Sitting of 28 July 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Scarisbrick Estate Drainage Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill upon Wednesday.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

PROPOSED GERMAN LOAN.
Sir WILLIAM BULL: I have the honour to present a petition from the National Union of Manufacturers. I do not propose to read it in full, but I crave leave to read one paragraph.
"Your petitioners submit that the scheme which is engaging the attention of the Allied Conference on the subject of the £40,000,000 loan to Germany requires very careful consideration from the point of view of how British industries other than the textile industry are likely to be affected."
I should like also to read the Prayer.
"Your petitioners therefore pray that the proposed scheme should be referred to the examination, from a British point of view, of a suitable committee representa-
1732
tive of the interests concerned (both masters and men) before any binding agreement is entered into."

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    CURRENCY.
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has received a communication from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce on the currency situation; and, if so, what does he propose doing in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): No, Sir. The communication to which the hon. Member refers has, I understand from the Press, been addressed to the Government of India, who are doubtless giving it careful consideration. It is scarcely necessary for me to add that my Noble Friend is in constant communication with the Government of India on the important questions which constantly arise in connection with Indian currency and exchange.

    RIOTS IN DELHI.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Undersecretary of State for India if normal conditions of public order have now been restored in Delhi; it British troops have been relieved from street duty; and what was the total number of such troops on such ditty during the riots?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Chief Commissioner reports that troops were intermittently employed from the 11th to the 17th July. The maximum number employed was 75 British infantry, with six armoured cars, and 100 Indian cavalry. The troops did not fire.
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Have these disturbances ceased all over India, or are they still continuing in other parts?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I have no recent information which leads me to believe that disturbances are going on elsewhere.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many persons were killed and injured in

    1733
    the recent disturbances in Delhi; and how many of such casualties were attributable to clashes between the rival Hindu and Mohammedan mobs and how many to action by the police and military?
    Mr. RICHARDS: 16 Hindus and one Mohammedan were killed. 96 Hindus, 50 Mohammedans and four police were injured. These figures do not include casualties treated privately. No casualties are reported to have been caused by the troops, who did not fire. As stated last week, two persons were killed by the police, who opened fire with buckshot.
    Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer that the vast majority of the casualties are caused by the clash between rival parties, and not by the police or military bodies?
    Mr. RICHARDS: That is so. Only two were caused by the police.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: In what other places have similar disturbances occurred?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I have just said that I have no recent information.

    ARMY HOSPITALS.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps, if any, have been taken to secure an immediate and general improvement in the whole standard, comfort, and accommodation in the hospitals for British troops in India as the result of the investigations of the British Station Hospital Committee, under the chairmanship of Surgeon-General Sir G. H. Makins, in 1918; whether any Report hereon has been issued; and, if so, whether it may be placed in the Library?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I have not received any report from India, but am having a statement prepared from the information in my possession, and will let the hon. Member have a copy as soon as possible.

    SIRAJGANJ RESOLUTION.
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has anything to add
    1734
    with regard to the Sirajganj resolution passed by the Swarajist party; and whether the Government adhere to their policy with regard to this matter?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. To the second part, I can only reply that no policy in regard to this matter has been advocated by the Government of India, by whose recommendations my noble Friend is content to be guided.
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Does the glorification and laborious eulogy of Mr. Das as being a saintly person denote a change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State's recent utterance has made not only him but Mr. Das an object of ridicule throughout India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: There is no indication of a change of policy on the part of the Government.

    PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, now that the Viceroy has called a conference of the provincial governors at Simla at the end of this month to discuss the administration of the various Provinces, the question of the advisability of suspending the Legislative Assembly and all provincial councils, and not only the Central Provinces Council, will be discussed as well as the proposals contained in paragraph 245 of the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms for the sub-division of existing provinces into smaller areas on a linguistic or racial basis?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I have no knowledge of any general conference for the purposes indicated. The Government of India Act does not provide for the suspension of Legislatures. As regards the subdivision of Provinces, I invite the hon. and gallant Member's attention to my answer to his question of the 30th June.
    Sir C. YATE: In the first place, has not the Central Provinces Council been suspended, and, in the second place, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that provinces of 30, 40 and 50 million people are too large for effective administration?
    Mr. RICHARDS: Again I should like to draw the hon. Baronet's attention to the discussion of this matter in the Report.
    Sir C. YATE: What about the suspension of the Central Provinces Council?

    MURDER OF MR. WHITTEN, ASSAM.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can now give the particulars regarding the murder of Mr. Whitten by coolies on a tea estate in Assam; whether he is aware that this murder was the result of the preaching of agitators; and how much longer the Government responsible for law and order is going to tolerate this preaching?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The further Report promised, after investigation, has not yet been received.
    Sir C. YATE: Was not this murder the result of the preaching of agitation, and how long are the Government of India going to tolerate this agitation?
    Mr. RICHARDS: We have asked for a Report.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the hon. Gentleman asked for a statement from the local Governor as to the state of public order?
    Mr. RICHARDS: We have asked for a Report of the whole affair.
    Mr. J. JONES: Are all the agitators going to be sent to the scaffold at the request of hon. Members opposite?

    BRITISH PHOSPHATE COMMISSION.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any approximate estimate of the trading results of the British Phosphate Commission for the year ended 30th June, 1924?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): Information has been received by telegram that the sales of phosphate rock last year amounted to 450,000 tons, and that the net profit, after allowing for interest and sinking fund, may be roughly estimated at £86,000. The hon. Member will
    1736
    understand that the accounts have not yet been made up, and that these figures are subject to correction.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the House at the first convenient opportunity a full statement of the business proceedings of the Phosphate Commission?
    Mr. THOMAS: I should like to have a full statement myself first.

    EAST AFRICA (PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION).
    Mr. RHYSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who are to form the Parliamentary Commission that is to visit East Africa; which territories they propose to visit, and in what order; when they are to start; and what are the terms of reference?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Commission will consist of

    The Honourable William Ormsby-Gore, the hon. Member for Stafford, Chairman;

    Mr. A. G. Church, the hon. Member for Leyton East;

    Mr. F. C. Linfield, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford; with

    Mr. J. J. A. Calder of the Colonial Office, as Secretary.

    It will embark at Southampton on 15th August, and visit Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya in the order named.
    The terms of reference are:
    "To visit Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya with a view to obtaining as much information as possible in the time available on all subjects covered by the terms of reference to the East Africa Committee, and to report to the Secretary of State on any facts which they may consider have a bearing on the above matters."
    Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken care to ensure the safe return of these distinguished gentlemen?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am sure each party will do its best to see that its representatives return.
    Mr. J. JONES: Why has not real Labour been represented upon this committee of inquiry?
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the visit to Rhodesia include what was formerly known as North-West Rhodesia, as well as North-East Rhodesia? Do the Commission propose, for example, to visit Livingstone?
    Mr. JONES: Why cannot the real working classes of this country be represented?
    Mr. THOMAS: In answer to the Noble Lord, that point will be the subject of further inquiries. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I was not aware that there was a distinction between real and unreal on these benches.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the distinction between the intellectual and the nonintellectual sections of his party?
    Mr. THOMAS: I was not aware that the Liberal party had that distinction.

    GOLD COAST (TAKORADI HARBOUR).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the original grant of £1,600,000 for the Takoradi Harbour works has in fact been absorbed under the Stewart and MacDonnell scheme; and what balance remains for the carrying out of the proposal recommended by Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. THOMAS: The total expenditure on the Takoradi Harbour works to date may be estimated at £1,000,000, leaving £600,000 available out of the original estimate of £1,600,000. The greater part of the work already done will be embodied or utilised in Mr. Palmer's scheme.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does Mr. Palmer's scheme include the necessary Government buildings for continuing the work, and the harbour? Does the estimate include the inspector's house, Post Office and all those things that will be required?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not sure, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him the exact facts.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it
    1738
    has yet been decided to accept the resignation of Messrs. Stewart and Mae-Donnell as advisers upon the Takoradi Harbour works; and whether this firm has offered to refund any portion of the fee of £70,000 paid to them for advising on the construction of these works?
    Mr. THOMAS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second part it is in the negative.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    BRITISH DELEGATION.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will reconsider the composition of the British delegation to the forthcoming assembly of the League of Nations, in order that he may include a woman as one of the delegates to represent Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): As has already been an-to the second part it is in the negative.

    ARMAMENTS (REDUCTION).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether the conference upon disarmament, which he has suggested to the League of Nations, will be summoned directly by His Majesty's Government, or whether he proposes to suggest to the Assembly of the League of Nations that this new conference should be summoned by that body; and whether, in view of the admitted danger of any delay in securing a, limitation of armaments, he proposes to urge the Council of the League, which meets in September, to prepare for the consideration of the Assembly some well-defined alternative scheme to the rejected Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what steps are proposed to be taken by His Majesty's Government to bring about a general reduction in European land armaments by agreement now that the pact of mutual assistance has been rejected?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to say anything further on the subject.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement before

    1739
    the House rises as to the principles of disarmament which he will lay before the Assembly of the League?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already answered that by saying that at the present time I am not prepared to add anything to what I have already said.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In regard to Question 31, what is the reason that the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in this position? Is it that the matter is under consideration or under negotiation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Both.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he can report any progress towards a further reduction of naval armaments by agreement among the principal naval Powers; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take in this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reduction of armaments is regarded by His Majesty's Government as one of the essential conditions of national security. It requires, however, to be prepared for by a policy which will create confidence between the nations. Any ill-timed move would do incalculable harm.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now some time since a very definite move in this direction was made in the United States of America, and have we taken any steps in that direction?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite mistaken. No such move has been made by the President of the United States. He has declared his general interest and sympathy—I cannot give his exact words—and I agree with and respond to that

    TREATY OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE.
    Sir LEONARD LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether any other Powers affiliated to the League of Nations have as yet decided on their attitude towards the proposed Treaty of Mutual Assistance; and, if so, what their attitude is?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Belgium, Bulgaria, Esthonia, Finland and Latvia have expressed themselves generally in
    1740
    favour of the Draft Treaty, though Belgium and Finland have made many suggestions for amendment. The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and the United States have declared themselves unable to accept it. I am not aware that any other foreign country has expressed its views as yet.
    Mr. J. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the French Government has declared its acceptance of the Treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; it is not a fact.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that at the Assembly before the last one the French delegates did so declare themselves?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know about the French delegates. The question was about the French Government—two distinct things, especially now.

    MUNITIONS OF WAR.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the representatives of His Majesty's Government at the Assembly of the League of Nations will be instructed to raise the question of the private manufacture of, and traffic in, munitions of war this year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Both these questions will come up for discussion on the report of the Temporary Mixed Commission.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we going to take up this matter actively?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We must wait until we see what the report says. We shall certainly take an active part in the discussion.

    RUSSIA (DRAFT COMMERCIAL TREATY).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the draft Commercial Treaty with Russia now completed; and is it proposed to submit it for signature by the Russian Delegation before the House rises for the Recess;
    (2) whether the rights reserved to the British Government or British nationals,

    1741
    under Article X of the Krassin Trade Agreement of 1921, are maintained in their entirety in the new draft Commercial Treaty with Russia, and without liability to any charge of any kind?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am unable to make any statement on these subjects, in advance of the general statement on the results of the Anglo-Soviet negotiations, which the House has been promised before the Recess.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the points alluded to in Questions 16 and 17 be specifically dealt with when the right hon. Gentleman tells us the whole story about the Russian negotiations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Everything dealt with during the negotiations will be referred to.

    O'DWYER v. NAIR.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant time for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Melton, or what action he proposes to take in this matter?—["To call attention to the facts brought out in the trial of the libel action brought by Sir Michael O'Dwyer, late Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, against Sir Sankaran Nair, formerly a member of the Executive Council of the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, that in consequence of the defence having accused Sir Michael O'Dwyer of the commission of serious atrocities, including General Dyer's shooting on the mob at Amritsar on 13 th April, 1919, and having insisted that this was relevant to the defence, the Judge was compelled to advise the jury as to whether the shooting in question constituted an atrocity, and, if so, whether Sir Michael O'Dwyer was responsible for it; that after considering all the evidence on the subject, much of which was not before His Majesty's Government when they punished General Dyer in 1920, the Judge expressed the view that General Dyer, in the grave and exceptional circumstances, acted rightly, and in my opinion upon the evidence he was wrongly punished by the Secretary of State for India'; and, considering that this view was accepted by 11 out of the 12 jurymen, an humble Address be presented to His
    1742
    Majesty praying that this judicial opinion and finding, based upon a full consideration of all the evidence, be accepted, and that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to revoke the censure passed upon General Dyer after the incomplete executive investigation in 1920."]
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I am not prepared to grant time for the discussion of this Motion.

    IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT (DOMINION REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. PENNYasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to binding the Empire more closely together, he will favourably consider inviting the Dominions to appoint representatives to a conference to be specially convened for the purpose of inquiring into the question of an Imperial Parliament in which the Dominions would have representation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. Such a thing would be quite useless.

    IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
    Mr. REIDasked the Prime Minister whether the answers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the questions submitted to it regarding the Irish Boundary Commission will, when given, be communicated to this House?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister whether he has advised His Majesty to make public the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the matter of the Irish Boundary Commission; and, if so, will he say what it is?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in regard to the Irish Boundary Commission has not yet been received; but when it is, steps will be taken at once to communicate it to Parliament.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before he receives the Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. It is still in the hands of the Judicial Committee.
    Mr. HUGH O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the judgment will be given in full to the public?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly; whatever is sent to us will be given in full to the public.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the Report be forthcoming before Parliament rises?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. It is impossible for me to say. It is not in my hands.
    Colonel GRETTON: Is it not a fact that the Report is not made to the Prime Minister? It is made to the Crown.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; I think there is a mistake there.

    GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister why the Government has permitted the sale of Government houses and other property at Gretna?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): It was decided to dispose of Government property at Gretna because it was surplus to Government requirements.
    Mr. HARDIE: Have the Government made investigations as to the possibilities of the productive power of these plants for national needs, such as the supply of fuel for aeroplanes and other things connected with national defence?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes. I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole circumstances were considered, and after reviewing all the facts the Government decided that the sale could not be postponed.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a customary thing to suspend or postpone a sale? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the auctioneer who was carrying out the sale pointed out that so many people thought the sale was suspended that they had not turned up? Why did not the Government suspend the sale until they had had full investigations as to the possibilities of the plant?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it the intention of the Government to let the houses if they are unable to sell them; or what is the programme?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), I am afraid I can only repeat that it was the decision of the Government and I cannot add anything to what I have said. As regards the houses not being sold, it would be impossible for me to make any statement as to what is to be done with them. I am afraid it would be impossible to find tenants in that isolated spot.
    Mr. HARDIE: Why do the Government want to sell land belonging to the nation, seeing that we stand for nationalisation and the reconstruction of industry?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now discuss the matter.
    Mr. HARDIE,: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. SOMERVILLEalso asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average price received for dwelling-houses sold at the Gretna sale and the average price it cost to build them?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The average price received for brick houses sold was £324 4s. 6d. at Gretna and £315 10s. 6d. at Eastriggs. The wooden bungalows sold in both townships averaged £43 10s. each. I regret that the average cost of building these brick houses and wooden bungalows is not available, but, if it can be obtained from the accounts for the years 1916–1917 without serious labour, I will let the hon. Member have the figures.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is it the case that no reserve prices were placed upon the valuable property arid plant disposed of at Gretna; and is it a fact that £2,850 was received for the steam laundry which the auctioneer himself said was only the scrap value of the plant?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that reserve prices were placed on all the property at Gretna, but I could not offhand without notice give details of any individual item.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: If over £300 each was paid for these dwelling-houses, is it not curious there was no demand for letting these houses, since there were purchasers who desired them to live in?
    Mr. HANNON: As there is obviously great loss to the taxpayers in these sales

    1745
    will the hon. Gentleman institute some inquiry to satisfy the public as to how they are being conducted?
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Were offers made to let these houses to villagers in the neighbourhood of Gretna?
    Mr. GRAHAM: If I remember rightly, some time ago, every effort was made to let these houses, but in fact, at that time, applications could not be obtained, and it was then arranged to sell the property. As I have already mentioned, in point of fact the prices obtained for the, small houses were surprisingly large. In reply to the question by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Somerville) I could not offhand say what is the intention regarding the letting of the houses, but I imagine that they must have been bought for occupation.
    Mr. HANNON: May I have an answer to my question?
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Has any of the property which did not obtain the full reserve since been sold, and has it reached the reserve privately?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say whether any of the house property has been sold since the sale, but, one plant was sold subsequent to the sale. As regards the question of an inquiry, the position will be reviewed by the Government almost immediately. I ought to state to the House that while more than £100,000 was realised at Gretna, only a small fraction of the property was sold.
    Mr. SIMPSON: How many houses were sold?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I could not say offhand. I do not know that I have the actual number sold.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that this factory was put up during the War at inflated prices, and that there is, therefore, bound to be a loss to the taxpayers?
    Mr. HARDIE: Is there any truth in the statement which has appeared in some of the papers that the Government are selling these houses, in order to get money to pay the subsidies for the brick boxes not yet built?
    Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. Is it in order, or in accordance with custom, for a Member of the party opposite to ask questions from these benches here?
    Mr. HARDIE: I am waiting here, to get a ticket for the Members' gallery.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have often seen it done.

    CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
    Sir CHARLES STARMERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased cost of living which has been taken into consideration in the salaries paid to civil servants and others, His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of promoting legislation for the purpose of increasing in amount the payments annually bestowed in the Civil List pensions in recognition of meritorious services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me on this subject on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Epping, of which I am sending him a copy.

    LIFE PEERAGES.
    Mr. RAFFETYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to enable the creation of peerages for life?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have not considered the question of the desirability of introducing legislation on this subject.

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

    BUILDING TRADE.
    Sir L. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, as an outcome of the recent court of inquiry into the building dispute, the Government has taken any steps, and, if so, with what result, to bring about a settlement in the present deadlock in the building dispute?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement concerning the present position of the building dispute?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply.

    1747
    Representatives of the National Allied Building Trades Employers and of the Operatives' Organisation have been invited to a meeting this afternoon under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any special steps have been taken to safeguard the Government houses?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I think it would be undesirable to say more at this moment.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that during the time the negotiations were pending the employers put the lock-out notices into operation?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that the builders' labourers' trade unions went on strike a fortnight before the lock-out was declared?
    Mr. J. JONES: Why did the employers by their action anticipate the possibility of a settlement?
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that trade unionists on picket duty in connection with the building dispute in London have received printed slips of paper threatening them with violence; whether the police have made any inquiries into this matter; and what what result?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have seen copies of a slip of paper purporting to have been issued by the "British Fascisti," but I am informed that that body disclaims all responsibility for their authorship or issue. The police have at present no information as to who the author may be.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the man responsible for the organisation of the British Fascisti is an ex-Socialist, like Mussolini himself?

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the present position concerning the demand of the workers in the electricity supply industry for a wages increase; how many men are involved; and whether any suggestion for an arbitration concerning the matters in dispute has been made?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Application was made in February to the Joint Industrial Council for the Electricity Supply Industry for a general advance in wages of 10s. per week. The employers' side offered arbitration. On a ballot taken by the trade unions concerned there were 5,112 votes in favour of arbitration and 7,630 in favour of a strike. The number of employés in the industry is about 29,000. At a subsequent meeting of the council on 18th July, the employers' side again offered arbitration. The executives of the trade unions concerned are meeting on 30th July to consider the position. A meeting of the council has been fixed for 15th August.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the Minister propose to set up a court of inquiry into this matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

    FOULSHIELS COLLIERY, WEST LOTHIAN.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour, whether he has made any inquiry concerning the recent. dispute at the Foulshiels colliery, Stoneyburn, West Lothian, where certain firemen, members of the Colliery Firemen's Union, were not permitted to work unless they joined the Miners' Union; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have been asked to reply. The dispute, I understand, is at an end and it is not proposed to take any further action in the matter.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is this the same miners' union which caused a previous colliery strike?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am not aware whether it is the same miners' union or not.

    IRON AND STEEL WORKS, BILSTON.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the trade dispute in Messrs. Alfred Hickman's iron and steel works at Bilston, by which nearly 3,000 men are thrown out of employment; that this was due to some 400 men of the Workers' Union coming out on strike and making it impossible for the works to continue; that the other 2,000 men, thrown out of

    1749
    employment through no fault of their own and belonging mostly to the Iron and Steel Trades' Confederation, are unable to obtain unemployment pay as the local Employment Exchange refuses to allow them to register; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware of this case. Payment of benefit has been disallowed by the Chief Insurance Officer under the provisions of the existing law relating to trade disputes and unemployment benefit, but it is open to the men or their association to appeal to the court of referees. The Unemployment Insurance Bill now before Parliament contains a Clause designed to deal with cases of this kind.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some 2,500 men, belonging to a union in which there has been no strikes for a great many years, have been thrown out of employment owing to some men of another union going out on strike?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is one of the defects of the existing Act which the Bill is intended to remedy.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that a few days ago, when Members on this side tried to rectify the Unemployment Insurance Bill for the purpose of assisting such men as these, hon. Members opposite objected to that course.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Sir JOHN PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is preparing a Bill to give Old Age Pensions at 65 years; and, if so, when that Bill will be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present add anything to the statement male by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject on the 25th June in the Debate on the Old Age Pensions Financial Resolution.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER: Are we to understand from the answer given that there is no truth in the statement that the Government are actually preparing such a Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not necessarily. If the hon. Member will refer to the statement of my right hon. Friend, he will see that that possibility is not at all ruled out.

    NAVAL OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
    Viscount CURZONasked the prime Minister whether the Committee to inquire into the withheld retired pay of naval officers has yet reported; and whether he can make any statement?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have been asked to reply. The Report has just been received, and I am afraid my Noble Friend has not yet had an opportunity of reading it.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to give a considered answer on this subject on Thursday next in the course of the discussion?
    Mr. AMMON: I hope so.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will there be an opportunity of discusing the Report?
    Mr. AMMON: The Report will he laid on the Table.

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    MALICIOUS INJURIES AWARDS (INCOME TAX).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that in many cases the Irish Free State Government has claimed payment of Income Tax on the awards made for damages by the Wood-Renton Commission and that the Tax claimed has been deducted from the sums of money awarded before they have been paid; and if any representations have been made by the British Government to protest against these deductions from the sums awarded to British subjects on account of damage, losses and outrages which have been suffered?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not aware that Income Tax has been deducted or claimed on the capital sums awarded by the Wood-Renton Commission for damage to property. I understand, however, that Tax has been deducted in respect of the interest allowed by the Commission in their

    1751
    awards. I also understand it is the practice of the Free State Government when paying these awards to deduct any arrears of Income Tax which may be alleged to be due from the claimant. If the individual affected considers that the amount so charged is not properly due, it is open to him to make representations to the local revenue officials in the usual manner.
    Colonel GRETTON: Have the Government taken any steps to bring the notice of the Free State Government the fact that complaints are being made, and that this is an unjust deduction?
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the victims of the Black and Tans receive similar consideration?
    Mr. THOMAS: I will not say that negotiations are taking place on this matter at the moment, but certainly there are representations.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Were any deductions made in the case of the deportees?

    PRISONERS (RELEASE).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any representations or requests for the release of Mr. Art O'Brien and Mr. Sean M`Grath have been made to any Departments or any Ministers of the British Government by the Government of the Irish Free State or by any Ministers or responsible person connected with that Government; and, if so, will he make a full statement to the House as to the negotiations which have taken place?
    Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part is in the negative and the second part therefore does not arise.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Did the Government never consult the Free State as to the persons referred to in this question, and if not, on what principle did they change their mind in a fortnight?
    Mr. THOMAS: My right hon. Friend is aware that this is a matter entirely for the Home Secretary, and questions as to the grounds upon which the release took place should be addressed to him.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Free State Government were not consulted?
    Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not to understand that. The Supplementary question put to me was: did negotiations take place with the Free State Government. My answer is that the circumstances in relation to the release of these persons was in the jurisdiction of the Home Office and not of my office.
    Colonel GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the release of these two persons was effected without any consultation with him, and behind his back by the Home Secretary?
    Mr. THOMAS: The release of these people was a decision of the Cabinet.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Did the Home Secretary consult the right hon. Gentleman as responsible Minister here?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am a Member of the Cabinet.
    Mr. J. JONES: May I ask—[Interruption]—it is all very well for you, but I am an Irishman. Were the Free State Government consulted officially as to the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York to Northern Ireland?

    SOUTH AFRICA (VISIT OF COLONIAL SECRETARY).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what circumstances and for what reasons he proposes to leave this country to visit South Africa; whether the cost of this visit will be charged to public funds; and, if so, will he state what is the estimated cost?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am going to South Africa as a member of a delegation of the British Empire Parliamentary Association composed of all parties, which I may say was arranged some time before the present Government; took office. The cost of this visit will not be charged to public funds.
    Mr. J. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that this welcome visit is being very warmly assisted by South African public opinion, and that very generous arrangements are being made for the deputation?
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a distinct advantage to the Empire that the Colonial Secretary should go to South Africa?
    Mr. THOMAS: I feel sure that question will be directed to the hon. Member who put the question to me. I think it would be an advantage.
    Colonel GRETTON: As there has been considerable misunderstanding in this matter, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having cleared the matter up?
    Mr. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman go to Singapore, after his visit to South Africa?
    Mr. HUGH O'NEILL: Is it not a fact that the cost of the trip to South Africa is being defrayed by the South African Government?

    EMIGRATION.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what are the emigration figures for men, women and children since 1st January, 1924; and what percentage went to the Dominions and Colonies?
    Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): During the five months ended 31st May, 1924 (the latest date up to which the statistics have been compiled), 62,605 British subjects were recorded as leaving permanent residence in the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence in non-European countries. Of this number, 30,476 males and 21,407 females were 12 years of age and upwards, and 10,722 were children under 12 years of age. 95 per cent. of these emigrants were recorded as going to British Dominions and Colonies.

    BRITISH SHIPS (ORDERS PLACED ABROAD).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of orders for British ships placed abroad since the beginning of the year, and the names of the different countries building them?
    Mr. LUNN: I regret that I am unable to supply the information asked for by the hon. Member.

    WHEAT (CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the esti-
    1754
    mated world's consumption and world's production of wheat for the year 1924?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): The information at present available does not permit of any reliable estimate yet being made of the world's production of wheat this year. The estimated production in 1923, including crops in the Southern Hemisphere harvested at the end of 1923 or beginning of 1924, was 1,855 million cwts., a figure much above the average, and not likely to be reached this year. It is not possible to estimate the consumption in 1924.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the report that one of the American wheat dealers made £3,000,000 in one day through the corner in wheat?
    Mr. BLACK: Is there, in the opinion of the Government, any justification for the rise in the price of bread?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be advisable for his Ministry to let the public know as much as possible as to the actual facts about the consumption, so that there will be a stop put in some measure to the speculation that is going on?
    Mr. BUXTON: If my hon. Friend will look at the market reports of the Ministry he will see that all possible information is given there.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ordinary working people, who are the chief sufferers by this speculation, do not read the market reports, and in view of the fact that this speculation is causing a grave amount of unrest amongst the poorest people of the land, will he consider issuing some authorised statement on the question?
    Mr. B. TURNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to intern as many of the speculators as possible—those who live in this Kingdom?
    Mr. BUXTON: If it is possible to issue a useful memorandum, I would like to do so.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the percentage of increase of wheat consumption by China and Japan in 1923 as compared with 1913?
    Mr. BUXTON: From information published by the International Institute of Agriculture it appears that the total consumpion of wheat in Japan in 1923 was 83 per cent. greater than in 1913. Information regarding China is not available.
    Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the fact that these two great nations have such great populations, would it not be advisable for the Ministry to keep the public well acquainted with what is the consumption of wheat in China and Japan?
    Mr. VIVIAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something a little more intelligible? He refers to 83 per cent. 83 per cent.—of what? It might be a very small amount.
    Mr. BUXTON: The wheat consumption in Japan in 1913 was 17,300,000 cwts. In 1922 it was 31,500,000 cwts.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is that Australian wheat or American wheat?
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question. I have answered what he put down to-day. It is partly Australian wheat. A considerably increased quantity has lately gone from Australia to Japan, and less to China.
    Earl WINTERTON: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the figures are not available, does he mean that he has applied to His Majesty's Minister and Consuls in China for the information and could not get it?
    Mr. BUXTON: I was not asked to prepare a statement of the sources from which wheat reached Japan, but only as to the increased consumption, and that information I have given.
    Earl WINTERTON: The right lion. Gentleman says that the figures are not available. Has he consulted His Majesty's Minister and Consuls in that country as to whether that figure can be obtained?
    Mr. BUXTON: The importation is of very recent origin from Australia to China, and a complete year has not terminated. In nine months 2,000,000 cwts. have been exported from Australia to China.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FRUIT PICKING (FRENCH LABOUR).
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Minister of Agriculture in what districts is labour imported from France to be utilised for fruit picking; what number of foreign labourers will be employed; and whether he can find employment for this purpose for the large number of persons who are out of work in this country instead of importing foreign labour?
    Mr. BUXTON: So far as I am aware, no workers are being imported from abroad for the purpose of fruit picking, nor is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, under whose jurisdiction the matter lies, likely to agree to the issue of permits for such importation whilst so many persons are out of work in this country.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state last week that such labour was to be imported?
    Mr. BUXTON: No; I said that I had received a request to be allowed to import, but that I would not agree to it.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether more damage is done to the unemployed in this country by importing foreign labour than by importing the product of foreign labour?

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (STATISTICS).
    Major Sir C. MORRISON-BELLasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is able to state the number of men employed on the land now and on 21st July, 1023, and 21st July, 1924, respectively?
    Mr. BUXTON: Returns of the number of workers employed on agricultural holdings relate to 4th June. The figure for June, 1923, was 670,000 men. The tabulation of the returns for this year is not yet completed, but the figures will be issued as soon as they are available.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTIF DISEASE.
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the serious loss to farmers in the County of Dorset due to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; that the compensation

    1757
    paid for slaughtered animals is inadequate and does not take into account loss of income; and whether he will introduce legislation to provide for a scheme of national insurance of cattle and livestock to minimise the hardships now suffered when serious outbreaks of disease occur?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am aware of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Dorset, and I deplore the loss to farmers which cattle disease generally entails. Under existing legislation my Department is empowered to pay compensation only in respect of animals slaughtered in connection with the outbreak, and it has no power to entertain claims for consequential losses. With regard to the last part, the question of a scheme of insurance was included in the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee which was appointed in February last to inquire into the recent series of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.
    Sir F. WISE: Are there any other outbreaks in any other part of the country?
    Mr. BUXTON: I regret to say that there have been continuous reports of fresh cases, but only a very small number, two or three per day. We have not got to the end of it.
    Captain FITZROY: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Report of the Committee set up to investigate foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. BUXTON: I could not say, but I will inquire. The Committee has been meeting very frequently.

    STATE FACTORIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the closing down of the West Mersea shell-grit factory, with a loss to the taxpayer of £3,336, was due to the competition of American grit; how the present prices of American grit compare with those in 1923; and whether the American grit is being produced under State management or by private enterprise?
    Mr. BUXTON: The plant and stock of the factory were sold to a private company, who removed the plant to another site, and, so far as I am aware, are carrying on the business. The sale of the grit by the Ministry was seriously interfered
    1758
    with by the competition of American grit, among other causes. I have no reason for believing that American grit is produced under State management. I regret that I have been unable to obtain reliable information as to the present price of American grit in this country.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not all this tend to show that it would be very much better if this work were left to private individuals?
    Mr. BUXTON: I think it is generally agreed that experimental work which is valuable to the cause of agriculture must take the form of an enterprise of this kind.
    Mr. HANNON: But you are put out of business by private enterprise in America.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the lactose factory at Haslington, the experimental work at which has cost the country, up to 30th June last, £18,201, is now producing on a satisfactory economic basis; and, if so, what is the amount of the present average weekly sales?
    Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir. The factory is now being devoted to experimental work which is not conducted on a commercial basis. These investigations are in charge of University College, Reading.
    Mr. BLACK: Is not the total product since the start less than £2,000, with an expenditure of £18,000? Is it not time that the factory was closed and sold?
    Mr. HANNON: Will the Minister say whether it was the original intention to conduct this as an experimental station or on a business footing?
    Mr. BUXTON: Decidedly as an experiment.

    KINGSTON-HAMPTON COURT TOWPATH.
    Mr. PENNYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take any steps within his power to facilitate the repair of the towpath between Kingston Bridge and Hampton Court, so as to make its condition commensurate with the amount of use to which it is put, and at the same time provide work for the unemployed?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): The matter is still under discussion with the Thames Conservancy, and the question of carrying out the necessary repairs as a relief work is being considered.
    Mr. PENNY: How long are the discussions going on? Whenever this question is put, it is always "being considered" or "under discussion." Would the Minister remember that this is one of the few places—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

    CHINA (BRITISH GOVERNMENT LEASES).
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the First Commissioner of Works (1) the number of applications made in Tientsin for renewal of the leases held under the grant of 1860; the number of leaseholders who have accepted the Government terms in Hankow; and the percentage of total leasehold value in each case of acceptances and non-renewals, respectively;
    (2) if, taking the cities of Tientsin, Hankow, Chingkiang, Canton, Amoy, and Kiukiang, he will, in each case, state the total number of leaseholders, the number who have agreed to the terms of the British Government for renewal, and the number who have declined to do so?
    Mr. JOWETT: I will answer these questions together. I may say that, owing to the short period which has elapsed since the Government came to a final decision on the question of the renewal of the concession leases in China, the forms of application have not yet been issued. The percentages quoted in a previous reply summarise the views on the basis of the scheme expressed by the British lotholders in the various concessions to the Office of Works representative who visited China some two years ago to explain the scheme. They did not and were not intended to represent the percentage of formal acceptances. It may be pointed out that the renewal of the existing leases on the revised terms is entirely optional on the part of the lotholders.
    Mr. MITCHELL: In view of the fact that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave recently are so much at variance with those with which I have
    1760
    supplied him, I would ask whether he is prepared to receive a deputation on the subject or to appoint a small Committee to make further inquiries?
    Mr. JOWETT: The reply which I have given is entirely consistent with the previous reply. There is no inconsistency whatever, and no prospect of a reversal of the decision.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why these matters are in his Department instead of in the hands of the Foreign Office?

    GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM.
    Major CHURCHasked the First Commissioner of Works how long the Geological Museum will be closed for repairs, in view of the importance of the museum to the nation; and will he state why the structural alterations and repairs now being undertaken were not commenced before?
    Mr. JOWETT: It has now been decided to proceed with the erection of a new building at South Kensington to house the offices of the Geological Survey and the Museum of Practical Geology, and a Supplementary Estimate for the provision of funds for this purpose is being presented to the House at an early date. The repairs required to the present building to enable it to be re-opened to the public are not being proceeded with, but the administrative work of the Geological Survey will still be carried on, and the public will have access to the library and map room. As regards the last part of the question, the execution of the structural alterations and repairs was suspended pending a decision as to the future of the Museum.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has it been definitely decided to sell the freehold of the site in Jermyn Street; if so, when will the old museum be closed, and will the new one be complete before the old one is handed over?
    Mr. JOWETT: It has not yet been decided.
    Mr. J. JONES: When it is decided, will some of the Members of this House be sent there?
    Mr. HARDIE: Why not nationalise it?

    WEST HAM GUARDIANS (LOANS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that 4¾ per cent. interest has been charged to the West Ham Board of Guardians for the loan of the last £400,000; what is the total amount of money that has been loaned to the West Ham Board of Guardians during the last three years; if he is aware that in the course of about eight years the board will have paid nearly £300,000 in interest on account of the Government charging interest upon money loaned them varying from 6 per cent to 4¾ per cent.; and what profit the Government has made upon the transaction?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. The total of the advances made to the guardians amounts to £1,400,000. These loans were made at the current market rate of interest for loans of similar currency, and no question of profit arises.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, by the time the West Ham Board of Guardians have paid the whole of the principal and interest, they will have paid more in the shape of interest than the amount of the principal? Is that not highway robbery, and, if not, what kind of robbery does he call it?
    Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Is the hon. Gentleman not of opinion if it were not for the credit of the central authority the West. Ham Board of Guardians might not be able to borrow money at all?
    Mr. J. JONES: If the banks stop their overdrafts, as they are threatening to do, what is likely to happen in the East End of London?

    ARMY BANDS (PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the continued serious depression in the entertainment industry, as a result of which a large number of the members of the Musicians' Union are totally unemployed; that the practice of permitting the regimental bands of His Majesty's forces to accept private employment, which takes them away from their normal duties, is in effect unfair competition; and whether he will issue instructions that service
    1762
    bands must not accept private engagements to the detriment of civilians?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have no knowledge of the conditions alleged in the question that large numbers of members of the Musician's Union are unemployed, nor have any figures ever been submitted to the War Office. The Regulations forbid military bands being taken away from their normal duties, and are framed with a view to preventing unfair competition.

    REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (SHORTHAND TYPISTS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many shorthand typists have been dismissed from the Registry of Friendly Societies, m consequence of a battery of dictating machines being substituted for shorthand writers; what amount of money will be saved in consequence; and whether the shorthand typists have been dismissed or placed in other Departments?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: On the installation of dictating machines in the Registry of Friendly Societies the services of six shorthand writers were dispensed with. The saving consequent upon the change is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of £500 per annum. The six shorthand writers were transferred to other Departments in which vacancies existed.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  ALLOTMENTS BILL,
  "to facilitate the acquisition and maintenance of permanent allotments and to make further provision for the security of tenure of tenants of allotments," presented by Sir KINGSLEY WOOD; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Sir Philip Pilditch, Mrs. Wintringharn, and Mr. Harney; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 4th November, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

  CANALS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGING POWERS) BILL,
  "to provide for the continuance of charging powers in respect of canal or inland navigation undertakings of which possession was retained or taken by the Minister of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919," presented by

  1763
  Mr. GOSLING; supported by Mr. Alexander; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir George McCrae to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Batey, Major Burnie, Mr. Hayes, Mr. William Henderson, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Pilkington, Mr. Atholl Robertson, Mr. Russell, Major Steel, and Sir William Mitchell-Thomson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Conveyancing (Scotland) Bill,
  Telegraph (Money) Bill, without Amendment.
  Brighton Corporation Water Bill,
  Thames Conservancy Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—
  Sutton Harbour Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) and others—to move a new Clause (Power to establish a children's fund)—is outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. FOOT: Is it not possible to bring this proposed new Clause within the scope of the Bill, having regard to the Title of the Bill, which sets forth that it is a Bill
  "to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture, and for purposes incidental thereto"?
  Do not those last words enable it to be moved?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have taken those words into my consideration.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of agricultural wages committees and an Agri cultural Wages Board.)
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment, in page 1, line 10, after the word "Wales," to insert the words "and for the Scilly Isles." Can I move that here?
    Mr. ACLAND: On a point of Order. There is a proposed new Schedule, in which all the areas are set out in their order, and would it not be better for this Amendment in regard to the Scilly Isles to be moved there rather than in Clause 1?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is the purpose of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory) to set up a separate committee for the Scilly Isles? If so, I think the proper place would be on the proposed new Schedule.
    Sir C. CORY: Would it be possible to put the Scilly Isles in the Schedule without having them first mentioned in Clause 1?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: On a point of Order. It would be difficult to put the Scilly Isles in the Schedule. [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is continuously interrupting, and I shall have to order him to remove himself from the House if he cannot keep quiet.
    Sir J. SIMON: Would it be possible to insert this Amendment in the proposed Second Schedule, in view of the fact that it deals only with the counties of England and Wales? Would it not be necessary to bring in the Scilly Isles by an Amendment in the first Clause?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not aware whether the Scilly Isles are a county or not.
    Sir C. CORY: They are not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was allowing the hon. Member to move the Amendment here, so as to get a clear answer on that question.
    Major McLEAN: Are not the Scilly Isles already covered in line 9 of the proposed new Schedule, where it says, "Counties of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not clear what is the object of the hon. Member for St. Ives in wishing to move his Amendment in Clause 1.
    Sir C. CORY: My object is that, for geographical reasons, it is almost impossible for the representatives of the Scilly Isles to attend a committee on the mainland very often. For one thing, boats cannot often run. I would point out again that the nature of their crops is different from what it is in England, and the circumstances of the islands are very different from those on the mainland.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: If the intention of the hon. Member is simply to have a separate committee, would it not better come as an Amendment to the Schedule? I have a similar point to raise myself.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Having heard the hon. Member for St. Ives, I have come to the conclusion that the Schedule is the proper place at which to raise the Amendment, and if he will submit it then, I will consider it.
    Mr. MOND: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment on the Paper, with other hon. Members, in Clause 2, page 2, to insert a new Sub-section (5). Is it not possible that, "subject to the provisions

    1783
    of this Act," agricultural wages committees shall fix minimum rates?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have not dealt with that point yet.
    Sir J. SIMON: May I respectfully submit, purely in the interest of subsequent order, that as the Bill deals with an agricultural wages committee for each county in England and Wales, and as that is the scope of Clause 1, it is very difficult to see how you can in the Schedule deal with a place which is not a county of England or Wales? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is!"]
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Walter Smith): I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the second word "the," to insert the word "first."
    This Amendment is necessary, because there will be a Second Schedule added. It is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(4) The committees first established shall be established for the counties and combined counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."
    I might say that the Schedule as now framed is the result of an agreement which has been come to between representatives of the National Farmers' Union and the Workers' Union.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add the words
    "but the Minister shall, in the case of combined counties, on representation duly made by the committee concerned, establish, when so requested, a committee upon the basis of an administrative county committee."
    I venture to move these additional words because it is not clear to me that it will be within the power of the Minister, once the Schedule has been passed, to set up committees subsequently on the basis of a county administrative area. In the area with which I am associated there was, under the terms of the Corn Production Act, 1917, a grouping of several counties, and I may say the group worked remarkably badly. That was admitted by both workers and employers. I am glad to
    1784
    notice that in the Schedule new submitted there has been a re-grouping of some of those areas, but even now two administrative counties are in some cases grouped together. It appears to me it would be much better that the Minister should have power, on due representation made by the committees concerned, to establish committees on a county basis, and, with that end in view, I venture to move the addition of these words.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. BUXTON: The arrangement come to was the result of full discussion, but, if no objection is taken now, I do not see any reason why we should not accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Mr. MORRIS: I see the new Schedule provides for certain counties to group together. Owing to the difficulties of transport, it may be very difficult to combine two counties, and this Amendment would enable two counties, if they wished, to set up again a committee for each county.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duties and powers of agricultural wages committees with respect to minimum rates of wages.)
    Mr. W. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert the words
    "In the exercise of their powers under this Sub-section a Committee shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, secure a weekly half-holiday for workers."
    I do not think there will be any opposition to this Amendment, because in Committee there was general agreement that this was very desirable, the only difference at that time being as to whether it should be in the Bill in the form of establishing the holiday direct, or in a form such as this. The varying conditions of agriculture made it almost impossible to establish it by legal enactment, and, therefore, we are putting it in the Bill in this farm as a direct instruction to the committees to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the

    1785
    principle of a weekly half-holiday. Judging by the experience of the old wages board, it will have to be done in an indirect form, but I am quite sure, having issued this instruction, the committee in each district will establish the half-holiday on the lines best suited to each case.
    Mr. EDWARD WOOD: As the hon. Gentleman has said, there was substantial agreement in Committee as to the principle of this Amendment, and I think a suggestion for an Amendment with a similar purpose was put forward, but, in the course of the discussion it was revealed that there were such great variations of practice in some counties of England and Wales, that to endeavour to enforce the object by a single form of procedure might, in a good many cases, not be either satisfactory or even effective, and, in order to meet those difficulties, the hon. Gentleman has introduced, I understand, this Amendment, which, so far as I am able to interpret them correctly, represents the feelings of all parties on the Committee, and will secure the purpose everybody desires to secure.
    Mr. STRANGER: As a Member of the Committee, I endeavoured to accomplish the same object, but it does appear that the words "so far as is reasonably practicable," leave a very wide scope to any committee to disregard the words of this Amendment. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should amend this instruction by saying, that if there be no weekly half-holiday, the period after five hours have been worked shall be treated as overtime. That was the suggestion I made in Committee, and I thought the hon. Member, when he was dealing with the matter here, would make it an alternative either that there should be a weekly half-holiday, or to insert words providing that after five hours have been worked on the sixth day of the week the time shall be treated as overtime. I suggest that the hon. Member might even now introduce these words, and thereby ensure that the agricultural worker shall either have a half-holiday in the week, or shall have money for overtime he works above 5½ days a week.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. ACLAND: I have great sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend the
    1786
    Member for Newbury (Mr. Stranger), because, as a matter of fact, it is really only by their control over overtime that under this Bill, as under the old Bill, the committee can, in practice, secure a Saturday half-holiday. But no doubt the committees will be informed of the practice of the old committees and the old Board, and will realise that that is the way in which it is most easy to work. It is very remarkable how in the old days, even in the great pressure of work and pressure for workers in the War, the very fact of saying, as was said in most counties, that after a certain number of hours had been worked on one day in the week—and we were careful not to specify the day, because where people employ stockmen they cannot let them all go on one day—overtime should be paid, although that overtime was only a time and a quarter, was to give one half-day holiday per week, and generally it was on a Saturday. I, personally, believe that from the point of view of the younger worker nothing is of greater help to him in doing his work well and cheerfully and with his heart in it than the knowledge that he is going to have a half-holiday in the week. Many of the older men do not care so much about it, because they have been accustomed to the full week.
    I am sorry to say that many farms returned almost at once to the practice of not giving the half-holiday, though I am glad to say that on a good many farms the practice which the Board had introduced has been continued. A great many farmers find that it makes for the contentment of their men. We ought, however, to be careful not to give too many statutory directions to the Committees, and I think, on the whole, the arrangement that has been come to is about as far as we can reasonably go. I believe, when it gets to work, that the effect in most counties will be to revive the practice of the half-day holiday. There are some counties where the men live in, and are a very great distance from any centre of amusement, and they prefer the system under which they get two weeks off, one week in each half-year, rather than this system of a certain number of hours off each week. That was one of the reasons why we did not think that we should lay down directions in any more definite form than we have done here. I hope the

    1787
    Amendment will be accepted, because I rather doubt if we could put it into any other form which would be likely to work any better.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not select the Amendment standing next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Emlyn-Jones), in page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert
    "(5) In fixing minimum rates for time-work under this Section a committee shall secure for able-bodied men wages which, in their opinion, are equivalent to wages for an ordinary day's work at the rate of at least thirty shillings per week."—
    or an alternative proposal handed in in manuscript by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. J. Hope Simpson).
    Mr. EMLYN-JONES: An Amendment in similar terms was moved by me in Committee, and, after discussion, a Division was taken, and the Amendment was rejected only by a small majority. This Clause is similar to one which appeared in the Corn Production Act of 1917; and, further, after discussion on the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill of 1912, although no minimum wage was included in that Bill, an Amendment was moved in Committee, and again on the Report stage, to include a minimum wage of 5s. for men and 2s. for boys. May I, therefore, appeal to you to allow my Amendment to be submitted?
    Mr. SIMPSON: May I draw your attention to the commencement of Clause 2, where it says:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act, Agricultural Wages Committees shall fix minimum rates of wages for workers employed in agriculture for time-work"—
    If one of these Amendments were included, then, subject to the provisions of that Amendment, the committees would fix wages still in accordance with the provisions of the Act. You have not yet told us on what ground these Amendments are not selected, but doubtless it is because you are of the opinion that they are not in accordance with the Bill as it stands. I submit that they really are in accordance with the Section.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 27(A), the Chair does not give ground for its decision. There is complete discretion on the part of the Chair.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not an unusual exercise of that discretion? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I am making a suggestion. This is a question which affects all parts of the House, and it raises one of the most serious issues that can be raised under this Bill. It was debated in Committee, and the Amendment was defeated only by a majority of seven, the voting being 27 to 20. I submit that this is a question of sufficient seriousness to deserve the attention of the House and to receive a decision of the House. Furthermore, may I submit that this was one of the leading issues at the last General Election, and that this point was actually in the programme of one of the parties in the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to dispute with the Chair. I have my decision to make, and I take the responsibility for the decision.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I shall put a Motion on the Table to repeal that Standing Order.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On that point of Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order.
    Mr. PRINGLE: This was never contemplated.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power of agricultural wages board to fix, cancel or vary minimum rates in certain cases.)
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in page 4, line 34, after the word "fix," to insert the words, "and notify to the Agricultural Wages Board."
    This is an Amendment to secure the purpose of the Clause. We are dealing with the question of default by a Committee, and it is necessary to have these words in providing for notification, so that where there be default it may be quickly detected.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 36, after the word "fix," insert the words, "and notify to the Agricultural Wages Board."—[Mr. Buxton.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Penalties and Legal Proceedings.)
    Amendments made: in page 6, line 41, leave out the word "four" and insert

    1789
    instead thereof the word "two."—[Mr. Buxton.]
    In page 7, line 16, after the word "in," insert the words "lieu of."
    In page 7, line 24, at the end, insert the words, "received by a worker under the terms of his employment."—[Mr. W. Smith.]

    CLAUSE 8.—(Regulations.)
    Amendments made: In page 7, line 29, after the word "committees," insert the words "by order."
    In page 7, line 34, after the word "committees," insert the words "by order."
    In page 8, line 1, after the word "committees," insert the words, "by order."—[Mr. W. Smith.]
    Mr. W. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, at the end to insert the words
    "(c) for requiring a committee, if so directed by the Minister, to reconsider any such order as aforesaid made by them and to notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration."
    This is an addition of words to meet a point that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson), who felt that the reference to the Board ought to be rather wider than that confined to the term "minimum wage." We therefore promised to insert words, and I think that these words meet the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. ACLAND: May I thank the Minister for moving to insert these words, and thank my hon. Friends opposite for accepting them? It is not a large power, but I think it may be useful.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, at the end, to insert the words

    "and for applying for that purpose as respects the Board any provisions of this Section relating to Committees."
    This also is the addition of certain words to give a clearer meaning to the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    NEW SCHEDULE.
    COUNTIES AND COMBINED COUNTIES FOR WHICH THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED.

    Counties of Bedford and Huntingdon.

    County of Berks.

    County of Buckingham.

    1790

    Counties of Cambridge and Isle of Ely.

    County of Chester.

    Counties of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

    Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.

    County of Derby.

    County of Devon.

    County of Dorset.

    County of Durham.

    County of Essex.

    County of Gloucester.

    Counties of Southampton and Isle of Wight.

    County of Hereford.

    County of Hertford.

    County of Kent.

    County of Lancaster.

    Counties of Leicester and Rutland.

    County of Lincoln, Parts of Holland.

    County of Lincoln, Parts of Kesteven and Lindsey.

    County of Middlesex.

    County of Monmouth.

    County of Norfolk.

    Counties of Northampton and Soke of Peterborough.

    County of Northumberland.

    County of Nottingham.

    County of Oxford.

    County of Salop.

    County of Somerset.

    County of Stafford.

    County of Suffolk.

    County of Surrey.

    County of Sussex.

    County of Warwick.

    County of Wilts.

    County of Worcester.

    County of York, North Riding.

    County of York, East Riding.

    County of York, West Riding.

    Counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon.

    County of Carmarthen.

    Counties of Denbigh and Flint.

    County of Glamorgan.

    Counties of Merioneth and Montgomery.

    Counties of Pembroke and Cardigan.

    Counties of Radnor and Brecknock.

    N.B.—This Schedule is to be read as subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the County of London, county boroughs, and detached parts of counties.—[Mr. Buxton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
    Perhaps I may refer to the question of the Scilly Isles raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory).
    Mr. BLACK: Refer to the 30s. minimum.
    Mr. BUXTON: It is on grounds of economy as well as on technical grounds that it has been agreed between the parties concerned—Abe Farmers' Union and the Men's Union—that this Schedule should be as it is. It is almost certain that the Joint Committee will appoint a sub-committee voluntarily for the Scilly

    1791
    Isles, and that, I hope, will completely serve their purpose. There is no question that separate treatment is desirable, but it will be brought about in a simpler way on voluntary lines by leaving the Schedule as it is.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I should like to ask the Minister how it is that he has treated the administrative counties of East and West Sussex as one? The framework of the Bill provides that each administrative county is to have a separate committee. Sussex consists of two separate administrative counties, East and West Sussex. I cannot help thinking that this is an oversight on the part of the Minister, and I would ask him if he can accept an Amendment to include separate committees for East and West Sussex. If he is not acquainted with Sussex, I may tell him that the centre and meeting place for East Sussex is Lewes and for West Sussex, Chichester. They are a very long way apart, the train service from place to place in the county itself is very difficult, and I believe there will be great practical difficulty in the representative members attending whatever meeting place is selected for one committee of the whole of Sussex. I am aware that, under the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), this could subsequently be put right, but I cannot help thinking that this is an oversight, and that it would be very much more convenient if it were put right now and if Sussex, a large county separated as it was under the Corn Production Act had separate committees for East and West Sussex.
    Mr. BUXTON: I am aware of the reasons for allowing separate treatment for the two different parts of Sussex in connection with railway communications, and so on, but the hon. Baronet will remember it was desired that the two organisations—the organisations of farmers and of men—should arrive at an agreement in regard to the area to be covered by the committee, and he will, I think, agree with me it would hardly be appropriate to vary the Schedule at this stage in view of that agreement. I am quite aware that, in the opinion of many hon. Members, it would be better and more appropriate to adopt the two administrative areas of Sussex for this
    1792
    particular purpose, but would it not be unwise to do so in face of this agreement to which I have referred?
    Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman is aware, I suppose, of the reason why, at the time we passed the County Councils Act, Sussex was formed into two administrative councils, although the area of each was smaller than in the case of many counties. The reason was that the means of communication between different pasts of the county rendered it almost impossible, if there was only to be one county council, for some of the representatives to attend either council or committee meetings. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the agreement between the Farmers' Union and the Labourers' Union is that the area which shall be covered by this wage committee shall be the whole county, then I hope he will invite both bodies to reconsider their derision in this particular instance. I do not think it is sufficient for the Minister simply to tell us that both bodies have agreed to this Schedule. He should find out their reasons for coming to what appears to me to be an extraordinary decision. There is no local authority or other body, except perhaps the Territorial Association, which covers the whole county, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that he will again consult the bodies to which this matter has been referred, and ascertain from them the grounds for making for the first time this distinction in respect of this county. If the reason does not appear to him to be a good one let him undertake to get this Schedule altered if necessary in another place, so that Sussex may have two wage committees.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think there is a rather larger question of principle involved in keeping the two administrative counties together. No doubt hon. Members realise that for all practical and administrative matters Sussex is divided into two areas. This Bill, rightly or wrongly, leaves the balance of power in the hand of the wages committee, and from that point of view it is important that the area should be reasonably large. We want to make certain that the workers through their organisations shall be able to adequately express their point of view. We have agreed that the workers may, through their union officials and trade union

    1793
    representatives, be represented on the district wage committees, and clearly the more we multiply the number of areas the more difficult it will be for those officials to cover the ground adequately.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understands my point. We have already got two administrative counties in Sussex, and, really, both areas are slightly larger than the majority of county areas.
    Mr. ACLAND: I should not have thought that both halves of Sussex constituted larger areas than the general run of counties. It seems to me that those who are connected with county administration will feel that every area which ought to be administered separately should stand separately, and from the point of view of adequate representation we should give the workers' side the best chance of presenting their case. Therefore there is something to be said for not making more areas than is necessary. If we agree to divide Sussex why should we net divide the Isle of Wight from Hampshire or Cumberland from Westmorland, and Cambridge from the Isle of Ely. This Schedule is the result of a carefully considered agreement between the workers and the farmers' organisations, and I should not be inclined to proceed to divorce the areas which have now been joined together, particularly as the Minister has already agreed to take power to make a division between them later on should it seem necessary or desirable to do so.
    Viscount WOLMER: The right hon. Gentleman asks why the Isle of Wight and Hampshire should not also be separated. Any one acquainted with that district knows that it is not impracticable to work as one area. It will be necessary to have a sub-committee for the Isle of Wight. I have risen to protest against the idea that this House is to take an agreement which has been come to between two parties, who are no doubt very greatly interested, without giving expression to its own reasons and views on the matter. I venture to submit that when two hon. Members representing the County of Sussex ask the Minister for Agriculture to reconsider the matter, and see if an Amendment cannot be introduced in
    1794
    another place, the right hon. Gentleman ought to undertake to do that.
    Mr. BUXTON: This is a Schedule which no doubt commends itself to the two sides, but I think we may agree to ask the representatives of the two sides to reconsider this particular question, and if we find that, on the whole, it is better to make this alteration we can deal with it in another place.
    Question, "That the Schedule be read a, Second time," put, and agreed to.
    New Schedule read a Second time.
    Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, in line 9, to leave out the word "counties," and to insert instead thereof the word "county."
    The fact that the Isles of Scilly are separated from the mainland makes it impossible very often for people to get to the mainland for weeks at a time, and therefore it will be almost impossible for representatives from the Isles to attend meetings of the wages committee in Hampshire. In view of the conditions under which agriculture is carried on in the Isles it is essential that those concerned in the industry should be represented on and able to attend the meetings of the wages committee, and therefore it will be necessary to have a separate committee for the Isles. It may be suggested that under the powers contained in the Bill it will be possible to appoint a sub committee, but that, I submit, is not sufficient, because such a subcommittee would not have the power to fix the minimum rate of wages for the island, and it would be barred doing a good deal of useful work.
    Mr. FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should be glad to hear whether the Minister of Agriculture, when he assented to the arrangement which he tells us has been come to bet w eel the representatives of the farmers and the representatives of the farm workers, had under consideration the special conditions obtaining in regard to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Of course, if they were considered, we do not want to make a change in the arrangement so long as those immediately concerned believe the plan to be workable, but on the face of it I suggest there would be considerable difficulty, because Cornwall is really no part of England in sentiment or feeling, and still less so are

    1795
    the Scilly Isles. Bearing in mind that the agricultural conditions obtaining in the Isles are quite different from those which obtain on the mainland, I think there is a special case here for the separate treatment for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. BUXTON: I am sure no one would desire to inflict quite unnecessary sea-voyages on the inhabitants of the Scilly Isles, and I believe that a solution of this difficulty will come about automatically. A sub-committee is bound to be appointed by the Joint Committee.
    Mr. FOOT: May I point out that under the Corn Production Act there was a separate committee or sub-committee for the Scilly Isles?
    Mr. BUXTON: But they had only one committee.
    Question, "That the word 'counties' stand part of the proposed Schedule," put, and agreed to.
    Sir C. CORY: Did you not at first, Mr. Speaker, announce that the "Noes" had it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: My attention was distracted for the moment, but I immediately corrected myself.
    Sir C. CORY: I submit that my Amendment was carried.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not so.
    Sir C. CORY: I really think it was.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that you, Sir, having first announced that the "Noes" had it, that became the decision of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: My attention was withdrawn from the House for a moment, but I immediately corrected myself.
    Mr. BLACK: But were there not more voices for my hon. Friend's Amendment than against it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have announced that the Question, "That the word 'counties' stand part of the proposed Schedule," was carried.
    Mr. MORRIS: I beg to move, in line 49, to leave out the word "counties" and to insert instead thereof the word "county."
    1796
    If this Amendment be carried, I shall move to leave out the words "and Cardigan." The means of communication between the two counties make it utterly impossible for the members of the committee from one county to attend meetings in the other county. It takes practically a whole day, with the present methods of communication, to get from one county to the other, and I therefore move this Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. W. SMITH: The grouping of the counties was in connection with the old wages board exactly the same as in this Schedule, so far as these two are concerned. In order to fortify ourselves in regard to what was the best basis to construct these committees, we have, as the Minister has already stated, consulted the representatives both of the farmers and of the workmen. This is their own recommendation. I submit to the House, following the experience of the four years of the old wages board's similar grouping, that the House will be well-advised to accept the schedule as it stands.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. BUXTON: On this Motion I should like to say a word or two. This is a very different Bill from the Bill we introduced. To cut a long story short, however, there is a great deal of good in the Bill as it stands. I should like to acknowledge the spirit which has animated all parties in the House in desiring, at all events, to deal with the most urgent cases of the extremely impoverished men. I congratulate the House on the progress made in this direction as represented by the Bill. These cases of extremely low wages are so distressing that, one cannot hut feel an immense satisfaction that, as we hope, they are about to be removed. In our case, however, that satisfaction is tinged with keen regret that this decision could not be made to apply to the whole problem, as we see it, of agricultural wages. We were powerless, however, to impose our will on the House, and for what help we have got in a small way

    1797
    we are duly thankful. In the present state of parties, legislation is only possible by agreement. We have succeeded, in this matter, in agreeing on something which is of very high value.
    I cannot help saying that last year we, who then sat on the opposite benches, urged, without success, that something should be done to legalise the regulation of wages which, as we saw, was not seriously tackled by the conciliation committee system. I am very glad to think that some change has taken place as a result—and that the logic of events has shown parties that the conciliation committee system was not adequate to general regulation. Anything done in this matter must be done very quickly, because there is a rapid drift of the population from the villages, resulting from conditions which offer no attraction to the labourer to remain there. From the point of view of the farmer, too, you had no other alternative but to deal with these conditions, and not in course of time but quickly. The shortage of labour is already severe in many parts. I feel that, as there is a very good prospect of the Bill becoming law at an extremely early date, the sooner we test the machinery it sets up the better. It does set up statutory regulation of wages, and the principle of a legal minimum wage. It gives us a system of collective bargaining and powers of compulsory arbitration in default of agreement. That power will be exercised locally by the chairman and by two appointed members—appointed by the Minister—or, in default, by the national body, the Central Wages Board. Wages will be legally enforceable by summary proceedings.
    Let us hope that the Bill will be worked with a measure of willingness by all parties concerned so as to enable wages to be considered and fixed at a very early date. I should hope that this Bill will pass into law in a very short time, and that committees will be established in September. Wages ought then to be fixed in a very short time after that. Committees ought to be able to come together and settle wages, not long after the harvest. Under the original proposals, which were in our belief more adequate to the whole case, it is very doubtful whether wages could have been fixed so early that. The
    1798
    confirmatory and default powers of the Central Board would have taken longer to operate. The Corn Production Act of 1917, which some of us remember so well, was passed in the August. The old Wages Board under that Act did not issue its first orders until April, 1918. Under this Bill there can be no breakaway from the standard wage, whatever it is, and although this is a point on which many farmers vary, the good farmer will be protected from the competition of his retrograde neighbour, and indeed I think there is a real grievance in this matter in a large number of cases.
    The need for the Bill arises from the failure of the conciliation committees, and the weak bargaining power of the workers. I do think that the real justification for the Bill is the increasing prevalence of abnormally low wages which are creeping in, while standardisation has almost vanished away. There has been a tendency quite lately for these bad cases to increase. Those farmers who have not joined the Farmers' Union are disregarding, in an ever-increasing degree, the rates which it recommends. The best farmers are paying more, and I desire to pay my tribute to the thoughtfulness as well as the sagacity on the part of these employers in seeing that low wages do not pay. On the other hand, the lowest class of wages is increasing. The unattractive wages of the country are causing men to leave the land for the towns or to emigrate, and it is almost a condition of chaos which has followed the repeal of the previous Act. We have now got cases where there has been a breaking away from the standard. There have been cases where, nominally, men were paid 25s. a week, but really were very rarely paid so much. Inspectors of the Ministry have reported on some of these cases. We can tell of one case where ever since the first days of the year the man has not received 25s.; there have been no allowances, no free house, and in one week he only received 15s. The man never really received so much as the nominal 25s. The shortage of labour is a very serious matter. In some districts it is difficult to get skilled workers. The man whom we might call the mainstay of the farmer is disappearing from the land, and the labourers who are doing the work accept it as a stop

    1799
    gap while they look for chances to get away and secure work in the towns.
    There is another matter, and that is the low standard of comfort of the agricultural labourer. The malnutrition is serious. Malnutrition or inadequate nutrition of the children is a problem which cannot be left alone. Something must be done, and quickly, that will meet this most urgent need. Certainly, the prospects for the farming industry as a whole are very different to what they were when we debated this question a year ago. There has been a good hay harvest. Prices are improving in many respects. On the whole there is more ground for encouragement than last year. Sweated labour means inefficient labour, and experience has shown the farmers that, in order to take advantage of their opportunities, some form of regulation is desirable, even from their point of view. The experience of the trade boards has shown that employers do not lose but gain by standardisation of wages. I am sure that the best farmers see that general agreement is really desirably. I should like to appeal, both to them and to the workmen, to live up to the spirit of give-and-take shown by their representatives on both sides of the House in regard to this Bill. I would ask them to do their best to work it in a willing spirit. We have had on this side of the House to swallow our disappointment in regard to the Bill, but we are animated by a desire to accept the decision of the House, and to do our best to make the Bill all the success it can be made. I would ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to use their influence to that end. In such a way, I believe, the work which has been put in with regard to the Bill will produce lasting benefits for the workers in our countryside.
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am sure the whole House would wish to respond to the appeal which has been made by the Minister about this Bill. It has been passed with a considerable amount of agreement, and I should wish to see a desire to work it by all sections as an agreed Bill. I hope very much the spirit of agreement which is in favour of the Bill as it stands will have that very desirable effect. The immediate effect of this will be to make the Bill easier and speedier to work. When the
    1800
    right hon. Gentleman speaks of disappointment and spoke in the Committee of pain caused him I trust he will realise that it is like paying a visit to the dentist, that the operation may be unpleasant, but at the same time beneficial. I cannot help thinking that we have saved the right hon. Gentleman and his reputation as a Minister by having persuaded him to adopt a solution which will eventually secure far greater good will and the better working of the Act. The Bill has been considerably changed in Committee, and the form in which it now stands really represents opinions expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill from all quarters of the House. The scheme of the original Bill was that the various district rates of wages should be suggested only by the district committees, and they were subject to confirmation, revision, and even cancellation by the Central Board. Hon. Members opposite will recollect the action taken by the former Member for the Holland Division (the late Mr. Boyce) and the great help he was in regard to the suggestions made by various parties. This was a matter upon which the late Member was a great authority, and his desire to secure a measure of agreement was largely dictated by his intimate knowledge of the subject.
    What was the position of the Bill originally? We thought or this side that there would be no measure of agreement if you adopted the original solution because we know that farmers would be on their defence against what they would think was a Socialist Committee in London, and labourers would be unwilling to settle hoping for greater benefits from the London Board. The Bill has been considerably strengthened by the Amendments which were moved by hon. Members on this side. Some of those Amendments were supported by hon. Members below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) said that you might very well limit the power of the central body, to those points to which it is now limited. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) took a similar view, and he told us that he had attended meetings of labourers at which they objected to the central control, and were all in favour of the thing being settled in the district where their representatives knew the conditions, and they urged the Minister to

    1801
    consider these views. Therefore it is absurd to say that only on this side of the House the view was held that central control was undesirable, and that control by the district committees would be on the whole more satisfactory.
    An Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton, and the confirmation powers of the Central Board were taken away, and the decisions of the local committees and their powers were made free and independent. The Central Board was limited practically to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton, and now the position is that the District Committee have the absolute initiative, in fixing the wages. I think that is a far better system than the Bill proposed as it was originally brought in, and I believe the working of the Bill would be very mach more satisfactory than it otherwise would have been. The Minister of Agriculture has met us frankly and reasonably, recognising that those who supported the changes we suggested in the Bill were composed principally of those who had had some considerable personal knowledge of the problem, and it cannot be denied that all those who spoke in favour of these changes had a greater measure of the real knowledge of the problem than those who spoke in favour of maintaining the Bill as it stood originally.
    We have set up the best machinery we could, but we are not creating a new wages fund. I think there has been far too much said about the wages which prevailed under the old wages board. The conditions now are totally different to what they were when prices were soaring, and I think it is a cruel thing to attempt to delude men by telling them that if a Bill of this sort is passed they can secure the same scale of wages which was provided for them under the Corn Production Act. I earnestly hope that those who discuss this Bill in the agricultural districts will remember that, although we are securing now the best possible machinery for fixing wages, we are not doing anything to materially increase wages except by rounding up some of the worst employers who are paying less wages than their neighbours. The Minister of Agriculture very wisely decided to adhere to his decision not to put an actual wage figure in the Bill. It is true that some hon. Gentlemen below
    1802
    the Gangway, with an eye to the General Election, sought to raise the question of a fixed wage in a very acute form, but I still maintain that the right hon. Gentleman was wise in adhering to his decision to maintain the Bill in this respect in its original form, and if I required any further argument in this direction, I would refer hon. Members to the very eloquent denunciation of a certain figure during the last General Election by Liberal and Labour candidates as to the iniquity of putting in a figure which might depress the whole scale of wages, and lead to political corruption and bribery.
    I cordially support what the Minister of Agriculture has said in expressing the hope that there will be goodwill and general agreement in trying to make the best of this Bill. There are some hon. Members in this House who would like a different sort of Bill, but now that this Bill has been passed I hope all sections and classes throughout the House and throughout the country will do their best to make it a success. The great industry of agriculture has been far too long the plaything of politicians, and if we can keep party feeling out of this matter and give this Bill a fair chance then I think we shall be doing the best we possibly can to make the lot of the agricultural labourer better in the future than it has been in the past.
    Mr. PATTINSON: I am one of the few of those who voted against the Second Reading of this Bill. I happen to live among farm labourers; I know all their difficulties as well as any hon. Member of this House, and I am not convinced that putting the power into the hands of the central authority in London and placing the destinies of the whole industry in their hands was doing the right thing. I was very sorry to have to vote against the Bill, but what I fail to understand is the attitude adopted by the, Government. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) offering a compromise on this Bill, and I remember the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture saying that he was firmly convinced that the Central Authority laid down in the Bill was vital to the agricultural workers. If the vital part of the Bill has been taken out, it must be a dead Measure. I am now wondering whether I ought to vote for this mutilated Measure by sup-

    1803
    porting the Third Reading. I think hon. Members know which way I shall vote, and of course I shall support the Bill.
    5.0 P.M.
    There is one other matter to which I should like to draw attention, and it is one upon which there has been a good deal of sympathy expressed. I will give as an illustration my own case. On my own farm my valuers have shown me the accounts which prove that during the year 1923 there has been a loss of £690. That does not allow of a very large increase in wages. I am, however, assured by a circular which has been issued in the bye-election now in progress that the Government are guaranteeing fair prices to the farmers, so that they will know in advance what their crops will fetch, and, accordingly, I shall not give up my farm next October, as I had anticipated doing, if they really mean this. In view of that circular, I should like to carry the minds of hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament back to the occasion when we had a Debate on agriculture, and to recall to them the scorn that was poured on the scheme of guaranteed prices by hon. Members who now sit above the Gangway. If the right hon. Gentleman means what was said in this circular which was issued during the bye-election, it is going to have an enormous effect—
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: By whom was it issued?
    Mr. PATTINSON: By the Labour party. If they mean it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"] It says:
    "The Labour Government wants to help the farmer, as well as the agricultural workers, by guaranteeing fair prices to the farmers, so that they may know in advance what their crops will fetch."
    If they do mean that, they can have the minimum wage and they can have the Wages Board, and I can assure them that agriculture will be more profitable both to masters and men, though I am wondering what will happen with regard to the landlord under those conditions. What I want to know, however, is what is the Government's real attitude towards this question. I have always been rather an independent Member, and my action has not always suited either my constituents or my leaders, but I have always tried to look at every question from the honest point of view, without considering
    1804
    whether I may or may not lose votes, and I should very much like to hear what is the policy of the Government on this matter.
    I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox) in hoping that this Bill will bring lasting benefit to the agricultural community. We all know how the workers have been suffering for so many years, and let me also say that I know, too, how the farmers have been suffering. Unfortunately, my banker indicates to me how I myself have been suffering, and it is by no means easy for farmers to pay their way. I agree that there is a brighter and fairer prospect before us, but how some farmers manage to carry on, and pay even the wretched wages that are being paid now is a mystery to me. I hope that this Bill, when it is passed, will bring real benefit to The whole of the agricultural community, and I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it; but I do hope that in future, when the Government say that a great principle is involved, a principle which is fundamental to a Bill, they will not mislead me and others who wish to vote honestly and straightforwardly by withdrawing that principle which they say is vital to the Bill.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: When this Bill was introduced, many of us felt that it had a very slight prospect of passing into law, and I think that many of us on this side of the House will join in congratulating the Minister that he has been able to handle a delicate and difficult situation so satisfactorily, and that he has been able to carry through this House a Bill which is more or less acceptable to all parties, although perhaps pleasing none. The Bill is a compromise, and, so far as we on these benches are concerned, it is very different from what we should like, nor do we think that it is in a workable form. So far as the other side are concerned, it appears that they have given up their ewe lamb, the central wages hoard. We have never believed that a powerful centralised body sitting in Whitehall could determine with any degree of satisfaction to those engaged in the great industry of agriculture, whether workers or employers, a system of wage regulation. We know that even under the Corn Production Act, where there was a balanced arrangement by which prices on

    1805
    the one hand and wages on the other were guaranteed, a great deal of dissatisfaction arose; but we believe that if a Bill giving extensive powers to a central body had been passed through this House without such a balanced arrangement as was embodied in the Corn Production Act, it would not have succeeded in increasing wages, but would have succeeded in turning a great many men out of employment.
    I desire to emphasise a point which has already been made in other quarters of the House, namely, that, just as a compromise has been reached in this House, so we hope that the workers and employers who have to carry out this Measure will also do their best to reach a compromise and give effect to what we all admit is by no means a perfect Measure. We hope that there will be no boycotting of the wages boards by either side, and that a spirit of goodwill will obtain. Many think that the progress of agriculture is bound up with having the greatest possible arable acreage in this country. We have something like 1,000,000 acres of land—marginal acres—which it pays to cultivate as arable land when prices are high and business is good; for my part, however, I doubt the wisdom of any attempt to try and bring these marginal acres under arable cultivation, for when prices slump the employer loses his capital, and, too often, alas, the worker loses his job. I hope, however, that more attention will be paid to the intensive cultivation of good land—and no country has better land than this country in certain districts—because agriculture is a business just as much as any other industry, and it is a business which responds to business methods. It is no good attempting to develop unprofitable business lines when you have profitable lines which you can develop.
    Another point that I would venture to put to the Minister is this: I hope that, having passed this Bill, he will, so to speak, rest on his laurels and leave the industry alone, and will not introduce an extensive measure of State interference with the industry. I believe that, as organisation in the industry expands, as it undoubedly will do partly as a result of this Bill, we shall not only have regularisation of wages, but that we shall also gradually develop a system of regularisation of prices. I think that the
    1806
    two go to a great extent together. Much good could be done to the industry of agriculture by paying more attention to this subject. We know that in regard to milk there has been a regularisation which has proved to the advantage of the worker, to the employer and also to the consumer, and more attention might be paid to the regularisation of other important classes of British agriculture, such as the production of meat, to the advantage of all these three interests. I hope the State will bend its activities towards furthering research and improving education in agriculture, and that it will give every encouragement that it can in these directions, because I believe that in that way will be found the surest and speediest road to progress in the industry.
    Mr. G. EDWARDS: I fully endorse the hope that has been expressed in all quarters of the House that, when this Bill becomes law, all the parties concerned will endeavour to work it with good will, so that not only may the worker feel that he has some protection and that he will have a better standard of living, but that the industry as a whole may prosper and be in a better position than it has been in the past. Having said that and fully realising that this was the best Bill in the present circumstances that we could expect to get from the present House of Commons, I should like also to say that it does not satisfy me entirely. I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) in his remarks on the central board. If he suggests that the central board would have no knowledge of agriculture and of the great problems that they would have to discuss, I do not think he knows the agricultural labourer and the farmer, because my experience of the old board is that both farmers and labourers knew their business. I am sorry that the Central Board has lost the powers which the Bill, when it was first introduced, proposed to set up, and I am also disappointed because no minimum wage is fixed. If the Amendment dealing with that matter had not been ruled out, I should have voted for it.
    I want to say again, however, that, the Bill having now been agreed and being on the point of receiving its Third Reading, so far as I myself and my friends are con-

    1807
    cerned we shall do our very best to see that it is worked peacefully, that it will be enabled to carry out its functions without friction, and that the greatest good will will exist between all parties who are called upon to work it. I also hope and believe that it is not going to bring about the disaster that was prophesied by hon. Gentlemen opposite when it was brought in. There will be no attempt to ruin the industry, there will be no attempt to place on the industry more than it is able to bear, but one thing of which I am perfectly satisfied is that those who are responsible for carrying on the industry will be compelled by force of circumstances to make it prosperous by farming better and on a more intensive scale. So far from its reducing employment, I am perfectly satisfied that when the Bill begins to work there will be an increase. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not think that the passing of this Bill into law will not lead to any improvement in the agricultural labourer's wages, because it will, and I am perfectly satisfied that when they receive it all parties concerned—the farmer, the labourer and the landlord, too—will welcome it and will endeavour to work it so that the industry may prosper and the land produce the food of the people, while the workers, who have been far too badly paid, will find a great improvement in their conditions and will have a better standard of life than they have had hitherto. Once again I say the Bill does not meet our expectations. We wanted the central board and we wanted the minimum wage, but having failed to obtain them, I hope the Bill will pass and become law at the earliest possible moment so that friction may be avoided.
    Mr. EMLYN-JONES: As one who has been a whole-hearted supporter of the Bill as it was introduced, I must profess my disappointment that it is going to pass into law in a very different state from that which many of us on this side had hoped. It has been, by the compromise which has taken place, emasculated almost beyond recognition, and I for one am very sorry that the Amendment standing in the name of myself and my colleagues to include a minimum wage of 30s. was not allowed to be discussed. I consider that the Bill will be of very little use for the purpose for which it was intended. Obviously the idea of the
    1808
    Bill was to see that an improved standard of wages in agricultural districts was brought about. But the mutilation it has suffered in Committee—not at the hands of the Liberals—in my opinion made the case for the inclusion of the minimum wage of 30s. irresistible. It is for this reason that my colleagues and I have put up as strong a fight as possible on this matter. The whole Bill and nothing but the Bill with the inclusion of the minimum wage provision, is what we have fought for. The Bill having been so mutilated will be of no use in bringing about that immediate improvement in the majority of cases which we all very much desire. There can be no doubt that had the Minister of Agriculture not shown such timidity in dealing with the matter, he would have introduced a minimum wage when the Bill was brought forward for the first time, and I believe there is in the House a majority which would have ensured the passage into law of the Bill with the inclusion of the 30s. minimum wage.
    I cannot understand what reasons may have actuated the right hon. Gentleman. He has led us to believe that there would be no chance of getting the Bill passed unless we arrived at some sort of compromise. If that is going to be the attitude that we are going to adopt, that we who believe in certain fundamental principles are going to sacrifice them, then there is surely not going to be very much progressive legislation passed in the House of Commons in spite of the present progressive majority. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee gave three reasons why he did not include the minimum wage, reasons which to my mind were perfectly inadequate. First of all he said the cost of living was ever changing, then, that if a standard was set up it would be used and quoted, and, thirdly that there were a large proportion of the farm labourers who were opposed to this principle. I should like to ask him when he discovered those objections, for I find that in his more Radical days, in a speech delivered with that sacerdotal eloquence of which we know he is capable, after rebuking a Member who was opposing the introduction of the then 30s. minimum wage and pointing out to him that he would be judged in the country, not by

    1809
    his line of argument, but by the vote he gave, went on to say:
    "This is the first time that Parliament has got to grips with tins matter of farm labourers' wages, and it is also the first time when the high importance of this matter of the general national welfare has been realised by the country. Some of us have urged the establishment of a standard minimum wage for agriculture. I think we may say that everyone now realises that if the standard of agricultural wages had been raised in that way some years ago, the situation now in the crisis of the War would be infinitely better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1917; col. 925, Vol. 96.]
    It is a cruel fate for the farm labourers that they should have lived to see the first Labour Minister of Agriculture, who in his Radical days was a very strong advocate of the principle that the minimum wage should be applied to that industry, in his high position where if he had only given a lead or said a word could have ensured the carrying into effect of these ideals of which he was such a friend and supporter in the days gone by, actually voting against it. Although we hope this Bill is going to accomplish the purpose for which it is intended, we feel that it is going to bring, when it is known that the principle of the minimum wage is definitely ruled out, despair to the hearts of hundreds of thousands of farm labourers who have to exist on a wage of 27s. and less to think that in this House of Commons, with a Labour Minister of Agriculture and with a progressive majority, this principle has been rejected. I do not know what may be the fate of the right hon. Gentleman. I warned him when I addressed the House on the Second Reading of the fate of his two immediate predecessors, and I warn him now of the fate which awaits him in the country for having forsaken the principles in which he professed to believe. I think when he goes into political obscurity—and the sooner the better for the hundreds of thousands of our farm labourers, in view of the attitude he has taken—he will carry upon his shoulders the knowledge of the fact that he has killed the faith of hundreds of thousands of farm workers in the efficacy of the House of Commons as a means of taking them away from the deplorable conditions in which they find themselves. We fear that the Bill will have the effect of stabilising wages as they are at present in counties where the rate of
    1810
    wages is 26s. or 27s. We feel that, those who are getting below that wage will, when this Bill comes into operation, be immediately raised to the level of 26s. or 27s., but that the Bill, having been passed without the inclusion of the minimum wage provision, will mean the stabilisation of what is admittedly in the country a disgraceful rate of pay, and the consequences for that action must rest entirely upon the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary, who themselves voted against the provision put forward to make sure of an immediate rise in the labourers' wages. We hope the Bill may have the effect the right hon. Gentleman expects, but many of us fear that the consequences of his failure to do what was his obvious duty will be felt very keenly in the country, and his action will be resented by those who are looking to Parliament to remedy a very grave injustice.
    Viscount WOLMER: This Bill is being carried into law by the co-operation of the Conservative and the Socialist parties, to the obvious disgust and chagrin of the Liberal party. I am going to vote for the Third Reading, not because I am under any delusion that this is any serious contribution towards a solution of the agricultural problem. I am certain that the Bill, although it may touch a few abnormal cases—and the Minister admits that they are abnormal—and may remedy them, as everyone would desire to see them remedied, is not going to secure a living wage for the agricultural worker.
    Mr. J. JONES: That is the reason you are backing it.
    Viscount WOLMER: The reason I am prepared to support the Bill is that I do not want to lose any opportunity of trying any expedient that is going to help agriculture in any degree, even though it may eminate from hon. Members opposite. Also I wish hon. Members opposite to have an opportunity of trying their expedient in order that they may be convinced, as I believe same of them, if not all, ultimately will be, that something, a great deal more drastic and more important is necessary to give a chance to, agriculture. We listened with very great interest to a speech in Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton (Major Church), in which he sketched a policy under which the Socialist party

    1811
    would pay some sort of a subsidy in order that the agricultural labourers should earn a living wage. I am further encouraged in my hopes of hon. Members supporting the Government by the terms of the pamphlet which has just been read to the House. I want to ask the Minister a straight question. Does that pamphlet or does it not represent the policy of the Government? Surely that is a matter which can be answered monosyllabically. I hope the Government have had sufficient experience of election pledges coming home to roost for them not to repeat at elections, pledges which are merely meant to be pledges and do not represent their policy. I think it is time the Government declared to the House and to the country what their policy in regard to this matter is. I can assure hon. Members opposite that if they will bring forward a policy which is going to enable agriculture to pay a living wage, there will he a great many Members from this party who will give them their most enthusiastic support.
    We are willing to give this Bill a Third Reading, because we wish the expedient to be tried of wages boards, but we know perfectly well that the industry is not in a position to pay its workers a living wage at present. If anyone doubts it, he has not got far to look for the facts. We have already had pointed out at great length the tremendous loss of the farming operations of the co-operative societies covering, as they do, practically every county in the country, covering some 70,000 acres, and being run at present at a gigantic loss. We had only two days ago the figures, that the Minister quoted in answer to a question, of the various Government farms which are being run by the State at present, every one of them at a loss. We have had other figures quoted, and in every quarter of the country that you look to you will find that the farmers are not in a position in which they can possibly pay a substantially higher wage. Do hon. Members opposite really doubt that? If they doubt it, what are their reasons for doubting it? It will be helpful and important that their reasons should be given to us this afternoon. If they do not doubt it but admit it, what right have they to shut their eyes to the facts? Are they content to go on agitating for £5 or £6 a week, or more, for trade unionists
    1812
    in the towns, and to leave agriculture in such a condition that even a Socialist Minister did not dare to put a minimum wage of 30s. a week in the Bill when he introduced it.
    That is the problem which all quarters of the House are up against. How are we going to make agriculture an industry in which the people can earn a living wage? The Conservative party, alone of any party, brought forward a policy, which was rejected by hon. Members opposite and rejected by the country. It is, therefore, up to hon. Members opposite to do something. They will not have Protection. Then it must be by subsidies or by guarantees, or whatever you like to call it, that agriculture is to be put on a fair basis. At the present time, wherever you go, you find that agriculture is throttled by unfair taxation and excessive railway rates which have been forced up enormously since the War. We must help agriculture to get over these difficulties before agriculture can hope to pay a decent minimum wage. For hon. Members who sit below the Gangway to try to secure a political advantage, because it is nothing else—
    Mr. EMLYN-JONES: On a point of Order. Is the Node Lord entitled to impute motives?
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that interruption is worth answering. For hon. Members opposite to bring forward an Amendment such as they have, which is mere vote catching, which could not be brought into this Bill, will not do them any good. I can tell hon. Members opposite below the Gangway that the day of their party is past. If they are keen about a 30s. minimum wage for agriculture now, why did not they move a little finger during the Lime they were in office to do something to agriculture? We did not hear of a 30s. minimum wage during the 10 years the Liberal party were in office. What has their party ever done to help the farmer or the agricultural labourer? Their party has fought every relief that has ever been offered to agriculture. They fought the Agriculture Rates Act; they fought the Corn Production Act, and they fought the proposals brought forward by my right hon. Friend and leader at the last election. They have done nothing but obstruct every proposal that has ever been brought forward to

    1813
    help agriculture. They regard agriculture as land for electioneering, as a gold-mine for votes, as a shop-window in which rare and refreshing fruits can be put. That is the sole use that the Liberal party have ever had for the land, and that is all they know about the land. Most of them do not know a turnip from a mangold wurzel. I look with more confidence to hon. Members opposite above the Gangway, because although they have not the knowledge, at any rate they have the desire to help agriculture in the future.
    Mr. ACLAND: It has often been said by hon. Members opposite that it is a great mistake for agriculture and politics to get mixed up, and I do not think I have ever been more of that opinion than while I was listening to the speech of the Noble Lord. I extract from that speech this one point, which as a mere political matter is worth noting, that he, at any rate, and he speaks with great authority for his party, is still in favour of the policy that was put before the country by his party at the last election. I should like to get as much as I can outside the line of political argument and get back to the Bill. I believe very thoroughly that it is a good thing for the industry on all sides that an arrangement has been come to under which we hope that this Bill will be passed in substantially its present form before the House adjourns for the Autumn Recess. I have always felt that it was more important for the worker to get a legal sanction behind his rate of wages, to get it for certain, to get it quickly and to get it with a maximum amount of general goodwill, than to consider any point concerned with the particular powers that the central wages board may have compared with the district wages committee. I am glad, having held that view all along, which many of my hon. Friends above the Gangway have not held, that my hon. Friends have come round entirely to that view, and are now supporting it through thick and thin in the action they are taking in this House.
    It has been tempting in this Debate to talk politics instead of thinking of the agricultural industry, and I notice that some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway have been inclined to take the view that the action taken by the Government in their compromise has followed the line
    1814
    which the carrying of a certain Amendment which I proposed made it necessary that they should follow. That is not historically true. It is true, of course, as I said on Second Reading—and in Committee we carried out the view which most of us held—that our view was that specific powers should be given to the central wages board instead of absolute powers, but it is not true that the line of the Government compromise is the line that either I suggested on Second Reading or that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do not apologise!"] It is not a question of apology. Is it not worth making the point as clear as possible? It is riot a fact that the compromise followed wholly the lines that we should have wanted.
    The, three specific powers which we wished to give in one form or another to the wages board, as was suggested in the quotation which has been read from the Second Reading Debate were, first of all, that the central board should have the power to secure something in the nature of a wage in accordance with the formula laid down in the Bill; secondly, that they should have power to act in the case of a deadlock; and thirdly that they should have power to act in a case of an appeal by a district wages committee. There are several ways of doing the first. One is to say that there should be an overriding standard, and to insert in the Bill a definite figure. The second is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Southern Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards) to enable the agricultural wages board in advance to name a figure which they believe to he a figure which all the recommendations of the district wages committees should come up to. Thirdly, there was the line of the Amendments that we put down from the first, namely, that if the Minister considered that the figure recommended by the district wages committee was inadequate he should have the power of referring it to the central wages board, which, after consulting the local committee, could substitute their own view of what the rate ought to be for the recommendation of the local committee.
    The compromise did not quite follow that line. It did adopt the second and the third powers that we thought it right and reasonable for the central wages board to have, namely, to act in the case of a deadlock and in the case of an

    1815
    appeal. But it was agreed, and I think wisely, in the interests of getting the Bill through, that the power of giving the central board or this House an overriding power of stating a minimum rate should not be in any form included in the Bill. I do not wonder that the particular point—the Government has not thought it right in any form to accept the power of fixing an overriding minimum, either by this House or by the central wages board—has had a great deal of importance attached to it by some of my hon. Friends. They genuinely believe that it would be possible by an overriding legislative enactment to secure a universal minimum wage of 30s. I am not quite so sure.
    There is also the quite obvious and perfectly fair political point, that hon. Members above the Gangway have never tired of attacking, most unfairly, hon. Members below the Gangway on this side for having, I think a year or two ago, no doubt far perfectly good reasons, voted against a certain minimum wage being inserted in a Bill concerning the coal mining industry. I have seen placarded in mining division after mining division, attacks on Liberals, stating, "These are the people who did not think a miner was worth 5s. a day and a boy 2s. a day." It is, therefore, only natural and it is only human nature that now the chance comes of putting the boot on the other leg and pointing out the position, as has been done by my hon. Friends, that they should call attention to it. Perhaps it might suggest itself to my hon. Friends above the Gangway that if they had been less anxious to be unfair to my hon. Friends for having taken what, probably, was a perfectly wise and right course in not including a minimum wage for miners in a certain Bill, that my hon. Friends would be less willing to retaliate, as they are doing and as they will no doubt do, in regard to this particular matter.
    I think, on the whole, probably the action taken in regard to the coal-mining wage was perfectly justifiable when it was taken, and I believe that the action the Government are now taking, which makes it impossible for them to insert in this Bill a minimum wage, if they are to get their compromise through and to get their Bill, is also a wise action, in the general interests of the industry at the present time. It is
    1816
    significant that the leader of the Agricultural Labourers' Union, who is a man absolutely devoted to the cause of those whom he represents, has been thinking it right, in the interests of those he represents, not to press for the inclusion of any named figure in the Bill. That is a fact which we ought to have in mind in considering what is the right thing to do on this subject. The compromise having been made under the circumstances, what was the right and reasonable thing for us to do? So long as we have the present three-party system under the present circumstances, it is possible for one party, if it sets itself deliberately to talk and to move its Amendments, to make it impossible to get a Bill agreed to, when time is of the essence of the matter, as it is in this case.
    The majority of us on these benches, although we would have been perfectly willing to fight side by side with the Government in order to get stronger powers for the Central Wages Board under one or other of the alternative methods which I have named—personally I think the line suggested by the hon. Member for Southern Norfolk of giving the Central Wages Board power from time to time to fix an overriding figure might have been the better way—it would have meant carrying the Bill over to the autumn, for a prolonged struggle in the autumn, with an uncertain issue. On the whole, the present arrangement having been made, it would not have been right for us to take the responsibility of not allowing the compromise to go through. None of us know what may happen in the autumn.
    Two years ago I was interested very much in a Bill concerning allotments. The Minister in charge was very anxious that it should not go over to the autumn. Some of my friends here were very anxious to improve it, and that would have involved further discussion in the Autumn Session. We accepted his advice and got the Bill through, though it Was not as good a Bill as we had hoped for. It turned out that there was no Autumn Session and that the Minister of Agriculture at that time had been very wise in advising us not to carry the Bill over to the autumn, because he was one of the main persons who murdered the Government before the Autumn Session came, and it is very likely that it was in anticipation of what was

    1817
    likely to happen that he gave us the advice. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend has any such intention in his mind with regard to this matter, but anyone who has been in this House for any considerable time knows that very often it is unwise not to take a measure if you can get it, and that if you let a good time go past it is extraordinarily difficult to revive the atmosphere of general goodwill. The main point in favour of this Bill, though it does not follow the lines which those of us who have been working together have always thought the right lines, is that even in its present form it does carry with it a considerable amount of the goodwill of all concerned.
    It is wrong to say that it is a Conservative settlement. We all know that the largest Conservative vote recorded this Session was recorded against the Second Reading of this Bill and the majority by which it was carried was a comparatively small one. The party opposite whipped up against this Bill more than they whipped up against any other proposals brought forward. They have moved forward considerably from that, position. They not only agree to the passage of this Bill, but they will agree to there being a central board, and will agree to that central hoard having certain powers, however imperfect. In doing that, one ought to realise that they have gone a very long way. That is very much to their credit, but, at any rate, the point ought not to be raised that there has been a complete surrender by the Government. Anyone coming into this House for the first time, and not knowing anything about agriculture, and having no prejudices, would agree with me that if there is to he a compromise, you could not have a mope fairly balanced one than this, particularly if it means that the Bill will be passed into law within the next 10 days. Therefore, although my friends and I would have been very glad to fight it out in the autumn, to get further powers for the central wages board, on the whole we think that the House will be doing a sensible thing to give a Third Reading to this Bill, which has the greatest prospect of being accepted with the greatest amount of general goodwill by all the parties concerned.
    Mr. DUKES: I rise to support the Third Reading of this Bill. I do so from
    1818
    motives entirely different from those of both speakers Who have preceded me. I am not sure as to the attitude of mind of the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland). The explanation which he has given seems to have left the House in greater difficulties than it was in before. The fact is that the central purpose of the Bill was the establishment of a central wages board, with the powers of veto, and while we are all discussing the difficulties of agriculture, without pleasing everybody else, what we have got to bear in mind is that this is a Bill to set up negotiations designed to deal with the wages of agricultural workers. It is not crops which we arc selling. It is men. That appears to have been entirely overlooked. We have got into all sorts of deep water regarding the variation of wages in connection with the raising of stock and crops, the difference between a shepherd and a cowman, and so on, all of which is irrelevant with the purpose of this Bill. The point, which so far has been unexplained by those who have opposed a central wages board, is that the difference between a central wages board and county committees is the difference between what might be described as the agricultural workers' Plimsoll line, and the setting up of machinery which is more likely to perpetuate the existing inequalities than it is to establish a national minimum wage that can be regarded as a subsistence.
    That is the plain statement of fact, and while I am going into the Lobby to support the Third Reading I hope that the House will understand that those of us on these benches who do so will do so conscious of the fact that we have come to the conclusion regarding this Bill f hat it is not so much what my right hon. Friend described as co-operating, but that it is more in the nature of what trade unionists describe during a strike as "peaceful persuasion." It is due entirely to the fact that we knew that there wits sufficient voting power against us to prevent us from getting any Bill at, all if we had not accepted the terms of this. I would remind my hon. Friends below the Gangway that when they proposed to have certain machinery, which would give a minimum wage, they made no attempt to cover that by the Amendment which they supported, but which we now realise could not be obtained for the very reasons which I have already given, and that is

    1819
    why we have to go into the Lobby to-day to support a Bill which we are compelled to accept by the weight of voting power in opposition to us, and not because we regard it as a good Bill. The people who destroyed the powers of the central wages board have automatically forced us into the acceptance of a, compromise. Having done that, as we are parties to the compromise we are going to honour the bargain, and we are supporting this Bill fully conscious of the fact that hon. Members below the Gangway have compelled us to adopt that attitude.
    As many hon. Members opposite have expressed the hope that this Bill is going to work I 'hope sincerely that it will. One virtue which yet remains in the Bill is that it gives some sort of foundation on which we can start to erect machinery, by the bringing together of the employer and the workman, which at any rate, from a county point of view, will create a rather larger outlook than has prevailed hitherto in agriculture. Some of us had hoped that we might have got a national outlook with regard to agriculture. This is where I differ from my hon. Friends opposite. I do not believe that you will ever get that national outlook in agriculture until you have done precisely what had to be done in every other industry, that is to create the machinery which above all else enabled you to develop a national outlook. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of some hon. Members opposite, who arc always pleading for a broad national outlook with regard to agriculture, and every time when they get an opportunity to set up machinery which would bring the mind of the nation to a national standpoint with regard to agriculture immediately take us back to the parish pump outlook with regard to this industry. Bad as this Bill is, we shall go into the Lobby in support of it in the hope that it will give, if only in a limited form, some machinery where to-day there is none, but I hope sincerely that none of us will indorse the hope of the noble Lord that this is going to be the last act of Parliamentary interference with agriculture, because, if so, agriculture will remain where it has remained.
    Viscount WOLMER: I never said anything of the kind.
    Mr. DUKES: If that be so, I unreservedly withdraw what I have said with
    1820
    regard to the Noble Lord, but that point of view has been expressed, I think, by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX indicated dissent.
    Mr. DUKES: I am only concerned with the point of view, and if agriculture has got to be revived in this country, it can only be revived by Parliament not allowing to continue the chaos which has hitherto prevailed. The mere fact that a responsible Minister can quote figures to-day as low as £1 a week, and that some hon. Members in another quarter of the House are threatening us that if we include a minimum wage of 30s. in the Bill it will wreck the industries—the mere fact that that is the condition of agriculture when there has been the minimum of State interference, is in itself a very potent reason why Parliament should take a far greater interest in agriculture, and we support this Bill to-day believing that if no national machinery as is suggested in this Bill had been set up, we should thereby prevent the national outlook which would give an opportunity of further interference, all for the good of agriculture and the nation in general.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I only intervene for a few minutes for the purpose of making three observations. I do not know that I should have done so if it had not been for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) who said that it was a very astonishing thing to observe the distance which the party with which I am associated had moved in the course of the discussions in Committee on this subject. I think it important that any misconception which might arise from that should at once be corrected. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will remember—and I thought that we had made our position abundantly plain in the course of the Second Beading Debate, both by the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member behind and in every speech from these benches—that we were prepared to accept and to recommend to those whom we might be able to influence the statutory regulation of wages, provided that it was done on a district basis. From that position we have never departed.
    6.0 P. M.
    The right hon. Member for Tiverton was at some pains, it seemed to me, to

    1821
    offer what appeared to me to be somewhat like an apologia for the action of himself and his friends in Committee, with which I, at least, am not particularly concerned. He was also at pains to explain to us that the lines of the ultimate agreement adopted, the ultimate compromise at which the Committee arrived, was very different from the compromise that he and his friends had in mind to propose when they put their Amendments on the Paper. I am, of course, familiar with both the suggested compromises, and I am bound to say that, except for one particular, I do not think there is any very great or substantial difference between the Government plan and the plan suggested by the right hon. Member for Tiverton. But perhaps that is hardly worth arguing at any length. What does seem to me, an outside layman, as entertaining, is the attempt by the right; hon. Member for Tiverton to minimise the great influence that lie and his friends have had upon the course of the Committee discussions. I am sure that nobody on this side of the House the least wishes to grudge hon. Members of the Liberal party any portion of the credit that rightly belongs to them for having originally moved and carried an Amendment that was indeed the most vital carried during the Commit too stage. I rate the right hon. Gentleman's services, towards what I conceive to be the right way to handle this problem, so highly that I would be disposed to say that, unless the right hon. Member for Tiverton and his friends had been able to carry that Amendment, we on this side would never have been able to bring the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary into a frame of mind in which compromise was acceptable. Therefore, I have nothing on that score but feelings of extreme obligation to hon. Members of the Liberal party for the way in which they induced a reasonable frame of mind among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Labour party.
    There is evidently considerable difference of opinion in the House as to the value of the Bill as it emerges from the Committee. The hon. Member for Southern Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards), when he intervenes in our discussions, can always count upon being heard with great respect. He made a valuable contribution to the discussion. I do not
    1822
    think I am misinterpreting him if I say that his view was that, although the Bill had been weakened and gravely weakened in Committee, yet it did represent a useful contribution to a very difficult problem. I think he gave us to understand that that was his View. There is no man in the House who speaks with a greater measure of experience or with a greater desire to appreciate the point of view of his opponents than does the hon. Member for South Norfolk. Certainly he speaks with knowledge. I was, therefore, the more astonished to find that, although the hon. Member evidently thinks that a great deal of good is still to be found in the Bill, the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Emlyn Jones), who may, indeed, have wider and longer agricultural knowledge than the hon. Member for Southern Norfolk, but whose agricultural knowledge in comparison with that of the hon. Member 'for Southern Norfolk I am inclined to doubt—I was astonished to find that he was so emphatic as to say that there was no good now in the Bill, and that if he was not deterred by considerations either of reluctance or prudence, he might even be found registering his vote against so unworthy an act of legislation. I can quite appreciate his feelings. He attached great importance to a particular Amendment that he moved in the Committee with great eloquence, on which he was unable to expend eloquence on the Report stage, which eloquence has been diverted to the interesting speech we have heard at this stage. I was very much entertained by one of the most ingenuous and naive confessions that I ever heard from a Member of this House, which fell a few minutes ago from the Liberal party's leader, the right hon. Member for Tiverton. I have always wondered whether it was fair to suggest that the hon. Member for Northern Dorset, in taking the action that he has done about the 30s. wage, was not wholly actuated by motives of philanthropy.
    Mr. ACLAND: I most thoroughly believe in it in principle, but there was also the motive of philanthropy.
    Mr. WOOD: I was in no way seeking to misinterpret motives. Since the Amendment first appeared on the Paper I have heard Members on both sides of the House from time to time throw doubt

    1823
    on the sincerity of Liberal Members who moved in that matter, and I have always endeavoured to constitute myself their champion and to maintain against all corners that I could conceive of nothing that:would shock me more than that I should be convinced that they had not seriously intended their Amendment to benefit the labourer as well as their own electioneering prospects I must honestly confess that there was great ground for thinking that, whatever good the 30s. wage might be held likely to do at first sight to the agricultural labourer, if put into the Bill, there was little doubt that it was probably very good electioneering Therefore hon. Members, if they have been good enough to apprehend my mind that I thus shamelessly expose to them, will have also apprehended the sensation with which I heard the right hon. Member for Tiverton say quite nakedly, and without reluctance, reserve or apology, that the explanation of the 30s. Amendment went back so far as to have its roots in a division in which he and his friends had voted against the Amendment on some coal mines Bill to insert a figure of 5s., and that if hon. Members of the Labour party had not used that vote in what the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends considered an improper fashion, they would not have so much to fear from the retaliation which has been expressed in the form of this all-important Amendment. He went, indeed, so far as to say, in a House of human beings where human feelings always have their influence, that it was perfectly legitimate for his friends to find enjoyment, having that experience in their recollection, now to see the boot upon the other leg. I of course, in these matters am only in the position of a tertium gaudens, a third party to rejoice. I, therefore, am able to look on, and, perhaps, to discount at a truer figure than the hon. Member for North Dorset, or even the Minister of Agriculture, the value of the hon. Member's prophesy that on this issue, when the Minister goes to the country, he will find the fate that awaits him. I am not sure. I may be sure about the fate, but I am not sure whom it awaits.
    I would like to press a question which was asked by the noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), in
    1824
    support of a question asked earlier by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Pattinson), with regard to the exact Government position on a very interesting leaflet which some time ago circulated round the House. As those who were then present will remember, the leaflet in question is apparently obtaining wide currency in a bye-election area where a contest is in progress. It is a leaflet issued under the auspices of the Labour party, and in it there is the very interesting and rather sensational statement—I have not the exact introductory words—that the Labour party proposes to
    "guarantee fair prices to the farmers so that they may know in advance what their crops will fetch."
    Excepting that farmers, as far as I know them, are not accustomed to attach undue importance to anything on which they cannot firmly put their hands, it might be supposed that that statement would have great influence in this electoral contest, but in any case, whatever its influence and its effect there, it is of the first importance in a great political issue that we should know what the attitude of the Government is. Either words like that mean something or they mean nothing. If they mean something, we should like to know what they mean. I would press the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether he is able to respond monosyllabically, yes or no, to the invitation of the Noble Lord whether the Government have revised the view, stated in this House not long ago by the Prime Minister, and whether they are prepared now to reconsider their policy on the question of guaranteeing prices to the producer on the soil is correct. That is, if the statement means something. If it means nothing, I suggest that the repudiation of it, in the general interest of honest dealing and straight electioneering, should be immediate and unequivocal. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to apply himself to answering that question. I join with my hon. Friends on this side of the House in saying that we believe that the Bill is better as an agreed Bill than it was originally, and I am sure that I can speak for all on this side, and for all our friends outside the House, when I say that we shall spare no efforts to respond to the invitation of the Minister, and use such influent, as we possess to

    1825
    secure that the Bill is given a fair chance. It will then go a long way to secure the objects which we all seek to attain.
    Mr. LAMBERT: It would be, I presume, appropriate to this Debate to introduce the metaphor, "patient oxen." am not a very patient ox, and I have not too much confidence in all my leaders on this side of the House. For my own part, I prefer to go my own way, especially on agricultural matters, because I fancy I know as much about them as most of my leaders at any rate. It has been the fashion to gibe at those who sit on these benches—that we are out to bribe the agricultural labourers. I remember at the last Election there were posters all over the Eastern counties calling upon the people to vote for the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin)—to "vote for that policy and 30s. a week for the agricultural labourer." I am sorry that bribes of this kind and corrupt posters of this kind should be put upon the walls by any political party, because it is impossible for any Government to guarantee a wage unless they can guarantee the conditions by which that wage can be paid. Therefore, I dissociate myself entirely from appeals of this kind. I take a different view from my hon. Friends here. Personally, I am against a central wages board. I wish it were not in the Bill, and, though it is emasculated, I believe we in Devonshire know better how to settle Devonshire matters than a central wages board in London.
    The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes) asks us to have a national outlook on agriculture. We want a few national objects in agriculture. For one thing I should like to have a national cow—a cow which did not want to be milked on Saturday afternoons or Sunday mornings or Sunday evenings. Unfortunately, we cannot get it. I wish we could always have sunshine when the harvest is in progress, but unfortunately we get weather of the kind which we are now having even at the end of July. If my hon. Friend could secure these national attributes for agriculture, then I would be able to look at it with his eye, but, if we cannot have a cow which does not want to be milked on Saturdays and Sundays, and if we cannot have proper weather for carrying out agricultural operations, you had better leave us in the country districts
    1826
    to manage our own affairs, and not talk too much about nationalising this industry.
    Mr. NICHOL: National tripe!
    Mr. LAMBERT: I do not understand the hon. Member's reference. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is trying to be funny!"] Oh, I understand, it is the new form of humour. Is it national humour? If so, I prefer some other kind of humour. I will ask hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway whether what I am going to say now is humorous. There is a bye-election in progress, and I am going to question the Minister about his policy and the policy of the Government. I will ask hon. Members to say if it is humorous or not, or whether it is merely "tripe"? This is an extract from their candidate's speech as reported in the "Boston Guardian" of 26th July, 1924—
    "Their practical policy was to help the farmers and other people by reducing railway rates, by getting cheaper credit, by stopping all the profiteering that was going on with the middlemen, and by guaranteeing the farmer fair prices for what he grew on condition that he paid fair wages."
    Ts that the policy or is it "tripe"?
    Mr. NICHOL: It is a very good policy.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Member says it is a very good policy. I understood, however, we had another declaration by the Prime Minister. On 12th February, the Prime Minister, speaking, I presume, for the party below the Gangway, said:
    "So far as we are concerned, we shall not touch tariffs nor bounties."
    Which is right? Is it this gentleman speaking in Lincolnshire, or the Prime Minister speaking at that Box? Where is the "tripe" now? Let us have a little straight dealing with our Labour friends. They are going out to attack us, and I am prepared to retaliate. If they are the party of electoral purity, why do they say one thing in the constituencies, and another thing at that Box? Are we to understand that the candidate for the Lincolnshire constituency who announces this new agricultural policy is, in the words of Alderman Kirk,
    "A university gentleman whose profession is to teach capitalist economics"?
    I wish to know from my right hon. Friend the Minister if he has a policy, because on it depends entirely what wage will be paid. If this Bill be passed, then wages

    1827
    will be paid upon the prices of the products. If you are going to increase the prices of the products, then bigger wages will be paid. Will my right hon. Friend tell me which policy is to be pursued by the Government? Is it to be the policy of the Prime Minister of no bounties and no tariffs, or is it to be the policy announced in Lincolnshire? We shall know then what kind of wages are to be paid. I am very glad the Minister has accepted the compromise. Nobody is satisfied. I do not like the Bill—in fact, I hate all control from London. I dislike the central board, but I recognise that this Measure will give the agricultural worker bargaining power. There will be local committees with independent chairmen, and each with two other members nominated by the Minister, to fix wages which will be enforced, and that to my mind will be the greatest benefit of this Bill. It will bring up the wages of those labourers who are being exploited by their employers.
    That is the great benefit of the Bill. I hope it will be worked in that way and that we shall have reasonable good will on both sides. I desire to pay my tribute both to the Minister himself and to the Parliamentary Secretary for their uniform and unvarying courtesy during the Committee stage. They met us quite fairly. They, naturally, had their own point of view, but they were very willing to consider the points of view of those who differed from them. I hope, if this Bill comes into operation, the Minister will keep politics out of its administration and will appoint as members of the committees in the counties men with a real knowledge of the industry who are not partisans on one side or the other, but who can bring an independent mind to bear upon the facts. I hope he will not appoint men who have taken an active part on either side of the controversy, but that he will bring this Measure into operation—and I think he will have an opportunity of doing so—in a manner which will create as much good will as possible among employers and workers in the agricultural industry.
    Miss JEWSON: I think it is very important to realise in this Debate that this is not only a rural question affecting the agricultural workers, but is also a question which concerns those hon. Members who represent urban constituencies.
    1828
    For my part, representing Norwich, I can say that the problem of, the agricultural worker is constantly with us. During the last 50 or 60 years, thousands of workers have been driven from the land and have had to seek refuge in Norwich. Very badly paid and unskilled work has been found for them, and factories have been started which have absorbed this lowly-paid labour. The question of the position of the agricultural worker in Norfolk is, therefore, a vital one and I welcome any Measure, even this Bill as it stands after the Committee stage, which will give those workers some sort of machinery to help them to improve the conditions under which they live. Everyone will agree that the present position is chaotic. The conciliation committees have been absolutely useless, and the wages of the workers are a disgrace to a civilised country. An hon. Member has asked us why we have gone on with this Bill since the vital principle has been taken from it. We have done so because it offers machinery which will penalise some of the worst employers. At the same time, when I hear hon. Members opposite state that they are going to support the Third Reading of the Bill, though they opposed the Second Reading, I become suspicious of what is left in the Bill. After all, hon. Members opposite arc the political descendants of those who, in the early part of the last century, enclosed the common lands of the people and took from the agricultural labourer the right to a certain amount of land.
    Those who have had some experience of trade boards realise that, with the central wages board gone, and the fixing of wages under the Bill left almost entirely in the hands of the local committees, the position is very bad indeed. The county committees will include representatives of the agricultural workers, who will be constantly faced with the fear of dismissal, and who will not be able to speak their minds in the same way as the workers' representatives on a central board. That will prevent any kind of living wage being fixed in the industry. It is all very well to speak of goodwill in the carrying out of this Measure, but in the cases of many of are people concerned their position is too desperate to speak to them of goodwill. The men and their wives are having a terrible struggle, the children are going

    1829
    to school half starved and not properly clothed, and it is insulting to talk to such people about goodwill in the industry. The farmers in the last year have had considerable relief; they have had £3,250,000 relief in rates and over £1,000,000 relief in road charges, and it is up to them to use this machinery to establish a wage which will be nearer to a living wage. Clause 2 of the Bill says that in fixing the rates the committees shall secure for able-bodied men such wages as will enable men in ordinary cases to maintain themselves and their families in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation. If the Bill does that; it will succeed. It does not do so, it will fail and then we shall want the Government to come back to the House and ask for further powers to strengthen the Bill and make it a weapon in the hands of the workers to protect them against sweating employers.
    One outstanding feature in connection with this Bill will have to be faced by the country within the next few months. That is the attitude of hon. Members below the Gangway. It is a thing that they will not be able to get away from so far as Norfolk is concerned. All over Norfolk a revulsion of feeling took place when they took away the powers of the central wages board, and so far as we on these benches are concerned, we face the future in Norfolk with every confidence, because the labourers there realise that, with the powers of the central wages board so curtailed, their position is very bad, and that is due to the hon. Members below the Gangway. An hon. Member opposite said he wanted the Government to leave the agricultural industry alone and not to interfere with it, but I hope that that is the last thing the Government are going to do. The industry is in a hopeless state, and I look on this Bill as the first step in an attempt to reorganise the whole industry in such a way that we shall be able to be proud of it as a nation.
    Mr. MOND: I really ought to rise to say a few words from the point of view of those of us who sit on these benches, so eager has been the attempt of both the other parties to attach all the blame for this very bad Bill to our party. As a matter of fact, I think all sides should
    1830
    deprecate the political swashbuckling that has been going on over this Bill. It was a very unfortunate thing for the agricultural labourer and for this Bill that a bye-election took place in an agricultural constituency while it was in course of progress through this House. The result has been one shift and another shift, and everbody trying to make party capital out of provisions which ought to have been essential principles for the passing of this Bill. The Minister, although he is now rather jubilant at getting a Bill at all, started out with a principle which was really very sound. It was the principle contained in Clause 2, Sub-section (4), which provided that
    "in fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee arc adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation."
    That was a very good principle on which to base the Bill, and so long as it remained in any shape or form a part of the Bill, I, for one, and I think all my hon. Friends below the Gangway here, would have supported it, but about half way through the Committee stage the Minister entirely did away with that excellent provision, because, when he scrapped the central wages board for the benefit of hon. Members opposite, although he left this Sub-section in the Bill, he removed any power under which it could be operated, and that is really the difficulty which those of us on this side who disagree with the Bill in its present form are up against; that is the only reason for the jubilation of hon. Members opposite, and why, although they voted against the Bill on Second Reading, they are now going to vote for it on the Third Reading. The Clause now means nothing at all, because there is no one in this country who has any power to enforce it. If a district committee fixes a wage of 20s., which is far below the standard laid down, it is not in accordance with the Bill, but no one has the least power to alter that decision, and, that being the case, some of us on this side, at any rate, I, myself, decided that the Bill was becoming quite useless without the provision of a minimum wage. Therefore, although I voted against a minimum wage

    1831
    in Committee, because I did not believe in Parliament fixing wages, I came to the conclusion that the Bill, in its present form, would be very little use indeed to the agricultural worker without a minimum wage being fixed. [Interruption.] The idea that the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), in moving his Amendment, spoiled this Bill, is merely a party cry and an attempt to attach blame to our party for a Bill for which nobody wants to take the credit.
    The statements of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee differed very widely in their effects. If you take the reading of the Minister, the fault is ours, but if you take the reading of the Parliamentary Secretary, the fault is not ours, so that there is a wide divergence of opinion on that matter even on the Government Front Bench. The minimum wage of 30s. which we so desired to be put in the Bill in one form or another has now been definitely abandoned by the Minister, and a compromise has been made. Although my right hon. Friend below me says it is not a compromise on the side of hon. Members opposite, it is, to my mind, entirely a compromise in their favour and not a compromise to which some of us on these benches would be willing to agree at all. It is a compromise which I very much deprecate, and in making which I do not think the Minister had the support of his party. It is a great pity that in conferring with hon. Members opposite, in order to get the Bill through on their lines, he did not confer with hon. Members in our party, in order to get through a Bill which would have been a great deal more useful to the agricultural labourer. The only reason why he did not, do that was because, at the beginning of the Committee stage, he wanted to make a little cheap party capital by accusing us of spoiling the Bill, and he closed the door to any possible further negotiations.
    Mr. SIMPSON:
    I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Mond) has said. Hon. Members on the Committee will remember that among the Amendments of our party there was one which retained to the central wages board the power to interfere if a local committee had not acted in accordance with the law. The object of that Amendment was that, in cases where a minimum wage had not
    1832
    been fixed in accordance with Clause 2, Sub-section (4), the central wages board should have the power of fixing a wage which would represent a living, wage. That Amendment was sacrificed in the agreement come to by the right hon. Gentleman with the party opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was out of order!"] The Amendment was not out of order. It was in order, and it would certainly have been passed if the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to pass it with our assistance in Committee. The failure to do so was a failure to retain the power of the central wages board to act in cases in which a minimum wage was not a living wage, and we feel strongly that had that power been retained for the central wages board, this Bill would not have been the semi-useless thing which it is at the present moment. At the same time, we believe that from this Bill something will be gained. Hon. Members opposite say that an industry can only pay in wages what can be got out of that industry, but many of us on this side think that you are not paying at present all the wages out of the industry that the industry can pay. We believe that, many farmers are not in fact paying the wages that they can well afford to pay, and this Bill will at least effect a reform an that matter, because all farmers will be bound to pay the wage fixed by a committee. I shall support the Third Reading, though I think this might have been made a very much better Bill without any difficulty, had my right hon. Friend taken a different course in Committee.
    Mr. HILLARY: Those who, in the early part of this year, heard the statement so often made by Conservatives that the Liberals had brought National ruin, when they put the Labour party into office, may be wondering what they are feeling like to-day in view of the fact that they have compelled the wild Socialist party to accept their Amendments. The Bill in its present form is nothing else than exactly what the Farmers' Union have stood out for from the first. This central wages board is now left with no power at all, and what is the position of the agricultural labourer? Hon. Members above the Gangway must remember that he is fighting a battle at the present time for a living wage, and he has no chance of any guarantee at all under this Bill that he will get it. The party opposite think

    1833
    they have won a victory, but I am not so sure that they are not entering upon a most dangerous period. I made a pledge a few years ago that if I were returned to Parliament I would do my best to see that the agricultural labourer must have a minimum wage, so that anything I say to-day is only trying to keep that pledge. We are told to-day, on the authority of the Minister of Agriculture, that in some districts they are paying wages as low as 20s. a week to agricultural workers, and that the average wage throughout the country is only 28s. This means that, with the increased cost of living figure at 70, you are paying a married man with a family a wage of not more than 16s. or 17s. at pre-War rates, and I venture to tell this House seriously, and to remind them, that if there is one real excuse for a revolutionary spirit it is that the people who are working diligently are starved; and they are literally starving under these conditions. I wish the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) had been here. Consider what he would have thought of a proposal to grant to a married man, unemployed, with a family of eight children, a weekly allowance of 20s.! Remember that these men are working every day, and yet cannot make enough to feed their wives and children. To my mind, it is appalling.
    I hear it often said that wages must come out of an industry, but I am not so sure about that. My own feeling is that we have no guarantee of any kind that the employer is competent to give them. We hear that the farmer cannot afford decent wages, but one fact remains, and that is that in this country to-day, if you want to rent a farm, you have the greatest difficulty in getting it, whereas the first and certain sign of agriculture being in so bad a condition would be that you would have a number of farms to let. These are the men who were so valuable to us in the dark days of 1914, but we have very soon forgotten them. If these were your horses, you would feed them, but these are only your fellow citizens. I, for one, at any rate, as one of the taxpayers, have no hesitation in publishing here and now that, when conditions are such that a well-managed farm cannot pay a living wage, it is a problem which the whole of us as a nation have to face and to solve. If it be true that 400,000
    1834
    of our population, who are farm labourers, are working for a less wage than 28s. a week, it means that a million and a half of our population are not on the verge of starvation, but are absolutely starving. It is said farmers complain, that because of the urban attitude they have no chance. To my mind that is not quite just. The farmers appeal, or seem to appeal, from a selfish motive. I believe if it were driven home in this country, even amongst the working classes in the towns, that so large a mass of our population was living under these conditions, they would be ready to face any thing reasonable to alter it. I am sorry that this Labour Government, in spite of its flambuoyant speeches at Election time, and the promises made, should have failed at the first fence. It is not quite fair of the hon. Member who spoke of the leaders in our party. Even in our party, as in others, we sometimes offer a little prayer, "Heaven preserve us from our leaders!" He might be fair enough to say, that some of us on the Committee put up a great fight, and gave evidence of our anxiety to see we kept within this Bill the right and power of the central board to have a veto. No one could have foreseen in Committee that the first Amendment meant the ruling out of others that followed.
    Mr. AGLAND: Mine were in order, and they were not ruled out. A definite ruling was given by the Chairman that my consequential Amendments, which would have given the power of the central board, on reference by the Minister, to fix the wage, ii they did not think it came up to the formula, were in order.
    Mr. HILLARY: But it was the Minister himself and the Parliamentary Secretary who gave way to opposition. It is all very well to round on us, and say we destroyed the Bill. The fact is that if you had retained the central board you would never have come to agreement with the party opposite. They would never have come to terms with you.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please address his remarks to me.
    Mr. HILLARY: I am sorry. I only want to say, in conclusion, while I shall vote for the Bill, which I hope will fulfil some of the pious wishes the Minister, in particular, and some of his followers have expressed, I do so regretting that the Labour Government have not offered, at

    1835
    any rate, something to these poor people, who are actually begging for bread, and have not done something better than this miserable, emasculated Bill we are sending to the other House.
    Mr. HUGH SEELY: I feel the same as several hon. Members on these benches, in voting for the Third Reading of this Bill, that we are not voting for anything resembling the Bill which we voted for on Second Reading. We were opposed by hon. Members opposite because of the central board, and we voted—at least the majority did—for the central board. I, for one, shall always regret that Amendment which did away with the central hoard. There was absolutely no point in the Bill when the central board was taken out. This is another Bill we are dealing with to-day. The central board and a minimum wage really go to the root of reform in the agricultural industry. I, and I think most hon. Members, are heartily sick and tired of the eternal way we are going on in agriculture to-day. The landowner, the farmer and the agricultural labourer are all in the greatest and direst distress, and the weakest goes to the wall. They have got to be helped in different ways, and we have got to see that the one at the bottom is not starved, as he is to-day. It is said that the objection to a minimum wage is that some of the farmers cannot afford to pay it. The farmer does not say, "I am just getting along, and this will cripple me." They are losing, in many cases in Norfolk to-day, £1,000 on the year's working. If you had that minimum wage, it would only add another £100 or £150. No farmer would have to lay down land to grass because of paying the minimum wage of 30s. That is not the reason he has to do it. The reason is a bigger one, and that is the help he wants in various ways.
    It has been urged that the reason for our wanting this minimum wage is a political one. It is certainly not mine. At two elections I have put it forward, and shall continue to do so, because I believe it to be the only solution, and the right thing in this industry as it is to-day. Having a constituency alongside the Minister's, I know full well all he has said in his constituency, and I hoped he would have carried out a tittle of what he said at the last Election. No one has let down
    1836
    his party more than he has by his compromise with the party opposite. He has absolutely ruined this Bill as a reform in agriculture. It is an absolutely weak Bill, which is welcomed on the other side, because they know it is going to do no good, and I for one regret having to vote for it on Third Reading.
    Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: I would like to support this Bill on Third Reading, not because I am in any way satisfied with it, because I feel it will not be long before this House is asked to give further powers in connection with this legislation. In Committee, the same tactics were adopted of trying to rule the Amendment for the 30s. minimum out of order, and even after it was permitted—
    Mr. SPEAKER:I am bound to say that that sounds like a reflection on the Chairman of the Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: Apart from the Chairman, I should like to say that the right hon. Gentleman for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), in or before the discussion, tried to get us to compromise, and not raise the matter in the House, on Third Reading or Report. I was not surprised at your ruling to-day, after the Parliamentary Secretary told us what might happen after the Committee stage of last week. I must say this is my first Session in Parliament, and I do feel this is the first touch of the Socialist Government putting on the gag.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member mean that I have been influenced by anyone?
    Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: No, Sir; I do not wish to imply anything against you.
    Mr. W. SMITH: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member referred to something I said in Committee last week. I think the inference to be adduced from that was I had said something then which had some bearing on your decision, Mr. Speaker, to-day. I ask the hon. and gallant Member to state what I said, and to let the House judge.
    Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, he informed the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Emlyn-Jones) and myself that they were in touch with you, and that you had discretionary powers not to select that Amendment.
    Mr. SMITH: I can only say here most emphatically that I have never used those words to my hon. Friends in the Committee. I hope one will be allowed to clear this matter up very fully. The hon. and gallant Gentleman accused me of having arranged with the Chairman of the Committee the ruling out of the Amendment, and I had then very strongly to speak to him against making such an accusation, not only against me, but against the Chairman of the Committee. I deny emphatically that there has been any collusion between myself and the Chairman of the Committee, and I deny most emphatically that I ever used words such as he has uttered to-day.
    Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: If what the hon. Member states be the fact, all I can say is there must be some misunderstanding, and I certainly withdraw. We have been accused as a party of being the cause of this compromise. I should like to say to the Minister, and to Members on the back benches, that before any suggestion was made of a compromise, there was no word of a minimum wage to be in the Bill as part of the policy to which the Socialist party have been pledged. Many of them owe their seats to that promise at the last Election, and the hon. Member for Norwich, speaking last Saturday week, said. "We will not only give you bread; we will give you roses." I suppose the roses are the complete capitulation and surrender to the dictation of hon. Members opposite. It was very noticeable that so much had the Minister given way in Committee, that we were rushing through Amendments without any idea of what we were doing, without any explanation from the Minister or from any hon. Member from the Front Bench as to what alterations had been made in the Bill, and, when the Minister was asked to give an explanation, he really did not know on what he had given way. He had given way so much that lie really could not explain to the Committee in what shape the Amendments then stood. The right hon. Member for Ripon doubted our sincerity in introducing an Amendment for a 30s. minimum wage, and stated it was an Election dodge.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I was very careful to say
    1838
    I had resisted that impression as far as ever I could, and I only began to yield to it when his own leaders asserted that that was their interpretation.
    7.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must have remonstrated with his own leader when he made the observation as to the 30s. minimum wage at the last election. What we feel is very important is that the position of the worker should be known at once. It was stated in Committee—and I repeat it again—that there are 400,000 workers in receipt of a wage of less than 26s. a week, and in parts of my division and the division of the Minister the wages are lower than 25s. I gave a budget to the Committee showing how a family laid out their 25s., and the Minister has told us himself he has worked out the average cost of a meal per head to the agricultural worker. It works out at three farthings, and yet he is quite content to surrender the whole object, leave out the minimum wage, and leave the agricultural worker in the same miserable condition as that in which he finds himself to-day. If it be correct, as the Tory papers tell us, that we are to have a Tory Government next time, it means that for five years the agricultural worker will be deprived of getting any improvement in his conditions. The Minister, too, has stated to-day that he is satisfied that the Bill will work well. In the spring of last year, we had a strike in Norfolk when the Farmers' Union suggested that the farmers were not in a position to pay more than 5d. per hour, which would reduce the wages £1 a week. The men naturally resisted that, and said they could not live on £1 a week, with the result that a strike was brought about. That strike was desired neither by the farmers nor the workers. It was, unfortunately, a political stunt, and done with the object of making the Leader of the Opposition make some offer, which he did not make until just before the Election. The Farmers' Union were anxious that a subsidy should be given to arable land. Farmers told me, and it was stated all over, that they did not desire the strike. The men said they did not want the strike, but, unfortunately, the men had been the lever to make the then Government do something for the

    1839
    industry. The Committee under the new Bill will have no more power than the Committee had when it made that arrangement last year. That arrangement was not kept. They say the farmer cannot afford to pay more.
    There are many ways to help the farmer. The question of tithes must be dealt with. There is the question of rates and assessments and, as the Noble Lord said, the question of the rail rates. The farmer must also organise his form of marketing and take up co-operation. We are really passing the Third Reading of a Bill with very little consideration, and we have sacrificed the whole of the interests of the agricultural worker to get a Bill through quickly, so that the Minister can say that he has accomplished his object of getting a Bill through Parliament. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should feel happy to think that they have destroyed a Bill which was going to bring comfort to 400,000 odd workers on the land. It is important that we should encourage the men to keep on the land. The towns are now filled with unemployed. The young lads in the village see nothing to attract them because of the low wages, and they are going to the towns. A good deal has been said about the dropping of the Bill as it stands at the present time, and that it was due to an Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland). Hon. Members below the Gangway know that many Members on these benches did not support the Amendment. I remember well the Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture himself was one of those who voted against his own Minister. I am going to support this Bill to-night not because I agree with it, but because I should be sorry to deprive the agricultural worker of the small crumbs which have fallen from the rich man's table. It is really only the crumbs that are left to the agricultural worker.
    Major MOULTON: I support this Bill on the Third Reading, because I am anxious not to stop any measures which may possibly improve the position of the worst paid skilled class in this country, but I admit I do it with less enthusiasm because my feelings are not so much with the politicians as with those people who I know have been looking forward to
    1840
    this as really giving them a chance of a living wage. The position of the farm workers gets worse in comparison to other classes every day. He feels it. He hears of people in London striking for increases of 10s. a week or more with the enthusiastic support of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Then he hears that a minimum wage of. 30s. per week is voted down by the same hon. Gentlemen. I want also to see the 30s. minimum wage as a recognition of a change in the centre of gravity of farming; a recognition that it is no longer first the rent, then other expenses, and then see what we can leave over for the men, but decent standard living wage for the men first. We are told that this Bill is being given not only a safe conduct here, but a safe conduct in another place. The party on the other side are as generous as the leader of an investing army who tells a convoy that they can go through to the City, if they will only leave behind the munitions they are carrying there. The Minister is going to get his Bill through, but there is not going to be very much left that is worth while. What I want is something that will give the agricultural worker a wage of which the rest of the country need not be ashamed. I hope this Bill will do something. I very much regret that a Labour Minister of Agriculture had not the pluck to stick out for this wage.
    Mr. W. SMITH: The range of the Debate has been very largely round the question as to whether or not the Government have taken the right course in accepting this Bill under the circumstances that presented themselves to us. My task, in reply to some of that criticism, is made somewhat easier, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), I think, proved conclusively that the arrangement now made rested upon a combination of my hon. Friends below the Gangway and my hon. Friends opposite on the Committee. If there had not been that combination in regard to an Amendment which completely destroyed the neutral board as an effective instrument, we should not have been in the position in which we are at this moment. I know some of my hon. Friends have stated that they were prepared to go on and fight for something more. We tried to get something back after the passing of that Amendment. We realised that it was hot a wise and a proper thing for those of us who were

    1841
    representing the Government on this Measure to throw up the sponge without an attempt to get back some of the ground lost. We discovered, when we put our Amendment down, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) was so far-reaching and embracing that an attempt to regain what we thought some of the lost ground proved to be use less. All those Gentlemen who have spoken to-day, who were Members of the Committee, and who have suggested that we have made a mistake in not combining with them for the purpose of retrieving some of the ground that was lost, know perfectly well that the Amendments which they asked us to co-operate with them in seeking to establish were out of order just as some of the previous ones as a result of the passing of that Amendment.
    Mr. ACLAND: I must say I cannot accept that statement.
    Mr. SMITH: My right hon. Friend may not be able to accept that statement. He said he was willing to fight for the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert).
    Mr. ACLAND: I am talking about my own.
    Mr. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman stated in the course of his speech that he was willing to fight with us for that Amendment. We were informed that Amendment was out of order. Therefore, it is all idle pretence to stand in this House and argue that we were wrong in not taking a course which was not open to us to take.
    Mr. ACLAND: The Chairman gave no ruling on that, I think.
    Mr. SMITH: I think I am right in saying that any Amendment that sought to give power to the wages board to have any measure of control over the local committees in regard to wages was out of order, as the result of the passing of my right hon. Friend's Amendment. It is no use pretending anything different. These are the facts of the, case, and we were compelled to take the position up from that particular point. We had no option. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Hillary) said his feelings were, "Heaven preserve us from our leaders."
    1842
    That is just what we felt at that time, because we realised the difficulty in which we were placed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset (Mr. Emlyn-Jones), in rather what one might call a fierce speech, said some rather hard things about the Minister and myself. I really think he was under a misapprehension when he was speaking. Those observations of his should have been addressed to members of his own party. They are the people who caused all the trouble. My hon. Friend stated that the Bill was mutilated in Committee. By whom By the Government? Did we mutilate it? Was any mutilation carried out by my hon. Friends? Who was it? It was by that combination of my hon. Friends below the Gangway and my hon. Friends opposite.
    Mr. EMLYN-JONES: I did not support mutilation.
    Mr. SMITH: There is the further fact that it was a Liberal Amendment supported by Liberal votes in combination with my hon. Friends on the other side, and it destroyed the central board for all purposes. To go back on that decision was absolutely impossible. My hon. Friend claimed to speak for the agricultural worker. I do not deny that claim, but I want to say this, that so far as the organised agricultural worker is concerned, if he were asked to which he attached the most importance—to the central board or to the 30s. a week minimum—he would unhesitatingly reply the central board. By depriving the central board of all its power in the matter of controlling the fixing of wages, my hon. Friends were not acting in the interests of the agricultural workers, neither were they taking a line that was calculated to meet with their approval. The hon. Member also went on to say that the principle of the minimum wage had been ruled Out as a result of our action. I deny that. This Bill has not ruled out, even in its present form, the principle of the minimum wage. It, has provided for the fixing of one, and the mere fact that 30s. is not mentioned in the Bill does not mean that the principle of the minimum wage for agricultural workers is not possible of application at the present time. It is possible, and it is not true to say that by the action of the Government the principle of the minimum wage has been ruled out.

    1843
    My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Pattinson), in the earlier part of the Debate, rather complained of my statement on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said that in winding-up that Debate I claimed that the principle of a central board was vital. That is quite true. I did say it; but in Committee I pointed out that if a certain Amendment were passed it would destroy the Bill for all effective purposes from a standpoint that we believe to be effective in the interests of the labourer. Let the hon. Member take his mind back to the fact that, when winding up the Debate on the Second Reading, I appealed to my Liberal Friends to hesitate before taking steps which would destroy the central board. I asked them to examine the question more fully, but in spite of that they took the step they did and thereby they landed us in the position of being compelled, if we wanted to do anything for the agricultural worker and to help him in his present difficulties, to come to the understanding that we have arrived at. It is frequently said that an arrangement made between more than one party which satisfies no party generally has a great deal of merit in it. It may be so; it may be that that may be the result in this case.
    Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle that I have not changed my views in the slightest degree in regard to this matter, and I still believe that the central board is vital. We of the Government had to take cognisance of the fact that if we were to get something for the agricultural worker we had to make this arrangement, and come to this understanding, or else put the agricultural worker off for a time, probably until a time when he would have no weapon in his hand to defend himself. We could not go back on the decision come to in Committee. I hope the House will pass the Third Reading of this Bill. It may be that it does not contain all that we aimed at, it may be that if we were able to go back on what has happened we should ask for something more. But we did believe that the Bill we introduced was a good Measure in the interests of agricultural workers. We say that we are not responsible for its mutilation, but we have been compelled to accept it in a modified form owing to the circumstances imposed upon us. At the
    1844
    same time we hope that when the Bill is passed there will be no hesitation on the part of all the interests that are involved to use it thoroughly and completely to establish rates of wages which will be helpful to agricultural workers, and if it is proved that it lacks effectiveness, we may be able to consider means of making it more effective. The position at the moment is this: we could not get more immediately for the agricultural workers, and we ask the House to pass this Measure because we believe that, even in its modified form, it will bring some relief to the agricultural workers in the difficult time through which they are passing.
    Mr. E. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the question addressed to him with regard to the attitude of the Government on the subject of the leaflet issued to the electors in the Holland Division under the auspices of the Labour party?
    Mr. SMITH: I am afraid I thought my right hon. Friend was hardly serious when he raised this point. I have never understood that a leaflet issued in an election campaign necessarily carried with it the pledge of any Government or party. I can only say this, that the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert.) read rather further than was quoted from the leaflet. If I remember correctly there was rather a sequence of statements mentioned by the candidate in this election, and they referred to rail charges, to the abolition of middlemen and to guaranteed prices. I can only assume that the candidate's mind on the question of guaranteed prices was that it was part of a number of reforms. After all, the statements in a leaflet have to be very brief, and really, before I could give any expression of opinion on what was in the mind of the candidate in this respect, I am afraid I should have to go in for a more lengthy statement. I can add nothing to that.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: May I point out that it is not a question what the candidate said, but of what the party organisation says.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the hon. Gentleman has taken up a very singular attitude on this question. Here we have a candidate standing for a constituency with the authority of his party,

    1845
    and, with their support., he puts forward a programme which he says is the programme of the Government and of the party. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry is asked whether this is the programme of the Government and of their party, and whether it is intended to adhere to that programme. This is important, seeing that they are asking for votes in the constituency on the faith of that leaflet. The hon. Gentleman has replied that he is entirely unable to say what is in the mind of the candidate, and he leaves us to infer that he is equally unable to say what is in the mind of the Government. I think we can supply the deficiency. It is perfectly plain that the Government have no intention whatever of implementing the pledges which are made in their name, but they refrain from saying so, lest the statement should have a discouraging effect on the prospect of their candidate. That may be good electioneering, but it is very dishonest politics, and I think the hon. Gentleman and his Friends will not find that, in the long run, they will convert the country to their way of thinking by an attitude of that kind.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make an electioneering speech on a Motion for the Third Beading of this Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That phrase is rather difficult of interpretation. I may have my own views about a good many of the speeches made.
    Mr. BLACK: If I am in order I would like to say a few words on this Motion. In my opinion the question of the minimum wage deserves to have the serious attention of the House from this standpoint, that it ought not to be difficult for the farmers of this country, although we have not been able to put the 30s. minimum into the Bill, to reach that amount in their various local districts. The Minister has pointed out that in the early stages of this Bill in Committee there was a proposal on the part of the Government to keep the central board practically first, and he animadverted on the position taken up by the Liberals in Committee. He said he desired that the local district committee should have some measure of autonomy and should he able to discuss matters with some expectation that the decisions at which they arrived would have some
    1846
    weight and be respected by the central board. We on the Liberal side considered that the local district committees ought to have fair play with regard to their negotiations, and therefore we brought forward our Amendment. At the same time I would like to put this point to the House, that in districts such as Leicestershire, where the minimum that is now being paid ranges from 27s. to 28s. per week, it ought not to be difficult, seeing that the county is doing fairly well this year, to at least reach the figure of 30s. I should hope that throughout the country there will be a disposition to raise the minimum to that point. I was rather interested to notice in the discussions in Committee that while on the one hand a Member representing the Liberal side, came to the conclusion that any such sum as that mentioned was far too low, and therefore ought not to be put into the Bill, on the other hand, Members of the Conservative party were saying that if the Government world give the subsidy of £1 per acre for arable land, then they would be willing to put the minimum into the Bill. You see the two extremes. Just a word or two with respect to the conditions that obtain, and which, in my opinion, have been largely brought about by the unfortunate position in which the farmers found themselves owing to the introduction of the Corn Production Act. This enabled landlords all over the country to force their land upon the farmers very much against the latter's will, and the farmers, in many cases, at the point of the bayonet were compelled to purchase their holdings. HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"] I feel this has a great bearing upon the subject. The farmers, in view of all this, had to borrow to purchase their farms either through the banks, very often from private—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is scarcely keeping to the Bill before us.
    Mr. BLACK: I was only trying to point out how these things have tended to depress the wages of the agricultural labourers. The money the farmers had to pay back for their farms has caused them to ask the labourers to take a lower wage, and the consequence of it all has been that a large number of these men have been in a very difficult position, and many have had to go into bankruptcy. I do not say that we can go back to the landlords who have got their money and ask them to

    1847
    give it to the relief of the labourers. My point is this: that I do not see why these facts should prejudice the position of the labourers. The position of the labourers ought to make an appeal, and I believe it does make an appeal, to the sympathy of the large majority in this House. I am sorry we have been unable to move our Amendment. At the same time I hope the various district committees will do everything they can to see that the minimum will be not less than has been mentioned.
    Mr. DARBISHIRE: I desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—I do not wish to detain the House more than a moment or two. I do not inflict myself upon the House in agricultural matters for the very good reason that I know quite clearly that there are other Members much better qualified than I am to speak upon them. I do, however, feel it incumbent upon me to say just one word, because I happen to represent a constituency in Wiltshire where the farmers have been accused by the Minister of Agriculture of paying wages of 20s. per week. I quite appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary has said in regard to the central wages board. But it does seem to me that someone has blundered very, very badly. I accept entirely the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the Government is bound by what happened in Committee as regards that, but he did not quite convince me that, the principle of the 30s. minimum wage could not have been embodied in the Bill. I do not see how the compromise arrived at could not have included that. The agricultural worker is not a subscriber to insurance funds, and he has more difficulty in providing for himself than other workers. I do say we have to consider how these difficulties are to be met.
    The Bill, as it stands at present, seems to me to be absolutely futile without the central wages board and without the minimum wage of 30s. It is the claim of the Government that there has been a great victory by getting the Tory party to agree to the principle of a minimum wage in this Bill, but as I understand it, the fear is that if we do not clinch the matter pretty quickly the Tory party at the first opportunity will run away from the arrangement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am very glad to hear they will not, because I have always maintained
    1848
    they would not. We are told that they have a new social programme, and I shall be surprised if they do not include in it that 30s. minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman opposite twitted the Parliamentary Secretary for doing something dishonest in regard to a leaflet, but that does not come well from a party whose leader has just told them that having abandoned Protection, he was quite prepared for a tariff on imported goods under the conditions which he specified.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  IRISH FREE STATE LAND PURCHASE [LOAN GUARANTEE].
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 71A
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any loan issued by the Government of the Irish Free State for the purposes of land purchase in the Irish Free State, so that the securities so guaranteed do not in the aggregate exceed thirty million pounds sterling in nominal amount, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantee."—[King's Recommendation Signified.]
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): This is, in many respects, one of the most interesting Financial Resolutions which can come before the House, but as it is very largely a matter of agreement among hon. Members in that it completes the task of land purchase in Ireland, I do not propose to do more than give a very brief summary of the provisions of the Resolution which appears on the Paper. The problem has, of course, a political and a financial side, The Colonial Secretary will, if necessary, deal later in the Debate with any political points which are put. My sole object in rising at this time is to explain the financial scheme of the Resolution, which will be, for all practical purposes, simply the Bill which will follow.
  The Committee will recall that there was in 1918 an agreement regarding land purchase, and then, after the Irish Free State had been set up, there was introduced in the Parliament of the Irish Free State a Land Purchase Bill. Under that

  1849
  Bill, which became law in 1923, the Free State set out to complete land purchase in Ireland by buying out the landlords in what we call the tenanted districts, dealing also with the untenanted and congested areas. The broad principle followed is not to pay the landlords cash at all for the land transferred to the tenant-farmers, but to give them bonds bearing interest at 4½ per cent., redeemable over a long period, and guaranteed, as we are now proposing, by the Government of this country. That was an obligation which was undertaken by our predecessors in office. To-night I am simply proposing the Financial Resolution which represents our efforts to carry that obligation into effect.
  The first point I must try to make clear to the Committee is the manner in which the £30,000,000 guaranteed is made up. As regards the tenanted land, there cannot be any particular difficulty because of the system which has obtained fixing rents. It has been ascertained that the total rental is approximately £1,200,000 per annum, and 15 years' purchase of that represents the sum of about £18,000,000. Then as regards the untenanted areas, the difficulty here is greater, but it is estimated that to deal with land within those areas the purchase of 500,000 or 600,000 acres at a price approximately of £20 per acre is required. This will involve in round figures about £12,000,000. That added to the £18,000,000 gives us the £30,000,000, which is incorporated by way of total guarantee in this Resolution.
  Let me make it perfectly plain that the figures are not so precise as I have given to the Committee, but include some charges under other heads, or minor points. The Committee is familiar with the Measures which will be adopted by the Government of the Irish Free State, namely, to issue these Four and a Half Per Cent. Bonds and to carry out the other obligations into which they have entered. Reference has been made to the prolonged period of 80 years which is covered by this guarantee. The Committee will recognise that if the tenant farmer is to meet that annuity in a sum which is within his power year by year, some long period will necessarily be involved, operating, in effect, over 67 years for the redemption of the Bonds by way of a sinking fund for a quarter,
  1850
  that is, 5s. per sent., for which in due course provision will be made.
  In the arrangements as regards congested districts particularly there will be an interval of five years before the bonds are issued, and then it is estimated that in order to cover the untenanted area a period of about eight years may be involved. Roughly put, we arrive at the period of 80 years which, in our judgment, this guarantee should cover. As regards the guarantee of the interest and principal of these bonds which are to be issued by the Irish Free State Government we, of course, are really in the third place by way of providing security. The first line of security is the annuity payable by the tenant farmer under the Free State Land Purchase Act, 1923. The second line is the central fund of the Irish Free State itself. In the third place, there is the final guarantee resting upon the British Exchequer for £30,000,000 involved in this Resolution. The Bill, when presented, will contain the safeguards which are attached to all guarantees, namely, that the money raised shall be devoted to this object, with clue provision for the sinking fund which I have described. There will be certain priority to this country as regards any calls which may be made on the British Exchequer, and provision will be made in the Bill for those points. I do not think I need say more, and with that brief explanation I commend this Resolution to the Committee.
  Mr. HANNON: I had no intention of speaking in this Debate, but as no other hon. Member connected with Ireland has risen, I do not think this Resolution ought to be passed without some observations. I hope we shall unanimously pass this Resolution, because it is really fulfilling an obligation which attaches to this country in regard to the great work of land purchase in Ireland. Nothing has been more successful in Ireland than the great scheme which was devised to carry out land purchase on a large and generous scale, and the Secretary for the Colonies has succeeded to a great heritage which was created for him by a right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House. The one comment I wish to make is that I think the interest on these bonds provided is a little too small.
  Sir FREDRIC WISE: No.
  Mr. HANNON: I know my hon. Friend who interrupts me is a constant guardian of the British Exchequer, and he does not think this interest is too low. I would like to point out there has been a considerable change in the value of money since the original scheme of Irish land purchase was carried out, and I think it would be to the advantage of this country, and it would be a gesture to the people of Ireland, if the interest in this Financial Resolution was a little more generous than 4½ per cent. In this House it has always been the tradition amongst Irishmen that they try to extract all they can from the English for the benefit of Ireland. We are not in that position now, although I think everybody would like to see every step that is possible taken to bring to an end the unhappy regime which has continued in Ireland up to the present moment. I think the adoption of this Resolution, which is the final completion of the great social work of land purchase in Ireland, will not be without its effect upon the minds of the Irish people.
  I am quite certain that land purchase, although it has not always been fair to the Irish landlords, has had a marvellous effect in transforming Ireland, and has produced a great industrial effort in regard to the land, and has given an impetus to the interest taken by the people of Ireland in the higher forms of agriculture. I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying a word in support of this final effort on the part of the British Government to assist the completion of this great scheme of land purchase in Ireland. I think when we are passing this final resolution we ought to remember the wonderful work which was done in this connection by the late Mr. George Wyndham during his regime, because what he did revolutionised the whole system in Ireland, and what was accomplished was due to his foresight and his genius, and we should not forget that he was responsible for the origin of the whole scheme.
  Mr. RATHBONE: The Financial Secretary has told us that arrangements have been made for the sinking fund, but he did not give us to understand who was to provide it or when it was to operate. The hon. Member who has just sat down paid a eulogy to the late Mr. Wyndham, but surely we are now dealing with a totally different state of things. At that
  1852
  time Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom, and now it is an independent Dominion.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not oppose this Resolution in any way, and I simply want to know if the Financial Secretary can tell us what is really the financial position between the Irish Free State and this country at the present time, and also state when the position between the two countries is likely to be adjusted? May I point out that a large amount of goods was handed over to the Free State, which at the time had not been valued, such as arms, ammunition, and various other matters. It was stated at the time that they were to be valued and taken into account, and I would like to know if any steps have been taken in that direction, and will the Financial Secretary tell us, approximately, the indebtedness of the Irish Free State to Great Britain in this respect, or it may be the indebtedness of Great Britain to the Irish Free State?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): We cannot determine that until the final adjustment is made as to the boundary, and most of these things are subject to that adjustment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ammunition and the various other things have been valued, because every year makes it harder and harder to keep a list of the large amount of these articles sold. Have any steps been taker from time to time to keep an account these things?
  Mr. THOMAS: Certain accounts of these things are being kept. There were negotiations only last week in regard to a very important matter in regard to adjusting these things.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Can the Colonial Secretary tell us Whether the terms of land purchase are settled?
  Mr. THOMAS: They are settled.
  Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Rathbone) about the Sinking Fund, the rate of interest on the bonds is to be 4½ per cent., whilst the tenant pays 4¾ per cent., the difference, ¼ per cent., providing the Sinking Fund.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NAVY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1922–23.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  "Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1923, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £7,391,310 9s. 3d., namely—

  No. of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1922–23. Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wage, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines.

  50,338

  8

  6

  —

  —

  144, 105

  18

  4

  2

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.

  —

  83,580

  5

  6

  1,016,462

  11

  11

  —

  3

  Medical Services

  —

  —

  4,049

  12

  1

  25,531

  15

  9

  4

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  —

  711

  14

  7

  34,211

  17

  1

  —

  5

  Educational Services

  —

  4,048

  0

  9

  32,982

  15

  9

  —

  6

  Scientific Services

  —

  12,205

  2

  2

  103,743

  13

  3

  —

  7

  Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Fleet Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, etc.

  —

  —

  118,527

  3

  4

  1,050

  10

  11

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.

  Sec. 1. Personnel

  —

  —

  590.491

  16

  4

  14,075

  7

  5

  Sec. 2. Material

  —

  —

  1,617,334

  14

  10

  1,768,648

  17

  4

  Sec. 3. Contract Work

  703,519

  7

  2

  —

  —

  812,421

  10

  7

  9

  Naval Armaments

  —

  —

  897,318

  4

  2

  488,398

  16

  8

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.

  —

  —

  669,253

  5

  0

  49,915

  7

  0

  11

  Various Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  248,111

  5

  8

  —

  —

  63,792

  2

  10

  12

  Admiralty Office

  —

  —

  46,154

  5

  7

  2,684

  16

  8

  13

  Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.

  101,589

  3

  3

  —

  —

  6,205

  7

  10

  14

  Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.

  —

  —

  9,691

  9

  3

  41,820

  17

  4

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities.

  —

  —

  65,718

  19

  7

  501

  5

  11

  —

  Amount written off as irrecoverable.

  29,679

  5

  8

  —

  —

  —

  1,133,237

  10

  3

  100,515

  3

  0

  5,205,940

  8

  2

  3,419,152

  14

  4

  Total Deficits

  £1,233,782

  13

  3

  Total Surpluses

  £8,625,093

  2

  6

  Net Surplus …£7,391,310 9 3

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  8,625,093

  2

  6

  Total Deficits

  …

  1,233,782

  13

  3

  Net Surplus

  …

  £7,391,310

  9

  3

  And whereas the deficiencies of Appropriations-in-Aid realised on certain Votes have been in each ease less than the savings on gross expenditure on the same Vote.
  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the deficits caused by excess expenditure on other grants for Air Services.
  Resolved,
  "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. William Graham.]
  "Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1923, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £1,912,099 19s. 3d., namely—

  SCHEDULE

  No of. Vote.

  Air Services, 1922–23, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s

  d

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Air Force.

  —

  172,757

  12

  7

  516,841

  4

  8

  —

  2

  Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.

  245,078

  13

  3

  —

  —

  391,850

  19

  1

  3

  Technical and Warlike Stores

  136,693

  15

  5

  —

  —

  634,267

  8

  11

  4

  Works, Buildings, and Lands

  —

  —

  539,043

  1

  6

  8676

  8

  9

  5

  Air Ministry

  —

  —

  19,512

  0

  2

  528

  0

  9

  6

  Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  3,477

  17

  9

  —

  —

  52,350

  18

  8

  7

  Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services.

  —

  943

  2

  9

  59,040

  16

  10

  —

  8

  Civil Aviation

  —

  23,405

  12

  11

  78,887

  8

  7

  —

  9

  Experimental and Research Services.

  —

  59,696

  9

  3

  234,738

  3

  8

  —

  —

  Balances Irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  11,603

  8

  5

  —

  —

  —

  396,853

  14

  10

  256,802

  17

  6

  1,478,082

  15

  5

  1,087,673

  16

  2

  Total Deficits

  £653,656

  12

  4

  Total Surpluses

  £2,565,756

  11

  7

  Net Surplus …£1,912,099 19 3

  Resolved,
  "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. William Graham.]
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  2,565,756

  11

  7

  Total Deficits

  …

  653,656

  12

  4

  Net Surplus

  …

  £1,912,099

  19

  3

  And whereas the deficiencies of Appropriations-in-Aid realised on certain Votes have been in each ease less than the savings on gross expenditure on the same Vote.
  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the deficits caused by excess expenditure on other grants for Air Services.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes after Eight o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LADY CLERKS AND TYPISTS.
  LADY CLERKS AND TYPISTS.
  BENEFIT (MRS. POULTON, BURNLEY).
  BENEFIT (MRS. POULTON, BURNLEY).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES
  TREATMENT ALLOWANCES
  APPEALS (MR. T. C. FOLLEY).
  APPEALS (MR. T. C. FOLLEY).
  BRITISH AND FOREIGN NAVIES.
  BRITISH AND FOREIGN NAVIES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "MAINE."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "MAINE."
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  DEFENCE OF LONDON.
  DEFENCE OF LONDON.
  FLYING PRACTICE.
  FLYING PRACTICE.
  IRISH FREE STATE (BRITISH TROOPS).
  IRISH FREE STATE (BRITISH TROOPS).
INDIA.
  DEPUTY PUBLIC HEALTH COMMIESIONER, SIMLA.
  DEPUTY PUBLIC HEALTH COMMIESIONER, SIMLA.
  UNATTACHED LIST (OFFICERS' PENSIONS).
  UNATTACHED LIST (OFFICERS' PENSIONS).
  MATERNITY NATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  MATERNITY NATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MUSSEL-CLEANSING TANKS, CONWAY.
  MUSSEL-CLEANSING TANKS, CONWAY.
  MOTOR LOAN OPERATIONS.
  MOTOR LOAN OPERATIONS.
  DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES (REORGANISATION).
  DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES (REORGANISATION).
  SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY.
  SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY.
  COMPANIES (TRANSFERS).
  COMPANIES (TRANSFERS).
  BROMPTON CEMETERY (WAGES).
  BROMPTON CEMETERY (WAGES).
  MESSRS. J. LYONS AND COMPANY, LIMITED.
  MESSRS. J. LYONS AND COMPANY, LIMITED.
  PATENT MEDICINES.
  PATENT MEDICINES.
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT.
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT.
  CIVIL SERVICE (RECRUITMENT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (RECRUITMENT).
  ANGLO-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  ANGLO-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (ACCOMMODATION).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (ACCOMMODATION).
  PALATINATE (DEPORTEES).
  PALATINATE (DEPORTEES).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC, LONDON (ROAD JUNCTIONS).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC, LONDON (ROAD JUNCTIONS).
  COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS.
  COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS.
  SS. "SIERRA LEONE."
  SS. "SIERRA LEONE."
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA. (COMMISSION).
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA. (COMMISSION).
POST OFFICE.
  CHERTSEY OFFICE.
  CHERTSEY OFFICE.
  PRINTED MATTER.
  PRINTED MATTER.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PROPOSED LOAN TO GERMANY.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I desire to present a Petition to this House on behalf of the National Union of Manufacturers, asking the Government whether, before the loan of £40,000,000, or whatever the loan may be, is advanced to Germany, there shall be appointed a Committee of experts who will examine all the possible commercial and trading reactions of such a proposal. If opportunity offers, I shall, by question, raise the subject for discussion on Thursday upon that point.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INSURRECTION IN BRAZIL.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to ask the Lord President of the Council a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he is in a position to add anything to the statement he made in this House on Thursday last with regard to the situation in Brazil.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I regret to inform the noble Earl that since the statement which I made on July 24 the news which we have received
1028
from His Majesty's Ambassador in Brazil is less satisfactory. He says that there is still strong feeling at Sao Paulo in favour of the rebels, who are very determined; that there is a shortage of flour; that a large part of the population has already left the City; and that the foreign banks are carefully guarded. The Minister of War has published an appeal to the people of Sao Paulo to leave the town in order to escape the effects of the military operations which will shortly be carried out. The President of the State of Sao Paulo has agreed to facilitate the departure of British subjects. There are, as yet, no casualties amongst British subjects. The Brazilian Government news is that their troops have advanced, and by occupying another line of railway are cutting off provisions so that their position is now very favourable.
His Majesty's Ambassador has enquired of the President of Brazil what measures are being taken to facilitate the departure of the population of Sao Paulo and to provide for their necessities, and whether the Brazilian Government proposes to indemnify all losses if the City is destroyed. Sir John Tilley was informed by the President's secretary that no immediate bombardment was intended and that it was hoped that it would not be necessary. He has been unable to obtain an answer with regard to the question of compensation for damage. His Majesty's Ambassador is taking steps to provide relief or the removal of refugees from Santos, if necessary. He reports that Rio de Janeiro is quiet but that there is dissatisfaction in business circles. A telegram from His Majesty's Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro states that communication between Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo is interrupted but that the latest reports were to the effect that there were no casualties among the British colony and that the foreign representatives chiefly interested are addressing a collective Note to the President on the subject of the care of foreign subjects leaving Sao Paulo and the responsibility of the Brazilian Government for their lives and property. His Majesty's ship "Curlew" has been instructed to proceed to Brazil at once from Trinidad.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would like to say anything as regards business?
LORD PARMOOR: There is a Motion down in my name as regards to-day's business and in moving that I will make a statement. The Motion is that Standing Order XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill to have precedence of the Report stage of the London Traffic Bill and certain subsequent Orders. The noble Marquess will recollect that on a former occasion I stated the urgency of the matter. I think I should warn the House that if we are to finish the business on the Paper to-day it may be necessary, if your Lordships will consent to it, to sit after the dinner hour. I do not want to say that too positively because possibly the business may be got through, but there is a great deal upon the Paper.
The only other questions that I think I need say a word about are these. Subject to the other business which will be upon the Paper it will be important to finish, if possible, to-morrow the Unemployment Insurance Bill so that it may go back to another place as early as possible. The same urgency would apply to to-morrow as to to-day. The London Traffic Bill will, I imagine, be down for to-morrow and it would also be important to do that Bill, though it might stand over for another day if any important change is made upon the Report stage, in order that it might be further considered. As your Lordships are aware the Housing Bill is already on the Paper. That is an important matter which must come on to-morrow. I was going to mention also the Agricultural Wages Bill to which, at the present time, there is no reference upon the Paper. I do not know whether it will come up to us to-day or not, but it is a matter in which your Lordships are much interested and I should like to put the Second Beading down for a time that is convenient to your Lordships. As apparently there is nothing on the Paper for Thursday—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: There is the question that I have raised to-day, but I do not think it will take long.
LORD PARMOOR: Except that, there is nothing down in the way of Questions, but the Bills come first on Thursday. I will, however, talk to the noble Earl about that, and see what arrangements can be made. I do not wish to say anything to-day about the further stages of the Agricultural Wage" Bill, nor until after the Second Beading has been taken.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the Committee Stage of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill to have precedence of the Report Stage of the London Traffic Bill and subsequent Orders.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, it may be to your Lordships' convenience if we definitely heard the arrangements for this week. We are sitting to-day at a quarter past three, and, with the weight of business upon us, it seems to me that it would be better to sit at quarter past three each day.
LORD PARMOOR: There is the Committee for Privileges to-morrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, then we could sit to-morrow at a. quarter past four, and on the other days, when there is no Committee for Privileges, we could sit earlier. I want to draw attention to the fact that the amount of business to be done makes it very doubtful in my mind whether we can get through it next week, or without encroaching a good deal upon next week. On Friday this week, perhaps, we might sit at twelve, as we did before, to meet the desire of your Lordships, and rise, say, at four o'clock. We could get through a certain amount of business by then. The week after that will take care of itself. So far as to-morrow is concerned I think we had better meet at a quarter past four, and on the rest of the days of the week at a quarter past three.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure the Lord Chancellor is fully justified in asking your Lordships to sit daily at a quarter past three this week. At this time of the Session that is a reasonable arrangement, but I experience a little feeling of opposition when I hear that your Lordships cannot

1031
sit to-morrow at a quarter past throe because one of the Committees of the House is already ordered for that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Committee for Privileges.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a Committee of this House, and I should have thought it was for the Committee for Privileges to give way to the House of Lords rather than the House of Lords to give way to the Committee for Privileges.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): I have no objection at all. It would mean that the Committee for Privileges would have to sit on Wednesday as well. The arrangement for to-morrow's meeting has been made for a long time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interfere: I will leave it to the Lord Chancellor to thrash the matter out with the Lord Chairman. So far as the rest of the week is concerned, I think we should sit at a quarter past three. The Lord President of the Council intimated that the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill must be taken to-morrow, no doubt, because of the exigencies of time. It is very inconvenient that we should have been driven to this position. It is an important Bill, and your Lordships, I think, have been treated very cavalierly by those responsible for the conduct of business in another place. Then there is the London Traffic Bill. The Report Stage will, I think, be finished to-night. The Lord President spoke about sitting after dinner. I do not think that will be necessary. I think he will find that the business will be finished before dinner time. But as regards the Third Beading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, I hope the Lord President will not make up his mind to take the Third Reading to-morrow. I am always very careful about Third Readings, and I want a little time to look through the Bill, to see that it is absolutely all right and that the necessary notices can be handed in of any further Amendments. I think the Third Reading of that Bill may properly be taken on Wednesday. Then there is the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill which stands as the principal business for
1032
to-morrow. The Lord Chancellor did not say when he proposed to take the Committee Stage of that Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been considering that matter. Suppose we say to-day week; that is, Monday next.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We shall certainly enjoy our Bank Holiday very well in discussing that Bill. As regards the Agricultural Wages Bill I do not see any objection to taking it any convenient day this week. The Lord President, however, will recollect that the adjourned debate on India stands on the Paper. It is quite clear this cannot be taken to-morrow; that is out of the question. The Housing Bill will take the whole of to-morrow. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on the Government to find an opportunity at an early day to resume the debate on India. That may alter the order of business somewhat for this week.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to consult with him on that matter?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: May I ask the Lord President when he proposes to take, the Second Reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill? Some of my noble friends are interested in that measure, and I shall be glad to know on what day he proposes to proceed with it. With regard to the adjourned debate on India, it was, I think, adjourned by a noble friend of mine and therefore I shall be glad to communicate with the Lord President so that I can get in touch with my noble friend and prevent him making a wasted journey to this House.
LORD PARMOOR: The Second Reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill is put down for Wednesday. It is almost entirely a financial measure; but perhaps the noble Earl will see me with regard to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Lord Chairman has just informed me that the Committee for Privileges will rise in time for this House to sit at 3.15 p.m. to-morrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendment proposed by the Committee made.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, before into Committee I should like to ask why Scotland is excluded from the Bill. A Bill was in draft at the time of the late Government for dealing with smoke abatement in Scotland, and the need for such provisions as are contained in this Bill is even greater in Scotland than in England because of the quantity of soft coal that is burnt in that country.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I was about to ask leave to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill owing do the pressure of business to-day, and it will therefore, be more convenient if I answer the noble Lord when we take the Committee stage. I propose to put down the Committee stage for Friday next
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill will only take a very short time. It was put down by arrangement for to-day. Why is it necessary to interfere with the Orders of the Day?
LORD PARMOOR: It was considered that owing to the very heavy nature of the business on the Order Paper to-day it would be better to postpone the Committee stage. I did not know that that would interfere with the noble Lord's arrangements, and I regret that it should do so.
LORD NEWTON: It is understood that this Rill will be taken on Friday?
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
Committee put off to Friday next accordingly.

SLAVERY IN ABYSSINIA.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have received since last July any information on slavery in Abyssinia which they can communicate to this House or to the League of Nations; and to move for Papers. The noble Karl said: My Lords, I am glad that I need not detain your Lordships at any length in putting this Question, but those of your Lordships who remember a discussion which look place last year upon it may recall that at that time the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon of Kedle-ston, who was then Foreign Secretary, promised your Lordships, under great pressure, especially from the Episcopal Bench, to try to obtain some information on this subject from our Consuls in Abyssinia. Twelve months have now gone by, and I hope that there has been sufficient time to obtain a Report on this Question and that the noble Lord will be able to communicate it to your Lordships' House. May I add one sentence: The most interesting and most important aspect of slavery in Abyssinia seems to me to be connected rather with the raids into British territory than with the subject which generally looms more largely in the newspapers—namely, whether we should send gunboats or other vessels to the Red Sea.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be able to give the noble Earl all the information that he desires for reasons which I will state, but I should like to say also that great progress has been made in this matter under the ægis and influence of the League of Nations. I will explain to him exactly what has been done. In the first place, I am told that the publication by His Majesty's Government of the Reports which they have received would be the most effective method of closing this source of information and, in consequence, would not be in the public interest, nor would it be likely to bring about the results which the noble Earl desires. Apart from this, the noble Earl will, I think, realise that the publication by His Majesty's Government of these Reports

1035
regarding social conditions in Abyssinia might not unjustifiably be resented by a Power which has only recently become a fellow-Member of the League of Nations and which, as such, will now have an opportunity of furnishing the special Commission appointed by the League to report on slavery with full information regarding conditions within its own borders.
The Abyssinian Government have recently supplied the League of Nations with a copy of an Edict issued by them this year forbidding the traffic in human beings, and I fed confident that the League itself will watch carefully the manner in which this Edict is carried out. Sir Frederic Lugard, the British member on the special Commission, whose experience in these matters everyone recognises, has had access to all the information available to His Majesty's Government regarding conditions in Abyssinia. The special Commission on Slavery will ultimately present its Report to the Council of the League and this Report will naturally receive publicity. In these circumstances I trust that the noble Earl will not press his Motion for Papers to be laid.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord though, of course, he will not expect me to say that his statement is anything but entirely unsatisfactory. It will probably be necessary to have a discussion on this subject in October, when we may be able to enter more fully into the whole subject and expose, I hope, the wholly unsatisfactory character of the answer.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (POSTPONEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1.—CUSTODY OF RECORDS IN THE VICTORIA TOWER.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that the Records of Parliament stored in the Victoria Tower were in
1036
a somewhat neglected condition and that a certain amount of expenditure would be required in order to ensure their better preservation. He suggested that a subcommittee should be appointed to consider the various matters involved and to report to the Committee.
The Committee approved this suggestion and appointed the following Lords to be the Sub-Committee, namely:—Marquess of Bath, Earl of Clarendon and Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford).
2.—ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that an arrangement had been made with the Treasury by which a payment of £100 a year was to be made to the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Committee, appointed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, and a further payment of £200 a year for legal assistance to that Committee.
The Committee agreed that these payments might be put on the House of Lords Vote so long as the officials to whom they were made were officers of the House of Lords.
3.—PROPOSED BOX FOR OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT OF THE THRONE.
The Committee decided that it was desirable to erect a box for the officers of the House on the left of the Throne to correspond with the box already in position on the right of the Throne.
4.—ANNUAL ACCOUNT OF THE FEE FUND.
The Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords for the year ended the 31st of March, 1923, was laid before the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now considered and adopted.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee, I should like to be allowed to make a few observations. Noble Lords who were present when the Second Reading was taken will, no doubt, remember that some of us entered a protest

1037
against this Bill being brought up at a time when the Bill which it is to replace would expire within a few days, and we expressed the view that the Government might have brought it up in time to allow us an opportunity of considering it. We further pointed out that the Second Reading of this Bill, which is the most important Bill, which the Government have brought forward during the present Session, was put down after another Motion which the House had to consider at some length.
The result was that, while my noble and learned friend Lord Cave had an opportunity of making some criticisms of the Bill which were, as usual, brief and lucid, some of us who would have liked an opportunity of dealing with the Bill on the Second Beading were unable to do so. It was, if he will allow me to say so, largely owing to the excessive loquacity of the Lord President that there was no opportunity for any other speakers to take part in the debate. When I say "excessive," I do not think that I am using an exaggerated term, because the Lord President, on the question of the League of Nations and the Second Reading of the Unemployed Insurance Bill, occupied no less than one hour and three quarters of a sitting of four hours. I consider that excessive, and I think it was rather hard on other members who had desired to take part in the proceedings.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships with anything like a Second Beading speech, because I am very anxious, as noble Lords will recognise, not to waste the time of the House, but there is one point upon which I should like to have a little information from the Lord President. It is not a point which I can raise in Committee, because it deals with the whole finance of the Bill. The Lord President pointed out the other day on the Second Reading that what is called the solvency period would, in ordinary circumstances, come into force in June, 1926, and, when it comes into force, the contributions from employers and men are to be reduced from 10 d. and 9d. respectively to 6d. each, while the contributions of the Government will be increased. The Actuary who examined the matter on behalf of the Government has reported that, taking into consideration all the changes which so far have been incorporated in the Bill,
1038
with one exception to which I will refer in a moment, there will be at the end of that period a revenue of £30,600,000 and an expenditure of £30,500,000, giving a surplus of about £100,000.
The Lord President then surprised the House—and I think he admitted that he had been surprised himself—by calling attention to an Amendment which had been made at a very late stage of the Bill in the other House which would throw a charge of no less than £4,500,000 a year upon the Unemployment Fund. The original Bill, for which I was responsible, and the subsequent Bill, provided that no one could obtain benefit until seven days of his unemployment had elapsed. This period of a week is going to be reduced to three days, at a cost of something like £4,500,000 a year, as I think the Lord President stated. The question I want to put to him—and the information will be of advantage to the House—is, how is that going to affect the solvency of the Fund, how long is it likely to defer the day on which the Fund will become solvent and the reduction of contributions by employer and employed take effect? I think everybody has felt that while those contributions have been accepted and paid without complaint by the employers and the men, they are a very heavy burden upon industry, and that the sooner they can be reduced and the Government contributions increased the better it will be for trade, for the men and for the employers. Unfortunately, this charge will throw a very great additional burden on the Fund and considerably delay the period at which the Fund again becomes solvent. Personally I would rather have had the extra contributions and give these three days. I raise this point now because it would not be possible to raise it in Committee, and I shall be glad if the Lord President of the Council will tell us what will be the actual effect of this additional charge upon the Fund, how much it is likely to delay the solvency date, which at the present moment is June, 1926, and how His Majesty's Government propose to meet the additional charge.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very willing to give the noble Earl what information I can. I am afraid I curtailed my remarks so closely the other night, in order to save time, that I may not have made the point as clear as I ought to have done. Really

1039
the position is quite clear. The difficulty to which the noble Earl has referred cannot arise until the deficiency period is over. Until that period is over the larger contributions will go on, and it is certain that the deficiency period will not be over until after July, 1926, which is the time at which this Bill conies to an end, and unfortunately, as has been the case before, no doubt, these financial matters will have to be reconsidered. The estimated surplus while the present payments are made is about £5,000,000. No doubt the £4,500,000 will affect that to a very large extent, but there can be no question whatever of insolvency. What the noble Earl has in mind is what may be the result when the deficiency period is over, and the new contributions come into force. The answer is that it is extraordinarily difficult to foresee what will happen with regard to questions of employment and unemployment. It depends upon the basic figure. It is wholly impossible for the deficiency period to come to an end during the life of the present Bill, and matters will then have to be reconsidered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Rights of insured persons to unemployment benefit.
(3) If an applicant for benefit in whose case the requirements of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled is not entitled thereto under the provisions of the last preceding subsection, by reason either that the number of contributions paid in respect of him within the period therein mentioned is less than twenty, or that sufficient contributions are not standing to his credit or that he has already received benefit for periods amounting in the aggregate to twenty-six weeks in the benefit year in which the application is made, he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit if in addition to satisfying the requirements aforesaid he also proves—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, on behalf of Viscount Cave, moved, in subsection (3) after "in which the application is made, to leave out" he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit "and to insert" the Minister may in his discretion authorise the payment of benefit to the applicant." The noble
1040
Lord said: As Lord Cave is not here I propose to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The subsection as it stands does this. It says:—
"If an applicant for benefit in whose case the requirements of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled is not entitled thereto under the provisions of the last preceding subsection, by reason cither that the number of contributions paid in respect of him within the period therein mentioned is less than twenty, or that sufficient contributions are not standing to his credit Or that he has already received benefit for periods amounting in the aggregate to twenty-six weeks in the benefit year in which the application is made, he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit if in addition to satisfying the requirements aforesaid he also proves—"
Lord Cave wishes to leave out the part which entitles a man, subject to the requirements later mentioned, as of right to receive the benefits. I think it is very necessary that these words proposed shall be put in, because your Lordships will see that if they are not put in this result will occur: that a man who has not paid sufficient contributions to receive benefits, or who has already received 26 weeks benefit, notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the fact therefore that he is not entitled to receive any benefits, nevertheless is to receive the benefits to which he is not entitled. This is quite a new provision, although I believe a short time ago it was provided that the Minister might, if he desired, allow a man to receive the benefit, although he was not entitled to it. Personally I do not think that the solvency of the Fund is going to be maintained if we allow this sort of clause entitling a man as of right to receive benefits to which he has not contributed and to which he is not entitled. If we have any regard to the solvency of the Fund we must, at any rate, say that a man is not to receive of right this benefit which is really a payment ex gratia, but may receive it if the Minister thinks that it is necessary he should so receive it.
I cannot conceive, when one looks at the financial position of the Fund, that such a very dangerous provision as this ought to be left in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, a moment ago, stated that he would give a very clear explanation of the question put to him. I listened very attentively to his statement, and so far as I can understand

1041
the clear explanation it is this—that the noble and learned Lord did not in the least know whether the Fund was going to be solvent or not, and we should not find out until July, 1926, when the financial arrangements would have to he reconsidered. That, as I understood it, was the clear explanation given, and I believe that, as a matter of fact, nobody living knows whether or not the Fund will be solvent in July, 1926. I shall have a few-words to say upon that on my own later Amendment, but I might point out to your Lordships that when the departure was made, I think by Dr. Macnamara, four or five years ago, which, allowed people to receive, benefits to which they had not contributed, I stated that the result would be that the Fund would be insolvent, and that unemployment would continue. Dr. Macnamara told me I was wrong, and that the whole thing would right itself before long. Certainly five years have elapsed since then, and the only result is that we go on repeating the mistake which we made at that time.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("he shall nevertheless he entitled to receive benefit") and insert ("the Minister may in his discretion authorise the payment of benefit to the applicant").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, let me say a few words on the financial side. I do not think that the financial effect would be different either way, but, as a matter of fact, the Government Actuary's Report was made on the basis of there being a right to the payment, and its not being left to the discretion of the Minister. The discretion of the Minister has been exercised substantially in favour of the claimant by all Ministers of all Governments, but I want to say why it is considered better to make it a, matter of right and not of discretion. Clause 1 deals both with covenanted and un-covenanted payments, and your Lordships will see that, as regards un-covenanted payments, the provisions are contained in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (3). The statutory conditions there set out must, be complied with before any payment is made, and those statutory conditions appear to me to go far in the direction indicated by the noble Lord opposite. The applicant must be normally insured in an insurable employment; he has to prove that in
1042
normal times insurable employment suited to his capacities would be likely to be available, and that he has, during two years immediately before the date, been so employed; and, lastly, he has to make every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities, and to be willing to accept such employment. I think it is right that the claimant for benefit, if he complies with those conditions, should receive the benefit as a right, and not as a matter of discretion.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, in speaking on this matter on the Second Heading said he thought that it would be inconsistent with the contributory principle to allow this payment as a right, instead of its being at the discretion of the Minister. I want to suggest, that it is just the other way. Personally—and the Government have given expression to the same view—I am wholly in favour of contributions. I think that the contributory principle ought to be protected and encouraged to the utmost, and, because of that, I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. How does the matter stand? So far as contributions are concerned, they are compulsory for everyone employed in an insurable employment. There is no option of any kind. If you have compulsory contributions on one side you ought to have the right to obtain benefit on the other, subject to any statutory Regulations which it is thought right to lay down. Surely, that is a principle. Why should not a person who is subject to the liability of compulsion for contributions be entitled as a right to receive the benefit, if the statutory conditions are complied with? I feel very strongly upon this point, because, if you take away the claim as of right you are getting back towards the position in which the money is provided by the State and not by contributions. The reason why a man is entitled is that he has been under liability to contribute.
The history of this matter has not been consistent, although when it was discussed in another place I think this Amendment was withdrawn or negatived, and, I suggest, quite rightly. When this uncovenanted benefit was first introduced, or, at any rate, in the Act of 1921, Section 3, it was not discretionary, but was of right. Since that time there have been amendments both ways, it is true, but

1043
surely it is right, and in accordance with the contributory principle, that when a man is under obligation to contribute he ought, as of right, to be entitled to benefit when the time comes.
EARL BUXTON: As regards the first point raised by Lord Banbury I think the answer of the Lord President is really a complete one. Parliament in the last few years has been going step by step in this direction. I think the original Act of 1911 fixed a limit of fifteen weeks, and later that was increased, first, to twenty-six weeks, then to forty-four weeks, and now to fifty-two weeks. So that practically the principle of the thing has been very largely accepted already by various Parties, and in various Bills. I do not think it is a definite new departure from the point of view that the benefit should be more or less proportionate to the contributions that have been paid, or are about to be paid. It weakens, though it does not entirely destroy, that principle. The Lord President has drawn attention to the conditions which have to be complied with if a man is to receive benefit, the most important of which is that the claimant is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacity. Of course, the decision on that is left to the local committee, which represents employers and workmen, and it has to be satisfied that he has made his best endeavours to obtain employment.
There is a further matter which I think escaped the attention of the Lord President and which, to a certain extent, justifies what he says. This is really based on the contributory system. It does not apply to new entrants; it only applies to men who have already been in an insured trade, in insurance for two years or more, and who have already paid at least thirty contributions. That is to say, these men have already been under the purview of the Act, and have paid for a certain amount of benefit. In addition to that, as soon as they are able to obtain employment again they at once resume the payment of contributions to the Fund. Therefore, they are contributors, though not contributors to the full extent to which the original Bill and the Amending Bill intended. The fact is that this system of unemployment benefit has been applied to far more trades and industries than was originally the case when it was an experimental proposal. It covered
1044
originally two and a half millions of people, whereas it now covers, I think, twelve millions and still leaves one or two trades outside. Therefore, in considering this matter, we have to look a little more than we had before, perhaps, to the interdependence of different trades and the risks in them, and it seems to me that contributions ought to bear some relation to risk and to the collective amount obtained for the Fund, as a whole, to cover so many industries.
My noble friend says that this is a new principle applied to the question of unemployment. I will endeavour to show that, although it is a new departure to some extent, it does not destroy the principle of contributions, and that there is a great deal of force in the Lord President's remark that it emphasises and enforces that principle. I confess that I was somewhat nervous when this Bill was first introduced owing to a phrase which fell from the Minister of Labour in another place regarding the question of a contributory basis. I was rather afraid that it looked as though the Government were going to depart in some way from the contributory basis, and I was very much relieved to find that they retained that basis to as full an extent as it had existed up to now; that is to say, that the men, on the one hand, the employers on the other, and the State in the third place contribute to the Fund. If this benefit came to an end, as was the case in the early days of the Unemployment Act, when a man had so much benefit and no more, it would mean that it would come to an end after a considerable period of unemployment when a great deprivation had been suffered by the man and his family. If, after that long period, he was thrown out of benefit it would mean either that be and his family would suffer very severely or that would happen which happens now—they would apply to the Poor Law, and the guardians would be brought into a matter from which I think all Parties desire to keep them. I think that would be a very serious matter indeed.
The main argument used in the other House was, I think, that this provision would induce a man to remain out of work and to prefer to draw unemployment pay, and that a great many men were what is called "work shy." I think the answer

1045
is that even with the increased benefits which will be paid under the new Act the amounts, as the Lord President pointed out the other day, are very small. I do not think in any case they come to anything approaching what the man would obtain in his trade if he went to work. Therefore, the inducement for him to remain on the Unemployment Fund instead of going to work is very slight indeed. Then he has to go before the local committee periodically to show that he has made his very best endeavours to obtain work but has been unable to do so. Therefore, I do not think the question of "work shyness" would come very much into the matter.
This is a more doubtful proposal, however, than that in the former Act. It is. to a certain extent, a new departure, but I do not think it is such a departure from principle as would prevent the Act working properly. I think it would be a very great advantage to these men to obtain this benefit. So far as this point is concerned, the Fund is in a solvent condition and actuarially is able to meet the demand. I hope, therefore, that your Lordship's House will agree with the decision come to in another place and will reject this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The Lord President in his answer to me, said that he thought it was absolutely right that where a man had contributed to receive certain benefits he should receive them. I agree with him; but he has apparently overlooked the words in this clause which say that, "if an applicant for benefit is not entitled thereto." His explanation falls to the ground. In all these insurance Schemes, if a man contributes he is entitled to receive the sum to which he is entitled under the scheme; but he ought not to receive something to which he is not entitled under the scheme and for which he, therefore, has not paid. Under this provision a man is going to receive something to which he is not entitled under the scheme and to which he has not contributed.
The Lord President also said that it is not necessary to put into the clause the words "if the Minister approves," first, because all Ministers would approve, and, secondly, because of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (3). There can be no harm in putting those words in,
1046
from the Lord President's point of view, if he thinks that all Ministers would approve. But it does not at all follow, I think, that all Ministers would approve. In regard to the abuse of this provision, I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, that people might not refuse to accept work because the benefits are less than they would get if they worked. It is very easy to say that the work offered is not suitable or that something prevents them from taking it. Everybody knows that there are at present a considerable number of people who prefer to be unemployed rather than work. Therefore, the arguments adduced by the Lord President are in favour of the Amendment and not against it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I must express my regret that I was riot here in time to move the Amendment which stands in my name, but I was engaged elsewhere upon another public duty and did not anticipate that this Bill would come on so soon. I have gathered from the debate something of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, in answer to the Amendment, and I want to make a few points upon it. First, I am sure the House understands that this Amendment is confined to uncovenanted benefit: that is, to benefit which is payable where it would not have been payable as the result of contributions. In such a case hitherto the Minister has had some discretion. He has had the right to make these payments of uncovenanted benefits, but he has not been compelled to pay them. Therefore, he has been able to give instructions to committees dealing with these cases to enable those committees to prevent abuses and in some measure to prevent unjustifiable calls upon the Fund.
In this Bill, for the first time it is sought to take away that discretion and to give to the man who has not paid sufficient contributions to entitle him to benefit a right to have benefit. In other words, for the first time you are giving a statutory right to what has sometimes been called "work or maintenance." That is that if a man cannot work he shall be entitled by law to these allowances out of the Unemployment Fund. I venture to think that this House ought, at the very beginning, to make a stand against such a proposal. It is the very negation of the whole principle of insurance for unemployment. Hither-

1047
to, although there have been a good many relaxations; all Governments and all Parliaments have maintained the principle that benefit in the ease of unemployment must rest upon insurance. This Bill throws away that principle. It destroys the whole rule upon which the present Act rests and it makes that which, for the first time, one is inclined to call a "dole," a matter of right and not of contract. That is, it creates a right dependent upon the gift of other people, and not dependent upon the man's own contributions to the Fund. I hope we shall stop that from the very beginning.
It may be that the Amendment would, in practice, for some, time to come, and while the emergency continues, make no practical difference to the man—that is to say, that a Minister might quite possibly think that in all these cases he should exercise his discretion in favour of the applicant for benefit. But even if that be so you preserve the principle, you enable the Minister, if he thinks fit, to make Regulations limiting this particular kind of gift. This is, of course, put forward not in the interest of the State in the main, although this costs the State something. What I chiefly want is to relieve the other workers and the employers from having to pay this "dole" to men who are not themselves contributing to the Fund. I believe that the maintenance of the premium at its present high rate for a prolonged period is really a great hardship upon the men who are at work, and also a very heavy burden upon industry as a whole, and I want, and I am sure noble Lords opposite want, as soon as they can, to get matters back to the normal. That is really what I am working for, and I do not think I have pressed it unreasonably.
I do not at all mean to object to the increase of the amount of benefit. As I said the other day, I should not like to take the responsibility, in view of what we have been told by His Majesty's Government, of objecting to the increase of the weekly amount of benefit to be paid, nor am I seeking to prevent the Minister from sanctioning the payment of uncovenanted benefit during this period of emergency. Subject to those things, I want, if I can, to keep firmly to the principle that this is a gift. It is really
1048
a gift from the other workers, and ought not to be made a matter of right simply because a man asks for it. I feel greatly indebted to my noble friend behind me for moving this Amendment in my absence, and I hope your Lordships will insert it in the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps I might say one word in answer to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. He is under the disadvantage—or perhaps it is an advantage—of not having heard the case that I had made. I think it is quite clear that as to the contribution principle it is not so much a matter between one contributor and another, as it is one between the Fund provided in great part by contributions under compulsory conditions on the one side, and giving all workers a right to the benefit when the occasion arises, on the other. I pointed out that in my view—and I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount said upon the Second Reading—it is important that under the statutory limitations introduced into this Bill the claim should be one of right and not merely a discretionary claim. I also suggested that we should know that as a rule the discretion has been adopted. As the noble Earl pointed out, you want to make unemployment insurance a safeguard against the old Poor Law principle. You really can only do it in this way. I do not want to go over the argument that I have already used, but it certainly appears to me that you want to keep the contributory principle and to make it effective, and you ought to make it sufficiently wide. That being so this Amendment ought not to be adopted, but the Bill should be left in its present form.
LORD DARLING: I should not have said anything upon this matter, as your Lordships may suppose, but for the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord, the Lord President, as to" why we should vote against this Amendment. I should have thought that the Amendment did more to preserve the contributory principle than anything else. But the noble and learned Lord opposite said that we ought to vote against it because the Bill as it stands does everything possible to preserve the contributory principle which is so important. The way in which it preserves the contributory principle is this, that it allows

1049
people to benefit by the contributions of others to a Fund to which they themselves have not contributed. The noble Lord, the President of the Council, was, I think, a Chancellor of one diocese, or perhaps of several. That being so, I have not the slightest doubt that he has made himself acquainted with the writings of Pascal in his "Provincial Letters." This doctrine of the noble and learned Lord reminds me more than anything I have ever heard of Pascal's explanation where he deals with the casuists. I do not for a moment impute
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4;
Amendments as to disqualifications for receipt of unemployment benefit.
4.—(1) Subsection (1) of Section eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly
to the noble Lord that ho is a casuist, but his argument reminds mc of the attitude of Pascal where he deals with the doctrine of "La grace suffisante qui ne suffit pas." Here we are to preserve the contributory principle by allowing those to benefit who have not contributed to the Fund.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Riddell, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Soutkwark, L. Bp.

Shandon, L.

Southwark, L

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Buxton, E.

Gainford, L.

Strachie, L.

Meston, L.

Terrington, L.

Allendale, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Falkland, V.

Kenyon, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Balfour, E.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Bradfoud, E.

Long, V.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Coventry, E.

Peel, V.

Merthyr, L.

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

Ullswater, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Newton, L.

Iveagh, E.

Armstrong, L.

Plumer, L.

Lovelace, E.

Askwith, L.

Ponsoby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lucan, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Midlteton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Saltoun, L.

Clinton, L.

Sydenham, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Templemore, L.

Cave, V.

Darling, L.

Teynhan, L.

Chaplin, V.

Jessel, L.

Wharton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

interested in the dispute, or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties.
(2) Subsection (3) of Section eight of the principal Act (which disqualifies an insured contributor for the receipt of benefit while he is an inmate of any workhouse or other institution supported wholly or partly out of public funds) shall not apply in the case of an insured contributor who is an inmate of an institution used as a place of residence for workers if lie proves that he was an inmate of the institution immediately before he became unemployed and that during the time when he was employed he paid the whole or a substantial part of the cost of his maintenance as such inmate.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: There are three arguments against this subsection. The first objection is the financial effect of the provision. The Government have issued a White Paper on the subject of this Bill, giving the further Report of the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill. First of all the Actuary says that the charges which have been imposed under the Bill while it was in another place will leave a deficiency of £4,500,000 and that this result docs not take into account any liability arising under proposals which he discusses later in the White Paper. Paragraph (8) of this Report is the one which deals with this subsection, and the Actuary says this:
"Clause 4 (1) provides for the payment of benefit in certain cases of unemployment arising in connection with trade disputes. …
"I much regret that after further examination of the subject I am compelled to adhere to the conclusion that the cost of the clause is, as I have stated,' insusceptible of calculation.'"
Therefore, knowing that there will be a deficiency of four and a half millions more than was contemplated when the Bill was introduced, we are actually going to put in this clause, which the Actuary says is "insusceptible of calculation." That is the financial objection.
The second objection is that it is, in my opinion, an encouragement of strikes. It says that where a man is not a member of the trade union in which a strike is going on he shall, because he loses his work on account of the strike, nevertheless be entitled to receive unemployment benefit. There is a provision that his trade union must not be concerned with the other trade union, but that is a matter which can very easily be got over. Conceive an instance which I think is very likely to take place. An employer employs certain men who are members of trade union A, and certain men who are members of trade union B. Trade union A strike, and the result of that is that the employer is unable to employ men of trade union B. Consequently trade union B men, under this clause, will receive unemployment benefit. It is said that if the two trade unions are in collusion the men do not receive benefit, but how are you going to prove that they are, or are not, in collusion? Is it not perfectly easy for the secretary of one
1052
trade union to say to the secretary of another trade union—it need not be in writing at all—"If you strike our men will have to go out, they will get unemployment benefit, and the employer's work will be at a standstill"?
Your Lordships must remember that the employer contributes out of his own pocket to the payment of benefit to the men who are on strike. The men who are on strike stand out, and the employer is compelled to come to term" with them. Then the secretary of trade union B says to the secretary of trade union A: "Now we are coming out. Your men will not be hurt, because you will get unemployment benefit and, when the strike is over, you will have the increased wages which you won by your strike." They go out, the employer's work is again stopped and the employer has to contribute to the benefit of the other set of trade union members who are out. I venture to say, therefore, that this clause is calculated to promote, strikes, and is entirely in the interest of the trade unions in preventing their funds from being encroached upon if strikes take place.
The third point is this. The subsection says that the disqualification for the receipt of benefit shall not apply if
"the stoppage is duo to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties."
How on earth are you to tell whether or not the employers and employees are contracting parties to a national agreement? Some may say that they are, and some may say that they are not. I have been concerned in a good many strikes on the railways. I think, in almost every case it was said that the agreement had not been carried out either by one side or the other, and a dispute immediately arose as to the meaning of certain words in the agreement arrived at. But here "you introduce a clause which it would require the subtlest legal brain to elucidate, and, when you have that subtle legal brain—say that of my noble friend, Viscount Cave—in all probability one of the two parties would not abide by his interpretation. I say, therefore, that this subsection is bad in principle and bad in drafting, and deserves to be eliminated from the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 12 to 26, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think I ought first to point out to the noble Lord that the two principal matters with which he has dealt do not really arise on the proposal to leave out the whole of this subsection. They really arise at a later stage, when, no doubt, the matter will have to be fully discussed and considered. The noble Lord's first objection really conies under the Amendment to be moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, which stands next upon the Paper, and the second point is raised by the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. As regards the other parts of the noble Lord's observations, I think he is the only member, either here or in the other place, who has not recognised that the existing provisions of the law under this head work hardly. I thought that this was common ground in another place, and was not-likely to be controverted here.
Under the law as it stands, a claimant to insurance benefit may be disentitled although he has no responsibility for, and no connection of any kind with, the strike in question. Surely that is unfair. I think the noble Lord goes much too far when he talks about encouragement of strikes. This Amendment has nothing to do with that subject. The only point is whether a claimant who is not in any way responsible, either directly or indirectly, for a strike is to be deprived of the benefit to which he would otherwise have been entitled. I should have thought that the noble Lord would be the first to recognise the unfairness of that position. As regards the other matters raised by the noble Lord, I must leave them until the specific Amendments come before us, but I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, which, I think, no other member has regarded as an Amendment which should be brought forward.
EARL BUXTON: With regard to one of the points raised by my noble friend, the observations of the Actuary did not apply to this clause, but to a clause, of the original Bill of a far wider description, the effect of which it is almost impossible to estimate actuarially.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Did not the second Report refer to this clause? I thought that he adhered to his view, that he could not make a calculation.
EARL BUXTON: I do not think that he put it so strongly, but it is more easy in this particular case to estimate the numbers. The other provision, as I think noble Lords who have studied it will understand, brought in a very large number of those to whom my noble friend referred, whereas this one will bring in only a very limited, number. Its wording is directly limited, and consequently it cannot have the effect which my noble friend seemed to fear. I wish to make only one or two observations in regard to this matter, which has always been a. very difficult one. When I had the honour of drafting, introducing and passing the Act of 1911 I had for my assistants Sir John Simon and Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, both most acute and fertile minds, and this was far the most difficult problem with which we had to deal at that time.
The clause introduced in the original Bill divided industries up into different factories, and if there was a strike in a particular factory it was laid down definitely that nobody working in that factory should be entitled to unemployment benefit. That clause stood the test for some years, but, as the Lord President has pointed out, it did lead to-serious hardship. A test case occurred some years ago when a number of moulders struck for increased wages, or better conditions, or whatever was the object. They had a union of their own, but under them, and working side by side with them and dependent upon their work, was a large number of labourers. These labourers had no interest whatever in the moulders' strike. They did not support it or assist it, nor could they benefit by it, whether the moulders won or not. Yet, because they happened, to be in the same factory in which the strike took place, these labourers were debarred from the unemployment benefit for which they had contributed and which, in any other factory, they would have been entitled to receive. This is only one instance of a hardship of which a certain number of other examples could be given.
The Government, in their original Bill, had a clause which, in my opinion, and,

1055
I think, the opinion of those who have considered this matter, went a great deal too far, because it was undoubtedly open to manipulation—I need not trouble your Lordships with the wording of it—both on the one side by the employers and on the other side by the men themselves. Under this clause it was possible to bring out, for instance, just a few of those whom we may call the "key" men, whose cessation of work would bring all work in a particular factory to an end, and the other men, not having given notice, would be entitled therefore to receive benefit from the Fund. That might be the effect of the clause proposed by the Government. There was no provision that men directly interested in the success of the strike—sort of sleeping partners in the strike—should be debarred from obtaining benefit at the expense of the employers. I think the Government realised, after further consideration, that that went too far, and in the other House Sir John Simon, who has always given the matter the utmost consideration, with a desire to make the thing just, proposed this clause which is now in the Bill. The upshot of this clause, I think anybody who reads it must see, is that no working man can obtain benefit who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in the strike itself.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: How can you prove it?
EARL BUXTON: I will come to that. The people whose hardships we want to remove are the people who have no interest, one way or another, in the strike, and who yet are thrown out of employment in consequence of it. The applicant has got to prove that he is not interested. The onus of proof is on him of showing that he is not participating. I am assuming that there is a strike, and that the applicant comes to the local committee, on which are representatives of employers and men. He has to prove that he is not participating in, and is not financing or directly interested in the trade dispute. "Directly interested" means that he will benefit if the strike is brought to a successful conclusion. It seems to me that the clause really covers the hardship, which is undoubtedly great, and I think it affords a sufficient safeguard and guarantee that the unemployment
1056
benefit shall not go to cases in which the man is in any sense directly or indirectly benefiting from the strike. I will not deal with Lord Cave's later Amendment, relating to federations of trade unions, but taking the clause as a whole, in my view—which may not be worth much, but I have studied the question for some time—it will relieve the hardship and also give additional safeguards. The latter part of the clause is, I think, badly worded, but I believe that there is an Amendment on the Paper which may improve it. Taking it as a whole, I think that the clause, dealing as it does with questions of difficulty, does meet them.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I feel some hesitation about this Amendment, because I think there is a great deal of foundation for what my noble friend behind me has said It is true that the Government Actuary has twice expressed his total inability to calculate the cost which will be thrown upon the Fund by this clause. I suppose it is also true that it may happen that two unions, although not associated with one another, might be working together and one playing into the hands of the other. But it is also the fact, I think, that the present rule causes hardship to people in no way responsible for a strike. It has happened, and no doubt may happen again, that a certain class of workers in a factory strikes and throws out of work other workers in no way connected with them either in the class of work, or grade, or in their union. It does seem, rather hard that the latter should lose not only their pay but also all chance of support from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We have to balance one thing against the other, and I rather hope that my noble friend Lord Banbury will not press this Amendment, but will allow this subsection to be dealt with upon the two points raised by later Amendments. After what Lord Buxton has said, I am sure I shall have his support for my Amendment, and I think in that he will only be following the lead of his colleagues in another place. I think Lord Askwith will have his support, too. I do not, however, want to discuss those two later Amendments now. My own conclusion is that it would be better not to press this Amendment now.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Lord Buxton, in a moment of great modesty,

1057
said his opinion was not worth very much. I bog to differ from him. I think his opinion was very valuable when he brought in the original clause which, according to his own showing, disentitled all men who were on strike, in a factory, whether from their own fault or through the action of the "key" men, from receiving benefit. Now he has run away from that, because of certain hard cases. In this world there always will be hard cases, and if you legislate for hard cases may you not inflict greater hardship upon other people? Of course, the words which Lord Buxton says make this clause safe are legal words, and I presume, they mean what plain English says. But how on earth is anybody to know what are the facts? A man or the secretary of his trade union, may come forward and declare that the applicant is not interested, directly or indirectly, in the particular strike, and is not going to gain anything from it.
That may be true—and even if it is not true it would be very difficult to prove that it is not true—and yet there may be a conspiracy by word of mouth between the secretary of one union and the secretary of the union of the "key" men, by which one set of men should strike first and the other set should strike afterwards, and by so doing so weaken the employers that they would be bound to accede to the men's request. if this provision were not in the Bill the result would probably be that the large number of men thrown out of work by a strike of the "key" men would go to the "key" men, who had not perhaps a genuine grievance and say to them, "You must go back to work." If this subsection is in the Bill, however, there is no incentive to these workmen to urge the "key" men to return to work, because they will receive unemployment benefit. Therefore, I say that this subsection, even as proposed to be amended by the Amendment of my noble friend, would encourage strikes. The Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Cave, is this: After "belong" ["belong to a grade or class of workers"] to insert "to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade, union or a, federation or association of trade unions is, or." I venture to say that the case which I instanced just now is not protected by these words, and, indeed, I do not see how it can be
1058
safeguarded against except by leaving out the subsection altogether. I should very much prefer that the subsection should be left out altogether. I do not want to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but if I have any support I shall certainly go to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CAVE VISCOUNT CAVE moved, in subsection (1), after "belong," to insert "to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade union or a federation or association of trade unions is, or." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment does, I think, deal with the very point that my noble friend has just been discussing, and with the point put by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton. The position is this. There may well be engaged in one factory members, of one union, some doing a particular kind of work, others doing another kind of work. The first lot of men may be what have been called "key" men: that is, they may be men whose employment is necessary to keep the factory going. If they are withdrawn the factory may have to stop. What happens as the subsection stands? The union withdraws the "key" men alone, and, of course, his to maintain them while they are on strike. The result is that the other men go out by necessity because they cannot work while the "key" men are away, and they are to be maintained by the Fund. You therefore throw upon the Insurance Fund, which is not meant for that purpose, the main part of the financial support of the strike. I hold that to be absolutely unfair, and I cannot conceive how anybody can support it.
The effect of my Amendment is that in order to receive benefit the applicant must show, among other things, that he does not belong "to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade union or a federation or association of trade unions" is participating in, or financing, or directly interested in the dispute. I believe that is a reasonable proposal. May I add that I think the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, was mistaken? He seemed to think that the words in the Bill are those which were proposed by Sir John Simon. On the contrary, the words proposed by Sir John Simon were those which I am moving to-day, and which were

1059
strongly supported by that distinguished member of the House of Commons. They were definitely accepted by the Minister of Labour, and I think that the Leader of the House, when appealed to, himself accepted them, too. What happened I do not know, but on the following day, when the time came to move this Amendment, no Liberal member was ready to move it, and the Amendment had to be moved by a member of another party. It was opposed both by the Liberal party and the Labour party, and was defeated. So, if my noble friend is going to be guided by the opinion of Sir John Simon, to which he very rightly attached the greatest importance, I shall find him among the supporters of this Amendment
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("belong") insert ("to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade union or a federation or association of trade unions is, or ").—(Viscount Cave.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, the Amendment is substantially the same as that moved in another place by Sir John Simon. Sir John Simon had not quite the same words. He merely added "and trade union" after the description of the various grades and classes which would be disqualified. That Amendment was very strongly resisted by a great many trade unionists, for the reason that, for the first time, it established a sort of invidious distinction in dealing with workers, between trade unionists and nor unionists. It aroused so much feeling among the trade union representatives that the Minister of Labour approached Sir John Simon with a view to getting him to withdraw the three, words "and trade union." If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive my saying so, his Amendment goes a little further than Sir John Simon's Amendment. After discussion, Sir John Simon withdrew. The subsection as it stands really covers nearly every point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, except, one. It disqualifies a workman, if either he himself or any members of the grade or class to which he belongs are participating in, or financing, or are directly interested in the dispute. That covers nearly everything, except the case of a high grade man running the powder machinery, who might be said to be in a different grade
1060
from the workmen who are thrown out of work through the fact that he is on strike.
The matter was gone into very deeply in another place, a good deal behind the scenes. I took a great interest in it from the start, and I am persuaded that what decided Sir John Simon and others to withdraw the words "and trade union" was that, for the first time, when a man presented himself at a Labour Exchange now an inquiry would be made whether or not he was a member of a particular trade union, and the attempt would be made to distinguish between unionists and non-unionists. Everybody who has studied these matters will, I am sure, agree that the trade union movement is an absolutely indispensable thing, and to introduce that element of bitterness into it would be highly dangerous. It is for that reason that the Government sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. In point of fact, it does not tighten up the Bill except in one very small respect, and it is likely to cause a great deal of ill-feeling among trade unionists.
EARL BUXTON: The noble Viscount, Lord Cave, referred to this Amendment as having been in the original proposal made by Sir John Simon. The noble Lord opposite has pointed out that the wording is different, and that this Amendment really goes further.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I agree, it does go further by including a federation.
EARL BUXTOX: I am not authorised to speak on anybody's behalf, but I noticed what happened in the other House. Sir John Simon proposed a verbal Amendment across the Table on a very difficult question. This seemed to meet with the general approval of the House and of the Government, and they accepted it. But, admittedly, they had not had an opportunity of seeing it on paper, and they reserved their right to consider such a question of detail. There is, therefore, no question of a breach of faith. It is simply a question of merits. I understand that these words, or some similar words, were in the original proposal of Sir John Simon, but, after further consideration, he withdrew them on hearing the Minister of Labour's objections.

1061
What we want undoubtedly, I think, is a, definite safeguard that there shall be no abuse of this subsection. The noble Viscount, Lord Cave, seemed to think that this clause is in the same position as the original clause of the Bill, and that you would have "key" men going on strike and that the other workmen who would be effected would receive benefit, though, as a matter of fact, they were interested in the strike. I think that was the main reason why those particular words were put into the subsection, which state that the applicant for benefit has to show that he is not participating in a strike. It may be said that he is not participating in a strike, though the "key" men are, but I think, practically, it would be found that he was. He has also to prove that he is not financing, and is not directly interested in, the dispute. All those who belong to the particular union, or grade, or class as the "key" men, are all equally interested in the effect of the dispute and, therefore, there is no question under this subsection of a few men being taken out and the others being left in. On the face of it, that seems to me, as a layman, to be clear.
Then there is the point which was put by my noble friend Lord Thomson, that until now the committees, containing representatives of the workmen and the employers (and, finally, the umpire in case of dispute), have had to decide conditions which any one can decide, which are clear conditions, and can be decided without any question of going back on what a man's record has been in other respects. They argue that he is an insurable man,
that he has worked in an insured trade, and that he has been endeavouring to obtain work. Those questions are not controversial and, in any case, are all pure questions of fact. If you introduce the very controversial question as to whether a man is or is not a trade unionist, it may cause a good deal of prejudice on the one side or the other. I think it would be a very great pity—and I agree with my noble, friend Lord Thomson in this—if such a question as that, a totally different class of question to that which comes before them now, had to come before these committees to be decided. It would also raise questions between the unionist and the non-unionist, and a man would be, or might be, prejudiced in that way. I think, on that ground alone, that it would "be a very great pity if these words were included in the subsection. If a man's: union is financing the strike he is financing it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Therefore, in order to find out whether he was financing it you would have to ask the man to what trade union he belonged.
LORD THOMSON: Not on his applying for benefit.
EARL BUXTON: The hardship would undoubtedly be that men who do not in I any way, either direct or indirect, take part in the strike may be refused benefit.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Salisbury, M.

Kenyon, L.

Inchcape, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Kylsant, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Novar, V.

Lawrence, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ullswater, V.

Merthyr, L.

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

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

O'Hagan, L.

Iveagh, E.

Plumer, L.

Lovelace, E.

Armstrong, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lucan, E.

Ashfield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Raglan, L.

Morton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Rathcreedan, L.

Onslow, E.

Redesdale, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Saltoun, L.

Allendale, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strachie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Sydenham, L.

Cave, V.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L.

Chaplin, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Waring, L.

Falkland, V.

Daryngton, L.

Wharton, L.

Hood, V.

Harris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Riddell, L.

Shandon, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Arnold, L.

Stanmore, L.

Gainford, L.

Swaythling, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hemphill, L.

Terrington, L.

Buxton, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[The votes of Earl Beauchamp and Viscount Grey of Fallodon who had voted by mistake with the Content although they intended to vote with the Not-Contents, have been recorded accordingly with the Not-Contents.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to omit all words in subsection (1) after "directly interested in the dispute." The noble Lord said: The Amendment in my name on the Paper is to leave out the last part of the subsection. The words are:
"or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties."
On the Second Reading of this Bill I criticised those words as being unworkable and impossible. The Government seem to have been of the same opinion, because an Amendment is on the Paper to-day totally different from the words which appear in the Bill and meaning something quite different from what is in the Bill. I do not think, therefore, that it is of any use my wasting the time of the House in attacking the words of the Bill, which the Minister of Labour spoke of in another place as being words about which he had never been consulted, and of which he had never heard until they were read out.
The Government are proposing a new Amendment, and it seems to me that the most practicable thing to do is to consider whether the Lord President's Amendment to substitute new words for the last part of the subsection ought to be accepted. I would like to criticise the Lord President's Amendment. I have four strong objections to it. In the first place, it is an alternative to what goes before, and, so far as I read it, it would be possible for a person to belong to a grade or class of workers who are participating in or
1064
are financing or interested in the dispute and yet to get unemployment benefit, by being able to say that the employer was committing some breach of a national or district agreement. My second point is that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is too wide. It might possibly be improved in the first part of it if the words "at the factory, workshop or other premises" came in again after the words "having committed." Even then the last lines do not lay it down that a man must come forward and accuse the employer of having committed a breach of an agreement against himself, but could say the employer had committed this breach against someone else, it may be Tom, Dick or Harry who was one of the same class of workers to which the assured contributor belonged. It has been argued that it was undesirable that the Employment Exchanges should investigate whether a man belongs to a trade union or not, but it is still more serious for those Exchanges to have to investigate a question of whether there has been a breach of an agreement or not, either national or district.
This question of a breach of agreement is one of the most difficult things in industrial disputes that it is possible to imagine. It was investigated in 1912 by a body called the Industrial Council, which sat for thirty full days hearing evidence, and whose Blue-book amounted to 655 pages. They investigated this question of breaches of agreement. They found what a variety of difference of view there was about it, and how extremely difficult it was to find whether there had been a breach of agreement or not. Among their recommendations they made one or two suggestions as to what should happen when there was an alleged breach of agreement, but that was not after a strike or lockout, but before a strike or lockout. They said that a breach of agreement ought not to be settled by a strike or lockout, but that for every alleged breach of agreement there should be an investigation.
One of their recommendations, in paragraph 16 of their Report, was this:
"We are of opinion that where there is (a) a difference in regard to interpretation of an agreement, or (b) a difference as to whether there has been a breach of an agreement there should be no stoppage of work (by strike or lockout) pending the reference of the difference to some impartial tribunal and pending the issue of a pronouncement by the tribunal."
In paragraph 35 they stated:
"In many associations rules for the punishment of persons committing a breach already exist, and we recommend that other associations should follow the lead which has thus been taken and consider whether it is not advisable that similar rules should be adopted in their organisations."
Those recommendations were made by that important body, consisting of heads of the great employing associations, and also heads of the chief trades unions, and they were signed by, among others, Mr. J. R. Clynes, Mr. Harry Gosling, Mr. Arthur Henderson and another Labour leader, Mr. John Hodge. They considered it important, that questions of breach of agreement should be carefully investigated. They found that it was one of the most difficult things in the labour world to determine, and it seems extraordinary that the question as to whether there is a breach of an agreement or not should be handed over to an official of an Employment Exchange to decide, with a possibility of its going to a referee or umpire after the strike or lockout has begun.
When dealing with the proposed Treaty of Mutual Assistance the Lord President found enormous difficulty in dealing with the question of breaches of international agreements. He said that the effectiveness of the scheme seemed to depend to a considerable extent on the ability of the Council of the League to determine by unanimous vote of all members not concerned in the dispute which nation was the aggressor. It is a difficult question to be settled internationally, and I say that the difficulty of deciding who is the aggressor as regards district and national agreements in the industrial world is equally great. The suggestion by a man that his employer has broken an agreement would bring the employer under this subsection, and that seems to mc to be almost ridiculous. The suggestion is made that the employer might protest that he cannot carry on his work owing to the agreement,
1066
but the idea is that, the day before notice is due to expire the employer might put up a notice to say that if they would work below the terms agreed upon he would continue his works. That is a very difficult thing to do. If the employer is still a member of his association he will have to deal with the association. If he is not a member of his association, he is a free man, able to take his own line; he may be more or less coerced by the opinion of his fellow employers: or he may have his men come out on strike. But that this difficult question which requires an Act of Parliament by itself should be settled by an officer of an employment exchange or by a referee or umpire, and should be dealt with by a subsection in a Bill hurried through at the last moment, is most objectionable.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, leave out from ("dispute") to the end of subsection (1).—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to preserve the Amendment down in the name of the Lord President I will put the Question that the words "or that" stand part of the clause.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord has taken a convenient course in discussing his own Amendment and the one which stands in my name on the Paper. I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two points. The first is this. We are dealing in this subsection with a trade dispute, and, as the noble Lord knows, where an employer commits a breach of a district or national agreement to which he is a party and his workpeople decline to continue, a trade dispute arises. What we have to consider is whose fault it is. Is the workman in default in a matter of this kind? I think it is clear under my Amendment that the workman is not in default at all. These are the words I propose to substitute for the last few lines of the subsection:—
"such trade dispute was due to the employer at the factory, workshop or other premises at which the insured contributor was employed having committed such a breach of a national or district agreement to which the employer vas a party as directly affected the conditions of employment of the insured contributor or of any members of a grade or class of workers to which the insured contributor belonged."
The whole basis of the claim for compensation in those circumstances is that

1067
the default came from the employer alone.
The stronger argument used by the noble Lord is this. He said, assuming there is a trade dispute in relation to which the workman claiming compensation is not in default at all, you have a difficult matter to decide as to whether there is a breach of a national or district agreement. I do not think that is any more difficult than other matters with which unemployment committees have to deal. I only wish the noble Lord himself could deal with these matters: I am sure he would find no difficulty at all. I do not think an innocent workman should be deprived of the insurance benefit to which he would otherwise be entitled. It is far wiser to make it clear that where the default comes from the employer's side the workman is not to suffer as regards insurance benefit. And why should he? The real answer to the noble Lord is the difficulty of protecting him. He does not deny that the difficulty is there, nor does he deny that the worker in these circumstances ought to have the insured benefit to which he is entitled. Where I differ from the noble Lord is in thinking that this is a matter of such great difficulty as to deprive a man of a benefit to which he would otherwise be entitled. The drafting of the Bill is very difficult. I said so on the Second Reading. I have consulted the draftsman and the result-is the Amendment which stands in my name. I hope your Lordships will allow that Amendment to pass as a fair solution of this difficulty.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I will only say a few words on the relative values of these two Amendments. My feeling is that you are asking the Fund to take sides in a question as to whether or not there has been a breach of an agreement. That is a very dangerous thing to do. It would be wiser in the end to leave these words out altogether. It is very difficult for even the most experienced person at times to say, first, whether an agreement is binding upon everybody whose name is in it; secondly, whether there has been any breach of that agreement; and, thirdly, whether the trade dispute is bona fide due to a breach of the agreement. If the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is carried all these questions would have to be considered and determined
1068
either by the manager of an employment exchange or, possibly, by the local committee. One knows very well what acute feelings arise on a matter of this kind and how very difficult it is to judge between the conflicting contentions of both sides in a trade dispute. I think it would be unfortunate if Parliament provided by this Bill that a question of that kind should be brought into discussion upon the question whether a man should or should not be entitled to benefit out of the Fund. I venture to think, although I do not pretend to the experience of my noble friend, that he is right, and that it would be better to excise these words altogether from the Bill, and to leave the question to be decided by the other conditions.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Abolition of power to make special schemes.
8.—(1) The power of the Minister under Section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall be suspended until the expiration of one year from the termination of the deficiency period referred to in the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921:
Provided that the foregoing provision shall not affect the operation of any special scheme duly approved by the Minister before the commencement of this Act or the power of the Minister to approve a scheme if a draft thereof appearing to him to be complete was submitted to him before the third day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and application was before that date made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of Section eighteen of the principal Act.
LORD PARMOOR: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause to omit from the proviso to subsection (1) "the operation of any special scheme duly approved by the Minister before the commencement of this Act or."
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("affect") to the end of line 1 on page 8.—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Amendment as to refunds of contributions.
9.—(1) If on an application made under this section the Minister is satisfied that any

1069
person who is or has been an insured contributor had before the date on which this section comes into operation—

(a) paid contributions in respect of not less than fifty weeks in accordance with the general provisions of the principal Act; and

(b) reached the age of fifty years;

that person or his personal representative shall be entitled to be paid out of the unemployment fund a sum representing the present worth as on that date of the excess value of the contributions paid by him together with (in the case of an insured contributor who has not attained the age of sixty years) compound interest at the rate of two-and-a-half per cent, per annum on the amount of that excess value from the date aforesaid until the date on which he would attain the age of sixty years.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
c)The present worth of the excess value of contributions shall be calculated in manner prescribed by regulations, and any regulations made for that purpose shall direct that in making the calculation regard shall be had, among other matters, to the fact that contributions may cease for a period comprising five insurance years to be paid in respect of the insured contributor, and, in the case of an insured contributor who has not attained the age of sixty years, to the fact that he may not live to attain that age.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved in subsection (1), to leave out "excess value of the contributions paid by him together with", and to insert "amount of the excess value of the contributions paid by him as increased". The noble and learned Lord said: I think I ought to say one word in explanation of this Amendment. It has to do with compensation, where you deprive a man of the benefit he now has at the age of sixty. I wish to make it clear that he is entitled to benefit only as regards "the amount of the excess value of the contributions paid by him," and so on. It is on the excess value that he is entitled to compensation. I do not think that this was clear as the Bill stood. The remainder of my Amendments to this clause are consequential upon this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out from the second ("the") to ("in") in line 13, and insert ("amount of the excess value of the contributions paid by him as increased").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 14, after ("years") insert ("by").
Page 10, line 21, after the second ("the") insert ("amount of the")
Page 10, line 22, after ("contributions") insert ("as increased by any such compound interest as aforesaid (if any)").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 (Short title, repeal, decision of questions, application and commencement):
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved at the end of the clause to insert the following new subsection:—
"(6) The Minister may by regulations provide for the transition from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, to the provisions of those Acts as amended by this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: It is proposed to introduce this subsection in order that the Regulations may provide for the transition from the provisions of the existing Insurance Acts to the provisions of those Acts as amended by this Bill. It is a purely administrative matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 15, after subsection (5) insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Enactments Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 30.

The unemployment Insurance Act, 1920.

Section two, subsections (1), (2), (4), (7), (10) and (11) of section eighteen, section twenty-five subject to the provisions of this Act, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section forty-seven the words from "and (iii) for" to the end of the paragraph, and the Second Schedule.

LORD PARMOOR: I have two drafting Amendments to the Third Schedule.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("subsections (1), (2), (4)") and insert ("subsection")
Page 20, line 6, leave out ("(10) and (11)").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: It was arranged, I think, that the Report stage should be taken to-morrow. It really looks as if there would not be any dispute on Report, for nothing has been left over, and we would not seek to re-open these questions.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Constitution of Advisory Committee.
1.—(1) With a view to facilitating and improving the regulation of traffic in and near London, there shall, for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in manner provided by this Act to the Minister of Transport (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) in connection with the exercise and performance of his powers and duties in relation to traffic within the area described in the First Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as the London Traffic Area) be constituted a committee, to be called the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and hereinafter referred to as the Advisory Committee consisting of a chairman elected by the Committee and such ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned.
(2) Of the ordinary members:
One shall be appointed by a Secretary of State:
Two shall be appointed by the London County Council:
Two shall be appointed by the councils of the metropolitan boroughs from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several metropolitan boroughs:
One shall be appointed from among nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto, other than the administrative county of London lying north of the Thames, by those councils:
One shall be appointed from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto,
1072
other than the administrative county of London lying south of the Thames, by those councils: One shall be appointed from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several county boroughs within the London Traffic Area by those councils:
One shall be appointed by the Minister: Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority other than the representative of the City police and every person selected by a group of authorities shall be a member of the local authority or of one of the grouped authorities, as the case may be.
(3) Of the additional members:—
Three shall be representatives of the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as ho may think fit:
Four shall by representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable.
(4) The ordinary members shall form part of the committee on all occasions, and the additional members shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising the Minister upon any matter referred to the committee under or by virtue of Section seven or Section ten of this Act, or any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with the matters specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act:
Provided that the Minister may, if he thinks fit, direct that in any particular case the additional members, or such one or more of them as he may direct, shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising him upon any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with any of the matters mentioned in Part II. of the said schedule.
(6) The term of office of the chairman and other members of the Advisory Committee first appointed shall be from the date of appointment until the first day of December, ninteen hundred and twenty-five, and subject to the provisions as to the term of office of persons appointed to fill casual vacancies, the term of office of persons subsequently appointed shall he three years; but a person going out of office may be re-appointed.
(8) On a casual vacancy occurring on the Advisory Committee by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise, the vacancy shall be filled by the appointment of a new member in like manner as the member in whose

1073
place lie is appointed, and lie shall hold office until the time when the member in whose place he is appointed would have gone out of office, and shall then go out of office.
LORD PABMOOR LORD PABMOOR moved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning "Two shall be appointed," to leave out "councils of the metropolitan boroughs," and to insert "Minister." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must explain this matter, because the Bill was alterered in Committee on the understanding that administrative Amendments would be introduced in order to make it workable in its new form. I undertook to see the Minister of Transport and the draftsman upon this point. Let me explain, if I may, quite shortly, particularly to the noble Lord opposite, who took an interest in this matter, exactly how it stands. The nominations all come in the first place from the local authorities. No person can be appointed to one of these committees except by the nomination of a local authority, whom he will represent. I think the idea upon which the Bill was founded was that probably you would not have more nominations than persons to be elected, and therefore that the duty of the Minister would really he to a great extent formal. In order to make that quite clear, I propose to introduce an Amendment a little later to the effect that, where the nominees do not exceed the number of persons to be elected, those nominees shall be accepted as representatives by the Minister of Transport.
The difficulty that arises as regards the other method of dealing with this matter is this. I can speak from experience of one of the Counties north of the Thames, namely Buckinghamshire, and I think the noble Lord has the same experience regarding Hertfordshire. These county councils meet only four times a year, and that makes it very difficult to arrange for the joint action which is suggested, in the event of there being any difference of opinion concerning these nominations. I do not know why there should be any difference of opinion, but, in regard to that point, I might add that, although the only power given to the Minister here is to select between nominees if they are more than sufficient to fill the membership, yet it is a point of practical importance, because the Minister wants to get these committees into working operation at the earliest possible date.
I have looked at the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, and I do not think that it really meets the difficulty. It leaves matters in a condition which it may take a long time to settle. This may be a small point in itself, and it is quite possible that there will be no such selection by the Minister as is contemplated, because there will not be more than a sufficient number of nominees, but I am urged by the Minister to press this point on the ground that, for administrative purposes, any other method might introduce a considerable complication in the sense of delay. The Minister is very desirous, as, I am sure, are all of your Lordships, to bring this Bill into operation speedily, and I suggest that this solution may be accepted by your Lordships as adequate. I should like also to call attention to another Amendment standing in my name which makes the point clear, and which provides that where only sufficient nominees are nominated they shall be accepted as representatives by the Minister of Transport. In that case, no kind of selection will be performed by him. From the administrative point of view I am sure that this is far the simplest plan, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will adopt it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("councils of the metropolitan boroughs") and insert ("Minister").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I see great difficulties in the way of this Amendment. Let me say at the outset that I quite recognise the spirit in which the Lord President of the Council has met the Amendments which your Lordships passed in Committee. He is evidently very anxious to carry out, so far as he can, the spirit of those Amendments, but I am afraid that I do not think that the form in which he tries to meet us on Clause 1 is good, and I would suggest to him, although it is not in order to discuss the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Askwith, which follows, that it is far better than the Amendment of the Government.
There are several objections to the form proposed by the noble and learned Lord. In the first place, he reintroduces the Minister, and that is contrary to the general wish of the House. It is clear

1075
from the votes that your Lordships gave that you wanted to exclude the influence of the Minister so far as possible. I do not mean from the Bill itself, because it is really a Bill to erect the Minister into an autocrat, but I mean so far as the Advisory Committee is concerned. We do not want to have what we decided in Committee weakened in any way on the Report stage, and on the face of it the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposes to put back the Minister, and that is an objection. Now, when we come to the Amendment dealing with the position where the number of nominees does not exceed the number of members to be appointed, which is consequential upon the other Amendments of the noble and learned Lord, we find that it provides no machinery whatever, and he must have some machinery. He pointed out to your Lordships that the difficulty about these appointments is that the county councils only meet four times a year. But he will find that that difficulty besets him every way, and even on his own Amendments there must be some machinery by which the county councils must come together to make the nominations. There must be some means of appointing a joint committee of the county councils. If we had time it would be possible for the county councils to meet in October, correspond with other county councils, and eventually to consummate the business in the spring or summer of next year.
But we find that an immediate decision is required, and there is only one way of getting it. When they meet in October they must appoint some subordinate body of joint representatives, and give them plenary power to make the nominations. That has got to be done in any case, and my noble friend's Amendment does, at any rate, provide for Regulations being made by the Minister under which it can be done. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord does not provide Regulations, and I do not think that the words of his Amendment will do. Of course, if he wants to go into great detail, and have a statutory committee, I should not object, but the words as the Government have printed them will not do, and they have the additional vice of reintroducing the Minister where we do not want him to come in.
LORD ASKWITH: I quite realise the importance of time in this matter, and also that the nominations which in certain cases appear to have been made before this Bill goes through, are not legal nominations under this Bill when it becomes an Act. There will have to be some means of appointing persons representing these different bodies. I do not know whether it is possible to get rid of the double stage and say that the councils shall appoint and that if they fail to appoint then the Minister shall appoint the representatives. I do not know whether it would be better to do that on the Third Reading or at the present moment.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to my noble friend for the suggestion which I understand him to make. We all, I think, desire to get the appointment from the local authorities, and to avoid delay. The noble Lord's suggestion, as I understand it, is this, that if you are to really get appointments from the local authorities the double stage—first, the nomination and then the election—might be avoided. I think that might be done. My only desire is to assist to make the Bill such as will work, and I will not press the Amendments which I have suggested at the present time, having regard to what has been said. If an Amendment such as has been suggested can be carried out on an agreed basis, we, of course, could introduce it after the Third Reading, and I think that might be a great advantage. We all want the Bill to work effectively, and without delay, and in those circumstances I will withdraw the Amendment now standing in my name.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is the best course.
LORD ASKWITH: I am agreeable to that, and I think that with a few minutes of consultation between the parties we shall be able to arrive at an agreement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after "One shall be a representative of the City police appointed by the Corporation of the City of London," to insert "One shall be a representative of the users of privately owned and noncommercial, mechanically propelled vehicles, and shall be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with such

1077
bodies as are representative of suck traffic." The noble Lord said: My Lords, nay I state shortly my reasons for asking the leave of the House to move this Amendment, instead of an Amendment which I have on the Paper?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It can only be moved with general assent. because there is no Notice of the Amendment on the Paper.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I hope I can have the leave of the House because it will avoid the necessity of moving two other longer Amendments.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear !
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If I may proceed, the point is this. There are four members of the Advisory Committee to be appointed by the Minister as representative members of various interests which use the streets. I will assume that one will represent Lord Ashfield's group, one the independent omnibus interests, one probably the heavy interests—the motor hauliers—and one probably the railway companies, or somebody else. Rut among all these nineteen members of the Advisory Committee there is not one who can possibly speak for privately owned, non-commercial vehicles. Yet in London it is estimated that there are over 150,000 of such vehicles, as compared with 4.000 omnibuses, 8,000 taxi-cabs, and certainly not more than 10,000 heavy lorries. Therefore, the biggest interest on the streets is not represented; only the commercial interests are represented. These people, however, will be regulated to a large extent under the Bill. They will be told where to park their cars, and to use this or that street, and I submit it is fair that they should have at least one representative out of nineteen.
The Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission proposed that this body should number twenty-one. It is nineteen now. One extra representative was given in the other House to labour, and from that I do not dissent. But, the original proportion having already been interfered with, I claim that the most important interest, the interest which is paying 65 per cent, of the whole motor taxation, should have representation. After all, it is not a question of the owners of expensive
1078
motor-cars. The proportion of expensive motor-cars to non-expensive cars is only one to sixty or seventy. The car will be used more and more by the poorer sections of the community, by the shopkeeper, and the superior artisan, and there ought to be some representation of non-commercial interests on the Advisory Committee.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Will this be an extra member?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Yes, an extra member. But even then it does not bring the number up to the maximum recommended by Lord Ullswater's Commission. I appeal to the Government to consider this Amendment. I have the united support of the great automobile bodies behind me, representing over a quarter of a million privately-owned cars.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, after line 25, insert the said words-.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I congratulate the noble Lord on the perseverance he has shown, but I am sorry to be obliged again to give a negative answer. You cannot upset the balance of the representation, which has been carefully considered. Directly you introduce a new member you upset the balance as regards the local authorities and as between the additional members. Representation of private users and others can be obtained under subsection (3), which provides for four representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled vehicles. These are users of mechanically propelled vehicles, and the representation of all these persons combined is to be four. That has been very carefully considered. The noble Lord brought forward what is really the same question on the Committee stage, and I think your Lordships determined to adhere to the number of the Advisory Committee as it has been constituted. If we once begin to break in upon that, claims may come in from all sides.
EARL BUXTON: In this case I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend, for the very reasons that the Lord President has given. Personally I am much opposed to this outside representation.

1079
But it is clear that if you are only going to have eight representatives of the municipalities, and you are going to increase the representation of other interests, you must increase the proportion of the municipal representation, and that would upset the whole basis of the Advisory Committee, which has been agreed to. The Lord President said that under subsection (3) one of the four representatives there mentioned might represent these non-commercial elements. If he is prepared to give an undertaking, so far as he can, to carry out that view, I should think my noble friend would be well advised to accept it. That seems to me the way in which this representation ought to take place. It would have the additional advantage of giving a smaller representation to those who are directly interested pecuniarily in these matters. At the same time, I think that these private motor-car owners ought to have some representation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have some sympathy with this Amendment, although it is a sympathy of a. rather peculiar kind, because I would rather have had a Committee which was without all these special interests. I would rather have had the disinterested form of Committee, before which people could come and give evidence. But, after all, if you opt for the other kind, and if you are going to decide that interests are to be represented, I think you must represent—I will not say all interests (that would be impossible), but you cannot leave out, or it is difficult to leave out, one large interest. Here is a gap really which it is suggested might be filled. I think my noble friend moved his Amendment as applying to the ordinary members and not to the additional members.
LORD MONTAGU OR BEAULIEU: I did.
VISCOUOT PEEL: Possibly it would have appeared better in the other place. I only want to say two things. One is that the noble and learned Lord has laid tremendous stress upon all these numbers being fixed. He rather brought it before us as if it was a settled policy after long consultation that you could not alter one without altering all the others. I think I could criticise that statement because I understand that in another place, possibly when things were in a more fluid
1080
condition and before they had been crystallised into form, several alterations were made. One was, I think I am right in saying, that whereas two labour representatives had been proposed in the Bill there are three now. That is a considerable change, and I do not know why we should be brought up suddenly against this rigidity now.
May I remind him that I am the last person to want to make this Committee a large body? It is smaller, I think, than that proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and therefore on the ground of size there is very little to be said. But in Committee I think the noble and learned Lord was sympathetic to the idea that this particular large interest should be represented, and he seemed to suggest that it could in fact find representation already under subsection (3) of Clause 1. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could give any undertaking to do his best to secure that the Minister should appoint a representative of this interest as one of those four. If he says he can give no undertaking at all, I would offer another suggestion—that possibly before Third Beading some Amendment might be drawn up which the Minister might see and then, possibly, it could be introduced after Third Reading. If the Minister will look carefully into that and sec whether it is possible to accept such an Amendment after Third Reading, my noble friend might feel inclined not to press it at this particular moment.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: May I say two things in reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has said? The first is that I think it is unnecessary and unwise to overweight this Advisory Committee. You should keep it as small as you possibly can. The second is that so far as special representation is concerned, I can see no necessity for it whatsoever If you are controlling traffic you do not question whether it is a motor car, a motor omnibus or a horse and cart that you have to deal with; you deal with the thing as a whole. For that reason I see no necessity whatsoever for special representation.
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I cannot speak again on Report, but by permission of the House I may say that I

1081
could not give any undertaking but that any proposal will have careful consideration. I cannot go beyond that, because I have already stated the general principles which underlie this Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: By leave of the House, I should like to say that I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said in the spirit in which it is offered. At the same time, if my information is correct, there is no chance of getting a representative amongst these four, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to put an Amendment on the Paper after Third Reading to the effect that of the four "one shall be a representative of" or something of that sort. If he will give that his careful consideration possibly he could collaborate with the noble Marquess and myself in arriving at a suitable form of words. This is a vital matter, and if I do not ask the House to divide upon it now it is only out of consideration for the House and because I have a belief that we shall be met on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and if he cease to hold such qualification shall cease to be a member of the Committee." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is obviously necessary. The representatives are to be members of the local authorities and the proposal I make is to odd words to subsection (2) to provide that if any one ceases to be a member of the local authority he shall cease to be a member of the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at and insert the said new words.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "section seven or." The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships will remember that there was a great discussion in Committee as to what the extent of the interest of these additional members of the Advisory Committee should be. I share what I believe to be the prevailing view of your Lordships, that the additional members are a mistake altogether; but we consented in Committee to retain them and I shall not attempt to go back upon that
1082
decision. But the power, or the sphere of interest, of the Advisory Committee was expressly left open in Committee and I should have thought it was clear that these additional members, who are ex hypothesi all interested parties, ought not to have authority over that part of the Bill under which a monopoly can be accorded to a particular interest; that is to say, Clause 7 of the Bill, which is the most difficult clause of the Bill, as your Lordships are aware.
Under Clause 7 a monopoly or a quasi-monopoly can be granted. I am not saying that is inevitable in all circumstances, but I am prepared to contend that we are faced by such a tremendous difficulty in the ease of the London traffic that it may end in a monopoly, notwithstanding all the precautions we may take. Al any rate, I do not think that interested parties ought to have a voice in regard to that part of the Bill under which a monopoly can be granted. Clause 7 is that part of the Bill, and I propose, therefore, that the words "section seven or" should be left out of subsection (4). The effect would be that the attention of the additional members would be directed only to Clause 10 and to Part I of the Second Schedule, and they would have regard to those two matters only. If your Lordships turn to Clause 10 you will find that really is the same thing as the Third Schedule, because the clause generally merely introduces the Third Schedule. The Third Schedule deals with all sorts of tiny little matters of regulation about which the expert opinion of those interested generally might be of very great value. Therefore, it may very well be admitted that the additional members should have, their attention directed to the Third Schedule. The same is true, though perhaps quite not to the same extent, of Part I of the Second Schedule, which is the other matter that is left.
What I want to convey to your Lordships is that the Third and Second Schedule differ entirely from Section 7, under which the Minister may say that these omnibuses are to be allowed to ply, and that no other omnibuses will be allowed to ply, on this area—that this company is to be allowed to have the whole control of this part of the traffic, or these two companies, or whatever the number may be. That is what he can do under Section 7. Upon that matter it is quite

1083
clear the interested parties ought not to have a vote. When I say the "interested parties" I mean not only those representing the employers, but also those who represent labour. They are both interested, and they ought not to be able to say this or that should be done, because they are obviously pecuniarily interested in the answer. I am not saying that they would necessarily make a corrupt decision, but it is our practice, in this country not to allow people to adjudicate upon that in which they are financially interested. Everyone knows that a magistrate does not sit upon a case the decision upon which will help him pecuniarily. In the same way those who are interested in the drink traffic are not allowed to sit a? magistrates when licensing questions are being decided, because they are financially interested in the result. That is the general rule which we always adopt, and I. submit that it should apply here, because these interested parties are financially interested in the result of the advice they give to the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("section 7 or").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not think that the principle to which the noble Marquess has referred is really applicable in a case of this kind, because the persons referred to would not be interested in such a way as would a magistrate or Judge who would be disentitled to hear a certain case. On the other hand, I realise that it may be said that these two parties, whose interests we are discussing, might be affected. What induced the Government to put in this provision was that in their view it would be very important, in dealing with these matters, to have the benefit of the experience of these people, who would be people who have had a great experience, and who could therefore help the Government in a most effective way; but if the noble Marquess desires to press his Amendment I shall not oppose it.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I am sure the decision announced by the Lord President will give great satisfaction. There has been a feeling, I think, throughout this House, and also to a great extent in the House of Commons, that the persons financially interested in advice should not be in a position to give
1084
that advice. It is considered very objectionable that persons who have a direct pecuniary interest in a particular case should be the very persons to decide that particular case. I am sure what the Lord President has said will remove from the minds of every one any question of suspicion regarding the additional members.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in the proviso to subsection (4) to leave out "or such one or more of them as he may direct." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a small one, but think it rather important. The clause deals with the Minister's powers to direct that additional members may form part of the Committee when considering certain questions. As the Bill stands now he would have the power to select one or more of these additional members, and no others. I do not say he would select those interested in the question under consideration, but that might have a great bearing upon his selection. He might, for instance, put on those specially familiar with tramway questions and exclude those familiar with motor omnibus questions. If he appoints any at all I think he ought to appoint all of them. He should not have the power to discriminate between the additional members. If he is to have this power he ought not to be allowed to pick and choose. All road dues are liable to be affected by the advice. Therefore, I think that if any are to sit upon the Committee all ought to do so; otherwise, you may have the Minister possibly selecting people who would be pecuniarily interested, or whose decisions might affect another large and important body of persons. I do not think there can be any objection to this Amendment. It is in harmony with the decisions of the House, and I hope the Lord President will see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("or such one or more of them as he may direct").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord would mean that if the Minister wished to add any additional members to a Committee he would be compelled to add them all. In framing the Bill the idea that

1085
animated those responsible was that, certainly in many of the subjects in the second part of the schedule, it would be quite unnecessary to seek the advice of all the additional members on many points, notably, on those in paragraphs (h) and (i). Some would be suitable for giving advice under one head, and some for giving advice under the other. In tile ease of (i) it says:
"The exercise of any of the powers of the Minister from whatsoever source derived in relation to traffic on street." in the London Traffic Area."
It might be even desirable to exclude some of the additional members who might be too interested in the matter to be proper advisers upon it. As the noble Lord has pointed out, this is a very slight Amendment, but it does deprive the Bill of a certain elasticity which at present it possesses. It is not only a question of giving the Minister power to discriminate, but it is a question of simplifying the work of the Committees, and not having to put on all the members but giving the Minister the power to exclude some whose advice might be interested. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I would venture to ask the Government to reconsider this matter, not on the. grounds put forward by my noble friend below me, but speaking for Ministers of the future I am not concerned in this, I need hardly say, but I think Ministers really have difficult jobs enough already without adding to their difficulties, and preparing a bed of thorns for those who are to come after the present Ministers. How on earth is any Minister to make his selection? He can only do it in one way, and that is by consulting those who in the first place, are familiar with the work arising particularly in the immediate question before, him, and, in the second place, those who have some knowledge of the members out of whom the selection is to be made. He cannot do it himself, because he has not the knowledge. I do not suggest for a moment that he will be guilty of appointing men for his own benefit, or anything of that kind, but he will not know whom to appoint, and he cannot know. It is not practical politics. He has a multitude of duties to perform. He has plenty to do already, and you are adding to his work
1086
every day. You are here giving him a very heavy job; you are giving him power to appoint men and then telling him he is to make his own selection. You are inviting him to perform a task which is more likely to lead him into difficulties and make, him unpopular than anything else you have asked him to do.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is really exaggerating the difficulty. It is simply this, that out of a body which has been appointed specially like this, it is competent for the Minister to ask one or two, or three, or four, to act in a particular ease as against asking them all to act. There might be a difficulty in many cases in getting them all to act. I should have thought it was a very simple administrative matter, and I do not appreciate the difficulty. If you have a panel out of which a Minister can select one or two for a particular duty I, for one, trust that the duty would be carried out. I think the Amendment is an undue interference with the discretion which the Minister is quite entitled to exercise, and would, I agree, exercise in an impartial manner.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: This Advisory Committee will be all at sea at first. They will not know anything about their duties. How many will know anything about the greater or smaller questions of the control of traffic? But in time they will learn, or we hope they will. Then when they have learned their duties it is suitable that the Minister should be able to delegate one of their number to inquire into a particular and specific object. Why not? I can see no reason why he should not; and I should have thought it was a good idea to enable the Minister to appoint one member instead of half a dozen.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think the Amendment is a very good one. The noble Viscount-, Lord Long of Wraxall, has stated one objection to the proviso as it stands. There is this further objection. There are only seven members. The Minister desires the opinion of these additional members and he informs these seven that on a certain date they will be asked to attend to give an opinion on certain matters. They are under no obligation to attend, and those who know nothing about the question

1087
probably will not attend. The Minister picks one member, and if the decision arrived at is unpopular what on earth will happen in another place? At once several members will ask questions as to whether or not this decision was arrived at by an interested person, and whether the Minister did not of malice prepense appoint this particular person in order that the decision might be given. I am speaking in the interests of the Lord
Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR: moved, in subsection (6), to omit "Chairman and other." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these words are necessary because the Chairman is no longer an appointed member but an elected member, and is consequently in the same position as all other members.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("Chairman and other").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD PARMOOR: The remaining Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("the Chairman shall go out of office on the day
President and the Labour Government. I wish to prevent them being subjected to the sort of question which in these I circumstances I should ask if I were in another place. I hope he will accept, the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words pro posed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17: Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chelmsford, V.

Faringdon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Arnold, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Ashfield, L.

Newton, L.

Lucan, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Olivier, L.

Riddell, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Long, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Balfour, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Askwith, L.

Pentland, L.

Bradford, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Plumer, L.

Buxton, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Chesterfield, E.

Brownlow, L.

Chichester, E.

Clinton, L.

Raglan, L.

Doncaster, E (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Crawshaw, L.

Redesdale, L.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Shandon, L.

Morton, E.

Emmott, L.

Southwark, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanmore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gainford, L.

Strachie, L.

Harris, L.

Sydenham, L

Allendale, V.

Hemphill, L.

Templemore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lawrence, L.

Terrington, L.

Falkland, V.

Merthyr, L.

Waring, L.

Falmouth, V

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

on which the members of the committee by whom he is elected ordinarily go out of office:").
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("the foregoing provision shall apply to the Chairman with the substitution of 'election' for 'appointment' and of 'elected' for 'appointed'.
"If an ordinary member or an additional member is elected chairman his election shall not create a casual vacancy").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question. Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4:
Closing of streets for works.
(3) With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance

1089
and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers copies of the proposals of the road authorities when received by him under this section so far as they relate to streets to which the powers of the undertakers extend and shah consider any representations made to him by such undertakers; and where works of mad maintenance and improvement involving the closing of a street to such extent as aforesaid have been executed in accordance with any such scheme, it shall not he lawful for any such undertakers within twelve months of completion of those works to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there wore reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute whilst the street or part thereof was closed the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street, and that it is essential that the works should he executed or commenced within the said twelve months.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3), after "closed" ["street so closed"] to insert "without the previous consent of the Minister and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring forward by this Amendment, in part, I think, at the suggestion of the Lord President,, the question of repairing streets at night. I am only following in this case the recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area of 1919, who, in their summary of recommendations, state that evidence has shown, among other things, the need of
"systematisation of road repair, much of which, especially in the main streets, might be carried out at night and at such times as will best meet traffic conditions."
On the Committee stage I elaborated instances, and gave arguments as to why I thought this step should be taken. My noble friend Earl Beauchamp suggested that the clause should be turned round the other way, and that the Minister should be given power, where he thought it advisable, to insist that these repairs should be done at night. I have carried out the noble Earl's suggestion, and, as noble Lords will see if they look at the Paper, I have turned the clause round.
I think it is important that this Amendment should be adopted, because we have all suffered in this way, and traffic will suffer still more if these obstructions continue. Since the Committee stage I have had counted the repairs going on between Hammersmith Broadway and Hyde Park Corner, and I learn that there are now
1090
twenty-six such interruptions to the highway between those two points. I think I am correct in saying that in only one case are the repairs being carried out continuously. In all the other cases the work ceases at about five o'clock in the afternoon, and does not commence next morning until, say, eight o'clock. In other words, when the traffic is least no work is being done upon these road repairs. That, I think, is a scandal at this period. This is only one instance, and I could put before the House other instances equally strong. In the circumstances I ask your Lordships to take my Amendment in its new form, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. It was, I think, the subject of some sympathetic remarks by the Lord President.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("closed") insert ("without the previous consent of the Minister and").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: To appreciate the noble Lord's Amendment we must, I think, also look at the next Amendment, to add words to subsection (3) to give the Minister power to make a condition that work shall be carried out at night.
THE MARQUESS OR SALISBURY: It is really all one Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That is so.
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendment raises the question of work in connection with street repairs being carried on at night. I suppose everyone would desire that, though one member of your Lordships' House suggested that some people would not appreciate the noise at night. I wish all this work could be done at night, but there art two objections. First of all, you have to get people to work at night, and then, as I pointed out, we are dealing here with works by the undertakers.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULLEU: Works done both by public authorities and by undertakers.
LORD PARMOOR: It applies in this case to all works, whether carried out by the road authority or by the statutory undertaker. Is that so?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That is so.
LORD PARMOOR: As regards the great mass of works of this kind, it would be difficult and expensive to have them carried out at night. I am not aware of any objection apart from the practical one, but my information from the Ministry is to the effect that, in their opinion, there would be great difficulty in carrying out all these works by night. The suggestion of the noble Lord might perhaps be put in rather a different way. Powers might be given to the Minister, under the head of Regulations, with the object of seeing how far works of this kind might be carried out at night, and such Regulations would come before your Lordships' House and the other House before the matter was finally settled. The actual obligation goes, I think, rather too far, but I must take your Lordships' decision in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I almost think that if the noble Lord, the Lord President, will look at the words of this Amendment he will see that my noble friend has been more careful than he gave him credit for. My noble friend, I am sure, recognises, as any one of your Lordships would, that to make it obligatory that the work should take place at night would be very difficult. But that is not really suggested by my noble friend's Amendment, which merely gives the Minister power, if he thinks fit, to take such a step. It does nothing more than that. If the Lord President wanted to make it clearer, the words might be "the Minister may if he thinks fit," or something of that sort. We could quite easily alter the words if necessary, but the Amendment is merely designed to give the Minister power to insist upon the work being carried on at night. From that point of view, I think the Lord President will see that this is a valuable power to possess.
It is quite true that it would not be of universal application, and, as the Lord President points out, there might be labour difficulties which would make it impossible, but all those matters would be taken into consideration by the Minister. Where you are dealing with one of these great thoroughfares it is most important to do away with obstructions, and where the Minister had ascertained from persons who could advise him—the local authority and so forth—
1092
that there would be no special difficulty in the way, he might make it an absolute condition of his consent that the work should be carried out at night. I should have thought that this would be a very valuable power, and as, standing at this Box, I have spoken on many occasions in favour of limiting the power of the Minister, I had rather hoped that, when it was proposed to give him additional powers, we should have found that we were pressing against an open door, so far as the Government are concerned.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Lord is the parent of this Amendment, I can claim to be the grandparent, and grandparents being notoriously proud of their offspring, I am as proud as he, if not prouder, of this Amendment. I urge upon the Government the advantage which it confers upon the Minister, and having regard to the approval which has been expressed I trust that the noble and learned Lord opposite will not oppose it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not clear, and I do not think the noble and learned Lord himself was quite certain, whether this Amendment would apply both to the ordinary undertaker and also to the local authority.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord said to the two.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But the noble Lord not being quite so eminent a lawyer as the noble and learned Lord, I should like to ask whether the Government view is the same.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not sure it is my view, to be frank. It is a rather difficult point, and I rather understand that the noble Lord intended the Amendment to apply to both cases. After what the noble Marquess has said the Government will not oppose the Amendment, but I would suggest the addition after the word "may" in the proposed addition to the subsection, of the words "if he thinks fit."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That would be quite clear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Would it be possible for the noble and learned Lord to make sure in his own mind whether it does apply to both parties?
LORD PARMOOR: I will look into the matter again. I quite appreciate the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, at end insert ("and the Minister may if he thinks fit make it a condition on giving his consent under this subsection to the breaking up of the streets that all works in connection therewith shall be carried out at light by commencing the same after the hour of eight in the evening and completing the same by the hour of eight in the morning, and if not then completed by carrying on the same continuously by day and night").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to attach conditions to grant of omnibus licences plying in the city of London and the metropolitan police district.
(2) When licensing an omnibus to ply for hire within the area aforesaid, the licensing authority may, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister given by subsection (8) of Section fourteen of the Roads Act, 1920, attach to any such licence all or any of the following conditions, that is to say:—

(a) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon specified approved routes or any specified parts thereof, but such conditions shall be imposed only on the ground that the omnibus is by reason of its construction or equipment unsuitable for use on such routes or parts thereof;

(b) a condition that the omnibus shall not, without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of genera] application, and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes;

(c) a condition that the omnibus shall not without such consent as aforesaid ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service;

and if any person to whom a licence is granted subject to any such condition fails to comply with the condition, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection the licensing authority may, if they think fit, revoke or suspend the licenco for the omnibus in respect of which the second or subsequent offence was committed.
(7) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the procedure on appeals under this section, and those regulations may provide for the appointment of a person or two or more persons to hold an
1094
inquiry into the subject matter of the appeal and for enabling the person or persons so appointed—

(a) to determine by whom and in what manner the costs of the appeal (including the remuneration of the person or persons appointed to hold the inquiry and any other expenses of the Minister) are to be borne;

(b) to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths;

(c) by order to require any person subject to the payment or tender of the reasonable expenses of attendance to attend as a witness and give evidence or produce any documents in his possession or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry and are such as would be subject to production in a court of law.

If any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement contained in any such order he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that the licensing authority and the Minister, in the exercise of their respective powers under this section, shall have regard to the maintenance of competition in omnibus services, and shall, so far as practicable, prevent my person or persons from obtaining a monopoly of omnibus service on any approved route where, any other person or persons propose to establish or maintain a regular service of omnibuses."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name are really all devoted to the same subject, and are intended to prevent, so far as possible, a monopoly growing up. I told the House in Committee my view as to the danger of this monopoly growing up, and I pointed out that the 600 independent motor omnibuses which are now running were justified and that their service was beneficial to the travelling public. I think I shall shorten time this afternoon if I omit to move the first three of the Amendments on the Paper, and confine my remarks to the Amendment at the end of subsection (2) to insert a proviso that the licensing authority and the Minister shall have regard to the maintenance of competition. With the leave of the House I would like to say what I have to say in moving that Amendment. The Royal Commission, the Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area, and

1095
Lord Ullswater's Commission, in its Report, all lay stress upon the point that the preferential treatment of the "Combine" service would tend to create claims to vested rights. I agree with that, and unless some words such as I have suggested are inserted in this clause there is very grave danger that the Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, will be forced into the position of giving a monopoly to one section only of those who provide public services, and others may be driven off the road.
I say again that I am aware of the improvements made in the London traffic services by Lord Ashfield, but I think this House should be very careful to avoid any monopoly being set up, and to preserve, if possible, the element of competition. My Amendment, in the opinion of those whom I represent, is the best way of preventing any such monopoly growing up and of giving the Minister the power to prevent such a thing happening. I ask your Lordships to consider the Amendment very carefully. I think it will tend to preserve competition, which is important in the interests of the general public, and will not really do any damage to the service of the "Combine," because they have omnibuses enough to continue for a long time as the most powerful item in London traffic.
LORD PARMOOR: The difficulty about this is one that I have already pointed out on the Committee stage. The noble Lord proposes to introduce this Amendment in Clause 6. Clause 6 has nothing to do with what he calls the monopoly question at all. It is a mere licensing clause. The question which he is seeking to raise really arises on Clause 7, which is the traffic clause, and his proposal here is really quite inapplicable to Clause 6. I pointed that out in Committee. We all sympathise with the noble Lord in his desire to prevent what he calls a monopoly, but that question does not arise on this clause.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: There is nothing in this Bill that I know of which prevents any number of omnibuses being allowed to ply on the streets of London, on application to the Minister. He can issue licences for as many omnibuses as he likes, but this Amendment, like one which the noble Lord moved in Committee, and which I did not speak against because I had said so
1096
much already, would have this effect, that any number of what are commonly called "pirate" omnibuses would be allowed to appear in the streets at any moment. So far as the control of the traffic is concerned, that is the worst thing you can think of. Nothing makes more difficulties than that would make. Naturally, everybody would like to see fair competition among omnibuses, in the interests of the public, but now we are considering purely the question of the control of traffic, and if you allow "pirate" omnibuses in any numbers, or impose the necessity on the Minister to issue licences for any number of omnibuses, to appear at any moment they choose, it would make the chaos far worse than it is now.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, will forgive my saying that the omnibuses, next to the tramcars, are the greatest difficulty in the efficient control of traffic in London, chiefly owing to their size, but also owing to their number. If you are going to allow large numbers of extra omnibuses to arrive in London on great occasions, like national festivals, when crowds of people come to London, you will make traffic control practically impossible. At the present moment the omnibuses are very well controlled. The Advisory Committee will be able to find out how many omnibuses are on the roads, when they are running, and when they stop, and it is perfectly easy for them to control them, but if you have extra omnibuses appearing at any moment the owners like, it will be quite impossible to control the traffic efficiently. I should be very much averse from accepting this Amendment.
EARL BUXTON: The noble Earl has misunderstood the aim of this Amendment. There is no question of giving unlimited licence to what he calls the "pirate" omnibuses. What I understand my noble friend desires is to pre-vent the complete monopoly of the streets. On the Second Reading I called the "pirates" "benevolent pirates," and I am in favour of a certain number of them, but it is essential that the present system of uncontrolled licensing should be made much more stringent. That the Bill does. It gives full control to the Minister, and enables him to restrict the numbers. We want unrestricted competition, but we do not want unrestricted monopoly. As

1097
regards the place where this Amendment should come in, the Lord President suggests that it is in Clause 7 instead of Clause 6, and there is some force, I think, in that objection. He is very much in favour of Clause 7, subsection (b), as to the omnibuses of one proprietor. I think he has forgotten that that safeguard, like others, was not in the original Bill. It was put in against the will of the Government, and that and other safeguards have greatly improved the Bill. But I think my noble friend would be well advised when he gets to Clause 7 to strengthen it there rather than to do it here.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LOUD ASKWITH LOUD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "an inquiry" and to insert "a public inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed."
LORD PARMOOR: The Government will not oppose the noble Lord's suggestion. I accept the, Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("an inquiry") and insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 (Power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on, certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district):
LOUD PARMOOR: I have a series of drafting Amendments to this clause. The words are necessary now that the tram-cars have been included. That point was decided on the Committee stage, and I do not wish to raise it again. It is necessary to draw a. distinction between the omnibus, the trolley vehicle, and the tramcar. The Amendments really carry out the decision at which your Lordships arrived.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 26,. after ("omnibus") insert ("trolleyvehicle")
Page 13, line 31, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")
Page 13, line 40, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")
Page 14, line 2, utter ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")
Page 14, line 36, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicle" or tramway ears").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to add to Clause 7 the following new subsection:—
"(6) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may he annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should have liked to move the Amendment in a stronger form, and to have insisted that before any Regulation was made it must meet with the approval of either House or both Houses of Parliament. But I understand that there might be some objection to moving the Amendment in that form, on the ground that members might take advantage of it to raise unnecessary discussion. In the form in which the Amendment is at present it is not of very much use in the other House, unless the Regulation is so bad that there is a very large and strong body of feeling against it. But in your Lordships' House there are better facilities for moving, and therefore I think this form of Amendment may effect some good. A possible objection is that there may be a large number of Regulations to be made, and that this might cause delay. But Clause 7 really only deals with the licensing of omnibuses, and therefore it cannot be said that a very large number of Regulations under it will have to be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: The question here is whether Regulations made under Clause 7 shall be subject to a provision of this character. I want to dissociate that from a question arising later, because there I think the House and the Government are agreed, if not on the actual form, at any rate on the principle of the provision which ought to be in sorted. The objection which the Government have to the insertion of this subsection at this stage is that the sanction of Parliament to Regulations is not suitable to the subject-matter with which

1099
you are dealing in Clause 7. That clause is intended for two purposes—the first is for making orders declaring particular streets to be restricted streets. Is that a matter in which Parliament can give any opinion at all, unless you have some legislation in the nature of Private Bill legislation? The other purpose is to make Regulations with regard to streets which have been declared restricted streets, and restricting the number of omnibuses or tramway cars which may ply thereon. The Minister will consider what omnibuses ought to ply on a particular restricted area, after considering all the conditions and taking any necessary evidence. Is that a matter to come up again for decision in Parliament? It is clear that, if it did, you must hear the parties in order to act fairly. You would have to have something in the nature of Private Bill legislation in order that the parties concerned might be heard. Otherwise, you would have Parliament, on a merely general statement, over-ruling a determination that had been come to, after hearing the parties themselves.
That is the objection which I have to the insertion of these words. I have no objection when we come to Regulations which are of such a character that they ought to be subject to Parliament, both to this House and the other House, and I hope that the form—I do not care what form is adopted exactly—is right. But do not let us make the mistake of making these semi-judicial decisions upon matters which affect different private individuals the subject of Regulations to be submitted to Parliament. If you do I think there ought to be some provision under which those individuals may be heard if the original decision is to be upset. I hope this Amendment will not be insisted upon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that His Majesty's Government have taken this line because we congratulated ourselves upon our own immense moderation in this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion a discussion took place upon a proposal under which an affirmative Resolution would be required for clause 7. But my noble friend has thought fit to take a much more moderate line and has only put forward the ordinary form of a Regulation lying on the Table, and has left it to Parliament
1100
to object. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the great difference that makes. The argument used against us in Committee was that delay would be caused. What was said, in effect, was: "Here are these awful difficulties about the traffic of London, and you are putting into the Bill all sorts of precautions which will lead to infinite delay and, therefore, any emergency which ex hypothesi has to be met will only be met after delay." Under the form in which my noble friend has moved his Amendment, there will be no delay whatever, not even a delay of five minutes. The Regulation of the Minister will take effect immediately. Its further operation will be restricted only if Parliament objects. Everything done under it up to the moment of objection by either House of Parliament will stand good, but from that moment, of course, the will of Parliament will prevail. Therefore, there is no delay whatever under this procedure and the emergency will be met.
The noble and learned Lord has said that this Amendment is not apt to Clause 7. He said that it applied, first, to declaring a street to be a restricted street. That is not so because that is an order under subsection (1). My noble friend's Amendment applies only to Regulations, and Regulations do not appear in subsection (1); they only appear in subsection (2). Therefore the power of Parliament will apply only to subsection (2) of Clause 7. I hope the noble and learned Lord will observe again how immensely moderate we are and that we have cut the Amendment to the bones and to the very last point which we could recommend to Parliament. Then the noble and learned Lord said that the parties ought to have the right to be heard. Does he provide that the parties are to be heard? He proposes that the Minister shall have absolute power in this matter. He does not propose that the parties are to be heard. It is provided at the end of the clause that they shall be informed. That will be good in either case, and whether Parliament intervenes or "not the parties will have been informed. But the tender solicitude of the noble and learned Lord that the parties should be heard is not expressed in his clause as it stands.
LORD PARMOOR: It is intended.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not provided.
LORD PARMOOR: Notice is given.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Notice is given certainly. My point is that if notice is given, that will be good in either case. They will be heard, of course, when the notice is given to them, before the matter is laid before Parliament at all and, therefore, they will not be judged without their case having been heard. Everything, therefore, is provided for—justice, rapidity and, I hope, efficiency. That is where I am a little doubtful. I am not sure that the new subsection as it stands will provide a sufficient check by Parliament. However, I prided myself, and we ventured in your name to pride ourselves, on the moderation we had shown, and I earnestly hope that the Government will accept this Amendment as a compromise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 (Penalties for disobedience to directions of police):
LORD PARMOOR: My Amendment to this clause is entirely a matter of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 27, after("is") insert ("for the time being").—(Lord Parmoor.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to make regulations.
(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation has been laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert the following new subsection:
"(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may he annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything
1102
previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PARMOOR: The only point upon this Amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, proposed subsection (7) as it stands. So far as the Government are concerned, they are really neutral as between his view and that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that he had no objection to his subsection being left out and mine being inserted.
LORD PARMOOR: Then the Government have no objection if Lord Newton has none.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Definitions.
16. For the purpose of this Act unless the content otherwise requires—
The expression "omnibus" includes every omnibus, char-a-banc, wagonette, brake, stage-coach, tramcar, trolley vehicle, or other carriage plying for hire by, or used to carry, passengers at separate fares;
The expression "trolley vehicles" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads without rails and moved by power transmitted thereto from some external source;
LORD PARMOOR: The three Amendments which stand in my name in regard to the definitions of "omnibus" and "trolley vehicles" are drafting Amend ments, and I beg to move them.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 14, leave out ("tramcar, trolley vehicle.")
Page 20, line 14, after ("carriage" insert ("not being a trolley vehicle or tramway car.")
Page 20, line 14, line 20, at end insert ("the expression 'tramway car' includes any carriage used on any street or road in the London traffic area by virtue of an order made under the Light Railways Act, 1890;").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17:
Short title and commencement.
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" and insert "nineteen hundred and thirty-three." The noble Lord said: In view of the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend, Lord Askwith, I do not move my Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" and insert "nineteen hundred and thirty." The noble Lord said If the date remains as it stands in the Bill—1927—these authorities will not have time to settle down and the Act will not have a fair chance. There has been a great deal of talk about making it "in perpetuity," but if it remains in force until 1930 some chance will be given of seeing how the thing works and what Amendment", if any, should be made in it. That will not be the case if it comes to an end in 1927. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 2, leave out ("nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert ("nineteen hundred and thirty").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. It was explained in another place that the Bill was a stop-gap measure and experimental in character. I hope that your Lordships will not alter the date. Should the experiment prove satisfactory, no doubt it will be canned on. This point was raised during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and the Amendment was negatived by a very small majority—by 19 votes to 17—but it was negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That was in regard to nine years—not six.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, raised the point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; but it was in reference to nine years.
LORD PARMOOR: It was not a question of whether it was nine years, or three years, or six years. The view of the Government was that this was a temporary Bill. Certainly it is an experimental Bill, and if the experiment turns out successful I have not the slightest doubt that it will be continued. Still, it was looked upon as being an experimental Bill. It is not a very big matter. I do not want to say it is a point upon which the whole fortunes of the Bill depend: at the same time, the Government think that the basis on which they introduced the Bill and on which it was discussed in the other House should be maintained—namely, that it is a bill of a temporary character.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, we have heard several times the expression that this is a stop-gap Bill, but I should like to remind the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, that the Minister of Transport was strongly averse from having a time limit-to it. If any one takes the trouble to read the debates they will see that the Minister of Transport was most insistent upon the fact that it was very important there should be no time limit to the Bill. I have noticed, reading the debates, that the Minister of Transport, in spite of his democratic characteristics, was extremely anxious on many occasions to do the right thing. It was only when he was too much bullied by his own Party, the Labour Party, and by the Progressive members of the London County Council, that he was forced to give way. In this particular instance he was evidently overborne by these gentlemen, and if I am not mistaken he voted against the time limit when the Division took place in the House of Commons. I hope that my noble friend will adhere to the Amendment. I certainly will support him.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, in Committee this question was raised, and we decided by a majority of two to leave the date at 1927, and, so far as I am concerned, I see no reason why we should change that decision. Supposing that this Bill is a success, when 1927 comes there is nothing whatever to prevent it being renewed, for all time if necessary. I am not surprised that the Minister of Transport wanted it for

1105
all time, because that would perpetuate his office, and my desire is to do away with as many of these superfluous offices as we possibly can. My noble friend Lord Newton is so afraid that the Bill, if it comes into being, will be a failure, that he wants to prevent anybody before 1927 saying: "This Act is a failure; let us alter it." There can be no earthly reason why we should not for three years see what is going to happen—whether we are going to be dragooned out of our lives, and monopoles set up, or whether this experiment is going to be a success. I shall vote as I did in the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I quite understand my noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam) voting for the shorter period, because he is against the Bill altogether. Therefore, he wants the evil thing only to go on for a certain limited time. Perhaps he will allow me to say, as an ex-Minister of Transport, that I am not so enthusiastic as he is about the destruction of that valuable office. I only want to say a few words on this Amendment. The Bill has been described as an experiment, and I think an experiment ought to have a fair trial. I submit to your Lordships—and I speak with some knowledge of London's transport—that it really is quite impossible for this Bill properly to function in so short a period as that proposed in this clause. It must take some little time before this Committee is set up. At the utmost it can only have two and a half years to run, and if the members of this Committee know that their period of life may be cut off so rapidly they will not be able to commence and develop those schemes for the improvement of London's traffic that we wish to see. We shall have the whole thing over again. We have been trying to get a scheme for London traffic for the last twenty years, and we are always being defeated. Now, at the last moment, when we have a Bill to deal with it, that Bill is to come to an end in two and a half years. If you do that you will destroy the whole value of the experiment. You will prevent Parliament knowing what might have been done if you had given a little longer time.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not going to oppose the extension of time if that is the general view of the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule (Particular matters which shall be referred to the Advisory Committee):
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to substitute "may" for "shall" in the heading to the Schedule. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment on the Second Schedule is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had several Amendments on the Paper relating to the Second Schedule. The noble Lord said: I do not think that I need move any of the Amendments, because the Amendments that we have adopted deciding that the additional members should not take part in matters in which they have a pecuniary interest meet my point. I need not trouble the House with these Amendments.
Third Schedule (Purposes or Matters for or with respect to which regulations \may be made by the Minister):
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after the fifth clause, to insert:—
"(6) For proscribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description either generally or on streets of any class or description: Provided that where more than one trailer is drawn a man shall be carried on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I think will have the sympathy of your Lordships. We must all have experienced the trouble of driving behind lorries, or some other vehicles, which wore drawing one or more trailers and of being unable to attract the attention of the driver so as to pass them. In the case of one trailer what I desire by my Amendment is not so necessary, but in the case of two trailers I submit there ought to be someone on the hindmost vehicle who could communicate with the driver in regard to following traffic which wanted to pass. What I propose by my Amendment is already in operation in the form of bylaws in several counties, and I think we could well put it into the Bill. Since I put down my Amendment it has been brought to my notice that Section 1 of

1107
the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, legalised motor cars and heavy motor cars as distinguished from locomotives, and permitted a motor vehicle not exceeding two tons in weight unladen, drawing one trailer, to be treated as a motor car. I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether that is so. Whatever the legal point may be, we know that unless you have an attendant on the second trailer the traffic is apt to be blocked, because the man who is driving the leading vehicle does not know that you are overtaking him, and you cannot make him know. I am informed that this Amendment has the full support of the Transport Workers' Union, who think that it is a scandal that two trailers should be allowed to be on the road in charge of only one man driving, and with no means of communicating to him what traffic is overtaking him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: The real point, I think, has been stated by the noble Lord himself. The question is that the general law is laid down in the Locomotive Act, 1896, and in the Motor Oar Acts and Orders which are made thereunder. Therefore, if you give this particular power as part of this Bill you would have two statutory directions, which might be decided under differing conditions. It was on consideration of that point that these words were deleted in the other House. There can be no objection to what the noble Lord wants, but I think it will raise complications, because you have an existing law and existing machinery for dealing with these very matters, and that law and machinery might be inconsistent with the decision given under this Bill. I will leave the matter in your Lordships' hands, hoping that-the Amendment will not be inserted. It would only produce complications.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I agree entirely with the Amendment with this exception, that I wish the noble Lord would exclude the second trailer. It would be more advisable to insist on a man being on the trailer if only one is being towed by a motor lorry. It is just as impossible for the driver to see what is going on behind him with one trailer
1108
as it is with two, and if the noble Lord could alter the Amendment in that respect I should be glad. The danger and the difficulty are just as great with one trailer as with two.
EARL BUXTON: I understand from the Lord President that this matter is dealt with under Statute elsewhere. That may be so, and I am glad to hear it. But so far as my experience goes its effect is very small. These trailers are an unmitigated nuisance and a danger to traffic. The whole object of this Bill is to deal with traffic difficulties and the Amendment would be very useful, it would do no harm at all. I do not like the words of the proviso in the Amendment, and perhaps the noble Lord may be able to see his way to alter them a little.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble and learned Lord might allow us to put this Amendment in now and then, if there is any reason to question it hereafter, it can be referred to on the Third Beading. Like the noble Earl who has just spoken I have a slight objection to the form of the proviso. I think it might run something like this: "Provided that the Regulations shall prescribe that s man shall be carried at the rear of the trailer."
LORD PARMOOR: In reference to what the noble Marquess has said, if it is clearly understood that should further objections be entertained this question will be reconsidered, then I do not object to the insertion of the Amendment now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put the Amendment in its amended form:— Page 26, line 8, at end insert "(6) For prescribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description either generally or on streets of any class or description: Provided that the regulations shall prescribe that a man shall be carried on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver."
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I propose to put down the Third Reading for Wednesday.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (MEASURING INSTRUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in moving that the House do go into Committee, I should like to mention one matter. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, asked me at the end of a long sitting on Tuesday last whether the Regulations to be made under this Bill are to be laid upon the Table and passed unless a Resolution of both Houses is passed against them. Quite inadvertently I answered him wrongly Regulations made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, are submitted to Parliament, and, therefore, the same procedure will apply to Regulations made under this Bill. If the noble Earl will look at the Memorandum attached to the Bill he will see that it is referred to in terms. I regret the inaccuracy.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, this is an annual Bill, the Second Beading of which is moved formally in your Lordships' House. The main purpose of the Bill is to fix the maximum amount which may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners for the purpose of local loans. The capital required is provided by the issue of three per cent, local stock.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, before the House adjourns I desire to protest against the manner in which I have been treated this afternoon in connection with the Public Health (Smoke Abatement.) Bill. It is extremely inconvenient after making arrangements to come down here, collecting one's friends and opponents, to be suddenly informed that the Bill is not to be taken. I was so taken by surprise that I did not protest at the time. I desire to do so now, and at the same time to receive a definite statement from the Government as to when the Bill actually will be taken.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret the fact in one sense, but not in another, because business has gone through more quickly than I anticipated. I thought it would necessitate our coming back after dinner, a step which I think your Lordships desire to avoid if possible. I mentioned earlier that the Bill in which the noble Lord is so much interested will be taken on Friday.

THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: My Lords, may I say one word about the Committee for Privileges which has interested the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, this afternoon? He appreciates the fact that we do not want to obstruct the business of the House in any way and the arrangement I have been able to make for to-morrow's sitting are that the Committee should sit, as it has been allowed to sit before, in the Conference Room, or "Moses Room." Your Lordships will realise that this is a busy time of year, and I am anxious to conclude those two cases to-morrow, if I can. I should be sorry, therefore, to lose an hour's work. I suggest that we should be allowed to sit until a quarter to four in that room, and I would ask your Lordships to be a little patient with those members of the House who are attending the Committee, and who may arrive half an hour late.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for rising immediately after

1111
the noble Earl. I do so on account of an observation of mine made, perhaps, without proper respect for the high office which my noble friend holds. So far as I am concerned, and if I speak for anybody else in your Lordships' House, I am sure that we shall readily fall in with the wishes of my noble friend.

DUKEDOM OF SOMERSET.
A witness to attend the Committee for Privileges to-morrow, and to produce a document.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BLACKPOOL ORDER) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(Lord Arnold.)
PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(Lord Arnold.)
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Commons Reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment to be considered on Friday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be printed, and to be considered on Wednesday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.