon.

    SAFETY APPLIANCES (EXPERIMENTS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he has now considered the question of taking over a disused mine for experimental purposes with safety appliances; and, if so, to what conclusion has he come?
    Lieut-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. I have consulted the Safety in Mines Research Board and agree with their opinion that such appliances should, where necessary, be tested under actual working conditions at a working colliery, and not at a disused mine.

    BOYS (WORKING HOURS).
    Mr. DUNNICOasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that boys of 14 years of age are employed in the coal mines of this country not only during the day but during the night also; that these boys in some areas commence their duties between midnight and three o'clock in the morning; and whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of so amending the law as to prevent the continuance of a system that is inimical to the physical and mental welfare of these children?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am aware that boys of 14 may legally be employed at night in coal mines below ground provided that an interval of ordinarily 15 hours and in no case less than 13 hours separates two periods of work. I have received no representations that the law
    214
    ought to be amended. I will certainly give them my most careful consideration if they are made to me.

  TRANSPORT.

    INLAND WATERWAYS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he has under consideration the recommendations embodied in the Second Interim Report of the Inland Waterways, of which the present Minister of Health was chairman, and which was presented to His Majesty's Government on the 28th May, 1921: whether he has examined the proposals for the improvement of inland navigation embodied in that Report; and whether, in view of the menace of increased unemployment during the forthcoming winter, His Majesty's Government will take measures to proceed with canal improvement as a promising means of providing work for considerable numbers of people?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Report referred to has been carefully considered, and its recommendations will be borne in mind in connection with any proposals for assistance to unemployment works. The Nottingham Corporation have, with the assistance of a grant from the Unemployment Grants Committee, recently undertaken considerable works on the Trent Navigation, which was particularly mentioned in the Report as suitable for development.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the Committee on the Taxation of Motor Vehicles, which was originally intended to report in time for the Budget, is likely now to issue its Report in 1923; and what are the reasons for the delay?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I certainly hope that the Departmental Committee on the Taxation of Motor Vehicles will be able to report fully before the end of this calendar year. The delay in issuing their Report is due to the complexity and difficulty of the problems which they have to consider.

    215
    I am satisfied that the Committee have pursued their inquiries with all possible dispatch.

    ROAD VEHICLES (REGULATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel NALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he can say when he pro poses to introduce a Bill to enact the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Regulation of Road Vehicles; and whether he is aware of the many anomalies arising from the present state of the law?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I hope that an early opportunity will present itself of introducing a Road Vehicles Bill, giving effect to many of the recommendations contained in the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee. I am fully aware of the anomalies referred to in the last part of the question.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Bill will be introduced in the present Session of Parliament?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, a Traffic Bill for London is under consideration, and that it is more difficult to drive a tandem than it is to drive a single horse.

    RAILWAYS (GROUPING).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether it is the intention of the Government to further consider the grouping of the railways with a view to abolishing some of the anomalies which still exist, namely, the running of branch lines in between and sometimes over the lines of the larger groups; whether he will call a conference of the five groups with a view to exchanging such branches so as to make more workable and complete the grouping already arranged; whether he is aware that the Sirhowy Branch of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, in Monmouthshire, occupies such anomalous position; and will he take steps to rectify these matters?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Under Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1921, the Minister of Transport may confirm agreements for the purchase, lease or working by one railway company of any part of the
    216
    system of another railway company. It is for the railway companies to consider, after the grouping required by the Act has been carried out, and sufficient experience has been gained of its working, whether, in view of the position to which the hon. Member refers, they should put forward proposals under this section.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some of these groups are depending on the Ministry of Transport to call them together to discuss these matters—I had that from one of the groups last week—and will he do that as long as it is the desire of some of these groups?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I may say that it is a new aspect of the question to me. I rather thought that it would coma from the companies, but, in view of what the hon. Member has said, without making any promise, I will go into the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Do not some of these instances affect very important industrial parts of the country, and, in view of the fact that they are the only remaining means of competition existing between the companies, should they not be preserved?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider all these points.

    TAXI-CAB FARES (LONDON).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the reduction of the price of petrol from 4s. 3½d. a gallon three years ago to 1s. 8½d. at the present time, and in view of the further reduction in the price of tyres, he can now see his way to reduce the taxi-cab fares in London?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave him on 26th April last. I am afraid that, having regard to all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend cannot at present recommend a reduction of fares.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of petrol is now only 1½d. higher than it was in 1914, and is he also aware that in Paris new taxi-cabs have been put on and that the fare for a mile is only 3½d.,

    217
    the equivalent of Frs. 1.15, and cannot he see his way to bring about a reduction of 2d. a mile at least in this country?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a very large proportion of the drivers themselves are in favour of this reduction?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In regard to the second question, I may mention that no representations have been received from any of the owner-drivers themselves in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I would like to point out that there has been a drop in the price of petrol of only 3 ½d. a gallon, and that equals a drop of only one-sixth or one-seventh of a penny per mile on a basis of 20 miles to the gallon.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has there not been a drop in the last two years from 4s. 3½d. to 1s. 8½d.?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That was the substance of the reply given the other day, to which I have referred my hon. and gallant Friend.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (SILENCERS).
    Mr. LAMB (for Major Harvey)asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the lack of the observance of the regulations relating to the use of efficient silencers on motor vehicles, he will take steps to have these Regulations more effectively carried out?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. I have no powers in connection with the enforcement of the regulations referred to. The enforcement of the law is a matter for the individual police authorities.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the very strong desire that all Members of this House who drive motor cars should have their silencers increased to double the ordinary strength, so as to secure a larger measure of safety to the public from their tendency to scorching?
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member entitled to ask a question on behalf of another hon. Member on the first round?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No. That has escaped my notice.
    Mr. THOMSON: Might I ask my question No. 75, seeing that I should, in the ordinary course, have had the opportunity of doing so?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

  POST OFFICE.

    LORDS CRICKET GROUND (TELEGRAPH OFFICE).
    Captain HUDSONasked the Post master-General if he will consider whether the telegraph office at Lords can be reopened, anyhow for the more popular matches?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The number of telegrams forwarded from the telegraph office at Lords last year, even on the occasion of the most popular matches, was very small and not nearly sufficient to cover working expenses, and I do not think that any substantial public inconvenience can have been caused by the withdrawal of the office. Several telephones are installed.

    CABLE TELEGRAPH SERVICES (LICENCES).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General what payment is made to the Government by the cable companies for the licence to conduct cable telegraph services?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Licences to land cables for the purpose of conducting cable telegraph services are granted at a charge of £1 a year per cable, and in addition the companies pay for the wires leased by them in this country and appropriate rates for the use of the Inland Telegraph service where messages are transmitted over Post Office lines.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to deal with wireless companies on the same lines?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will deal with that question when it arises.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPH LICENCES.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General how many and what companies have applied for licences to conduct wireless telegraph services?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Only two companies—namely, the Marconi

    219
    Company and the Eastern Telegraph Company—have recently applied for licences for the erection of wireless stations in this country for the purpose of conducting wireless telegraph services.

    TELEGRAPHISTS (PRESS ASSOCIATION).
    Mr. SPOORasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that under the contract between the Post Office and the Press Association, whereby the latter body are licensed to work and maintain telegraph wires and apparatus, telegraphists employed are paid much lower wages than the telegraphists in the Post Office or employed by the ordinary Press in doing similar work; whether the contract in question contains the Fair Wage Clause; and, if not, will he state the reason why?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Press Association are not contractors to the Post Office, but merely hold a licence empowering them to rent private telegraph wires for the purpose of distributing news to the Provincial Press. I have no control over the wages paid to their skilled telegraphists, but I am informed they are not below the agreed trade rates.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (OPERATORS' MISTAKES).
    Major CADOGANasked the Post master-General whether he is aware that a large percentage of the mistakes made by telephone operators is due to the similarity in sound of the numerals 9 and 5, and also owing to the fact that the names of the exchanges, such as Paddington and Kensington, are often confused for the same reason; if he will consider whether, in the first instance, some system of re-arranging the numerals can be devised in order to obviate the confusion; and whether, in the second instance, the names of the exchanges which are liable to be confused can be altered?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Recent observations showed that 8·6 per cent. only of wrong connections were due to phonetic similarity between the numbers 5 and 9. The matter has been investigated from time to time, but it would be impracticable to eliminate either numeral entirely from the switchboard, and no alternative has yet been discovered which would be likely to meet
    220
    with general public acceptance. Great care is taken in the choice of names for exchanges, but in an area such as London, served by 100 exchanges, it is difficult to find names wholly dissimilar in sound. Very little difficulty appears to arise in connection with the names Paddington and Kensington, and as they so correctly describe the areas they serve I do not propose to introduce any change.
    Major CADOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to render him a monthly return, showing how often Paddington and Kensington are confused on my telephone?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should be very glad to have the information.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three out of five calls on my telephone are wrong through the confusion of the names of these exchanges, Paddington and Kensington?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The figures given by me are the result of very careful checking, and they show 8 per cent. not three out of five as the hon. Member says.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the innovation which has just been made, namely, the repetition of recurring numerals in telephone calls, and does he think it quicker to say"six o o eight"than"six double o eight"as was previously done?

    HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce a Bill to reform the House of Lords?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Are we to understand that the reform of the House of Lords is still part of the Government's programme?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to wait for a second Oliver Cromwell to come along?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely this is a part of the Conservative programme. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to drop it?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House if he has received Mr. McKenna's permission to deal with this subject?

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister the total sum of revenue received from the Entertainments Duty since its commencement to the end of the last financial year; what the amount was for that year; and whether, in view of the tax being continued, he can now take steps to encourage and assist deserving movements in dramatic art and education and, as some acknowledgment of our great indebtedness to Shakespeare, undertake to provide from the Entertainments Tax revenue an adequate sum to endow the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford, and establish and maintain a national theatre in London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reveue derived from the Entertainments Duty since its imposition seven years ago is £57,606,000, of which £9,603,000 was collected in the last financial year. I do not favour the extension of Government enterprise to art suggested in the last part of the question, and I am not prepared to regard specific revenues raised for public expenditure generally as in any way connected with particular forms of expenditure.
    Major PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the promoters of an opera for the benefit of a German widow living in Germany are endeavouring to get special concessions in regard to the Entertainments Duty; and whether, in view of the many widows of British soldiers who are in equally poor circumstances, he will assure the House that no concessions will be made?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise cannot trace any application of the kind described in the question. Such an application, if received, would be dealt with in accordance with the law.

    HOUSE PROPERTY (INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENTS).
    Major PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the assur-
    222
    ance that assessments are to be made on the actual rents received, whether this applies to property let on a lease for over seven years; and is he aware that assesments are being made on leasehold property above their actual value.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I have previously explained in reply to hon. Members, the reassessment for Income Tax purposes is being made in accordance with the old-established law under which the annual value of property is the rack-rent at which it is let, or is worth to be let, by the year. In cases where property is let at a rack-rent fixed by agreement within the preceding seven years, the annual value is by law fixed at the amount of the yearly rent. In other cases where property is not let at a rack-rent so fixed, it is necessary to ascertain the rack-rent at which the property is worth to be let by the year.

    INCOME TAX.
    Captain AINSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the power given under The Finance Act, 1923, to Income Tax authorities to demand accounts and revise taxation for any six years past instead of for three years will in certain cases prevent trustees closing estates for six years, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing this new power from the Income Tax authorities, which is provoking the resentment of the trading communities?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would invite my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to Sub-section. (3) of Section 29 of the Finance Act, 1923, which provides that the period within which assessments may be made on executors and administrators in respect of the income of a deceased person shall not extend beyond the end of the third year next following the year of assessment in which the deceased person died.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    EX-SERVICE CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of providing for the extra

    223
    outlay required to meet the increase of the salaries of ex-service civil servants, as recommended by the Southborough Committee and accepted by the Treasury; and whether, in any event, in view of the recent Treasury minute calling for economy measures to secure the availability of sufficient savings to meet the increases recommended, he can assure the House that such extra outlay will not be met by reducing the remuneration of other already low-paid civil servants?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part in the affirmative.

    TREASURY TECHNICAL POOL.
    Mr. F. GRAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is felt among civil servants in respect of the working of the Treasury Technical Pool set up in 1920 (General Order No. 23E), in respect of persons employed under the control of his Department, especially the case of a valuer and compensation officer to the War Office and Disposal Board, where the basis of complaint is that such officer is still employed as temporary officer at a large salary and has been preferred to the advancement of permanent officials and temporary officials alike not warranted by his experience, knowledge, or war services; and whether he will make inquiry and take action in the matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the working of the Treasury Technical Pool which was set up in 1919 to deal with a problem that no longer arises. Questions relating to individual appointments on the staff of the War Office or the Lands Branch of the Disposals and Liquidation Commission should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. GRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a particular case?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. If the hon. Member likes to call my attention to one, he can do so.
    Mr. GRAY: I will do so.

    NATIONAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, HUNSLET, LEEDS.
    Mr. BROTHERTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, after the sum of £60,000 spent on new, and improvements to, buildings at the No. 2 National Ordnance Factory, Hunslet, Leeds, any allowance was made to the Treasury by owners of the property on the expiry of the State's tenancy; and whether he can say on what terms the premises were taken over, the cost of the plant and equipment of the factory, and the amount realised by the sale?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certain loose plant, machinery, etc., from this factory have been sold, but the factory itself has not been disposed of, and the Disposal and Liquidation Commission are still in occupation of the buildings. The premises were taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act and by an award of the War Compensation Court the sum of £4,100 has been paid in respect of occupation from May, 1916, to May, 1923. The total cost of plant, machinery and equipment amounted to approximately, £224,769.

    NEWFOUNDLAND POWER AND PAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury who are the directors of the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company, Limited; and if they still include representatives of His Majesty's Government?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer contains a long list of names, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WHITE: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly announce the answer to the second part of the question?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They still include Sir George Stapylton Barnes, late Joint Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How many directors are there?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I had better read them all. [HON. MEMBERS:"No!"] About nine.
    Following is the list of names:
    Sir George Stapylton Barnes, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., late Joint Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, was appointed in October last as Treasury representative on the Board of the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company, Limited, and continues to hold that appointment. The other directors are Sir G. H. West (President), Mr. H. J. Reid (Vice-President), the Hon. Samuel J. Foote, K.C. (representing the Newfoundland Government), Mr. E. V. Bowater, Mr. Henry Harrison, Major D. C. Jennings, Mr. S. W. A. Noble, Mr. R. G. Reid, Lord Southborough, and Mr. John, Stadler (Managing Director).

    HOFFMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
    Mr. WHITEalso asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of interest or dividends received by the Government on the investment in the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, and the amount of loss realised on the sale of this holding?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the Member to the full details given in my predecessor's reply of the 15th February, 1922, to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), which also applies to the period between that date and the 1st January last, when the Government ceased to have an interest in the company. Though, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on Tuesday last, there is no doubt that there has been a loss on the whole transaction, there have been many compensating advantages to the State which it is impracticable to estimate. I am unable, therefore, to assign even an approximate figure to the real loss incurred.
    Mr. GRAY: Why has there been a loss; and has the right hon. Gentleman seen the prospectus of this company, issued on 11th July of this year, which shows that the assets have nearly doubled, and that a dividend equal to £100,000 per annum for 11 years has been paid?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not seen it.
    Mr. GRAY: If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to send it to him, I will do so.
    Mr. WHITE: Who is responsible for concluding this transaction?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I imagine the Disposal Board, but if the hon. Member will put down a question, I will let him know exactly.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Pensions what number of men suffering from tuberculosis have applied for pensions and have been refused a pension by his Department; the number of men so refused who have appealed against the decision of the Ministry to the appeal tribunal; and the percentage of such appellants who have been granted a pension?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): I regret that the statistics of the Ministry are not kept in a form that would enable me to answer this question in full, but, I may say, that during the last 15 months about 2,800 claims for pension, on account of tuberculosis, have been accepted.

    APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Minister of Pensions whether, for the convenience of the appellants and in order to curtail expenditure on travelling expenses, arrangements can be made for periodical sessions of the war pensions appeal tribunals to be held in Sheffield for the hearing of cases from the Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, and Doncaster districts, which are at present heard at Leeds; and from the Chesterfield, Mansfield, Retford, and Grimsby districts, hitherto heard at Nottingham?
    Colonel GIBBS(Treasurer of the Household): Arrangements have already been made for an assessment tribunal to sit at Sheffield periodically. The first of these periodical sittings commenced on Monday, 16th July.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (SHARE FISHERMEN).
    Mr. HARBORDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the serious amount of unemployment and general distress existing amongst the share fishermen during the past two years caused by repeated failure of the herring fishing, the Government will take the necessary steps to bring these men at the earliest possible date within the scope and benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. Share fishermen are excluded from unemployment insurance only if they are wholly remunerated by a share in profits or gross earnings. This exclusion was pressed upon the Department when the Act of 1920 was before Parliament. I am afraid it is not feasible to introduce the legislation which would be necessary in order to bring these fishermen into insurance and entitle them to immediate benefit.
    Mr. HARBORD: Would the Government be prepared to grant facilities to a private Member who is prepared to make the necessary proposals which would enable the share fishermen to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is obviously a question which ought not to be addressed to me, but to the Prime Minister.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Lord Privy Seal when he proposes to make a statement on the recent proceedings of the Council of the League of Nations; and if he will state what is the present position with regard to the collecting of information on conditions in the Saar Valley for the League?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Robert Cecil): The hon. and gallant Member will recognise that it does not rest with me to say when any special business shall be taken in this House. A report on the last meeting of the Council was laid on the Table of the House yesterday. The Secretary-General of the League is
    228
    still responsible, as heretofore, for collecting information on conditions in the Saar territory for the use of the Council.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But do I understand there is any independent official of the League who enters the Saar Valley to report or inspect?
    Lord R. CECIL: There is nothing to prevent his going into the Saar Valley, and, in fact, an official of the League does go into the Saar Valley from time to time.
    Captain W. BENN: Will the Paper to which the Noble Lord referred be circulated to Members, or lie upon the Table of the House?
    Lord R. CECIL: It will certainly be circulated.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS (DEPORTATION FROM DOMINIONS).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a statement showing the legislation passed by each of the Dominions establishing the right of those Governments to deport British subjects from other parts of the British Empire to the place from whence they came?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to answer this question. I regret that it is not possible to summarise the legislation within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question, but I will forward copies of the relevant provisions to my hon. and gallant Friend.

    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (PUBLIC NOTIFICATION).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Home Secretary whether, in the interests of the children and young persons who have to pass prison gates, he is prepared to introduce legislation to amend the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868, so that it will no longer be necessary to exhibit for 24 hours on the occasion of each execution notification of these occurrences on the gates of the prison where they take place?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend has considered the subject, but finds no occasion for proposing any amendment of the existing law.

    BRIGHTON DIAMOND WORKS.
    Mr. COOPER RAWSON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will provide special facilities for the passing through all its stages of the necessary Bill, which is already prepared, for the re-opening of the Brighton Diamond Works, in view of the fact that the Bill is believed to be unopposed, and that if it is not passed this Session hundreds of men who have been specially trained for this work will continue to receive the dole for a further five or six months instead of becoming engaged almost at once on productive work.
    The PRIME MINISTER: A Financial Resolution must be passed through Committee and Report stages before this Bill can have a Second Reading. It is proposed to put down the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution for consideration to-night after eleven, and should it then be found that the Bill is, in the main, an agreed Bill, every endeavour will be made to facilitate its passage into law before the House rises. My hon. Friend will understand that at this stage of the Session it would obviously be impossible to pass this Bill, requiring as it does a Financial Resolution, through the House of Commons and through its various stages in another place in so short a time except by general agreement.
    Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as we are concerned, it is an agreed Bill?
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the desire on this side that a very full explanation should be given in this case as to why a very large sum of public money is to be devoted to a factory which is already proved to be quite a hopeless failure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The explanation should not take long, and it would then be seen whether the Bill is non-controversial or not.
    Major DOUGLAS BROWN: Is not this Bill a large extension of the Trade Facili-
    230
    ties Act, and very undesirable, inasmuch as it provides public money for private individuals?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will not prejudice the Debate.
    Major PAGET: Is it not a fact that all these men—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member will please debate the matter when it comes on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  DATE OF ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can state what further business it is proposed to take this week; when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for the Summer Recess; what business it will be necessary to conclude before the Adjournment; and what Bills will be postponed until the Autumn?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must apologise for the length of this answer. Tonight, after 11 o'Clock, we propose to take the Report and Third Reading of the Railways (Authorisation of Works) Bill, the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Lords Amendments to the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Bill, and the Committee stage of the National Diamond Factory (Guarantee Agreement) Money Resolution, and Navy Expenditure, 1921–22.
  On Thursday, we shall put down the Board of Trade Vote.
  On Friday, further consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the National Diamond Factory (Guarantee Agreement) Bill, the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords], and, if received from another place, Lords Amendments to Bills.
  In regard to the date of the Summer Recess, I hope that it will be possible for the House to adjourn on Thursday of next week (2nd August), until Tuesday, 13th November.
  The business outstanding after this week which we must ask the House to dispose of before the Adjournment is as follows:
  Supply: We shall conclude the business of Supply this week, and it will then remain to pass the Appropriation Bill through all its stages.

  231
  We hope to obtain all stages of the National Diamond Factory (Guarantee Agreement) Bill and Financial Resolution if this Bill proves to be non-contentious.
  Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords], if not obtained on Friday, and of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords], and Lords Amendments, if any, to Bills which have already passed this House, including the Agricultural Rates Bill and the Rent Restrictions Bill.
  We propose to postpone until the autumn further consideration of the following Bills now before Parliament:

  Administration of Justice [Lords].

  Criminal Justice [Lords].

  Education (Scotland) [Lords].

  Workmen's Compensation (No. 2).

  Also consideration of the:

  Agricultural Wages (Confirmation of Agreements).

  Agricultural Returns.

  Honours (Prevention of Abuses) [Lords].

  Mental Treatment [Lords].

  Post Office.

  Trade Boards.

  War Charges (Validity).

  and of Bills which have originated in another place, if any of them are received in this House before the Adjournment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Vote in connection with the Board of Trade will be taken on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is proposed to take the main Vote.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Does the exchange of the Board of Trade Vote on Thursday, instead of what was originally arranged, the Foreign Office Vote, mean that there will be no discussion on the French occupation of the Ruhr during the remaining part of the Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, certainly not. There will be opportunity for discussion, as I originally anounced, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Sir JAMES REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the promised relief to pre-War naval and military pensioners?
  Major WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not mentioned the Merchandise Marks Bill?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Bill will take the greater part of the Autumn Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A very useful Bill, then? With regard to the pre-War pensioners, that subject, as has already been stated, will be taken in the Autumn Session. My hon. Friend will remember that I made an announcement that pensioners will not lose by that, because the date will be fixed at such a date as would have been taken if the Bill had been passed now. With regard to the other Bill which my hon Friend mentioned, that is at present under consideration.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 160.

  Division No. 305.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Becker, Harry

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

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

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

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

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

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Apsley, Lord

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Bruford, R.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Bruton, Sir James

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Berry, Sir George

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

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

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Button, H. S.

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

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

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Privett, F. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Raine, W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hughes, Collingwood

  Remer, J. R.

  Cope, Major William

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Remnant, Sir James

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Robertson-Despencer,Major(lslgtn,W)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Ednam, Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sandon, Lord

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. M.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Singleton, J. E.

  Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Skelton, A. N.

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Lorden, John William

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Flanagan, W. H.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lougher, L.

  Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

  Forestier-Walker. L.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Steel. Major S. Strang

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Fremantle, Lleut.-Colonel Francis E.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Furness, G. J.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Manville, Edward

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Gardiner, James

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Garland, C. S.

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Wallace, Captain E.

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

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  Gray. Harold (Cambridge)

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Gretton, Colonel John

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

  Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Morrison-Bell,Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

  Wells, S. R

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

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

  Nail, Major Joseph

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

  Halstead, Major D.

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

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wise, Frederick

  Harrison, F. C.

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Paget, T. G.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Peto, Basil E.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Adams D.

  Broad, F. A.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Brotherton, J.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Buckle, J.

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Attlee, C. R.

  Burgess, S.

  Duncan, C.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Dunnico, H.

  Barnes, A.

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Batey, Joseph

  Cape, Thomas

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Bonwick, A.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Falconer, J.

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Collison, Levl

  Foot, Isaac

  234

  235

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Leach. W.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Lee, F.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Greenall, T.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lowth, T.

  Snell, Harry

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Snowden, Philip

  Groves, T.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  McLaren, Andrew

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

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

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Sullivan, J.

  Hancock, John George

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Harbord, Arthur

  Middleton, G.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Hardie, George D.

  Millar, J. D.

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

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morel, E. D.

  Tout, W. J.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

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

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Turner, Ben

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Muir, John W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Herriotts, J.

  Murnin, H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Hill, A.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Warne, G. H.

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Webb, Sidney

  Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

  Pattinson, R. (Grantham)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Irving, Dan

  Phillips, Vivian

  Weir, L. M.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Westwood, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Potts, John S.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Whiteley, W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ritson, J.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Wright, W.

  Kirkwood. D.

  Salter, Dr. A

  Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Lansbury, George

  Sexton, James

  Lawson, John James

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Spoor and Mr. Lunn.;

  Question put, and agreed to.

  NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN.
  Report from Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices brought up, and read;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  BILLS REPORTED
  Morley Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Chatham Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, and Special Report, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (GALLERY ACCOMMODATION).
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 116.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
  Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
  Seaham Harbour Dock Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to,
  South Staffordshire Mond Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
  Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1923–24.

  POST OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £31,873,510 (including a Supplementary sum of £10), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."—[Note: £19,000,000 has been voted on account.]
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Laming Worthingon-Evans): As we have only about four hours in which to discuss the Post Office Estimates, I propose to open them with as short a statement as possible, so as to leave time for a reply to any questions which may arise in the course of the Debate. I will deal first with the commercial results for the year 1922–23 and then with the Estimates for the current year. The Committee will remember that the commercial accounts are credited with the business done for other State Departments, and are debited with expenditure which should be charged against the Post Office. The commercial results for the year 1922–23 have turned out better than was expected. The net surplus of revenue over expenditure was estimated at just over £3,000,000, but this surplus was exceeded by nearly £2,500,000, the actual surplus for the year being therefore about £5,500,000. The Postal Services show a surplus of nearly £6,000,000, and the telephones just over £1,000,000, being together £7,000,000; but this has to be reduced to £5,500,000 by a deficit of £1,500,000 on the telegraph services. The improvement of £2,500,000 over the Estimates of last year is due to reduction in expenditure of £3,500,000, against which, however, has to be set a
  258
  revenue lower by about £1,000,000 than the Estimates. The reduced expenditure of £3,500,000 is mainly due to a saving of about £1,000,000 in war bonus and about £1,000,000 in various staff economies, reduction of overtime and travelling expenses; and £750,000 is due to a saving in engineering plant charges About £400,000 was saved in the conveyance of mails, mainly due to a reduction of parcel post business due to trade conditions and partly to savings on contracts. The balance is made up of many small items.
  The loss on estimated revenue arose almost entirely on the postal services, principally owing to the fact that postcards and letters failed to respond to the Substantial reductions in the charges upon them. It was often said that revenue lost by reduction of postage from 2d. to 1½d. would be made up by increased business; but, so far as can be seen, this is fallacious. The only record which the Post Office can obtain of the volume of the postal correspondence is derived from an annual count that takes place in one week only in each year. Of course, this is 'too short a period to give a reliable average for the whole year, and the results therefore cannot be relied upon for anything more than a rough approximation. But for what they are worth the actual increases in correspondence affected by the reduction of rates, compared with the increases on which the Estimates were based, show the following results. In letters which were reduced from 2d. to 1½d. there was an estimated increase of 10 per cent., and the actual increase in business was only 4 per cent. Postcards, which were reduced from 1½d. to 1d. were estimated to show an increase of 20 per cent. and the actual increase was only 5 per cent. In printed papers, which were reduced from 1d. to ½d., there was an estimated increase of 20 per cent., and the actual increase was 25 per cent. That increase was due largely to the fact that there was a great fall in the cost of printing matter at the same time as there was a reduction in the rate. The combined effect of the two decreases undoubtedly stimulated advertising. The figures show that, without allowing for the increased cost of carrying the additional traffic, only 12 per cent. in the case of letters and 10 per cent. in the case of postcards

  259
  of the gross loss of revenue entailed by the reduction of rates, was recovered by increased business. These facts must unfortunately be borne in mind when the hoped-for reduction to 1d. postage comes to be considered.
  I will now explain the Estimates of this current year 1923–24. I would remind the Committee that the figures which I shall now refer to are not those of the commercial accounts, but are those of the printed Estimates of cash issues and receipts. The net estimate of expenditure for this year is £50,750,000, which shows a reduction of about £3,000,000 as compared with the net estimate of last year. I refer to the net estimate, because the gross figures under the several subheads last year included and this year exclude the cost of what is now the Post Office of the Irish Free State, and it is not until you come to page 45 of the printed Estimates that you get figures that are strictly comparable. After eliminating the provision for Southern Ireland in last year's figures, there will still be a reduction under nearly every subhead.
  As regards the reductions, we are estimating for a saving of £2,500,000 on salaries and wages, due mainly to the automatic reduction under the cost of living sliding scale. The reduction would have been greater had it not been for the expansion of the telephone service. On the conveyance of mails by rail and road we are saving about £460,000, mainly because of substantial reductions made in road mail contracts through falling costs and increased competition. On postal stores we are saving about £170,000, through the fall in prices and economies in the clothing of the uniformed staff, and on engineering stores and contract work we have reduced the provision by about £240,000, in consequence of the fall in prices. These are the principal reductions in this year's Estimates as compared with last year.
  I may be asked how the amount which I am now asking the Committee to vote compares, not with last year's Estimates, but with last year's expenditure. There were large savings alst year—about £3,700,000—out of last year's Vote, and consequently, compared with the expenditure of last year, the present Estimates are slightly higher. They show an increase of about £700,000. I will tell
  260
  the Committee how this is accounted for. The charges for interest and sinking fund on telephone capital are up by £610,000 in consequence of the large and increasing capital expenditure on the development of the telephone system. Of course, that is reflected in the increase of telephone revenue. The Bill for engineering materials is up by nearly £600,000, in consequence mainly of the fact that last year we were living to a considerable extent on stocks, and we cannot repeat the process to anything like the same extent. There are several other items where for one reason or another we expect to spend rather more this year than we did actually spend last year, most of them being connected in one way or another with the development of the telephone and wireless services, but I can assure the Committee that to the best of our judgment they are not only unavoidable but they will be reflected by an increased revenue either this year or, at any rate, in the near future. As the Committee is aware, heavy reductions in postal and telephone charges came into operation in May and July of this year, and therefore the revenue of this year is likely to lose about £2,000,000 owing to these reductions.
  Forecasting the figures on the basis of the commercial account, I will tell the Committee the results which we hope to get. The postal revenue is estimated at £36,750,000, which should produce a surplus this year of £4,250,000. Telegraphs are estimated to provide a revenue of £5,250,000, but, as the expenditure is estimated at six and two-third millions, the deficit is expected to amount to about £1,350,000. The estimated revenue for telephones, after allowing for the reductions in the rates already announced, is fourteen and one-third millions, showing a surplus of about £750,000. The net surplus, therefore, on the basis of the commercial accounts for the year, is expected to exceed three and a half million pounds. In the figures which I have given no account has been taken of expenditure under the Sutton Judgment. On the other hand, the war bonus on salaries and wages have been estimated on a cost-of-living figure of 85 per cent. over the pre-War period. The average for the year is likely to be less, and, therefore, a further large

  261
  saving on that account may be anticipated.
  I propose now to deal with a few of the many activities of the Post Office, but unless I take an undue share of our very limited time I must confine myself to the Telephones, Broadcasting, and Empire Wireless. During 1922–23, 97,000 new subscribers and 165,000 new stations were added to the telephone system of the country, representing, after allowing for cessations, a net increase of 51,000 subscribers and 74,000 stations. The total number of stations on 31st March was 1,050,000. The increase during the year was equivalent to about 8 per cent. This is the highest recorded increase in any one year in this country. The Committee will remember that trunk calls can be made after 2 p.m. at three-quarters of the full rates, and after 7 p.m. at half rates. These concession have resulted in some increase in business, but I think if the public were more fully aware of their privileges the increase would have been even greater. Special efforts have been made during the year to extend the telephone system in the rural areas. Previously the rentals had been fixed at a figure which, it was estimated, would enable an exchange to be opened and operated almost on a paying basis. In most cases, however, the charges at this level proved to be prohibitive, especially in the rural areas. Reduced rates were brought into operation last year, which are admittedly, for the moment, unremunerative. It was felt to be justified in the interests of the rural subscribers that the telephone system should bear a small unremunerative fringe, on which it is hoped the loss will gradually become a diminishing figure. The more liberal terms have been widely taken advantage of and up to date 390 new rural exchanges have been authorised; 166 have been completed, and the remainder are in course of construction. The exchanges authorised provide for over 4,500 new subscribers, of whom about 2,000 have already been connected. The users of rural party lines, for which the rent is only £4 a year, have risen from 3,747 at the beginning of the year to 7,400 in June of this year. Residents in rural areas will also benefit in many cases by the reduction in the extra mileage charges which will bring down their rentals by £4 a year, as no extra mileage is now charged
  262
  on the first one and a half miles from the exchange. Therefore, I hope that there may be a great extension of telephone facilities in the rural areas.
  A word or two now about the automatic telephone. The development of this type of equipment has been steadily pressed on. Those towns in which the automatic exchanges have already been opened consider that the automatic system is a great improvement, and are, as a rule, perfectly satisfied with the service given. New automatic exchanges have recently been opened at Fleetwood and Southampton, and similar exchanges will shortly be opened at Dundee and Swansea. A large number of schemes at other provincial towns are in various stages of completion. The installation of the automatic system of London has been the subject of very careful study by the Post Office engineers, myself, and the telephone manufacturing companies for some time past. The complexity of the problem is illustrated by the fact that facilities for inter-communication with each other without the intervention of the operator will ultimately have to be provided for 1,000,000 subscribers. An agreement has now been reached with three of the leading telephone manufacturing companies by which the patents owned by these companies will, for this purpose, be pooled, and orders will be placed immediately for two new large exchanges for Central London. In future, practically all the new exchanges required in the London area will be of the automatic type, and it is hoped to place orders in the next three years for the equipment of about 85,000 lines.
  In regard to broadcasting, I am expecting, at any moment, to receive the Report of the Committee set up by my predecessor, and until I get that Report, and have had the opportunity of considering it, I shall not be able, or perhaps be expected to, make any announcement of policy. The Committee may, however, like to know the number of licences already issued. Experimental receiving licences to the number of 52,264 have been issued; broadcasting receiving licences to the number of 111,905; whilst transmitting licences number 843.
  The Government's policy in regard to wireless communication with the Empire was announced in March last. Since then, two applications from private under-

  263
  takings have been received—one from the Marconi Company for a general licence, covering the whole of the British Empire, as well as foreign countries, and the other from the Eastern Telegraph Company for a licence to erect stations for a service between India and Great Britain. The Eastern Telegraph Company made a similar application to the Government of India, who have not reached a decision. In the event of the Government of India granting to that company a licence for an Indian station, the arrangements to be made for the provision of the communicating station in Great Britain will be discussed with the company. As regards the Marconi Company, negotiations have been proceeding as to the basis on which services conducted from the Government station and the company's stations should be organised.
  I propose to give to the Committee a brief outline of the negotiations and the general lines of the agreement which may be made with that company. There are three possible alternatives—either unrestricted competition, regional allocation of the services, or some form of pooling arrangement. Unrestricted competition can, I think, be dismissed at once. It would clearly be uneconomical, it would be inconvenient too, to have two stations in Great Britain competing for the limited amount of traffic available with some of the Dominions. Unless the stations in the Dominions were duplicated elaborate arrangements would have to be made for the allocation of the 24 hours between the two competing systems in this country. The Government station in this country would have the advantage of the Post Office collecting organisation, and would, therefore, secure the unrouted outward traffic. On the other hand, the Marconi stations in the Dominions would probably obtain the whole, or nearly the whole, of the unrouted traffic to Great Britain. The Government station would, therefore, have a great preponderance of outward traffic with very little inward traffic, and the Marconi station would obtain the greater part of the inward traffic, but would not have sufficient in the reverse direction. A regional allocation has many attractions. The various services would be divided between the company and the Government, and each party would be left to conduct his own
  264
  businees without interference and without restriction.
  The Marconi Company, however, preferred the third alternative, that is some form of pooling arrangement. The principal terms have been agreed with that company, subject to certain outstanding points, which are still the subject of discussion. I will give the Committee an outline of the conditions which will be contained in the Agreement. The wireless telegraph services of the British Empire are to be conducted through stations provided by the company and by the Government, respectively, in agreed proportions, the company at the outset to provide two stations and the Government one station, apart from the existing stations at Lea field and Carnarvon. The stations are to be maintained at the cost of the parties providing them. The revenue of the stations is to be pooled and divided between the companies and the Government in agreed proportions, based upon the effective power of the stations contributed by each. The whole of the services are to be worked from the General Post Office by Government operators, and a proportionate part of the cost, including overhead charges, is to be charged against the company. The unrouted traffic is to be allocated as between the cables and the wireless on the principle of the least delay at the transmitting point. The rates to be charged to the public are to be settled by mutual agreement. Whenever possible, the rates are to be lower than the cable rates. The Government has to have the power to admit other parties to the pooling arrangement, provided they are satisfied that they are able to provide a station of substantially equal efficiency, and the Government retains its right to licence other parties to conduct wireless services without admitting them to the pool. The Government is to have the power of expropriation at specified intervals on terms to be agreed probably at the end of the first 10 years, and subsequently at suitable periods.
  A site near Rugby has been secured for the Government station, and orders have already been placed for part of the plant required. A final decision as to the power of the station has not yet been taken, but the site purchased will be sufficient to provide for a station of the

  265
  largest possible size, and its erection will be pressed on as quickly as possible. It may be 12 months before the station, is ready, but in dealing with an engineering work it is well to add a margin for contingencies; especially is this the case when the progress of the science may suggest alterations in design, but no unnecessary delay will be allowed in completing the Government station. I have given in some detail an outline the proposed arrangement with the Marconi Company because I am not at all certain the House will have a further opportunity of dealing with this question before the contract is signed. If as I understand it, that contract imposes a charge upon the public funds it will have to come before the House. If it does not, and I cannot tell whether it will or not until the final terms have been settled, if it does not impose such a charge, the House may not have any other opportunity of dealing with this important contract.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: What is the duration of the contract?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Twenty-five years, subject to powers of expropriation.
  The House was told by me some time ago that the Government had decided forthwith to pay off all claims clearly coming within the judgment in the Sutton case. I have brought in a Supplementary Estimate for £1,300,000 for that purpose and payment will be made as soon as the claims have been received and passed.
  For the reasons I have already given I expect that savings on the main Estimates will be sufficient to provide for the charge falling on the Post Office Vote, so that I am asking on the Supplementary Estimate for a token Vote only of £10. But there are many other categories of men for whom claims may be made which while not covered by the Sutton judgment may possibly be within the reasoning upon which the decision was based and other claims which may be outside. In view of the amount of public money involved and the doubt which surrounds the legal position the Government think it desirable to obtain authoritative legal decisions on these categories. We wish to get decisions in the quickest possible time and with the least expense. I am
  266
  glad to say that the solicitors for the parties have already met, and I hope a procedure will be agreed which will enable final decisions to be obtained without any waste of time.
  The staff employed by the Post Office on the 1st February, 1923, numbered 209,735, compared with 227,308 at the same date in 1922, but the total of 1922 included about 13,500 who were subsequently transferred to the Irish Free State, so that the real reduction was about 4,000. The immensity of the work done in the course of a year can perhaps be shown by a few illustrative figures. We carry about 5,600 millions of letters, postcards, printed papers, newspapers and parcels. About 18 millions each working day. We deal with about 788 million telephone calls. About 2¼ million calls each day. We pay cash across the counter for money orders, savings bank and savings certificates withdrawals, old age and war pensions of about £358,500,000, or more than £1,000,000 each working day.
  We receive cash across the counter for money and postal orders, savings bank deposits and savings certificates and for sale of insurance stamps about £343,500,000 or more than £1,000,000 each working day. Our total cash receipts and payments in the year amounts to about £1,242,000,000. Say £4,000,000 for each working day. I feel sure that the Committee will be pleased to know that this large and varied business has been carried on in a satisfactory way without friction with the staff employed. Staff questions both as to the nature of the duties and the conditions of employment are constantly reviewed and discusesd at Whitley Councils and by the representatives of the staffs and the officers of the Department, and frequent adjustments are made to meet genuine grievances, and while I do not pretend that everyone employed is satisfied with his or her lot, I think I may claim that the staff are assured of sympathetic consideration at the hands of those who represent the nation which employs them. So long as I am Postmaster-General, I shall endeavour to earn the confidence of the staff and to see that their interests as well as those of the customers of the Post Office and the taxpayers are duly taken into account.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MIDDLETON: I think I shall have the Committee with me in congratulating the Postmaster-General upon his lucid statement, especially in view of the fact that he has had such a short time to acquire a knowledge of the working of his Department. I think he is the third occupant of his office since the present Government came into power, so that if he had been less familiar with some of the details of his great office, I for one should have been inclined to have been very gentle in my judgment on him on that account. It was said in the House a night or two ago that the time devoted to the Post Office Estimates is pretty well taken up dealing with the conditions of service and wages of people employed in that Department. I make no apology for the fact that I am going to deal with the Estimates on those lines.
  After all, the House of Commons is the employer of those 209,000 people of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and those people look to the House of Commons to see that they get fair play, and that the conditions under which they are employed by a great State Department are such that they shall be at least as good as those of a model employer. I hope the Committee was struck with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the great accomplishments of his Department, because, as a piece of State enterprise, I think we have every reason to be proud of it, and it is a complete answer to those newspapers and critics who are always girding at the Post Office because they believe if they can discredit the Post Office as a national service they will be doing something to make more difficult the extension of State enterprise in other directions.
  The Postmaster-General made a brief reference to the Sutton judgment, and I think it will be generally agreed that as that matter has to go to the House of Lords for judicial treatment there will be very little useful purpose served by talking about it here, and I am going to be as brief on this subject as the Postmaster-General was. Although the solicitors of the two parties have agreed to take a statement to another place, that does not indicate that both parties agree that that was the proper course to take. So far as the representatives of the claimants are concerned, they hold, as we hold on this side of the House, that the judgment having been given covering a group
  268
  of people, it should be honoured, regardless of the cost to the Government, and to go back again to the Law Courts with this case is really putting the Government in a privileged position. If I fall out with my neighbour and go to law, and then go to a higher Court, whether I like the position or not I have to abide by it, and there is no possibility of asking the other fellow to go to a higher Court, because it costs a lot of money, in order to see if we can have the matter reviewed. That is how the people who come under the spcial sections regard this case. I think it is only fair to make that statement, because something more of it may be heard in the Debate. I agree that this is not a matter for the House of Commons to interfere with now.
  I want to say a word or two upon a matter with which the right hon. Gentleman himself cannot deal, and that is the appointment of the Anderson Committee. I make that reference because under the appointment of that Committee for the first time the grievances, the conditions of employment and the standards of remuneration are taken away from the purview of the House of Commons, and handed over to a body which is representative of the big business interests of the country. So far as the Post Office staff is concerned, that Committee will not have the confidence of the staff in its deliberations, and those of us who are concerned in the matter from a staff point of view are not unaware of the fact that the Federation of British Industries have been making the bold claim that their power is so great that they can now get their nominees on any Committee of the House of Commons which deals with industrial questions, and that is a rather serious fact, especially when such a Committee has to deal with the wages and conditions of work of Post Office employés.
  The Anderson Committee was appointed by the Prime Minister who rested his case on the fact that the Geddes Committee recommended that the police, teachers, and the fighting services should have an inquiry extended to them on lines similar to the Geddes Committee, but strangely enough the teachers and the police have been left out altogether, and in their place the Prime Minister has brought in the whole of the services, not only the fighting services,

  269
  but the men employed in civil Departments. How such a Committee is going to function, and conduct an inquiry of an adequate nature, not only passes my comprehension, but it must pass the comprehension of the Ministers themselves. The effect of it will be a serious challenge to Ministers in their own Departments, because it takes away from them their right to control and adjust conditions of employment between Ministers and their staffs on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned as operating in his own Department, which I know he himself favours. The Federation of British Industries actually states that
  "It is a tribute to the position achieved by the Federation in the national life of the country that it is now regularly consulted by the Government Departments on industrial questions, and is asked to nominate members to act oh the Government Committees to deal with such questions."
  I think that is a pretty serious state of affairs, but there follows another statement by the same Federation, which says:
  "The Federation desire to express regret that the late Government did not carry out more fully the recommendations of the Geddes Report, or effect equivalent economies, and to urge the present Government to reconsider that Committee's recommendations and, above all, to reexamine most carefully those branches of the public service where the failure to carry out the recommendations has been most marked."
  The Prime Minister has already inferred that the staffs of the Civil Service are the staffs intended to be referred to there, and therefore we have the position that 209,000 people employed in the Post Office, and hundreds of thousands of people in the rest of the Civil Service, and those in the great fighting services are to have the consideration of their conditions of employment and standards of remuneration taken away from the House of Commons, and they are to be adjudicated upon by a Committee of three business men upon which there is no representative of the classes mostly affected. It comes to this, and I think I can speak for the Civil Service as well as the Post Office employés, that they have not any confidence in this Committee.
  I want to refer to a matter which I think will probably interest the Postmaster-General more, and that is the question of the starting pay of ex-soldiers who come into the service of the Post
  270
  Office. It will be within the memory of the Committee that the question of the starting pay of ex-service men who went into the employment of the State so exercised the consideration of the House of Commons that on a recent occasion it led to the defeat of the Government, and as a result of that defeat the Government appointed a representative Committee of this House to go into the whole question of the starting pay of the people whose case was then before the House of Commons. The result was that the Committee came to the conclusion that the case was a good one, that the men were being sweated, that they were being paid an inadequate wage, that they were not being paid a living wage, and that the conditions were so bad that something would have to be done for them. Thereupon an award was issued which had the effect of increasing the pay of the worst paid of these clerical grades by £32 a year. The case of these men was fought on the question of a minimum wage of £80 a year which, with the present rate of bonus, makes a total of £144 a year.
  The case of the ex-service men who come into the Post Office is infinitely worse than that of the men whose case was considered by the Southborough Committee. The position of the ex-service man who comes into the employment of the Post Office is a very hard one. He has to come in at practically a boy's wage, and as a postman in certain districts in the country he receives a wage representing almost £1 a week less than the sweated wage which appealed to the conscience of the House of Commons. These low wages are still in operation. 43s. 2d. is the wage an ex-service man gets when he comes into the lowest grade of the postman's rank, and he passes through various grades up to a maximum of 50s. Of course the wage includes bonus in every case. That is as far as the post men are concerned. There is another class of man whose case should receive careful attention, that is the man who is brought into the telegraph service and who is already an accomplished telegraphist when he comes in. There are two classes. There are the men who are trained while serving in the Army and who come into the Post Office to act as telegraphists, and then there are the men who picked up their knowledge of telegraphy during the great War. Their

  271
  case is very bad indeed. The average age at which they come in is 32 years and they receive a wage of £2 17s. 8d. per week. The men from the new Army only average 25 years of age. They come in at the 21 years age point at a wage of £2 13s. 9d. These men are in many cases married men with families. I have an instance here of a man aged 33, with four children. He pays 17s. a week rent and receives from the Post Office £2 17s. 8d. Another, aged 38, gets £2 13s. a week; another, aged 34, gets £2 10s. 5d., out of which he has to pay a very substantial rent and to pay expenses which are so heavy that it is impossible for him to make both ends meet. The consequence is that you are having a large number of men employed by the Post Office under conditions which throw a great strain upon them. Not only is their economic position bad, but it sets up another condition which this House should not tolerate. It places them within the reach of temptation, and that is a very important point.
  I believe it will be agreed by every Member of the House of Commons that it is desired the House should be a good, fair and even a model employer, and it would not willingly tolerate for one moment wages being paid to men with families that do not enable them to keep body and soul together, or to obtain a decent standard of subsistence for their families. I would remind the Committee of this, that the House of Commons did once tackle this question of the standard. I myself gave evidence before the Holt Committee and pressed that the question of the standard of life for postal workers and for Government servants generally ought not to be left out of account. As a result of careful inquiry—and this, I think, was the first time such a claim was made—the Holt Committee laid on the Post Office the burden of seeing not only that the remuneration should account for the cost of living and the value of the work performed, but that it should also take cognisance of the standard of life. If he pays an ex-service man with a family a wage of £2 10s. 5d., or £2 13s. a week, I think the Postmaster-General will have very great difficulty in convincing the Committee that he has taken into account the standard of life. But this question is one for negotiation on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman
  272
  himself has stated. I understand it is being represented that conversations are going on, and that negotiations are taking place between the Union of Post Office Workers, which represents the manipulative grades, and the Postmaster-General at his office. I hope that when these negotiations are resumed the Postmaster-General himself will feel fortified by the knowledge that the House of Commons desires him to do justice to these men, and that he will see his way to take his cue from the award of the Southborough Committee and, without a House of Commons inquiry, give an award to the men in question on lines at least as generous as those which the House has decided were proper to other ex-service men. Then there is the question of the pay of officers transferred from one district to another. That, I understand, is also in course of negotiation. It is a question which has rankled a long time in the minds of men who have suffered badly through going from a village to a large city at their old rates of pay. I believe the negotiations have reached a point when there is every prospect of an amicable settlement between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office.
  I want to say a word, if I may, about the telephones abroad, especially about telephone machinery. We have heard the statistics and records of work which the Postmaster-General has been able to account for during the past year through the telephone machinery, and I want to put in a word for the girls who work at the telephone. I know there is an idea abroad that the telephone girl spends most of her time chatting with her colleagues as to what happened last Sunday or what she is going to do next Sunday, or about her clothes, or about some other feminine vanity, and that that accounts very largely for the slight delays which subscribers experience when they hurriedly rush to the telephone and expect an immediate answer. I should like Members of the House of Commons to see the conditions under which the girls work. I feel bound to say that if they did visit a telephone exchange—and I am certain the right hon. Gentleman would be only too glad to give them permission to do so—and if they saw the conditions under which the work is done they would no longer be inclined to snap

  273
  and be impatient every time they go to the telephone and find that in one-hundredth part of a second they do not get a reply. These girls are carrying a very heavy load. They are performing an important social service. The country under modern conditions could not get along without them. Away in a email town the telephone service is perhaps carried on by two or three girls in some cottage rented by the Post Office where they have to exercise initiative and resource and have no one to ask for instructions, yet the responsibility is thrown upon them of providing an efficient service for that town and for its trunk connections.
  The telephone operator needs to be quick of sight, of hearing, and of speech. I do not know whether hon. Members know what the inside of a telephone exchange is like. I wish they could go and see it. They would find the girls ranged facing a long blank wall, sitting on high chairs, working the whole time without cessation except on occasions when they go away for meals or casual relief. They have not a moment to spare. Their hands, their eyes, their voices, and their brains are all working at the same time. We talk about betting; hon. Members ought to know what effect betting has had on the telephone service. In some exchanges in districts where betting has grown to a large extent special provision has to be made for the betting classes on the boards, and in some cases this provision is right at the top of the board, so that the girl is on the stretch the whole of the time. The consequence is that under these conditions the girls break down physically. A strong healthy girl who comes into the employment of the State as a telephone operator breaks down. She cannot stand the strain week after week and month after month. She is under constant close supervision, and in constant contact with members of the public, people of different temperaments, and not all good tempered.
  Members of this House well know that sometimes when they rush into the telephone box they expect that by some magic the girl at the other end of the wire should he aware that they are in a hurry and get them through in quicker time than is physically possible. As I came into the House to-day I heard an hon. Member opposite make some reference to
  274
  the difficulties of enunciation of words. That, again, adds to the difficulty of the girl at the end of the wire. She never muddles her words, she gives you 5 or 9 correctly; it is the subscriber who is often the cause of the delay because he blurs his words, he does not speak plainly, he frequently gets a wrong number in consequence, and then he blames the girl for his own fault. I ask Members to accept their own responsibilities as employers and not to devolve them on the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General is your agent. He is put in that position, I hope, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to provide an efficient public service. But he is also to be regarded as a barrier between the staff and bad treatment. He himself must accept that responsibility. In the past so far as my experience is concerned, at any rate up to a very recent date, it has been the case that the Postmaster-General has simply regarded himself as a vehicle for conveying the decisions of his subordinates—the permanent officials, a very able and very efficient staff of officials, whose views cannot always be that of the Postmaster-General if he permits himself to be impartial. I am glad to know however that the present Postmaster-General has a very high sense of his responsibilities, and I am quite certain that if he fills the bill on the lines I have indicated he will find he will not only get more efficient service from his staff, but that he will secure gratitude as well. There is no better set of workers than those who are contented and satisfied, and it is highly important that in the case of the State's service they should be well treated and well paid.
  5.0 P.M.
  I want to raise another question. I am sorry to take up so much time, but these matters are very important from a staff point of view. I want to raise a question with regard to the Central Telegraph Office. Last year it was decided in connection with the Central Telegraph Office, which is probably the largest institution of its kind in the world, that there should be put on the top of the building a big block in order to provide dining accommodation for the staff which, under the present conditions, is inadequate and disgraceful. The value of the property of the State in that part of London is almost phenomenal, and to put

  275
  a fifth story on the building would have meant great additional value to the property. In addition to providing adequate dining accommodation, it would have released the rooms now used for dining purposes for post Office agreed that something should be done, and came to the House and got a vote through, and then they surrendered the Vote. That is the complaint I make against the Department, knowing the difficulty there is in these times of getting the House of Commons to vote money for bricks and mortar.
  This surrender led incidentally to the breakdown of the local Whitley machine. It was decided that this work should be done by local agreement of the Whitley Council, and it was with a great deal of difficulty that it was discovered that it was not the Treasury who were at fault but the Post Office itself which, of its own volition, had surrendered the money. That is a serious state of affairs, particularly in view of the fact that the building programme of the Post Office is years behind. In large centres of the country and in small centres the building programme of the Post Office has almost been at a standstill. In Cardiff and other cities where they have already purchased land at high prices, the land is standing idle and the State is losing interest on the money, simply because they cannot get the House of Commons to vote money in order to get on with the building. In this case, where the House has actually passed the Vote for a large sum of money, we find the Post Office being foolish enough not to spend the money and surrendering it, thereby necessitating their coming to the House later to get another Vote. Some explanation is due to the Committee which voted the money last year, and I hope the Postmaster-General will to-day be able to tell us that something is going to be done to remedy what I feel is a grave error of judgment.
  I want to say something regarding the conditions of the people who supply the all-night telephone service in London and the provinces when the girls are off duty. Women are not employed at night in the telephone exchanges; the service is carried on by men. In some cases, where the work justifies it, established
  276
  staff night attendants are employed, but during the last few years a new method of staffing the Exchanges has grown up under which the Post Office will get a man to stay on the premises for a long number of hours and accept the liability to be wakened up out of bed in order to put the telephone calls through. Generally speaking, the telephone calls are so few in number that the Post Office could not pay a man an ordinary wage and get an economic return on the telephone service; but even allowing for the fact that full wages cannot be paid in all these cases, I ask the Postmaster-General to give some attention to the wages which are paid. These people have not a standard. Their union fought for a standard of remuneration, but could not get it. They got an offer which was so inadequate that no union and no representative body could have looked at it, and the consequence is that the old state of affairs goes on, which is that the Post Office gets its work done at the cheapest possible figure locally. This is a serious state of affairs, and I hope the Postmaster-General will personally investigate the case and see whether it is not possible to employ these people on conditions which will enable him to remove from himself the reproach which I am now making.
  In answer to a question which I put in this House on 20th June of this year we succeeded in getting from the Postmaster-General the statement that"in cases where the disturbances during the night become numerous, it is the practice to provide full-time established staff."We decided to test that statement by representing a case where an ex-service man at Lamington-Spa was working as night and Sunday attendant at 25s. a week, with no additional pay for Sunday duty. His hours were 80½ per week, with an additional 7½hours on alternate Sundays. The returns showed that there was an actual average of 104'9 calls, and I suggest that in these circumstances we were entitled to expect that a full-time attendant should have been employed. A few words with regard to caretaker-operators, who live on the premises and have to supply the night service. They live on premises belonging to the Post Office, and their rents were very seriously raised at a time when they were unable to get adequate increase of pay. I have here particulars of a case where

  277
  rent was raised from 5s. to 12s. 6d. Talk about the 40 per cent. which the people have to pay to their landlords, I have cases where caretaker-operators have had to pay increases of rent to the extent of 150 per cent. to the State, who own the houses in which they live. That is a matter which I hope will exercise the attention of the Postmaster-General.
  Now I come to a case which affects my own constituency, and relates to the administration of the post office there. I have had complaints from that office that it is not administered in accordance with the principles which are generally regarded as laid down by the Regulations. The complaint that the staff make is that, notwithstanding all the allegations they have made regarding administration, and the complaints that they are prepared to substantiate, they cannot get inquiry into the administration of that office. It would be a very simple thing for the Postmaster-General, when he gets a complaint of this kind, to say:"I will send someone with authority to make a complete and impartial investigation on the spot; someone who will take evidence from the staff, and hear all the parties, and report to me so that I can come to a judgment."Instead of that, we have in the Post Office to-day a system which almost makes it impossible for the lower grades which are suffering any administrative injustice to get their case looked into. One case, which I have brought to the notice of the House before, is that of a man who, by common consent in the locality, and by common consent in the office, with the exception of the one man who has failed, would be regarded as the most capable and most efficient man on the staff, and he was turned down from promotion and passed over because he had failed to get into the good offices of his postmaster.
  When I represented this matter to the right hon. Gentleman I got a long reply giving a defence of the Post Office in regard to the action taken. This gentleman. Mr. W. G. Kirkpatrick, overseer at Carlisle, is held by the Post Office to be not so efficient as some of his fellow officers, and to have shown not sufficient ability to be placed in the post that became vacant when he was passed over; but I have in my possession the original document which was handed to him in 1921, when he was asked to
  "undertake the preparation of Christmas arrangements starting next week. The
  278
  inspector will not be detached this year, except for a couple of days near Christmas to go through the duties, and you will plan for both indoor and outdoor, the inspector doing what he can towards the outdoor arrangements in the meantime. S.C. and typewriting assistance will be given you as soon as you can make use of it."
  I only instance this seemingly insignificant document to show that the man was regarded as the one man upon whom the most important arrangement of the year should fall, and he was selected for it. Because he happened to be a man who was not a sort of run-about or gad-about, but a man who looked after his work, but did not happen to get into the favour of his postmaster, he is humiliated in the town where he is known by everybody, and where it is publicly reported in the Press that he has been' passed over because he is not efficient. In justice to the man, and in order that the matter should be cleared up by inquiry, I think it right that I should raise the case to-day. I hope that as this matter concerns the general administration of the office the Postmaster-General will see fit to grant an inquiry. We shall get on a great deal better in the relations of the staff and the Post Office if we have more of this kind of inquiry. We have gone a good way along the road. Led by Whitleyism, the public service has made as much progress as any outside industry in this direction. We have joint Committees at work. I am a member of two joint Committees which, with the Departmental officials, tackle big and serious problems affecting both sides, and we are enabled by placing all our cards on the table to come to decisions which are not only satisfactory to the Post Office but satisfactory to the staff.
  I would ask the Postmaster-General in connection with the question of telephone loading to grant an inquiry. Girls are working up to a load of 200 calls per hour. A call is measured by the length of its operation. It is measured by the time the girl takes to raise her arm, to drop it, and to perform the necessary operation of putting the telephone call through, and on that basis she is loaded up to 200 calls per hour. She is crying out to the Post Office and to the House of Commons for relief. She appeals to the House of Commons to say to the Post Office that at least they should grant an inquiry. So far we have been unable to

  279
  get inquiry. What possible justification there can be or refusing an inquiry I cannot see? The man or the party that refuses inquiry into action or administration for which he or the party is responsible are placed in a very difficult position. Where we have been able to get inquiries into other matters we have been able to come to satisfactory decision, and we ask that the telephone girls should be granted an inquiry. So far as we have been able to institute inquiries in individual offices the complaints have been more than justified; the girls have been found to be suffering. In one case, in Manchester, where a large number of girls were being dismissed or transferred in connection with the 200 standard load, the result of the inquiry instigated by the Union of Post Office Workers not only saved the girls from going, but brought about a substantial increase of staff.
  I say that all these things put together make out an overwhelming case for inquiry. I do not care whether it is a joint or an impartial inquiry, but I do say that men who have never done the work, and who could not possibly, in the nature of things, do the work are not the people who should have the final word in deciding as to what the conditions of employment of these girls should be. I hope, and I make it my main plea, that the Postmaster-General will give us satisfaction in this respect. If he is not going to give us this inquiry, it means that the agitation must go on, because no self-respecting set of staff representatives could go on seeing these girls suffering day by day and breaking down, without raising a hand to stop it. I put the case to the Postmaster-General in the hope that he will at any rate say, "I do not know whether you are right or wrong, I do not know whether my officials are right or wrong, but we will subject the matter to the test and have an inquiry. "If he can do that, he will not only earn the appreciation of the Committee for doing an act of fairness, but he will earn the gratitude of the girls, who believe that, until they get some sort of inquiry, their conditions, bad as they are now, may even be made worse in the future.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton), in his interesting speech to which we have
  280
  just listened, has touched upon many points, but not upon the one regarding which I desire to address the Committee for a few minutes, namely, the subject of Imperial Wireless. The Postmaster-General's statement to-day is the final announcement of a grave and complete reversal of Government policy. This is the only occasion—it is the first occasion, and it will doubtless prove to be the last—on which the House of Commons has had the opportunity, not of discussing this matter on its merits, because it was decided finally in principle before the House was informed, but even of commenting upon it at all. I feel very strongly that the House of Commons and the country ought to realise how grave and complete a reversal of policy this is, and it is to that point, and that point only—though there are many other matters that one would wish to discuss—that I shall confine myself. The policy which the Government has reversed took its rise—I must be pardoned for giving a very brief historical summary—at the Imperial Conference in 1911, which then expressed the opinion that a State-owned wireless chain ought to be established. This was further confirmed by Lord Parker's Advisory Committee in 1913, which expressed the opinion that it might be better for the Government themselves to undertake the construction and equipment of the necessary stations. Next came the appointment of the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee, and about that Committee I desire to say a few words, as a great deal of misunderstanding prevails about it. It was a Committee of which I had the honour to be the Chairman, and it was composed, with one obvious exception, of men of great eminence and of the highest authority in their respective spheres. Its recommendations have never been impugned by any independent expert. Its conclusions—and this is the point upon which the recommendations of the Committee have been misunderstood, because people have got into the habit of believing that those recommendations have been shown by subsequent events and the march of wireless science to be now no longer correct—its conclusions as to the greater reliability and economy of 2,000-mile steps, instead of the 4,000 miles now about to be adopted, were true then, they are true to-day, and, as far as it is possible to foresee, they will be true

  281
  years hence. That is not merely an expression of my own opinion. I should like to quote a man who, perhaps, may be described as the greatest living authority upon wireless telegraphy, namely, Dr. Louis Austin, of the American Government Radio Service. He is, of course, in this connection an absolutely independent and unprejudiced witness. In an article a year ago he wrote:
  "There have been heated discussions in England regarding the relative merits of the high-power long-distance transmission systems in comparison with the moderate-power intermediate relay systems."
  The latter, of course, was the recommendation of the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee. He goes on to say:
  "There can be no doubt"—
  and, when an eminent scientific man uses an expression like that, it must mean, of course, that he is very sure indeed of his ground—
  "There can be no doubt that the system of intermediate stations will give by far the most reliable communication."
  If a new independent Committee were appointed to-day, I feel confident that they would make the same recommendation. However, the Dominions, acting upon advice not comparable for a moment with the authority of the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee, decided otherwise, and the Government will claim, no doubt, with a certain amount of justice, that they were virtually compelled to follow suit. For myself, I feel confident, after the consideration which was given to this matter by that Committee, and after the confirmation of its views by independent experts since, that the Dominions concerned will ultimately deeply regret their decision. But the basic recommendation of the Committee's Report was that Imperial wireless traffic should be carried by the State, and that long-distance wireless traffic with foreign countries should be left to the commercial companies. Both services, the Committee said, would profit by this healthy competition. Private enterprise, in these circumstances, would have full, free, and fair scope—there was no question whatever of excluding private enterprise—and the science of wireless telegraphy would undoubtedly have its best chance of development. Inventors would have alternative openings for the disposal of their inventions, and men of all ranks would have alternative opportunities of
  282
  employment. Imperial interests would be fully safeguarded, and no commercial vested interest in the most vital part of British wireless would be created.
  I will continue my brief historical summary. I have mentioned what happened in 1911 and 1913. Then the War intervened, and then came the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee of 1920. That Committee reported in May. In August, the Cabinet decided to accept its recommendations. Then, for what reason, or in consequence of what pressure I do not know, the Cabinet subsequently referred the matter for reconsideration to the Imperial Communications Committee. This very weighty Committee duly reconsidered the matter, and, on the 3rd June, 1921, passed the following Resolution:
  "That it would be undesirable under existing conditions to modify the decision of the Cabinet by which the recommendations of the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee were accepted, and that the scheme recommended by that Committee be adhered to."
  Thus, from that date, the principle that wireless communication from the Mother Country to the Empire should be in the hands of the State became the accepted policy of the Government, and a Technical Commission of high qualifications was appointed to design the stations. This policy was affirmed and reaffirmed again and again. We come now to the Imperial Conference of 1921. At that Conference the then Postmaster-General said:
  "I think the objections to it"—
  that is, to the Imperial chain—
  "being in the hands of anything but Government are overwhelming, for Imperial and strategic reasons, and also from the point of view of the future of wireless";
  and the Imperial Conference of that year resolved as follows:
  "It is agreed that His Majesty's Government should take steps for the erection of the remaining stations for which they are responsible as soon as the stations are designed."
  I come now to another meeting of the Imperial Communications Committee, on the 17th May, 1922, when it was officially announced that
  "The Postmaster-General was strongly of opinion that any stations in Great Britain used for communication with the Dominions or Colonies should be owned and operated by the State."

  283
  There followed on that a Cabinet decision—
  "That the Commonwealth Government be reminded that the policy of His Majesty's Government is that stations erected in the United Kingdom for communicating with British territory oversea should be operated by Government."
  This was confirmed by despatches from the Colonial Office to the Dominions and Colonies. I come now to what is, perhaps, the most important resolution of all, a resolution of the Imperial Communications Committee of the 19th May, 1922—last year; and I would ask this Committee to realise just what is the weight of this resolution which I am about to read. It was signed by high officials representing the Treasury, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Ministry, the India Office—with a slight reservation regarding India—the General Post Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office and the Board of Trade. It is impossible to point to any official Committee in this country of greater weight. and this was their resolution:
  "We, therefore, strongly recommend that the decision that no private company should be granted a licence to erect a wireless station in the United Kingdom with the object of communicating with British territory oversea, should be adhered to, and that all such stations should be constructed and operated by the Government."
  That concludes my historical summary. I claim to have proved that that was the accepted policy of the Government, and that it was affirmed and reaffirmed by every body, official and expert, to whom it was referred. Immediately after the late General Election certain changes were made in the personnel of the Imperial Communications Committee, and the policy of the Government underwent a complete right-about-face. The late Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons on the 5th March that:
  "The Government has, therefore, decided to issue licences for the erection of wireless stations in this country for communication with the Dominions, Colonies, and foreign countries …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1923; col. 29, Vol. 161.]
  The Government, therefore, have completely reversed the policy of their predecessors. They have done so in direct opposition to the advice tendered by every official and expert body to whom the question was submitted prior to the
  284
  constitution of the present Government, and in doing so they are preparing to allow a vital national and Imperial function to become the vested interest of a commercial company, They have made this reversal of policy, in the first place, without giving any reasons for it. When the Prime Minister announced this in the House of Commons—I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT—he said:
  "In view of developments in the science of wireless telegraphy"—
  —no development in the science of wireless telegraphy can affect the question of principle of whether communications with the British Empire from the home country should be in the hands of the State—and, the prime Minister added:
  "and other circumstances which have arisen."
  Therefore, the reasons must lie in the "other circumstances," and they have not been disclosed. What are they? My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General may give them to us to-day, but of course I would remind him beforehand that it will be no reply for him to refer to the action of the Dominions in setting up their own stations. The action of the Dominions regarding their stations does not in any way affect this matter of principle as regards our statons. Secondly, the Government are making this grave reversal of policy, not only without having afforded, but indeed having specifically refused, in reply to appeals made from the Front Opposition Bench, any opportunity either of discussing the principle of giving Imperial communications to a commercial company, or even of considering, except on this occasion, when the question is for the most part decided, the conditions of the licences under which the commercial company is to exercise its rights.
  Holding the views I do, I must rejoice at least that the Government are keeping one station, that there is to be something saved out of the wreck; but, in view of the amount of work which has been done in preparation for that station, they could hardly do less. It is difficult to foresee, I fear, either peace of permanence in the arrangement now being made. If the service proves unsatisfactory, as it well may under these dual conditions, there will of course be mutual recrimination. The Government will reproach the commercial companies; they have often

  285
  done so before; the commercial company will say that if only the whole service at the beginning had been left in their hands all would have been well. The usual campaign against the Government in the Press and elsewhere will begin again. If the campaign fails, there will be a state of affairs such as I outlined a moment ago. If the campaign succeeds and all the wireless stations are to be commercial—we are told there are to be five or six and every expert knows that there is not the slightest chance of traffic being sufficient for so many stations—I fear the Government will, unwillingly and indirectly, become a party to a great financial promotion. Nothing could possibly be more undesirable than this. For myself—and this will be the last opportunity, I suppose, on which anybody will discuss freely in this House the question of the Imperial wireless chain which is to be decided for our time, and I have been connected officially and unofficially with this matter of Imperial wireless, and have given, I fear, too large a part of my life to it for the last 10 years—I deeply deplore, having regard only to the national interest, that the Government should make this complete reversal of policy, and I have shown how remarkable and complete that reversal of policy is. There are many other matters, in connection even with this, that I would wish to discuss, but, as time is so short, I will leave it at that.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: I have only one single plea to put forward, which? hope may have some effect on the Postmaster-General. It is not on a topic which he mentioned in his very interesting report. I have some hope that it may appeal to him in a way in which it did not appeal to his predecessor who sat in that place a year ago—a gentleman of great talent whose policy seemed to be to give the worst possible service at the greatest possible expenditure. How could he hope to do anything else when he with some pride announced that he had raised the number of servants in the Post Office receiving more than £800 a year, including bonus, from 68 to 642? The right hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Post Office is not a great spender, and I have, therefore, to make my appeal to him in the humblest way on behalf of people who in the last few years have been suffering the greatest possible delay and nuisance from a war-time
  286
  change which has not been done away with, like so many other war-time changes. I refer, of course, to the putting down of the Sunday delivery in those provincial towns and villages of England which have not the facilities of London for the rapid receipt of letters. I have often tried to interest Londoners in the grievances of the provinces. They say,"Oh, no. We get as many letters as we want on Saturday night. In fact, it is rather a relief to have Sunday without any letters at all." The Londoner does not understand in the least the position of the provincial, who has one delivery on Saturday morning, or possibly two deliveries on Saturday, and who is cut off the whole of the rest of the week-end from any possible receipt of letters. I live in a town of 60,000 inhabitants, and we have no delivery on Saturday afternoons after 4.30. The result of this suspension of the Sunday delivery in the English countryside is that there is excessive delay in all correspondence. It does not much matter whether you write the letter on Friday night or Saturday or on Sunday morning, it will inevitably get in on Monday only, whichever you do, because there is no Sunday morning delivery.
  The sort of way this works may be best illustrated by two examples. I was living last summer 14 miles from a brother-in-law of mine with whom it was necessary I should have some correspondence. If I posted a letter a minute after 9 o'clock on Saturday morning, it did not get to him till 10 o'clock on Monday morning, although there were only 14 miles between us. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General may say, "Why did you not use the telephone or send a telegram?" Unfortunately, one cannot send legal documents or press proofs by telephone or telegraph. There is no doubt that the delay in cross-country posts, owing to want of the Sunday post, is dreadful. I can give an example of something amounting to a 56 hours' delay, in which I consider that something like moral responsibility rests on those who put down the Sunday post. It was a case which happened in my own county, and I know the people who were concerned. An old lady in a village, which had one post a day and no telegraph station, was run over by a motor lorry on Friday afternoon. Her sons, believing she was mortally injured, and wishing to call

  287
  their sister, who was in service in a town 20 miles away, put a letter at once into the clearing box on Friday afternoon, believing that their sister would appear at what they believed would be their mother's death bed on Saturday. Nothing of the kind. The letter was delivered to this girl in Oxford on Monday morning. That is only an exaggerated example of the many un- fortunate occurrences that come of this system of non-delivery on Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General did not mention anything about
  Sunday delivery in his speech, but I do sincerely hope he will take it into consideration. I understand it would cost a certain amount of money, about £200,000 or £300,000, but I am sure it is not outside the resources of civilisation to find some ways of economising that £200,000 or £300,000. I could think of a good many small items on which he might start: for example, if a little more careful inquiry were made into the hundreds of thousands of people who are wrongly receiving doles and who are really in full employment—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot refer to that matter on this Vote.
  Sir C. OMAN: Then I will not pursue that question. I will only content myself by suggesting that several hundreds of thousands of people in small towns and villages are suffering great inconvenience through the lack of the Sunday post.
  Captain BERKELEY: I am sure that those who sit on these benches would wish me to say that, while we may be compelled to criticise certain aspects of the Post Office and telegraph services, we realise that the Postmaster-General has not had a great time in which to effect improvements, and, while we express our hope that he will employ those great qualities we know him to possess in improving these essential services, we cannot attach personal blame to him for the particular matters to which we feel it necessary to draw attention. I should like to put to him one or two suggestions and points with regard to the telephone service. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) told us with great force of illustration, and evidently with great personal knowledge, that the defects of our telephone system are not due to the telephone girls and operators.
  288
  I am sure that no sensible person really supposed they were. One constantly hears small complaints being made about the attendants on the telephone exchanges, but I am sure there is nobody who has given any thought to the matter who would for a moment blame the employés of the London Telephone Service for any delays that may occur. But, if the employés are not to blame, it must be the methods of the service that are to blame. We all know about the kind of idiot who is described in "The Mikado,"
  "The idiot who praises in enthusiastic tone,
  All centuries but this and every country but his own."
  Though I hope I do not belong to that class of idiot, whatever other class of idiot I may belong to, one is bound to point out that these things are better managed in other countries, admittedly in America. The difference between the telephone facilities available in this country and in America are so striking as almost to lead one to the conclusion that they use not only a different system but a more up-to-date and a more scientific form of exchange and a better instrument. Friends of mine who are familiar with these things in America tell me that not only is the local call system strikingly better than that in this country, but that trunk calls and what we call here toll calls are surprisingly better; that you can telephone from Chicago to New York with the greatest case, without any unreasonable delay, a delay of not more than five or 10 minutes; and that you can telephone across the country from California to the Atlantic side without any inconvenience. That kind of thing is impossible in this country.
  Everyone who has had any occasion, as most hon. Members of this House have had from time to time, to endeavour to do business by means of trunk calls in this country, must have been struck with the difficulty of getting calls through. At certain times of the day it is practically impossible to get them through. I recollect distinctly occasions when, in the busy times of the day, I have tried to telephone from my constituency in Nottingham to London, and it has taken me an hour or more to be put through. That is a state of things which calls for

  289
  an immediate remedy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that his Department are pursuing investigations, not only to improve the local telephone service in this country, though God knows that wants improvement greatly, but also the trunk and toll services. Attention was called to-day to the confusion in numbers and the false calls that take place. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question, said that the facts were not so serious as people were led to suppose. I think that the strongest criticism of that branch of the telephone service is to be found in the fact that the words, "I am sorry you have been troubled" are now a household expression. They are a common form of humour. Expressions of that kind do not become household words if they are not used frequently in all households in the land. It would be well for the Postmaster-General to investigate that matter a little further.
  Passing to another aspect of the telephone question, I would like to know what developments are taking place in what may be termed wireless telephony. I do not mean at the moment in the sense of broadcasting—I shall come to that in a moment—but wireless telephony by a combination of landline and wireless services. I know that experiments have been proceeding in the matter, for some time, because I recollect an occasion when I was at Geneva, and Lord Burnham addressed a gathering of journalists in Geneva, speaking from his own house over the telephone, and his message was picked up after being transmitted by wireless to the Marconi Station at Geneva, and was brought by land line down to the place where the gathering of journalists was taking place. If that was possible two and a half years ago great developments ought to have taken place by now. When may we expect to be able to make use of this combination, when subscribers may ring up the exchange and say, "please put me on to the 'Aquitania' or to a certain number in New York"? When may we expect that this invention will be commercialised?
  That brings me to the question of broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he could make no announcement as to the policy of the Government until he had the report of the Committee. Can he tell us whether he ad-
  290
  heres to the statement of policy made by his predecessor in a Debate on the Adjournment in this House, when that right hon. Gentleman said that he was opposed to the broadcasting license being used to create a monopoly. Does the Postmaster-General adhere to that and does he intend, when the Broadcasting Committee reports, to view that report in the light of that particular policy? There is another question as to the contract with the British Broadcasting Company. This is a contract which, under Clause 26. creates a public charge. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that a charge, actual or prospective, is created by Clause 26, may I point out that on page 88 of the Estimates there is the item
  "Wireless Broadcasting Grant to British Broadcasting Company equivalent to one-half of the amount of the fees received by the Post Office in respect of wireless telegraph receiving licences, £30,000."
  In view of that item no one can contend that this contract does not create a public charge. Those of us who follow the developments of this new science in the Press must have been struck recently with the number of reports which appear with regard to messages received in foreign countries. I saw an article—I think it was in the "Daily Telegraph"—not long ago, describing how concerts broadcasted by this company were picked up, I am not clear in my recollection as to whether it was in Spain or in Spanish Morocco, but they were picked up in either place. In view of that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could say why this contract contains no such provision as is laid down in Standing Order 72 of this House that the contract shall not be binding until approved of by Resolution of this House? It is impossible to blame the right hon. Gentleman for that, because the contract was made long before he went to the Post Office, but this is a contract which has to be renewed after, I think, two years. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when the question of the renewal of this licence comes up a Clause will be inserted in the contract providing that it shall not be binding unless it has been submitted to the House as provided by Standing Order 72 and having made such provision will he submit it to the House for approval? Because on every public ground, apart from the technical

  291
  ground laid down in the Standing Order when dealing with a young, scientific invention of this kind it is most important to the general public that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the nature of the contract into which the Government enters granting rights to private companies in relation to such inventions.
  With regard to wireless telegraph licences, the right hon. Gentleman gave us a resume of the terms which he believes will be embodied in these contracts creating licences, and he warned us that Parliament need not expect, in his opinion, to have any further opportunity of discussing these contracts. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) mentioned a number of highly important public grounds to show why these contracts should be rigorously scrutinised by the House of Commons on account of the change of policy of the present Government as contrasted with that of the last Government. I do not press this on that ground, because that ground has been sufficiently developed by my right hon. Friend, but I put it principally again on the ground of Standing Order 72. How could it be said that the service, which on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing is to be run by the Post Office, by Post Office officials, paid out of the public purse does not create a public charge seeing that the salaries of those employés of the Post Office, who work the service, will obviously have to be included in the estimates presented to this House? The proposed agreements with the Eastern Telegraph Company and the Marconi Company, if the right hon. Gentleman has correctly informed us as to their terms, must create a public charge, if they are to be worked from the Post Office. There is no question about that. As to their fulfilling the other requirement of the Standing Order, namely "telegraphic communication beyond sea" there can be no argument whatever.
  In view of all this I would suggest that there should be another opportunity for this House to consider and debate the whole of this very important wireless question, and I would ask the Postmaster-General is it not incumbent on him to see that these agreements contain provisions that the contract shall not be
  292
  binding until it has been approved of by Resolution of the House so that it will be placed beyond any possibility of misconstruction that the sanction of Parliament is necessary before the contract is finally concluded. One last point to which I wish to refer is the question of penny postage. On this I will merely ask a question. Will the right hon. Gentleman give some intimation as to when we may expect a return to the penny postage, which is urgently demanded by the whole commercial public of this country? If he consults business people in his constituency they will tell him that he could not confer a greater boon on the commercial community generally than the return to the penny postage in this country for business purposes. I think that I am right in saying that at least one of our Dominions, New Zealand, has found it possible to return to the penny postage.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: From the coming October?
  Captain BERKELEY: The argument that was advanced in favour of the penny postage, that by cheapening the postage you will increase revenue because you will increase the general volume of correspondence, is just as true to-day as ever it was, and if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to go back to the penny postage in addition to conferring a substantial boon on the community he will increase the revenues of the Department of which he is the head.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: I want to try to interest the Postmaster-General in a subject which I do not think he mentioned in the course of his statement this afternoon—he may have referred to it during the minute or two I was out of the Chamber, but I do not think he did so—the question of agricultural deliveries. The right hon. Gentleman has for a great many years taken a great interest in the matter, and I am going to try to get him to put the same amount of interest into his Department, in regard to agriculture, as he has himself. His Department is rather too much inclined to look upon the big agricultural districts as being places from which no revenue will accrue to them to any great extent, and they are, therefore, too much inclined to think that it is unnecessary to have anything of what I may call

  293
  "go" in the postal service. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, for the benefit of agriculture and for all the country districts, his Department should take a much wider view of the situation than they do at the present time. If I may emphasise my point by giving a particular instance, I would quote one which happened in the North Riding of Yorkshire. There is an area there of about 200 square miles in extent which, in the year 1923, is in the position that its only delivery during the day is much nearer 12 o'clock than 11 o'clock. I cannot help hoping that the Postmaster-General will realise that a delivery at that time makes business almost impossible. That is in the district of Wensleydale, which is noted for its cheese and for its beauty, while it is also a great health resort.
  It is a place which is used very largely during the summer season as a health resort, and to which tremendous numbers of people go, and it ought to have a much better service than at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has told me that it is not his fault, but that it really lies with the railway company, for not running such a train service up the branch line as would enable him to have the letters delivered. I think I can finish that argument off, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, by reminding him that the postal service is even worse now than it was when there was no railway there at all. If the right hon. Gentleman will start to bring the postal service even up to the condition of 50 years ago, he will be doing something of service. It would be very simple to do that by running a motor service. His predecessor, in 1920, told me that a motor service would cost £1,000 a year, but the costs were a great deal higher in 1920 than they are now. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his personal consideration to this matter, and to see whether he cannot open up the question again, and provide a postal service which will, at any rate, give us some little convenience in that large area.
  There is one other matter, which is a local one, and which affects his Department. That is the question of the Post Office at North Allerton. Some years ago the present buildings were condemned as being insanitary, and anyone who knows the buildings will realise that they are not buildings in which it is fair to expect
  294
  the staff to work and to carry out then duties properly. It is not really a question of great expense, because the Department has bought another site and another building which only requires alteration; and all that is required before the Post Office staff is transferred from the old site to the new one is that such alterations may be made as are necessary. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that point his consideration, and remove a very real grievance on the part of his staff. While we are grateful for what he has done for us in the way of telephone services, and for trying to help agriculture in that direction, I hope he will press his Department to take a broader view. They should take the view that the postal service in agricultural districts cannot be expected to pay its way, but that, notwithstanding, it is his duty, and the duty of his Department, to give at any rate a reasonable postal service, and one which will enable us properly to carry on our business.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to substantiate the remarks which my hon. Friend who has just sat down has addressed to the Postmaster-General. We are all agreed that for years the postal service has been very inefficient. I know that my right hon. Friend is genuinely anxious to bring into the Post Office service a spirit of businesslike efficiency. If I may say so, I had an example to-day, in a reply which he gave to a question which was put down by me, and for the second time by the hon. Baronet who represents Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). We have, in the North, a district which is an extremely wide and depopulated one. Villages may be seven miles apart, and it would interest the House to know that a letter posted in one village and sent to London will take just the same time to get a reply as a letter posted in that village and sent to one seven miles away. That position of affairs is intolerable, and I am glad to think that my right hon. Friend had the wisdom to pay personal attention to a case like that and to produce a remedy. The remedy was very simple, in that he introduced a sorting van from the town of Inverness to Helmsdale. I am glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is being run at a profit. I think it is the one Department of the State which, being run efficiently, the taxpayers of this country would not

  295
  mind if they did not mate a farthing profit out of it. The postal service in the country districts is the one light from the outside world, and the day service is essential, not only as a social amenity but for business purposes throughout the whole country.
  I would particularly refer to the case which has been adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Wilson). I am not going to deal so much with the postal service, though I must say that the case he has adduced of a highly industrialised agricultural community gave me cause to think. I have an infinite number of such cases, and so have my colleagues, from all over Scotland; but I am dealing with the rural telephonic side of agricultural life. Let me take the North of Scotland again. The people there, though they are not very conservative in politics, are extremely tenacious of old customs, and for years they thought that the telephone was most uncanny, just as many people think that wireless is uncanny to-day. Instead of the Government coming in and assisting those very able and intelligent farmers in the North to break down that prejudice and to make the telephone a real power in the land, I have the greatest difficulty in getting the Postmaster-General to consider whether he should reduce the number of eight subscribers to six. Very often when you cannot find eight intelligent farmers in a locality you may find six. The party line system in the North is no good, because the distances are so far one from another. I am perfectly convinced that the Postmaster-General has only got to make a start in the Highlands to familiarise the people with the telephone, and that then he will be able, in a year or two's time, to come to this House and say that his own foresight and business capacity have brought him a profit where he never expected one.
  Let me point out what are the benefits to the farmers, from the point of view of their own industry, in having an efficient telephone system. There is, first of all, the consideration that these farms are outlying, away from the local post office. If they have a telephone, telegrams coming to the post office or the station can always be sent with great expedition to the residence of the farmer. You could also, by means of a telephone
  296
  system, have co-operation in sending farm stock to the local station. There is no such co-operation at the present time, because the distances to the various farms in these depopulated districts are so great that there is no opportunity for cooperation, and a great expense is placed on the shoulders of each individual farmer. I have talked with the most intelligent farmers in the North, and they tell me that that would be one of the greatest benefits which a cheap and efficient rural telephonic system could produce in their midst. Again, these farms—we are all out to encourage the agricultural industry, especially in Scotland—are very often far away, not only from the station, but from the market town. I am going to repeat what a most intelligent farmer in the North told me when he said that if they had this system of rural telephones they could always telephone to the auctioneer at the market in the morning to find out what demand there was for a certain stock and a certain breed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON -GRIFFITHS: Like Canada.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Like Canada, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Central Wandsworth points out. Our Colonies, I believe, can give us points in regard to the use of the rural telephone. By its aid the farmer can inquire about the prospects of the market. He can find out if the market for a certain stock is a good one, and again, by use of the telephone, he can communicate with his friends, and by cheapening transport through having such co-operation they can send their cattle into the market towns with a reasonable chance of profit. Again, farmers, instead of Very often wasting a day in running about to the various markets, can, if they have a telephone—which they are all anxious to instal, once it becomes efficient and cheap—telephone one to the other. The farmer who wants more barley can telephone to the man whom he knows has got barley. He can quickly effect a purchase by telephone without the waste of a day going to the market town where there may be no barley at all. I feel sure that the people of the country will have reason to trust the ability and desire of my right hon. Friend to look after the interests of the country in this

  297
  respect even at a cost to the taxpayer, and I believe he could make a great name for himself in the Post Office if he tackled the rural telephone system and the daily service system from the point of view of agriculture. I sit down, as I began, by saying that I believe, providing you have reasonable efficiency, that if the Committee knew that every home could be connected with the centre of life by a daily service, it would pay little regard to any profits which would be produced from this system as a whole. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider what can be done on this particular point, and I sincerely hope he will be able to tell us in a short time that he has been able to benefit the agricultural industry and that he and his Department are anxious and eager to advance, still further, an industry which, in this country, should be the greatest and most efficient of all.
  Mr. W. ROBINSON: I wish I could share in the expressions of some of my hon. Friends who have been complimenting the Postmaster-General, but I am afraid I cannot compliment either the Postmaster-General or his assistant on anything but their honesty in stating that certain grievances cannot be redressed. When I came into this House in November one of the first complaints I had to make was with regard to the hours of posting at Brighouse. Prior to the War, the latest time for posting at that post office was 8.30, but during the War the hour was changed to 7.30. I made application on behalf of the Tradesmen's Association that the hour should be fixed at 8 o'clock, and we were prepared to be satisfied with that. It was altered from 7.30 to 7.45, but letters posted at 7.45 require an extra halfpenny stamp. As has already been pointed out, there have recently been three Postmasters-General, and when the second Postmaster-General was appointed, I thought I was going to be successful, because we were told distinctly that the Post Office was for the benefit of the inhabitants of this country and that the first consideration was that the public should be well served. As a matter of fact, the Post Office is not serving the public well if it is not prepared to fix a later hour than 7.30 for the posting of letters in a district of from 20,000 to 25,000 inhabitants. A man who works in Bradford or Halifax
  298
  and who has to travel home to that district will leave his work at 5.30 in the evening and then he has got to spend three-quarters of an hour on the tram, and when he reaches home, if he is called upon to write a letter for that evening's post, he must do so before he can have his tea. I appeal to the Postmaster-General to say if that is a satisfactory condition of affairs.
  There is one thing, however, for which, as I say, I give the present Postmaster-General credit, and that is honesty. The other two Postmasters-General made me believe that something was going to be done; that they were making inquiries as to how to meet my complaint. When I met the secretary to the present Postmaster-General he plainly stated that what I desired could not be done, because he said if it were done for us it would have to be done for others. I say that it ought to be done for others. The Post Office is for the benefit of the public, and we have heard from the Postmaster-General of the great wealth that is being made from it. Why not try to make still more by giving people the proper facilities. At Huddersfield and Halifax boxes have been put upon the trams and if you miss a general post, you can by affixing an additional halfpenny stamp post your letter on the tram in either of these two districts, and yet in the district with which I am dealing, 7.30 is the last hour of posting in the general post office. Consider the inconvenience which this causes to business men and tradesmen; it would appear as though nobody was looking after their interests in this matter. The compromise between the hours of 8 and 7.30 was fixed at 7.45, but as I have stated an additional halfpenny stamp was necessary and I do not know why that should be so. The Post Office would have a great deal of extra revenue if proper facilities were given, and it is difficult to understand why the public should be called upon to pay an extra halfpenny for a quarter of an hour's grace. I have made inquiries, and I know the postmen do not object to the alteration but would be glad to see it made in the interests of the public, while so far as the Post Office officials are concerned there is not the slightest objection. Nor is there any difficulty with regard to trains, and in a district

  299
  like Batley, which is not many miles away, the latest hour of posting is 9 o'clock.
  There is another point which I desire the Postmaster-General to look into at once. Last February I made application for a telephone on behalf of the firm of Messrs. Dyson and Sons. Prior to that they had been making application themselves for months and Mr. Dyson, the head of the firm, told me he could get nothing done and requested me to take the matter up. It was a serious trouble to this firm in their business. I made the application and a letter has been received stating that the telephone is about to be put in. It has taken from February until July to bring the matter to that stage. We have now come to the last week of July, but the telephone has not yet been installed and the people concerned do not know whether they will get it in to-day or to-morrow or when they will get it in. The result is that when telephoning is necessary, they have to use the telephones of other business houses in the locality which they do not like to do because it is undesirable for business people to discuss business matters over the telephone in another business concern. I trust the Postmaster-General will see if it is not possible to expedite the installation of telephones, especially for business people. I know the difficulties which existed during the War, but that is not the position to-day and if the Post Office are short of men to do the work there are plenty of unemployed. It is by looking after the public in general that the Postmaster-General will be able to increase revenue. After all it is the public of the country who are the chief supporters of the Post Office and who deserve consideration from the Postmaster-General and he will, I hope, consider the matters I have brought to his notice.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: There are two points of Post Office policy to which I shall draw attention in connection with which something might be done to redress real grievances. I first refer to what is called the bulk system of dealing with registered letters. Since the War a great change has taken place in the method of dealing with registered letters and this change has disadvantages for the public while it also involves danger
  300
  to the postal sorters who are handling registered letters. Before the War every registered letter had an identifying number and nobody accepted a registered letter without giving a receipt to the man who handled it last, while nobody relinquished his hold on a registered letter without getting a receipt from the person to whom it was handed over. The whole history of a registered letter or package could be traced from the time it was posted to the time it was delivered. Since the War, registered letters and packages are made up in parcels or in bags of 50, 55 and 60, and there is no identification of each particular letter so that it is very much more difficult now to trace through whose hands a particular letter may have passed. The result is that the postal sorters find there is great danger that they may be charged with being concerned in the loss of letters and packages the history of which they are unable to trace. This matter came up in a case heard yesterday in the Old Bailey and scathing remarks were made by the Recorder of London on the way in which the system has been changed since the war. A postal sorter was charged with the theft of a letter and was found not guilty. The Recorder said, the charge should never have been brought against the man; also that the whole system was thoroughly bad and that the Post Office should consider a return to the pre-War system. Incidentally, may I point out that this man although discharged from Court without a stain on his character, is left to pay the entire costs of the proceeding amounting to something like £200? It seems a case where the Post Office should consider whether it would not be wise and just to give the man compensation. I am not, however, raising this question from the point of view of an individual, but from the point of view of the public service. It is to the interest of the public and certainly to the interest of the sorters, that the Post Office should revert to the old system.
  The second matter to which I direct attention is the question of the recognition of the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks. I ask the Postmaster-General if he cannot see his way to recognise this body. It is of very great value to any association or society of State servants to be recognised when bargains have to be made between the State and its employés with regard to pay, con-

  301
  ditions and status. When the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury was Postmaster-General he recognised the Guild of Postal Sorters. The guild, however, is only one of four guilds which compose the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks, and they find it a very great grievance that when questions are discussed between the Department and its employees they are not consulted and have no voice in determining their own fortunes. There are about 7,000 employees in the federation, representing some of the best elements in the postal service. They broke away from the Union of Post Office Workers because they did not see the point of belonging to a union which was affiliated with a political party and imposed a political levy upon all its members. For that reason they formed this federation and they ask the Postmaster-General to give them the same recognition as that which is given by every department of the State to a society of employés as soon as that society comprises within its membership a sufficiently large section. It seems only fair that this organisation should have the same recognition as other bodies in the Post Office service. I trust the Postmaster-General will see his way to accord that recognition straight away or, alternatively, to receive a deputation of these men and hear what is to be said on their behalf. I only rose to call attention to these two questions, which are of considerable moment not only to the servants of the Post Office but to the public as well.
  Mr. McENTEE: I find myself in rather a difficulty, because I have to make an appeal to the Postmaster-General and, at the same time, a criticism of his Department and an attack on the policy of his Department. If I make the appeal first, I wonder whether the attack I may make afterwards will do away with any good that my appeal may make on his mind, and, on the other hand, if I make the attack first and the criticism afterwards and then make an appeal to him, I wonder whether that appeal will not fall on deaf ears. I feel somewhat reassured by the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his exceedingly interesting speech, which I feel reflects credit not particularly on a new Postmaster-General, but on a huge national service, and a very
  302
  old service. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he will always endeavour to consider any grievance that any of the members of the staff have, and that it will always be his policy, within reason, of course, to stand on good terms amongst the members of his staff.
  The appeal that I want to make to him—and I have decided to make the appeal first—is on behalf not of a very large section of his employés, but of a very small section. In fact, I think the whole body of them would not number more than about 100 men. It is that section known as the Post Office stamp section, a section that originally was established under the Inland Revenue and was transferred to the Post Office very much later. The Service was reorganised in 1906, and from that time onward it was treated always as doing work equal in value to the work of the assistant clerks in the Civil Service. Not only were they graded very much the same so far as their general conditions were concerned, but after the reorganisation in 1906 they were actually brought on to the same standard of salary, and maintained that standard equal to that of the assistant clerks during the time that they remained inside the Department they were then under. They were, however, transferred, without being asked whether they would like it or not; they were transferred, largely against their will, in 1914 to the Post Office. Under the agreement in connection with the reorganisation in 1906 these men were graded, and the new grading matured to the senior men in 1910. It is quite a long time since 1910, and I believe that I should be speaking the truth if I said that there is no other branch of the Service, except these men, who from 1910 to the present time, 13 years, have received no increase of wages at all.
  They have from time to time taken steps to bring their grievance to the notice of the Department, but apparently their claim has not been met, and I think has not been very favourably or even reasonably considered, because, in the first place, they did not desire to go to the Post Office, and were not asked whether or not they would like to go to the Post Office. They went there, and when they were transferred they were graded as warehousemen. These men, who previously were admitted by the

  303
  Treasury to be equal to the assistant clerks, were getting all the privileges of assistant clerks, and were receiving the actual salary of the assistant clerks, were, shortly after their transfer, degraded and called warehousemen, and since then their progress has not been upwards but all the time downwards. One cannot expect men in that position to feel happy or contented in their work. Their duties are varied, and, frankly, I think it is quite ridiculous to call these men warehousemen. The work they are doing at the present time is very largely supervisory; it is work that to a considerable extent is clerical, and it is also what might be called manual or manipulative. They supervise, in the first place, the manufacture of all watermarked paper, the paper for stamps, the paper for Treasury notes, and for all bills, postal orders, and that kind of thing, and when it is manufactured they take the paper over. They take the manufactured articles, the stamps themselves, the postal orders, the Treasury notes—the paper for the Treasury notes, I mean—and they check it, and they are actually responsible for the clerical as well as the manipulative side of its distribution.
  I think it is really absurd to call these men warehousemen at all, but it is even worse than that, when we find that instead of getting increases in their wages, they are actually getting a decrease. At the present time they are being put on a longer working week. They used to work 39 hours a week, and now they are put on what is actually a 51 hours week—what is called in the Service a 48 hours week. The Postmaster-General will see that the effect of transferring men who used to work 39 hours a week, with a half-day off on Saturday when circumstances permitted, to a grade where they have to work 48 hours a week is actually a reduction in wages. They are getting less per hour for their services to-day than they were a number of years ago, and I hope, the Postmaster-General will consider the condition of these men, who, as I say, have had no increase since 1910, and the youngest man in the Service is 32 years of age and has 19 years' service to his credit, so that they are men, assuming they are efficient—and that is not in question—who deserve the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and those responsible for the Department. They
  304
  are only a little section, and it is probably because they are only little that they have not been able to bring their grievance as forcibly before the public mind and before the Department itself as otherwise they would have been able to do.
  They are asking for a special committee of inquiry, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to try and forget anything I may say afterwards, and to give these 100 men, this little section of his very wonderful and large staff, some attention. It has been suggested to me that he might set up a committee, consisting of one member of the staff, one of the high administrative staff in the Postal Service, somebody nominated by the Prime Minister, and somebody else nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, with, perhaps, an independent chairman from outside, to inquire into the matter. I am sure these men would be satisfied with, the result of such an inquiry, and that justice would be done by such a committee.
  Now I want to criticise the action of the Department, although not the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he has not been long enough Postmaster-General, probably, to be aware of the facts of the case. The matter was raised to-day in the form of a question by an hon. Member in regard to the Press Association and, I believe, the Central News and their relations to the Post Office, in the system by which they hire some of the wires of the Post Office for their own particular work. The objection that is raised to that system is, that they use some of their own staff, not the staff of the Post Office, but a staff hired by themselves. A claim has been made, and I think rightly made, that these hired men should have applied to them, in exactly the same way as it is applied to the Post Office staff themselves, that Clause that is commonly called the Fair Wages Clause. I know that the company say that they are prepared to apply a certain Fair Wages Clause, and that they are prepared to pay a certain minimum for telegraphists, but that minimum, for the service which they expect to receive, appears to be altogether ridiculous. They expect a man to be an engineer, a linesman, a mechanic, and a telegraphist all in one, and for all those services they are prepared to pay the minimum that is given to the ordinary telegraphist with none of the other quali-

  305
  fications at all. It is argued by the Post Office officials that they have no control over this matter. I have in my hand a report of a speech made by the then Postmaster-General when this matter first came under the observation of this House. The Postmaster-General at that time, in 1909, when it was contemplated that an arrangement such as has actually been made would be made between these Press services and the Post Office, said:
  "The Press Association and the Central News have agreed that if it is done, and if some of the staff that they employ are not supplied by the Post Office, a Fair Wages Clause should be introduced into their contracts which would secure the payment of a proper rate of wages."
  If the Postmaster-General in 1909 gave a pledge, as he did, to the delegates of the Trade Union Congress who waited on him and asked him to give his consideration to the matter, that if this contract should ever be made between the Press Association and the Government that Fair Wages Clause should be introduced into the contract itself, we have a right to expect to-day that the successor of the Postmaster-General of that time will give consideration to this matter and remedy this legitimate grievance of the telegraphists against his Department. If the Postmaster-General personally said to the company that he thought, in view of the pledge given by his predecessor, that he ought to have insisted on this matter going into the contract, I believe that the Press Association would agree, although the matter might not actually be in the contract, to some reasonable settlement with the telegraphists concerned in the dispute which is now going on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter his personal attention.
  The other matter to which I wish to refer is the attack on the Department which I mentioned in opening my remarks. I do not want to call it an attack—perhaps "criticism" would be a better word. But I do suggest that the Post Office, having actually asked this House to give them large sums of money for certain buildings, must have been assured beforehand of the necessity, and if those buildings, seven, eight, or ten years ago in some cases, were admitted to be in an insanitary condition, and altogether insufficient for the staff, I think it must be said to be a stupid policy to give the
  306
  money back, and leave the staff under the old conditions in which they were working. You have such a state of things at Mount Pleasant and Carter Lane, and I believe in many other places. An hon. Gentleman gave an instance of some place in the provinces where a similar state of things exists. It was on grounds of insufficiency of accommodation and the insanitary condition of the dwellings generally that predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman came to this House and asked for a grant of money, and, having got it, for some extraordinary reason, they never used it, and gave it back to the Treasury. I have never been foolish enough, if I have been given any money, to return it without some very good reason, and I cannot understand why this should have been done.
  There are large numbers of men in my own industry, the building trade, begging for work, and here you have Government buildings admittedly insanitary and overcrowded. You have the men, who could put them into good sanitary condition, standing idly outside the Employment Exchanges, and you have the money granted by this House being held up for a long period of months, or even years, and then handed back to the Treasury without any kind of explanation being given to this House or anybody at all. I say that is a state of things that ought not to exist, and I hope the Postmaster-General will see that these men who are out of work are put to some kind of useful work when you have the money and the job there. Surely it is not an economy to do things in this way, and I do hope another attempt will be made at a very early date to take these men off the streets and put them on to the work of repairing these buildings. It will make the men more happy in earning money instead of getting it for doing nothing. The country will be better off, and the staff inside these buildings will be contented and able to do better work because of the better conditions.
  May I, in conclusion, go back to the first point of mine, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to that little group of men who are giving good service to his Department, and to see that they get something more like reasonable justice than they have got in the past? I know the conditions, and I know they have a legitimate grievance.

  307
  I hope, therefore, whatever decision may have been given in the past by some official, that the Minister himself will be big enough to say, "The official made a mistake; we will give their case another hearing," and if the official has made a mistake, I hope he will be big enough to say so, because it is only big men who can say they have made a mistake. I hope they will say so, and the wrong will be put right.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I rise for the limited purpose of drawing attention to an anomaly which exists in the postal service of the Cheshire side of the port of Liverpool. This anomaly has persisted so long that it is now felt to be an injustice. It arises from the fact that, although the port of Liverpool is one unit, the employés of the post offices at Birkenhead and Wallasey are in Class 2, while on the Liverpool side of the water they are in Class 1. If any test can be applied to the conditions under which the work is done, it will be found that the work is identical. The Post Office is the only service which makes any difference in conditions or rates of pay between the employés on different sides of the river. In the case of the employés of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, various branches of work at the docks and the clerical occupations, there is no difference whatever. Those who know the district well, will know that on both sides of the river there are districts which are identical as to density of population and in other respects. Petitions have been lodged, I understand, asking for this anomaly to be put right in 1919 and also in 1920. In 1921 an assurance was given by the then Postmaster-General that the matter would have attention, but nothing has been done, and, as I say, that anomaly which has persisted for so long has become, in fact, an injustice. The Postmaster-General and the Committee will realise the sense of injustice which is felt by people who live in the same road, who may even be neighbours, and who go to work, one in the Post Office at Birkenhead or Wallasey, and the other at Liverpool, doing exactly the same work and yet being rewarded in a different way. I have, therefore, taken this opportunity of directing the attention of the Postmaster-General to this anomaly, in
  308
  the confident hope that he will give it his attention, and remove what is felt to be an injustice.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In connection with the large sum of money which this Committee has been asked to pass to-day, I would like to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General and the Committee to what I, in common with a large number of the public and traders in London, consider is a crying scandal. I refer to the reckless and haphazard way in which the postal authorities and the telegraph authorities tear up the streets, utterly regardless of any other work that may have been carried on just previously. I have been informed that an application has been made to the local authority by the Post Office authorities that they intend to lay telephone ducts in Oxford Street, Oxford Circus, and Market Street, and also along Oxford Street to Davies Street, and from Portman Square to Edgware Road. It is only three or four years ago that these streets were reconstructed in a very substantial way. It is also still more astonishing that these works should be done now, as the local authorities, before they put the road reconstruction in hand, wrote to the postal authorities and asked them if they had any work under consideration, but no notice was taken of the letter. Every trader who has premises in these main streets will tell you of the tremendous financial expense to which he has been put when the roads have been taken up, and when these streets were relaid he naturally expected he would be allowed to carry on his business in an uninterrupted way. Now, thanks to the postal authorities, the whole of this work has to be gone over again.
  Apart from the fact that these obstructions cause a great deal of expense to the trader, there is also a great deal of delay to traffic. Everyone realises the inconvenience of the congested state of the streets, which is made infinitely worse by these excavations. The streets which have just been re-made in Oxford Street and Oxford Circus were re-laid in the most approved fashion, having been constructed with 12 inches of solid concrete, on top of which you had screeding, and on top of that wood block paving. The whole of this work has to be pulled up, long trenches made, and telephone ducts laid down. I think, in

  309
  view of the cries for economy, it is surely up to a Government Department to point the way, and not to follow. I would suggest that the Post Office authorities might act in a little less arbitrary manner, and when they have any programme under consideration, they should get in touch with the local authorities, and if those authorities have got any work to do in the streets, they should arrange that all the work could be done at the same time. A lot of these excavations and operations in the roads could be avoided by constructing tunnels under the streets. There are a lot of public utility services, such as gas, water, and telephones, which could be carried in these tunnels. It would serve a double purpose, because it would give work to the unemployed, for which everybody is asking just now.
  Mr. AMMON: Before dealing with one or two main points which I desire to bring to the attention of the Postmaster-General and the Committee, I want to touch on one or two of the points that have been raised in the discussion. In the course of his opening statement, the Postmaster-General somewhat deplored the fact that the reduction in postage had not resulted in the tremendous increase in revenue that might have been expected, but I venture to say that there is no better barometer of trade than the Post Office, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has a considerable surplus is an indication, largely, of the success of the reduced postage, because it is pretty evident that, had the postage not been reduced, his balance sheet would not have been so satisfactory as it is. I think it can be claimed, on behalf both of the Post Office and of those who have always pressed the case for reduced postage, that the reduction has been warranted right up to the hilt, and there is a case made for even further reduction, namely, a return to the penny postage.
  7.0.P.M
  Among the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) was a reference in particular to the conditions of working of the telephone operators, the great and nervous strain that is placed upon them, and the neurasthenia and breakdown that occurs. We have again and again pressed on the right hon. Gentleman and on his predecessors before him to consent to a joint inquiry into the industrial fatigue in
  310
  co-operation with the Industrial Fatigue Board to see whether ways and means cannot be found to overcome the strain, to inquire whether the load is not too heavy, and whether it does not have the effect of giving the impaired service of which complaint is made. With some experience of the American Telephone Service, I very seriously discount all the eulogiums passed on it in comparison with the service here. Having regard to all the circumstances, and the tremendous distances that rule on the American continent, we need have no fear of a comparison between the services in this country and in America. As I said on this Vote last year, some years ago, when I happened to be on the Continent for some time at the request of the then Postmaster-General, I made some inquiries in the best way that one could, and submitted a Report to him. On the whole, I was convinced that, taking all things into consideration, the service on this side of the Atlantic will compare with anything they could give us on the other side. One really cannot compare the facilities which largely arise from the difference in the standard of living in the two countries. There, in almost every artisan's house when he takes it, there is a telephone, which is an entirely different state of things from anything we have in this country.
  Reference was made by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) to the bulk system of handling registered letters. I have memories of bringing this before the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor no less than two years ago, and of impressing it on him, while I have also been on deputations on this particular subject. The Post Office Department have always answered that the conditions were satisfactory to them. I can tell the House that the union with which I am connected approached chambers of commerce, we saw business men, tried to get them to co-operate with us to bring pressure to bear on the Post Office to alter the system. We could not get it, and to a large extent our case broke down at that point. I am prepared to reiterate the case that from the point of view of the conditions of handling by the employés—I know this, because I spent a good many years in the Registered Letter Department—and of the safety of the goods committed to the Post Office, it

  311
  would be very much better if they could return to the old hand-to-hand check system, so that they could follow the registered letter at every stage, from the moment it was committed to the care of the Post Office to the moment when it was delivered to the addressee.
  I want once more to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle regarding the starting pay. The matter was raised in a question in this House, which resulted in the defeat of the Government, with regard to what are known as the Lytton Entrants. A Committee was appointed and made its Report. It was brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that it called naturally for consideration to be given to the starting pay of entrants in his own Department. It was promised that the matter would be inquired into expeditiously, but there has been no indication of any expedition up to the present moment, and I hope we shall get it from him that he is going to ginger things up a little, and that the Department will deal with it as expeditiously as possible. If a Committee of this House could get on with its business as quickly as they have done, surely a single Department, such as the Post Office, can handle the matter within their own province equally quickly.
  One point that I raised last year had reference to an alteration and saving that had been made—one of the meanest savings that could be made by any Department—on the quality of the uniform supplied to our postmen. The complaints are still that the quality of the uniform in its material is very much inferior to what used to be supplied years ago, and surely it is no credit to a great Government Department to come to the House of Commons and say that they are able to save so many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year at the expense of the uniform which these men have to wear to protect them against the inclemency of the weather, and in which they have to carry on their duties at all times. Further, it is a false economy, because there is increased sickness among the staff. I hope the Postmaster-General will give some attention to this matter in particular. I would remind hon. Members who have been pressing for reforms that they will get
  312
  the co-operation of the staff, and if we do that we have to recognise that there can be a profit given by the Post Office to the community as a whole even if it is not always expressed in a cash payment. If we get improved service and improved facilities for the Post Office, the community get it in another way. Somehow or another there always seems to be an anxiety to look on the Post Office as a sort of milch cow to supply a considerable balance to carry to their Budget. Some years ago I gave evidence before a Committee upstairs under the Chairmanship of Mr. Holt, who was then a Member of this House, and he put to me the question, "Suppose there was no cash surplus in the Post Office, where would your claim be for improved conditions and payments for the Post Office staff?" My answer was that my claim was precisely as good, because the community got the advantage of improved service whether they had it in a form that could be added to the Budget or not. While we join hon. Members, therefore, in these demands, we recognise that they have to be paid for and may result in a somewhat decreased revenue.
  The two points to which I wish to speak more particularly are the sub-office assistants, and the subject mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman)—the Imperial wireless chain. With regard to the first, the point has been frequently raised in discussions in this House, and I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a fact in his Department with which probably he is not yet acquainted. I think one has a right to enter a demurrer against the action of a Government which has had three Postmasters-General in nine months to preside over the Post Office in this country. It means that one cannot expect Post Office undertakings to be carried on on satisfactory lines. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a long tenure of office, and that his statement to-night, good having regard to the short time he has been there, may be improved upon as he goes on, that it will be still more satisfactory next year, that he will tell of improved facilities to the public, and that many of the grievances complained of by the staff have been remedied. Old Members must have been impressed by the fact that much less time is taken up than used to be the case with the grievances of the staff. That is an indi-

  313
  cation of the new spirit in the Post Office, where the associations and administration now largely deal with the points of difference and are able to settle them without worrying or wasting the time of the Houes. I hope the Postmaster-General will do all he can to encourage that spirit, and that it will operate in the right way, each side yielding here and there, while looking at the matter impartially and endeavouring to arrive at a common agreement.
  The question of the sub-office assistants concerns 15,000 employés who are not directly responsible to the Postmaster-General. The major work of the Post Office is carried on in sub-offices. They are of two kinds. The larger kind are known technically as Crown offices and are directly under the control of Parliament and the Postmaster-General. Then, there are a larger number of scale-payment offices held by people who have some other business. The employés in these offices are not subject to the same conditions either of pensions, hours, pay, or anything else that obtain in the Post Office. I am not going to blame the sub-postmasters in this respect. They are merely agents
  carrying out work that the Post Office itself should undertake, and are given a lump sum out of which they have to get what assistance they can in order to carry on their work. It is suggested that at least the Postmaster-General might carry out the suggestion of the Holt Committee, which recommended in paragraph 936, that the rule that when the gross emoluments of an office were over £250 per annum in the provinces and £500 per annum in London the office should be transferred to the salaried class, should be strictly enforced in every case other than those of some very large offices at which the postal business only represents a trifling proportion of the whole business, and is carried on ancillary thereto for the convenience of the sub-postmaster and his customers. Predecessors of the Postmaster-General have given lip-service to that suggestion, and have said that they were prepared to carry it out. The attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors has been called to the fact that there are in London several post offices where the emoluments exceed £500. Surely, it is fair that they should be brought under the control of the Post Office direct, and
  314
  that the staff should be under the control of the Postmaster and subject to all the conditions both as to emoluments and conditions of service. I beg the Postmaster-General to give attention to that. So far as those who are in the other offices are concerned and who remain in those shops, the grocers, tobacconists, etc., it has been suggested that they should come under the Trade Board. That has been refused on the ground that the Minister of Labour has no authority. That is hardly a fair answer. These people are not Crown employés, and therefore must and can be treated in precisely the same way as other employés and can be brought within the ambit of the Trade Boards Act and made subject to the fair wage clause. The Post Office cannot evade responsibility in this matter by trying to carry on with other people, putting on them the onus of doing Government work under sweated conditions.
  I noticed with some interest that the Postmaster-General in his opening statement referred to the fact that there are to be some high-power stations opened here jointly with the Marconi Company, that they are going to be worked from the General Post Office, and that there are going to be two other stations held by the company and one by the Post Office itself. That is another way of subsidising a private industry, and setting up a monopoly in this country that may have a very grave national and international danger. Last week and last night we took the first steps towards the next war, and it is probable that the monopoly that is being set up in regard to the Imperial Wireless Chain will land us in very grave difficulties if ever we find ourselves in disagreement with other nations. The Committee will appreciate the fact that the whole of the wireless chain, practically the whole of the world, is now in the hands of four private companies. That is the actual position. They are the Marconi Company, the German Telefunken Company, the French Marconi Company, and the Radio Corporation of America, the latter probably the stronger. Although the Postmaster-General has told us to wait, I think the House will be very ill-advised to let this develop without seriously inquiring into the possibilities involved. Attention has been called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman), who speaks with some authority on the matter,

  315
  to the grave danger with which we are faced. Here you have four important companies concerned in world development in long-distance wireless telegraphy. They have mapped out practically the whole of the world into sphere of exploitation. They have arranged the common use of patents and the interchange of expert apparatus and ideas.
  The Big Four, as they are known technically, are closely related. The French company came under the control of Marconi's in 1913. Marconi's and the Radio Corporation of America share the ownership of the South American Radio Corporation. The Big Four have subsidiary companies associated with them, and they are also associated with engineering and manufacturing concerns. Surely one need not dilate at any length, in raising this question, to show the very grave dangers with which this nation is going to be faced in handing over this tremendous power to these three or four companies, which at the moment are actually one world-wide wireless combine with increasing monopoly. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General it is sheer nonsense for him to talk, as he did in his opening statement about competition between the Post Office and these companies. There is no competition. Competiton has been eliminated. The different companies have marked out their different sphere of exploitation, and they are in a position to exert great pressure on the nation life of any nation. I have already spoken of the grave danger both internationally and to international security if the matter had not already arrived at that stage. It is as well to notice, as bearing out what I have already said, how these companies originated, how they stand, and their ramifications. The Swiss Marconi Company was set up in 1921–22 with a 30 years' monopoly of wireless telegraphy and telephony. In Austria a similar state of affairs was set up, and I think there 65 per cent. of the shares are held by Marconi's. In Peru, Marconi's have taken over the entire wireless services, and also the posts telegraphs. In Portugal, a Marconi subsidiary company have a 40 years' monopolistic concession. Marconi's have also secured practical control of the Swedish Radio Company.
  316
  Then we come to the British Empire. In Australia there has been set up a scheme very much on the lines of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in this country, the position being that the balance of shares is held by the Government. It is worth while to note that ex-Premier Hughes was anxious to give Marconi control on the Board of Directors. Then take South Africa. Marconis there are getting practical control of the wireless system. The same thing applies to Canada where they have a licence to erect a station at Montreal. I observed that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the Empire Press Union to discuss the question of wireless telegraphy with particular reference to the position of India. This very powerful deputation seemed to desire to bring pressure to bear on the Government to give greater concessions and control to Marconi. It was rightly pointed out that this country and other countries have suffered very long and waited for a long time in this matter. The Government, as I see by what happened yesterday, has to face some opposition in Government circles. There has been some endeavour to get the position settled so far as India is concerned. Pressure has been exercised. The Marconi Company are exercising pressure in order to obtain control in India. It is of interest to note that some time ago the technical adviser of the Indian Government recommended the Marconi Company. Our interest and our curiosity perhaps is deepened when we realise that this gentleman was formerly managing director of the Russian Marconi Company, so that we are beginning to see the ramifications of this company in the various countries and their apparent desire to get control of the world-wide Imperial wireless chain. The Norman Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn in 1919–20, recommended in effect that a scheme should be carried out of an Empire Wireless Chain under which the Empire was: to be encircled in stages of 2,000 miles and British and Dominion Post Offices were to own and finance it. The Milner Commission reported on the technical side of the Imperial wireless chain, and they much strengthened this recommendation. Early in 1923 the Cabinet Committee came down with a decision, deciding to hand over licences

  317
  to private enterprise with wireless chain stations in Great Britain to carry on this particular work. If that is going to be done, and the Postmaster-General in his opening statement said that this, wireless was going to be worked from the Post Office, what does this mean? That all the expenses are to be borne by the Government, and that this company is coming in and going to cream off the profits, get control, and have a dominant voice in the matter which is of vital importance to the British Empire.
  I suggest even now it is not too late for the Government to revise its policy and to refuse licences in Great Britain to private enterprise. The Union of Post Office Workers, by means of their central committee, has suggested that they might form a deputation to discuss this question. The request has been refused on the ground that the question was one of national policy, but it is a long time since the trade unions and the people who carry on important industries have been concerned only with hours of labour and conditions of the men they represent. We are vitally concerned in the services in which we work. We claim to have much knowledge and understanding that is of value to the community. We ought to be allowed to bring our point of view into touch with the Administration in effecting a solution of this matter. It is claimed on this side by some of us on behalf of the Post Office staff that we are capable of undertaking these services ourselves, and that there is no need to hand this over to Marconi or to any other particular company. The British Government evidently recognises that the Post Office is capable of conducting our wireless services, since it is already building a high-power station claimed to be the most powerful in the world. If that is so, it is all the more extraordinary that a licence should be granted to Marconi. It is recognised that the Post Office is capable of carrying on experimental and other research work. It is recognised that the naval authorities must carry on experimental equipment and expenditure in wireless, and this provides an excellent opportunity surely for co-operation in the State wireless services. It is unsafe in many ways to co-operate, so far as a naval service is concerned, with any private company. Then why not develop jointly your State service both for your naval wireless and for your civil purposes, for
  318
  such co-operation and experimental work will ensure an up-to-date service? It is a business proposition, one beneficial to the naval and Post Office services. In March the Prime Minister, in announcing that licences would be granted to private enterprise, stated that
  "It is necessary in the interests of national security that there should be a wireless station in this country capable of communicating with the Dominions and owned and operated by the State."
  It is not for the Government to allow this sort of business to get into the hands of private companies, but to recognise the great danger to which the nation might be exposed by so doing. It is essential from the point of view of national security that the wireless services should be controlled by the State, and not by one of the four members of a world-wide wireless monopoly.
  What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman and the House is, that having regard to the possibilities and the future development of this service foreshadowed, it is an unwise thing from every point to allow this to get out of the control of the State and to get into the hands of companies whose ramifications are to the ends of the earth—people who are interested from a financial point of view who are in this country, but are not concerned about the development of or the fortunes of the Empire. It is right surely that the growth and development of a power like this, which can be used for good or ill, should be under the control and monopoly of the Government itself, that they should have the last word, and not any private enterprise which stands to exploit the machinery, experience, experiments and so on on the Government side, yet are going to take all the profits, hold all the power, and, it may be, hold the nation to ransom when we may have need of wireless in the days to come. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to this important problem which has been raised with the expert knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, and, I may say, with that of myself representing those who know something about this business, who have taken part in it and are concerned about the development of it, both in the interests of the Post Office and for the good of the nation as a whole.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry that I have to get up at this moment, as there are other hon. Members who, I believe, wish to speak—
  Lieut-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I interrupt a moment? I have an important matter I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and five Members who have spoken have taken, on an average, 30 minutes each.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to ask a question, I will give way.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The point I wish to make is this: Is it possible to expedite the improvements already foreshadowed—and we know that the changes have perhaps had to wait up till now—in regard to the delivery and dispatch of the morning mail from Cardiff to the Rhondda, and also to the late collection of letters, as we had it pre-War, and the letters on the tramway system? We feel very much at Aberdare and Merthyr, with a population of half a million, the absence of facilities for getting both outwards and inward mails earlier. We are two hours behind in the Rhondda Valley.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:There is an understanding to close this Debate at 7.30, and I am very sorry if I should appear to cut off the opportunities of other hon. Members who desire to speak. There is another Estimate to come on, and I think it would be less than courteous if I did not give a reply to some of the questions which have been put to me. We have had a very interesting speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Sir H, Norman), who is a recognised authority on wireless matters, and has served the State so well in that connection. At the same time, I will try and deal with the speech on somewhat different lines made by the hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn accused the Government of having reversed their policy of an Empire wireless. That is quite true, but it is not anything like such a reversal as the right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine.
  It is true that at one time it was intended that the Government, and the Government alone, should deal with the
  320
  Empire wireless matters from this end. But at that time it was thought that the Dominion Governments would also set up their own stations so that all the Governments of the Empire would own their stations, and be able to communicate with one another. Australia and South Africa have decided not to follow that policy, and the actual choice before the Government is either to monopolise the Government wireless or make arrangements on this side corresponding with the stations owned by the Marconi Company in South Africa and Australia. When the rest of the Empire changed their policy we had to follow suit, and although that is a reversal of policy it is nothing like the reversal suggested to the Committee, because we do not give up control.
  It is suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that the Government is creating a monopoly in the hands of a group of private companies and retiring from the business altogether. He suggested that a monopoly was being put into the hands of these private companies, who were going to squeeze and hold up to ransom this country, and the other countries of the Empire. That is an absurd exaggeration, because far from there being a power under the Marconi Company to squeeze us and charge what they like for them or to take our messages or not, far from that being the case, all our messages are going to be sent by the Government and we are going to use the Marconi Company's station and the Government station. The Post Office will route those messages through either station, and the interest of the Marconi Company is to be a share in the gross receipts of those messages proportionate to their stations as against the Government stations.
  Mr. AMMON: That is outward.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, that is outward. Of course, I cannot control the inward messages from South Africa, Australia, or India. Is it suggested that by some over-riding and autocratic power we are to tell the Dominion Governments that we are to control the messages which they send? I am talking of outward messages, because they are the only messages that we can control.
  Mr. AMMON: Which means that the companies do control the Empire chain.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Companies have made arrangements with the Australian and South African Governments, and there are companies there which the Australian Government and the South African Government respectively control, and it is for them to see that no monopoly is created in their country, as we are seeing on this side that no monopoly is created against us. Although that is a reversal of our policy, it is not such a reversal as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn suggested, because the control of the routing of those messages is kept in our hands. Again, the Member for North Camberwell suggested that we were going to run some strategic risk by allowing the Marconi Company to have a licence to carry on wireless telegraphy, and that during war, or without war, we should be running some risk. That is why we are controlling the routing of the messages in the Post Office.
  There is provision in war time, under which the Government can take over any private service. Very often it is the days just before a war, when it may be very necessary that there should be some control over messages that should be sent or not sent and arrangements have been made to protect us in that direction. It has been suggested that the agreement ought to come under Standing Order 72. The Committee will remember that when I first spoke on this subject I said that it might very well happen that, in the final form of the agreement, there might be some charge created upon Public Funds, and if that turns out to be the case, it will have to come within the Standing Order. But no one can say until the agreement appears in its final form whether it does or does not create a charge.
  Captain BERKELEY: My point was not only that the agreement ought to be laid on the Table, under Standing Order 72, but that the contract must contain a provision that it will not be binding until approved by the House.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is obvious that if the agreement creates a charge it will have to come before the House. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) said that the Anderson Committee was taking away from the control of the House of Commons the consideration of the terms and conditions
  322
  of employment in the Post Office and the standards of remuneration, which had hitherto been under the control of the House of Commons. The hon. Member need have no such fear, because whatever may be recommended by the Anderson Committee, he knows perfectly well that they will not be carried out behind the back of the House of Commons, which has an annual opportunity of discussing the Post Office Vote; consequently, he need not worry that things will be done to take out of the power of the House of Commons that sort of criticism which he has favoured us with upon the terms and conditions of the employment of Post Office servants.
  The hon. Member expressed some anxiety about the starting pay of ex-soldiers employed in the Post Office, and he urged that this should be dealt with on the lines of the Southborough Committee Report. That Report said that ex-service men who joined as civil servants should be given not the starting age of the earliest entrants, but the age of 22 and the emoluments of the starting age of 22. As regards postmen, already they get without any alteration the starting rates of a man aged 22. It is true that the telegraphists do not get this advantage and they get a starting age of 21. I am already considering in the Department whether there is any case for an alteration from the present arrangement of 21 to the starting age of 22. The hon. Member urged that the wages of a Post Office servant ought to be considered in the light of whether it was a living wage for a married man with a family. He mentioned a wage of £2 7s. 8d. and £2 13s. 8d., and these are not insignificant wages. I am sure the hon. Member will not think I am saying that that is a wage on which a man with a large family can thrive and get fat, but £2 7s. 8d. is not an insignificant wage, but of course I will consider that point
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Will that inquiry include the London sorters, of which there are about 150?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Telegraphists and sorters are all exactly on the same footing. The postmen already start at 22 and the other classes at 21, and I am considering whether any alteration can be made in that respect. With regard to the question of telephones raised by the hon. Member for North

  323
  Camberwell, I agree that it is a mistake to believe that because the telephone is not answered immediately, that the girls at the telephone exchange are having their tea, or chattering, or otherwise neglecting their duties. I would invite hon. Members who have difficulties with their telephone to go and see a telephone exchange and try and appreciate what there is to do at the other end of the wire. I am no better tempered than anybody else and just as irritable, but I know it is a first-class education for an irritable man to go and see in a telephone exchange the class of work which the girls at the other end of the wire have to do. Their work is indeed very hard.
  When the hon. Gentleman says that there have been cases of break-down, I may say that I have gone into all the specific cases that were brought to my notice by a deputation of the trade union concerned. I had inquiries made into each one of them, and there were two specific cases—one of nervous breakdown, which was a mental case, and another of fainting—and both of them were considered by my medical advisers, and they reported that neither of them could attribute her illness to the telephone service. But two cases of that sort are not sufficient to make a general charge of overloading. I am not going to say that the work is not hard, but I am having it watched carefully in order to see that there is no overloading, and I am certain the House would support any measures which were thought necessary to prevent any undue overloading of telephone girls.
  One hon. Member referred to American experience in this matter, but our load here is 10 per cent. below the Americans, and they load their telephone operators much more than we do. All I am saying is that there is no case made out on anything I have had in front of me which shows that the average work done by these girls is excessive. I know there are cases where there has been an extreme rush of telephoning. The hot weather greatly increased the number of telephone calls in London, because many subscribers did not want to go out in the heat, and they did their shopping by telephone. That greatly increased telephone work during the hottest week, and you can imagine the heat of the telephone exchanges during that time and the conditions under which the girls were
  324
  working. You will find, undoubtedly, times of overloading in that sense, but instructions are given and are carefully carried out to anticipate any increase of work and to endeavour to see that the staff is not overloaded.
  I come next to the complaint with regard to the Central Telegraph Office and other buildings. We are accused of having, unlike most Departments, got a Vote and then surrendered it. That is a very heinous offence from one point of view, but, from another point of view, we might be congratulated on having postponed or saved expenditure which did not appear to be necessary at the moment. I am going personally to the Central Telegraph Office to see what the conditions are which are the subject for complaint. I am just as anxious as any hon. Member that there should be proper provision for refreshments and relaxation, and I will go there and see what I think of the existing arrangements. If I can accept the view put forward by hon. Members I shall endeavour to find money to carry out the work suggested.
  Next I come to the all-night services. There are two sorts of all-night service. There is the caretaker operator in regard to whom apparently no serious complaint is made. The real complaint is as to the temporary assistant who sleeps in the building and has the duty of answering any telephone call which may turn up at night. There is every variety apparently of small office, although there is no great number of them concerned and the payments made equally vary. They start, I think, at 5s. and go up to 30s. per week. The duty of the operator is to sleep in the building and, if the telephone bell rings, to answer it. On occasions his night is unbroken; on other occasions it is broken. The work is done by people in employment or by ex-service men with a pension, and it is sought after. Local contracts are made with local applicants for the job. It is not done centrally, it is done by the local people, and a reasonable rate is agreed upon between the local postmaster, the local postal representative, and the applicant for the work. That is the ordinary way of getting casual work done, and I do not know that there is any magic in endeavouring to centralise it by having some maximum or minimum fixed in an agreement with the trade union.

  325
  The best plan would be to continue letting the local people who know their varying needs, arrange the work. If the needs did not vary there might be something to be said for centralising the work. It is said that at Leamington 25s. a week is paid and 108 calls at night are on the average dealt with. I agree that that is not casual, half-time employment. If 108 calls have to be dealt with in the course of the night it is too much. It is not perhaps continuous service, but it means that the night is broken so much that you depreciate the value of the man for his day's work. That is an excessive amount, and it ought to be made into some form a full-time employment. But between that and one or two calls occasionally there is a vast difference. The local cases ought to be dealt with locally. I think I have dealt with all the cases raised by the hon. Member. Now I want to reply to the appeal of the hon. Member for the Richmond Division (Mr. Murrough Wilson).
  Mr. MIDDLETON: There is the Carlisle case to which I called your attention.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Carlisle case is an individual case of an individual Post Office servant who apparently has been passed over for promotion. He wants an inquiry into his competence. I will not make any promise of an inquiry, but I will see what the practice is in the Post Office and will inquire if it can be granted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond complained that there was no postal delivery at Wensleydale before noon. I have made inquiries and I have found that the railway company state it would cost £2,440 a year to carry the mail there by an earlier train than at present. I do not object to my hon. Friend blaming the Post Office, but I think he should turn his attention to the railway company and see whether he cannot get them to reduce that demand of £2,440 a year which they say it would cost to anticipate the present postal delivery by, perhaps, an hour or two. Of course, I want to give every possible facility in rural areas, but we have to guard against undue extravagance in expenditure.
  326
  The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromartie (Mr. Macpherson) pressed the case of rural telephones. I do not think we have done so very badly in that matter in the course of the past year. It is the Post Office and my predecessors who deserve the credit, but they certainly have pushed the rural telephones with considerable success. They have enormously increased the facilities and have doubled the number of subscribers. That is a policy with which I thoroughly agree, and I will do everything I can to extend it. But when the right hon. Gentleman says he wants us to fix six instead of eight as the guaranteeing number of subscribers, let me remind him that even with eight we anticipate a loss of £70 per year and if the number were reduced to six that loss would be increased to £100. Still, I am not going to be deterred by any little difficulties of that kind. I will go into this matter from the point of view of seeing what better can be done.
  The hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. W. Robinson) waxed very eloquent about 7.30 p.m. being the latest hour for posting letters in a town with a population of 20,000, and he also wanted to know why an extra ½d. was charged on letters posted during the last quarter of an hour. The answer to that is that it is to deter people waiting until the last moment before posting letters. If they do that you get the peak load of work at the last moment. Instead of spreading it over a longer period, you get it all concentrated in the last few minutes, and you have either to overwork the staff or to increase it. It is therefore highly desirable that the work should be spread over a longer period. I am told that very few people have availed themselves of the privilege of posting in the last quarter of an hour for the extra ½d., and that the posting is not very heavy in that time. Then I come to the case of Mr. Dyson, who says he has been waiting for his telephone from February to July. I will do all I can for him. I have not heard of him, but I feel he has waited too long, and if there is anything I can do it shall be done. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) referred to the bulk system of dealing with registered letters. Reference was also made to a case which was heard yesterday in which a sorter was discharged on a charge of theft. I will

  327
  see whether it is possible to revert to the old system. It would be a matter of considerable expense to deal with these registered letters otherwise than in bulk, involving as it does checking at so very many stages. The letters pass through a great number of hands and it is obvious that it would be much more expensive to deal with these letters separately than in bulk.
  I was asked that the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks should be recognised. The Guild of Postal Sorters, which is one of the four sections of the federation that has already been recognised, has been recognised because pretty nearly one-half of the sorters in London are members of the guild, and it would have been wrong to have said that they should be represented only by another union of which they were not members, and to which they actually object. There must obviously be a limit drawn somewhere as to the number of unions that can be recognised for the purpose of representing the staff. The other three branches of the federation have relatively few members compared with the number of members which belong to the opposition union. Exactly what percentage of numbers unions should have in order to be recognised is a matter which does not affect the Post Office only. It affects whatever Department has to deal with trade unions. I am looking into that question with the other Departments in order that a decision may be come to which will affect not only the Post Office but the other Departments.
  The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) complained that the Post Office Stamp Section have received no increase of pay since 1910. I am told that their pay is more and their hours of duty are less than those of relative grades in the Post Office. It must not be thought that because they have received no increase since 1910 they are underpaid. It may be that they are paid a higher rate than corresponding men in the Post Office, and that they have, therefore, no cause of complaint. I am not familiar with the case. I will look into it. The hon. Member also raised the question of the Press Association. They are not contractors under the Government, and I am told that they do actually pay trade rates to the telegraphists whom they employ,
  328
  and that those rates have been agreed with the representatives of the men.
  Mr. MlDDLETON indicated dissent.
  8.0.P.M
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am told that is so. If it is the case, it would be a compliance with the Fair Wages Clause, supposing they were contractors and that Clause was within their contract. As a matter of fact, they are not contractors, and I have actually no control over the wages they pay. I think I may now deal with the other questions which the hon. Member for North Camberwell asked me. He spoke of the reduced expenditure on the uniforms of the staff and suggested it caused an increase of sickness amongst the staff. If there were a shadow of evidence that it has caused increased sickness amongst the staff I would be with the hon. Member, but is there any evidence whatever that the alteration in the cloth, or in the cut of the uniform has spread sickness amongst the staff As he says so, and as I have always found that he is not likely to bring cases which have no foundation, I will look into it, but I cannot believe that that has been the case.
  He also raised the question of sub-office assistants. The hon. Member knows that that is an extremely big question. The number of post offices which are staffed by established civil servants are 524 head offices, 600 salaried sub-offices, and 300 branch offices, or a total of a little over 1,400. These offices are staffed by full-time civil servants, with civil service holidays, and civil servants' rights, medical treatment, sick pay, etc. There are 19,000 offices which are known as scale payment offices. We are all familiar with these offices. Three-fourths of the premises are used as grocers' shops, or chemists' shops, and so on, and one-fourth of the premises as post office. The complaint is that the employés in these 19,000 offices are not getting the same rate of pay as fully-fledged civil servants in the permanent offices. It is true that they are not getting the same rate of pay, but in the appointment that is made with the sub-postmasters we provide that
  "the conditions and the service of assistants other than relatives of the sub-postmaster employed on post office work should be not less favourable than those of shop assistants of about the same standing

  329
  in the service of good employers in the same district."
  That condition, so far as we know, is carried out. We have a return every year of the remuneration paid to these people, who really are to be classed as shop assistants, because in the majority of cases they are also doing shop assistant's work, and they have to be paid on the same good terms that the best employers pay to their shop assistants. That we provide for.
  Mr. AMMON: The point I make is that most of these people are employed in small shops, and there can be no comparison with the people employed in these small shops and the shop assistants employed in the big shops.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The shop assistant is employed by the sub-postmaster, who may be a grocer. That grocer goes into the market for his assistant. He offers wages, and the assistant comes in and takes those wages. I admit that economic pressure has an effect upon wages. What would the hon. Member have us do? If we try to staff these 19,000 sub-offices with assistance on Post Office terms we should either increase the Estimates so enormously that there would be immediately an outcry, or we should have to curtail the service to the public by refusing to have Post Office business done in small shops. Which is the better thing? To give this employment through the grocer's shop, and to give a service to the public through the grocer's shop, or to withdraw it altogether? Do not let us forget that the grocers and the people who take the Post Office work take it not primarily to make profit out of it, but primarily because it gives them a standing. It brings customers to their shop, and it enables their shop to prosper. It is because of that that we get these 19,000 offices relatively cheaply run. If we tried to put them on full civil service terms, I am certain we should find that the service to the public would depreciate.
  The hon. Member has suggested that we ought to be bound by the Holt Committee's recommendation, and that wherever the emolument of a sub-postmaster in the country is £250 a year, or in London £500, we ought to staff that office with full State servants. I would point out that when the Holt Committee reported, money had a different value
  330
  than it has to-day. We could have done it in the days of the Holt Committee at very little expense, but to-day it would cost several hundred pounds, and even up to £1,000 additional to take over this sort of office and put in a full State servant. I cannot give any undertaking that the Holt Committee figures are now to be held binding upon us, although the principle that where it can be done without undue additional expense it should be done, is a principle that I accept. I do not, however, accept the figures of the Holt Committee to-day.
  Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) will allow me to look into the question of the mails from Cardiff. I have not the necessary information in my mind, but I will inquire and communicate with him on the matter. There are one or two other minor questions which I have not dealt with, but if hon. Members will communicate with me I will try to deal with them individually. I regret that I had to rise when I did, because I am sure I deprived the Committee of speeches on interesting questions which were going to be put to me.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Shall I bring to the notice of the Postmaster-General the question in regard to the building of new premises, and also another postal matter?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I want to call the attention of the Postmaster-General, in a few sentences, to a grievance in Dumfries which every effort of mine has failed to redress. I know the industry with which the right hon. Gentleman devotee himself to every part of the Department over which he has jurisdiction, and I want him to give his personal attention to this matter. A few years ago the Dumfries Council cleared away a slum area in order to provide a site for a post office. They sold a section of the area to the Post Office, and the Post Office undertook within a certain time to build a post office there. Time has gone on, and nothing has been done, although there has been an unemployment problem in Dumfries that has been costing £700 a week. A great deal of unskilled labour is required for excavation.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him, I can assure him that I will look into the matter. I want, if I can, and I am sure the Committee desires, to give proper time for the Estimates which are to come on immediately. If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I promise him I will look into the question.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I want to appeal to the Postmaster-General to go on with the work of providing the plans, so that the town council can sell the other section of the land. They can do nothing until they know what the ground plan and elevation of the Post Office is to be. I have been trying for months to get that done.
  Mr. PETO: I want to bring forward one point in regard to a matter which is causing a great deal of irritation, and that is the very rigid interpretation of the rule which allows five conventional words to be written on a picture postcard. I should like to know the amount of expense and trouble which is involved in the Postmaster-General's staff in deciding what is real correspondence and what is purely courtesy terms. Will not the Post Office accept any reasonable five words?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish my hon. Friend would come along and see the pile of correspondence I have upon this subject. It is not quite so easy as he thinks. However, I will do my best to meet him in the matter. I hope the Committee will now let me have the Vote.
  Mr. STURROCK: Is this discussion to end without our having had any statement about the prospect of a return to penny postage for letters and a return to the halfpenny rate for postcards? I should like to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Peto) in regard to what is a very important matter, namely, the five words of conventional writing on picture postcards. It is the most ridiculous regulation ever promulgated by any Department of the State. It is detrimental not only to the Post Office but to the whole of the British post card industry. It has a serious effect upon employment in that industry. Post Office administration, thanks to the fact that we are getting less than four hours' discussion on the Estimates, is rapidly drifting into the hands and under the control of the permanent officials. The
  332
  right hon. Gentleman is the last of a succession of four Postmasters-General, and it is impossible for us, who are supposed in theory to represent the clients of the Post Office, to obtain satisfaction in a few hours' debate, especially when we have a constant succession of changes in the Parliamentary representation of the Post Office. I protest against the method which the Government is adopting, and I trust the Committee will divide against the Vote.

CLASS II.

  MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £102,727, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."—[Note: £60,000 has been voted on account.]
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): In introducing this Vote, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is but a comparatively small change as compared with the Estimate of last year. There is, as is right when we are trying to limit expenditure, a certain decrease. The Estimate this year shows a net decrease of £7,557, last year's Estimate being £170,284 net, while this year's Estimate is £162,727. Our expenditure is limited by Statute to £250,000, and the Committee will see that we have kept well within that limit. There is very little to be said as regards the actual figures of the Estimate. I will go through them briefly, and, if any points are raised, I will deal with them later. In view, however, of the short time at our disposal, and of the number of subjects which, I am sure, hon. Gentleman will wish to discuss, I will be as brief as possible in my opening statement.
  The Committee will see that on Subhead A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, there is a decrease of £7,757. That is due chiefly to reduced war bonuses owing to the lower cost of living figure as compared with last year. On Sub-head B, Travelling and Incidental Expenses, there is an increase of £450, due mainly to increased activities on the part of the

  333
  mines inspectors. Sub-head C, Telegrams, Telephones, etc., shows an increase of £1,400, but that does not represent any actual increase of expenditure; it is merely a transfer from the Post Office Vote, under the new arrangement whereby each Department now pays for its own telegrams and telephones, and shows the expenditure on its own Vote instead of on the Post Office Vote. Sub-head D, Cost of Inquiries, Arbitrations, etc., shows a decrease of £850, due to various necessary reductions in connection with the Rotherham Testing Station and the Experimental Station at Eskmeals. With regard to the amounts included in other Estimates, there is a decrease, under the head of Office Accommodation, of £4,285, owing to the removal of the Department's offices from the Hotel Windsor to our present premises in Dean Stanley Street; and there is an increase of £1,097 under the heading of Superannuation, due to the retirement of various inspectors. As regards the personnel of the Department, of our temporary male staff no less than 80 per cent. are ex-service men, and of the whole staff some 56 per cent. are ex-service men. I think, therefore, that in that respect the Department, small though it is, compares favourably with meat other Departments.
  Turning to the work of the Department, its financial side has been concerned with the clearing up of the remains of control, a long and tedious process which does not come strictly under this Vote. In regard to this, I should only like to mention in passing that, although the staff which has been doing that work has cost less than £30,000 a year, it is reckoned that they have reduced the claims made against the State by no less a sum than £6,800,000. The work, therefore, has had considerable results, and has been well worth doing. I do not propose to deal with the recent controversy about wages and the Coal Agreement, because that was discussed very fully in the House a short time ago, and I think the Committee would rather that I should pass to other subjects. I should only like to say that I am sure the whole House congratulates most heartily those who have had charge of the recent negotiations on the fact that it has been found possible to continue the Coal Agreement, and that instead of—as at one time seemed possible—there being a serious and bitter cleavage on that subject, that trouble has been averted. If I
  334
  may say so, it reflects a great deal of credit on the tact and common sense of those who have been responsible for the negotiations.
  The principal work of the Department is, of course, that concerned with health and safety. We have our inspections and Regulations, the working of which involves widespread and detailed ramifications. We have to deal with safety appliances of all kinds, with questions of ventilation, precautions against gas and coal dust, the measurements and condition of the roads, roofs and sides, inspections and reports of officials, rescue apparatus, ambulance and first aid, accurate plans and proper surveying of the mines, the whole difficult subject of safety lamps and their testing and approval, the examination of and granting of certificates to officials in mine management and so on, and conditions of health and sanitation, not only among the men but also in connection with the pit ponies. We have to carry out investigations and report upon accidents, and there has also been considerable statistical work and a considerable and increasing amount of research. The very heavy responsibility which falls upon the inspectors of the Mines Department will, I think, be generally admitted, and it is very gratifying to hear the many expressions of appreciation of their work which have been uttered in this House on several occasions. These inspectors are a most admirable body of men, who are doing their work extremely well, and, I hope, to the satisfaction of those among whom they work. In connection with this subject, I should like to refer to the very great loss which the Department has sustained in the death of a most valuable public servant, the late Mr. J. R. Wilson. He was our principal inspector for the Northern Division, and was a man of great experience and capacity. I am sure that all those who came in contact with him in his work deeply regret the loss of so valuable a servant of the Department and of the State.
  I am certain that the best results are obtained by inspectors when they work in a friendly, cordial and helpful way with those among whom they are working, acting as friends first. During the year, 1922, 19,720 inspections were carried out, and of these 15,956 were underground. I

  335
  should like to refer, very shortly, to the question of pit ponies. As the Committee knows, a good many rather sensational stories of bad treatment of pit ponies have been circulated recently. No one can suppose, wherever the horse is in the service of man, that there will not be some cases of ill-treatment, whether it be above ground or below ground. I am afraid that that is an unfortunate fact. But I do not believe that there are any more cases of deliberate ill-treatment below ground than there are above ground. I admit that they are most difficult to follow up, and our inspectors have the strictest instructions to follow up any indications of ill-treatment of pit ponies that they may come across. I should be most grateful to any hon. Member of the House, or to anyone outside, who will give me any definite information as to ill-treatment of pit ponies which I can follow up and on which action can be taken. What I wish to emphasise is that it is useless to make vague charges People may talk and write anything they like in this vague way, and stir up public opinion, but the value of one definite case that can be traced and brought home is far greater than that of any amount of denunciation or wild writing. I think the whole Committee will agree that if we are ever to get an ideal system it will be when no animals will be employed underground and the whole thing will be done by mechanical haulage. This would be a great advantage, but we are obviously some way from that now.
  I want to thank Mr. Charles Markham, of Doncaster Collieries' Association, for the very generous offer he has made, and which we are glad to accept, for a prize of £1,000 for the best design of an electric storage battery locomotive for use in the mines. We are very glad to accept this generous offer. Certain meetings have been held, five judges have been appointed, and the general conditions of the competition have been approved. It is to be a competition open to all nations—and the specification of the technical requirements are being prepared, but we are awaiting certain tests which are now being made as to securing safety in working in mines. I hope, however, that very soon the Department will be able to publish the specifications and offer the prize. As
  336
  regards accidents, we have had various debates in the House, and I do not wish to cover old ground in regard to this question. I would remind the Committee that although the decrease is slow, still there is a decrease in fatal and serious accidents. There has certainly been a decrease, especially in the last year or two, in serious accidents. There has, however, been an increase in the number of slight accidents. That may be explained by the fact that when wages are low compensation payments are higher in proportion to wages, and more accidents are reported, and until recently wages have been very low. We have had an unlucky period as regards four very serious explosions, which occurred at Haig's Pit, St. Helens, East Plean and Wheldale. Every one of these was more or less due to shot-firing. It is quite evident that if the regulations regarding shot-firing were thoroughly carried out there would be fewer explosions. All these accidents due to shot-firing have given the Department a good deal of anxiety and we have sent a circular to the various collieries. I am glad to say that that circular was very favourably received and welcomed, and it has been printed as a leaflet.
  Mr. LUNN: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the experiments which have been carried out, would he say what facilities are being given, and whether they are only for colliery managers or for others?
  Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he sent that circular to the Miners' Associations as well as to the employers?
  Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: It was generally sent round to all the collieries. Hon. Gentlemen and others are constantly sending in suggestions for avoiding pit cage accidents. They send U3 particulars of cage-arresting appliances. Every one of these is very carefully considered, but the Department cannot take the responsibility in a matter of safety like this of adopting unreliable devices, if they are to raise undue hopes and give a disproportionate idea of their real value. People must not be surprised, if a great many of these experiments, put forward in the best faith, have, when investigated, caused some disappointment. You must not by throwing the ægis of the Depart-

  337
  ment over it give an unduly proportionate value to any new device of this kind. It has got to be remembered that, though explosions and shaft accidents are the most sensational form of accidents, they are not the most frequent.
  Shaft accidents have been considerably less during recent years. The greater number of accidents are due to falls in roof and sides, and also to haulage. We have recently appointed a Timbering Committee to go into this question of the roof and sides. This Committee is now at work, and I hope it will have a useful result. As regards haulage accidents, they are greater in number than we would like to see. A great many of them happen to quite young lads, which is a very deplorable fact. Haulage and blood-poisoning accidents are best prevented by the safety first campaign, and by the encouragement of lectures and the issuing of posters. Many accidents are due to recklessness. I mean the light-hearted indifference to danger which is part of the nature of this nation, and it is only by a constant campaign, by trying to make people more careful, that we can reduce the number of small accidents. A large number occur on haulage roads that really might be prevented, but at the end of all this, I do not think there is any need for us to be disheartened. There is undoubtedly great room for improvement in the matter of accidents, but we cannot get away from the fact that the mines under British management are the safest in the world. Figures that cannot be disputed show that clearly. Though we cannot say that that means there is no room for improvement, there is reason, I believe, why we should not be disheartened.
  As regards research, that is being carried on by the Safety in Mines Research Board, which is doing invaluable work. An opportunity has been given of considerably enlarging this work by financial help which has been received recently from the Miners' Welfare Fund. Under the Miners' Welfare Scheme it has been possible to allot certain sums to the increase of the research work and the Committee are making good use of it. I want to thank the many who are serving on this and other Committees for the whole-hearted and splendid work which they are doing to further the welfare of those engaged in this great
  338
  industry. The Board has just been reconstituted. We have invited several distinguished scientists to join the Board to strengthen the scientific side of it. The former Chairman, finding it difficult to carry on his work in the Department and also to act as Chairman of the Committee, asked to be relieved of this position, and we have now got Sir Edward Troup, whose distinguished record in the Home Office is well known to Members here, to agree to act as Chairman of this Committee, and the Department is to be congratulated on having secured his service.
  There are special Committees of the Research Board which deal with such questions as timbering, explosives, and technical appliances. The work of the Board is specially to inquire into the causes of and means of preventing accidents, and to investigate questions which affect health, such as miners' nystagmus, and matters relating to dust, temperature, and so forth. I was recently approached by the Miners' Federation, who suggested that a prize should be given for the best safety lamp. I think that the competition which exists should be sufficient to secure the best type of lamp, but whether that competition should be stimulated by a prize being offered, I do not know. I am considering the matter. At any rate, it is clear that the man who can invent a lamp which will not be too heavy for use and at the same time will have enormously increased illuminating power, will be conferring a very great benefit on the miners which will be deserving of the utmost recognition.
  The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me about certain experiments which are being conducted at Eskmeals. I have been arranging a series of illustrations of the effect of coal dust explosions, which will be coming off every Sunday up to the end of September. There are groups which will be invited from various districts, and there will be experiments as to the effects of coal dust under conditions as near as possible resembling the conditions in the mines. All those who have had an opportunity of seeing them will realise the benefit to be derived from these experiments. The groups in the various districts will deal with coal in their own districts and will have an opportunity of seeing the experiments

  339
  carried out and asking questions and making suggestions. Every district has had an opportunity of being represented on this Committee, and if the hon. Member will give me any instance of a district which he thinks has not had an opportunity I will look into the matter.
  I come now to the Miners' Welfare Fund which is founded on the rate of 1d. per ton on every ton of coal raised under the Mining Industry Act, and is intended for the improvement of the welfare of miners. That has been worked by a Committee under Lord Chelmsford, and I would like to draw attention to the most valuable work which he has done in starting the Miners' Welfare Fund. We are to be congratulated on having found a man of his great industry, great tact, and real love of his subject, to take up this matter. There have been innumerable instances of a small kind of the good work done by this Committee in conjunction with various local committees. These committees are staffed by men of the most disinterested character who have given up a lot of their time and done most valuable work on these various committees all working for the common good, and the way in which the whole matter is being dealt with reflects the greatest credit on all concerned.
  District schemes have been approved of, and there is only one district, so far as I know, which has not got its scheme. The majority of the schemes are for recreation—for institutes, parks, baths, grounds, libraries, and so forth. There are 380, which will cost £733,000; there are 59 schemes dealing with health, at a cost of £284,000. For instance, in Ayrshire there is one very large scheme which has been adopted by the whole
  district, at a cost of £50,000, for a convalescent home; and in South Wales there is also a scheme, costing £80,000, in connection with which large numbers have combined together to form one big scheme. Also there are schemes of medical and nursing service, and in some few cases schemes for assisting the development of pithead baths. As regards pithead baths, we are very much behind every European country. Abroad they are used very largely. In France the State insists on pit-head baths being in-
  340
  stalled at every big pit, though their use is optional. In Belgium they are compulsory in the case of all mines employing more than 50 men, though their use is optional; while in Germany, not only do they insist on the pit-head baths being there, but they also insist on the men using them.
  No one can deny that the German system is an extraordinarily efficient one and is working extremely well. I do not wish to put this as a matter of luxury. I look at it from the point of view of its value to the women and children. We often hear people say: Think what it means if there are two or three men who work in the mines bringing their wages into the same house, but we never hear people talk about what else they are bringing in. When it comes to three or four people bringing in pit clothes, which are, perhaps, wringing wet, and bringing in pit boots, and requiring baths in very small houses with limited accommodation, it is obvious that it must be extremely difficult for the woman who runs the house to keep it as clean as she would like under such conditions. To do that, and also to do what the men want is extremely difficult. You cannot insist on a scheme until you have educated the owners and men to want the baths, and that educational process has got to be carried on. When you have got a mine which is partly worked out, and which has only a short life, you cannot possibly impose on the owners the enormous expenditure which this would mean. At the same time, I do hope that that educational process will go on, and I welcome the increasing demand that has been made, and it is with the idea of stimulating that that I have mentioned the matter at greater length than I intended.
  If I may, for one moment, deal rather more with the present condition of the industry, that will be all I have to say. Of course, in talking about mining, we think chiefly about coal, but there are a good many other forms of mining. I am glad to say that the tin mining industry seems to have considerably improved; better prices are being obtained, and as a result more is being done and there is a better output. I hope there will be further developments as time goes on. As regards lead, the position has also improved, and better prices are being

  341
  obtained. Zinc and Barytes, I am sorry to say, have not improved so much. As regards iron ore, the situation there is that there was a greatly increased output in 1922 over 1921. In 1922, the output was 6,825,233 tons, which was only half the output of a normal year before the War. At the same time, it was double what it was in 1921. In the last quarter of 1922, it came up to a scale which represents 8,546,680 tons for a whole year, which shows that the output is steadily increasing.
  As regards the general prospects of the coal industry, there is this to be said, that though wages have been low employment generally has been steady, and there has been no long stoppage. At this moment, there are 64,000 more men employed—that was in June, 1923—than there were before the War. The increase in exports in 1922 made up partly for the loss of home demand owing to the great slackness of trade, but whereas our foreign exports in 1920 were only 24,922,000 tons, in 1921 they fell to 24,661,000 tons. In 1922 they rose again to 64,198,000 tons, and for the past six months they have risen to 40,000,000 tons, which represent, of course, for the total year, about 80,000,000 tons—a considerable increase, while in 1913 the total foreign export was 73,400,000 tons. A good deal of this has been absorbed by the increased demand owing to what has been happening on the Ruhr, and we have got to think of what will happen when the Ruhr trouble comes to an end. I know that is not quite within my purview, and perhaps it is more a subject for the President of the Board of Trade, but it seems to me that when the trouble on the Ruhr is settled there will be a very great chance that the general trade of this country will improve. If the home demand for coal improves at the same time as the foreign demand falls, then I hope there will be no serious loss to the industry. The home demand has been gradually expanding, with the slight improvement such as there was in trade this year, and I think there is no reason why, with better prospects outside and a general improvement in trade, that that demand should not steadily increase.
  As regards coke, there was a very sharp rise in the price for export when the Ruhr trouble began, and there was cer-
  342
  tainly a shortage for home industries here. That was not entirely due, as many people assume, to the foreign demand. It was partly due to the fact that there was a great shortage of production, and that-many coke ovens had not been started again after their stoppage, and that the coke was not there. The people who were responsible for the production of coke, however, did their best not to be tempted by foreign prices, but kept the home industries going; and now the supply, I think, is ample for all requirements. That is all I wish to say at the moment. I have tried to make it as short as possible, and if there are any points which hon. Gentlemen may raise in the course of the Debate I will do my best to answer them. I should like to say that I do not think any hon. Member has given me definite notice of any particular question which he wished to raise, and that is the way to let the Minister know what he wants. It is always better to assume in this House that the Minister knows very little about his subject, and therefore if an hon. Member wants to make quite certain he should give the Minister notice.
  Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: I am met at the outset by two obstacles. The first one is that this is the first occasion in the history of this House when the representative of the Cumberland iron ore miners has had the privilege of putting their case to the House. One can therefore quite realise that I am bound to experience some difficulty in compressing that case within a time limit which will not infringe upon the indulgence of the Members of the Committee. The second obstacle before me is due to the fact that I have to criticise the administration of an Act which has not been altered in any way since it was passed by this House over 50 years ago. While I have to deal with the administration of that Act, I am warned by my hon. Friends that I shall not be allowed to suggest any new legislation. The thing that is perfectly clear is that the Act, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now administering, has got no application to the industry at any single point. One would hardly recognise that it belongs to the industry at all. May I give two quotations from the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, as it stands on the Statute Book to-day. One is as follows:

  343
  "A week shall be deemed to begin at midnight on Saturday night, and to end at midnight on the succeeding Saturday night."
  That is the law to-day under this Act. Another portion of the same Section says:
  "Where the engine, windlass, or gin is worked by an animal, the person under whose direction the driver of the animal acts shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to be the person in charge of the engine, windlass, or gin, but such driver shall not be under twelve years of age."
  9.0 P.M.
  The Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, is on the Statute Book to-day, and we are bound by it. I do not for a moment argue that silly provisions like that which I have quoted obtain to-day. The onward march of civilisation, the leavening of humanitarianism in industry, have made the alterations which Parliament failed to make. Still the fact remains that the iron ore mining industry has been a forgotten industry—the Cinderella of all industries. The mere fact that to-night the Secretary for Mines, merely by way of incidental reference in the concluding part of his speech, mentioned the metalliferous mines, shows there is no real knowledge of the iron ore mining industry. I am sure it was through no discourtesy on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself that the reference was so slight. Those of us who have had to approach him officially know that it is quite impossible for him to display any discourtesy. He meets our questions with readiness and geniality, and I am not blaming him. I am only pointing it out as an example of the policy which has gone on before, and which it is my purpose to-night to try to break down. The iron ore mining industry had an affluent time during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. It got a nodding recognition during the Boer War. Then it lay under a tombstone, as it were, until it was re-discovered when the Great War broke out in 1914. When it was re-discovered, the order went forth that no iron ore miners should be recruited, and iron ore minors were even brought back from the trenches in order that they might carry on their work of getting the ore. So much was known about the hematite ore workers of Cumberland that in the first official list of exempted occupations the West Cumber-
  344
  land hematite ore workers were scheduled under the heading of "Agriculture." It was really believed by the people who issued that Order that Cumberland hematite ore was a kind of patent manure for dressing the land, but there was someone who knew rather more than that—Sir John Randles, who was for some years a Member of this House and was also the chairman of a large iron and steel company in Cumberland. I heard him addressing a mass meeting of iron ore miners, and he told the men that they were as surely serving the cause of the country by getting iron ore as if they were in the trenches. I only mention these matters in order to indicate to the Committee that some importance attaches to this industry. I question whether after all, having regard to the facts that iron ore is the raw material for the war sphere of mechanical production, the iron ore industry is not practically the oldest industry in the world. There may be a quarrel on that point between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie), because he will ask if my claim is right and the iron ore industry is the oldest, where did they get the coal with which to smelt it? I admit it would be a matter of difficulty for me to meet that point.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I hope the hon. Member is coming to something that the Secretary for Mines can do, or ought to do, or ought not to have done.
  Mr. DUFFY: I thought I should not go very far before getting myself into trouble, but I promise to keep myself as much in order as I possibly can. The one point I wanted to emphasise was that the iron ore industry cannot live by wars alone and that the demands of peace should be at least equal to those of war. The figures which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave as to the output of ore ought, I think, to be corrected to this extent, that the figures which he gave are figures relating to ironstone and not to iron ore. In order to realise the scope of this industry let us consider the figures for a normal year. I think the year 1920 was practically normal and the number of men employed was 8,166, while the output for that year was 1,262,414 tons. In 1921 unfortunately we fell back to practically one-half, but the men are still there ready for

  345
  work and willing to do work when they can get it. It is a common idea that these men simply take iron ore out of the side of the mountain as they do in Spain, but that is not so. They are actually underground workers and some of the mines are over 140 fathoms in depth. The shallowest which I know are 60 fathoms in depth. and many of them have only one shaft which causes great difficulty in times of stress or accident as regards escape and interferes materially with the process of ventilation. Many of the mines are heavily watered. some to such an extent that the miners say they have ceased to be miners and have become divers. The effect of working both in these hot places and these wet places is an undoubted factor in the causation of respiratory diseases, a subject to which I know the medical research Committee attached to the Mines Department is at present devoting a good deal of attention.
  Then the iron ore miner has to handle and use explosives. The quantity of dynamite used in 1920 was 583,864 lbs. They have to prepare their charges with dynamite and fuse and caps, they charge and fire the holes they bore, and they have to dress down the roofs and sides of their workings after each explosion. These are mere elementary facts, but they need to be stated in order that the Committee may recognise that day by day, and every hour of each day, while these miners are at work they have to face all the risks and danger unfortunately inherent in the occupation of the miner. While it is true to say that iron-ore miners are free from those terrible fire damp and dust explosions which carry death and dismay to the doors of thousands of coalminers' homesteads, the fact still remains that in proportion to the number employed the accidents to iron-ore miners are almost on a level with accidents to coalminers. From the standpoint of health, their position is worse. Those are two very material statements, which I think ought really to receive the serious consideration of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Let me point to the statement made on page 51 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Metalliferous Mines, namely:
  "It will be seen that the death-rate from accidents in metalliferous mines is much the same as that in coal mines, in spite of the fact that metalliferous mines may be said to be practically free from the special
  346
  dangers of firedamp and dust explosions to which coal mines are exposed. It should, on the other hand, be remembered that proportionally very much more explosive is used in metal mines than in coal mines, and the liability to shot-firing accidents is consequently increased."
  A page or two further on, the Royal Commission declare that the percentage of accidents in the iron-ore mines is one in 17. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will turn to page 282 of Dr. Arlidge's famous work on the diseases of ocupation, he will find the statement that—
  "iron and coalminers occupy the same favourable position as regards the development of phthisis, but in the matter of diseases of the respirtory organs, namely, chronic branchitis and asthma, iron miners exhibit a greater prevalence. This corroborates the impression among the men themselves, which also my own experience confirms, namely, that iron mining causes severer bronchitis and asthma than coal mining and is altogether a more unhealthy occupation."
  That statement, coming from so eminent an authority as Dr. Arlidge, surely ought to carry some conviction to the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. All this indicates the need, not merely for inspection, but for separate inspection, and despite the antiquity, the grey hair and the long beard, attached to this Act of Parliament, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is still empowered under this Act to appoint such inspectors as he may deem to be necessary. May I point out that at the present time, and since 1921, we have had no inspectors of metalliferous mines in the County of Cumberland. From 1886 to 1921 we had an inspector there who had been in turn an iron ore miner's labourer, an iron ore miner, and an iron ore mining manager, and yet for 27 years he had been the inspector of metalliferous mines in Cumberland, Westmorland, North Lancashire, and the Isle of Man. Let me say that, although he was compelled to retire in 1921 through the age limit, in 1919 he was very properly appointed a senior inspector of mines, and I have not the least hesitation in saying now that if he had not reached the age of 65, he would be senior inspector of metalliferous mines in Cumberland to-day. Why has he not been replaced? Why has no further appointment been made? I can find no excuse at all for the failure to fill up that vacancy.

  347
  I will say that a separate inspector is needed, and in this I am confirmed by the Report of the Royal Commission. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that a few years ago his predecessor in the office of Secretary for Mines, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, appointed an Advisory Committee to go into the whole question of the metalliferous mines. They took the Report of the Royal Commission section by section, and they made recommendations, which have not yet been carried out. This Royal Commission was appointed in 1910. It worked seriously and carefully and ably for four years, and reported in 1914. In that year we had, as we know, the great world catastrophe, and everything had to drop, but from 1918 up to now there has been ample time in which to get that measure of justice which we think these men ought to have. The Royal Commission made recommendations which ought to carry some weight, at all events, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. On page 22 of the Report it says:
  "The question, however, of what provision shall be considered adequate for the inspection of metalliferous mines and quarries cannot be decided on these grounds alone. Though the number of workmen affected is comparatively limited, we shall have occasion to show in the sections of this Report devoted to accidents that they are exposed to considerable dangers in the course of their occupation, and it has already appeared in the course of our general introduction that each of the numerous industries with which we have to deal has its distinctive features, and that most of them present individual and local problems which demand special treatment. We think, therefore, that this branch of the general scheme of Government inspection calls for special attention."
  In another short paragraph it says:
  "On the other hand, in the chief centres of the metalliferous mining industry, where there are many mines at work and difficult mining questions are constantly arising, the position is different, and some further provision seems called for."
  I need not read the specific paragraphs, which may probably be known to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the Royal Commission in 1914 reported that for the metalliferous mines alone there should be appointed a senior inspector attached to the Home Office, that there should be two senior inspectors working in the metalliferous mining districts, that there should be two junior inspectors,
  348
  and that there should be a number of working men inspectors appointed in addition. The Advisory Committee, to which I have already referred, also recommended practically on the same lines as the Royal Commission, with this addition, that the inspectors, when appointed, should have a practical knowledge of the minerals of the districts in which they were appointed to act as inspectors. We thought that a very reasonable proposition, having regard to the fact that there is no mine inspector in our district to-day, and, having regard to the fact that one is absolutely needed, we urge upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take this matter seriously to heart. After all, for what are we asking? We are not asking for a new naval base at Singapore. We are simply asking for the appointment of a junior inspector of mines, according to the scale of salary laid down. He would receive £300 a year, rising by £15 a year to £500; so that for the present time, and for years to come, the cost of maintaining that inspector, for which we have been begging and praying for the last few years, would absolutely be less than £1 a day, and I really believe that, despite our keen desire for economy, despite the number of axes that have been flying about, the financial stability of the British Empire could withstand even the addition of that £1 a day. It may be said that there are not many men at work. That is just one of the reasons why we want the new inspector of mines to start work now. There are hardly two workings in an iron ore mine alike. In many of these mines you cannot see the roof. I remember, during the War, we had 400 or 500 of our Scottish coal-mining friends come to work there, but they were absolutely terrified with the idea of working under a roof they could not see.
  Therefore, I urge, at a time when the work at the mines is slack, and at some mines has stopped, that it is just the time for a practical man to make himself acquainted with all the workings of the mines. There is rather a good precedent for recommending it. In the last annual report of the late Mr. J. R. Wilson—and I join with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the well-deserved tribute that he paid to Mr. Wilson; we all knew him, and we all appreciated him in every possible way—in the last report that Mr. Wilson sent out, in the concluding

  349
  paragraph of the first page, dealing with the question of the treatment of pit ponies and horses, he wound up with this sentence:
  "While the pits were off work, advantage was taken to make a very thorough examination of the horses."
  Quite rightly, too. They knew perfectly well, that while the pits were idle, they could do their work more thoroughly than they could in all the hurly-burly of mine work going on. The same with regard to the appointment of a new inspector of metalliferous mines in Cumberland. At the time when the mines were idle was the time to qualify himself for the position.
  One of the points upon which we wish to lay special stress is the absence of Regulations in regard to the working of the iron ore mines in Cumberland. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not forgotten the enormous powers that are conferred upon him under the Mining Industry Act of 1920. Under that Act, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to make such Regulations as he may decide, to safeguard the health and the safety of the men who are employed in or about any mine, but whether it is owing to the absence of inspection, or to absolute indifference, we find one mine in Egremont, Cumberland, where all the pit is worked with dry-rock drills, and the old hammer and jumper, that had been the principal tools of the industry for generations, have been dispensed with, and a new type of man has been introduced called a shot-firer. My hon. Friends here who so worthily represent the coal-mining industry know better than I do that the shot-firer in a mine is a man who has to have his certificate, who has responsibility imposed on him. In this mine at Egremont a new system is introduced with the shot firer, and 80 or 90 holes, containing at least 100 pounds of dynamite, are exploded at one time in that one mine. I will not pledge myself to the figure that was given to me, but it was to some extent proved, and it is sufficient for me to say that 100 pounds of dynamite are exploded in a comparatively contacted area at one time, and the men are forced to go in among the fumes of dynamite, with the result that there has been an intensive and excessive amount of illness.
  As a matter of fact, through being forced into the dynamite fumes, men.
  350
  have had to leave their work and report to the employment exchange as having left their work voluntarily, and those men have had their money paid to them, because it was felt that they were justified in leaving a place that was little more than a veritable hell. We say, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot know these things unless he has an inspector who will give him the information that is necessary. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told me, in reply to a question some time ago, that there were no regulations at all in connection with the use of dry rock drills in the iron ore mines in West Cumberland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went further, and said that a local inquiry as to the effect of dust on the health of the workers was made in 1919 and it did not disclose any such effects as would call for official action. I cannot imagine where the hon. and gallant Gentleman got his idea from. I remember that inquiry in 1919 exceedingly well because I was present at it and put the case on that occasion for the workmen who were represented there. It was practically instituted by Mr. W. T. Anderson who invited Dr. Collis to come down. Dr. Collis came down. He looked interested, he probably was inspired; being a specialist he looked as wise as he could. He went down one mine in West Cumberland, probably one of the best mines at that time in West Cumberland, and he proceeded to form his conclusions afterwards. He says:
  "After seeing the process carried on underground I am of opinion that dust is undoubtedly generated in sufficient quantities and in sufficient minute size to cause pulmonary trouble if the dust were composed of injurious material."
  Then he says:
  "Mr. J. W. MacDonald was, I found, well acquainted with the dust position. He has throughout his life made a hobby"—
  a hobby!—
  "of petrology, and has knowledge of the pathological conditions which follow on the inhalation of various dusts."
  Mr. W. MacDonald is President of the Cumberland Iron Ore Miners' and Kindred Trades Association, he is also a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and if Dr. Collis knew as much about dust he would find it a very remunerative hobby. I am perfectly certain that Mr. MacDonald has nothing to learn from Dr.

  351
  Collis in regard to the dust problem. The recommendations made were six in number. I am not going to deal with them all, but only very superficially with one, because it was suggested that we ought to get a number of our men and have their chests radiographed. We got these men, and sent them to Liverpool. I even had the opportunity to pick these men, and we picked those who were physically the best. We did not want to have the stamp of rottenness placed on our industry, and the men were a credit to any country. Yet what happened? I will only take a few moments more, but I want to emphasise this point because it is an important one. There was one man, W. R. Hamilton, and the plate says:
  "This is that of a fairly normal chest, but there is a suspicion of abnormal mottled shadowing at the apex, slightly more evident on the right side. Has worked one-and-a-half years on the machine."
  Then there is Tom Wilkinson.
  "There is fine mottled shadowing in general over both sides of chest and all over the lung area. This is slightly more marked on the right side than on the left side. Has worked for eight years on the machine."
  Then there is Laurence Murray.
  "Fine mottled shadowing all over both lungs, blue shadows slightly exaggerated. Has worked ten years on the machine."
  Laurence Murray was a man 6 feet 4 inches high and 44 ¼ inches round the chest. Laurence Murray to-day is a man absolutely broken down, with miners' phthisis. Another man, named Moody, is also broken down, with miners' phthisis. When a man named Walls died, not more than seven or eight months ago, the doctor was compelled by another doctor to change the death certificate. First of all, the doctor said it was bronchitis, but the other doctor said that was not-true, the man died from miners' phthisis, and the certificate had to be changed. I am grateful to the House for listening to me so long. I do not want to transgress on that generous indulgence which it always grants, but this subject is one of intense interest to me, and should be of intense interest to the Minister because there is a huge problem here to be solved. The fact that these men are few in number is no justification for their being neglected. They are bound by an Act of Parliament, and let that Act of Parliament protect them. In his closing re marks the hon. and gallant Gentleman
  352
  said that the condition of affairs in the Ruhr had dislocated the iron and coal industry in this country. It is true. It has dislocated the industry of the iron and steel trades in Cumberland, but the Cumberland iron trade has a very remarkable history. The oftener it dies the longer it lives. Consequently, I feel quite sure that if we can only get in this interval the hon. and gallant Gentleman interested in the appointment of this £300-a-year inspector, in the making of Regulations that will govern and safeguard the lives and interests of the workers, if he gets the question of dust; silica, and all these things considered, he will do something to restore confidence in the mind of the workers without which no industry can in the end succeed.
  Captain MOREING:I wish to criticise the action of the Mines Department from another point of view. I must pick a bone with my hon. Friend who has just sat down for referring to the iron ore industry in Cumberland as, possibly, the oldest in this country. I represent the tin mines of Cornwall, and they, certainly, have worked from prehistoric times. I wish to refer to the crisis through which that industry has just been passing, and to ask for an explanation from the Minister of the action of his Department during that period. I may remind the Committee that, amongst the other activities that were foreshadowed when the Bill instituting this Department was introduced, was that of being useful for the development and expansion of the mining industry in this country. That part of the activities of the Department appear to have been lost sight of. It is not necessary to go into the causes of the crisis in the tin mining industry in the West Country, except to say that they were the direct result and consequence of the War. As evidence of that, I would remind the Committee that we shall be asked later on to vote a very considerable sum of money for the protection and continuation of an industry established in Brighton, yet when the tin mining industry of Cornwall two years ago asked for a sum approximately the same, we were told we could not have this money because if we could not get it from private enterprise the State should not be asked to undertake a liability which private enterprise refused. I am

  353
  very glad to say that private capitalists have since come forward, and with the assistance in two or three cases of the Trade Facilities Department we are, I think, shortly going to re-establish the industry in Cornwall in something like its former glory. My particular quarrel with the Department is that during the whole of the two years which have just elapsed they, apparently, gave no sign of any real understanding or sympathy with Cornwall in its distress. The issue at stake there was not merely the saving of a few individual mines, but the whole economic life of a very considerable population which is entirely dependent on the mines of that part of the world for its livelihood. I think the people of Cornwall could reasonably expect that a specially constituted Department such as the Mines Department would at least have given some indication of their appreciation of the position of affairs. And when, as I say, not only is there no assistance of any kind, but when it is contemplated that some would go abroad under the impression that the mining industry was finished, and that the only hope for some of the miners and their families was emigration, and that there was no chance of the mines of Cornwall being reopened in the future, even then the Department did not express any opinion, but kept silent and allowed all these stories, that they must have known, following their examination of the conditions in the country, were not correct, to go, and apparently took no interest whatever to contradict them, or to give any indication that they themselves had any hope or faith in the future of mining in that part of the country.
  Personally I think their action is due to what is frequently a defect in Government Departments, namely, excessive timidity. My hon. and gallant Friend had nothing to do with it at that time, or I feel confident that some action would have been taken. Now, however, that the necessity is passed, I do not think that the action of the Department should be allowed to go without some protest from those representing that part of the country. I sincerely hope that there may be no need to intervene, but if such a situation should arise again I trust we shall see a more sympathetic and careful consideration of the facts of the situation than apparently has been
  354
  received in the past. There may be, there is probably, a satisfactory explanation from the Department, but I am bound to place on record that the people of that part of the country are far from satisfied with the action then taken, and what they considered the callous treatment which their industry was subjected to at the hands of the Government and the fact of the Mines Department, which was the responsible Department, taking no action, either with information or otherwise, to help the people of that part of the country in what was to them a very very difficult period, and one which threatened at one time to completely submerge them.
  Mr. ROBERT JONES:I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  The principal Statues regulating quarries are the quarries Act, 1894, the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, the Notice of Accidents Act, 1906, and various special Rules established by the Secretary of State. The Quarries Act is 29 years old. In June of 1910 a Royal Commission was appointed amongst other matters, to enquire and report upon the health and safety of persons employed in metalliferous mines and quarries. I shall only deal briefly with the quarries, and with the Report presented after long inquiry on 12th June, 1914. I should estimate that that Commission must have cost the, State from £32,000 to £40,000 and a fairly good Report was presented. Legislation had not followed that Report up till 1918—doubtless due to the War. Nothing has yet been done for the safety and comfort of the quarry workers. The number of quarries in the kingdom coming within the direct authority of the Mines Department—quarries 20 feet high and over—exceeds 6,000 with 70,000 workpeople approximately employed. The chief products are limestone, clay, igneous rocks, ironstone, chalk, sandstone, slate, flint, etc., and the industry is widely distributed all over the kingdom. As far back as January, 1920, the Department consulted the National Joint Industrial Council for the quarry industry as to the establishment of new special Rules.
  In February, 1921, the Safety Committee of the Council had a Conference with the Minister of Mines, and the Chief Inspector then stated that he proposed to submit new rules for the consideration of the Committee. That was done in

  355
  December, 1921. The Safety Committee of the Industrial Council submitted to each section which composed the Council the rules sent to them, and on 10th December following—and this shows how careful are the Mines Department—a communication was received from the Department hoping that no unnecessary delay would be incurred by the Council in transmitting its views to London. The Council naturally came to the conclusion the Department intended seriously to establish a new set of rules for all the quarries. A further conference took place in 1922, when the work was practically completed, so far as the industrial council was concerned. But although the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the workmen concerned agreed that rules should be established for the safety, health and comfort of the quarry workers generally, no attempt has been made by the Department to bring the rules into force. The present position is this: We have consulted our legal adviser and have discussed with him the numerous accidents that have been in our section of the quarries—that is the slate quarries. We are advised to this effect: that though the present special rules in force are inapplicable and out of date they cannot be enforced at any quarry where a change of ownership has taken place since they were established, unless they are re-established. So far as I am aware the re-establishment of the rules has not taken place at any quarry in the kingdom, at any rate within the ambit of my society in North Wales, although a change of ownership has taken place two, three, or four times, with the result that the workers of those quarries—if our legal adviser be correct, and I have no reason to doubt he is—are deprived even of the protection of the present special rules, inadequate as they are, and out of date. Take the slate quarries section. The number of non-fatal accidents represents 12 to 15 per cent. of the persons employed. In quarries generally it works out at 4·68 per cent. In the coal mines the percentage is 7·3; in slate mines during the first six months of this year it was 8 per cent. and the average for slate quarries is 10·5. In the slate quarry district the rate of accidents is much below what it is in the two largest quarries, where they have every oppor-
  356
  tunity for safe working and plenty of space. But the precentage here is 12 per cent. and 15 per cent. for this year. I have no figures for the other section. Slate has to be split into thin pieces, and therefore it is much more liable to break, and consequently the people employed in this industry may be more liable to get their hands cut even then. I submit that accidents here are much too frequent.
  The Mines Department does sometimes get a tinge of conscience. Last summer certain officials of the Mines Department came out to North Wales on a holiday jaunt, and they inspected some of our quarries on Sunday, and we thought they were going to do something for us at last. Two or three inspectors went round those quarries where most accidents took place, but we never had any result from their visit. The quarry industry as a whole has been simply neglected by the Mines Department. Take, for example, the hard stone or granite quarries. I can say from my own observations in North Wales that there is very little protection for the people employed in the crusher.
  This is a very unhealthy occupation, and even in the case of the people who live 100 or 200 yards away from the crusher the fine dust gets into their houses. It is dust coming from a very hard stone, and it is generally admitted that if it does not exactly bring about phthisis or silicosis it is not healthy. It does not do any good to people to inhale this dust. There is very little protection for the people engaged near or in the crusher, and they come away just as if they had come out of a flour sack. The quarry industry has been very much neglected by the Department, and very little attention has been paid to it in the past by the Mines Department. I suggest that metalliferous mining and quarrying should be separated from the coal-mining industry and not treated as being subsidiary to it. The quarry industry has very little in common with coal-mining, and it does not follow that experts in coal-mining—I do not say a word derogatory about them are qualified to deal with metal mining and quarrying.
  Up to the present we have only had subordinate officials of the Mines Department, and I do not think that is fair to the quarry industry. The coal inspector

  357
  is an expert in his own particular industry, and in its science and technique, but that does not make him qualified to deal with metal mining and quarrying. Our miners are industrious people with vast experience in their work, and under your present system you debar them from taking up the higher positions in your inspectorate because they have no experience in coal mining. This is the first chance the quarrying industry has had of saying anything about their work for many years. I hope the Minister for Mines will expedite the establishment of the special rules, which have been agreed upon by employers' and workmen's representatives, as a first instalment of the requirements of the industry, and take some action in the near future on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and other suggestions, with a view of instituting a policy that will grant to these hitherto neglected industries the interest and supervision which those engaged in them are entitled to expect from a great State Department.
  I do not wish to put any unnecessary expense upon the industry, and it is not required but with good will and sincere efforts great improvements are possible. As it is the good managers are not helped but hindered through inefficient and insufficient Regulations. They are compelled by the commercial side of the business to carry on operations in an unworkmanlike manner in order to take advantage of the present laxity in Government administration to turn out a larger amount of marketable commodities. In claiming better rules for the regulation of the quarrying industry, I am doing so on behalf of clean, thrifty, industrious and intelligent men who are the best class of workers in the whole Kingdom.
  Mr. J. ROBERTSON:The Secretary for Mines made a most interesting statement with regard to the activities of his Department, and indeed he touched upon many subjects in which one might be tempted to follow in the discussion. He dealt with the question of miner's welfare and while he gave credit to a certain gentleman—and we do not want to take credit away from anybody—the probability is that the credit for the success of miners' welfare work ought to be given to the Miners' Federation and their activities. The Minister referred to the question of miners' baths, but in
  358
  this matter we are 100 years behind. I would advise anybody who disputes my statement to study the history of coalmining, and he will find that it is close upon 100 years since the bath was introduced in the coal-mining industry. The Minister for Mines seems to be enamoured with the German idea of making baths compulsory. I would like him to begin by making the provision of baths compulsory.
  It is only four months since we had a very interesting discussion on the question of accidents in the mines of this country, and a Motion was unanimously passed calling for immediate legislation dealing with those accidents. During the four months which have elapsed, valuable lives have been lost, and I want to know what the Ministry of Mines have been doing in the interval to safeguard the lives and limbs of the men engaged in our mines. We were told that mining is not so dangerous an industry as the miners' representatives would lead the country to believe. We were also told, during the discussion I have referred to, that it is not an unhealthy occupation and not such a dangerous occupation as that of the men who go down to the sea in ships. We were further told it was not so dangerous an occupation as that of the men and boys who are engaged on our railways. I am sorry the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) is not in his place. I would have liked him to be here while I was dealing with this question. We were told, and we may be told again to-night, that British miners in rich mines are much more safe than the men in the mines of other countries. These were the arguments used by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff, and again I have to say I regret his absence, for he made in this House during that discussion a most extraordinary charge against the miners of the country, that the miners of this country always deliberately injured themselves so as to get compensation, or that they feigned injury for the same purpose. These were the words he used:
  "There is a deliberate intention on the part of the lower paid workmen to take advantage of the Workmen's Compensation Act in order to obtain an additional allowance."
  And later on he said:
  "It has been said by someone that God Almighty cannot cure a man of weak back when he is in three clubs."

  359
  10.0 P.M.
  I am glad hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite deprecated very strongly such language. I do not believe there can be half-a-dozen hon. Members opposite who will endorse that statement by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff in regard to the mining community. The comparison as between seamen and railwaymen and miners has nothing to do with our case. The comparison between accidents in mines in Great Britain and in mines in other countries has nothing to do with our case. I would advise the hon. Member for Central Cardiff to spare the spurtill he can sit the saddle. In the mines of Great Britain, in 1922, there were 1,100 men killed, and there were 4,287 seriously injured. From 1900 until 1920 there were 117,000 men injured in the mines of this country who were not working for more than seven days. I want to emphasise these figures. They cannot be sufficiently impressed on the Government and on the House—a thousand men killed in the mines of this country every year, and in the period I have mentioned 120,000 men injured and unable to work for more than seven days. That is the problem we have to face. I would like to deal with the different classes of accidents, and I propose to confine myself to two. I want to deal with those referred to by the Secretary for Mines where an increase has taken place. It was denied by his predecessor when I raised the question in the House two or three years ago that the more serious accidents were increasing, but the figures have since justified my statement. I think, broadly speaking—I do not want merely to make a debating point on this—the figures I have given will prove what I have said, and that is a sufficiently good argument to call for energy in dealing with this question. We were told that only 40 men were killed by shafting accidents in 1922. At any rate, it was 40 too many. It is a remarkable thing that the Minister for Mines to-night made, and I am putting it in the most charitable manner, less reference in his stat to accidents and to the activities in operation for preventing accident by falls of roof and sides. Reference was made to the experimental stations and other things for dealing with shot firing and with explosions, but the most fruitful
  360
  cause of accident was entirely left outside the statement of the Minister.
  Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX:I said I left out of my speech several of these subjects in the interests of brevity.
  Mr. ROBERTSON:I hope that may satisfy hon. Members that the Department is working in the direction of dealing with that class of accident. You cannot deal with these problems without understanding what the difficulties are. In 1922 there were 1,029 men killed in the mines. Where were these men killed? In what part of the mines? Five hundred and forty-eight of them were killed by falls of roof and sides. I do not want to minimise the danger of explosions by fire-damp and coal dust, but only 73 men were killed by these and 123 seriously injured. Then we find that of the 1,000 men killed, 212 were killed on the haulage roads. When we further analyse these figures we find that the comparison is still greater between fatal and non-fatal accidents by falls of roof and sides, because the non-fatal accidents from these falls only include accidents when the men are off work for seven days. The accidents from explosion or fire-damp include every kind of accident, even supposing an individual does not lose a single moment's work.
  In order to minimise the accidents in the mines of this country, the activities of the Mines Department and the intelligent work of the Mines Department must be concentrated upon the question of reducing the accidents that take place by falls of roof and sides, and on the haulage roads. Reference was made to the young lads. I have not the figures before me, but, speaking as a practical miner, I believe that the bulk of these accidents to young lads happen in the haulage roads or on the drawing roads where they are engaged. That makes my plea all the stronger when I come to put my proposals before the Committee. Science can do little to lessen the accidents through falls of roofs and sides. The miner of to-day has to safeguard himself against these accidents as did the miner of a thousand years ago. You may have science and invention in every direction, but I believe that every practical miner will agree with me that there is not much change in the method of preventing accidents by fall of roofs and sides to-day compared with 1,000 years ago. This

  361
  class of accident has been reduced in recent years, but it has been due to closer supervision of mines and more systematic inspection. I firmly believe, as a practical man, that an extension of inspection and supervision would prevent 30 per cent. of the accidents that take place in the mines.
  In putting forward this claim for supervision and inspection, let it be clearly understood that I am not making any suggestion or complaint against any of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines. I believe that miners have the utmost confidence in the ability and integrity of these men. These inspectors, as far as lies in their power, have the safety and welfare of the men at heart. I know that no hours are too long for them to work and no personal risk too great for them where the safety or welfare of the miners are concerned; but with the best will possible these men cannot supervise and inspect the mines as it ought to be done. I want to come to grips with the Secretary for Mines upon this question. We have a class of inspector who are the real inspectors; they are known as deputies, firemen or examiners. The value of these men as inspectors lies in the fact that they are always going their daily rounds, and that a mine is not like an engineer's shop, for a place may be safe at one moment and unsafe five minutes afterwards. Men working in the pits are not able to recognise danger so well as a fresh man who comes in. The value of the deputy or fireman really consists in his daily inspection with a view to discovering danger.
  The difficulty at the present time is that unlike inspectors who are employed by the Government these men are employed and paid and controlled and dominated by the colliery companies. The Secretary for Mines has said that if these men were taken over by the Government it would mean dual control. If Government inspectors means dual control, then we have dual control now. The deputy does not carry out his duties under the control or supervision of the manager. He carries out his duties under the Coal Mines Acts. When we have pleaded for closer and more systematic inspection in the past, the cost has been argued. It has been said, "We cannot increase the number of His Majesty's inspectors without increasing the cost, and we cannot get any extra money from the
  362
  Exchequer!" You have a system of inspection in operation. These men are efficient men, and they are being paid, and it would not cost the country one single penny more in the aggregate than it costs now if they were taken over by the State. You would have then a system of inspection which would reduce the accidents by 50 per cent.
  Major PAGET:Does the hon. Member suggest that the deputies, because they are paid by the colliery owners, do not do their duty in protecting the lives of their fellow miners?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If my hon. Friend will wait, I am coming to that. I leave that to the deputies themselves. By resolution, over and over again, in conference, they have declared that, and they have come as deputations to the Ministry of Mines and have asked to be made State servants in order that they may be able to carry out their duties. I am not going to say that it is the case in every mine. Thank God, there are good employers and good managers, who look after the welfare of the miners, but the process of legislation is to bring the bad up to the level of the good, and that is the difficulty with which we have to contend. No Department that stands for the safety of the mines can ignore statements made publicly by a body of men like the deputies, made in conference by resolution, and face to face with the Department, that they are not able to carry out their duties because they are employed and paid by the colliery companies.
  Three years ago we were successful in getting an arrangement that accidents should be published in the reports according to the number of shifts worked. There may be three mines in a particular district working the same seams and contending with the same strata and at two of these mines a serious accident very seldom happens, while at the third mine the ambulance is scarcely away from the colliery. We ought to be able to lay our fingers upon the mines where these accidents happen, and I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that we ought to have the accidents published showing where the accidents happen, so that the inspectors can concentrate upon those mines, and public opinion may be brought to bear with regard to the working of many of these collieries.

  363
  In spite of what may be said to the contrary, mining is a dirty, disagreeable, and dangerous occupation, and it is not in money alone that an adequate reward can be given to the men and boys who toil in the mines. We want brighter surroundings for them, and every care for their health and safety. The miner's right to health and improvement has too often only been recognised when the world has been shocked by a great disaster. I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to recognise that the toll of accidents through falls of roof and sides, and on haulage roads can only be minimised by systematic inspection, control, and supervision. If he does recognise that, he will earn the gratitude of the miners. I want to make another suggestion. On the last occasion on which I made this proposal I was told that it was the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation. I am not afraid of nationalisation, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is afraid of dual control, or of the possibility of this proposal working detrimentally, why not take some mining area and make the experiment? Why not select a district where accidents are known to occur, put the deputies there under the control of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, and see what the results are? It is worth while making the experiment, and I believe that if it were made the results would warrant the inspectors and deputies throughout the whole industry being placed under the control of the Inspectors of Mines, instead of under the colliery companies as at present.
  The mining community is often abused and misunderstood and grossly misrepresented, but in spite of that the miners as a class are brave, warmhearted and generous. These qualities, however, are lost sight of because of the rough exterior that only hides the gem within. I sincerely hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will pay no attention to such statements as those about miners deliberately injuring themselves to get compensation, but will face the facts as set forth in the Reports, and take the opinions and advice of practical men. If that be done, I am confident that it will be possible to make the mines more safe than they are at the present time, and so win the
  364
  admiration and gratitude of the mining community.
  Mr. HANCOCK: I desire to associate myself with the expressions of regret that have fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman and from the hon. Member who spoke first for the Labour party, at the death of Mr. Wilson. I only knew him as a member of the Mining Examinations Board, but I got to know him well there, and, while it is perfectly true that we shall probably be electing, on Friday week, an admirable man to succeed him, we shall be doing that with a clear knowledge of the fact that the whole industry is much the poorer for the passing of Mr. Wilson.
  At the outset of my remarks, I want to express my sincere appreciation of the very clear, able, interesting and genial way in which this Estimate has been presented to the Committee. If my memory serves me, and I think it does, this is the first mining Estimate that has been presented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think I shall carry the whole Committee with me when I say that the genial and humane manner in which he has presented it has won the admiration of us all. I do not propose to go into the figures of the Estimate. I have already gone into them fully, and they do not seem to me to lend themselves to much criticism. I should be failing in my duty, and in fairness, if I did not note with real pleasure the reduction in the total amount of this Estimate, as compared with last year's Estimate. In these days of exceptional financial stringency, when trade is bad and there is a large amount of unemployment, when people are finding it difficult to make a living at all, and when there is unexampled taxation, such as no other country in the world is paying, it seems to me desirable to cut down in all Departments to the lowest point, consistent with National and Departmental security and efficiency. I confess, however, that one finds in these Estimates items showing slight increases over those of last year. Taking telegrams and telephones, and what is true of them is true of other items, there is increase, but I also see that the explanatory notes concerning most of these items are fairly, if not fully, satisfactory. Consequently, it leaves no room for criticism.

  365
  Perhaps, however, a word of explanation may be advisable regarding inspectors coming under the heading of the temporary staff. There we see a considerable increase of expense, although apparently the number of inspectors has been reduced. To me, and to all outsiders, it will appear incongruous that while the number of inspectors has decreased the expenses have increased. I note also an increase of £500 in the travelling expenses and subsistence allowances. Although, as an old member of the Mining Examinations Board, I have a fair idea of how a considerable part of that money has been spent, still I think some detailed information from the Secretary for Mines on that point would have been very acceptable, seeing that the enormous sum of £24,500 is involved.
  Passing from the figures of the Estimate to the industry itself, it will be within the recollection of the Committee that the Secretary for Mines, in the first place, referred to wages. I am glad that he did, because if we look at the industry generally we should find that in some respects at any rate it is far from being satisfactory or reassuring. Perhaps there is no respect in which we have more solid ground for fear than we have with regard to wages. Wages is one of the most important, if not the most important, factor in industrial life. If there is one more important factor, it is safety, but it is only safety that would come before wages. Nothing is so disastrous and so dangerous to communities and to industries as low wages for the workers, and the inability on their part, because of low wages, to meet their economic needs. At the time when last year's Estimates were presented wages had been going down for a considerable time, and in some districts we were told they were down to the extent of some 10 to 12 shillings per day. Those are very serious reductions, but in addition to those general reductions there were local reductions.
  There were mining districts where it was found that certain local reductions were necessary to enable the pits to be worked, and the men had to choose either to accept a reduction in wages that was local, in addition to the general reduction, or to see the pits close and themselves thrown out of work with little or no probality of getting in elsewhere. In a number of cases they chose the leaser of two evils and accepted the local reduc-
  366
  tion. In the Midlands, from which I come, the reductions at that moment had not been so great as they had been in other districts. Wages continued to fall after last year's Estimates were presented, for in the month of August last we in our district were down to the minimum which was 32 per cent. on the 1911 rate. Fortunately at that time trade was very good. What would have happened if the men had been working only two or three days in the week I cannot say. At that particular time the "Board of Trade Gazette" showed that our men were working five and a quarter days a week, and though our district—it is Nottingham—is the top-wage district in the Kingdom, even the best paid men in our district had the greatest difficulty in paying their way. I know very industrious, capable, experiencd men who, after working hard and earning the top wage, had to draw heavily upon their resources and upon the provision they had been making for old age and infirmity in order to pay their way at that particular time.
  I have known the industry all my life. It is 55 years since I began to work in a pit. I have been a trade unionist all the time, and a district leader for nearly 40 years. I have no hesitation in saying that the economic condition then was nearly as bad as it has been at any time during the last 50 years. Dissatisfaction was intense, and the position was a very serious one. I admit that since then wages have improved, but to-day wages in our district—what is true of our district is true very largely of other districts also—are not 30 per cent. higher than they were last August. Some of us are looking with a little trepidation to the next month or two. When the next ascertainment of wages is made they may then go below their present level, although they are not so high now as they ought to be. I should like to have said something about the present method of regulating wages, but I will not go into particulars in regard to it, because I know other Members wish to speak. I will say this, that I neither can nor will condemn that method. I do not say for a moment that its ratios are equitable. I bear in mind the fact that there are old and experienced miners' leaders in the Committee at this moment; men with whom I have worked officially for 30 years, and for whom I have the highest regard.

  367
  I know that some of those men are very anxious to terminate the present method of regulating wages. I hold no brief for or against it. I had nothing whatever to do with drawing up the Regulations, and I had very little to do with the administration of it. It may not be all that one would like. I have never approved of the sliding scale method of regulating wages. I have never approved of the prices of coal being the only determining factor—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because—and this has always been our objection—the prices are fixed by the employers; the men have no voice, and no vote; they have no influence at all in fixing the price of coal, and their wages ought not to be controlled by prices fixed absolutely by the employers. There are other difficulties, perhaps, in the present agreement, but still, I am bound to say, it has some very valuable features. I will pass from that, by saying that I earnestly hope my colleagues will not end that agreement until they have some carefully thought-out, some well-drawn, and some improved agreement to put in its place.
  I should like to have said something with regard to safety, but I am not going to do so. There is the question of welfare, and also that of pit ponies. I will be excused if I say a few words with regard to the impression created in the public mind on that question. It was my good or bad fortune to commence my coalmining career as a pony driver, and for some years I drove a pony in the pit, and I know that there was no more cruelty below ground than there was above ground. The drivers, generally speaking, had a real kindly feeling for the ponies they drove. It has been my unhappy experience more than once, as a magistrate, to have fined boys who have been charged with cruelty to pit ponies, but I am not convinced that the ponies in the pits are treated any less humanely and kindly than animals above ground and I think the mining community ought not to rest under such aspersions as are being cast upon them by people who are talking about a matter of which they know very little. I understood when the Estimate for last year was presented it was admitted that the condition of things in regard to the experimental station was not satisfactory and that there was some idea of pur-
  368
  chasing a much larger piece of ground and erecting more efficient plant for testing purposes. We have heard nothing about that to-day and I should be very pleased to hear if anything has been done towards carrying out the undertaking which was then given.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN:We recognise that the Debate must close within a certain limit of time and that the Secretary for Mines is desirous of making a reply to the various points which have been raised. It would be folly on my part within the few minutes at my disposal, to attempt to go into the details of the case which I intended to put before the Committee, and I take this opportunity of saying that it is very unfair to the rank and file that some of us in these Debates should be squeezed out when we are desirous of raising particular matters, where the time is limited. I cast no reflection upon the Chair at all, but I merely point out that, during the Debate on the Post Office Estimates, five hon. Members occupied an average of 31 minutes each, and the same rule has applied to some extent in the present Debate. When we have only two hours and three-quarters in which to raise very important matters it is unfortunate that only a very few Members should be able to get in. I can only now refer o the matter which I was desirous of raising, because we wish to hear from the Secretary something with regard to safety and welfare. It is a very important matter, however, affecting the administration of the Mines Department, and one in regard to which there has been some complaint. It is the case of a one man concern. When the Department had the control of the mines within its supervision, the owner of this mine only employed 60 men. He worked the mine to the best advantage and he worked out what is called the thick coal. During the War he took back all the men who returned maimed and injured. Law proceedings are threatened against him unless he now conforms with what very likely is what the Act of Parliament provides in every case, but he claims that his is an exceptional case, that it is unique, and he makes an offer of some kind of arbitration. He thinks, having already provided more than £5,000 excess profit for the thick coal that he works, that in less than 18 months' time, unless something by way of compensation is

  369
  paid to him, the mine will be closed down, and these 60 men, a large number of whom are ex-service men, will be thrown out of employment. He has offered to go to arbitration, and he hopes that by that means he will avoid the law proceedings now threatened against him in respect of some amount of money that the Revenue officers are calling upon him to pay with regard to the working of the mine. I hope something may yet be done, to avoid any proceedings being taken in this matter.
  Major PAGET: As a miners' representative, I want to press some views on the quarry question on the Secretary for Mines, because I feel that he does not pay quite enough attention to the Joint Industrial Council of the quarry industry. There are many county councils to-day which are going behind the agreement of the Joint Industrial Council, and are employing contractors who ignore the agreement brought about between the quarrymen and the quarry owners. If the Government allow this kind of thing to go on, and do not bring the power which, as a county councillor, I know they have, to bear on the various county councils which allow this black-legging to go on, I cannot see how any industrial peace is to prevail in the quarry industry, which at present is carried out in an admirable manner. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will impress on the Minister of Transport the necessity of stopping grants for roads which are made with stone which has been quarried under conditions which are a breach of the agreements made between the quarry owners and the workers on the Joint Industrial Council.
  The only other thing I would like to say is in regard to pit ponies, and I think we ought to congratulate the inspectors of the ponies on the splendid condition in which most of them are to be found in the mines, and to thank the Minister for the repudiation which he has given of the allegation which offends every single miner, that there is any systematic cruelty by the miners to the ponies, because in my small experience the miner is devoted to his pit pony, and it will go very hard with anybody who ill-treats his particular pony, and where-ever ponies are ill-treated by the boys in any case, the men put that down very quickly with a heavy hand.
  Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX:In the short time at my disposal I may not be able to answer all the points that have been put to me, but I will do my best. The hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Major Paget) dealt with underpaid quarry workers, but that is a question for the Minister of Labour, with which I cannot deal. The hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) alluded to a case which he has brought before to my notice and which has been considered very carefully by the Mines Department. I can only assure him that the fullest consideration has been given to the case. As he knows, I have considered it myself. We cannot make an exception in this case, and I am sorry to say that I can hold out no hope. The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Hancock) referred to the increased expenditure on telephones and telegraphs, but I thought I had explained that this is merely a transfer from the Post Office Vote, and does not indicate any actual increase of expenditure. The hon. Member also criticised the increase in travelling expenses, but I thought I had also explained that that was due to the special activity of our inspectors.. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson) raised the question of accidents. I thought I had explained that the reason why I had not dealt more fully with the question of accidents was that we had a Debate in this House quite recently, and I was anxious to allow hon. Members as much time as possible, and therefore I did not go into that question, leaving it to hon. Members to raise any points they wished. He drew attention to the fact to which I have already drawn attention, that the greater number of accidents are due to haulage and accidents on the haulage roads. We have already set up a Timbering Committee which will investigate and carry out research. That Committee is actively working, and, I hope, will make a report as soon as possible. As regards accidents on the haulage roads, I can only reiterate the importance of the steady application of our Safety First campaign.
  The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. R. Jones) raised the question of the quarries. I do not know what has happened in the past, but it is no doubt true that the quarry industry does receive less share of attention from the

  371
  Mines Department than the bigger and more important coal industry. That, of course, is no reason why it should be neglected, and I do not think there is any real foundation for any such suggestion; but, owing to it being a small industry, and in many ways not presenting the same problems, it does not require the same amount of attention. But if the hon. Member had only given me notice that he was going to raise this question, I could, perhaps, have gone more fully into it. Certainly the Department are doing everything they can to expedite and bring into force the rules which are now under consideration. The reason it has been impossible by any system of general regulation to bring them into force in the same way is that this particular industry was not included in the Mining Industry Act, 1920, which gives the Secretary for Mines general powers in every case over mines. Therefore, in this respect new rules can only be brought into force by application to each particular case. Had we attempted without general agreement to bring into force rules for every quarry, it would have been open to each owner in each quarry to go to arbitration, and there would have been endless trouble. If we can get, as we hope, general agreement by the various Departments on the Schedule of Rules, then we can go straight away smoothly, and I hope in a short time it will be possible to get agreement throughout the country to the Rules which we have sent out for consideration, and then to bring them into force.
  As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Camborne (Captain Moreing), it is not at all fair to say that the Mines Department has neglected or deliberately failed to support the tin industry in Cornwall. It is not the function of the Mines Department to carry on propaganda to advertise any particular industry, but it is its duty to do its best to help industry. I am bound to say we have done our utmost, and have already obtained considerable grants from the Trade Facilities Committee, which have a part in the effect of restoring the tin industry, and no doubt will have still further effect later on. This Department has obtained grants under the Trades Facilities Act to the extent of £130,000 in four different districts, that being very largely due to the
  372
  activities of the Mines Department, which forwarded the recommendations and did their best to secure the grant. As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Gavan Duffy), I should like to point out that though he was quite right in quoting the Act under which metalliferous mines come as being ancient and containing out-of-date things, he was entirely wrong in suggesting that the Mines Department have done nothing to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this particular question. At the present moment there are Regulations preparing. This is an immense business. The Metalliferous Mines Advisory Committee, which advises the Mines Department on this subject, after the passing of the Mining Industry Act of 1920, were asked to carry out the task of drafting Regulations on the lines of the Regulations which affect coal, and that is an enormous business. These Regulations have been drafted and sent out to the various district inspectors for their opinion. They are being thoroughly overhauled and considered in the Department. When that is done they will still have to be sent round to the different parties concerned in the effort to get general approval, and then I hope very shortly, by the beginning of next year, we shall be able to issue a General Code of Regulations under the Mining Industry Act, 1920. That will be the general progress made, and certainly ought to prove that there is no remissness on the part of the Mines Department. As soon as the power was granted it was at once employed in this way. As to what was said about the Inspector of Mines, it is an entire mistake to suppose that because a man is capable of inspecting coal mines therefore his capacity does not extend to metalliferous mines or quarries.
  Mr. DUFFY: Is it not the fact that 27 years ago we had an Inspector of Mines in Cumberland: why have we not one now?
  Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Conditions now are different from what they were then. During 1922 the inspections in coal mines was one for every 61 men employed. In hematite mines the proportion was one inspection to 31 of the men—
  Mr. DUFFY: The inspection is valueless.
  Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX:—while in metalliferous mines, generally, the inspection was 1 in 15. I have dealt, perhaps, with all the points that have been raised, except that of dust, which, as the hon. Member for White-haven knows, is a matter of considerable dispute among medical men, and, of course, I can only be guided by my advisers in the Department. This is a matter which has been under consideration, and the hon. Member need not be afraid that it will be forgotten.
  Mr. SMILLIE: For the few moments that are left, perhaps I may be allowed to mention two very important points dealing with safety in mines. Because of the stoppage of certain collieries in Lanarkshire there has been a considerable accumulation of water in some of the mines. The men working in the adjoining pits, knowing that there has been an accumulation of water, with considerable pressure behind the barrier of coal which divides the working colliery from the colliery that is stopped, have asked that inquiry should be made as to the thickness of the coal barrier and the water behind. The collieries being the Newton and the Dykelands collieries—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  RAILWAYS (AUTHORISATION OF WORKS) BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of powers under s. 16 of the Railways Act, 1921.)
  Where application is made by a railway company under Section sixteen of the Railways Act, 1921, for authority to provide any alteration, extension or improvement of existing works, the Minister may, by order under that Section, notwithstanding anything therein contained, authorise the construction of the works if the expenditure involved will not exceed five hundred thousand pounds.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move to leave out the word "five"
  374
  ["five hundred thousand pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
  The Government have put down this Bill after Eleven o'clock although it is one of considerable importance and even on the Report Stage it should have been discussed at some length. Under the Railways Act, 1921, and other legislation affecting the railways of this country, the Minister of Transport has the power to authorise capital expenditure up to the sum of £100,000, but anything beyond that must be the subject of an ordinary Parliamentary Bill promoted by the railway company. The present Bill increases the power of the Minister of Transport to authorise work involving a capital expenditure up to £500,000. We contend that that is a very serious limitation of Parliamentary control over the capital expenditure of railways which we contend should be kept in force. The Minister of Transport defends this proposal on the ground that it will provide employment either in the immediate future or during the two years this Bill is to remain in operation. We have made inquiries on that point, and it is perfectly true to say that the four great amalgamations of railways now in force have already ample powers under different Bills which have been passed from time to time which, if carried out, would involve considerable capital expenditure and would provide as much employment as the railway companies are likely to provide in the near future in any case. I think it was really admitted on the Committee stage of this Bill that it is wrong to make too much of the unemployment argument in this connection. The real difficulty which confronts the House in this proposal is the weakening of Parliamentary control. I wish, in a sentence or two, to remind the House that the situation has entirely changed as compared with the time in 1921 when the Minister of Transport could authorise works up to a million of expenditure. In 1921 Parliament gave the four railway amalgamations of this country a form of guarantee of the net revenue of 1913 plus certain allowances for capital expenditure, past present and future. In view of the fact that capital expenditure of that character has to count before the Railway Tribunal when rates and fares are fixed to be imposed directly or indirectly on the whole of, our people, it is of the utmost importance that a full measure of Parlia-

  375
  mentary control should be retained over, at all events, the larger part of the capital expenditure in this connection. If we give the railway combinations power to spend on individual works up to half a million of capital expenditure on the mere approval of the Minister of Transport it is plain we shall part with the full measure of the power which the Standing Committee of the House in 1921 pleaded should be maintained under the changed conditions of the Railway Act of that date.
  I wish to be perfectly fair in putting this Amendment. I recognise that on the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry agreed to the insertion of an Amendment providing for the Order to be laid for 21 days on the Table of the House of Commons. While we recognise the concession that was made, hon. Members must agree it is a very poor substitute for the complete Parliamentary control which we should enjoy under the legislation of 1921, because, in practice, it means that some hon. Member must first of all keep a very keen eye on the Order being laid at all, and, in the second place, he must lodge his objection, and that objection can only be taken after 11 o'clock at night, when it is. very difficult to keep a house for a technical problem of this kind. I submit that the protection we have now even under the amended Bill is altogther inadequate having regard for the great powers conferred on the four railway amalgamations. I beg hon. Members to recall that the Committee of this House, in 1921,took a very serious view of this proposition. After anxious consideration they decided that the Minister of Transport should only have power to sanction works up to a capital expenditure of £100,000. Their idea in doing so was that they should retain power of control over the Bills of railway companies in order to have an opportunity of protecting the rights of the whole of our people interested in the different classes of railway service. On these grounds we propose, to-night, by our Amendment, to restrict the capital expenditure that may be authorised by the Minister of Transport, to £200,000. I am opposed to raising it even to that figure but we have to put an Amendment
  376
  of some kind on the paper, and we take what appears to be the next lowest possible sum. Under this Measure, according to the confession of the Minister, Parliament is parting with a portion of its power effectively to control the great railway amalgamations in their capital expenditure, and therefore, to some extent, the power to control the charges which they impose upon the public for the services they render.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has dealt with the main points. One point which I wish to stress is the fact that in 1921, Parliament considered that £100,000 was the maximum that ought to be allowed to the railway companies. That £100,000 at present prices is probably equal to £250,000. Now the Ministry of Transport comes forward and proposes £500,000, which on the 1921 figures means works to the extent of £750,000. If we exclude works to the extent of £750,000 from the detailed analysis and criticism of Parliament this House is practically divesting itself of any control whatsoever over the railway policy of this country, and the trading and commercial classes, and the working classes are going to lose the weapon, poor though it may be, that they have to compel the railway companies to confine their activities to such works as will tend to produce lower railway fares, and lower freight charges, such as the industries demand. The argument of the Department in favour of the Bill is that it will provide means of additional employment. Only a month or so ago we on this side endeavoured to compel a certain railway company in the East end of London to provide a better class of service and to employ additional labour. They refused to do it, although they had sufficient spending power to carry out the works which would have employed a very large number of men. The real purpose behind the Bill is not to find additional work, but to take away from the control of Parliament the power which Parliament possesses to control railway policy, and this House ought not to divest itself of that.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The hon. Member for

  377
  Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), whenever he has a case to put before the House, always puts it with moderation, but in this instance I venture to think that he has discovered what is called a nidus equines, that is to say, a mare's nest. The Minister of Transport, under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1921, has no power to authorise any railway company to borrow money or to raise new capital, and, therefore, any money which might be expended under this Bill has already gone through the ordinary Parliamentary procedure to enable the company to raise it, so that there has been, and is now complete Parliamentary control over any such money. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Member's argument that Parliamentary control is in any way weakened falls to the ground. Even if that were not the case, the amount that could possibly be expended under this Bill is infinitesimal compared with the £1,100,000,000, or whatever the amount is, of the capital of the railway companies and, therefore, it could not possibly have any appreciable effect on the railway rates to the disadvantage of the trading community.
  As regards the Orders which may be issued under this Bill, I did in Committee, as the hon. Member will recollect, accept an Amendment to the effect that any Order under the Bill should lie on the Table of the House for 21 days, and I did that in response to the suggestion, I think, of the hon. Member himself and of other hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, who were suspicious of the procedure under the Railways Act, 1921. I think, therefore, that I have proved to the House that there is no weakening in any way of Parliamentary control, and that, as regards the Orders, I have met as far as possible the criticisms of hon. Members on the Second Reading, who said that they wanted further and stronger Parliamentary control over any Order that might be issued by the Ministry of Transport.
  The other point which was raised, I think by the Mover of the Amendment, and certainly by the Seconder, was in regard to giving the railway companies powers to carry out certain works when, as they alleged, works which they have already powers to carry out have not been carried out. I do not know how far that
  378
  is the case, but I would ask the House to remember that during the War there were many works which could not be carried out, and that, owing to the amalgamation, many companies which are now amalgamated had powers to carry out works which, owing to the amalgamation, are not now necessary. As to the main object of the Bill, I think it is the duty of the Government to provide every possible method in order to deal with the unemployment which is coming upon us this winter, and probably also, the following winter. Hon. Members opposite would be the very first to criticise the Government if they did not look ahead and try to mitigate as far as possible this unemployment. We hope and believe that the Bill will help us this winter and next, and, therefore, I cannot possibly see my way to accepting this Amendment.
  Mr. PRINGLE:The hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn a gloomy picture of the future, and, with that before us, it is difficult to oppose or criticise the proposal which he is defending; but there has been a strange omission from his speech. There is no indication at all of the scope or extent of the works which are contemplated under the powers of this Bill, and, consequently, the House can have no idea at all of the extent to which unemployment could be relieved even if the Ministry had the powers which this Bill will confer upon it. It is for these reasons that on the Committee stage, and now on the Report stage, we are looking at the proposal somewhat narrowly and not without some degree of suspicion. The main point is that we are changing the provisions of an Act that was only passed two years ago. The Act of 1921 was only fully considered by a Committee of this House, and, in the light of that consideration, £100,000 was deliberately put into that Act as the limitation on the works which would be authorised thereunder. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) informed us that at that time the House was not contemplating unemployment at all. My recollection is that in the summer of 1921 unemployment was greater that at the present moment or than it is likely to be next winter. Consequently, the House not having had in mind the possibility that words included under that Act which had been entered upon for the purpose of relieving unem-

  379
  ployment. We are therefore, driven to ask why this has occurred to the Government at this late stage. I believe there were certain conferences between the late Prime Minister and the chairmen of the railway companies last winter. It was understood some kind of arrangement was arrived at whereby the railways would receive these powers. That was in December, and it is strange that all these months have elapsed before the Ministry has come to Parliament for the purpose of obtaining the powers. We can only assume that in the intervening period the Government has not thought very much about the matter, that they have not been greatly impressed by its importance in relation to unemployment, and that we are entitled to look for some other motive as the genesis of the present Bill.
  This House has always jealously regarded its powers in relation to railway undertakings. It was only by means of the powers it held over Railway Bills that the House of Commons could exercise any real control over railway policy. If this proposal is passed Parliament will be surrendering such power as remained in the matter of influencing railway policy. It is not merely a matter of £500,000 that is involved. It is easy to see how an undertaking might be begun at an initial cost of £500,000 and that an Order for this sum would be passed, but a subsequent Order for £500,000 might be made. There is nothing to prevent it in this Bill. It is left entirely to the Ministry, subject to the somewhat illusory control represented by an Address by Members of this House moved after eleven o'clock. The ordinary Member of Parliament has great difficulty in understanding from the reading of an Order exactly what is contemplated, and it is conceivable that an Order may be so drawn by the railway company as to enable it to start considerable works which may cost £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 all of which can be carried out without any reference to Parliament. That is contrary to all past policy of Parliament in relation to railways. This House should not agree to a proposal which has that effect.
  There is another aspect of the matter. If we allow railway legislation to be brought to an end in this matter it is going to have a very serious effect on private Bill legislation. These Bills
  380
  were very productive in the form of fees which were useful in helping the House of Commons to meet its expenses. If private Bill legislation, so far as railways are concerned, is to be destroyed in this way a fruitful source of revenue will be dried up. On these general grounds the amendment of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh should receive the support of the House. There is, however, also what may be called the motive behind this Bill. We know that the Ministry of Transport has been several times condemned. At the time of the last General Election it was under sentence of death. During the Election it had a respite. But if this Bill passes it will confer new functions on this Ministry and extend its life, and you have this Government which was pledged to the reduction of these superfluous departments, further entrenching a department which the late Prime Minister, at the time of the General Election, described as unnecessary.
  Other proposals will have the same effect. There is a great scheme for the purpose of regulating London traffic, which it is understood will confer great powers on the Ministry of Transport, and this Bill, in relation to those other powers, means perpetuating the Ministry of Transport, which would otherwise cease, so that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be deprived of a job while the Ministry could be carried on as a department of the Board of Trade. In view of the inadequate explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his failure to correlate this proposal with the relief of unemployment we are entitled to look behind the Bill, and to find that it is depriving Parliament of powers which it has long enjoyed in controlling policy in relation to the schemes of railways, and affording a pretext for the continuance of an unnecessary and expensive department which should long ago have been abolished.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman defended this Bill on the ground that it will help to relieve unemployment. I would ask—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That would be relevant on the Third Reading of the Bill, but the question now in debate is the difference between £500,000 and £400,000.
  Dr. CHAPPLE.: I am coming to that. If the Amendment be not carried and the House allows the full scope of £500,000, has the hon. and gallant Gentleman assured himself that the works to be carried out will be carried out in those areas of the country where unemployment is most acute? That seems to me to be a very important point. If the railway companies are to get these powers I want to know whether their primary motive in seeking to get these powers is to relieve unemployment or to carry out works which are going to pay the railway companies? If the motive be to relieve unemployment, I think we ought to grant the £500,000, but, we ought to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he has gone into the question with the railway companies, and has ascertained that the works they contemplate are being carried out where unemployment is most acute. We ought also to have an assurance from him that he will not use these powers and grant the money for these works unless he is assured that unemployment is going to be relieved. I strongly suspect that if the railway companies take this power, they will use it wherever they find that the work will pay them best, and will snap their fingers at this House. It seems as if the unemployment bogey is pure camouflage; that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen were commending this to the House in an insincere way. It looks as if the railway companies have induced the hon. and gallant Gentlemen to bring this forward, and the unemployment is being used as a stalking horse, and that we shall find, when the Minister is approached by the railway companies to use this power, that the unemployed will not be considered at all. We have the right to demand some assurance that these works are not already cut and dried by the railway companies, and that the hon. and gall ant Gentleman has taken certain precautions which will lead to the results he has commended to us, and which we all demand, and which provide the only reason why we should give the right and the power he asks for.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I hope that my honourable and gallant Friend will be in no way deflected from his purpose by such criticism as has been up to the present offered to this Bill. I cannot for the life of me understand the suspicions of my
  382
  honourable Friend who has just sat down, with reference to the intentions of the Ministry of Transport. When my honourable Friend, for reasons which I do not understand, uses a phrase like "the unemployment bogey," I rather feel, although he is a colleague of mine in the party sense, that for the moment party considerations are so strong that he is unable to do justice to this very modest proposal. In every part of the country we are being pressed as to whether public funds are available to give adequate remuneration to men who could be properly employed under the terms of this Bill, but who are at present a gross and dreadful burden on the community, and whose moral is being sapped. The community regard the future, especially the coming winter months, with great anxiety, because, up to the present, the Ministry of Transport has not had these powers. I am being asked, in a town in my own constituency, which is having to pay £24,000 a year in doles—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is nothing."]—It is nothing to the hon. Member, but it is a great deal to these burdened ratepayers, who hardly know how to sustain their existence. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen above the gangway to interrupt. This is a capital sum, and they pretend to have no interest or regard for capital, but they have a great interest in capitalising human misery for party purposes. They are the greatest political capitalists in human misery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]. I shall not withdraw anything.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman is in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see what this has to do with the subject under debate.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: With great respect, I should have thought it was very relevant to the subject of giving to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport £500,000, and of wishing it to be reduced to £200,000.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is not giving him any money at all.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I have listened to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), who has talked at great length upon the change in our Parliamentary procedure by which sums are to be avail-

  383
  able under the immediate control of the Minister.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Then the hon. Member, who talks at great length in this House, has not succeeded in developing a clarity of speech which I am able to comprehend.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It may be it is a matter of lucidity of intelligence.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I am dealing with a very simple and direct point and I do not need encouragement from those who have been continuous failures. If the Ministry of Transport use this sum wisely, a great benefit will be conferred on the community and a work of great value will be undertaken. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) on the Second Reading referred to the question of whether or not some of this money would go towards improving the agricultural situation by pro-
  viding transport facilities in agricultural districts. There is a railway scheme in Suffolk of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has knowledge. It has been in that Department ever since there was a Ministry of Transport and before that it was in the Board of Trade. That railway should be completed and it could be completed, and the cost would not be as high as the burden at present placed on the local taxpayers. The main criticism directed against the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary is that he is merely camouflaging the issue by saying that unemployment will be relieved if the Bill is passed. I speak within my own knowledge when I say that this money wisely expended will relieve unemployment and will be of great value to the entire community and to the agricultural industry in particular.
  Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 113.

  Division No. 306.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Ednam, Viscount

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Ellis, R. G.

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Becker, Harry

  Erskine-Boist, Captain C.

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

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

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Hume, G. H.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Flanagan, W. H.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Furness, G. J.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Garland, C. S.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Bruford, R.

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

  Bruton, Sir James

  George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

  Lougher, L.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

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

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gould, James C.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Button, H. S.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Manville, Edward

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Mercer, Colonel H.

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

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

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Clayton, G. C.

  Halstead, Major D.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Harrison, F. C.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon, H

  Cope, Major William

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A.C. (Honiton)

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

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Murchison, C. K.

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretlord)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

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

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Paget, T. G.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Wells, S. R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sandon, Lord.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Peto, Basil E.

  Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Privett, F. J.

  Singleton, J. E.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Raine, W.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Wise, Frederick

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furn'ss)

  Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

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

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Robertson-Despencer, Major(Islgtn,W)

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Paling, W.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Harbord, Arthur

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Hardie, George D.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Attlee, C. R.

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Potts, John S.

  Barnes, A.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Bonwick, A.

  Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

  Ritson. J.

  Bawdier, W. A.

  Herriotts, J.

  Roberts, Frederick 0. (W. Bromwich)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hill, A.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Briant, Frank

  Hinds, John

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Brotherton, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)

  Salter Dr.A.

  Buckle, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sexton, James

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Snell, Harry

  Chapple, W. A.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Sullivan, J.

  Collison, Levl

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Tout, W. J.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lansbury, George

  Turner, Ben

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Lawson, John James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Duncan, C.

  Leach, W.

  Warne, G. H.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lee, F.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Westwood, J.

  Foot, Isaac

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Gosling, Harry

  M'Entee, V. L.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Whiteley, W.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  March, S.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenall, T.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

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

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Groves, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lunn and Mr. Ammon.

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

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold

  CLAUSE 2.(Short title and duration.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Railways (Authorisation of Works) Act, 1923.
  (2) This Act shall continue in force for two years and no longer unless Parliament otherwise provides; but the expiration of this Act shall not affect the validity of any order for which application has been previously made thereunder.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words"two years,"and to insert instead thereof the words"one year."
  386
  The purpose of this Amendment is perfectly obvious. we drsire, as far as possible, to limit what we think to be the absolute power handed over to the railway companies under this Bill to one year instead of two years.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I could not possibly accept this Amendment, in view of the fact that I am asking that the powers of this Bill should last for only two years, and in view of the fact that no one can say that there will not be considerable un-

  387
  employment the year after next. It would, obviously, be absurd to take powers only to deal with this coming winter.
  Question put, "That the words 'two years' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 105.

  Division No. 307.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Ganzonl, Sir John

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

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Garland, C. S.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wlifrid W.

  Gould, James C.

  Paget, T. G.

  Astor, J J. (Kent, Dover)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Peto, Basil E.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Privett, F. J.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Raine, W.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

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

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Becker, Harry

  Halstead, Major D.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Remnant, Sir James

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Harrison, F. C.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

  Robertson-Despencer,Major(Islgtn,W)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Bruford, R.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sandon, Lord

  Button, H. S.

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Singleton, J. E.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

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

  Hume, G. H.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Cope, Major William

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

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

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Laugher, L.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Wells, S. R.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Manville, Edward

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Wise, Frederick

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

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

  Flanagan, W. H.

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A.C. (Honiton)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Murchison, C. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

  Fremantle, Lleut-Colonel Francis E.

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Furness, G. J.

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Collison, Levi

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Briant, Frank

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Brotherton, J.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro')

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Buckle, J.

  Duncan, C.

  Barnes, A.

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

  Bonwick, A.

  Chapple, W. A.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Bowdier, W. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Foot, Isaac

  Gosling, Harry

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Lansbury, George

  Sexton, James

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Greenall, T.

  Leach, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lee, F.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Sullivan, J.

  Groves, T.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Grundy, T. W.

  M'Entee, V. L.

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

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

  McLaren, Andrew

  Tout, W. J.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  March, S.

  Turner, Ben

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Warne, G. H.

  Hardie, George D.

  Murnin, H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Westwood, J.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Oliver, George Harold

  White, Charles F. (Derby. Western)

  Herriotts, J.

  Paling, W

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  Hill, A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Whiteley, W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Heath)

  Potts, John S.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

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

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ritson, J

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Robertson. J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lunn and Mr. Neil Maclean.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Capt. WEDGWOOD BENN: There is one Question that I desire to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. This Bill gives his Department extended powers. When this Parliament opened, I put this Question to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law): "How long is the Department going to last?" The reply was that it was to be abolished shortly. None of us would regret more than I the disappearance of the hon. and

  Division No. 308].

  AYES.

  [11.58 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Button, H. S.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Furness, G. J.

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Garland, C. S.

  Astor. J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Gould, James C.

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Cope, Major William

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

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

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

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Halstead, Major D.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bonwick, A.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Harrison, F. C.

  Bowdler, W. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Ednam, Viscount

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Bruford, R.

  Flanagan, W. H.

  Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Bruton, Sir James

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary from the Front Bench. But there are vacancies. There is one excellent office that remains, but the details of which I can't go into. I would again ask: "How long is the Ministry of Transport going to go on?"
  Colonel ASHLEY: My reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman shall be a short one. It is that he must "Wait and Motion.
  Question put. "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
  The House divided: Ayres, 193; Noes, 87.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Singleton, J. E.

  Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

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

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Houfton, John Plowright

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hudson, Capt. A

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Hume, G. H.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

  Paget, T. G.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Peto, Basil E.

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Privett, F. J.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Raine, W.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Lougher, L.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

  Wells, S. R.

  Lumley, L. R.

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

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Manville, Edward

  Robertson-Despencer,Major(Isigtn,W)

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Robinson. Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Wise, Frederick

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

  Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A.C. (Honiton)

  Sandon, Lord

  Murchison, C. K.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Harbord, Arthur

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Hardie, George D.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Potts, John S.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barnes, A.

  Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

  Ritson, J.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Herriotts, J.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Bowerman, RI. Hon. Charles W.

  Hill, A.

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

  Briant, Frank

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Brotherton, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sexton, James

  Buckle, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Chapple, W. A.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Snell, Harry

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sullivan, J.

  Collison, Levi

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Lansbury, George

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Tout, W. J.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Leach, W.

  Turner, Ben

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lee, F.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Linfield, F. C.

  Warne, G. H.

  Foot, Isaac

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gosling, Harry

  Mac Donald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Westwood, J.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  McLaren, Andrew

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Greenall, T.

  March, S.

  Whiteley, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murnin, H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Groves, T.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Newbold, J. T. W.

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

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Morgan Jones.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

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

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of polling hours.)
  For the purposes of any election under this Act the powers, duties, and rights con-
  392
  ferred upon a candidate, agent, or returning officer by The Extension of Polling Hours Act, 1913, shall apply as if the election were a Parliamentary election.—[Mr. Neil Maclean.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The purpose of this new Clause was explained to the Solicitor-General for Scotland when the Bill was before the Scottish Grand Committee, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, in response to

  393
  the discussion which took place on a practically similar Amendment promised to consider the matter and let us have the opinion of the Government on the Report stage. That opinion evidently is unfavourable, unless the Government are prepared to accept this proposal. It would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to accept it. As was explained upstairs when we raised this question, in many parts of the country the electors reside a considerable distance from the places where they are employed. They have to leave home very early in the morning and do not return until late in the evening. As the election hours stand at present—fixed as they are by Statute—it means that often by the time these people get home the polling stations have been closed. All that we ask for in this proposal is that the candidate, or his agent, shall have a right, if he cares to exercise it, to apply to the Returning Officer to have the hours of polling extended. The purpose is to give an opportunity to electors who would otherwise be placed in an awkward position, and in many cases be prevented from exercising the franchise. Originally the hours of polling were alike applicable to Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, but under the new act, on which the 1918 election was fought it was found that the Registration Act only applied to Parliamentary elections. We want to extend it to Municipal elections. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland is going to accept our Amendment, or whether he is going to say that the matter must be dealt with in a new Registration Act. If this were applicable to London it would be a great boon to many thousands of electors who work in the city, leaving home in the early morning and not returning until late in the evening. It might save London from being Tory ridden if opportunities were given to progressive Labour people to vote. That might be an objection on the part of the Government to accepting this Amendment; but Municipal or Parliamentary rights ought not to be considered from the point of view of interests of the party in power.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:I beg to second the Motion.
  I raised this matter on the Scottish Grand Committee and I want, here and
  394
  now, to protest against the way in which the Scottish Grand Committee is conducted. That Grand Committee is a regular insult to Scotland by the way it is treated. I do not want to be out of order on this question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am glad to hear that. It will be as well to keep off that subject. The Committee is appointed by the House, and we must not criticise it here.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:We have a Scottish Grand Committee of which an Englishman is chairman. Being an Englishman, he does not understand what we are talking about.
  Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member might criticise me on the same ground.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:If I had occasion, I would do so. You know quite well that I would not scruple to criticise anyone. They do not scruple to criticise me. The criticism I am offering is very necessary from the Scottish point of view. The matter raised by this Amendment is very serious, particularly in the municipalities of Scotland. As I explained to the Committee, our experience is that it was all right under the old hours of work in Scotland, from six in the morning till five or six at night, but, owing to the War, the hours of labour were changed. No longer does the Scottish worker start at six in the morning. Thank God for that ! They start at eight. But when we started at six, there was a break at breakfast-time from nine till ten, and that hour was largely used for voting purposes. Moreover, under the old system of working, the men had not such a long spell at work. They got home to dinner, and were not so anxious to run borne for tea. Now, with the introduction of the English system into Scotland, there is only the one break. Employers have always advocated that, and now they have got it. The men go home when they stop work now, and their wives wait to make their tea, because they invariably do not vote until their husbands come home.
  In Glasgow our experience has been that at eight o'clock they stop taking the votes, no matter if even hundreds of people have been queued up for an hour before closing time; and many candidates have stated that they did not get elected because their voters were not permitted to vote. I appeal to the Solicitor-General, on

  395
  behalf of Scotland, to concede this point to us. It is becoming apparent to Scotland that we are getting lees from this Government, and less in this Session, than has ever been the case before. The Prime Minister the other day, when waited on regarding Scottish matters, had the hardihood to state that he had no time to deal with these Scottish matters, because there were other more important matters to be dealt with. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear.!"] Evidently you all agree with the Prime Minister. I do not object to that, but, surely, when we are doing our best to try to reason with you, to try to show you the point of view of the great majority of the people of our country, I hope you will agree to meet our request.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): As the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) stated, when this matter was raised in Committee, I promised to consider it against the Report stage. He has now put down a new Clause which carries out the purposes he was anxious to effect. I had an entirely open mind on this matter. Since the Committee, I have been in communication with the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, and I find they are opposed to this change. When, in 1913, the Extension of Polling Hours Bill, which subsequently became the Extension of Polling Hours Act, was produced to the House, it contained proposals for dealing with Parliamentary elections, and also for municipal elections, and allowing extension of time for the municipal elections as for Parliamentary elections. That was subsequently dropped. There was the hottest opposition to it in Scotland. The Annual Committee of the Convention of Royal Burghs considered the proposal in 1913, and they unanimously opposed it and petitioned Parliament against it. They consulted the burghs of Scotland, and, out of 120 replies received, 114 burghs, through their town councils, expressed themselves opposed to the extension of polling hours in municipal elections; three were neutral; two declared themselves in favour of the change, and one was in favour of the change as regards the evening and not as regards the morning. Therefore, it is clear that municipal opinion is opposed to the extension of time. It is felt that it would
  396
  impose a heavy task on the staffs engaged in elections. Their hours are now from eight o'clock to eight, and it was felt that their hours gave them a long day. It was felt that all electors, in a 12 hours' polling day, got a chance of recording their votes. To change the hours would mean some expenditure which the municipalities thought ought not to be incurred. This Bill was the result of a conference of representatives of five of the great Scottish cities They made various proposals, and never once has this change been suggested. Therefore I find myself unable to accept the proposal.
  Mr. WESTWOOD:The reasons which the Solicitor-General has given now are different from the reasons which he gave when this matter was before the Committee. The only reason which he gave then for refusing to accept the Amendment was that the Act of 1913 gave the same powers.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND:As I have said, I had an open mind on the merits of the matter, and I got into touch with opinion in Scotland on it. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member, this matter came up suddenly in the Scottish Standing Committee, and I admit frankly that at the moment I thought that Section 49 of the Town Councils Act, 1900, applied to these elections. The Ballot Act, 1872, which is referred to in that Section, deals with both Parliamentary and municipal elections. The Acts of 1884 and 1885 deal also with Parliamentary and municipal elections, but the Act of 1913 deale solely with Parliamentary elections. It was introduced to deal with both, and was then restricted to Parliamentary elections. On reconsidering the matter I am of opinion that the view expressed on the spur of the moment was not accurate, and the Act of 1913 does not apply to municipal elections.
  Mr. WESTWOOD:All these things were told to the Solicitor-General in the Committee. We could not convince him then that we were right. Having admitted that he was wrong, then he ought to admit that he is wrong now. He has stated that he has now learned that the Convention of Royal Burghs is against this proposal. There is scarcely the difference of a dozen words in the communication which the

  397
  hon. and learned Gentleman has received and one which I have received. It is not a communication from the Convention of Royal Burghs who have not had an opportunity of considering the matter. It is a communication from an official and in this communication there is no reference to the opinion of the Convention of Royal Burghs. There is the statement that the Convention of Royal Burghs was opposed to this proposal in 1913. But there has been a tremendous change in public opinion since 1913 or there would not be some of the trouble which there is now in this House The change of public opinion which has sent a different type of representative into this House has sent a different type of representative into our local bodies, and if this question were discussed at the present time the unanimity described by the Solicitor-General as existing in 1913 would no longer be found to exist. There are also changed industrial conditions. There are changed hours in connection with the work of the labouring classes, and the very fact that such a large number of constituencies in the rural districts, in particular in Scotland, took full advantage of the extended hours applicable to Parliamentary contests proves to me at least—and I trust it will prove to this House—that, given the opportunity of the extension of the hours for municipal elections, candidates and agents of candidates taking part in municipal elections would take the same advantage as candidates and agents take for Parliamentary purposes. There are thousands of miners who have great difficulty in getting to the poll by 8 o'clock. We have various shifts in the Scottish mining districts which make it very difficult, because of the long distances they have to go, and it makes it more difficult to take part in the municipal elections. It is not making it compulsory. We are only asking that the concession shall be granted if the candidate or agent on behalf of the candidate makes application for the extension of the hours. There was not a single argument addressed upstairs against the extension of the hour so confident was the Solicitor-General that the powers were there. Now, when we get a communication from an official of the Convention of Royal Burghs relating to an historic fact dating back ten years
  398
  ago, this House is seriously told that this is the opinion of the Convention of Royal Burghs. I suggest to the House that it is not the opinion, and I think I can speak with as much authority as the Solicitor-General, with all due deference to him. I trust that after giving no argument upstairs the Government at least will not take the advantage of having, shall I say, the English Members voting on a Scottish question and against the expressed opinion of Scottish Members.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The Solicitor-General says he had an open mind. Has he nothing to say against the merits of the proposal that has been moved? He suggests that he has changed his mind. He has changed it because of the representation made to him by the Convention of Royal Burghs. But it has been rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Peebles and Southern (Mr. Westwood) that the Convention of Royal Burghs has not had an opportunity of dealing with this matter, because they have not met. The whole thing is now apparently in the hands of the officials. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that even when the Royal Convention did discuss this question there were only 120 of them who gave a reply, according to the statement given by the Solicitor-General himself. I am sure the Solicitor-General is aware that there are nearly 300 members of the Royal Convention of Burghs in Scotland—I am giving round figures—and only 120 gave an answer even 10 years ago when the question was being discussed. I would submit to the Solicitor-General who is representing Scotland on the Government Benches on this question, that it should be treated on its merits. There is no question of doubt that there is a very considerable difference in the position, so far as facilities for voting are concerned, now in municipal and other local council elections as compared with 10 years ago. This statement is perfectly true. If the Solicitor-General had made the least attempt to make inquiry as to that aspect of the question, he would discover that the conditions and circumstances now were such as entitled us to claim that the same facilities should be given to the local elections as were given in Parliamentary Elections. Practically in every constitu-

  399
  ency as recently as last November, the polling hours were extended to 9 o'clock, and in my own constituency there were numbers of men and women who did not vote because they were unable to get there in time even for 9 o'clock. I am sure it must be very much worse in a city, such as Glasgow. We have thousands of men in the mining occupation who live in Glasgow and who travel 12, 13, 14, and even 18 miles to their work, and it is absolutely impossible for these men to take part in the municipal elections if the hours were not extended, and in view of the change that has taken place in the industrial conditions, I hope that the Solicitor-General, who has not said anything against the reasonableness of the proposal, will agree to accept the Amendment; and I am sure he will find that he will be conceding something that will meet with the best wishes of the large majority of the people in every part of Scotland.
  Captain BENN:I think we ought to clear up the first question raised by the hon. Member for Peebles and Southern Midlothian (Mr. Westwood). Did the Solicitor-General say that the ad hoe expression of opinion was practically unanimous of the Burghs of Scotland against this Amendment? I understand from the figures that he gave that on this particular Amendment the opinion of the Burghs of Scotland had been canvassed and had been found practically unanimous against the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman says that no such communication has been made. I think the Solicitor-General should tell us is this the opinion of the Convention of Royal Burghs or of other points, or is it merely the record of an opinion which was held ten years ago communicated to him in reference to this Amendment by some official? Even so, the argument lacks weight because what an Electoral Bill should do is not to consult a Convention only by officials, but to give the electors the fullest possible opportunity of expressing their opinion. That is the obvious aim of any Bill and that was the reason in 1913 the Government of that day passed this Extension of Polling Hours Bill But there is a further point which I wish to put. Upstairs in Committee this Amendment might have been carried if it had been
  400
  pressed. After all, it is a Scottish affair. It does not concern English affairs at all, and how does it concern the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson)—[An HON. MEMBER: "Purely an antiquarian interest."] It is purely a Scottish affair and would have been settled in the Scottish Committee in the sense in which the Mover of the Amendment desired, but he withdrew the Amendment under the impression that the Solicitor-General was going to consider the point. But being so, it would be very unfair now that we come down to the full House to find that it is to be rejected by the votes of English Members.
  It would be extremely unfair if Scottish Members, who had a Committee set up so that Scottish opinion should prevail in Scottish affairs, should be voted down by English Members. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to grace one of his last appearances in this House before his lamented departure by allowing the Whips to be taken off so that the House should vote freely. I would ask him not to use the force of an English majority to do a thing Scotland does not desire.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I have had experience of the actual operation of the present system of hours of polling, and I have also been a representative to this much-discussed Convention of Royal Burghs. I know how little worth its opinion generally is upon these matters, particularly a ten-years-old opinion sent by the permanent official who is the Convention of Royal Burghs for eleven months and three weeks a year. The point I would like to make is that if an elector goes into the polling booth at 7.30, he may have to wait in the lobby, or he may actually get into the booth, but if his voting paper is not in his hand at eight o'clock he is turned out of the door when the clock strikes and is forbidden to vote. I have seen over 100 electors turned out of one polling booth, though many of them had been there for half an hour. Who could justify that? I venture to say there is no Liberal, Conservative or Labour candidate who has not had experience of that kind of thing and who is not whole-heartedly in favour of such an alteration as has been moved to-night. The Solicitor-Gentral reads an answer from the secretary of the Convention of Royal Burghs; why does he not write to

  401
  the Town Clerk of Glasgow, Edinburgh, or somebody who knows something about it? That is his only argument for preventing this necessary reform. It is not a political thing at all. The only objection he has got is this pettifogging reply from the secretary to the Convention of Royal Burghs, and I hope he will give in to the unanimous opinion of the Scottish Members of this House, and let us have this much-desired reform.
  There is only one other point I wish to press. It is that owing to the present housing shortage in many areas, it is now necessary for thousands of workmen to work many miles away from home. Many of them have to go long train journeys to their work. These men are released at 5.30 or 6 o'clock at night. Some of them have to come 14, 15 or 20 miles to their homes. They cannot possibly be at the polling booths before 7.30, 7.45 or 8 o'clock. If there is a crush at the polling booth, as there often is at that time, and they do not happen to be given their polling papers before eight o'clock, they are turned out. I have seen what has bordered on a riot. I hope the Solicitor-General will not regard this as a political matter, but yield to the pressure brought to bear upon him by the Scottish Members. This reform will be universally accepted in Scotland despite the opinion of the Permanent Secretary of the Convention of Royal Burghs on a matter brought up ten years ago.
  Mr. SULLIVAN:I only rise in order to be fair to the Solicitor-General. I was opposed in the Committee to the compulsory extension of the time. His opinion was that they had the right to apply for an extension of time. He was, admittedly, wrong. I want to remind him that this Clause does not make it compulsory. The district which does not require an extension will not apply for it. I think, under the circumstances, it would be wise to give way to Scottish opinion on the point.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I think the Solicitor-General is under a moral obligation to accept this Amendment which the Committee would have carried had it not been for his assurance that he would look into the matter. We assumed that if, on looking into the matter, he found that this was not in spirit the law he would, on Report, make provision for it.
  402
  That was the understanding. Now he has looked into the question and finds there is no such provision and no way of making use of such a provision in town council elections. He was under a moral obligation, as soon as he discovered that he was wrong, to accept this Amendment. We had his sympathy and support, and it was only a case of taking a wrong view of the law. He asked us to postpone the matter until the Report stage, and we understood that if he was wrong he would make provision for what we desired. Now he resists it on the ground that 10 years ago the Convention of Royal Burghs was of opinion that it was act necessary. The whole trend of opinion is that with the increased number of voters there is increased necessity for extension, especially for those voters who have fewest facilities for getting to the poll. If what we asked is passed, Scotland would support it. It is only optional, and I appeal to the Solicitor-General not to resist this reasonable Amendment.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND:It is very necessary to get this Bill through before the November elections for the town councils, as there is a number of provisions for the improvement of the electoral machinery. I stated in Committee that I would consider the matter as against Report, and I would like the House to look at the thing with a perfectly unbiased mind. I have done my best to get into touch with the opinion of municipalities. I have no single representation in favour of this change.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN:Did you write to any of the municipalities or merely to the Convention of Royal Burghs?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND:We communicated with the Convention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !'] One must do one's best. There was another matter on which it was suggested by hon. Members themselves that I should ask the Convention's opinion. One knows that the representatives of the Scottish cities have been meeting together. It has never been suggested by anyone that they are in favour of this proposed change. The matter was perfectly clear in 1913, for the Annual Committee of the Convention passed a unanimous resolution opposing the polling extension, and they sent a petition to Parliament

  403
  against it. There has not been a word uttered by any town council in Scotland since 1913 in support of the change which was mooted for the first time in Committee last week. I am told that opinion is the same in Scotland as it was 10 years ago when they strongly opposed it. I am anxious to get this Bill through in time for the November elections, and if there is a well-founded desire for the change I have no wish to oppose it If there is such a desire in the future I shall be prepared at a later date to consider the matter and introduce legislation to meet it. All the Burghs are represented on the Convention and I have done my best to find out what Scottish opinion is.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I know the Solicitor-General does not wish to misrepresent any communication that has come to him from the officials of the Convention, but I have an excerpt from the letter sent to the Solicitor-General, and there is not a single statement or reference in that to what the Convention thinks now. It all refers to what took place in 1913.
  Dr. CHAPPLE:The promise given by the Solicitor-General was not to consult opinion in Scotland but to ascertain whether he was right in his interpretation of the law. The Solicitor-General gave us a certain interpretation of the law, and he said he would consider whether it was a right one. Now he finds that he was wrong.
  Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member allowed to make his speech twice over?
  Mr. SPEAKER: On the questions arising out of the Solicitor-General's reply the hon. Member cannot make a second speech.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND: I do not desire to prolong the discussion further. According to the best information I have the Municipalities of Scotland are strongly opposed to this change. Hon. Members may think my information inadequate, but it is the best information I have at the moment. I shall go carefully into the matter. I cannot accept the Clause just now, but if I find there is any widespread desire for it, I will try to meet the wishes of hon. Members and I shall
  404
  see that steps are taken to amend the law at a later date.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: I want to ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Only the hon. Member the Mover of the Clause is entitled to speak a second time, not any other Member.
  Mr. MACLEAN:There are some other Members who wish to speak, and I will reserve what I have to say to a later stage.
  Captain BENN:Is there any way in which we can move for the Recommittal of this Bill or part of the Bill, in order that Scottish public opinion can be ascertained.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no method at this stage.
  Mr. PRINGLE: We must come to the conclusion that the position is unsatisfactory. We have had a conflict of views as to what took place in Committee. It is represented by the Solicitor-General—quite honestly, I think—that the understanding was that he was to ascertain local opinion in Scotland. That is his statement. On the other hand, hon. Members on this side of the House, both above and below the Gangway, are clearly of opinion that in the discussion on Tuesday the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Clause merely gave effect to the law as it at present stands, and it was on that ground and on his undertaking to ascertain that that view was correct that the Clause was withdrawn in order to make clear what the law was.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  I really am desirous to get to the bottom of this matter, and to get further information from Scotland, and I there fore propose to adjourn the Debate until Monday.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (30th July).

  RAILWAY FIRES ACT (1905) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.
  Ordered, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Brigadier-General Clifton Brown]
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.
  Lords Amendment:
  After Clause 3 insert

  CLAUSE 4.—(Act not retrospective.)
  This Act shall not apply in the case of any fire which has occurred before the passing of this Act.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The Farmers Union, who are the promoters of this Bill, have no desire to make these Clauses retrospective, and the railway authorities do not wish it either. The Amendment merely gives effect to this understanding and removes all ambiguity.

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1921–22. Votes.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guards, and Royal Marines.

  —

  161,859

  3

  7

  2

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  1,201,519

  2

  9

  —

  3

  Medical Establishments and Services

  76,765

  7

  9

  —

  4

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  —

  91,243

  7

  4

  5

  Educational Services

  59,907

  19

  0

  —

  6

  Scientific Services

  89,424

  16

  2

  —

  7

  Royal Naval Reserves

  120,544

  5

  2

  —

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

  I. Personnel

  1,155,411

  14

  7

  —

  II. Matériel

  3,247,729

  7

  7

  —

  III. Contract Work

  811,863

  10

  3

  —

  9

  Naval Armaments

  672,532

  6

  11

  —

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad.

  1,100,115

  1

  7

  —

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  —

  713,513

  18

  4

  12

  Admiralty Office

  —

  27,841

  6

  4

  13

  Half Pay and Retired Pay

  68,299

  7

  1

  —

  14

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.

  122,131

  17

  6

  —

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.

  —

  203,993

  8

  0

  —

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  —

  69,934

  19

  11

  Total

  8,726,244

  16

  4

  1,268,386

  3

  6

  NET SURPLUS

  £7,457,858 12 10

  The First Lord of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I beg to move "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
  This is a purely formal Resolution, which gives the final authority and

  NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1921–1922.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  "Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1922, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total difference between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  8,726,244

  16

  4

  Total Deficits

  1,268,386

  3

  6

  Net Surplus

  £7,457,858 12 10

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  1.0 A.M.
  sanction of this House to the provisional permission given during the financial year 1921–1922 from the Treasury to the Admiralty to utilize surpluses on one Vote for tempo-

  407
  rary deficits on the other Votes. Without that permissive authority, of course, it would be necessary to come to this House continually for small Supplementary Estimates on small individual Votes. But in order to maintain the authority of this House and to make it clear as to the permission of the Treasury, it is laid down, I think by the Monk Resolution in 1879, that after permission has been given and the Treasury Minutes embodying it have been laid on the Table of this House, and the subsequent passing of the whole of these Votes by the Public Accounts Committee, that a formal Resolution should be tabled in order that the House may formally ratify the action of the Treasury.
  Captain BENN: The First Lord is going rather far when he says this is a purely formal proceeding. By the rules that govern the accounts of this country the fighting services have the power, although money is voted for one purpose, to apply it to some other purpose in excess of what the House has already granted. That is to say we voted so much money for "The wages of officers, seamen and boys," and the Admiralty have spent more money than this House authorised, but inasmuch as they have spent less on "Victualling and Clothing" they have not had to come to Parliament for authority. If this House is to retain an effective control they cannot regard the transfer of a sum from one account to another as a formal matter. In respect to one of these items, namely the deficit on the wages of the men, I want to ask the First Lord a question. I understand that he has an excess of men in his employment, in excess of requirements, and in anticipation of a decision which it is hoped will be arrived at by the Imperial Defence Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: How does this come under the accounts of the year before last?
  Captain BENN: It may be that these men were not being kept in excess of rquirements in the year before last. If the First Lord says they were not kept in the year before last, I shall not pursue the point. I will ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether that condition existed last year, and whether he kept these officers and men, and thereby
  408
  created this deficit in view of this anticipated decision?
  Mr. AMERY: No.
  Captain BENN: If that be so, then my further remarks would be out of order.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation regarding the deficiency. I understand that under Vote 1 the net expenditure exceeded the Exchequer grant by £161,859 3s. 7d. With regard to the Admiralty Office, there was a deficiency of £27,841 6s. 4d., and on a similar matter, civilians employed on Fleet services, there is a deficit of £91,243 7s. 4d. On the Admiralty Office and the civilians employed on the Fleet, we are dealing with matters on which the Geddes Committee reported there ought to have been economies, and in these circumstances we are entitled to some explanation as to why the actual expenditure exceeded the grants made by this House. It is very important that we should know. We are delighted to know that on so many Votes there were surpluses and surpluses which cover a great deal more than the deficit to which I have referred, but I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to explain at least the variations under these particular Votes.
  Mr. HARDIE: I would like for the purposes of information to ask the First Lord a question. I would like him to explain what is the system under which, when money is voted by the House of Commons to his Department and there is a surplus under one head, it is used for another purpose. In ordinary business, when there is a surplus, it comes back to its source for re-allocation; but here it seems that when once money is voted to a Department they can spend a surplus as if it had been voted for other purposes. I do not know what the difference may be between conducting a private business and a Government Department and that is why I am asking the question, but it seems to me that there is no logic in saying that the Government have absolute control over finance unless when a certain sum is specified to be spent on a certain thing and is, not so spent, the money comes back to its source because it has not been applied under the grant given by the House. Therefore I would like to be clear as to what is the law that gives power to any Government Department so to spend a surplus.

  409
  The next point is as to educational services and scientific services. What is the distinction between the two? Is it that the educational side is applied to training for the Navy and the scientific side is payment for these educated men?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question that ought to be raised on the original vote. The hon. Member is entitled to ask why there should be a surplus, but he is not entitled to discuss the whole of the naval votes.
  Mr. HARDIE: The next point is the amount written off as irrecoverable. How is it that a Department that gets sums of money voted to it comes to be in a position to have something written off as irrecoverable? I understand that: the Department does not do business, and, therefore, I want to know how it comes to be that an amount is written off as irrecoverable.
  Mr. AMERY: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) asked for an explanation of one or two of the deficiences with regard to Vote 1, deficiency mainly due to expenditure having been more than was anticipated on account of special pay that had been given during the year, and to an underestimate of the average rates of pay and allowances. Vote A gives the maximum figure of the Estimate; Vote 1 is based on the anticipated average. But, of course, if men are not reduced as rapidly as was expected, and others are taken on more rapidly than was anticipated, the average calculation will not be quite correct. The other is Vote 11, dealing with the hire of vessels taken up during the War. During 1921–22 we were still dealing with a good many outstanding claims from the War, and in respect of some of them we were able to liquidate more than we hoped to liquidate during the year. In others we were not able to get through as many accounts as was expected, and the liquidation of them stood over till the following year.
  As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) with regard to amounts written off as irrecoverable, I am afraid that the Admiralty is, in this sense, very much of a trading Department, that it had, during the War, very large accounts and also contracts. It has had a great many claims against it, and also counter claims.
  Captain BENN: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Vote 8. This is the year which preceded the Washington Conference. In that year Members on this side repeatedly urged that four ships in the programme for that year should not be contracted for, because we said that when the Washington Conference met we might find that those ships would not be needed. The Government of that day, many Members of which are in the present Government, rejected that. Mr. Churchill's view was that we must have these orders placed in order, as he said, to have something to bargain with. When the Conference met it was decided that these four ships should be scrapped. The taxpayer would expect as a result of the agreement made at Washington that he would have back in the surplus the full amount of money voted in that year for expenditure on these ships. I understand we have not got the full amount back because the Government was foolish enough to give contracts for these four ships, although we were in sight of an agreement which made the building of the ships impossible. That being so, I want to ask how much expenditure is involved by the decision of the Government to place the orders for these four ships, and how much would have been saved had our advice been taken?
  Mr. AMERY: It is clearly impossible for me to give a precise figure, but I would certainly say that, if these ships had not been contracted for and definitely known to be building, it would have been far more difficult to arrive at an agreement at Washington. But, as the hon. and gallant Member will see, there are large surpluses mainly due to the stoppage of work on these ships, and the only reason why the saving falls short of the total of the previous estimates is the fact that certain sums have been paid in compensation.
  Captain BENN: How much?
  Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I cannot say precisely off hand.
  Captain BENN: Was it £100,000 or£500,000?
  Mr. AMERY: I ought to make it clear, that certain expenditure on armour for the four ships has been taken in conjunction with the orders for the two new ships.
  Mr. HARDIE: Can I have a reply to my question?
  Mr. AMERY: I thought I had really answered the question in my original explanation. If there is a surplus on one Vote the House has always allowed the Treasury provisionally to sanction the transfer from one Vote to another, subject to subsequently laying the matter before the House.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I have followed the right hon. Gentleman very closely, and the only thing I can gather from his reply is that he has spent more than he was at liberty to spend and he tries to explain it. He uses a lot of words, but the hard fact is that you have spent more than was passed. I do not think that his answer is at all clear.
  Question put, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  The Chairman stated that he thought the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and accordingly he called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NATIONAL DIAMOND FACTORY [GUARANTEE AGREEMENT].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient—

  (1) to confirm a certain agreement by
  which provision is made for the carrying on of a Diamond Factory with a view to promoting the employment of persons formerly engaged in war service;

  (2) to authorise the Treasury to give such guarantee as is provided for by the said agreement and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required for fulfilling the said guarantee."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

  The MINISTER OF LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I will endeavour as shortly as I can to explain the position
  412
  with regard to this Resolution. The White Paper circulated this morning puts the situation clearly, and I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee except for a very few moments. The history of this matter I think is known to most of the Members of this House. Sir Bernard Oppenheimer and his partners, Lewis and Marks, during the War started this factory. They founded the factory for two purposes. First of all, that it might be of assistance to the disabled ex-service men of the country, and, secondly, that we might have established in this country a new and a useful industry. Buildings were constructed and are very elaborate. They are fitted with the most modern appliances for the purpose of carrying on this work of diamond cutting. Not only that, they have convenience and opportunities for dealing with the disabilities of ex-service men if they require treatment. The premises were erected at a cost of £300,000, and for the purpose of the present negotiations they have been valued at £70,000. The disabled men who passed into this factory were selected from various parts of the country. A large number of men were trained or passed through the preliminary training, some 1,200 in all, and eventually the factory was operating with some 200 to 250 men. There is room for a great many more, up to about a thousand.
  The arrangement was that the men should be trained during a period of six to nine months, during which period the ordinary Government allowances and payments were made in respect of training. After that the trainee passed into the ordinary productive side of the factory, the conception being that the business should be conducted, from the first, on a productive basis and that the men should be paid by piece work, and as they became more expert, the amount of money they could make increased. Managers and instructors were obtained from Holland, and the idea was to establish in this country a permanent form of employment for these men. Unfortunately in the period of 1920–21–22 there was a very severe depression in the diamond industry, as there was in other industries, and the factory had to close down.
  There is no doubt the men made good. This was proved by two facts. The diamonds they had cut were selling on a

  413
  basis of equality in London and New York with those cut in Amsterdam. Further, a number of the men trained at Brighton were able to secure work in Amsterdam.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: How many?
  Mr. F. ROSE: Eighteen.
  Sir M. BARLOW: It is a question, fundamentally, of what should be done with those men who have been trained. You have some 250 ex-service men who have been trained in a lucrative employment and who are now thrown out of work. The matter was put before the Trade Facilities Committee, who were not unfavourably disposed, but the difficulty arose that what was desired, and what was necessary, in this case was something in the way of working capital. The Trade Facilities Act does not permit of money being used for working capital, and the Government decided, in the very special circumstances of this factory, not to make any advance by way of cash, but to give a guarantee. That was to be the subject of a proper arrangement and proper security.
  The three main reasons which led the Government to this decision were (1) that if the factory were closed down the training of 250 men already trained would be lost; (2) the men would have to be trained for some other occupation, involving a cost of probably £40,000, and even when they were trained there would then be no certainty of employment; and (3) there was the object of security for the men by giving them employment, and at the same time establishing a new industry in this country.
  What are the proposals? Messrs. Lewis and Marks are to provide the premises, plant, etc., free of all encumbrances, and a sum of £100,000—£50,000 in cash forthwith and £50,000 when called upon, and guaranteed meanwhile by a bank acceptable to the Treasury. The Government are to guarantee a sum of £150,000, which is to be a first charge upon the assets of the company, buildings, etc.
  The directors are to consist of three persons of distinction, Earl Haig, Lord Chichester and Sir W. Gentle; two directors, who will be business men, are to be appointed by the Government and two directors are to be appointed by Messrs. Lewis and Marks.
  414
  What is the protection for this Government guarantee? First, as I have already intimated—[Interruption.] The matter may be humorous for some hon. Members, but it is not humorous for the ex-service men.
  Mr. F. GRAY: Who guarantees employment?
  Sir M. BARLOW: Let us take what are the securities for the Government guarantee. There is the first charge on the building. It is provided that the whole of the £100,000 is working capital and none of it is available for acquiring the premises of the new company. There is a special arrangement for a continuous audit which will secure control. Not more than 50 per cent. of the profit can be paid out as dividends, the other 50 per cent. going to the reserve fund, and if the liquid assets, as defined in the agreement, fall below £200,000, or a loss is shown in any one year of £50,000, the Government can then set the terms of the agreement in motion, in fact, foreclose and take the premises over.
  What are the arguments against this proposal? It is said there is no necessity for this arrangement, that if the proposal is a good one on the business side the company can raise money in the City. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I see that that meets with a certain amount of support. The answer is that under the agreement as it stands we secure that none but ex-service men are employed. If the company goes into the City for money you have no such security.
  Mr. PRINGLE: They are the only people who have been trained.
  Sir M. BARLOW: It is, obviously, perfectly easy for the company, unless there is a guarantee of this kind, not to, as in times past, feel themselves bound to employ ex-service men. The obligation to employ them is in the forefront of the agreement, and it is in respect of that that the Government guarantee is proposed to be given. It is also said that this is assisting private enterprise. Of course it is. The whole of the trade facilities work is assisting private enterprise. That assistance was originally up to £25,000,000, and was then extended to a guarantee of £50,000,000.
  The only two questions with regard to this agreement are: Has this business a fair chance of success; is it a reasonable

  415
  business proposition; and have the Government reasonable security with regard to the guarantee? Take only one evidence of that. There are two Dutchmen who have spent their lives in this industry and have for the last two years managed the factory. They have satisfied themselves that diamonds, as cut at Brighton, can compete with the diamonds of the world. They believe so firmly in this concern that they are willing to throw in their lot with its future. Not only that, but it has to be borne in mind that while there was, two or three years ago, a slump in diamonds, that is not the case to-day. The second question is whether the Government is to be secured. I have mentioned the various points. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is its value?"] It is a very simple calculation. It is not unfair to put the value of the £300,000 buildings at £70,000, and there is, in addition, the £100,000 in capital brought in, and the money raised under the guarantee which will amount to a quarter of a million pounds. That will be used in the form of diamonds for cutting.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Did I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the two gentlemen were Messrs. Lewis and Marks?
  Sir M. BARLOW: One word in conclusion. I have full authority for the statement I am going to make now. I mentioned that Sir R. Kindereley and Sir William Plender were good enough to give their advice during the negotiations, and I have their authority to state that they consider the agreement as embodied in the Schedule of the Bill provides reasonable security for loss from a business point of view. I only want to make one appeal. It is quite right, of course, that we should consider this matter from the business side, and I quite agree there is a certain amount of risk involved, but Members of the Committee must bear in mind that this is a very vital matter to the 200 or 250 ex-service men who have been trained and look to it as their means of livelihood, and we hope it will be the means of livelihood to a very much larger number.
  Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Is it not a fact that the company has lost money since its inception?
  Sir M. BARLOW: I have already explained to the Committee that when the slump came the company could not carry on.
  Sir F. SANDERSON: Cannot the Rt. hon. Gentleman produce a balance sheet, or has he himself had an opportunity of perusing the balance sheets of the Company?
  Sir M. BARLOW: Balance sheets, I understand, were produced to the members of the Trade Facilities Committee, who throughout have given their expert skill and advice on the matter.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I do hope the Committee will not be misled by the speech it has just heard. I am afraid the Minister of Labour was rather upset by a certain amount of hilarity. I should like to explain that we were not laughing at the wounds received by our comrades in France, but at the close of the negotiations which have come to a head here to-night. We are also inclined to laugh when we see the Minister of Labour fighting the same tactics in this Government as in the last, that is to say, introducing Measures for which he can only get loyal support from one side of the House, namely, the Labour party. Again and again, we saw that in the last Parliament. They brought in Measures which supporters of the Coalition thought to be unwise, and again and again they were obliged to whip the Labour party to get their Measures through. Everything in this case depends on one thing, whether this diamond trade is undergoing a temporary slump or whether the slump will continue, as it probably will, for generations. The slump is not as bad as it was in 1922, but is there any reason whatsoever to suppose that the present slightly better condition of the diamond trade is going to be anything better than ephemeral and likely to continue? As many hon. Members know most of the diamond mines were shut down at Kimberley and the former German South-West African mines. Surely, having regard to the present state of Europe and the world generally, it is perfectly futile to come to us and say that the diamond industry is going to improve so enormously that a firm, which from its inception has had very heavy losses indeed, is now going to become a paying concern. We have heard of the

  417
  wonderful profits which were going to be made in cellulose phosphate, beet sugar and other things, and in every case it was the taxpayer who had to suffer. Is there any reason to suppose that any profit of any sort will be made on the present transaction? Who are the gentlemen who are to have this large sum of money? We know Sir Bernard Oppenheimer was a gentleman of strong philanthropic energy, and he tried to make a success of it. It was very largely the failure of this great scheme of his that actually accelerated his death. But who are Messrs. Lewis and Marks? Is their record the same as that of Sir Bernard Oppenheimer? Have they shown throughout their lives the high degree of public spirit and desire to benefit their fellow men? I think these things might very well be inquired into and that opinion might be got, not only from the Trade Facilities Committee, but from the City and elsewhere. I hope the taxpayers' money will be protected from wild-cat schemes developed by semi-Socialistic Ministers in this House.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: When a Minister appeals to the House on behalf of ex-service men, he finds a response from every quarter, but when the Minister of Labour proceeded to-night to make out his case he must have felt the sense of the Committee to be against him, in that he felt there was to be an expense to the taxpayer which was not commensurate with the benefits to be derived. The diamond industry in this country has not been one which ever was or can be on a profitable basis. One may as well face the facts. In other countries it is profitable to have certain industries, and this particular industry belongs to Amsterdam, for the simple reason that the skill and fine margin of cost which is necessary for the production of diamonds enables it to be produced nowhere else at a price to be sold successfully in the market. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) said the real question was, whether the slump in the diamond market was temporary or likely to be permanent. I really do not think that is the question at all, because, if the diamond market should recover, it is still true that the records of the company owning the factory at Brighton show that Amsterdam will undersell and
  418
  undercut us every time. Two hundred men alone are involved and £150,000 of public money—not the whole of it, I agree, but there is a guarantee of £150,000—is being risked in regard to 200 men, which works out at £750 per head. At 5 per cent. there is a permanent endowment of £37 10s. for them, and a capital sum of £750 to leave to their dependants. If the Treasury wishes, for the sake of these 200 men, to give a capital sum of £750 each, they can do so and bring complete happiness into their lives by thus assuring them a certain sum every year and a comfortable sum to leave to their dependants. We would then have the Government free from this interference with trade, trade which is not on a commercial basis, trade which they have no Ministers or officials to conduct, trade which they can give us no evidence will be a success. This large sum of money is the last—perhaps it would be too optimistic to say the last—the latest instance of a contribution from our national resources to the many millions spent similarly, the record of which in our history is deplorable.
  Of all the fantastic schemes produced from the Treasury Bench this is really the reductio ad absurdum of Governmental interference with business. This is the least businesslike and most foolish proposition we have heard. This £150,000 is the latest attack on our national resources. If this is a business proposition we are considering, why was the factory never a success when there was a boom in diamonds and when diamonds were 300 per cent., even 500 or 600 per cent. higher in price. The fact is that there was not even the capacity to take advantage of it. Now when the slump has come and Amsterdam is able to cut cheaper than ever and their prices are cheaper than ever, the British Government is willing to stand in and risk £150,000 of the taxpayers' money in an enterprise which failed from the beginning when directed by men on business principles. I hope the Committee will not consider this as a party matter or be swayed by sentiment as to what we would like to do for these 200 ex-service men. There is no one who would not like to follow the Minister of Labour in anything that is just to these men. We want to be more than just and a little wise. A scheme so fantastic has not been presented to us since the War. This is a scheme with

  419
  a bad past. It really has no hope for the future. My right hon. Friend never went so far as to state that when this money comes, it would be a paying business and he skated quickly over the thin ice as to why this money was not being found privately. It is said that £70,000 is the value of this factory when it has its doors shut. Would you get £7,000 for it, without any good will, with diamonds in Africa and Amsterdam which it does not pay to cut? Lewis and Marks are one of the leading firms in the world. Does anyone suggest that they are in such indigent circumstances, or so baffled and harassed by their bankers, that they could not raise any resources necessary for this purpose? If this were a business and a business proposition the proposal would have come from Messrs. Lewis and Marks on their own to purchase the factory and run a profitable business. They know it is not going to be a profitable business and the right hon. Member knows it. What is the good of the opinion of the two chartered accountants? Two very respectable gentlemen, and we are delighted to have their opinion, but—
  Sir M. BARLOW: Sir Robert Kindersley is not a chartered accountant.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: But Sir William Plender is a very distinguished accountant. It would have been interesting if Sir Robert Kindersley had expressed his opinion as a business man on it as a business, but he has had too much experience, and all Sir William Plender said was that he thought there was some reasonable security—a non-committal statement which we appreciate, and appreciate at its true value. One great expert told the Government they could lend millions to a firm which is not worth thousands now. Such experts have been ennobled and enriched. One gentleman got a peerage for telling the Government that Germany could pay thousands of millions. I think the right hon. Gentleman feels that the House has supported him in the efforts he has made to improve the condition of ex-service men whenever he makes an appeal to the House for them and every section then gives him its sympathy and support, but we do not think he ought to have dragged up the spectre of 200 men already broken
  420
  in strength and disappointed at the collapse of this scheme and suggest that because of this spectre the Government ought to be committed to the folly of a guarantee of £150,000 on a business whose past and whose future on the known condition of trade gives us no reason to suppose it is a proper enterprise for either a Government or a private individual.
  2.0 A.M
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: The Debate has shown that this matter requires the fullest consideration. I am surprised that a question of this kind should be brought on at this time of the Session. As was said by the Minister, this would have to go through five stages in the House. I agree with the last speaker that this is a very considerable sum of money for the benefit of 200 men. It would, in fact, pay these men nearly £3 a week each for five years. I wonder if the Minister in charge suggests that this scheme would enable this factory to keep going for five years. Which is the more likely to succeed: To put these men on to some useful work at £3 a week for five years or to trust to this factory keeping them employed for five years? My right hon. Friend did not at all fully explain the scheme. I think the House ought really to be told before it passes a grant—may I call it a dole?—much more fully what really is intended. According to this memorandum a company is to be formed with 500,000 £1 shares. Messrs. Lewis and Marks are to take up 100,000 of these on which they are to pay ten shillings a share. What happens to the other 400,000 shares? Who gets these? Are they to be allotted to anybody? If they are not intended to be allotted, why are they in the scheme at all? What provision is made for the purchase price of the factory? Does it come out of the £200,000 raised by the loan plus the £50,000 or in some other way? Does the factory become the property of the new company, or does it become the property of Messrs. Lewis and Marks? All these things require the fullest explanation. I do not want to take up the time of the House by asking a long series of questions, but I do want to suggest that this is a matter that ought to be adjourned until the House has had a full opportunity of considering this memorandum and the points that arise on it.

  421
  I want to put forward one other point that ought to be considered. This trade, if carried on at all, is a luxury trade; it is not a necessity, and if there is any prospect for it at all in this country—if it really can, in fact, be successfully carried on—surely there are those in this country who will carry it on, provided they are protected from alien competition, and, instead of resorting to an extravagant-subsidy of this kind, this is one of the cases that can be assisted in this country without charging the taxpayer by imposing a suitable duty on the imported article.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is introducing rather extraneous matter
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I do not want to pursue that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in examining this Resolution, not entitled to refer to alternative forms of assistance whereby the object can be better secured?
  Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I do not want to pursue that; I merely mentioned it because I believe there are other means by which this industry could be supported. What I do want to do is to ask the Government in view of the issues involved to adjourn this discussion until a more suitable time.
  Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  It will be present to the minds of all what took place at Question Time to-day The Prime Minister, with regard to this
  422
  Bill, said that facilities would be given, but that it would be quite impossible to carry it unless it were substantially a noncontentious Bill. I think it is fairly clear from what has taken place that it can hardly be described as noncontentious. I would like to say that it is quite clear from the last speech made that, possibly because there has not been much time to consider the matter, the full effect of the agreement has not been appreciated. The questions asked by the last speaker show that there has not been time for Members to consider the matter. In view of the shortness of the time, and of the fact that the course of the Debate has shown that the matter is not entirely noncontentious, I think the proper course would be to accept the suggestion of the last hon. Member. I therefore beg to move to report Progress, and, if necessary, the matter can be reconsidered subsequently.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Two o'clock a.m.

ROYAL NAVY.
  VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
  VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
  GRETNA FACTORY (EMPLOYEÉS).
  GRETNA FACTORY (EMPLOYEÉS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
  MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
  ONE O'CLOCK GUN, EDINBURGH.
  ONE O'CLOCK GUN, EDINBURGH.
  WAR MEDALS.
  WAR MEDALS.
  PAY.
  PAY.
  RICHBOROUGH (CONTRACT).
  RICHBOROUGH (CONTRACT).
  STATE PRINTING (PRISON CALENDARS).
  STATE PRINTING (PRISON CALENDARS).
  WAR RISKS COMPENSATION SCHEME.
  WAR RISKS COMPENSATION SCHEME.
  DOCK WORKERS' DISPUTE (FOOD LOSSES).
  DOCK WORKERS' DISPUTE (FOOD LOSSES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (FOREIGN MOTOR TYRES).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (FOREIGN MOTOR TYRES).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTED FIREARMS.
  IMPORTED FIREARMS.
  RUBBER EXPORTS (UNITED STATES).
  RUBBER EXPORTS (UNITED STATES).
  FANCY LEATHER INDUSTRY (GERMAN COMPETITION).
  FANCY LEATHER INDUSTRY (GERMAN COMPETITION).
  DOMINIONS (CONTRACTS).
  DOMINIONS (CONTRACTS).
TRANSPORT.
  HORSE TRAFFIC (SLIPPERY ROADS).
  HORSE TRAFFIC (SLIPPERY ROADS).
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  POLICE ON POINT DUTY (WHITE OVERALLS).
  POLICE ON POINT DUTY (WHITE OVERALLS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN, LIVERPOOL.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN, LIVERPOOL.
  TRADE DISPUTES (BENEFIT)
  TRADE DISPUTES (BENEFIT)
  BUILDING TRADES.
  BUILDING TRADES.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OF MEDICAL SERVICE.
  DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OF MEDICAL SERVICE.
EDUCATION.
  NEWNHAM AND GIRTON COLLEGES.
  NEWNHAM AND GIRTON COLLEGES.
  PROPOSED NEW SCHOOLS, EPSOM.
  PROPOSED NEW SCHOOLS, EPSOM.
  ASSISTANT INSPECTORS (SALARIES).
  ASSISTANT INSPECTORS (SALARIES).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SAFETY FIRST CAMPAIGN).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SAFETY FIRST CAMPAIGN).
POST OFFICE.
  FOREIGN OFFICE NEWS BULLETINS.
  FOREIGN OFFICE NEWS BULLETINS.
  LEAFIELD WIRELESS STATION.
  LEAFIELD WIRELESS STATION.
  PARCEL POST (RAGS).
  PARCEL POST (RAGS).
  OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, WANDSWORTH.
  OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, WANDSWORTH.
  SORTING CARRIAGE SERVICE, INVERNESS AND WICK.
  SORTING CARRIAGE SERVICE, INVERNESS AND WICK.
  CABLE DEPARTMENT (WOMEN).
  CABLE DEPARTMENT (WOMEN).
  POOR LAW RELIEF, LIVERPOOL (MR. J. NIELD).
  POOR LAW RELIEF, LIVERPOOL (MR. J. NIELD).
  DEATH FROM STARVATION, WINCHESTER.
  DEATH FROM STARVATION, WINCHESTER.
  HOUSING SUBSIDY (CAPITALISATION).
  HOUSING SUBSIDY (CAPITALISATION).
  SMALL-POX (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  SMALL-POX (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  WATER SUPPLY, SALTBURN.
  WATER SUPPLY, SALTBURN.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, without amendment.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That the Order made on the 26th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second time after Thursday the 14th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (1924) INCORPORATED (MEMORANDUM AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is unable to be here this afternoon, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is taken to-day because seven days have to be allowed before Committee stage for possible petitions to be laid against the Bill. It will be remembered that, towards the end of last year, certain matters concerning the administration of the British Empire Exhibition, which had been the subject of considerable comment for some time, came to a head. In consequence of representations made by the executive council of the exhibition, the President of the Board of Trade directed an Inquiry to be held by Sir William Joynson-Hicks, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. The Inquiry was not completed until January 31, 1923. In accordance with the recommendations contained in paragraph 35 of the Report by Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Sir James Stevenson took office as Chairman of the executive council of the exhibition and Sir Travers Clarke was appointed Deputy Chairman of the executive council. It is this post of Deputy Chairman which Sir William Joynson-Hicks recommended should be a full time post with adequate remuneration. Sir Travers Clarke assumed duty on or about February 28 last, and the Bill now submitted is intended to authorise the payment of his salary.
The first task that the board brought into being by the recommendations of the Joynson-Hicks Report and confirmed by resolution of the executive council set itself, was to examine in detail the activities in connection with the development of the British Empire Exhibition. It became early apparent that the undertaking, from a relatively small beginning, had expanded and was still expanding to a size out of all proportion to the original conception. The management and direction of such a vast undertaking was clearly beyond the powers of one individual, however great his abilities, to perform single-handed. In the opinion of the board it was essential in the interests of the exhibition, as well as of the general manager, that some lightening of the managerial burden should be devised.
1268
The constitution of the board itself, by which finance, management and executive duties were allocated to various members of the board, served to point the way by which this relief could best be effected, and after weighing all the considerations involved the board decided on an organisation, the main principle of which was the centralisation of certain functions of control in the members of the board. Time being such an essential factor in the development of the exhibition, an unimpeded channel of communication to the responsible members of the board was clearly of primary importance if avoidable delay was to be prevented. In fact, in their unanimous opinion, success cannot be obtained by any other method. As the terms of the general manager's original agreement conferred certain exclusive powers of management upon him, inconsistent with the new arrangements considered by the board essential, it was mutually agreed to cancel the agreement with compensation for loss of office. Mr. Wintour's wide knowledge and valuable experience will, however, be retained for the benefit of the exhibition, as he has accepted the invitation of the board to act in an advisory capacity as consultant to the board.
Article IV of the Memorandum of Association of the British Empire Exhibition provides that no salary shall be paid to any member of the executive council. It has been advised that legislation is required for this purpose as the alteration which it is desired to make is not in regard to any of the objects of the Corporation, but is an alteration in the conditions on which the Board of Trade licence was granted. The proposal to legislate has been approved by the Cabinet.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will have listened with much interest to the lecture which has been addressed to us by the noble Earl, but you would have been better pleased if the Second Reading had been moved by the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is responsible for the Bill in this House. I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me for saying so. We ought to watch with some care the giving of such large salaries to various officials of exhibitions of this kind; and the noble Earl did not explain to us why it is that this Bill is introduced

1269
so late in the Session. We have been sitting since February, and there has been ample time for a Bill of this nature to be introduced and for your Lordships to have considered it. I understand that seven days are necessary before we can proceed with the next stage, and I must therefore enter a protest against your Lordships' House being expected to finish this Bill before we adjourn for the autumn.
This is a measure which originated in this House, and it is evident that we can hardly expect it to pass through all its stages in another place before we adjourn next week. In the absence of any further explanation as to how the delay in presenting this Bill has occurred, I think your Lordships should be allowed plenty of time before we proceed with the Third Reading. We must have an interval of seven days before the Committee stage, as the noble Earl has informed the House, and I think we should be allowed ample time for all stages. I hope it will not be pressed through both Houses of Parliament before we meet again in the autumn.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I am most anxious to meet the noble Earl. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is not able to be in his place at the moment, and if the noble Earl will mention the matter to-morrow, I will give him a definite answer.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Exclusion of dwelling-houses from application of principal Act in certain cases):
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) Where before the passing of this Act, the landlord of a dwelling-house to
1270
which the principal Act applies has granted to the tenant a valid lease of the dwelling-house for a term ending at some date after the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, or has entered into a valid agreement with the tenant for a tenancy for such a term, and the rent thereby reserved is reserved at a rate which after but not before such last mentioned date exceeds the standard rent and the increases permitted under the principal Act or this Act, the landlord may by three months' notice in writing expiring not earlier than the twenty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and not later than the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, determine the said lease or tenancy, provided that if within one month of the receipt of such notice the lessee or tenant shall give to the landlord notice in writing that he elects to abide by the said lease or agreement and the terms thereof, then the said lease or agreement shall remain in full force and effect in every respect including the amount of the rent thereby expressed to be reserved unaffected by the principal Act or this Act."
The noble Lord said: I move this new subsection in order to meet the point I raised on the Second Reading, when I said that I should like to see certain cases dealt with by the Bill. Supposing a lessor granted a lease on January 1, 1923, for five years until January 1, 1928, at a rent of £70 until June 30, 1923, when he expected the principal Act to expire, and a rent of £90 thereafter. Under Clause 1 of the Bill as it now stands the effect would be that the rent of £90 would be cut down to £70 until June 24, 1925. There seems to be a hardship in such a case. Under my Amendment a lease or agreement which was entered into before the passing of this Bill must be for a term which ends after June 24, 1923, and the rent, before June 24, must not exceed the standard rent, but after that date it can do so. Both parties knew what they were doing. Tenants, for their own protection, desired leases to go beyond June 24, 1923. Without my Amendment the lessee would, under the Bill, get the security of the longer term and other stipulated benefits, while the landlord would lose part of his rent. To make it fair all round the landlord must, under my Amendment, exercise his option to determine by a fixed time, that is to say, March 31, 1924, and the tenant ought to have the option of electing to stand by the lease at the agreed rent. The arrangement can be ended or confirmed by mutual arrangement. It has been suggested to me that it would be better

1271
if I moved this Amendment in the form of a new clause, rather than as a new subsection, with the marginal note "Determination of certain leases and tenancies." I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps my noble friend will tell me exactly what he has moved.
LORD DYNEVOR: I move this Amendment as a new clause after Clause 2.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: After Clause 2, or instead of Clause 2?
LORD DYNEVOR: It has been suggested that it should be an Amendment to Clause 2, but it might be settled afterwards exactly where it is to come in.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: No, I am afraid it must be settled now where it is to come in.
LORD DYNEVOR: I should prefer to move it as a subsection, but if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be good enough to say where he would like it to come in, I am quite ready to fall in with his view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If my noble friend will put it in after Clause 2, it can be put right on Report if it is found to be misplaced.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put the Question, then, that Clause 2 stand part.
On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps my noble friend Lord Dynevor will now move that the words as printed on the Paper be inserted after Clause 2 as a new clause.
LORD DYNEVOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): I am very glad to accept this clause in the form in which my noble friend has moved it, that is to
1272
say, with the addition suggested by the learned Government draftsman. There may be some drafting Amendments to make, but that, of course, can be done on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Restriction on right to possession.
3.—(1) Subsection (1) of Section five of the principal Act (which relates to restriction on right to possession) shall from and after the passing of this Act have effect subject to the following Amendments:—
(a) for paragraph (b) the following paragraph shall be substituted—
"(b) the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or being his sub-tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has, in the opinion of the court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, and, where such person is a lodger or sub-tenant, the court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant; or"
(b) for paragraph (d) the following paragraph shall be substituted—
"(d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or for any person bona fide residing with him or for some person engaged in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into and (except as otherwise provided by this subsection) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available which is reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character, and proximity to place of work and which consists either of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by the principal Act; or"
(c) for paragraph (e) the following paragraph shall he substituted—
"(e) the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of a local authority, or statutory undertaking, or for any purpose which, in the opinion of the court, is in the public interest, and the court in either case is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or"
(d) the following paragraphs shall be added at the end of paragraph (g)—
(h) "the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any time after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, assigned or sub-let the whole of the dwelling-house or sub-let part of the dwelling-house, the remainder being already sublet";
(i) the dwelling-house consists of or includes premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the tenant has committed an offence as holder of the licence or has not conducted the business to the satisfaction of the licensing justices or the police authority, or has carried it on in a manner detrimental to the public interest, or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused;
(e) in paragraph (ii) the words "or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for employment on such work has been entered into" shall be inserted after the word "holding."
(f) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (iv):—
"(iv) where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age and where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord, did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the court is satisfied that greater hardship would he caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it."
(2) Subsection (6) of Section five of the principal Act shall be extended—

(a) so as to apply in any case where the landlord has, after the passing of this Act, obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the said section, and it is subsequently made to appear
1274
to the court that the order or judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts; and

(b) so as to authorise the court, in addition to making an order for payment of compensation by the landlord to the former tenant, to direct that the dwelling-house shall not be excluded from the principal Act by reason of the landlord having come into possession thereof under the said order or judgment, and if such a direction is given the principal Act shall apply and be deemed to have applied to the dwelling-house as from the date mentioned in such direction.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out Clause 3 and insert the following now clause:—
Restriction on right to possession.
".The following section shall be substituted for section five of the principal Act, namely:—
"'5.—(1) No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—

"'(a) any rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid, or any other obligation of the tenancy (whether under the contract of tenancy or under this Act) so far as the same is consistent with the provisions of this Act has been broken or not performed; or

"'(b) the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or being his sub-tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has, in the opinion of the court, deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, and, where such person is a lodger or subtenant, the court is satisfied that the tenant has not, before the making or giving of the order or judgment, taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or sub-tenant; or

"'(c) the tenant has given notice to quit, and in consequence of that notice the landlord has contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house or has taken any other steps as a result of which he would, in the opinion of the court, be seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession;

1275

"'(d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age, or for any person bonâ fide residing with him, or for some person engaged in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into, and (except as otherwise provided by this subsection) the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available which is reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character, and proximity to place of work and which consists either of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by this Act in the case of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies; or

"'(e) the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of a local authority, or statutory undertaking, or for any purpose which, in the opinion of the court, is in the public interest, and the court in either case is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or

"'(f) the landlord became the landlord after service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war and requires the house for his personal occupation and offers the tenant accommodation on reasonable terms in the same dwelling-house, such accommodation being considered by the court as reasonably sufficient in the circumstances; or

"'(g) the dwelling-house is required for occupation as a residence by a former tenant thereof who gave up occupation in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war; or

"'(h) the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any time after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, assigned or sub-let the whole of the dwelling-house or sub-let part of the dwelling-house, the remainder being already sub-let; or

"'(i) the dwelling-house consists of or includes premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the tenant has committed an offence as holder of the licence or
1276
has not conducted the business to the satisfaction of the licensing justices or the police authority, or has carried it on in a manner detrimental to the public interest, or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused;

and, in any such case as aforesaid, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.
" 'The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this subsection—

"'(i) where the tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord, and the dwelling-house was let to him in consequence of that employment and he has ceased to he in that employment; or

"'(ii) where the court is satisfied by a certificate of the county agricultural committee, or of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries pending the formation of such committee, that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding, or with whom conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for employment on such work has been entered into; or

"'(iii) where the landlord gave up the occupation of the dwelling-house in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war; or

"'(iv) where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord became the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and the dwelling-house is reasonably required by him for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age; or

"'(v) where the landlord or the husband or wife of the landlord did not become the landlord before the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and the dwelling-house is reasonably required by him for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age, and the court is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it.

"'(2) At the time of the application for or the making or giving of any order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any such dwelling-house, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, or in the case of any such order or judgment which has been made or given, whether before or after

1277
the passing of this Act, and not executed at any subsequent time, the court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order or judgment, or postpone the date of possession for such period or periods as it thinks fit, and subject to such conditions (if any) in regard to payment by the tenant of arrears of rent, rent, or mesne profits and otherwise as the court thinks fit, and, if such conditions are complied with, the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order or judgment.
"'(3) Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passing of this Act but not executed, and, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
"'(4) Notwithstanding anything in Section one hundred and forty-three of the County Courts Act, 1888, or in Section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act. 1838, every warrant for delivery of possession of, or to enter and give possession of, any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, shall remain in force for three months from the day next after the last day named in the judgment or order for delivery of possession or ejectment, or, in the case of a warrant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, from the date of the issue of the warrant, and in either case for such further period or periods, if any, as the court shall from time to time, whether before or after the expiration of such three months, direct.
"'(5) An order or judgment against a tenant for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house or ejectment therefrom under this section shall not affect the right of any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sublet before proceedings for recovery of possession or ejectment were commenced, to retain possession under this section, or be in any way operative against any such subtenants.
"'(6) Where a landlord has obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment under this section on the ground that he requires a dwelling-house for his own occupation, and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order or judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the court may order the landlord to pay to the former tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as the result of the order or judgment.
"'(7) The provisions of the last preceding subsection shall apply in any case where the landlord has after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, obtained an order or judgment for possession or ejectment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of
1278
subsection (1) of this section, and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order or judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts, and in any such case the court may, if it thinks fit, in addition to making an order for payment of compensation by the landlord to the former tenant, direct that the dwelling-house shall not be excluded from this Act by reason of the landlord having come into possession thereof under the said order or judgment, and if such a direction is given, this Act shall apply and be deemed to have applied to the dwelling-house as from the date mentioned in such direction.'"
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Buckmaster, commented on Clause 3 in somewhat caustic terms. I think he said that it reminded him of the Roman Emperor who, in order to raise revenue, had his Acts of Parliament written in small type at the top of a high pillar, and then fined people for not obeying them. We have attempted to meet that criticism by amalgamating the remaining provisions of Clause 5 of the principal Act with Clause 3 of the Bill which is under consideration. This involves one or two Amendments to the Bill as it stands. The principal one, as your Lordships will see, is to be found on page 5 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. As the Bill was drafted the meaning was obscure, and my noble friend Lord Dynevor called attention to the point. Accordingly we have put in two paragraphs in Roman figures, paragraphs (iv) and (v). I think the intention is perfectly clear, for there is no alteration in substance, and this really amount" to nothing more than an alteration in drafting.
We have had to make one or two other drafting alterations in order to amalgamate the two clauses, and I may perhaps run through them. In paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause the words "this Act" are substituted for the words "the principal Act." Your Lordships will see that the explanation of this is to be found at the beginning of the Amendment—"The following section shall be substituted for section five of the principal Act." This clause is accordingly substituted for the clause in the principal Act, and we say "this Act," meaning the principal Act, rather than give the "principal Act" as a reference. Again, in sub-

1279
section (6) the words "or judgment" have been inserted. Their omission from the principal Act was, it appears, inadvertent. Then your Lordships will remember that subsection (1) (a) of Clause 3 of the Bill referred to the question of misrepresentation and extended the provision in regard thereto. Subsection (7) of the clause now proposed reproduces the effect of that subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out Clause 3 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I recognise that the noble Earl has been at pains to meet the criticisms which I directed against this clause as it originally stood, and although this Amendment looks rather lengthy and is perhaps a little difficult to follow upon the Paper, I think that he has met my objections very fully and fairly. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this clause as it stands is a very great improvement upon the Bill as originally drafted and will offer no objection to its passage.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I rise only to thank my noble friend for having amalgamated these two clauses. The adoption of the principle of legislation by reference would have led to a very great deal of confusion, and many noble Lords on this side of the House felt that it was most desirable in the interests of everybody that these two clauses should be amalgamated so that the whole purport of them should be clear. I think we are all indebted to the Government for having taken this course.
LORD DYNEVOR: I also should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend for having drafted this Amendment. On the Second Reading I expressed the hope that he would see his way to do so. I must say that I was not at all confident that he would do so, and therefore it is extremely agreeable to me to find that he has fallen in with that suggestion.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Is the new clause numbered aright on the Marshalled List of Amendments? Ought not the figure to be "3" instead of "5"?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The figure "5" is that of the section of the principal Act.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I noticed that point, but if you introduce it into this Bill should it not be introduced as Clause 3?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is all right as it stands, but I will enquire into the point before we reach the next stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Suspension of increase of rent on ground of disrepair.
(2) When, after the issue of any such certificate, the landlord has executed to the satisfaction of the sanitary authority the repairs which require to be executed in order to put the dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair, the authority may, on the application of the landlord and upon payment of a fee of one shilling, issue a report to that effect.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection 2, to substitute "shall" for "may." The noble Lord said: Clause 4 of this Bill is an amplification of Clause 2, subsection (2) of the principal Act and covers very much the same ground. It makes the certificate of a sanitary authority evidence in ordinary proceedings for the recovery of rent or for ejectment for non-payment thereof. As that certificate that a house is not in a reasonable state of repair is, under Clause 4, made evidence (until the contrary is proved) of want of repair, it is only right that the local authorities should be bound to give a subsequent certificate" to the effect that the requisite repairs have been made when such is, in fact, the case. I think that it should be mandatory and should not be left to the option of the sanitary authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I believe, though I am not quite sure, that "may" does here mean "shall," but I shall be very glad to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Notice of increase of rent.
5.—(1) The county court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the

1281
passing of this Act, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the court to be just and reasonable, and if the court so directs, the notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid notice.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), after "therein" to insert "which, if not corrected or supplied, would render the notice invalid." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to attempt to meet the criticism that a landlord, who, in order to avoid carrying out repairs, has not asked for increase of rent, may now be entitled to go to the court and claim increase on the ground that the failure to demand it in the original notice was an omission. We desire to make plain the intention of the clause, which is that small and perhaps accidental omissions or corrections should not invalidate the notice. It is not intended that this amended form of procedure should afford the landlord an opportunity of exacting more than his due from the tenant, but even under the original clause it was really unlikely that any court would consider a claim such as this as a reasonable one. I hope that the Amendment will secure that all corrections which may he made by a court shall be confined simply to those which are necessary to make the notice valid by correcting errors and supplying omissions of an ordinary character.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, after ("therein") insert ("which, if not corrected or supplied, would render the notice invalid").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTERmoved to leave out subsection (1). The noble and learned Lord said: In the course of the debate on the Second Reading I called attention to the provisions of this clause. It is a clause which is designed to remedy defects that may occur in notices served by landlords as a condition precedent to the increase of rent. I do recognise, and I said that I recognised, that very often a notice may be defeated by mere technical inaccuracy, and it is rather hard upon the landlord; but, on the other hand, I think it must be remembered that the tenants with whom this Bill chiefly deals will be very largely illiterate
1282
and uneducated people, and if you permit notices to be served containing any demand which the landlord likes to introduce, reserving to the county courts the right to alter and put it right at a later date, I think you are putting into the hands of the landlords the opportunity for making exactions against the tenants which it is not desirable they should make.
In both these cases it seems to me the parties ought to be protected. The landlord should be protected against technical mistakes, and the tenant certainly should be protected against any attempt to misuse the powers which this Bill give" the landlord, in order to obtain rent to which he is not entitled. I think the only way in which to remedy the matter is by-omitting the subsection altogether. If that does not meet the views of the Government, then I think the right to amend should be strictly confined to technical matters, and not to the substance of the notice. But my own feeling is that the law ought to remain as it is now. I therefore move that the subsection be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 12 to 19, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain this matter at some little length. The noble and learned Lord commented on this clause in the debate on the Second Reading, and he said, and I think he repeated the statement just now, that if the landlord is allowed to make any demand he pleases on a tenant he will be encouraged to do this, knowing, of course, that if the tenant objects he can go to the county court and get it corrected. This will induce people to try to make demands upon the tenants which are not legal. The landlord can do this at the present moment if he takes the risk, and if he does so in the future he will also have to take the risk, because the county court is a judicial authority.
The whole business of the county court is to do justice and prevent that sort of thing occurring, and so, if the landlord has made an attempt to extract more from the tenant than he is entitled to get, and notice is given to the court for correction, surely the court will refuse to validate the notice by correcting

1283
errors and supplying omissions, except "on such terms and conditions"—I am now quoting the Bill—" as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the court to be just and reasonable." I think we may depend upon the county court, if it should validate the notice, to see that the tenant receives justice and is not imposed upon, and that the notice is only validated by correcting errors and omissions in the manner in which the noble and learned Lord mentions that the landlord should have an opportunity of doing.
It seems hard that a landlord should be debarred from receiving his due owing to a technical or clerical error in this very complicated notice, and perhaps you will allow me to give an example in which the landlord, acting perfectly genuinely, was debarred by an error of this kind from enjoying the rights to which he was fully entitled under the Act. If you will turn to Clause 2 (1) (c) of the original Act, you will observe that the fifteen per cent. increase in rent is, in certain circumstances, limited to five per cent-increase during one year. The proviso which lays this down is somewhat complicated and difficult to understand. A landlord genuinely made a claim for fifteen per cent. increase in the rent, and some time afterwards—I believe entirely on his own initiative and without the matter being raised by the tenant—said to the tenant: " I gave you notice to charge you fifteen per cent. increase, and I find I ought to charge you only five per cent. increase." The tenant did not know of the error, and did not complain even of the fifteen per cent., but when he found that the fifteen per cent. was illegal he refused to pay even the five per cent. He went to the court, and it was found that as the notice was invalid, although the fact of its being so was discovered entirely owing to the landlord's honesty, the landlord was unable to claim the five per cent. which was his due from the tenant.
Then there is another case at Erith. The notice was invalidated through a technical error in this way. The rate was made about April 21, and then a week's notice was required to the tenant before the increase in the rent consequent on the increased rate could be collected. In view of the delay of about four weeks or so, the landlord divided the total amount by
1284
48 instead of by 52. The landlord acted on a decision of the High Court that the increase could be legally enacted for the whole twelve months, even though it overlapped into another year. But landlords thought that they had to claim the increase so as to secure the amount within the financial year, before the overlap took place and the new rates were made. The matter went into court and the action of the landlords in doing this was held to invalidate the whole of their notices, and of their increases, and they were unable to claim from the tenants at all in regard to these rates. This clause is directed to prevent occurrences of this kind taking place in the future. It is not intended to give opportunity to unscrupulous landlords to exact more than is due, or co impose upon the tenants, and I think we can safely leave it to the county courts to see that justice is done. I hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Earl has repeated one side of the case again. I always understood that that side existed. That to which I do not think he has given sufficient attention is the fact that these tenants really do not know what their real rights are, and if you enable a landlord to serve at random notices which may be bad, and which may be amended hereafter, you offer a temptation to exact what is not due. If the noble Earl is determined to stand by the clause, may I suggest words to the following effect, which would give full value to his contention and certainly modify the operation of the clause, namely—"The county court shall, it satisfied that any error in the notice is due to genuine mistake on the part of the landlord, have power to amend."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord approaches this subject, as he does all others, in a great spirit of fairness. I think he realises there is a difficulty. May I say this? He speaks of the tenant as a poor and ignorant man, which he very often is, but may I say that in the case of these small properties the landlord very often is equally poor and equally ignorant? It is not the sort of idea which some people have of a landlord. They are apt to think of the rich landowner—perhaps with a seat in your

1285
Lordships' House—who is pressing the small tenant (a thing which none of your Lordships would think of doing); but in reality it is a case very often of two poor men who are both in difficulty. The noble and learned Lord most fairly recognised that there may be such a case. He has suggested words which we certainly think are well worth consideration. We are sure he will not ask us to accept them, on the spur of the moment, but if the noble and learned Lord will put them down on the Report stage we shall be very glad to consider them.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Permitted increases of rent of sub-tenancies.
6.—(1) Where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies then in addition to any increases permitted by paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act, an amount not exceeding ten per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of that dwelling-house, and an amount equivalent to five per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of the dwelling-house comprised in the tenancy.
(2) The tenant who has so sub-let part of any such dwelling-house shall, on being so requested in writing by the landlord of the dwelling-house, supply him, within fourteen days thereafter, with a statement in writing of any sub-letting, giving particulars of occupancy, including the rent charged, and should he without reasonable excuse fail to do so or supply a statement which is false in any material particulars he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble and learned Lord said: This is a clause which, I think, needs some further consideration. As I understand it, the clause provides that where a tenant is in lawful occupation of premises, and, if he were in direct relationship with the landlord, would not be liable to an increase of rent, his rent may be increased if there be a sub-tenancy; it may be increased 10 per cent., of which the
1286
landlord will receive half. I find myself unable to understand why that should be so. I am not sure that I agree with what was said by the noble Marquess on the Second Reading, that the sole object of this Bill was to protect the sitting tenant. That may be, the object of the Bill, but I do not think that is fair, because in many cases, where workmen are compelled to change their residence for the purpose of seeking work, they are in exactly the same difficulty with regard to finding new accommodation and paying the rent for it as they would be if they had stopped where they were. It is obviously very undesirable at a moment like this to render labour and its movements less fluid than they otherwise would be.
But, supposing that the principle be accepted, even then you have this extraordinary position, as I consider it to be, that in the events provided for by Clause 6 (1), if the property is sub-let, the rent can be increased, and it cannot be increased unless it is sub-let. Has that absolutely nothing whatever to do with the tenant? I cannot see why the mere fact that he is the tenant of a house that is sub-let should render him liable to an increase of rent to which he would not otherwise be liable. It may be that I have misunderstood the operation of the clause, but, if I have understood it rightly, I cannot help thinking that the clause is not a desirable one, and ought not to be contained in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 24 to 36, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that, perhaps, owing to the lateness of the hour on the Second Beading I did not devote enough attention to explaining this clause, which, I admit, is somewhat complicated. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to remedy that omission now. The clause says that if a man is a tenant of a landlord, and sub-lets a portion of the house, he may charge the sub-tenant an increase of ten per cent. on the rent apportioned to the sub-tenancy. Of that ten per cent. he may retain five per cent. for himself, and five per cent. may be claimed by the landlord. I would like to explain the reasons for that proposal. The landlord in England, as a rule, does not include in his lease any prohibition against the creation of a sub-tenancy.

1287
Some landlords do, but I think the majority of them do not. In Scotland, I believe, every lease contains a provision that a sub-tenant shall not be admitted without the consent of the landlord. That is not the case in England, consequently the creation of a sub-tenancy is a perfectly legal act on the part of the tenant.
Before the war the landlord had his remedy. If a tenant sub-let, and created a sub-tenancy, the landlord would go to the tenant and say: "I object to a subtenant. Unless you get rid of him I shall give you notice, and get another tenant, who will not admit sub-tenants." He could carry that out and get rid of that sub-tenant, and deal with his property as he chose, before the Kent Restrictions Acts came into force. But now, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, the landlord cannot do that. He cannot say to his tenant: "You must get rid of that man, and you must have a clause in your lease, if I renew it, forbidding sub-tenancies." He has to accept the sub-tenant, and that sub-tenant has his rights under the Act, in the same way as the tenant has. If your Lordships consult the evidence taken before the Departmental Committee you will see that there was considerable testimony that much damage was done to landlords' property by the creation of sub-tenancies—which, of course, cannot be stopped in any way under the Acts. Therefore, it was thought to be fair that the landlord should have a very slight increase in respect of those portions of the premises which were let to a sub-tenant. That is the explanation of the five per cent. which it is proposed to allow to the landlord on the apportioned rent of the part sub-let to the sub-tenant.
But that is not really the principal object of the clause. I think your Lordships will have been told—and I have heard of many cases—that tenants charge rents to their sub-tenants considerably above the apportionment of the rent charged by the landlord. I understand it is open to any sub-tenant to go and get his rent apportioned, but that is a difficult proceeding. Perhaps sub-tenants are not sufficiently conversant with the law, and altogether there may be difficulties in doing this—even the difficulty of an unpleasantness created with the landlord, because in many cases the sub-tenant shares with the landlord certain offices and conveniences in the house. Therefore, he may put up with the illegal rent
1288
and may not go to the court in order to get redress. This clause, by which the tenant is entitled to receive 5 per cent., and not more than 5 per cent., on the apportioned rent, will protect the subtenant against such extortions, because, owing to the fact that the landlord is entitled to 5 per cent. on the apportioned rent, and owing to the obligation which is placed upon the tenant to inform the landlord of all the sub-lettings, the landlord will know exactly what part of his house is sub-let, and what rent is charged. If the tenant charges an improper rent it is not likely that the landlord will fail to take notice of it, and he will take such steps as may be open to him to inform the sub-tenant, who will then, no doubt, refuse to pay more than the tenant, who is his immediate landlord, is entitled to receive.
It may be asked why the tenant should be entitled to receive five per cent. himself, even if you allow that the landlord should receive five per cent. on the apportioned rent. The answer to that is that very often, in these houses where sub-tenancies are created, there are services, such as a common front door, or a drying ground, or the use of a copper, or the use of a common staircase, or of other offices, which it is very difficult to apportion, and it is said that from evidence which is heard in the county courts it is very difficult indeed to say what is a fair rent for such services. If you gave five per cent., which is a very small sum, on the net apportioned rent it would cover the tenant's charges in that respect. And perhaps I may be allowed to say that if a tenant sub-lets he ought to have some interest in doing so. He ought not to have an undue interest under which he can charge extortionate rents; but a small interest of five per cent. seems a fair sum to induce him to put his superfluous accommodation at the disposal of one who wishes to obtain lodgings. For the rest, the main part of the intention and the operation of the clause will be, I think, to prevent extortionate rents being exacted from sub-tenants.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I must say that I still find it extremely difficult to understand what it is that the ultimate tenant has done to console him for the fact that the mere fact that he has taken over the sub-tenancy renders

1289
him liable to a ten per cent. increase which he would otherwise not have to pay. I can understand what the noble Earl says about dividing it when you have got it, but why is the tenant to pay it? If this Bill is designed for the protection of tenants, why is it that a particular class of tenant, who is probably one of the most helpless of them all, who has taken a tenancy from the tenant of a house, is to be liable to ten per cent. more rent than he otherwise would have to pay? I find myself unable to understand that, even after the noble Earl's most kind and courteous explanation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press this Amendment. I gather that he does not challenge that part of my noble friend's statement under which the landlord is entitled to a slight increase on account of the fact of the sub-tenancy. I think that most of your Lordships who are familiar with this class of property will realise that there is extra wear and tear thrown upon the premises by the fact of a sub-tenancy, and that the landlord is entitled to some increase of rent on account of the sub-tenancy. What the noble and learned Lord challenged was that the sub-tenant ought to pay a little more. The sub-tenant ought certainly to pay a little more in respect of the amount which the tenant has to pay under the argument which I have already submitted. It is proposed that the subtenant should pay a little more.
Let me say, in the first instance, that it is a positive benefit to the sub-tenant to limit the amount and to mention it as five per cent. At the present time, what goes on is a system of profiteering in a certain number of cases as between the tenant and the sub-tenant, and it is a positive benefit to the latter to limit the figure and to say exactly what it is to be. Besides that, I think it is important that the tenant should be allowed to charge a very small increase of rent upon the sub-tenant, otherwise it will not be to his interest to sub-let at all. There is a good deal to be said, of course, against allowing a tenant to sub-let. In my cottage property I never allow it so far as my covenants are concerned, and none of this will apply to me because if sub-letting took place it would be a breach of covenant.
1290
But that is not always the case, and in many instances it is not desirable, I may say, at this particular moment. With this tremendous shortage of houses, to make it difficult to sub-let or to prevent there being any incentive whatever to sub-let would be against a proper solution of the problem, and if you do not allow the tenant to charge anything extra at all for the sub-letting, why should he sub-let? He will not sub-let, and the congestion in housing will be still worse. I admit that it ought to be a very small figure, and five per cent. is a very small figure. That is all that the tenant will be allowed to retain. The other five per cent. will go to the landlord for the reason I have already stated. I think that the noble and learned Lord will see that this matter has been very gravely thought out. It is not an accidental matter. It is not a case of something having slipped in without proper care. It is a carefully drawn and prepared clause with the object of meeting a real difficulty, and I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he should not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "Subsection (2) of Section three of the principal Act shall not apply as respects any increase permitted under this subsection." The noble Earl said: This clause defines a new permitted increase in the case of sub-letting. Under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the principal Act no permitted increases are due or recoverable until the landlord has served notice of increase on the tenant. This, of course, must be in the form which is in the schedule to which we have already referred. But there is nothing in this schedule which takes account of this new permitted increase. It would seem to involve a cumbrous addition to the schedule, and it seems to be quite unnecessary to provide a special form of notice in this particular case and to cause a special notice to be given to the subtenant in regard to this new permitted increase. Therefore, it is proposed that it shall not apply to increases permitted under this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next four Amendments on the Paper are practically drafting Amendments to subsection (2). The clause is meant to apply to all cases of sub-letting, but as it is at present drafted it would apply only to the case of a tenant who himself sub-lets part of a dwelling-house and not to the tenant who took over from another tenant of the house. These Amendments are put in to cover all sub-tenants. They all go together and, therefore, I move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out ("the tenant who has so sublet") and insert ("where")
Page 6, line 38, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("is so sublet the tenant")
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("of the dwelling-house")
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("he") and insert ("the tenant").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble and learned Lord said: I am bound to say that subsection (2) is a severe one, upon the hypothesis, as I pointed out on Second Reading, that the tenant is entitled to sub-let. It is perfectly true, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, that the remedies that might have been open to the landlord before the passing of this Bill to prevent sub-letting may be open to him no more. None the less, the act that the tenant does in sub-letting is a perfectly lawful one. It is not in breach of any covenant whatever in the lease or the tenancy agreement that he holds. In these circumstances, to call upon him to give notice of his sub-tenancies to his landlord with the possibility, if he neglects to do so, that ho may be haled before a court and fined a sum not exceeding £2 appears to me to be an extreme and excessive provision. I agree that when you pass subsection (1) of Clause 6 you feel yourselves in need of something to protect the rights that have been there conferred, and it might be possible that you should protect those rights by giving the landlord, it might be, power to evict or something of that kind; but to enable a man to be haled before a police court and fined a sum not exceeding £2 in order to compel him to give notice of a perfectly lawful transaction into which he has entered, is a thing which I regard not only with apprehension but with
1292
aversion, and I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will see his way to omit it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, to page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Buckmaster.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I must say I heard with a little surprise the noble and learned Lord say he thought that perhaps some provision in regard to eviction might be placed here instead of the fine of £2. It seems to me that to evict a tenant because he does not comply with the provisions of this clause would be a far more severe penalty than a maximum fine of £2. In addition to that, if a tenant is to be evicted he still would have to come before the court, because only by going before a court can a landlord in any circumstances evict a tenant.
There are two reasons, I think, which make this a desirable clause. The principal object of making a tenant give notice to the landlord of his sub-tenant is to protect the sub-tenant, because then the landlord acts as a guardian of the subtenant's interest, and prevents the subtenant, or is in a position to prevent the sub-tenant, from being charged an exorbitant and profiteering rent. Again, it seems to me that it is really very desirable that all landlords should know the state of their properties. In discussions outside your Lordships' House in regard to the Housing Bill it came to my notice that in the case of certain slum properties there were a number of landlords with many tenants and sub-tenants. In one case there was a landlord with fourteen tenants and sub-tenants. In consequence, we put in a clause, which had your Lordships' full concurrence, that gave facilities to landlords to know what was being done with their property.
I think it is very important that landlords should know what is being done with their property, to whom it is let, and what is going on in it. In the interest of the landlord and of the property, and for the protection of the tenant, I think that this subsection is a desirable one. I do not know whether your Lordships would suggest making eviction possible under the clause instead of a fine, but in the view of the Government the maximum fine of £2 would be sufficient to ensure the provision being carried out. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree with the clause as it is.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Earl assumed that my alternative remedy was one that would be summarily and instantly enforced. That, of course, is not what I meant. What I meant was that the landlord should be at liberty to serve upon a sub-tenant a notice requiring particulars of the sub-tenancies, and that then a reasonable time should elapse, and that if he did not supply the information he should be liable to a notice of eviction. The notice to evict would probably be also subject to the expiration of further periods of time, as it is under the Conveyancing Acts. It appeared to me that it would be a far less drastic and summary procedure than the procedure under which you haled a man before the magistrates, and fined him £2 for not having given this information. I recognise that you are dealing with a certain class of property on certain special torms. That, of course, is a dominant and a powerful consideration, because if it were not so it is not conceivable that anybody would consent to any such provision as this being introduced into a clause regulating the right of a man to deal with the property, even though it be a humble property, in the shape of a sub-tenancy of a house let under the terms of this Bill. But I will not press the matter any further. The Government say that they have considered it, and that this is the best they can do. I thought it my duty to protest against it, and to call your Lordships' attention to it, and I do not now press it further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
As to sub-tenancies of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
".Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (5) of Section five or in subsection (3) of Section fifteen of the principal Act, where the interest of a tenant of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies and which consists of or includes premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor is determined, either as a result of an order or judgment for possession or ejectment, or for any other reason, the interest of any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been sublet, and who is by the terms of the sub-letting under an obligation to purchase intoxicating liquor exclusively from the tenant shall be determined also."
The noble Lord said: The new clause which stands in my name is designed, in
1294
part, to give reasonable protection in certain eventualities to the owner of public house property when such owner is not a brewery company, and, in part, to give reasonable protection to the interests of the community at large. In so far as it touches the latter purpose, it concerns an important matter of principle, and I trust that your Lordships will regard it as an important matter. There are up and down the country, as you know, a very large number of public houses which are the actual property of brewery companies. These houses are mostly let to licensed victuallers who are the direct tenants of the brewery companies, and their position is covered by the principal Act, and also by the Bill before your Lordships' House. There is no intention in this new clause of interfering with any provisions which have been inserted in both the principal Act and this Bill to protect the interests alike of the brewery companies and of the licensed victuallers who are in the occupation of public houses. But there are also in the country a very large number—perhaps the larger number—of public houses which do not belong to the brewery companies at all, but which belong to estate owners, and which are let on leases to brewery companies, the brewery companies hiring them for the purpose of making them into tied houses, and renting them to licensed victuallers who then become the sub-tenants of the owners of the houses. It is only those sub-tenants of the owners of the house with whom my new clause proposes to deal.
The subject divides itself clearly into two parts. One is the convenience of the landlords in the matter of rent, and the other is the convenience of the public in a matter to which I shall refer in greater detail in a moment or two. Take the question of rent first. The brewery company's lease expires. The brewery company surrenders the lease without endeavouring to take advantage of the provisions of the principal Act. I believe it is a fact that brewery companies could, in such circumstances, take advantage of the principal Act, but in no case that, has come to my notice has any brewery company thought it a dignified or a proper thing to do to take that advantage. The lease terminates, and the owner of the house is anxious to improve the amenities of the house; possibly, he is anxious to make it into

1295
a free house. He, therefore, does not continue his lease to the brewery company, and the brewery company retires. The owner of the house is debarred from dealing with that public house because the licensed victualler in occupation has rights under this Bill which makes it impossible for the owner to eject that licensed victualler.
The brewery company undoubtedly—this is so in most cases—has let to the licensed victualler this house at a rent which has very little relation to the actual value of the house. The brewery company attaches little importance to rent. What it attaches importance to is the sale of its products in that particular house, and the profits derived from that sale. Nevertheless, when the licensed victualler becomes statutory tenant (the brewery company being eliminated), the rent which the owner is to derive from the statutory tenant is the same rent, subject to certain very minor increases, which the same licensed victualler paid to the brewery company. The brewery company has two means of making money out of a public house—the one, rent; and the other, profit out of the sale of the company's products. The owner of the house has but one means of making money out of it, and that is by way of rent. Therefore it does not seem to be fair that the owner of the house should be bound to accept approximately the same rent from the statutory tenant who is inflicted upon him as would be fair for the brewery company to accept from that tenant.
There is an even more important feature of this matter than that, and it is this. Where a brewery company's lease is about to terminate it is often the fact—particularly where a monopoly is in existence—that the community has been anxiously looking forward to the termination of the lease in order, partly, that the house may be improved in its amenities and made more convenient for the purposes of the community and, partly, that they may be able to have a free house in that particular place. It is true that their ambition is to some extent attained when the brewery company surrenders its lease. That is true, and up to a certain point their case is met. But it is quite impossible that the original tenant of the public house should be in a position to deal with the house as the landlord would be able to deal with it in letting it to a company
1296
not interested in the sale of a particular beer or spirit. The tenant is not able to spend money on improvements, and the effect of this Bill, together with the principal Act, is that you are condemning every public house owned not by a brewery company but by an estate owner to remain in its present condition until the Rent Restrictions Act expires.
You are making it impossible for any landlord to free any public house on his property; making it practically a necessity to retain the tied-house system and making it certain that no house will be improved in a way that so many public houses in this country need improving. I will not weary your Lordships with further details, but I hope I have said enough to show that this is an important matter. While it is true that there will be some advantage to a few sub-tenants, the interests of the general community must come first in a matter of this kind, and it is not in the interests of the community as a whole that the sub-tenant of a public house should enjoy the protection which this Bill proposes to give.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord has explained clearly the object of his new clause. It is to give power to the landlord to obtain possession of licensed premises from a sub-tenant when the immediate tenant, the brewery company, has given up the lease. I should say that, probably, such cases were not very numerous, and I am somewhat surprised to hear that brewery companies have not taken advantage of the provisions of the principal Act. Under the provisions of Clause 2 of the present Bill they will be able to renew leases on free terms.
Let me deal first with the question of rent. The noble Lord has told us that very often a brewery company leases the tied house at a less rent that the actual market value and recoups itself by the sale of its own beer; that when the lease falls in the brewery company goes out and the sub-tenant becomes the direct tenant of the landlord, and that the landlord is unable to charge what may be a sufficient rent for the house. I should like to point out that the standard rent on which the landlord is permitted to base his rent

1297
does not depend on the actual rent charged. The standard rent may be taken to be the rateable value. It is provided in Section 12 of the principal Act that:
"where at the date by reference to which the standard rent is calculated, the rent was less than the rateable value the rateable value at that date shall be the standard rent."
In cases where a brewery company has charged a smaller rent than the rateable value, then the rateable value may be taken as the standard rent and the basis of the new rent which the landlord may charge to the sub-tenant. In addition to that, the landlord is able to make certain increases. In all, he is able to make additional charges on the net rent up to 40 per cent.; that is, on the rateable value which may be taken as the standard rent. So that he may charge a considerably larger rent than the rent charged by the brewery company. If a house has been let by a brewery company for £30 a year and its rateable value is £50 the landlord may take £50 as the standard rent, and on this he may make certain increases, up to 40 per cent., raising the rent to £70.
I have had some conversations with my noble friend on this matter. He told me that he was acquainted with cases in rural districts where the rateable value was fixed at the rental charged by the brewery company. I am much obliged to him for that information. But I have also made inquiries, and I find that in many cases the rateable value is considerably higher than the rent charged by the brewery company. There was a case in which a house was let at a rent of £20 a year by the brewery company. The rateable value was £30, a difference of 50 per cent. In that case the landlord was able to take the rateable value as the standard rent, and charge on that certain increases and the difference in the rates. The noble Lord, however, based his argument less on the question of rent than on the social advantages which, will ensue if a landlord is able to recover possession of a house and make those improvements which he thinks are necessary.
May I, with great respect, say that that is an argument directed to show that licensed premises should not be included in the Bill at all rather than to prove the
1298
desirability of the particular provision which he seeks to introduce? I say quite frankly that I was one of those who recommended that licensed premises should be excluded, and in the original Bill they were excluded. But after considerable debate and some negotiations in another place, it was decided by agreement between the wholesale traders and the retail traders that licensed premises should be included, and in Clause 3, which your Lordships have approved, every landlord has the right to re-enter his premises if those premises have not been properly conducted.
If then it be accepted that licensed premises are to remain in the Bill, the adoption of my noble friend's Amendment would mean that a sub-tenant of licensed premises is to be put in an entirely different position from any other kind of sub-tenant. Consequently, although there may be a case for the exclusion of licensed premises altogether, I venture to submit that there is scarcely a case for admitting that, while licensed premises are subject to the operation of the Act, sub-tenants of such premises are to be treated in a totally different manner from any other sub-tenant who enjoys the protection of the Act, in this connection I would venture to read to your Lordships an extract from a letter which I have received from the National Consultative Council of the Retail Liquor Trade. They say:—
"The policy of the principal Act, as you are aware, is that on the determination of an intermediate tenancy the actual occupier shall become direct tenant under the Act of the head lessor, and it is impossible to see any legitimate reason why licensee occupiers, alone of all classes of the community, should be deprived of their statutory protection as contemplated by the Amendment."
That is the argument which I venture to put before your Lordships as expressed by the retail liquor trade.
I think it has been mentioned—I do not know whether my noble friend referred to this point—that licensed premises are the sole survivors of busy ness premises, which were protected for a short time under the Act of 1920. I admit that there is some truth in this contention, but I do not think that it is a good argument. The licensed premises to which my noble friend refers—he will correct me if I am wrong—are mainly those situated in rural districts.
LORD HASTINGS: No.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is not so?
LORD HASTINGS: They are not urban, but they are not rural.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The distinction is a little fine, but, anyhow, they tend to be rural because they are not urban. Let us take the case of premises in a rural district such as will be familiar to many of your Lordships. They are not really hotels, or even public-houses, such as one sees around the suburbs of London, or in those so-called rural districts where I live for the most part, but cottages which have a beer licence and are situated in country districts. Those cottages are not very different from that of the village grocer, for example, who sells sugar, tea, pepper and salt, and that sort of thing while the publican sells beer. It seems to me that in such a case as that—I admit that there may be others—it will be very hard upon a sub-tenant if, because he happen to be a licence holder, he is treated in a different manner from the man who is living by selling groceries. I venture to think that those tenants ought to be treated in the same manner as others, and that you would be creating hardship if you made a difference between them.
I might also apply the same argument to the case of the sub-tenant in larger licensed premises. I think that if you are going to admit that licensed premises shall be protected by this Bill, you ought to give the sub-tenants of those premises the same protection as you give to all sub-tenants who enjoy protection. Perhaps this matter is not one of first rate importance. It does not involve a fundamental change in the policy of the Acts. But to exclude such sub-tenants would, I think, create an injustice and consequently it would involve a not unimportant change in one of the principles underlying this Bill if the Amendment were accepted. I hope, therefore, that since the matter, as I may assure my noble friend, has received most earnest consideration, he will be content to withdraw his Amendment after such explanation as I have been able to give, and that in any case your Lordships may not think it necessary to insist upon it.
LORD STRACHIE: If the noble Earl will forgive me, I do not think his argument
1300
regarding this provision was a very good one, because apparently the Government after the most careful consideration, including, of course, consideration of the Report of his Committee, decided when they introduced this Bill that this protection for licensed victuallers was not desirable. Then, by one of those deals which I do not think are very desirable, the Government reversed this decision in another place and reintroduced the clause into the Bill. I cannot help thinking that it would be very much better to put the Bill back into the form in which it was originally introduced in another place by the Government after very full consideration. I should also like to take exception to the noble Earl's remarks regarding the custom of assessment committees, because I can wholly confirm what was said by the noble Lord. The same procedure is adopted in the West of England as appears to be adopted in East Anglia.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I did not deny it. I said that I accepted it entirely, since my noble friend told me that it was the case. I accepted the eases which have occurred to his knowledge, but I said that there were other cases where nothing of the kind had occurred.
LORD STRACHIE: Quite so; I do not desire for a moment to question what the noble Earl said, but I merely draw his attention to the fact that it is not only in East Anglia but also in other parts of the country that these things happen. The cases of which the noble Earl speaks are, no doubt, quite exceptional.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No, I do not think they are an exception.
LORD STRACHIE: If such is the general practice of assessment committees, I think it strongly supports the case for my noble friend's Amendment. He says that such is the case in East Anglia, and I hope that the noble Earl will accept my statement that it is the same in the West of England. You have instances, therefore, of two very large areas. I think that the unfortunate landlord will not be much better off, because he will have to accept this very low rent at which, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, it is to the interest of the brewery companies to let, because they have other means of making a profit. I admit that in the old days

1301
the assessment committee very often took notice of this point, but the general practice, nowadays, is to take no notice. Speaking as an Income Tax Commissioner, I find that the general tendency is not to assess for Income Tax at a higher rate than the rent at which the premises are Let to the licensed victualler.
LORD HASTINGS: I think it is due to your Lordships that I should say a few words in reply to my noble friend. Lord Strachie has dealt with the question of rateable value and there is no need to touch upon that point again, but my noble friend will remember that, when a sub-tenant becomes the statutory tenant of the landlord, the compensation charged becomes chargeable against that landlord and not against the brewery company. In many cases that constitutes a very heavy charge. One important point made by my noble friend was that it was not proper to treat subtenants of this character differently from any other kind of sub-tenant. He also quite fairly referred to the fact that they were the only traders still in the Bill, and that their kind of business premises was the only kind that remains.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I said that this was only partly true.
LORD HASTINGS: But you have to remember that the case of every other sub-tenant brought in under this Bill affects himself and the landlord alone. The case of a sub-tenant such as is referred to in my Amendment affects the community as a whole most intimately. Consequently, I think that there is a case for dealing with this class of sub-tenant differently from every other kind of sub tenant. It is well known that the occupation of a public-house is an important matter from the point of view of the community living in the neighbourhood of that house, and I cannot agree therefore that this is an argument against treating this sub-tenant differently from all other sub-tenants. There is, to my mind, every reason why he should be treated differently from other sub-tenants.
My noble friend referred to the email public-house which is found in rural districts. That was not really the kind of public-house I had in mind. That sort of house is of very little profit either to the
1302
publican, or the brewer, or the landowner, or anybody else. The kind of house that I had in mind was that which exists in industrial centres of rising importance where, of course, a public-house is a very valuable property indeed, and where landowner, brewer and publican may take a very deep and vital interest in what is happening to it. It was of that class of public-house property that I was thinking rather than of the rural public-house. Of course, my Amendment would affect all kinds of sub-tenant in the small rural areas as well as in the industrial centres. This Amendment, I am given to understand, is very greatly desired by a considerable section of the community, and with the greatest regret I must decline to withdraw the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to clear up this little ambiguity about business premises. Lord Hastings seems to think that in the Bill as it stands we are protecting licensed premises quite differently from all other business premises—that we are treating them as a special case. That is not so. It is quite true that business premises where no one lives have disappeared from these Rent Restrictions Acts. They were put in very much against my own personal wish at the time, and they only lasted for about a couple of years, and then disappeared. But the business premises where the occupier actually resided have always been included in the Rent Restrictions Acts, for the very obvious reason that you could not distinguish one place where a man lived, provided it came within the rental limits, from another place where a man lived. The fact that he also carried on his business as a grocer or a draper in the house in which he lived ought not to deprive him of the benefit of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and he always has been included.
This is a similar case. Here is a dealer in beer. He resides in his house, and the fact that he resides in the house, if the house comes within the rental limits, brings it logically under the Rent Restrictions Acts as they have always been before your Lordships' House and before Parliament. Therefore, no exception is made. It is absolutely the normal case. We are dealing with the case of a trader who lives in the house where he carries on his trade. My noble friend has

1303
said that he was contemplating a house in a rising industrial district, but he said, with the candour which always characterises him, that he was quite aware that the Amendment also covered the case of the small rural public house to which Lord Onslow has referred. That is the strength of the Government's case. That is the difficulty, because your Lordships must remember what is the whole genesis of the Rent Restrictions Acts. The point is the famine of houses, and the power which the famine of houses gives to certain landlords to exact a rent which is usurious. That is the whole point why the Rent Restrictions Acts were established originally. It does not apply to the compassionate landlord, but the law had to be made because all landlords are not compassionate.
How then are you going to distinguish this case from another one? I know of a great many little country public houses in my part of the world—little cottages with beer licences, standing it may be at the corner of the road, thatched buildings, inhabited by humble people, and can you say that they are not to have the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act? If they are not then the whole operation begins—the non-compassionate landlord comes down and says: "Pay an exorbitant rent or turn out on to the roadside." I do not say that these things are common, but it is the object of these Acts to protect these people, and how can you distinguish these little wayside beer houses from any other house in which a man resides and carries on his trade? It does seem hard that you should protect these small traders if they deal in groceries or drapery, but not if they deal in beer. What possible ground can you have for making such a distinction? Of course, if you say that there shall only be a distinction made in growing industrial districts, that is one matter, but if your Amendment covers the case of the poor man that I have men
tioned, how can you justify it? How can such a man go into the house market and get a house when none is to be had except at a high rent? I ask your Lord ships not to agree to this Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think there is one distinction which may be drawn between the cases just mentioned by the noble Marquess—namely, between the man in a house in which he is selling beer and the man in a house in which he is selling groceries. The one has a monopoly value, and the other is living in a house where he is subject to competition at any moment, should anybody choose to come along to sell his particular kind of goods.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Neither is particularly well off.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is the distinction I have mentioned, which may be drawn between the two in so far as you can compare one with another. Surely there is something which one might call almost monopoly value attached to the house of a man who is living in a house in which he is selling beer, which does not attach to the house in which a man is living and selling groceries. In so far as those instances apply to which the noble Marquess alluded, namely, of the man selling beer in an isolated place some way from any other house, there is surely this distinction, that supposing he was turned out the same arguments do not apply with regard to re-housing. If he is turned out there is not the same housing difficulty. In those circumstances, if the noble Lord goes to a Division, I certainly shall support him, and I hope he may win in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Cawley, L.

Pentland, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Denman, L.

Raglan, L.

Northbrook, E.

Forres, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Plymouth, E.

Gorell, L.

Shandon, L.

Westmeath, E.

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Illingworth, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Morton, E.

Grenfell, L.

Devonshire, D.

Onslow, E.

Hylton, L.

Rutland, D.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Astor, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Bath, M.

Chaplin, V.

Lamington, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Novar, V.

Newton, L.

Peel, V.

Parmoor, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Albemarle, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Ancaster, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Bradford, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Saltoun, L.

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lucan, E.

Erskine, L.

Sumner, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wharton, L.

Midleron, E.

Gisborough, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Limitation on recovery of over-payments or arrears.
".—(1) No increase of rent which becomes payable by reason of an amendment of a notice of increase made by order of the county court under this Act shall be recoverable in respect of any rental period which ended more than six months before the date of the order.
(2) Any sum paid by a tenant or mortgagor which, under subsection (1) of Section fourteen of the principal Act is recoverable by the tenant or mortgagor shall be recoverable at any time within six months from the date of payment but not afterwards, or in the ease of a payment made before the passing of this Act, at any time within six months from the passing of this Act but not afterwards.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of the Rent Restriction (Notices of Increase) Act, 1923."
The noble Earl said: The object of this new clause is to revert to the principle which obtained in the Rent Restrictions Acts prior to 1920. The provision was not included in the Rent Restrictions Acts, but in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. Under the 1920 Act a tenant or mortgagor may recover from the landlord or the mortgagee, at any time after the date of payment, any sum paid in excess of the permitted increase. The evidence before the Departmental Committee showed that there was often hardship in this, and we propose in this Bill to insert some provision to place a limit upon the
1306
time during which excess payments may be recovered, and so to revert to the original practice which obtained before the Act of 1920. The cases where limitation is placed upon the time of recovery are two. The first relates to Clause 5, which deals with the power of the county court to amend and correct errors in the notices. Objection has been taken to Clause 5 on the ground that it is retrospective, and that there is no limit to the retrospective action other than the limit which the court can impose in its discretion. This subsection, therefore, provides for a maximum retrospective period of six months. But, although it imposes this maximum period, it does not preclude the court from making the retrospective action less than six months, in particular cases.
Subsection (2) applies to an overpayment by a tenant. A provision of this kind is necessary in view of the probable operation of Clause 6. As I said before, the main object of that clause is to prevent profiteering by tenants at the expense of sub-tenants But it would probably cause some hardship if some limit were not imposed upon the time during which sub-tenants can claim recovery of payments made to the tenant. Subsection (3) provides that this limitation shall not interfere with the Rent Restriction (Notices of Increase) Act, which your Lordships passed a short time ago.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause 7:
Excessive charges for furniture, etc., taken over in connection with tenancies.
7.—(1) Where the purchase of any furniture or other articles is required as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles, the excess shall be treated as if it were a fine or premium required to be paid as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance, and the provisions of Section eight of the principal Act, including penal provisions, shall apply accordingly.
(2) Where a tenant who by virtue of the principal Act retains possession of a dwelling-house to which that Act applies requires that furniture or other articles shall be purchased as a condition of giving up possession, the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles the excess shall be treated as a sum asked to be paid as a condition of giving up possession, and the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 15 of the principal Act (including penal provisions) shall apply accordingly.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), after "shall," where that word first occurs, to insert "at the request of the person on whom the demand is made," and to leave out "such" and insert "the." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment. As the clause stands there is no machinery to provide that the landlord shall be requested to make a statement in writing of the price of furniture. It would probably lead to difficulties, and perhaps to litigation, if, without any limitation of this sort, a statutory obligation to put down the price of the furniture in writing were placed on every landlord who is negotiating for letting a house and the sale of the furniture at the same time. We think it is sufficient to provide the he should do that at the request of the tenant.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, after ("shall") insert ("at the request of the person on whom the demand is made"), and leave out ("such") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (2), after "shall," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "at the request of the person on whom the demand is made," and leave out "such" and insert "the." The noble Earl said:
1308
This Amendment is really the same as the last. It might be held that these words meant that "such price" was the price demanded in writing, and so, if the demand were not made in writing, the transaction would not be covered by the clause. This Amendment makes it clear that the clause must apply to the transaction, whether the statement is in writing or not.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, after ("shall") insert ("at the request of the person on whom the demand is made"), and leave out ("such") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:—
".Notwithstanding anything in this Act or the principal Act when in any action by a landlord for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act or the principal Act applies, the court is satisfied that it is essential to the letting or sale on reasonable terms of other property of the landlord that vacant possession of the dwelling-house should be given to the lessee or purchaser, and that the same has been used at some time by persons or a person in the employ of the landlord or a former landlord in connection with the use of such other property, and is also satisfied as respects alternative accommodation provided for elsewhere in this Act, the court shall have power to make an order or give judgment for possession of the dwelling-house on such terms as it may consider reasonable."
The noble Lord said: There are cases in which persons have obtained possession of cottages and gate lodges and have retained possession of them under the Rent Restrictions Act. When the principal house is vacant and the owner wants to sell or to let it there is no provision in the Act which enables possession of these lodges and gatehouses to be obtained. Paragraph (d) of the new Clause 3 (1) does not apply because the vendor or the would be lessor does not require possession for his own servants. I submit that if he can give alternative accommodation he should at least have a locus standi to apply to the courts for possession of such cottages or gate lodges, and under my Amendment the court will try the question as to whether, and the terms under which, they shall be given up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the main case on which the noble Lord bases his Amendment is that of a lodge or some similar building attached to a house which the, owner wants to sell or lease, and the would be tenant or purchaser says: "No, I will not buy or lease that house because the lodge is occupied by a tenant, and I want to put my own lodge-keeper into it. I cannot, therefore, take the house or buy it." It depends, of course, to whom it is proposed to sell or to lease the house. If it is proposed to sell or to lease it for use as a school, or a hospital, or some public institution, I think the substituted paragraph (e) of Clause 3 (1) would apply. It says that where
"the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of a local authority, or statutory undertaking, or for any purpose which, in the opinion of the court, is in the public interest"—
possession may be regained. That would be the case if it was for a hospital, or a school, or a public institution.
Again, I think it would be the case if it was desired to pull down the lodge or gate-house and clear it away and lay out the estate for building. I think that probably would be held to be in the public interest, and the owner would be able to obtain possession and to re-enter upon the small house. But my noble friend mentioned the case of a man who wants to buy the house as a private dwelling-house and wants the lodge as well. Perhaps it would not cover the sale to a private person, but under Clause 3, if the house or lodge was reasonably required by the landlord for some person in his whole-time employment or in the whole-time employment of his tenant, possession could be obtained by giving alternative accommodation. I think, if it was proposed to lease a house and the tenant wanted the lodge for somebody in his whole-time employment, he would be able to obtain possession.
Therefore we narrow the question down to one of sale. If the purchaser were to buy a house and thus to become the owner and wanted the lodge for somebody in his employment, he would be able to gain possession, I think. If, indeed,
1310
he wanted it for an agricultural labourer he could obtain it under a certificate from the county agricultural committee as provided in the Act without offering alternative accommodation at all; so really we arrive at this point, that only in a case where a vendor could not get the purchaser to buy without vacant possession of the lodge would that clause become operative. If he were to sell with a person in occupation of the lodge, as soon as the purchaser got possession he would be able to set the machinery of the Act in motion in order to obtain possession of the lodge for his whole-time employee, whether a non-agricultural employee, such as a lodge keeper, or an agricultural employee. In the one case he would have to offer alternative accommodation, and in the other, he would not.
If I may venture to suggest it, I think the difficulties which have obtained in the past in obtaining possession of this kind of building have really arisen because of the very rigid definition of alternative accommodation under the original Act. We have now altered that considerably. We have made alternative accommodation more fluid, if I may say so, and I trust that in the future it will be possible to obtain alternative accommodation much more easily. Probably the reason why it was anything but easy to set the Act in motion before was the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation which the courts would accept. If your Lordships accept this Amendment I am afraid it would be impossible to confine it to those eases which my noble friend has in mind.
May I take an illustration from a town? Supposing an owner wishes to sell a block of flats, and supposing the lowest flat near the door is occupied by a sub-tenant, the new owner may say: "I will not buy that block of flats unless I can get possession of that particular flat, because I want it for the concierge, or the caretaker, or the porter." There might be several sub-tenancies as to which he might say: "I wish to obtain those for somebody else in my employment or for somebody whom I think it necessary to place there." That would really mean that if a person were to say he wanted to buy the whole house with the cottages adjacent or a whole building containing all the flats, he might

1311
then be able to eject any sub-tenant. I do not think it would be possible to accept the Amendment, or to admit this principle. I think that my noble friend will find that anybody who is placed in the position he describes will really have his remedy and that it will not be "impossible for him to regain possession under the Act as it stands. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: May I point out as a matter of fact—and I think every noble Lord present is aware of it—that under the Act as it stands it is almost impossible to get possession of property of this character, because alternative accommodation must be provided? In most cases alternative accommodation cannot be provided, and when the case comes before a bench of magistrates they are naturally very loth to turn people on to the roadside. I rather support the view put forward by the mover of the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I venture to point out that the provisions as to alternative accommodation have been considerably changed by the Bill from those existing under the Act which is in force?
LORD DYNEVOR: I thought that my request was a moderate and reasonable one, and I wanted to give the vendor a locus standi in the courts which he does not possess at the present moment. But after what my noble friend has said. I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10:
Restriction on right to possession in certain cases after the expiry of the principal Act.
(5) In order to assist the court in the determination of questions arising under this part of this Act in relation to the rent, character or condition of dwelling-houses, the Minister of Health may establish reference committees to whom such questions may be referred by the court for consideration and report, as the court thinks proper.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE had on the Paper an Amendment to move in subsection (5), after "may," to insert "subject in the case of rural districts to prior consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
LORD HASTINGS: My noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, is unable to be present in your Lordships' House to move his Amendment, and has asked me to do it for him. The object of the Amendment is to ensure the consideration of cases in the rural districts by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries rather than to leave them entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Health. It is not, I think, an unreasonable Amendment, and I am hopeful that the Government will so regard it. There is very little that I need say in advocacy of the Amendment. It speaks entirely for itself, and it is a matter of principle whether the Government see their way to agree to it or not.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, after ("may") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to amend the Amendment by leaving out "consultation with" and inserting "concurrence of." The noble Lord said: I had not the opportunity of consulting my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, because he was not in the House yesterday, nor is he here to-day. I was rather surprised, I must say, to see the form which his Amendment had taken. I thought he, like other agricultural Peers, was very anxious that we should adhere to the precedent set us so long as eight years ago in another place under the Milk and Dairies Bill. This Bill provides only for consultation. Not only in the other House but in this House, I thought we had established the precedent of always having not only consultation with the Minister, but what is more important, that the Minister of Agriculture should have the right of veto if he thought fit over the Ministry of Health in matters affecting agriculture.
The Minister of Health is a very important and very powerful Minister, and under present conditions the Minister of Agriculture would have nothing to say. The Minister of Health might say, " The Minister of Agriculture can consult me," but we know well that the Minister of Health would simply go his own way, and that the Minister of Agriculture would be brushed aside. That is the danger. I think the Government, if they are to accept any Amendment, will be ready to accept my Amendment, which, I understand, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is ready himself

1313
to accept in order that we may not destroy this valuable precedent by which the Ministry of Agriculture, on questions of agriculture, has the right of veto. I think agricultural interests should be protected, and not left to the tender mercies of the: Ministry of Health. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out "consultation with" and insert "concurrence of".—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope my noble friends will not insist upon this Amendment, because it emphasises a principle which, I think, is really an undesirable one. Decisions of this kind are not taken by the Ministry of Health, but are taken by the Government as a whole. If it is decided to establish these committees it will be a decision of the Government, and not of any particular Department with another Department having, or not having, a veto over it. Machinery of that kind, I submit, is not desirable. We ought not to lay down a principle as to the form in which the Government, as a whole, shall take its decisions. My noble friend Lord Strachie seemed to think that at the Ministry of Health little attention was paid to representations or points of view which were placed before it by the Ministry of Agriculture. I venture to say that that is really not the case. I no longer have the honour to be employed in the Ministry of Health, but I was there for over two years, and I remember very many occasions—my noble friend Lord Ancaster would corroborate me in this if he were present—when representations from the, Ministry of Agriculture were weighed and considered with the greatest care.
But in any case I think these decisions should be regarded as decisions of the Government and not of any particular Ministry. It is, of course, necessary to put in the Bill the Department which shall be the agent and shall be responsible for the issue of regulations and machinery. I trust therefore that your Lordships will be content to leave the Bill as it stands. Even if your Lordships should disagree with my point of view, I should like to say that in this particular case it would be quite unnecessary to put in any such provision or safeguard as Lord Strachie suggests, because these proposals when made by the Government will be laid
1314
before your Lordships' House, and before another place, and they can only come into operation by means of direct affirmative Resolutions of your Lordships' House and of another place. My noble friend Lord Strachie will then be able to raise any questions upon them, and to persuade your Lordships, with his usual persuasive eloquence, to disagree with my right hon. friend. The provision which it is suggested should be laid down with regard to this would be very undesirable, and I hope my noble friends will not press the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: My noble friend has given an explanation and a reason which I feel Lord Bledisloe would have accepted if he were here, and therefore I feel justified in withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move to omit from subsection (5) "as the court thinks proper."
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("as the court thinks proper").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Reduction of rent pending the execution of repairs.
11.— (1) If the county court on the application of a sitting tenant is satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority and such further evidence (if any) as may be adduced that the dwelling-house is not in a reasonable state of repair and that the condition of the dwelling-house is not due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of agreement, the court may order that the rent shall be reduced until the court is satisfied on the report of the sanitary authority or otherwise that the necessary repairs (other than any repairs for which the tenant is liable) have been executed, and subject to the terms of the order the rent shall be payable at such reduced rate as may be specified therein until the court is so satisfied.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, after ("of") and before ("agreement") insert ("express").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Clause, 11, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 11:
Restriction on calling in of mortgages.
(".—(1) Where a dwelling-house in the occupation of a sitting tenant is subject to a mortgage to which the principal Act applied, the county court may, on the application of the landlord, make an order restraining the mortgagee from calling in his mortgage or taking steps for enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured, if it is satisfied that such calling in, enforcement or recovery would cause exceptional hardship to the landlord. The county court may, on the application of the mortgagee or landlord rescind or vary any order so made if satisfied that by reason of any material change in circumstances, rescission or variation is necessary or proper.
(2) The restrictions imposed on a mortgagee by an order under this section may be imposed subject to such conditions as regards increase of interest or otherwise and for such time as appears to the court to he proper, but so nevertheless that the restrictions shall cease to be operative if at any time after the making of the order—

(a) interest is more than twenty-one days in arrear; or

(b) any covenant by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) is broken or not performed; or

(c) the mortgagor fails to keep the property in a proper state or repair or to pay the interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance; or

(d) the sitting tenant ceases to be tenant of the dwelling-house.

(3) This section shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage."
The noble Earl said: This clause is submitted to fulfil a promise which was given by my right hon. friend on Report stage in another place. The original proposals of the Government were that certain restrictions should be removed from mortgages, but all the restrictions which are contained in the principal Act are retained under the present Bill until the year 1925. When Part II comes into operation those restrictions will all fall away, and no restrictions upon mortgages would be retained under the Bill, as it stands. It was felt that the sudden removal of all restrictions in regard to mortgages in 1925, while certain restrictions were being maintained as to rent, would possibly be a sort of hardship. This clause, therefore, has been
1316
designed to continue the modified protection to the landlord in the case of mortgages so long as the sitting tenant remains in the house. The other provisions which are contained in the clause are those which are in the principal Act. They are re-enacted here because, after 1925, all the Rent Restrictions Acts will lapse, and only such provisions as are retained or enacted in Part II will be enforced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I do not wish to oppose this clause, but has the noble Earl fully considered the question of people being able in the future to obtain money on mortgage? Will not this clause make it extremely difficult for people to raise money? There are a great many people who do want to raise money on mortgage, and I am afraid this clause will make people hesitate before, they lend money on mortgage.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If your Lordships will turn to Part II you will see in Clause 10 (1) the description of a sitting tenant. It is only when a sitting tenant is in possession that this provision in regard to mortgages will apply. This is to balance the protection which is given to the tenant in regard to rent. It will not exist under Part II unless some provision of this kind is inserted in regard to the mortgages. I do not think the clause will have the effect my noble friend fears.
Clause 12:
Regulations as to reference committees.
12.—(1) The constitution and procedure of reference committees established under this Part of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Health.
(2) In addition to any questions that may be referred to a reference committee by the county court tinder this Part of this Act, provision may be made by the regulations for the reference to and determination by a reference committee of any questions in relation to the rent payable or to be paid by a sitting tenant which may be submitted to them by the tenant and landlord.
(3) Every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by each of those

1317
Houses within twenty-one clays on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be confirmed, His Majesty in Council may confirm the regulation, and it shall thenceforth have the force of law.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert:—
"(3) Before any regulation under this section is made, it shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such regulation shall not be made unless both Houses by resolution approve the draft, either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Minister of Health may make the regulation in the form in which it has been approved, and the regulation on being so made shall be of full force and effect."
The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment. I understand that when Regulations of this kind are to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament this form is usually adopted in the Bill, and not the one we had in the Bill as it came to your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 23 to 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow).
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Causes 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Certificates of sanitary authorities and definition of repairs.
(2) On any application to a county agricultural committee for a certificate for the purpose of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of Section five of the principal Act, a fee shall be payable by the applicant to the county agricultural committee of such amount as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall by regulation determine.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to add to subsection (2)—
"and when such an application is granted the issue of the certificate shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence that possession of the dwelling-house referred to in the certificate is reasonably required by the landlord, and that it is reasonable that an order or judgment for possession of the same should be made or given."
The noble Lord said: This refers to agricultural cottages, and the reason I move it is because in some cases,
1318
notwithstanding certificates of the agricultural committee, the courts have decided to make no order on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence that the landlord was "reasonable" in making the application. The agricultural committee, presumably, considered the whole question carefully and they would not have issued such a certificate without investigating the facts. Therefore, the certificate to my mind should be evidence of the reasonableness of the landlord as well as of the importance of the accommodation to agriculture or husbandry. I do not think the courts should be free to upset a certificate given by the agricultural committee. In fact, it means that two bodies are dealing with this question. First, you have a certificate from the agricultural committee, and the tenant can then take the owner into court and say that the certificate is not a reasonable one. My Amendment is to make the certificate to all intents and purposes final and conclusive, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am most anxious to do anything t can to meet my noble friend, and other members of your Lordships' House, and while I will try to meet this request I am afraid I can only do so to a modified extent. If the whole of his Amendment were accepted it would make the agricultural committee's certificate the criterion of the opinion of the county court as to the reasonableness of the claim, and I think the court of law must be unfettered in its own judgment, subject, of course, to the usual machinery of appeal. That is as regards the last part of his Amendment. With regard to the first part I do not think it would be possible to accept the certificate as absolutely conclusive evidence without any further say on the part of anybody. Take this fact, for instance. You have a provision in subsection (2) of Clause 3 of the principal Act, whereby a person is penalised for misrepresentation. He may have to pay compensation to the person dispossessed, and the house is not freed from control. A landlord may make misrepresentations to a county agricultural committee as well as in the county court, and supposing he obtained a certificate by misrepresentation then

1319
that certificate, if the Amendment were accepted, would stand and the court would have no power to rescind it. I think the party who objects to the certificate should have an opportunity of giving rebutting evidence as to the facts of the case.
As I say, I am most anxious to meet my noble friend if I can, and I would suggest that a provision which would strengthen the value of the evidence afforded by the certificate might be inserted. I have not drafted any such proposal at the moment, but it might be on the same lines as the provision in Clause 4 with regard to the certificate of sanitary authorities; something of this kind—that the certificate shall be sufficient evidence that what is contained therein is true, unless the contrary is proved. If my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment now I will endeavour to frame a proposal on these lines and introduce it on Report stage.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I cannot, of course, pledge myself beforehand as I have not seen the words he proposes to insert. I hope, however, he will go a long way to meet me. Perhaps he will let me discuss it with him before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I shall be very glad to confer with my noble friend as to the suggested provision.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (SALE TO PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DENTISTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SLIGO: My Lords, this is a very simple measure indeed, and
1320
if your Lordships will allow me I will explain it as briefly as I can. It is in reality the supplement of the Dentists Act, 1921. It does not alter any of the main provisions of that Act; it merely seeks to extend one clause. The Dentists Act of 1921 prohibits unqualified dentists from practising unless they pass a qualifying examination, and for that qualifying examination a candidate had to attain the age of twenty-three years before July 19, 1921, the date of the passing of the Act. This provision had a result which was not anticipated by anyone. Nobody realised that by fixing the age of twenty-three a very deserving section of the community would be unable to qualify, a section which has the sympathy I am sure of your Lordships' House—namely, ex-Service men. That provision precluded some young men who were studying as dentists, with a view to qualifying, from completing—those who served in the last two years of the war, who were eighteen years of age, and who enlisted after July 28, 1916. The result is that many young men who served for those two years were unable to qualify as dentists though wishing to do so.
A Bill, therefore, was drafted by the Ministry of Health to amend one section only of that Act, and to reduce the age from twenty-three to twenty-one for ex-Service men only, in order to enable them to qualify. This Bill passed through all its stages in another House without a single dissentient and with only one substantial Amendment, which gave an additional advantage to this particular class of young ex-Service man by extending the date from July 28 to November 11 in order to include all men who enlisted up to the date of the Armistice, November 11, 1918. This alteration in the Bill will in no way affect public health, because the men will he obliged to go through the same qualifying examination as they would have done before. The only thing, therefore, which this Bill seeks to do is to reduce the age from twenty-three to twenty-one, and I hope that your Lordships will be good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Sligo.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this question of altering the age limit especially to cover ex-Service men has been, as my noble friend has told your Lordships, the subject of much discussion,

1321
and the Government, although they did not feel able to promote amending legislation to the Bill which I had the honour to introduce to your Lordships last year, looked with favour upon the introduction of a private Member's Bill in another place. Its promoters acted in very close co-operation with my right honourable friend's Department, and the draft of the Bill which my noble friend opposite has explained was prepared with the con currence of that Department. The Bill has passed through another place, I think, practically in the form in which it was introduced, and I trust that your Lord ships will give it a Second Beading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROPERTY OF EX-ENEMY NATIONALS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given notice to call attention to certain cases in which the property of ex-enemy nationals has been impounded; and to ask whether further powers cannot now be granted to the Committee presided over by Lord Justice Younger. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have used the word "impounded" because it is a neutral term. I think I might have used a harsher term, but I do not wish to enter into any field of controversy that I can possibly avoid. As regards the suggested remedy and my inquiry whether further powers cannot now be granted to the Committee, I may say two things: First of all, that there is no interference with Treaty obligations in the suggestion to grant these further powers, and consequently no difficulty arises under that head; and secondly, that though considerable powers have already been granted to Lord Justice Younger's Committee it has been found in practice that there are left outstanding some cases of extreme hardship, cases which everybody would regret, and which, I believe, everybody does regret who knows the circumstances. I desire, therefore, to give full powers of discretion to Lord Justice Younger's Committee in order that it may deal with the very hard and harsh cases which undoubtedly arise under this principle of impounding the property of ex-enemy nationals.
I do not propose to trouble your Lordships to-night with historical considerations.
1322
It is sufficient to say that this impounding of the property of ex-enemy nationals is an entirely new departure and is contrary to all the traditions of this country since the year 1215. It could not have been carried out without special legislation. In other words, the Treaty-making power of the Crown would not, in itself, have been sufficient in this country to justify interference with private proprietary rights. We know, however, that as a matter of fact the necessary Act of Parliament was passed. I am not: asking to-night that this Act of Parliament should be repealed but merely that, within the powers of that Act the remedy should be given for which I intend to ask.
My task is shortened in two ways. I can quote quite shortly from two authorities who will undoubtedly carry weight, and on former occasions I have given my own views at sufficient length. Yesterday morning there appeared in The Times a letter signed by Mr. Spenser Wilkinson. I do not think that Mr. Spenser Wilkinson need have troubled himself with pointing out that he could not be regarded as a pro-German, because we all know that in many ways his bias and tendency are in the opposite direction, although I think that here as I am sure Mr. Spenser Wilkinson would be the first to admit—we are not dealing with a question of bias hut with a question of what ought, in justice, to he done. Mr. Spenser Wilkinson points out in that letter that the original intention was an exchange of property, and if the only effect had been an exchange of property I should not be here making this complaint and your Lordships would not have heard the complaints which I have made on former occasions. My complaint is of the manner in which this principle has, in fact, operated.
Let me quote Mr. Spenser Wilkinson on this point. He writes:—
"Thus it has come about that the property in England of German subjects has been taken from them. I am one of those who think that this transaction, honourable enough in its original intention, has in practice so turned out as to be unworthy of the name of England."
Surely that is so, for of all countries in the world we represent the principle of justice and security of property, and if an intention, good in itself, has in fact operated as robbery—and I do not think

1323
that this is too strong a word—then everyone would desire to put the matter right if possible. Mr. Wilkinson goes on to make this very important point:—
"By the irony of fate the persons who suffer most from the process which I have described are our own flesh and blood—the Englishwomen who in the years of peace long before the war married German husbands, many of them settled in England, some of them even naturalised British subjects who eventually returned to live in Germany."
This is not, of course, the only instance in which by the irony of fate injustice has operated so that we are the chief sufferers, hut I am sure that when I have given the illustrations which I propose to give, your Lordships will agree that the provision as it stands has by the irony of fate, to use Mr. Spenser Wilkinson's language, brought suffering mainly upon our own flesh and blood.
Before I come to the illustrations, of which I have given examples to the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in order that he might have time to inquire into them, let me refer in confirmation of the general outlook to one or two passages from the Interim Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, which was issued in 1922. And here I want to ask the noble Earl (Lord Clarendon) one question, because I desire to be entirely accurate. I have inquired at the Paper Office, and elsewhere, whether any Report has been issued since that date, and I have not been able to obtain one. If one has been issued, I should like to know where it is to be obtained. From the information which I have derived, however, the Report from which I am going to give one or two extracts is the last Report which the Committee has made. Let me refer to one or two passages from the Report of that Committee. I may say, first of all, that that Committee was appointed by the present Prime Minister when he was President of the Board of Trade. It was appointed for the very purpose of dealing with unfair and harsh cases under the provisions applicable in the Treaty of Versailles to ex-enemy property and ex-enemy debts. Indeed, it was for the very purpose of introducing fairness in those harsh cases that the Committee was appointed.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The Committee has issued no other Report.
LORD PARMOOR: Therefore this is the latest Report, which gives information from the very skilled body, presided over by Lord Justice Younger, which deals with these matters. First of all—the Committee is showing an injustice as regards the position of Englishwomen, and I think the words they use are very apt—the Committee says:
"The property here of a German woman married to an Englishman on the 9th of January, 1920, is exempt, although she may only have been permitted to land in this country a few days before."
What is the contrast which they give?
"The property here of an Englishwoman married to a German on the same day is retained, although she may never in her life have been out of this country."
Is that desirable, or do your Lordships feel that the Committee who dealt with these cases are fully justified in calling attention to what I regard as a gross anomaly of this character—an anomaly which, under their existing powers, they are not able to put right?
Let me read another passage:—
"The Treaties have not in this respect functioned according to their terms:"—
In other words, they are pointing out that whatever the intention was the effect has been robbery and confiscation—
"the German Treaty has so functioned only most imperfectly: the others not at all. The result—reflected in the recent discussion in the House of Lords—has been a growing suspicion and dislike of these clauses in their actual operation, accentuated by the fact, which now seems certain, that in the final result they will operate with the greatest degree of harshness in the cases in which it would be either the desire or to the interest of this country that they should not operate at all."
Surely it is a terrible tragedy, after recommendations of that kind, not to give the wider discretion for which the Committee were asking.
Having regard to the lateness of the hour, I would call attention only to one or two more passages. The Committee are speaking here of the result of the present concessions, and they say:—
"That only a fraction of the total amount credited on the account of any national is received by him, is not, however, doubtful."
I take it that the mark for the purposes of the ex-enemy property treatment was to be at 75 to the £, and the mark at this date was something like 1,000 to the

1325
£, whereas now the mark has substantially disappeared as being of any value for the purpose of exchange. Therefore, whatever harshness there was a year, or a year and a half, ago, when this Interim Report was published, it has been enormously increased by the present time. So much so, that in one of the complaints to which I wish to draw-attention, I think the sum of 50,000 marks paid under this system only brought 1s. 6d. to the recipient. It shows how extremely unjust the present conditions have operated.
Then there is one other passage to which I should like to call attention, because it is very important. It says that "This state of things"—which I have indicated—"is highly injurious to" the "international financial reputation" of this country. I cannot understand why in matters of this kind we seem deliberately to interfere injuriously with the international financial reputation of our country. If there is one thing more than another which it is desirable to maintain in this country it is a reputation for international financial security. I am at a loss to understand why we should go on destroying that sense of security, which in old days induced foreigners of various kinds to invest in this country in preference to any other, relying on the security which since 1215 had always been granted to them even in times of war. It is an extremely curious thing. I saw regret expressed the other day that since the war we have spent £400,000,000 on unemployment. I wonder whether your Lordships appreciate how much of that might have been saved if the security of international property had been safeguarded in this country as in old days. If there is one country more interested than any other in international friendship and security it is our own country, and we ought to stand in the fore-front as pioneers of security for international investments, when made here on the understanding that whatever else happened they would be secure and safe.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to call attention before coming to the three cases of which I have given notice to the noble Earl. It is this. Other countries have already made very large concessions—I do not say all other countries, that would be
1326
too wide a statement, so far as I know. You may say that this law is not in force in America because she was not a party to the Treaty. That may be true, but it will not alter the fact that, whereas we are sacrificing our principle of international financial security, they are strengthening theirs and getting advantage over us. I do not wish to say that against America, but it is a very serious matter when you come to commercial and financial considerations. In the same way we know that more generous terms are given in South Africa, and, I think, in our Colonies, but I do not wish to dwell too much upon that, except to say that so far as Treaty obligations are concerned we have a perfectly free hand, and that if we think the present method of impounding ex-enemy property acts harshly, we have full power and liberty to amend it and to give further powers to Lord Justice Younger's Committee. That is what I am asking you to agree to on the present occasion.
Let me give three instances only—I do not know how many hundreds of them I have had—which will express the sense of harshness to which I have referred. I have selected thorn because they apply in different ways—in one case to a German, in one case to an Englishwoman, and in a third case to a Czecho-Slovakian. This is a letter which was recently written to me by an ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland—
"A young German lady came to live 30 or 40 years ago with Sir John Banks, the Queen's Physician in Ireland, as a companion to his daughter, who afterwards married——"
I do not give any other names—
"After the marriage she continued to reside with Sir John Banks, and nursed him in his old age when he became blind."
Of course, we know that Sir John Banks did become blind in his old age—
"He died shortly before the war, and she went back to Germany, leaving her entire earnings, amounting to about £8,000 with the Bank of Ireland, who invested the money in various securities. When war broke out all her securities were seized. Lately it was found that she was in Germany in the direst poverty. Sir John Banks's friends, of whom I was one, subscribed enough to relieve her immediate distress. On hearing of it, I went on several occasions to the secretary of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, and succeeded

1327
in getting £100 paid to her out of her income."
The letter concludes:—
"There is no reason why she should not get all her property back. There could not be a more loyal or faithful woman. She was devoted to the English. She is now old and in Feeble health."
I ask your Lordships, do you desire a thing of that kind to go on?
It is a human tragedy of the deepest kind. But it is only an illustration; I am sure your lordships will credit me when I tell you that hundreds of similar cases have come to my notice. Such cases are a disgrace to us—I must use that term—at any rate as soon as we know the facts. And the matter could be remedied by-giving to Lord Justice Younger's Committee a wider discretion than they possess at the present time. The noble Earl opposite knows perfectly well that the discretion is only given within comparatively narrow limits. In this case it was exercised to the extent that Lord Justice Younger's Committee could exercise it, and yet this woman, who had given her life to nursing this blind man, and who had this property, sufficient in ordinary cases to provide for old age, is found starving, except for a dole which her friends collected in her behalf. She is in feeble health, and still in the direst poverty. Yet we boast ourselves to be a country reasonable and fair in matters of this kind. I am an idealist in nationalism to this extent, that I feel most deeply that we do not deal with matters of this kind and act fairly and honestly in order to relieve distress, which ought never to have been caused. To suggest, that this poor old lady, who nursed this blind doctor, was rightly deprived of her property is unthinkable.
Let me take the next case: It is the case of an English lady, so that we have an illustration from either side. This lady is the daughter of an Englishman, and in 1889 she married a German merchant settled in Manchester, at that time a naturalised British subject. In 1892 he retired from business, and went hack to Germany. In 1903 the father of the lady died, leaving his estate in trust for his widow, and afterwards for his daughter. The widow died in the spring of 1922, and the daughter immediately became entitled to a sum of £5,000 under her father's will. This money was at once claimed by the Public Trustee, who
1328
was, of course, bound to claim it as things stand. There was also a further sum of £6,000 owing to this Englishwoman by a firm in Manchester. That was also claimed by the Public Trustee. Your Lordships know that not only property is claimed, but debts are claimed. And nothing is more harsh than this; sums due from savings banks, for instance, cannot be claimed by their owners, as matters stand. A great many people want to be honest and to pay their debts, but they are prohibited from doing so.
The daughter has applied to Lord Justice Younger's Committee, which has released £500, the maximum they are allowed to release, to enable her to pay off a debt which she owed in this country. As the daughter's income in Germany has, by the collapse of the mark, become a negligible quantity she has real difficulty to contend with, and the practical confiscation of her inheritance and of the debts owing to her is a hardship for which the English law offers no remedy. I may add that the daughter's income before the collapse of the mark was somewhere about 50,000 marks. That sum is now worth 1s. 6d. Surely it is the irony of fate (to quote Mr. Spenser Wilkinson's word") to impose conditions which so affect an English lady and reduce her to this poverty and distress.
Let me now give a last illustration Last time I spoke Lord Gorell represented the Government. I gave a well authenticated case, which came from a very high official abroad—there could be no question about it—the ease of a poor governess, who had invested her savings in United Steel shares, but is now in a condition of starvation. She was a Czecho-Slovakian subject. On that occasion the Government promised redress, and I thought that the redress had been given, but a fortnight ago I had a letter from Madrid, from the same high official, saying it, had been a deep disappointment to him, after reading what passed in the House of Lords, that this lady had never been able to get any redress at all, and that the conditions which I then brought to the notice of the House, and which the House said should be redressed, as Lord Gorell knows very well, have never been redressed at all. I do not know why it is. It may well he that the explanation is that the poor woman abroad has great difficulty in bringing a claim before an official

1329
body in this country. Take the ease of a poor cottager in England who has to make a claim in Constantinople or in some distant place: how is she to do it? What advice can she get? How does she know to whom to apply?
I will not go further at this time. I think I have shown enough to convince your Lordships and the noble Marquess, who, I hope, is going to reply, that there, are heartrending hardships in existence at the present time which all of us would equally regret and deplore. It is not a question of one nationality or another. In the cause of justice and humanity we regret the injury which has been done in these cases. Mr. Spencer Wilkinson spoke of getting an Act of Parliament passed. That is not a very probable immediate remedy, I am afraid. But it is possible—and this is what I want to urge upon His Majesty's Government—to give Lord Justice Younger's Committee, which can be perfectly trusted, full discretion so that in cases of hardship such as those I have mentioned we might do justice, and right and not allow these plague spots of injustice to continue as blots upon our escutcheon.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I had no knowledge that the noble and learned Lord who has asked this Question was going to refer to the specific case that he raised last year. I am not at this date, therefore, fully familiar with all the details of that case, but I remember well that the facts as he put them forward then showed quite clearly that the particular lady was entitled to receive her money and, speaking on behalf of the then Government, I said (hat she should undoubtedly receive it. That is all that I have heard of that case. If, as the noble, and learned Lord has just said, she has not yet received it, I think that is definitely a matter to which the pressing attention of His Majesty's Government should be drawn. There was no legal difficulty at all in the way of her receiving it. It must have been due, as the noble and learned Lord has said, to the difficulties of an ignorant person as to the manner in which she should proceed.
In regard to the general question, on which, I think, there were no fewer than three debates last year, I am glad to know that the noble and learned Lord has not, as was done last year, impugned
1330
the main principle on which this impounding rests, in the first debate on the subject an attack was made directly on the provision in the Versailles Treaty. The Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, to which reference has been made, definitely stated that in their opinion the principle embodied in Article 207 of the Treaty was "not open to serious criticism," and one is glad to notice that the attack on the principle has been abandoned because it was a direct reflection upon the honour of this country in agreeing to that provision. There have been two principles in question, both admitted. The one was the actual legal interpretation of the Article, and the other the principle that where hardship had been clearly shown every effort should be made by this country to alleviate and palliate that hardship.
It was hoped, I remember well, that after the full review of the situation embodied in the Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, most of the hardships would be relieved. I think that nearly all of the recommendations in that Report were adopted; but it is clear that the difficulties and hardships still remain, and have grown in some, cases considerably worse owing to the change of conditions, both economic and financial, on the Continent. There is no difficulty whatever in alleviating the hardship if the will of the Government is directed towards that end. There is no necessity whatever for the passage of an Act of Parliament. It is perfectly within the power of His Majesty's Government to give a much wider discretion to the Committee, and I venture to hope, in view of the continuance of the hardship even after the alleviation which has been attempted, His Majesty's Government will now see their way to giving a much wider discretion to the Committee.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has congratulated himself upon the fact that the principle embodied in the Treaty under which this procedure takes place has not been contested. I hope he will not include me among the persons who approve the principle embodied in the Treaty, because I am most firmly opposed to it and I look upon it as being as disastrous and unfair as any principle may well be. This is the third or fourth occasion upon which

1331
we have debated this question. One debate has been more unsatisfactory than the other, and I have not the smallest expectation that we shall receive a more satisfactory answer from the representative of the Government than we have had on previous occasions.
I particularly desire to draw your Lordships' attention to one point. Whenever this question has been previously debated in the House the Government, and especially the noble Lord who has just sat down, have contended that there is no confiscation attaching to this procedure. I should like to show, oddly enough from a letter which I also observed in The Times not long ago, how it actually works out. I observed, and I kept as a curiosity, a letter which appeared in The Times in December last from a certain Dr. Acland. This gentleman had a son who was being educated in Berlin and was removed from there in 1914. Dr. Acland owed this young man's landlady a sum of £23. Apparently, being an honest man, he made every effort to repay this woman that £23, but without success. At last he received through the clearing office an imperative note stating that if he did not pay immediately the sum of £32 9s, which represented the £23 plus the accrued interest, he would be proceeded against. Dr. Acland paid the money. He then made inquiries and he found that the woman to whom the £23 was due had received rather less than 1s. and, at the present rate of exchange, she would have received, of course, far less. He was informed that if he, was not satisfied there would be no objection to his now sending her the £23 which he originally owed her. Therefore, by paying an amount of £55 9s, he would have been able to clear himself of a debt of £23. That. I think, speaks for itself. And what does it show? It shows that which we all know perfectly well—that money is taken from A and is given to B, that money is seized from one person and devoted to some totally different purpose, as in this particular instance.
Now, who had all this money? That is exactly what none of us know. I do not want to delay the House, especially as I have frequently expressed myself upon this matter: but for the life of me I cannot see why we should not imitate the example of other countries and show
1332
a certain amount of generosity, even if it be a very small amount, in this matter. Why cannot we act as generously as, for instance, the United States, or Italy, or Japan, or some of our Dominions, such as South Africa, or as France? Even in France the ex-enemy subjects are more fairly treated than they are in this country. I believe it to be a very unfortunate circumstance—if I am not mistaken—that the gentleman who is responsible for the enforcement of the law here is a gentleman who was partly responsible for the insertion of this particular provision in the Treaties. That being so, we can hardly expect him to alter his mind.
I would like, although I know it will be no good, to make one further appeal to His Majesty's Government, and to my noble friend the Leader of the House, in particular. What real reason is there why the request put forward by my noble and learned friend opposite cannot be complied with? It is a perfectly simple matter. All you have to do is to give Lord Justice Younger's Commission rather fuller powers. Then, at all events, you will have done something to rehabilitate our good name and our credit at the same time.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in reply to the noble and learned Lord who raised this Question, I am afraid that after he has heard what I have to state, he will not be altogether satisfied. In regard to the cases which he specifically mentioned I propose, after I have dealt with the larger questions, to mention those seriatim. From the memorandum which has been placed in my hand, I am afraid that it is not considered possible that the powers of release of the Younger Committee should be enlarged.
LORD PARMOOR: Why not?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I will come to that later on. The merits of the question under consideration have, I think, been overlaid by mistaken sentiment, and in the endeavour to mitigate the hardships of ex-enemy nationals resulting from the war, the miseries of our own people attributable to the same cause have been somewhat overlooked
LORD PARMOOR: Oh! no.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: In considering whether the property of ex-enemy nationals in this country should be released, it is material to bear in mind that the property of our nationals in ex-enemy countries has been liquidated and retained by the ex-enemy Governments. The settlement of the claims of this character on both sides is regulated by the clearing procedure, which is identical with that by which the obligations of banks inter se are settled through the bankers' clearing house. By this process credits and debits are set off one against the other, and the resultant balance in favour of one or the other alone remains for settlement. A credit, therefore, received from an opposing clearing office is set off against an equivalent amount in the hands of the British clearing office, and the latter sum becomes at once available for settlement of the claims of British nationals represented by the credit received. In order to secure the rights of ex-enemy nationals whose property has been liquidated in this country, an obligation was imposed upon all the ex-enemy Governments to compensate their nationals up to the value of the property liquidated on this side. Germany, alone of all the ex-enemy countries, has made default in meeting this obligation.
LORD NEWTON: That is not in the Report.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That is my information.
LORD NEWTON: It is contrary to Lord Justice Younger's Report.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That is the information supplied to me by the Board of Trade. While Germany does undoubtedly make payments to her nationals on account of their claims for compensation, such payments fall far short of the sums credited, and therefore paid, to her Government by the British clearing office. It has been explained by the German officials who were responsible for settling the terms of the German clearing house that they were induced to take this course by reason of the fact that, by the same measure, they had relieved their nationals of the obligation to valorise their debts. One breach of the Treaty, therefore, led to another, and whilst German nationals suffer by reason
1334
of the fact that they receive inadequate compensation, British nationals suffer no less through the failure of the Government to collect and account for the debts owing to them. If the value of the German property in this country were sufficient to meet the obligations with which it is charged, the position would not have been so serious, and sentiment might have been indulged in without prejudicing our people, but in fact there is a very serious deficiency of assets to meet liabilities, and up to the present, and after an interval of nearly nine years, it has only been found possible to pay dividends on claims for compensation to the extent of twenty-five per cent. of their value.
In the case of Austria there is even less justification for releasing property on this side which has been subjected to a charge in favour of British creditors and claimants. The Austrian administration in this country is hopelessly insolvent, and the available assets have only enabled the administrator to pay a dividend of 2s. in the £, and to gazette the intention to make a further small payment on account. On the other hand, under the Austrian clearing office law, an Austrian national whose property has been liquidated, is entitled, immediately his Government has been credited by the administrator with the proceeds of the liquidation, to receive Austrian Government sterling bonds for the full amount of such proceeds. Such bonds carry interest at the rate of 5 per cent. and are redeemable within ten years of the date of their issue. These bonds, which are transferable by delivery, are made legal tender for payment of the obligations of Austrian nationals to their Government, and are readily saleable. Six months ago they fetched from 45 per cent to 50 per cent of their face value, but owing to the recent favourable turn in Austrian finances, they have considerably appreciated in value.
The Hungarian clearing office law contains similar provisions, but, owing to the present stale of Hungarian finances, these bonds are doubtless less valuable than is the case with the Austrian obligations, but assuming that the Reparation Commission raises its lien upon Hungarian assets and revenues, and that Government is thereby enabled to obtain a foreign loan, it is probable that these bonds will rapidly increase in value.

1335
In the case of Bulgaria, it is understood that that Government has recognised the obligation to compensate its nationals, but the matter is of comparatively little importance, for outside the property of the ex-Czar Ferdinand and his children, the Bulgarian assets in this country are insignificant.
The cases of hardship which are principally adduced in support of the charge of heartlessness which is from time to time brought against the administration, are those of the British born wives of ex-enemy nationals. The fact, however, seems to be overlooked that the act of marriage was a voluntary one on the part of the lady, and by such act she identified herself with her husband, and obtained all the rights and privileges to which, as the subject of a new State, she thereby became entitled. To accept the contention of the complainant" would be to admit that she is entitled to the best of both worlds; to obtain all the benefits to which she may be entitled by reason of her new nationality whilst retaining those which she has voluntarily relinquished.
Special consideration has now been shown to German nationals who were resident in this country during the war, and who have been permitted to continue to reside here. Their property in this country, which is valued at £2,400,000, is subject to the charge, but except in certain very exceptional cases or where such property formed part of the assets of a business liquidated during the war, it has not been interfered with, and the German national is permitted to continue in the enjoyment of the full amount of the income derived from it.
I do not think I need refer to the terms of reference to Lord Justice Younger's Committee as the noble Lord who asked the Question referred to them. That they stretch their powers to the utmost in favour of ex-enemy nationals is undoubted, and as instances of the attitude which they adopt the cases of Baroness von Merkl and Mrs. Wessenberg, particulars of which I have here, may be quoted. In both cases the applicants are Austrian nationals, and would have received substantial compensation from their Government had they applied to it. In lieu, however, of doing so, they addressed themselves to the Committee, and the indulgences granted to them at the expense of British
1336
nationals have relieved their Government of an obligation which it was willing to perform and capable of performing.
In considering the cases of hardship of ex-enemy nationals which come before them, the Committee, I think, are apt to overlook the sufferings of our own people. Take the seamen's cases, which are numerous. These men were illegally detained in German ports prior to the outbreak of war, and thereafter were interned and subjected to every conceivable hardship and insult. Many of them died in prison, and under the Treaty their widows are entitled to compensation. Many of these poor people are in dire distress, but even when they have obtained awards in their favour—and every obstacle is placed in the way of their so doing by the German authorities—the funds available will not permit of claims being met anything like in full. The releases recommended by Lord Justice Younger's Committee come directly out of the fund charged in favour, inter alia, of this class of persons, and to extend the scope of reference to that Committee would further jeopardise their position.
With regard to the three cases to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and of which he gave no names, in the first, that of the Irish lady, I understand that that case is now before the Committee and that a sum of £500 will be granted to that lady, and, in addition, income to a reasonable amount.
LORD PARMOOR: May I correct that? The matter has been before the Committee, and the Committee have done all they can. But it is practically very little indeed.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: May I supplement that by a further statement? A further £2,000 will not be credited to Germany at present and will be released later if there is a surplus after satisfying British claims. That is subject to the concurrence of the Irish Free State Government.
With regard to the second case, this particular lady, who was married, I think, to a German national, prefers to reside in Germany as she possesses in that country considerable estates. I would point out, however, that my noble friend Lord Wolmer, in reply to a

1337
Question addressed to him in another place by Captain Wedgwood Benn, on July 2, 1923, pointed out that:
"It is the practice to release the property of British-born women, formerly married to ex-enemy nationals, who as widows or divorcees have been renaturalised as British subjects."
In this ease, if this particular lady re-naturalises herself as a British subject, she is entitled to have her case met.
LORD PARMOOR: Do you mean that as a divorcee she would receive money which she cannot now have?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I am quoting from the reply given in another place. I think it is quite clear—
"British-born women, formerly married to ex-enemy nationals, who as widows or divorcees have been renaturalised as British subjects."
LORD PARMOOR: That is to say, if I may interrupt the noble Earl again, that if a woman has been divorced she is to get money on conditions which if she was not divorced she cannot get?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The whole thing is dependent upon the question of renaturalisation, whether of a widow or a divorcee. With regard to the third case which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, after inquiries it has been ascertained that she is a Czecho-slovak, and her property in consequence is not subject to the charge, but it is not yet possible to identify any property as belonging to her. It seems probable, however, that no distinctive numbers from among the numbers of the shares held in the depot, were allotted to her.
LORD GORELL: May I interrupt the noble Earl? As far as my memory goes there was no difficulty in regard to that. Will the noble Earl say what difficulty bus arisen since?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: She claims to be the owner of 50 shares in a depot of 120 held by a firm in London for the Mayenee branch of the General Alsatian Banking Company, but the only evidence of ownership she has produced is a statement from the bank that they had purchased 50 Steel Common shares for her and that these are included in the depot; and a request to the bank for
1338
further evidence to identify any shares as hers has not received a reply, although originally made in December last and renewed since. It seems probable, however, that no distinctive numbers from among the numbers of the shares held in the depot, were alloted to this lady before the war, and that the decision whether we can take any of the shares in the depot and hand them over to her, or must account to the Alsatian Bank for the whole depot, must await the receipt of the opinion of the Law Officers on the general question of allocation. That is the only information I have on the subject, and I hope that the noble and learned. Lord will be satisfied, in part, if not in whole.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Earl can hardly expect that we shall be at all satisfied with the statement he has made. May I say that this is the second lecture we have listened to this evening from the noble Earl; and, perhaps, he will further allow me to say that the skill he showed when speaking more freely and departing from the memorandum with which be has been supplied encourages me to hope that in the future your Lordships' House may be favoured with more original remarks from the noble Earl. I am sure the whole House will welcome more original remarks from him on future occasions, if he will be good enough to favour us with them, rather than read a statement with which he has been supplied. Further, let me remind him that such a course on his part will be more in accordance with the usual custom in your Lordships' House.
I have said that he can hardly expect those of us who take an interest in this question to be satisfied with the information he has given. It is no doubt, perfectly true that there are a number of British subjects who have been badly treated by the Germans. There may even be more cases of people worse treated than of Germans badly treated in this country. That may be so; I do not wish to pass any opinion on that subject because I have no information. But I have yet to learn that two wrongs make a right. Because other people have been badly treated in Germany is no reason why we should treat people badly in this country. None of us can feel comfortable when we hear eases mentioned by noble Lords on

1339
this side of the House. I do not wish to contest the principle in the Treaty of Versailles. I am not one of those who approve of the cases quoted by the noble and learned Lord. No doubt there are these hard cases, and in a time of war hatred it is only natural people should go very far. They went far indeed in this country. If I may digress for a moment, your Lordships will perhaps allow me to mention a case in which so great was public feeling against conscientious objectors that a conscientious objector who came within my own knowledge was in prison serving a sentence for being a conscientious objector at the very moment when he was presented with a Mons medal for two years' active service at the front. Hard cases of this kind naturally occur, especially at a moment when war hatred is in the air.
But surely the time has now come when we should recur to the normal principles of justice. Whatever other countries may do, it must be our duty to do the right and the proper thing. The case which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, and again by my noble friend behind me, Lord Gorell, of the lady from Czecho-Slovakia, hardly seemed to me to be the same case as that which was quoted by the noble Earl. The circumstances seemed to be so different. I cannot help thinking that there must be some misunderstanding with regard to this particular case, and that when it is referred again to the Board of Trade it may be found that they are alluding to a different case. I hope that this may be so, because, to judge from what was said by the noble Lord who formerly represented His Majesty's Government, it seems to be perfectly clear that this lady ought to have received some time ago the money which he then thought would be paid over to her very soon after he had made his speech in this House.
In view of the evidence which has been brought before us I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not be satisfied with the position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. I do not intend to pursue the matter at this stage, but I hope that when we meet again in the autumn, at a moment when it is probable that we shall have plenty of spare time, the noble and learned Lord will bring the matter forward once again
1340
at an earlier hour in the evening, so that we may have a longer discussion on the subject and enter more fully into the details. In conclusion, I venture to repeat that which was said by the noble and learned Lord below the gangway, and express the hope that our representatives, not only in the Government, but also on the Committee, will go as far as they possibly can in the direction of justice—I say nothing of mercy—and will do all that is possible to relieve these unfortunate hard cases.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, may I say two words upon this subject to supplement what has fallen from Lord Beauchamp? I sincerely hope that this matter may be discussed at a later stage when there is time to consider it in all its aspects. To-night, the debate has naturally been in the main limited to the consideration of specific cases of hardship, and my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor has made an appeal to the Government to give a wider authority to the Younger Committee to deal with them. But to my mind no aspect of this subject can be altogether satisfactory which puts aside without any discussion the policy and the propriety of the Article of the Treaty which has led to this condition of affairs. This raises a very much wider, and to my mind, a very much more important question than that of any individual case, however great the hardship involved. It may be that, in form, no breach of the hitherto accepted rules of International Law has been committed, but when I consider this procedure and its consequences, it occurs to me that the time will come when it will be very desirable that some responsible Government here should make it clear that the principle of International Law that private property on land is not confiscable may be reasserted in the clearest possible terms. Here I think I can speak for everybody who has had anything to do with International Law, and whether I accept—as I do not accept at present—the statement of my noble friend, Lord Gorell, that there has been no confiscation——
LORD GORELL: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one second? I was only quoting the Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee.
THE EARL OF DESART: I should like it, to be made clear that this most important principle, as it appears to me, of International Law—a principle perhaps more important to us than to anybody else—shall not be tampered with and has not been affected in any way by that which has been done. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this Question may be discussed in its widest aspects at a future date.
LORD PARMOOR: I rise, with your Lordship's permission, merely to say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down. I never for a moment suggested that the question raised by the noble Earl was not the greater question. It was only in order to secure that these particular hardships should be put right in the shortest possible time that I confined my remarks to that aspect of the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships may expect one word from myself, as representing the Government, before this debate closes. This matter is not very familiar to me, and I do not think your Lordships will expect me to go into it in any detail, the less so since my noble and learned friend who sits behind me and the noble and learned Lord opposite have indicated that your Lordships will be asked to resume this discussion at a future date. Probably it would be convenient to leave more detailed discussion until that time. My noble and learned friend behind me, Lord Desart, has called into question the principle upon which this Article of the Treaty of Versailles proceeded. I need not say that this opens a very wide field. I am not in any way responsible for the Treaty of Versailles, and I do not pretend to be familiar with
1342
the particular provisions in question, but I would remark that to open up the policy of the Treaty of Versailles itself would lead us very far indeed, and I prefer to abstain altogether from any comment upon that side of the matter.
I need not tell your Lordships, however, that no man can hear of the cases which have been detailed by noble Lords of people who have suffered under these provisions without feeling the most profound sympathy. Of course, we feel it. Your Lordships will, however, realise the position. I am not defending the policy of the Treaty, but I take it to be this, that every pound that is remitted in the case of a German means a pound less given to an Englishman.
LORD PARMOOR: Not necessarily.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But I understand that to be the principle upon which it works. I am not defending that principle; I am merely stating it. As the matter stands, therefore, there is no doubt that the quality of mercy must be administered with great discretion lest hardship be inflicted on the other side. Whether we ought to have been placed in that dilemma or not is a question which would bring me back again to the larger consideration which I am abstaining from discussing, but that appears to be the dilemma that the noble Lord opposite puts to the House. I agree that these matters appeal to us, and I can only tell noble Lords that if I can reassure them by saying that I will myself try to make inquiries into the working of this procedure, I will give them that assurance. I will do all that I can. I cannot promise more. These things are very pathetic, and I wish that they had never occurred.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Committed for Thursday next.
THORNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
RUGBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
OLDHAM AND ROCHDALE CORPORATIONS WATER BILL. [H.L.]
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

WEST RIDING OK YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DRAINAGE) BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL (SHEFFIELD (WATER) ORDER).
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. (UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Reported, without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.