Sitting of 24 June 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Southend Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST).
Copy ordered, "of Statement showing the Gross and Net total Cost of the Civil Services and Revenue Departments and the Army, Navy and Air Services for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1923."—[Mr. William Graham.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DYESTUFFS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade the relative proportion of the total manufacture of dyestuffs in Great Britain produced by the British Dyestuffs Corporation and other competing manufacturers, respectively, in this country for the years 1921 and 1923?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I regret that I am not in a position to give the information desired. The Board of Trade have no power to require manufacturers to furnish details of their production, and though returns are made voluntarily by a number of concerns, including the British Dyestuffs Corporation, no such information is supplied by some important undertakings. In any event, a comparison of mere totals
    216
    would be misleading in the absence of any uniform practice on the part of makers as to standards of strength.
    Mr. G. WHITE: How can the Board of Trade intelligently consider the proposed agreement between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the Interessen Gemeinschaft unless they have this information?
    Mr. WEBB: I can only say the Board of Trade is able to form certain estimates of production, and before any decision is arrived at on the subject of the question, it is possible that further information may be obtained.
    Mr. BLACKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that no synthetic indigo dye is allowed to be imported into the United Kingdom through other than Government channels, he will state the quantity of synthetic indigo imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1923; what was the total value at which such importations were credited to the German indemnity account; what was the total value at which such importations were debited to the Dyestuffs Corporation; to what purpose has the difference in value been applied; and what was the total value received by the British Dyestuffs Corporation for the sale of such importations?
    Mr. WEBB: It is believed that the total importation of synthetic indigo during 1923 amounted to 413 tons. With regard to the remaining parts of the question, I think the hon. Member has in mind a special transaction. No reparation dyestuffs are normally sold to the British Dyestuffs Corporation, but in 1922, with the approval of the users, a special transaction was entered into to sell to the Corporation a quantity of 333 tons of synthetic indigo dye which was requisitioned from Germany. In the absence of complete returns from the Reparation Commission the Board are unable to furnish the value in sterling This special parcel of indigo was sold to the British Dyestuffs Corporation at cost plus freight and charges plus 5 per cent. on the gross cost. The difference between cost and selling price will be brought to account by the Board in the Reparation Dyestuffs Trading Account. With the approval of indigo users in this country the Corporation agreed to re-sell these dyes in combination with a quantity

    217
    of their own products at prices not to exceed 1s. 3d. per 1b. in the case of sales to large consumers. That transaction has not been repeated.

    TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the export and import trade, respectively, done between this country and Russia during the months of April and May last?
    Mr. WEBB: The exports from the United Kingdom registered as consigned to Russia were valued at £89,326 in April and £143,213 in May in the case of domestic produce and manufactures, and £280,724 and £242,052, respectively, in the case of foreign and colonial merchandise. The imports into the United Kingdom registered as consigned from Russia were valued at £877,650 in April and £721,883 in May.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
    Sir JOHN PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state when the division will begin of the £300,000 set aside for belated reparation claims?
    Mr. WEBB: I regret that it is not possible to fix a date when the distribution of the £300,000 will be begun. The assessment of the large number of claims received is proceeding with all possible dispatch, and the distribution will be made as soon as practicable.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even a delay of a few days is a matter of great misfortune to thousands of those concerned?
    Mr. AYLES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the fact that claims have been in for so long, that it would be wise to employ further people to expedite the settlement of the claims?
    Mr. MILLS: Is it the policy of the President of the Board of Trade to rule out the claims of those people whose properties were destroyed and who were not insured under the Government scheme?
    Mr. WEBB: I am afraid, with regard to the last question, it is not possible to deal at all fairly with it, inside the limits
    218
    of an answer. It is not quite true to state that the Commission ruled out all properties which were not insured—it is more complicated than that. With regard to the question of staff, I may say that a very considerable staff has been employed since 1st June upon these claims alone. I have given consideration to the question of whether an even larger staff could not usefully be employed and, on that point, I am bound to say I have not been able to see my way to ask for a larger staff, because this is business of a kind which cannot be dealt with by inexperienced clerks. I believe the work is going on as expeditiously as is possible with a mass of 35,000 claims. With regard to the question as to the few days' delay which is of such importance to these poor people, I am sorry to say the delay has been a long one but I am not responsible for it. We are tackling this matter with the utmost possible despatch and I hope we can begin the distribution in the Autumn, probably in October.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have already spent a very long time on this question.

    COASTGUARD COTTAGES, CANVEY ISLAND.
    Mr. HOFFMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are eight coastguard cottages standing empty on Canvey Island, Essex; and if, in view of the need for adequate housing accommodation, he will take steps to let the cottages at reasonable rents?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the last part in the negative. The cottages are in the auctioneer's hands for sale by public auction, which it is anticipated will take place during the next few weeks.
    Mr. HOFFMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the working classes need houses to let, not houses to sell?
    Mr. AMMON: These houses will be sold in order that they may be let by the people who buy them.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    ASIATIC SEAMEN.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether all Lascars signed on the ships on passage to this country are signed on the so-called Lascar agreement, by which the owners are liable for providing passages back to India for the Lascars; and whether any similar obligation is imposed on owners who sign on Arabs and other Asiatics other than Lascars?
    Mr. WEBB: In the case of all native seamen shipped in India, Ceylon, Aden or in the Straits Settlements there is an obligation to repatriate, and this obligation is also often inserted in agreements opened at Chinese ports. Apart from this, Asiatic seamen arriving in this country who are unable to prove British nationality may be, and generally are, refused permission to land and are sent back at the expense of the ship.
    Mr. J. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make these return passages applicable to all coloured races; and is he not aware that in certain ports there are crowds of coloured people, setting up grave social conditions, and that it generally falls upon private charity to get them home again?
    Mr. WEBB: I will certainly inquire. The effect of my answer is that the obligation of repatriation is in practice on the shipowners already.

    LIFEBOAT WORK EXAMINATIONS (FEES).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade what sums were realised in 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively, from the fees of sailors under examination for lifeboat work; what was the cost of the examining officers for the same years; and whether he can now see his way to abolishing this charge?
    Mr. WEBB: The receipts from fees for examinations for certificates as lifeboatmen were, in the financial years 1921–22, 1922–23, and 1923–24, respectively, £11 5s., £382 2s., and £1,649 2s. It is not possible to give the exact cost of this particular service, but it certainly exceeded the amount of the fees. The Board of Trade were able to reduce the fee on 1st May from 2s. to 1s., which is well below the cost of the service, but I am afraid it is not possible to go further.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is an imposition upon the men, who can only do this when they are out of work; and will he make representations to the Treasury to see if the fee cannot be waived?
    Mr. WEBB: I will see whether anything further can be done.

    RUSSIAN CLAIMS DEPARTMENT.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons are at present employed in the Russian Claims Department; and what time he estimates to be necessary for the completion of the investigation of these claims and their classification so that they may be submitted to the Soviet Government?
    Mr. WEBB: The number of persons on the whole-time staff of the Russian Claims Department is three, with the addition of such assistance as is required from time to time from the staff of the Clearing Office. The claims have already been classified, and particulars of the amounts claimed in the various categories have been furnished to the Soviet delegation. With regard to their further investigation, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Erdington on the 18th June, a copy of which I am sending him.

    REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT, 1916.
    Mr. HINDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of prosecutions directed and convictions obtained during the last three years for offences against the provisions of the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916; and what proportion of such offenders were aliens?
    Mr. WEBB: As the answer to this question is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The number of prosecutions directed by the Board of Trade during the last three years for offences against the provisions of the Registration of Business

    221
    Names Act, 1916, is 32, involving the issue of 42 summonses. The result of these prosecutions may be stated shortly as follows:
    Twenty-six convictions were obtained, 6 summonses withdrawn, for various reasons, 3 summonses dismissed, 3 summonses not served because the defendants could not be traced. Two summonses were dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act, and in two cases the defendants were bound over, but ordered to pay the costs. The number of aliens who were convicted in the foregoing proceedings was two.
    In addition to the prosecutions directed by the Board of Trade, proceedings have in numerous cases been taken by the local police authorities throughout the country, but I have no information as to the nationality of the defendants in those proceedings, or the result.

  SCOTLAND.

    AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATION, ORKNEY ISLANDS.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is now able to give the Report promised some time ago upon the development and results of agricultural co-operation in the Orkney Islands?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson); In the Debate on the 26th March my hon. Friend made an interesting statement on the successful results of agricultural co-operation in Orkney. I have requested the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to arrange for the collection of information on the subject. When the information is received, I will consider the best method of making it available.

    FISHING GEAR.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has under consideration any plan to enable poor fishermen to obtain the 50 per cent. of the purchase price of the gear which is necessary before they can take advantage of the Government scheme?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I do not anticipate any modification of the terms of the scheme being made, but I would point out that under those terms a considerable
    222
    proportion of the fishermen will be entitled to loans of 75 per cent. of the price of the nets.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to come to some arrangement with the industry which manufactures the nets, whereby some credit could be given to these men?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless arrangements are made to provide for the case of the men who cannot put down cash, the scheme will certainly fail to meet the case of the needy men?
    Mr. ADAMSON: In order to meet the case of the needy men, 75 per cent. of the total cost is being provided in such cases as those to which the two hon. Members have alluded.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In order to come under the scheme, must the applicant live north of the Tweed? Is it confined to Scotland?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I think the hon. and gallant Member knows very well that it is confined to Scotland.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland what steps he is proposing to take to prevent a rise in the prise of fishing gear as a result of the purchase of gear under the Government's scheme?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I made a statement in the Debate on the 28th May, with a view to making it plain that the Government expected the net makers to refrain from any action which would lead to unreasonable prices being charged as a result of the assistance to be rendered by the Government. This question has been, and is being, carefully watched by the Fishery Board, and they have reason to believe that nets will be available at a reasonable price, not in excess of the rate which was current when the adoption of the scheme was announced.
    Major COLFOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he, like his right hon. Friend, is able to stop the operation of the law of supply and demand?

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is yet in a position

    223
    to state when he proposes to introduce his Bill to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was introduced yesterday.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether financial assistance has been applied for or given by local authorities under the provisions of Section 2 of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, in the case of houses erected in connection with small holdings and land settlement schemes in Scotland; if so, in how many cases such assistance has been rendered; and whether, under the Government's new housing proposals, it is proposed to continue to local authorities the power to render assistance by way of grant or otherwise in such cases?
    Mr. ADAMSON: As regards the first and second parts of the question, 31 certificates approving for subsidy purposes under the Housing Act of 1923 plans of houses to be erected by smallholders have been issued by local authorities. No certificates have been issued in connection with houses included in land settlement schemes. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) on the 17th instant.
    Mr. MILLAR: May we take it that under the new proposals no provision is going to be made for these small landholders?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The grant for small landholders does not come under the new Housing Bill.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland the number of small landholders settled on land acquired by the Forestry Commissioners in Scotland since the establishment of the Commission in 1919, and the number of small landholders settled under joint schemes framed by the Scottish Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commissioners during the same period?
    Mr. ACLAND: I have been asked to reply to this question. Three statutory small landholders have been settled on land acquired by the Forestry Com-
    224
    missioners in Scotland since the establishment of the Commission. Under the joint schemes, 49 new holdings have been created and 23 enlargements.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS).
    Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland the amounts outstanding due to local authorities in Scotland in respect of schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee; and when it is proposed to make payment of the sums due to these local authorities?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that in respect of schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee on the basis of a grant of 60 per cent. of the wages bill, a total sum of, approximately, £1,000 may ultimately be payable on claims which have been submitted. In respect of approved schemes on the basis of a grant towards loan charges, only a few claims, representing a small amount, are undisposed of. In both cases payment will be made when a final settlement of the amounts has been made with the local authorities. In a considerable number of cases, claims have not yet been submitted by the local authorities.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when payment will be made in the cases of the local authorities who have submitted their claims?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: May I ask if, included in these few, there happens to be the scheme of the Kirkcaldy Corporation, in which a sum of £80,000 is involved, and if the negotiations are not being carried on by the Member for the burgh with the Unemployment Grants Committee and are due to have a satisfactory settlement?
    Mr. ADAMSON: My information, in regard to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), is that very little is outstanding regarding the cases put by him. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), that is a matter which is being discussed with another Department, and I would rather not enter into a discussion of it.

    FOXES (BERWICKSHIRE).
    Mr. SPENCEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the

    225
    terms of his letter of 22nd May, 1924, relative to foxes in Berwickshire and the repudiation of responsibility on the part of the Berwickshire Hunt to pay compensation to the smallholders of Lamberton, owing to their boundary line being over three miles from that place, he will declare foxes to be vermin within a three-mile radius of Lamberton so as to permit of their extermination by those who suffer from their depredations?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have no power to make any Order in this matter, either generally or as regards any particular area, but I am advised that foxes may be regarded as vermin, and they may, therefore, be destroyed as such.

    AFFORESTATION, HOLY LOCH.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland the numbers of persons employed on the sheep farms on the Holy Loch, purchased by the firm of Bryant and May, Limited, and now in process of afforestation; and if he can say how the figures compare with the numbers employed on the same lands prior to their purchase for afforestation?
    Mr. ACLAND (for the Forestry Commissioners): I have been asked to reply. The Forestry Commissioners have been informed by Bryant and May, Limited, that the number of persons employed on the land on the Holy Loch purchased by them for afforestation is 27, and that prior to their purchase of the land the number employed thereon was, they understand, four in the winter and seven in the summer.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people are being given temporary employment in addition to the numbers given permanent employment by Messrs. Bryant and May?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, but I will inquire, and let the hon. Member know.

    MILITARY MANŒVRES, NEW FOREST (COMMONERS' RIGHTS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what compensation is to be paid to those Commoners of the New Forest whose grazing and other rights are being damaged by the contemplated military manœuvres arranged to take place in that district during August and September next?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): An agreement has been made with the Verderers of the New Forest, providing for the payment of compensation to the Commoners for any interference with their rights or injury to their stock. Compensation officers are being appointed, who will personally investigate claims and, where possible, settle them on the spot.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Could the hon. Gentleman state by what date these claims have to be sent in?
    Mr. LAWSON: No, I could not at this moment. The fact is that there are two agreements in respect of this matter, one between the Verderers and the Secretary of State, and one between the Verderers and the local command. The latter one deals with considerable detail, but I do not think there is any difficulty about the date at all.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that, though these Verderers do ably represent the Commoners in many respects, the Commoners have private claims, and I hope he will not rule out a private claim by a Commoner simply because the Verderers have made a separate agreement with the War Office?
    Mr. LAWSON: I will bear that in mind I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in 1908, I think it was, similar manœuvres or training on a small scale took place, and on that occasion there was a quite satisfactory arrangement made on the question, and I do not think there is any doubt that the same will be the case on this occasion.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    NATIONAL AGREEMENT, SOMERSET.
    Mr. FREDERICK GOULDasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain colliery owners in the Somerset coalfield are refusing to comply with the terms of the new national agreement; and, in view of the owners' threat to close certain of these mines, what steps he proposes to take to save this possible loss of employment, coal, and capital to the nation?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I understand that the Mining Association and Miners' Federation are jointly making every effort to secure due observance of the terms of the wages agreement; and that a meeting is being held this afternoon between representatives of owners and workpeople in Somerset to discuss the difficulties that have arisen in that district, and, I hope, to remove them.
    Mr. AYLES: Does that conference which is taking place this afternoon also apply to the Bristol coalfield, which is equally suffering from the trouble mentioned in the question?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that the question of the difficulty in the Bristol district is also a subject of discussion.
    Mr. GOULD: Will the Department which the hon. Member represents, or some representative on his behalf, be attending that conference?
    Mr. SHINWELL: No. This is a conference between the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, and it would serve no useful purpose to intervene.

    DISPUTE, LOANEND.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the present position of the strike at Dechmont colliery, Loanend?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that the colliery is still idle.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the Miners' Federation officials are doing in this matter, and whether any steps are being taken to bring this dispute to an end?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot control the Miners' Federation.
    Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact that pressure is continually being brought to bear upon certain workmen to compel them, against their will, to join the unions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not before the House.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTORISTS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to
    228
    announce the result of his examination of the question of compelling motorists to insure against accidents; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on the same subject on the 20th May. The practical and administrative difficulties are very considerable, and, in any case, legislation would not be possible at present.

    ARTERIAL ROADS (TREE PLANTING).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to permit the use of the Road Fund for the purpose of planting trees along the new arterial roads of the country, and to permit local authorities to spend money on tree-planting alongside the roads within their jurisdiction?
    Mr. GOSLING: I informed the right hon. and gallant Member on the 13th May that I was seeking an opportunity to introduce a short Bill dealing with this and one or two other uncontroversial matters. I still have hopes that this may be possible even during the present Session.

    LIVERPOOL-MANCHESTER ROAD.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Transport what is the present position of the negotiations between the Ministry of Transport and the local authorities with reference to the construction of the Liverpool to Manchester road?
    Mr. GOSLING: Negotiations are still in progress. In order to ensure that the most advantageous line shall be adopted for the proposed road, having regard to possible mining developments, I am obtaining from an eminent mining engineer a report, which will, I hope, serve to expedite the discussion.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the attitude now of the Lancashire County Council and Liverpool in respect to this road; is he aware that the time is going on, and unless something is done we shall have the work carried on to the winter, and the unemployed still waiting?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am anxious to expedite the work, but it must be done properly, and it is very important to have the view of this mining expert.
    Colonel ASHLEY: When the hon. Gentleman says that it must be done properly, has he in mind the fact that negotiations have been going on now for over two years? [HON. MEMBERS: "What was your party doing?"]
    Mr. REMER: Is it not the fact that the chief opposition comes from the Manchester City Council?
    Mr. GOSLING: I do not want to blame anybody yet.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
    Sir EDWARD ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport what is the approximate estimated cost of the sections of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road within the counties of Linlithgow and Midlothian respectively; and what is the contribution these counties are making towards the cost of the work?
    Mr. GOSLING: The sections of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road within the counties of Linlithgow and Midlothian are estimated to cost £745,000 and £116,000 respectively. Contributions will be made by the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, as unemployed men drawn from these two cities will be engaged on the work. The two counties mentioned, while not assisting the scheme financially, will be prepared to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the road when completed.

    DANGEROUS LEVEL CROSSINGS.
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to give power to his Department or to local authorities to compel railway companies to provide footbridges over dangerous level crossings?
    Mr. GOSLING: I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. I would remind him that the provision of footbridges at level crossings would usually be of the nature rather of a convenience than of a necessary precaution.
    Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases there is great danger? The railway companies absolutely refuse to do anything of this kind. Can he take steps to see that something should be done?
    Mr. AYLES: Will the Minister, seeing that the companies refuse, consider the question of the nationalisation of the railways so that the community can look after its own interests?
    Mr. MITCHELL: Would the hon. Gentleman institute an inquiry and have a Report?
    Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that men who use the level crossings very often lose as much as 20 minutes out of their dinner hour in waiting for a train to go through, and that a footbridge would obviate this?

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that fast-moving traffic is frequently held up for long intervals in main thoroughfares during the busiest time of the day by hand carts, donkey carts, lorries, and other slow-moving vehicles; and will he consider the possibility of putting such regulations in force as will ameliorate or remove this evil?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have at present no powers in the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I did not hear the answer of the hon. Gentleman; may I have it?
    Mr. GOSLING: I did not give any, except that I have no powers.
    Captain BRASS: Will the hon. Gentleman have powers in the new Traffic Bill?
    Mr. GOSLING: When I get it.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole object of motor omnibuses is to speed up the traffic?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter will doubtless be discussed this afternoon, when the Bill is before the House. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will help it to get through?

    CONCRETE ROADS (SURFACE).
    Captain BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the grave risks run by all motor traffic travelling on the new concrete roads in wet weather; and whether, in view of this danger to the public, he

    231
    will consider the question of cancelling contracts for such roads and substituting therefor contracts for roads with a less slippery surface?
    Mr. GOSLING: A slight degree of slipperiness in certain states of the weather is, I fear, part of the price we have to pay for the smooth, durable surface which modern traffic demands. I am not aware that concrete roads are peculiar in this respect, and I see no grounds for advocating the cancellation of contracts.
    Captain BRASS: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of putting down a surface in some way like that put down in the United States?
    Captain Viscount EDNAM: Would the hon. Gentleman consider inviting the contractors to use the very admirable method used on the Great North Road of rolling the surface when the tar is slightly wet with a corrugated roller?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am advised that there is nothing particularly wrong. If hon. Members will give me specific cases I will deal with them.
    Captain BRASS: Will the hon. Gentleman come for a drive with me in my motor car on one of the roads, and I will illustrate what I mean?
    HON. MEMBERS: He would be afraid to trust himself with you.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently a lorry conveying workmen went through the hedge on this Great North Road owing to the slippery condition of the road, and that a special notice had to be put up?
    Mr. B. SMITH: Would the hon. Gentleman consider enforcing a skid on one front wheel, as is now applied to the licensed vehicles in London?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should give their experiences to the Minister in private.
    Mr. SMITH: They would be helpful, I assure you, Sir.

    SPRINGHEAD LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, HULL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the management of the
    232
    London and North Eastern Railway Company are proposing to close down the Springhead Locomotive Works at Hull, which serves the Hull and Barnsley section of the line, to discharge a large number of the men, and to transfer the remainder to Darlington; that the works employ 250 men; that all the young apprentices will be thrown on to the streets and thus lose their chance of becoming skilled workers; and that, with regard to the men's proposed transfer to Darlington, there is little housing accommodation available in Darlington, and that will mean that the men must leave their families at Hull and go into lodgings in Darlington, which will mean extra expense on all concerned; and whether, in view of the state of employment, he will bring his influence to bear upon the railway company concerned to reconsider this policy, at any rate, until trade improves or, alternatively, will he suggest the taking over of the works by the Government for the use of the State?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am aware that the London and North Eastern Railway Company propose to close down the Springhead Locomotive Works at Hull, and to concentrate at their Darlington works the locomotive work in the company's north eastern area. The railway company state that they have endeavoured to secure that these arrangements, which have been in contemplation since the amalgamation of the Hull and Barnsley Railway with the North Eastern Railway in 1922, shall be carried out so as to involve as little hardship to individuals as is possible in the circumstances, and that positions will be found for all of the apprentices. The company realise that there are difficulties connected with the housing question, and the men who have been offered positions in another town have been promised the payment of a lodging allowance for a period, together with free conveyance by rail of their household furniture. There are, however, about 80 men, who have joined the company's service within quite recent years, for whom, so far as can be seen at present, the company fear they will not be able to find vacant positions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, when he talks about compensation being offered to these men, that all that is offered is 15s. for two weeks and 7s. for three months,

    233
    that the most inexpensive lodgings available in Darlington are 25s. a week, and that many of these men are ex-service men; and will he ask the company to postpone this matter until trade is better and employment can be found for them?
    Lieut. - Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the railway company to delay the closing of these works, which will obviously cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering and hardship in the city?
    Mr. LUMLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is believed that the closing of the Springhead works and the use of a single works for the whole of the North-Eastern district will still further curtail the bad goods services about which he has received so many complaints, and cannot he inquire into that before these works are closed?
    Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: Is it not a fact that one of the main reasons put forward in favour of the Railways Bill was that the railway companies should be enabled to concentrate their shops and so effect considerable economies for the benefit of everyone concerned?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the case that those who advocated the passing of that Bill declared that it would help to relieve unemployment?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have answered the Question on the Paper as well as I was able, but I have been asked since to see some representatives of these men, and, while I cannot say that I can do anything for them, I will listen to them, and if I can help them I will do so.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the railway company might themselves build houses for their men? If the agriculturist can house his workers, why cannot the railway company do so?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the £60,000,000 compensation was given to the railway companies, they promised that it would be a means of providing more employment, while this is going directly to throw men out of work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

    RAILWAY SERVICE, GLASGOW AND LONDON.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Transport if he will make inquiry into the number of passengers carried on the London, Midland and Scottish trains between Glasgow and London and vice versa; whether the number of trains has been reduced; and is he aware that in many trains the third-class passenger accommodation is very inadequate?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have received no recent complaints of inadequate accommodation in the trains between Glasgow and London, but I am making inquiries into the matter. It would assist me if my hon. Friend could furnish me with any specific information he may have on the point.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the Minister of Transport aware that, when the Bill of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company came before this House, they promised the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. Turner) that they would provide lavatory accommodation on the third-class trains between Liverpool and Bradford, that they have not done so, and that there is an express journey of over two hours without any lavatory accommodation whatever for third-class passengers?
    Mr. HANNON: In point of fact, has not every single complaint that has been made to the London, Midland and Scottish Company been immediately attended to?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the opening of the Wembley Exhibition, the company, instead of increasing their train service, have withdrawn the last train from Glasgow to London and vice versa, decreasing their trains from four each evening instead of increasing them, and thereby causing the unemployment about which we hear so much?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am not aware of that, but if hon. Members will give me specific information I will deal with it.

    RAILWAYS COMPENSATION ACCOUNT.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport if he will state, approximately, how much of the £60,000,000 granted in 1921 to the railway companies still remains unspent by them on repairs and replenishment of rolling stock, per-

    235
    manent way, and other works for which the money was granted; and what action his Department has taken in order that the companies should put all necessary work in hand at once?
    Mr. GOSLING: The hon. Member will Observe from Section 11 (4) of the Railways Act, 1921, of which I am sending him a copy, that the lump sum of £60,000,000 may be applied in such manner and in such proportion and at such time or times as the directors of the companies concerned may determine. I am not in a position to give the figures for which he asks. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Government have discussed with the companies the question of the works of all kinds which could be undertaken by them at the present time or in the near future.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the railway companies, in their annual balance-sheet, show the balance of this amount that they still have in hand?
    Viscount EDNAM: Could the hon. Gentleman find out, for the information of the House, how much of this money has been spent?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put on the Paper.

    DEVONSHIRE ROADS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the bad state of the roads of Devonshire; whether any funds have been allocated to roads in this country from the Road Fund; and, if so, how much; and whether steps can be taken to secure an improvement by more efficient methods of construction and repair and an increased grant, if necessary?
    Mr. GOSLING: No reports of an exceptional character have reached me regarding roads in Devonshire, but I am aware that there is scope for improvement. I am glad to observe that the county council have approved a scheme, estimated to cost £1,000,000, and spread over the next few years, for the modernisation of their main roads. Assistance towards this project will be forthcoming from the Road Fund, in addition to the grants which are made towards the normal county programme of
    236
    road maintenance and improvement, estimated to cost £377,770 for the year 1924–25.
    The grants made from the Road Fund during 1923–24 were as follows:

    £

    County Council

    169,751

    District Authorities

    53,428

    Total

    £223,179

    I have every reason to hope that the expenditure now contemplated will bring about a marked improvement in the condition of the highways in the county.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question is not so much one of expenditure of money as of methods of repair and construction?
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Should there be so much need for the county councils to spend money now that some hon. Members have lost their licences?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the contribution towards the £1,000,000 from the Road Fund is on a 50–50 basis, or, if not, on what basis it is?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the contribution from the Road Fund is wholly disproportionate to the burden thrown upon the ratepayers in Devonshire for the maintenance of the roads?

    LONDON AREA ROAD SCHEMES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether he can issue a statement showing the percentage of completion of the various road schemes now in progress in the London area and the time each scheme has been under construction; and when it is expected to complete it?
    Mr. GOSLING: I hope the Noble Lord will not press for such a return at the present moment. The Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund for 1923–24 is in course of preparation and will contain a section dealing with the progress of the various arterial road schemes in the neighbourhood of London.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (TILBURY).
    Mr. HOFFMANasked the Minister of Transport if he will make represen-

    237
    tations to the Port of London Authority that, in view of the distress in consequence of unemployment in the Tilbury district, they will, other things being equal, give preference to local people, both in employment and contracts, on the new works and extensions which are about to be carried out?
    Mr. GOSLING: I understand from the Port of London Authority that the contractors for the works to which my hon. Friend refers will be required to undertake that a majority of the unskilled men employed on the works, with the exception of certain classes of men having special qualifications, will be recruited through the local Exchanges in order that London labour may, so far as is practicable, be employed. As regards the actual selection of the contractors, I do not think that I could usefully attempt to fetter the discretion of the authority.
    Captain COLFOX: Will preference be given to unemployed ex-service men? Might I have an answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce legislation abolishing the thrift disqualification for old age pensioners?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): As I stated last Thursday, the Financial Resolution dealing with this matter will be placed first Order on the Paper to-morrow.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: The question is one of abolition, not of a Resolution?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter can be discussed to-morrow.
    Mr. MITCHELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when he proposes the abolition of the thrift penalty in connection with old age pensions, he will also take into consideration the modification of the Regulation compelling residence in the United Kingdom for a prior aggregate period of not less than 12 years; and whether any instances have been brought to his notice in which this Regulation works harshly?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the provision in the Old Age Pensions Acts that it shall be a statutory condition for the receipt of an old age pension by any person that, if he is a natural-born British subject, he has, since attaining the age of 50 years, had his residence in the United Kingdom for an aggregate period of not less than 12 years. This represents a modification of the previous provision following a recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions of 1919, who reported that they did not consider a condition of this kind unreasonable. I am only aware of one case in which this provision is alleged to have worked hardship, and as at present advised, I am not prepared to modify it.
    Mr. F. GOULDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, when considering the means limit of the old age pensions, take into consideration the penalty inflicted on our aged poor who for certain reasons have to resort to Poor Law institutions and thereby suffer the loss of the whole pension, thus throwing them wholly on the local rates; and if he will now make provision to remove such disqualification?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I would ask my hon. Friend to await my statement to-morrow.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many persons, of both sexes, are in receipt of old age pensions in each of the county boroughs of Bolton, Northampton, Reading and Warrington?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I regret that the information requested by the hon. Member is not available, as the collection of the annual statistics as to the number of pensioners of each sex resident in county boroughs, etc., was discontinued in 1921 as an economy measure.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state who will be the representatives of Great Britain at the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations next

    239
    September; and, if not, whether he is considering the advisability of making the delegation non-party in character and of following precedent in the appointment of a woman delegate?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have nothing at present to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 14th May to the hon. Member for North Hackney.
    Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if the Press is correctly informed in stating that the Prime Minister himself hopes to be able to go?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of any information that has been given to the Press to that effect, but I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the personnel of the deputation when the Prime Minister has made his announcement.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Prim Minister whether an opportunity will be provided for discussing the work of the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Government regret that, owing to the heavy Parliamentary programme, they cannot grant facilities for such a Debate; but this question could be raised in Committee of Supply, if there were a general desire for a discussion.
    Major COLFOX: Have the Government got any policy at all in this matter?
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his predecessor did, in fact, provide such time, and is it not important that the Labour Government should show itself equally anxious to have a Debate?
    Mr. CLYNES: Our predecessors were able to send the Housing Bill to a Committee upstairs last year.
    Mr. HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a day during the first week in September?

    PERMANENT COURT OF INTER- NATIONAL JUSTICE.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state the policy of the Government with regard to the optional clause upon compulsory arbitration of the protocol of the permanent court of international justice?
    Mr. CLYNES: The decision of His Majesty's Government on this important matter may have far-reaching consequences and time must be allowed them to consider it in all its aspects. It is also necessary to consult with the Dominions. When my right hon. Friend is in a position to do so, he will make a statement to the House.

  FINANCE BILL.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in connection with reassessments of property for the purpose of Income Tax, demand notices for Income Tax on an increased assessment have been issued to persons in the North Newcastle Division and elsewhere where these persons have given notice of appeal and such appeals have not yet been heard or determined; and will he give instructions for these notices to be suspended in the meantime?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is not the practice to issue a demand for Income Tax based on an assessment in relation to which there is an outstanding notice of appeal, except where there is evidence that the taxpayer has no intention of pursuing his objection. In any case, it is still open to the taxpayer, on receipt of the demand note, to require his case to be heard by the local Income Tax Commissioners, and, meanwhile, no steps would be taken to enforce payment of the tax. If the hon. Member has in mind any case in which he considers that demands for payment of tax are being improperly pursued, and will let me have the necessary particulars, I will gladly have the matter investigated, and will communicate the result to him.
    Sir G. DOYLE: If I send the right hon. Gentleman specific cases, will he undertake to inquire into them?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have already stated in my reply that I will gladly investigate such cases.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state, for the year 1921–22, the amount of actual income under each schedule of the Income Tax, as shown for previous years in Table 58 on page 119 of the Sixty-fifth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    The actual income assessed under the various Schedules of the Income Tax Act in the year 1921–22 was as follows:—

    £

    Schedule A

    183,158,769

    Schedule B

    55,977,917

    Schedule C

    96,224,744

    Schedule D

    1,079,192,688

    Schedule E

    557,816,819

    Quarterly assessments

    490,107,442

    Total

    £2,462,478,379

    —

    1920–21.

    1921–22.

    £

    £

    Manufacturing, Productive, and Mining Industries

    525,007,845

    557,916,154

    Distribution, Transport and Communication:—

    (1) Railways in the U.K.

    59,998,570

    61,251,072

    (2) Other Assessments

    438,986,812

    486,015,509

    Finance, Professions and other Profits

    157,626,735

    180,501,000

    Employments assessed annually

    89,073,144

    108,702,391

    Employments assessed quarterly (i.e. Manual wage-earners).

    944,789,591

    520,388,035

    Interest on War Securities not taxed by deduction at the source, Deposit and other Interest.

    101,041,609

    106,349,339

    Dominion and Foreign Securities and Possessions

    69,585,018

    62,674,599

    Total Gross Income Schedule D

    2,386,109,324

    2,083,798,099

    I regret that sufficient progress has not yet been made with the development of the Inland Revenue statistics to enable any division of the actual income under

    —

    1920–21.

    1921–22.

    £

    £

    Manual Wage-earners

    …

    …

    …

    …

    673,586,827

    490,107,442

    All other Assessments

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,091,598,363

    1,079,192,688

    Total Actual Income

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,765,185,190

    1,569,300,130

    The differences between the gross income brought under review and the actual income of the taxpayer are explained on pages 103 and 114 of the 65th Inland Revenue Report (Command Paper 1780).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to Table 58 of the 65th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, if he will sub-divide the actual income under Schedule D into income for profits, employments, and interest, respectively, and add the figures for 1921–22?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The division of the gross income brought under review under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act for the years 1920–21 and 1921–22 is as follows:
    Schedule D to be made on similar lines. The following figures of actual income are, however, available:
    whether, on the hearing of applications by inspectors of taxes for the increase of assessments to Income Tax, inspectors are acting on official instructions in refusing appellants inspection or supply of copies of accounts prepared by inspectors for Commissioners of Taxes, and upon which the latter are requested to make their adjudication?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not clear as to the precise nature of the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers, but, if he will furnish me with the particulars of any case which has given rise to the question, I will have inquiry made and will communicate the result to him in due course.

    INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
    Mr. G. WARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Ancient Order of Foresters, who for more than 20 years have paid £7 10s. per annum in respect of Inhabited House Duty on their premises in St. Nicholas Street, Leicester, when there has been no liability to pay such duty; and will he state why the application for the repayment of the money thus paid in ignorance has been refused?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am having inquiry made into this case and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Customs and Excise has issued new Regulations affecting the collection of the Entertainments Duty, providing for the examination of the books of all places of entertainment, whether their charges are exempt from the tax or not; and whether Members will be permitted an opportunity of examining their nature?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise will not in future require the examination of the books of entertainment proprietors who do not charge more than 6d. for admission.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the promise by the entertainment industry to pass on to the public the benefit of the reduction of the tax was conditional upon the complete abolition of the tax and not on partial reduction; and whether he will state exactly what promise was given in this matter and by whom?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bristol East on the 19th June, before making my Budget proposals I obtained an undertaking from a representative deputation of the entertainments trade
    244
    that if the Entertainments Duty were reduced the public would get the benefit.
    Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman evidence that that is being carried into effect?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Of course I have not been idle in investigating the allegations which are being very widely made that the reduction is not being passed on, but up to the present I have no reason to think that in the vast majority of cases it does not pass on.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated the cases brought to his notice, and can he say when he will be able to make a statement on that particular aspect of the matter?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Every specific case brought to my notice is investigated.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman confining his inquiries merely to picture houses and theatres, and is he giving any attention to branches of sport? Has his attention been called to the statement of the Football Associations of England and Scotland that they do not intend to reduce their gates by the amount of the tax?
    Sir W. de FRECE: Is it not a fact that these people made no promise except on the condition of complete abolition?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I may say in reply to the last supplementary question that there can be no misunderstanding on that matter. I had a deputation from the entertainments trade when the Budget was under consideration, and it is quite true that they said that their undertaking would be conditional on the total abolition of the tax. Of course, their demand was for the total abolition of the tax, but I made it quite clear in my reply to them that I should expect the reduction to be passed on in one form or another, and that was accepted.
    Mr. MILLS: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure the House that the stages of the Budget have not proceeded to that extent that this tax cannot be dealt with by the House if the answers are unsatisfactory?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think I ought to give a reply to that question, but, of course, it can be raised in the discussions during the Committee stage

    245
    of the Finance Bill. We have had representations, not merely from cinemas, but from sports associations, and these are also being considered.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand that the theatres definitely accepted the new conditions after the right hon. Gentleman's announcement in the Budget statement?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir; the interview to which I referred took place before the Budget statement.

    ROYAL MINT (MEDAL MAKING).
    Mr. EDWARD GRENFELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the new policy of the Royal Mint in entering into competition with private enterprise in medal making as exemplified by the exhibits of the Royal Mint at the Royal Academy; and whether this action on the part of a Government Department in competing with private enterprise has his approval?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The present practice of the Royal Mint with regard to medals was reviewed by my predecessor, and after full consideration I have not seen any reason to take a new decision upon it. I am advised that there is no reason to think that the production of good medals by private firms will be checked, but rather the contrary.

    EMPIRE TOBACCO (PREFERENCE).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any representations have been made by the tobacco growers of Nyasaland as to the operation of the Preference duties
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): In March, 1923, the tobacco growers of Nyasaland joined a conference of tobacco growers at Capetown in making representations in favour of increased Preference on Empire tobacco. These representations were communicated to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any action to give the overseas Dominions satisfaction with regard to the question of Preference?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House decided that question the other day.

    STATE PENSIONS.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Lord Nelson has during the present year been invited to state the terms on which he is willing to commute the pension which has been paid since the year 1805?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the approval of the High Court has yet been given of the proposed commutation of the pension now paid to Lord Rodney?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative. The case is now being prepared for the Court.

    SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE REPORT (GOVERNMENT DECISION).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the policy of the Government with respect to the findings of the Southborough Committee?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The Government have decided to adopt the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Southborough Committee.

  POST OFFICE.

    BROADCASTING (NEW LONDON STATION).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Postmaster-General if the Broadcasting Advisory Committee has reached a decision as to the site of the proposed new transmitting station in London?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): The Broadcasting Board have reported that a transfer of the Landon Broadcasting Station is necessary, and that, in their opinion, the suggested site is the only one at present available which, for technical reasons, would be suitable. They have recommended that it be adopted for a minimum period of one year, subject to a condition—which the British Broadcasting Company had already imposed—that the presence of the station is not to be utilised as a medium for advertising, and a further condition that visitors are not to be admitted except for technical or official reasons. I

    247
    have accepted the Board's advice and have informed the British Broadcasting Company accordingly.
    Mr. BAKER: May I ask how it will be possible to prevent the use of the station for advertising purposes, and what cash sum is being paid for the use of the site?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It will be the business of the people who own the premises to carry out the undertaking they have given. I cannot answer the question as to the amount that has been paid, but I will obtain the information for the hon. Member.

    BROADCASTING SETS (OFFICIAL TESTS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Pastmaster-General whether he has considered the desirability of instituting official tests on all broadcasting sets manufactured for sale to the public; and, if not, whether he will consult the Broadcasting Board with a view to instituting machinery for this purpose?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not consider that the advantages of a system of inspection such as the hon. Member suggests would justify the large expense involved, and I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion.

    WIRELESS NEWS SERVICE, INDIA.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British official wireless news which has hitherto been distributed to, and published in, India has now ceased owing to the superiority of the French and German over the British Government's radio installations; and whether any steps are being taken to re-establish the British wireless service with improved installations?
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British official wireless news that is distributed in India has now ceased; whether he can state the reasons for this; and whether he is aware that in consequence of this the German and French radio stations have now a free field for themselves?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I understand that there is difficulty in receiving the British official wireless messages in India during the adverse atmospheric conditions which
    248
    prevail in that country at this time of the year. I am aware that the range of the German and French radio stations is greater than that of any existing British station, but this unsatisfactory state of affairs will be remedied when the new Government station now being erected at Rugby is finished.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentlemen to say that when the station has been erected it will be possible to communicate quite clearly with India?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I am advised that is so.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE, LONDON.
    Captain BRASSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the grave inconvenience caused to telephone subscribers in the London area by the abrupt cutting off of their conversations without warning; and, in view of this fact, whether he will give instructions for special observations to be kept on the Bank and Gerrard exchanges?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The service is under continuous observation and the records do not indicate that the number of premature disconnections is exceptional at the exchanges referred to. Interruptions of this kind are due not only to electrical faults and accidental disturbance of connections at the exchanges, but also to indifferent operating at subscribers' private branch exchanges; and if the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of any installations on which disconnections have been unusually noticeable, I will have inquiry made in regard to them.

    RURAL TELEPHONES.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the installation of rural telephones throughout the country since 31st December last?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Between the 31st December last and the 31st May there was an increase of 109 rural exchanges. In addition 494 rural party line subscribers, 201 call offices in rural areas and 69 telephones at rural railway stations were added to the system.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing the excessive charge for rural telephones?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I have already explained that that matter is under consideration and that at present there is a very substantial loss on the rural service.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it into consideration on broader lines as a factor in the life of the agricultural community?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I have given consideration to it from that aspect, but I find on inquiry that most of the complaints that are coming from rural areas are not so much from the farmers themselves as from well-to-do people who live in rural areas. That is the result of my inquiry.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is not that because the farmers do not at present subscribe, and are not likely to so long as the terms are so high?
    Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the cost at present is greatest where the need is most, and that in the case of the more distant houses the cost is practically prohibitive?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he lowered the price, there would be a very much larger demand and possibly an increased yield?
    Major WHELER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how very valuable the telephone is in fruit districts, especially in soft fruit districts?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I can assure hon. Members that this is a matter which has received, and will continue to receive, my sympathetic consideration, and if I find it possible to bring about an improvement in this direction, I shall be very pleased to do so.

    OLDHAM POST OFFICE.
    Mr. TOUTasked the Postmaster-General if the Oldham Post Office is included in the list of post offices which he is recommending to the Treasury for higher classification?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The question of the classification of certain offices is still the subject of discussion with the staff
    250
    associations, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement in regard to individual offices.

    SUB-POST OFFICES, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General whether it is a rule of his Department that all sub-post offices in London shall be closed at mid-day on the early closing day of their respective districts; if so, what post offices are open for the convenience of the public in London on early closing days; what are the opening and closing hours daily of district post offices; and what post offices are open in London after 8 p.m. for the convenience of the public?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Sub-postmasters are, as a rule, permitted to close their offices at 1 p.m. on the local early closing day; but arrangements are made for a sufficient number of offices—whether head, branch, or sub-post offices—to be open in each locality to meet reasonable public requirements. When an office is closed, a notice is exhibited showing the nearest office open. The post offices in London which are not closed on the local early closing day are indicated on pages 468 to 487 of the Post Office Guide, a copy of which I am forwarding to the hon. Member. The hours of business at the London district post offices are generally from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., but the London chief office is open from 6.45 a.m. until 9 p.m. The post offices open in London after 8 p.m., in addition to the chief office, are the Fleet Street Branch Post Office, the Central Telegraph Office in Newgate Street and the West Strand Telegraph Office.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  SEEDS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to amend section eleven of the Seedy Act, 1920," presented by Mr. BLUNDELL; supported by Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Crittall, Mr. Maxton and Mr. Shepperson; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

  MOTOR CAR RACES BILL,
  "to provide for the authorisation of races with motor cars," presented by Sir PHILIP DAWSON; supported by Mr. Sturrock, Lieut.-Colonel Pownall, Mr. Tillett, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt, Mr.

  251
  Hannon and Sir Grattan Doyle; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4).
  Mr. SYDNEY ROBINSON: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924."
  The object of the Bill is to provide Unemployment Insurance for agricultural workers. I was in hopes that the Government or the Minister of Labour would have agreed last week in Committee to include agricultural workers in the scope of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, but as I understand the Amendments put down with that purpose in view could not be accepted or embodied in this No. 2 Bill, therefore I beg to give reasons why agricultural workers should be entitled to receive unemployment benefits as well as the workers engaged in other industries. In the first place, the agricultural worker is subject to unemployment, as well as those engaged in any other industry, and the fear of Unemployment, and the suffering it brings in its train are as real and grave to him and his dependants as to these other workers. Moreover, a large number of agricultural workers from time to time have clearly and earnestly expressed their desire to be included in a National Unemployment Scheme, and as a total of just over three quarters of a million workers—some 772,000 according to the latest returns—are affected, it seems only right and just that their claims should be considered.
  It may appear somewhat difficult on the surface, because the rate of pay received by the regular worker is so low, and often comes to less than an average of 30s. per week. But an analysis of the figures of unemployment in the industry shows that the percentage out of work is 5·7 on an average So that it seems to me that we could well afford to mete out special treatment to this class of worker by making his contribution a low one and a reasonable one or, at all events, a maximum one not exceeding 4d. per week. The farmer, or employer, on his part would also be called upon to pay
  252
  4d. and, in view of the low average of unemployment, the contribution of the State would be 4d. per head. In my opinion, these total contributions of 1s. per week should be able to offer the same scale of unemployment benefit as is in force in other industries, while it is just possible, and I have every reason to hope, that the rate of contributions could be brought down as low as 3d. from each, making a total of 9d. I need hardly emphasise the fact that the agricultural worker is a skilled man, and just as deserving as any other member of the community of assistance in this direction, and should no longer be pushed into the background. It is recognised that agriculture is essential, nay, vital, to the well-being of the country, and the passing of a Bill to give the agricultural worker the benefits, long denied to them, which other workers enjoy would do much to stabilise the industry and remove many causes of dissatisfaction and the tendency of the rural population to migrate to the towns.
  There is no reason whatever why the agricultural worker should be left out of an unemployment insurance scheme. It is extremely unfair. The time is now past when these workers should be looked upon as the Cinderellas of industry, and I trust the House will see its way to support the Motion, and thus do justice to the claims of those who, in my view, have hitherto received scant recognition of the service they render to the nation. The House, I feel sure, must frankly admit that some protection against unemployment should be afforded them; and I venture to hope that the Bill, which it is now my privilege to ask leave of the House to introduce, will have the sympathy and approval of the vast majority of this House.
  Mr. FALCONER: Is this Bill intended to apply to Scotland?
  Mr. ROBINSON: That is a point which can be dealt with in Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Robinson, Mr. Crittall, Mr. Duncan, Mr. George Edwards, Mr. Emlyn Jones, Mr. Hillary, Mr. Hob-house, Mr. Hope-Simpson, Mr. Hoffman, Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel Woodwark and Mr. Thomas Williams.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL,
  "to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

  BILLS REPORTED.
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Halifax Corporation Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  AUXILIARY AIR FORCE AND AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee.), to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Herbert Morrison; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Gavan-Duffy.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Merchandise Marks Bill): Mr. Clayton; and had appointed in substitution; Rear-Admiral Sueter.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Agricultural Wages Bill): Mr. Acland, the Attorney General, Mr. Buxton, Sir Henry Cautley, Sir Thomas Davies, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Lambert, Lieut.-Col. Lane-Fox, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mt. Hope Simpson, Mr. Tom Smith, Mr. Walter Smith, Mr. Thomas Williams, Sir Richard Winfrey, and Mr. Edward Wood.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Becker, Sir Robert Bird, Sir Vansittart Bowater, Captain Brass, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Duckworth, Captain Viscount Ednam, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Gorman, Mr. John Harris, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Hogbin, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Raffety, Sir James Remnant, Dr. Spero, and Colonel Vaughan-Morgan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Black, Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Ellis Davies, Captain FitzRoy, the Marquess of Hartington, Captain Sidney Herbert, Mr. Hobhouse, Major McLean, Sir Courtenay Mansel, Mr. Foot Mitchell, Mr. Morse, Captain Tudor Rees, Mr. Sydney Robinson, Mr. Shepperson, Mr. Smith-Carington, Major Steel, Mr. Stranger, Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive, and Lieut.-Colonel Woodwark.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B: Mr. Blundell, Major George Davies, Mr. George Ed-

  255
  wards, Mr. Emlyn-Jones, Mr. Foot, Mr. David Grenfell, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Paling, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Major Wheler, Mrs. Wintringham, and Viscount Wolmer.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Shepperson and Mr. Tillett; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Horlick and Mr. William Graham.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Bridgeman, Sir Gerald Hohler, Sir Thomas Inskip, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Frederick Martin, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and Mr. David Williams.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill): Mr. Gibbins, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Harcourt Johnstone, Major Moulton, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Pringle, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Samuel Samuel, Mr. John Williams, and Sir Fredric Wise.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Town Councils (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.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Advisory Committee.)
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after the word "Counties," to insert the word "Traffic."
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "appointed by the Minister" and to insert instead thereof the words, "elected by the committee."
    This is a very important Amendment. The only representation of local authorities and of the public is on this committee, with very limited powers. The powers of the committee are strictly confined to the subjects referred to it by the Minister but, at any rate, there is some kind of representation, which provides an opportunity for the expression of public opinion. It is the very essence of representation that any local authority or any committee of this kind should be allowed to select its own chairman. In very historic times this House claimed the right to elect its Speaker. Every public authority throughout the world has claimed the right to elect its own chairman. If this Advisory Committee is to be an effective machine for the expression of public opinion, it is obvious that the chairman should be, not the servant or the nominee of the Minister but the servant of the committee. Anybody who has served on a public authority knows very well that most of the work of an administrative character falls on the chairman. Through him has to go the agenda and all the reports of the officers.
    Under this Bill the Minister is to have the power to put in his own nominee as chairman, and we have reason to believe that it will be an official of his own Department. It is a very small concession to give to the democratic traditions of our local government that the chairman should be elected by the committee. The
    280
    Minister is mentioned in the Bill no fewer than 69 times. He has immense autocratic powers. The only modification is the existence of this small committee, and I think the committee should be able to appoint its own chairman. I do not say anything disrespectful of the present occupant of the office of Minister of Transport, but the House should be very careful before it vests in any Government Department such immense powers, unchecked, uncontrolled and uncriticised, as have been vested in the Minister of Transport. The only critical powers in the Bill rest in this very small committee, with the few representatives that are allowed to public authorities. Therefore, I submit this Amendment with confidence, in the assurance that the House will strike this small blow in order to make this Bill more democratic in character, and to bring it more into touch with local government.
    Mr. FINNEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    4.0 P.M.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment, not that it is a matter of first class importance. I approach it, not from the point of view of whether it is democratic or autocratic or anything of that sort, but from the point of view of convenience. This is an Advisory Committee, and the Minister will be extremely unwise if he does not take the advice of the committee. In 99 cases out of 100 he will take the advice of the committee because it will be much more convenient for him in defending his action in this House if he can say that he has taken the advice of the committee. As the committee will have to secure, and can rightly demand, the services of the permanent officials in the Ministry of Transport, it surely would be much better that the Minister should appoint somebody who would be in the position of a liaison officer between the officials of the Ministry of Transport and himself, rather than that the committee should select someone. They might select someone who would know nothing about the working of traffic, and there might be a considerable amount of time wasted before the officials of the Department got to grips with the matters with which they will have to deal. As the Minister in this House will have to be responsible for any action taken on the advice of the Committee, surely it is only reasonable from his point of view that he should be able

    281
    to appoint someone whom he considers the most suitable person. I am quite sure the House would find that, in the end, a lot of public time would be saved if they allowed the Minister to have the decision in this rather important matter.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): If this were a question affecting a Government body or even a Committee or a local authority of any kind, there would be no doubt that the right of that authority to elect its own chairman would be fundamental. But one of the objections to this Bill and to the whole scheme of the Bill was that it was only a temporary provision standing in the way of creating a real local authority to deal with this matter. I do not in the very least accept the Advisory Committee as any substitute for the proper local authority which is to come at the earliest possible moment, and I am surprised that my hon. Friend should recognise this Advisory Committee as if it were an authority. I do not at all want to see that Committee accepted as an authority. Sometimes Boards are used as screens, and I should look with great suspicion on any attempt to equip Ministers with Boards or Committees behind which they could shelter themselves. I suggest that the one thing which we ought to preserve is that the House should have authority over the Minister responsible, and you cannot have that unless the responsible Minister has himself authority within his own sphere. Therefore, I suggest that it would be quite a retrograde step to make this Advisory Committee in any sense independent of the Minister. I do not want the Minister to be able to screen himself and say that he would have liked to have done something in compliance with the wishes of the House, but the Committee would not let him. That is not democracy in my view.
    I am democratic enough to seek precedents, and I would ask the House to remember that whenever the House has set up an Advisory Committee it has been careful to say that the chairman should be appointed by the Minister. For instance, the Consultative Committee under the Board of Education is not allowed to set up its own chairman. The President of the Board appoints the chairman. There is a similar Council in
    282
    connection with the Ministry of Health, and that Council is not allowed to have its own chairman. The Minister of Health appoints the chairman. There is an Advisory Committee in the Ministry of Agriculture. There the Minister himself is the chairman, unless he appoints a vice-chairman who takes the chair in his absence. I think those precedents indicate the right course. We want this Committee to be an advisory body to the Minister. We do not want it to set itself up in any way to hamper the Minister or to be a convenient screen behind which the Minister might retreat when he did not want, or did not see his way, to carry out the wishes of the House. I therefore ask that the Amendment may not be accepted.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have resisted this Amendment. We are, of course, familiar with all his bureaucratic tendencies, and it is perfectly natural and in keeping with his general attitude of mind that he should have taken the view that this Advisory Committee should as far as possible be the creature of the Minister. It seems to me that if the Advisory Committee is to exercise any functions at all, the more independent it is the better. In other words, the less it is under the control of the Minister the more valuable is its advice likely to be. I do not think that any Member of the House will be greatly alarmed at any risk of this Advisory Committee being used as a screen. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that the Minister is responsible and that the decision in the long run rests with him. Surely, if he is to take the decision, he should have the assistance of a body which as far as possible can offer independent advice. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a number of precedents. He has quoted the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education and a similar organisation in the Ministry of Health, but I do not think that any of the bodies which he has quoted as precedents are formed on the lines or has anything like the constitution of this Committee. In this Committee you have provisions for elected members, and obviously the Committee in relation to London traffic is intender to be a body of greater influence and larger authority than either of the consultative bodies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

    283
    It seems to me that the Minister is going to have adequate authority in the matter of representation on the Committee as it is. He is to be entitled to select from nominees of certain of the councils that are represented on the Committee. For example, we find that two shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several Metropolitan boroughs. Then, again, he has the same right of appointment of two members from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties of Kent, Middlesex, Surrey, Essex, and Hertford. Further, he has the right to appoint one from amongst the nominees of the councils of the several county boroughs within the London traffic area. There is another provision that he shall have the right to appoint one member, who shall hold office only so long as the chairman is not an official of the Ministry of Transport. It seems to me, therefore, that he is to be adequately represented and to have a considerable share of influence in the Committee, and, obviously, it would be giving him a still greater influence if he were able to appoint the chairman. I maintain that the elected members should on general grounds have the right to elect their chairman, because only in these circumstances would the Committee be likely to exercise more power and reduce the bureaucratic tendencies of the Department. I support the Amendment.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. I have always understood that when one wanted to judge the form of a horse it was a good thing to look at the stable from which it came, and, having looked at the stable from which this Amendment comes, I find that it comes from those who are always seeking to put the London traffic under the sway of the London County Council and of the trams. I can quite see why the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) wants the House to accept the Amendment. He hopes that the tramway and County Council people will be able to get a chance to elect a man who will be a thorn in the side of the Minister, and as far as possible prevent him making any effective use of this Bill. I am quite certain that the House will be wise to resist this Amendment. Look at
    284
    what will happen! Supposing a member of the Committee who is prejudiced in favour of trams as against omnibuses were appointed by the Committee, what value would be the advice of the Committee to the Minister? Again, supposing the Committee were to elect somebody in opposition to the Commissioner of Police or some details of his administration, he would be a constant source of difficulty on this Committee and would largely nullify its usefulness. Personally, I am not sure that this Committee is going to be of any use at all. It is far too big to come to any useful decision about anything. But as it is, I hope we shall endeavour to see that it is the most useful form of Committee that we can get, and that will not be the case unless the chairman is a responsible being appointed by the Minister and not by the pro-tram section of the London Liberal party.
    Mr. RAFFETY: I desire to support this Amendment. The attitude of the London County Council as a whole—I am not speaking of any particular party on the council—is not as stated by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). The council has not sought to monopolise the power and take the place of this Committee. The resolution which the council passed was introduced with these words:
    "That, while not approving of all the proposals contained in the London Traffic Bill, the council, recognising the urgent need of some form of traffic control being brought into operation without delay, is not prepared to oppose these proposals in the main."
    They asked for certain things, and one of the few things which the council stipulated was that this Advisory Committee should be more municipal in character, and it was thought it could be made more municipal in character if the Committee appointed its own chairman. I support this Amendment in order to make the Advisory Committee more useful, more municipal, and more able to discharge the important functions which it will be called upon to exercise.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 92.

    Division No. 104.]

    AYES.

    [4.13 p.m.

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

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Murray, Robert

    Alden, Percy

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Gosling, Harry

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

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

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Nichol, Robert

    Ammon, Charles George

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Greenall, T.

    Nixon, H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Ayles, W. H.

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Baker, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Ormshy-Gore, Hon. William

    Banton, G.

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

    Paling, W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Pannefather, Sir John

    Barnes A.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

    Percy, Lord Eustance (Hastings)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Perry, S. F.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F W.

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

    Hardle, George D.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Bantinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Berry, Sir George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Potts, John S.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Purcell, A. A.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Ralne, W.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Richards, R

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Henderson, W. W. (Mindlesex, Enfield)

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bromfield, William

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Buchanan, G.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Buckle, J.

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hodges, Frank

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Cape, Thomas

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hudson, J. H.

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Scurr, John

    Charleton, H. C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Clarke, A.

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

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Climie, R.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Siclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Smillie, Robert

    Compton, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Cope, Major William

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Cove, W. G.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillip

    Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kirkwood, D.

    Spence, R.

    Crittall, V. G.

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lansbury, George

    Stamford, T. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Law, A.

    Stanley, Samuel Strang

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Leach, W

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sullivan, J.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lowth, T.

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

    Dukes, C.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Duncan, C.

    Lunn, William

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    McEntee, V. L.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell - (Croydon, S.)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mackinder, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Ednam, Viscount

    McLean, Major A.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    March, S.

    Toole, J.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Marley, James

    Tout, W. J.

    Egan, W. H.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Maxton, James

    Varley, Frank B.

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

    Meller, R. J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Middleton, G.

    Vlant, S. P.

    Ferguson, H.

    Mills, J. E.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

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

    Frece, Sir Waiter de

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Moles, Thomas

    Warne, G. H.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Morel, E. D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Muir, John W.

    286

    287

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

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Wells, S. R.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Wright, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Whiteley, W.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Patrick)

    Wignall, James

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Ritson, J.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Royle, C.

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Black, J. W.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj.-Gen. J.E.B. (I. of W.)

    Bonwick, A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)

    Briant, Frank

    Lee, F.

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Mackinder, W.

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish, Universities)

    Madan, H.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Sunlight, J.

    Dodds, S. R.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Terrington, Lady

    Dunnico, H.

    Millar, J. D.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    England, Colonel A.

    Mond, H.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Falconer, J.

    Morse, W. E.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Foot, Isaac

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Phillipps, Vivian

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pilkington, R. R.

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

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

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Willison, H.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Raffety, F. W.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Harney, E. A.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

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

    Hindle, F.

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Rea, W. Russell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Mr. Finney and Mr. Percy Harris.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Remer, J. R.

    Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page. 1, line 21, to leave out the words "ordinary and additional."
    In introducing additional Members on this Committee a very novel feature has been brought into our local government. Under this Bill, for the first time I think I am right in saying, an administrative department is going to seek advice from a committee composed of Members who are likely to have a direct financial interest in one particular policy, and obviously they will support a policy in favour of the interests they represent. Those additional Members who represent various owners of light vehicles and other means of traffic will naturally and rightly assume to represent most powerful interests, and it is only fair to expect that they will give advice which will strengthen the position of those interests. I submit to the House that this is a very unsound principle to introduce into our legislation. Once it is started it will lend itself to infinite ramifications. I cannot
    288
    help thinking that hon. Members above the Gangway should view this proposal with exceptional suspicion. What they have to fear is what is going on in America to-day—the strengthening of vested interests, the creation of scandals, and of suspicion in the public mind, in the end bringing the national government into disrepute. We have an example at the present time of that in the oil scandals in America. It would seem that the Government there had power to give away very big concessions, and underground rumours arose that those concessions were given away by the Government under the influence of powerful combines, thereby almost bringing to its ruin one of the great political parties in the State. Here you have actually the very same thing proposed in an Act of Parliament—the giving away of valuable franchises on the advice of a Committee partly composed of representatives of interested organisations—a thoroughly undesirable, undemocratic, and objectionable proposal. I beg, therefore, to

    289
    move the omission of the additional members, and I think hon. Members will agree it is most advisable that we should have on a Committee of this kind, members whose advice will be disinterested.
    Mr. GOSLING: The object of this Amendment is to remove the additional members altogether and to leave the Committee purely in official hands. That strikes at the fundamental principal on which the Bill has been based. There is no fear of the municipality members being in a minority, because the proportions are seven out of 19 and the additional members are the seven. Three of them are members representing organisations engaged in the work of London traffic. In Committee the hon. Gentleman who has made this proposal to-day was very anxious to strengthen Labour representation on this body, and insisted on doing it. Now I understand that he has found out that it is better to remove from the Committee representation of the interests of those who are engaged in the traffic. Speaking with some experience, I say that a Committee which has not upon it representatives both of employers and employed will not be a satisfactory Committee. For those reasons I ask the House very strongly not to allow this Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think that the House would do well again to support the Minister of Transport in the view which he takes, which combines common sense with the greatest efficiency. If you are going to have an Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee ought to represent all the interests which you affect by this Bill. It seems to me to combine common sense with efficiency to say that, in addition to the official and municipal representatives, we shall have representatives of the workers and also of the employers upon this Committee. If the Minister left out representatives of workers on this Committee, the very first people to raise the matter, and denounce the Socialist Government as reactionary autocrats, would be hon. Members below the Gangway. Therefore, in the best interests of London traffic, I would support the Minister of Transport in rejecting this Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is the real parent of this Bill, and naturally he gives
    290
    his blessing to the Minister of Transport on every occasion on which he adheres to the original terms of the Bill.
    Colonel ASHLEY: This is not the original terms of the Bill.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is practically the same scheme. The Minister of Transport endeavoured to convict my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) of inconsistency for moving this Amendment to get rid of the additional members while in the Committee he sought to strengthen Labour representation. I do not think that there is any inconsistency in the attitude of my hon. Friend. Having found in Committee that he was committed to having additional members on this Advisory Committee he thought it better that the number of representatives of Labour should be increased, so as to balance the influence of other interests which were concerned with the provision of the means of transport. Therefore I think that there is no inconsistency between the attitude which my hon. Friend now takes up and his attitude in the Committee stage. But the question which we have to consider is that we have the strange anomaly of additional members who are there for a special purpose. They are not there for all purposes with regard to which the Committee is called on to advise the Minister. The functions of the additional members is confined to advising as to the measures dealt with in Clauses 7 and 10, and in the First Schedule of the Bill. In other words their function is to deal with those matters in which the traffic combine—I am using the term to cover the interests themselves—is mainly interested.
    We have to face this fact that there are to be four representatives of the interests of persons providing the means of transport, and the users of mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the traffic area. Before deciding this matter the House should have some information from the Ministry as to how these various interests are to be balanced among the four additional members so appointed. They seem to cover a large variety of interests. There are the persons providing means of transport, which may be said to represent first of all the owners of omnibuses and the owners of trams, both independent and in the combine. Then you have the users of

    291
    mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles, so that you have two further interests which have to be represented. There are the users of mechanically-propelled vehicles such as the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and the users of horse-drawn road vehicles. It is not clear how all these separate interests are going to be fully represented among these additional members, and I suggest that, rather than have inadequate representation of some of these, it is better not to have them represented at all, but that they should simply be able to make representations to the Committee or to the Ministry. If you have an unfair representation then it is much more likely that one or other of these interests will be unfairly treated.
    It is true that labour is to be represented, and to that extent the Minister has a certain justification for making provision for additional members, but, after all, labour has an opportunity of representation through the elected bodies. There are representatives among the ordinary members of the London County Council and the councils of the several Metropolitan boroughs and of the administrative councils in the surrounding areas. In these circumstances, as labour is represented on the great majority of these councils, labour will have an opportunity of representation among the ordinary members, and in that sense it does not seem to me to be very important that labour should have representation among the additional members, and it is all the less important because the special functions on which the additional members are brought in to advise are not those in which they are concerned. They are questions of the licensing of omnibuses on particular routes, and in that Schedule I think that there are nearly all such matters as the co-ordination of the various forms of transport, etc., and the causes tending to hinder the free circulation of traffic. These are questions which are not distinctly labour questions. They are questions concerned with making provision for the public service, and in all these matters labour has no distinctive interest as compared with the rest of the community. In these circumstances the Minister has made out no case for the introduction of these additional members. They will only tend to
    292
    raise difficulties in the working of the Committee in the matter of the demarcation of the functions of the respective sets of members, and this will tend to make the members of the Committee less representative.
    Mr. NAYLOR: As the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) made a special appeal to these benches to support this Amendment, I want to say that if he forces a division upon it in the expectation of getting support from the Labour benches he will be disappointed. I and others went into the Lobby in support of the first Amendment, because we felt that it was a good Amendment, and while I have a great deal of sympathy with the object of the Mover of the present Amendment I wish to remind him that the whole matter was fully discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill, and again when the Bill was before the Committee. The Advisory Committee in our opinion should be an administrative Committee, and not an Advisory Committee, in which case we should have to adhere to our intention to exclude these additional Members, but having accepted the principle of making this an Advisory Committee, the danger of these additional Members who are representing the interests of the London traffic companies becomes much less than it would be were the Committee of an administrative character. Therefore, bearing in mind that this Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of vitiating the Bill or killing the Bill, we are not prepared to take that risk. Bad as the Bill is it is better than no Bill at all, and in view of the temporary character of the Measure we are prepared to support the Minister of Transport in resisting the Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: It rise to support the Amendment. I do so for this reason. It seems to me that the provision which the hon. Member seeks to eliminate is one of those which are going to increase the power of the traffic combine in its grip over London traffic. I would point out that it would be very difficult for small motor omnibus owners to find any adequate representation among the additional members. If there are to be only four representatives, and if the larger interests are to get their share, it would be practically impossible for the small owners to get any adequate representation at all unless they can be induced

    293
    to form themselves into some sort of rival company. I am not at all reassured by the presence of three additional Labour Members to counteract the employers. The history of the last few years has been one of a combination of highly-organised great trade unions in co-operation with great organisations of employers bleeding the public. The effect of such an amalgamation in the case of the railways during the War and since the War was to enable the trade unions to secure such enormous increases of wages that the freights which were passed on to the public are now an exceedingly heavy burden on agriculture and other industries in this country.
    That has been the experience on the railways, and I think that it is very likely to be the experience of the building industry. There are other instances which could be given of great trade unions and large federations of employers combining to secure a monopoly to exact the highest possible price at the expense of the public. It seems to me that in a Committee of this sort only one interest ought to be considered, that is the interest of the public. I do not see why the traffic combine and the employés of the traffic combine should have a privileged position on this Committee. This Committee is to advise the Minister who has to answer to Parliament, and surely he ought not to get advice from interested parties. They can come to him in deputations; they can make representations to him in the same way as any other of His Majesty's subjects. But this provision of the Bill in fact, though not in form, deliberately throws the combine into a privileged position in the administration of the Bill. I would welcome the elimination of the additional members, and if the Amendment is pressed to a Division I shall certainly support it.
    Mr. BRIANT: Many of us are extremely suspicious of this Bill. On the Advisory Committee there are to be many additional members who, obviously, are directly connected with certain interests and connected with them on the pecuniary side. Anyone who knows anything about committees knows that when you have certain members put there because they are the nominees of certain bodies with pecuniary interests, they attend far more regularly than others. When you come to the seven members who are, and will be, without derogation to them, the paid
    294
    representatives of certain interests, the probabilities are that they will attend regularly while others will not attend with equal regularity, and the representatives of the interests will have a larger sway than would appear on the surface. The Minister should provide us with a little more information as to what this proposal means. The taxicabs have a very large interest indeed in the traffic of London. If they are to have a representative and the motor omnibus combine is to have a representative, what about the smaller groups of motor omnibuses? They ought to be there. Then there are the interests of the horse-drawn vehicles. The Minister should give us some idea of what he means and as to what are to be the bodies to be represented. The House should not assent to the Bill as it stands. I look with great suspicion on so many men serving on the Advisory Committee for certain purposes. I do not think it is any blame to them, but they will be sent there to look after the interest of their masters. That is not good for the public. The public is hardly ever considered now-a-days in any Bill that is brought forward. It is the interests that are considered. The House should now take the opportunity it has to eliminate from the operation of the Bill the direct private interests, which in the long run can work only against the interests of the users.
    Viscount CURZON: I oppose the Amendment, and hope that the House will not accept it. I am surprised to hear the arguments used by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). I do not think that he can have noticed the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip), which would very largely secure what the Noble Lord wants. In any case it is very important, from the point of view of the small omnibus owners, that they should secure representation on this Advisory Committee. If I understand the Amendment aright, the only way in which they can gain that end is through the medium of the additional Members of the Committee. If you eliminate the additional Members, where can the small omnibus owner come in? I am always suspicious, and I invite the House to be suspicious, of any Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). The cloven hoof is generally to

    295
    be found in them somewhere. Looking at the composition of this Advisory Committee we find it can be largely municipal in character, and that is just what the hon. Member wants, in order that the control of the Committee may pass into the hands of the London County Council, and thereby of the trams. I am surprised that we have not heard anything from the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) on the question of doing away with the limited representation on this Committee.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but I sat for a long time as a representative of a London constituency in this House, and must say that I am amazed at the speeches which the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) is making on all the Amendments. What harm would there be if the
    London County Council, which represents the people of London, should claim the right of any other great city to control its own traffic? The elected members of the London County Council are surely the people who have a right to speak. On this matter I grieve to see my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who has been so doughty a champion of municipal enterprise, in which he and I believe, recommending to the House a Clause which installs private interests, supported as he is by hon. Members like the hon. Member for South Hackney and others, with whom we have at least this in common, that in these services we are municipalisers. That such Members should go into the Lobby in company with the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea is a subject of sorrow for angels.
    Question put, "That the words 'ordinary and' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 90.

    Division No. 105.]

    AYES.

    [4.52 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

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

    Cecll, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gates, Percy

    Alden, Percy

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Ammon, Charles George

    Church, Major A. G.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Clarke, A.

    Gillett, George M.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Climie, R.

    Gosling, Harry

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Baker, Walter

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Greenall, T.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Compton, Joseph

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Banton, G.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery)

    Cope, Major William

    Groves, T.

    Barnes, A.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cove, W. G.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Batey, Joseph

    Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Ctalk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Crittall, V. G.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Berry, Sir George

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardine)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Haycock, A. W.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Dickson, T.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Dixon, Herbert

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Dukes, C.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Duncan, C.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Broad, F. A.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Bromfield, William

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Buchanan, G.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Buckle, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

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

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Egan, W. H.

    Hodges, Frank

    Burman, J. B.

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Ferguson, H.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Cape, Thomas

    FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Hudson, J. H.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Nixon, H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Sullivan, J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Sutton, J. E.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Perry, S. F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Plelou, D. P.

    Toole, J.

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

    Potts, John S.

    Tout, W. J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W Bradford, E.)

    Raine, W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Rayner, W. R.

    Varley, Frank B.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Remer, J. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Law, A.

    Rentoul, G. S.

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

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Leach, W.

    Richards, R.

    Warne, G. H.

    Lee, F.

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Ritson, J.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

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

    Lowth, T.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Lumley, L. R.

    Romerll, H. G.

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Lunn, William

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wells, S. R.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Mackinder, W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Westwood, J.

    McLean, Major A.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    March, S.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Whiteley, W.

    Marley, James

    Savory, S. S.

    Wignall, James

    Maxton, James

    Scurr, John

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Meller, R. J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Middleton, G.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)

    Mills, J. E.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Wilson, Colonel M. J. (Richmond)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Moles, Thomas

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

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Oueen's Univ., Beifst.)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Morel, E. D.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Roherhithe)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    Snell, Harry

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wright, W.

    Muir, John W.

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Spence, R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Naylor. T. E.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

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

    Stamford, T. W.

    Nichol, Robert

    Stanley, Lord

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Nichoson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Kennedy.

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. Williams

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pilkington, R. R.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Benn, Captain Wedgewood (Leith)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Black, J. W.

    Kay, sir R. Newbald

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Bonwick, A.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Briant, Frank

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Laverack, F. J.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Livingtone, A. M.

    Roberton, T. A.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Cheimsford)

    Dodds, S. R.

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

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Maden, H.

    Royle, C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Scrymgeour, E.

    England, Colonel A.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)

    Falconer, J.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Foot, Isaac

    Millar, J. D.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Mond, H.

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Morris, R. H.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Harbord, Arthur

    Morse, W. E.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Harney, E. A.

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Terrington, Lady

    Hindle, F.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    298

    299

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

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

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

    Willison, H.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Hugh

    Seely.

    Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out from the second word "and," to the end of line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words, "representative members of whom."
    I am anxious to obtain the additional members but to include all members in the Advisory Committee in one capacity. As the Bill is drawn, the additional members will only deal with matters arising under Clauses 7 and 10. Clause 7 gives power to the Minister to limit the number of omnibuses running in certain streets. Clause 10 gives him power to make regulations in relation to the very numerous matters mentioned in the Second Schedule. There seems no adequate reason why the additional members should not also deal with the kindred matters dealt with in Clauses 4 and 6. Clause 4 deals with the powers to prevent the closing of streets in consequence of the execution of public works, and Clause 6 deals with the definition of omnibus routes. I think I may summarise the procedure in the Bill as it at present stands by saying that the Advisory Committee will be an in-and-out Committee, and the additional members will be kept waiting on the doorstep while Clause 6 is discussed, and invited in to discuss Clause 4, while it is quite possible, and, indeed, probable, that the matters dealt with by the ordinary members will be so closely interwoven with the other matters, that it will be impossible to separate them for the consideration of the Advisory Committee.
    I do not know what has been passing through the mind of the Minister or the minds of his officials in drawing the distinction between the duties of the additional and those of the ordinary members, but I submit there is no clear guiding principle which separates the duties of one from the duties of the other. I cannot imagine anything more akin to another matter than, for instance, the definition of omnibus routes in Clause 6 and the power to limit the number of omnibuses in certain streets in Clause 7, and yet the additional members are excluded from dealing with the first-mentioned matter, and are required to deal with the second-mentioned matter. I have a number of consequential Amend-
    300
    ments which I will beg leave to move formally, if this Amendment be accepted.
    Mr. GOSLING: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have missed the real point. The real point is in Part III of the First Schedule:—
    "Matters in respect of which the additional members are not to form part of the Advisory Committee."
    All along we have endeavoured to preserve to the municipal authorities the right to deal with matters that are purely matters of theirs, and Part III of the First Schedule says that the matters in respect of which the additional members are not to form part of the Advisory Committee are
    "the formulation of proposals for the equitable distribution amongst the various road authorities in the London Traffic Area of the cost of any scheme of road development, improvement or extension."
    Anybody who has had any municipal experience will say at once that that is a matter in which they should not allow anybody to interfere but those who are elected and directly concerned.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Will the hon. Gentleman, then, undertake that Clauses 4 and 6 shall be in the same category as Clauses 7 and 10? If so, I will consent to what he said, and exclude Part III of the First Schedule.
    Mr. GOSLING: That seems to me to be fundamentally one thing, on which, in no circumstances, could we give way, because I think it would be letting down the municipal authorities, who have very largely agreed upon the terms of the Bill. I do not think there is any danger of anyone being left on the doorstep. Arrangements would be made, when certain matters were being discussed purely affecting the municipalities, that other members of the Committee could be engaged in another room dealing with something else. For all general purposes, the whole Committee come together, but mainly and principally to preserve a very vital principle, without which I do not think I should dare go on with the Bill. I must ask the House to support me and reject this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. RAFFETY: I beg to move, in page I, line 25, to leave out the word "Two," and to insert instead thereof the word "Four."
    I move this Amendment to give two additional members to the London County Council on the Advisory Committee, because of the supreme importance of the London County Council. To propose a membership of two for that body in a Committee of 12 seems to me to be inadequate. An Amendment of this character was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), who is a London Member, but not a member of the County Council. I am a member of the London County Council and of the Highways Committee of that Council, and the important matters we have to consider on that Council and the committee include trams, bridges, the suitability or unsuitability of certain roads to bear a certain class of traffic and questions of vital interest which will have to come before this Advisory Committee. It seems to me, therefore, that the representation of the premier authority, which represents some 4,500,000 people, and covers by far the largest and the most important area over which the Advisory Committee will operate, ought to be increased considerably, and that four members would not be anything like too many.
    It is considered that if this number be increased, other bodies will wish to have their numbers increased, and, in the words of the Minister, the whole arrangement will be upset. I hardly think that that can be so. After all, with regard to the London borough councils, they represent practically the same people and cover the same area that the London County Council represent and govern, and there could be no sort of rival interests between the borough councils and the London County Council in a matter of this sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I suggest there ought not to be. The larger interests of the same people are looked after by the London County Council. I desire to press this Amendment particularly upon the Minister. I need not say anything about the London County Council in his presence. He knows how efficiently its duties are discharged, and if he can possibly see his way to increase the membership of the London County
    302
    Council on the Advisory Committee, I urge him to take this opportunity to do so.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I entirely endorse what the Mover of this Amendment has said. The London County Council was created to do certain services common to the whole of the London area, and, perhaps, the most important of all those services was traffic. The whole of the success of this Bill depends on the co-operation of local authorities. What is really wrong, as we all know, with the traffic problem in London is that the streets are not wide and numerous enough to deal with the increasing traffic. In Paris and other great cities they have been able, by driving great, broad streets through the main parts of the cities, largely to get over the traffic congestion. Where you have been able to do that, as in Kingsway, for instance, you really do not get any very serious congestion, and if these powers are going to be effective, if you are really going to facilitate the traffic in London, and speed up, you must have wider streets. If you are to have adequate representation of the London County Council, obviously two members are quite insufficient. There are 144 members of the London County Council, which is elected every three years, after a very severe competitive election, and represents areas with a great variety of interests. The interests of East London are very different from the interests of West London, and the interests of North London are very different from those of South London, and their points of view are different.
    It is impossible, in a body of 144 members, to say they have adequate representation when you only allow them two members. We have even to admit that we have party differences in the London County Council. There are three parties. A simple arithmetical sum shows that three into two will not go. As you cannot divide two members into three parties, it will mean, naturally, that the predominant party will claim the larger representation, so that these two members would have to represent the majority in power. The representation proposed is quite inadequate, considering the vastness of London, the immense

    303
    financial interests, and other considerations. It is, therefore, an insult to London to allow only two members to represent the people of London on this Advisory Committee. The City, of course, is more adequately represented, and I congratulate the City Corporation on the success of their banqueting. I think, if we had more banqueting at the County Hall, we might get more generous treatment at the hands of various Governments. The City Corporation have only one square mile and only 13,000 people.
    Sir VANSITTART BOWATER: I think there are about 45,000.
    Mr. HARRIS: I am referring to residents. The City has not only two representatives, but it has a share, through its votes on the London County Council, in the representation by the two members who will be elected or nominated by that body. This Bill, and especially this proposal, is against the whole spirit which inspires local government in this country. It is going to sweep aside the principle that the people of a town are entitled to control their own streets, and have a voice in regard to the traffic facilities provided for them. Two representatives are to be allowed for the 4,500,000 people who have the right to elect the London County Council. If other authorities want increased representation, and make out a case for it, I shall not oppose them, but the London County Council, which is elected every three years on a broad franchise similar to the Parliamentary franchise, and which represents the whole County of London, is entitled at least to four representatives on the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. GOSLING: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I have no objection to the London County Council but immediately you begin to alter any one of the arrangements in this Bill, in this respect, then claims will be made from all parts of the House on behalf of other bodies wanting additional representation and you would have an Advisory Committee which would be more in the nature of a mass meeting than a workable body. The London County Council are anxious to get this Bill. They do not like it all, and I do not like it all myself, but still they are anxious to get it and if you once disturb
    304
    the balance of these arrangements it will be impossible to go on with the Bill without consulting the other authorities concerned. This Bill has been built up by arrangement and I cannot agree to disturbing the arrangements at this late hour. This matter was discussed in Committee. It is being raised now for the second time and I think it was pointed out previously that the County Council is neither a highway authority nor a licensing authority. It has its limitations and though I should like, if it were possible, to see a larger number of County Council representatives, yet I cannot say that the interests of the London County Council are not safeguarded. It is the wish of the House to get a body as completely representative as possible without making it an unwieldy body, and for these reasons I hope the House will reject the Amendment. In regard to another point which has been raised as to the difficulty of selecting two representatives from the London County Council I would point out that they have only two representatives on the Port of London Authority and they manage very well. These things are arranged as well as they can be in the circumstances, and just in the same way as they appoint two representatives on the Port Authority, they will be able to appoint two representatives on the Advisory Committee.
    Sir V. BOWATER: When a man has a weak case he usually employs invective, and practically all that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) said in favour of tile extra representation of the County Council was that the City Corporation had two representatives. He knows as well as I do that the City has only one representative. The hon. Member argued this case very strongly in Committee and lost in Committee, and having lost in Committee he brings it up again to waste the time of the House to-day. Many of the Members representing the County Council in the Committee were suffering from a disease which one might call "tramwayitis." All they thought about then was, and all they are thinking about now is, what they can do for the tramways of the County Council. They would like to take those trams through the heart of the City to the detriment of the traffic. If we had the courage of our convictions, and if the County Council had the courage of their convictions, they would scrap the tram-

    305
    ways within five miles of London. The greatest curse at the present time in the traffic are the tramways. They occupy the whole of the road, and they create more trouble in connection with the traffic question than anything else possibly could. If hon. Members who represent the County Council want to assist the traffic of Greater London, they will, when they get to the County Council, advocate that for five or six miles at least the trams should be taken away. I hope the House will not increase the number of representatives of the County Council on this Committee, as they are well represented already.
    Mr. B. SMITH: When I first entered this House I was perfectly free from guile, and I am astounded at the speeches of the three hon. Members who have preceded me, because it seems to me that the various interests concerned are fighting a battle royal over this Bill and that the question of the control of London traffic is being regarded as a secondary matter. I do not say there should not he trams in London, but I cannot understand the representatives of the London County Council pointing out the importance of that body in this connection. It has never been a licensing authority and has never had charge of the roads. With regard to the City, they have always been a licensing authority, although they delegated the power to the Commissioner of Police. I cannot see why it is necessary to have more than two representatives of the County Council. If hon. Members look at the interests affected, they will find that some measure of representation has been given to all. It might be taken wrongly if I were to suggest that the combine has one representative as against the London County Council's two and as against the municipal authorities' 11, or that the workers have three representatives as against 11 representing the authorities and one representing the combine—a total of 12. One might go into this matter on these lines if one did not wish to facilitate the passage of this Bill in order to effect some semblance of control of the traffic of London. I hope the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment will be content with the beating which they got in Committee and will not press the Amendment.
    Viscount CURZON: I hope the House will reject the Amendment. It is an attempt by a representative of one of the
    306
    greatest vested interests in London, namely, the tramways, to try, as it were, to load the dice. I submit that once we begin altering the composition of the Committee we shall bring about our ears all sorts of trouble. If we alter the representation of the municipal authorities and give a little more to the tramways people, what is going to be the position of the small omnibus owner? He has no hope of increased representation, and it would be unfair in his interest to alter the composition of the Committee. The Seconder of the Amendment said there was no great congestion in Kingsway. Of course, there is not, because the trams run underground there. The Minister made the rather astounding remark that he did not like the Bill, of which he is in charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The hon. Gentleman's words were, "I do not like it all myself," which I think an astounding statement from the Minister in charge of a Bill, though perhaps I misunderstood him. I trust that the House will oppose this renewed attempt by the tramway people to secure unfair representation on the Committee.
    Mr. GILBERT: I was sorry to hear the answer of the Minister to this proposal. I thought, judging from his close connection with the County Council for twenty-five years, he would be more sympathetic to a request for larger representation. He said the County Council was not a highways authority. In a sense that is true, but whatever area this Committee has to manage in regard to traffic, the key to the whole situation is the County of London. You cannot do much in managing the traffic of Greater London unless you deal with the County Council area. The London County Council is the bridge authority for the whole county outside the City Corporation district; it is the tunnel authority, the embankment authority, the improvements authority for the County of London, and the Minister will admit that he cannot do much in regard to the traffic question, unless large improvements are made in the County of London. Reference has been made to the rateable value of London. That is one of the points to be carefully considered by the Ministry. The County Council has subscribed generously to the making of some of the new roads for which the Ministry are responsible outside London. I think

    307
    the Minister is keenly interested in the new Dock road; we are all anxious to get that road scheme through, and he hopes the County Council will provide a good deal of the money.
    I think there is every reason why the County Council should be given a larger representation. The Minister says this is an agreed scheme. As far as I know, there has been no agreement by the County Council and no indication that they are satisfied with two representatives. It would be interesting to know who agreed to this scheme, with whom they agreed and where the agreement was made. As one of those who have defended tramway Bills in this House, I am sorry to see the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) so bitterly opposed to tramways in London. I only wish that he and his friends had an opportunity to study the figures and to see the wonderful traffic with which the tramway service is able to deal in London. Reference has been made to tramways obstructing the streets, but I wonder if the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater) has ever counted the number of motor omnibuses hung up at the Mansion House and other streets in the City? If so, I do not think he could come down here and say, fairly, that the tramways are the only cause of obstruction. I hope the Minister of Transport will reconsider his decision on this matter. In reference to his use of the analogy of the Port of London Authority, he was a distinguished member of that authority for a good many years, but I do not think either he or I were at all satisfied that the County Council had sufficient representation on that body, and I do not think it is a good answer that, because we have two on the Port of London Authority, we should be satisfied with two on the Traffic Authority.
    Mr. GOSLING: I was not criticising the number. It was the way in which they were divided.
    Mr. GILBERT: Two members from inside the council is not quite all. There are two from outside the council, whom the County Council appoints, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he I believe was one of them, one of those has to be a Labour Member. Thus the Labour
    308
    party on the County Council get representation in an indirect way on the Port of London Authority. Therefore, I think I have made out a good case, and I claim, in view of the fact that the London County Council is in control of practically the key to the traffic in the County of London, that it is entitled to four representatives instead of two.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The more one hears the discussions on this Bill, the more one realises that the statements which were made by certain people before it was introduced, that it was an agreed Bill, were absolutely false, without any basis in fact. The Minister has told us that the basis of representation is an agreed basis, but, with the greatest respect in the world, I am bound to contradict him. On the basis of population with rateable value, there is no question but that the County Council is hopelessly unrepresented, just as it is equally true that the City of London Corporation is hopelessly over-represented. We have had a speech from the hon. Member for the City (Sir V. Bowater), which is a true indication of the kind of impartial mind the City of London will send to represent it on this Advisory Committee—absolute, unreasoning bias, prejudice, nonsense, by people who do not know the facts about transport enterprise. On a later Amendment I will give the House the facts on the economy of tramway running as compared with the lack of economy on omnibus running. I am not here to argue that the tramways are saints and the omnibuses sinners. I suggest that hon. Members might keep a little impartiality on this question, because I think there is room for all forms of transport. Why, because we, as local government people, claim on local government grounds that a municipality should have adequate representation, we are to be likened to other hon. Members who are more concerned about certain interests of a private character than they are about public interests, and are to be accused of coming here merely to represent the municipal tramway undertaking, I do not know. It is unfair and untrue, and such statements ought not to be made, particularly by Conservative Members.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Does the hon. Member call that being impartial?
    Mr. MORRISON: We ought to settle this question on broad grounds of public policy. We ought to set aside altogether all considerations of a narrow, doctrinaire type, like that advanced by the hon. Member for the City of London and the even more narrow type of considerations advanced by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). Surely we are entitled to consider whether the relative representation of the different authorities under this Bill is in accordance with their relative importance, and the thing that I am most concerned about is that the London County Council is reduced in status and in importance to the level of the Corporation of the City of London. I resent that very strongly, because the Corporation of the City, if I may say so with respect, is a very unimportant body compared with the general governing body of the County of London. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is true, and in regard to all this boasting about the grand old City of London, if the truth about the City were told, and if the truth about the local government in the City were told, it would not redound to the credit of the City Corporation. What I am concerned with, however, is that you must have a sense of relativity in this matter. The City has two representatives. The hon. Member for the City said it has only one, but that is not strictly true, because the Corporation, as such, gets one, and then the police authority in the City, which is the City, again gets one, and, therefore, the City really has two, and it has only a square mile to administer.
    Sir V. BOWATER: On the same principle, the London County Council has three representatives, because it has the Chief Commissioner of Police.
    Mr. MORRISON: The County Council may be held responsible for many sins, but I hope it is not going to be held responsible for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. I do not want to be responsible for him. I leave him to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. London has no control over the Metropolitan Police at all, and this is another instance of the Crown Colony Government that we are put under. Surely the City should not have the same representation, having only a square mile to administer, with an
    310
    insignificant population—a big day-time population with residences somewhere else, I admit. I put it to provincial Members that, supposing Manchester Corporation, Glasgow Corporation, any great corporation in the provinces, were treated in this way, I cannot imagine Members of Parliament representing constituencies in those great provincial cities and county boroughs coming to this House and denouncing their own corporation in the way in which London Members of Parliament denounce theirs. I do not know why it is, whether it is due to jealousy and anger of the municipality, or whether it is a general fear of municipal progress, but surely we are entitled to make a reasonable claim for the reasonable representation of this body.
    The Minister should not quote the Port of London authority as a precedent, because it is a bad precedent. It is perfectly true that if the County Council proceeds to appoint its two members it is in this dilemma, that the majority party is entitled to a majority of the two. I am bound to admit that, though I am in a minority myself. Therefore, its instinct is to secure the two members for one party, and one cannot grumble at this. Surely that is a great difficulty, that would arise whatever party is in power. But let the House consider the area over which the County Council has jurisdiction. It has an area of 116 square miles, a rateable value of £50,000,000, and a population of 4,500,000. It is dealing with the real kernel of the traffic problem in Greater London, and, surely, in those circumstances, it is entitled to reasonable representation. If Members for outside counties can make a stronger case, let them do it, but I do not think they can, because I think they are not so important in connection with this problem as London is. When the Minister wants some main roads built in Kent or Essex, he actually comes to the London County Council to help him with these extra county improvements, and, surely, it is reasonable that the County Council—
    Colonel ASHLEY: Only on the understanding that they contribute, in order that their unemployed should be used on those works.
    Mr. MORRISON: That is true, but the ownership of the roads is vested in the local authority outside, and we are really contributing to the benefit of Greater

    311
    London. I do not say that is a particular virtue, but it meets the point that the London County Council is of relative unimportance. It is a great body and a great administrative machine, and Members ought not to sneer at it. It is entitled to respectful consideration. I speak as a minority Member, a Labour Member, because it is the party of the hon. Members opposite which controls the London County Council, yet they are always denouncing it. They do not like their own handiwork. I am not concerned with the question of who gets the representation, but I am concerned with the principle of the thing, and this House ought to treat a great municipality with respect and proper consideration. I say that this Schedule of representation giving the City two members, giving State Departments one here and two there, is an insult to the great municipality of London, and ought not to be done, and if my hon. Friends go to a Division, I hope the Minister will not put the Whips on, but leave it to the decision of the House. Whether he does or does not, I shall vote for municipal government as against the kind of representation in this Clause.
    Captain Viscount EDNAMI am afraid I cannot give very much respect to the London County Council, particularly when its members talk about their injured status and importance, like an injured housemaid, but I hope the House will not be led astray by this claim on the part of the greatest octopus in the world. The London County Council is not putting in this claim because it thinks it has not sufficient representation in accordance with the population that it represents, but because it may have another opportunity of getting its tentacles further round the necks of the unfortunate people who live in Outer London, and also in order that it may have an opportunity of giving a further length of life to its rotten old tramways that ought to have been scrapped a great many years ago. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) said he hoped there would be co-operation between the various local authorities, but I do not think it is a very good way of trying to obtain co-operation from the other local authorities—who are naturally, and admittedly, suspicious of the London
    312
    County Council, because it is always trying to push itself over its own boundaries and to obtain jurisdiction in outer parts of London where the people do not want its jurisdiction—to seek further representation to which it is not entitled. The County Council is quite sufficiently represented with two members; it is better represented than the outer districts of London, and as well represented as the City of London itself.
    The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green also said that the County Council ought to have a greater representation because it represented great interests. I have been sitting on the Committee upstairs for the last month, and I have heard the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal. Green and his colleagues throughout the whole proceedings of that Committee condemning what he calls the representation of vested interests, yet here he is asking for a further representation of his own vested interests, that is to say, the tramways, that ought to have been scrapped years ago, and the other interests which the County Council controls. As has been pointed out, the London County Council is not a licensing authority, and it is not a highway authority, and why should it have this representation of two further members? When great administrative counties like Middlesex, Kent and so on are not asking for further representation, why should the London County Council? The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) spoke about the unreasoning prejudice and bias of mind of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater), but of all the unreasoning, prejudiced and biassed speeches I have heard throughout the whole of the proceedings of these Committees, the worst have come from the representatives of the London County Council on that Committee. I do not hold the smallest respect for the London County Council, because of the way in which its representatives have tried, not only to push their way into our areas in outer London, but also because of the way in which they have tried to push their vested interests in this Bill. I trust that hon. Members will show in the Lobby what little respect they have.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As a very old London Member I should like a word or two. I think my hon. Friend opposite

    313
    and myself are the two oldest Members for London in this House. With respect to what the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam) said, and with great respect to him, may I point out that there is all the difference in the world between "vested interests" and "public interests." I did not, however, rise to make that point, but to make the perhaps trivial observation that we live in times quite unknown to the ancients. A more amazing situation could not well be conceived than the position of the Minister of Transport. It is even more amazing than this abortion of a Bill. The hon. Gentleman said—and I took down the sentence—"I do not like it all myself." Then why is his name on the back of it? Why is it that he is sitting on that bench helping forward a Bill in which he does not believe?
    Mr. GOSLING: I did not say it in that way.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will put the hon. Gentleman's own words to him: "I do not like it all myself." That being so, why is his name on the back? I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, as I do with the President of the Board of Trade, who is sitting next to him, at whose feet I sat—I do not know how many years ago—as a disciple of the great advisableness of municipalisation and progress. I commiserate with him. What is the answer given to those who criticise the Bill? It is an answer which has been given before: "We found the Bill on the stocks when we came into office." Does my hon. Friend assent to that?
    Mr. GOSLING indicated dissent.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am putting the point of view of the Londoner, who is a very good-tempered, very happy-go-lucky, and rather indifferent sort of person, yet one of the best going. But you can make him angry in time, and if he realises, as he must now, that those super-democrats above the Gangway, those friends of democratic control, have come here to put through a Tory Measure, it will make him pretty angry. I think the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) was thoroughly justified in what he said. I hope this matter will be carried to a division, and I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
    Mr. WEBB: I trust the House will now come to a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has used words that are perfectly true. I do not like all this Bill myself.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: But your name is not on the back.
    Mr. WEBB: But I am responsible as a Member of the Government! None of us, however, can help doing things at times that we do not like. That is obvious. For that reason we have introduced a Bill which, although we do not like every particular of it—also it must not be forgotten that we do not control the majority of the House—we consider it desirable to put forward, and to endeavour to pass as quickly as possible into law. We supposed that by so doing we should meet the approval of various sections of the House. In that sense we understood the Bill to be an agreed Bill.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: We do not agree with it. With whom have you made the agreement.
    Mr. WEBB: I very carefully said "in that sense." I am not asserting that any particular party or section has agreed to any particular Clause of the Bill, but I am saying that this Bill, in the sense that we thought, was an agreed Bill, and in the sense we thought it would be allowed to go through. Personally, I should have preferred to make a Greater London authority directly elected with various ample powers, but because I should have preferred that, would it have been our duty not to endeavour to pass a Measure like this which we hope to get through, knowing that the larger and more ample Measure would have been impossible? This Bill represents the greatest common measure of agreement in the present House, and, therefore, we are endeavouring to pass it.
    It is not, in my view, fair to complain that the London County Council is not more strongly represented, for I would point out that this body is not a governing body at all; it is merely an advisory committee. I have several times before explained in answer to arguments that this Advisory Committee is not an authority, it is not a governing body or anything of that kind. As an Advisory Committee it is an indirectly elected and nominated body to which no one would suggest entrusting powers. Therefore all

    315
    the talk that has been put forward about the size of the population, the area of the territory, the rateable value, etc., of London falls to the ground. In addition to the county council there are the Metropolitan borough councils and the City Corporation. You have to take care in considering this matter how you can get the separate areas all fairly represented, to take care that none of them are left out. We cannot go back upon what has been done in this matter. Thus it must not be forgotten that for the London County Council area there will be no fewer than five representatives on the Committee—two appointed by the London County Council, one by the Corporation, and two from nominees selected by the councils of the several Metropolitan boroughs, whilst the outside areas are represented by three or four members only. I trust the House will come to a decision on this matter without further discussion.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Those connected with the County of London, who for some years past have been represented by large numbers of Members on the opposite side of the House, will be flattered by the remarks about their governing authorities. We have had Member after Member getting up on the other side and belittling their own Government; belittling the London County Council on which they hold a majority. How can they expect any body to be a success if it contains a majority of people who have no interest in it, and think that the body should not be supported? On the other side, we have another party whose representatives on the Front Bench get up and tell us that we must have a Bill of this sort, however bad it is, put on the Statute Book. I am opposed to laws being passed on that basis, that is, because you must have
    something to show on your Statute Book. Let us take time over passing laws while about it, and have those laws that we put there for the benefit of the people as a whole and not for a few vested interests—not only for the vested interests of the people who supply the transport of London, or for the vested interests of a small section of the people who want to use the roads for their own particular purposes. These are represented by those who ride in gilded coaches, and by those who ride about in speedy, private motor cars. We have had anger and contempt put upon the homely tramcar. I have no doubt that the Noble Lord opposite and the hon. Member for the City of London do not ride in tramcars. Personally I do ride in tramcars, even when I am in the County of London. I know the type of person who rides in them. I know the type of person who would be greatly inconvenienced by any interference with the tramcars. We below the Gangway stand for the interests of those people—and they are a very large body—who have to ride in tramcars, and cannot use gilded coaches or speedy motor cars.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is getting wide of the point. I draw his attention to the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: I am only taking up the arguments already used by hon. Members; but may I say that I for one am going to support this Amendment in favour of giving additional representation to that body that has been elected formally and properly by the people of London. I contend that these should have proper representation, and something more than this miserable two members.
    Question put, "That the word "Two" stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 119.

    Division No. 106.]

    AYES.

    [5.59 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Bourne, Robert Croft

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

    Banton, G.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Alden, Percy

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

    Barnes, A.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. Willam Clive

    Ammon, Charles George

    Becker, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Bromfield, William

    Astor, Viscountess

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Buckle, J.

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Ayles, W. H.

    Berry, Sir George

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Balrd, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Burman, J. B.

    Baker, Walter

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Blundell, F. N.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Cape, Thomas

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Richards, R.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)

    Hodges, Frank

    Ritson, J.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Ropner, Major L.

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Rose, Frank H.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northn.)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Clarke, A.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Compton, Joseph

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Cope, Major William

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Cove, W. G.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jewson, Dorothea

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

    Crittall, V. G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smillie, Robert

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kennedy, T.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Law, A.

    Stanley, Lord

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

    Leach, W.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Davison, Sir Philip

    Lee, F.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Dickson, T.

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Dixon, Herbert

    Lloyd-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lowth, T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Dukes, C.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Duncan, C.

    Lunn, William

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    MacDonald, R.

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Ednam, Viscount

    Mackinder, W.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    McLean, Major A.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Egan, W. H.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Elveden, Viscount

    Marley James

    Tout, W. J.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Meller, R. J.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Ferguson, H.

    Middleton, G.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Fitzroy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Mills, J. E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Viant, S. P.

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Warrander, Sir Victor

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

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

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Morel, E. D.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mulr, John W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

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

    Murray, Robert

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Joslah C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wells, S. R.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Westwood, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Nixon, H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wignall, James

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Groves, T.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wilson, Colonel M. J. (Richmond)

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Perring, William George

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Perry, S. F.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Philipson, Mabel

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pielou, D. P.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Potts, John S.

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Hervey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardine)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Raine, W.

    Wright, W.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk Peol

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Reid, D. D. (Country Down)

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Remer, J. R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Remnant, Sir James

    TELLERS FOR THE Ayes.—

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Warne.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    318

    319

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devan, Barnstaple)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, stretford

    Black, J. W.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Romeril, H. G.

    Bonwick, A.

    Keens, T.

    Royle, C.

    Briant, Frank

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Scrymgeour, E

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Scurr, John

    Climie, R.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Laverack, F. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lessing, E.

    Snell, Harry

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Dodds, S. R.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Falconer, J.

    Maden, H

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Finney, V. H.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    March, S.

    Terrington, Lady

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Foot, Isaac

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

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

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Thurtle, E.

    George Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Mond, H.

    Vivian, H.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Montague, Frederick

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Gillett, George M.

    Morse, W. E.

    Word, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

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

    Hardle, George D.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Harney, E. A.

    Murrell, Frank

    Willison, H.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Nichol, Robert

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Phillipps, Vivian

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

    Hindle, F.

    Pilkington, R. R.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Raffety.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 6 to 9 inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties named in the First Schedule hereto, other than the administrative county of London, which lie north of the Thames;
    One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties named in the First Schedule hereto, other than the administrative county of London, which lie south of the Thames."
    This Amendment in the form in which it appears on the paper deals with the representation of the counties other than the County of London on the advisory committee. It is not designed in any way to upset the scheme of representation, but merely to deal with two points in the machinery, one as to the method by which representatives for these counties should be appointed, and the other to allot two representatives amongst two groups instead of making them both representative of one whole group. I am anxious, as the Minister of Transport knows, to meet him as far as possible, and not be
    320
    obstructive in the Amendments I am moving, and I hope in the revised form he may see his way to accept this Amendment. The first part of my Amendment in the original form would have the effect that the County Councils concerned would appoint their own representatives direct instead of as provided for in the Bill at present their being appointed by the Minister from nominees selected by the County Councils.
    I understand that the Minister, who understands this business a great deal better than I do, does not like this Amendment in that respect, and he thinks it is more satisfactory machinery that the county council should have the duty of appointing nominees from whom he may select one representative. If the hon. Gentleman will give me the other part of my Amendment, I am prepared to give up this part, because, so far as the different county councils are prepared to act together, they could, of course, appoint one single nominee, and thus do what they have asked me to suggest by this Amendment. The second part of my Amendment is one of quite a different Character. The county councils which

    321
    are affected, and which, under the scheme, are to have two representatives, consist of counties to the north of the Thames and counties to the south of the Thames. It will be quite obvious to the House that there is a strong bond between counties north of the Thames and a bond between counties south of the Thames, and that there is a material difference of interests between those two. As the Bill provides for two representatives for all those county councils, I am not proposing to upset the scheme when I ask that those two representatives, instead of being for one whole group of all the counties, may be one representative for the counties on the north of the Thames and another for the counties on the south of the Thames.
    I ought to mention here one particular question of drafting which arises as a result of an Amendment which stands later on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), who desires to exclude the counties of Buckinghamshire and Berkshire from the proposed first Schedule. In order to avoid any difficulty arising on that point, I am going to suggest that instead of enumerating the counties they should be described in this Amendment as the councils of the administrative counties named in the Schedule, other than the County of London, which lie north of the River Thames, and the councils of the administrative counties named in the Schedule, other than the County of London, which lie south of the Thames. That, after all, is only a drafting point, and I think that perhaps it will be more convenient, if the Minister agrees, that I should move the Amendment in this form instead of in the form in which it stands on the Paper. Then I come to the question about which I spoke first of all, of the first part of my Amendment—as to the machinery by which these representatives are to be appointed; and if I give up, as I was suggesting that I was prepared to do, in deference to the Minister, that part of my Amendment, it means really that, instead of moving my own original Amendment, I am adopting, in a slightly revised form, the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson). I understand from you, Sir, that their Amendment could
    322
    not be moved if the one standing in my name were moved, and, therefore, as I have put my Amendment into such a form as to make it more a revised form of their Amendment than of mine, I think it is only right that I should mention that, and should refer particularly to the Amendment which stands in their name.
    My moving the Amendment in this form amounts to this, and this only, that the counties which, under the Bill as at present drawn, are to appoint two representatives, or be concerned in the appointment of two representatives, are to be divided into two separate groups with one representative each, instead of there being two representatives for the whole of the larger group. That brings it down to a very simple issue indeed, and one to which I very much hope no objection can be raised on the part of anyone. It does not upset the scheme in the least degree, and it has this great advantage that it enables the counties north of the Thames, which so constantly have to work together and keep in such close touch, to work together as one body, while the counties south of the Thames, which are equally concerned with one another, but have interests separate from those of the north, will be able to work together on their side, each group having its own representative.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have very considerable sympathy with the idea which underlies the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I should like to point out to him and to the House that the idea which he seeks to put forward, and which he has put forward very ably and clearly, can perfectly well be carried out under the terms of the Bill. If the hon. Member will look at the Bill, he will see that it is stated, in line 6 on page 2, that two members shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of certain administrative counties—we need not go into the names of the counties. My hon. Friend says, how much better it would be if the counties that lie north of the Thames could meet together and send up a nominee to the Minister, who would appoint him, and if those on the other side of the river could do the same thing. Why not, asks my hon. Friend, allow the two separate interests to receive separate representation? But what is there to prevent, under the terms of the Bill, the county councils affected from sending their representatives to meet

    323
    together and decide that they will, on behalf of the counties south of the Thames, send up one name, and that on behalf of the counties north of the Thames they will send up another name, so that the same thing can be done without imposing any restrictive legislation?
    Mr. HERBERT: If my hon. friend would allow me to interrupt him for one moment, he, perhaps, does not realise what is our trouble, namely, that, if there were some divergence of interest between the two, the counties, say, to the south of the Thames might appoint three nominees, from whom the Minister could select, and the counties north of the Thames might appoint three or four nominees, from whom he might select; and the Minister for the time being, whoever he might be, might perfectly well select two nominees representing the southern counties alone, or two representing the northern counties alone. The machinery is not interfered with in the least degree by my proposed Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have much too much confidence in the representatives of the county councils, and in the ability of the Minister of Transport, to think that that difficulty would really arise as a matter of practical politics. It is not a matter of first-class importance, I admit, but my hon. Friend must remember that if his Amendment be carried, it will definitely prevent a joint meeting of the representatives of the county councils from sending up two nominees representing the whole of their interests, if they so wish, and it will definitely sever the counties north and south of the Thames from one another. Personally, I think that, on the whole, the balance of advantage lies with the Bill as brought in by the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. GOSLING: I really do not see the necessity for this Amendment, and I think the case has been so well put by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last that I need not repeat it. The only provision that is really wanted is in case the county councils themselves do not agree. I do not see any reason why they should not, and they can agree to divide themselves into two groups, one on each side of the river, if they prefer it, or they can do whichever they like. It is quite true that
    324
    you might get someone at the Ministry of Transport who would gloat over taking the two representatives from one side and none from the other, but that does not seem to me to be the kind of thing that one would expect, any more than one would expect the county councils not to look after their interests in the best possible way. All that they have to do is to send up two names, and then the Minister has no option. Supposing that they do not agree, and every separate body sends up its nominee, then, of course, the Minister must make a selection, but if you want to do anything other than that, you have to set up machinery, and the Minister has to make Regulations. It must be remembered that all that would have to be done in order to select two people once, because this Bill is to terminate at the end of three years, and, therefore, the advisory committee has only to be appointed once. It does seem to me that it may very well be left where it is, allowing the county councils to decide for themselves that they will send two names, one from one side and one from the other, which seems to me to be the most reasonable and sensible thing for them to do.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: The Minister speaks of the councils sending up only two nominees, but, supposing that there were differences of opinion, and they sent up more than two names, that is the real difficulty and the crux of the position. Inasmuch as all these counties feel very strongly on this point, and wish to have a division between the two groups, it seems to me that it would make for the satisfactory working of the Bill if the Minister would agree to this very simple point. The county councils have instructed their representatives to ask to have it done in this way, and it seems to me such a small point that I think the Minister might well agree to let them have what they want. If it is understood that they should only send up one name each, it would do away with the difficulty and please the surrounding counties, who do, undoubtedly, view this Bill with some suspicion.
    Sir HERBERT NIELD: I am afraid it is the insularity of London government that has caused the Minister to give the answer he has given. If he knew something of local government in the counties outside London, he would realise the

    325
    complete unanimity that exists among them, and how different is the case of the counties north of the Thames from that of those south of the Thames. I am not going to say a word about Surrey. Surrey and Middlesex are joined by bridges in various places, but I should like to recall the fact that when, as long ago as 1780, a committee of joint magistrates had to determine where the boundary of their liability came at Walton Bridge, they fell out and quarrelled so severely that no business could be done; but later in the day, when better counsels prevailed, they dined together like true Englishmen out in Palace Yard in an old hostelry called "The King's Head," and they have dined together ever since. Surrey and Middlesex, therefore, have been cemented in that respect. I do assure the Minister, however, that Essex and Buckinghamshire are so constantly in communication with Middlesex, owing to their proximity, that there would be no difficulty in presenting to him a list of well-qualified persons, the selection of any of whom would carry confidence in the other counties. I will not say that that does not obtain to the counties south of the Thames, but, naturally, the river has made all the difference in the world, and we do not get the same consensus of opinion between the northern counties and, say, Kent. I do think, therefore, that the Minister might concede this small matter. He could make his selection, and he would then be able to choose two representatives, both of whom would possess the complete confidence of their adjoining neighbours. The counties on the southern side would include Kent. Berkshire and Surrey, while the counties on the north would be absolutely in accord, and I think it would very largely contribute to the successful working of the Bill.
    Mr. GOSLING: I should like to meet the very considerable feeling which I think exists, and if I can preserve my right—this being only a manuscript Amendment—to make any modification that may be necessary, I shall accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the point which the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) desires to raise, I intend to take that as a separate question on the Schedule, and I understand that
    326
    the Minister, if the sense of the House should be in favour of the exclusion of the two counties in question, would in another place make the necessary alterations in the earlier part of the Bill.
    Mr. GOSLING: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the Minister, in page 2, line 9, to leave out, "and Hertford" and insert. "Hertford, Buckingham and Berks," is not now required; and the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip), in page 2, line 23, to leave out "ordinary," is consequential.
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, after the word "authority," to insert the words
    "other than the representative of the City Police."
    This is a drafting Amendment. It is quite clear that it was not intended that the effect of this provision should be that the representative of the City Police should be a member of the City Corporation, and this is to put that matter right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 24, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the words "and every person."—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
    "and on the termination of such membership he shall cease to be a member of the Committee."
    This is to make the Clause less ambiguous than it is at present. The intention is not clear as it stands—
    "Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority or selected by a group of authorities shall be a member of the local authority."
    What I want to know is, if he ceases to be a member of the local authority does he, ipso facto, cease to be a member of the committee, or if once he is appointed to the committee does he continue his membership even though he may lose his qualification as a member of the local authority. I believe my Amendment would carry out the intention of the Clause, but it is ambiguous as it stands. I understand these words were inserted in Committee and were not in the original draft, and it is possible that they may be capable of improvement.
    Mr. BECKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. WEBB: There is no doubt the intention was, and is, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes it to be, that a member appointed to this advisory committee should remain a member only so long as he continues to be a member of the body in respect of which he was appointed. I think, as a matter of fact, the words in this last paragraph will now be found to have been put right by the Amendment which has just been carried on the Motion of the Minister himself, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will leave it as it is for the moment, I have the Minister's authority for assuring him that it shall be put as he desires in another place if there is any ambiguity at all, but we think there is now no ambiguity.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 7, leave out the word "First" and insert the word "Second";
    In page 3, line 32, leave out the words "for good reason shown."—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to insert the words
    "Its meetings shall be open to the public except it is decided at any meeting by special resolution to sit in camera."
    This is to my mind a very important Amendment if we are really going to have any confidence in the working of the Act by the Minister. The Minister is going to have immense powers over the traffic of London, and of course the object of giving him those powers is to limit, at any rate in certain streets, the number of omnibuses plying for hire. At certain times of the day, especially in the early morning when people are going to work and in the evening when they are returning from work, there is never sufficient seating accommodation for everyone. When the Minister seeks advice, as I assume he is going to do, as to streets which are going to have a limited user, it is very essential that the public, if it is going to be inconvenienced by his decision, should know that before his opinion is arrived at there has been adequate, free and full discussion of the problem. The only security the public is going to have is in the working of this
    328
    Committee. It is a great principle in local government that there should be full publicity for all proceedings. There is a great danger of the Committee having as chairman a mere nominee of the Minister and that would give rise to suspicion that the business of the public is not being adequately considered. The idea apparently is very prevalent in some cases that all the congestion is due to the tramways, and in other cases that it is entirely due to the omnibuses. As a matter of fact if a careful census is taken of the number of vehicles plying for hire in some of our very crowded streets, the cause of the congestion can be traced just as much to the private motor car and taxicab and other means of locomotion. Any day in the summer when there is a great number of social events you will find that congestion is caused in Piccadilly just as much by private motor cars as by motor omnibuses.
    I am sure the House is most anxious that, except there are very special reasons for meeting in private, the Press should be allowed to be present, and there should be full publicity for all the proceedings. I go further. I believe the success of the Minister depends mainly, if not entirely, on the co-operation of public opinion. The only way he can get public opinion behind him is to have the Press present at all proceedings of the Committee, except there is some very special reason why they should sit in camera. I know the Committee upstairs held that it is rather a drastic order that the Committee should always sit in public, because there might be some reason to the contrary; so I have provided that where there is a special resolution the Committee can meet in private. Cheap, rapid transit is essential to a great city like London. We know what it means when there is a traffic dispute and the whole of London is held up; how the whole life of London is disorganised, and when the Minister, acting on the advice of his Committee, decides to decrease the number of vehicles plying for hire, to limit the user of streets, to direct vehicles along a new line of traffic, it is essential that he should have public opinion behind him. The only way he can be sure of having public opinion behind him is to have the full light of day on the proceedings of the Committee on whose advice he acts.
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GOSLING: If I remember rightly, this is the same speech the hon. Member made upstairs when he was badly beaten on a division. I know that is a good reason for his coming here again, but it is a fact that the Committee rejected his Amendment. He seems to have a false impression still, in spite of what has been said, about what the Committee is. It is not an administrative but an advisory committee, and if there is to be publicity it should be in this House. Criticism should be directed to the Minister. The hon. Member spoke again of the immense powers the Committee is to have. It has none. [Interruption.] That may be. The Bill may give the Minister immense powers. I do not think it does, but if it does, he has to answer to the House, and that is where the publicity is. There is another reason. If the Committee thinks it should proceed in public at any time there is no reason why it should not, but you must not put the Committee in the position that it must sit in public when it has matters which ought not to be discussed in public to deal with.
    Mr. HARRIS: I have so worded it that it can sit in private if it so decides.
    Mr. GOSLING: It can do that without your words. There is nothing to prevent it sitting in public, hut what I want to do is to save them sitting in public if they do not want to. Take the case where the Advisory Committee has under discussion the alignment of new roads or something of that kind. It is a vital thing which cannot be discussed in public. The hon. Member knows what it means when you are discussing the site of a new road. People are on the lookout for you all the time.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has read the Amendment. It gives power to the Committee to decide at any meeting to sit in camera if they choose.
    Mr. GOSLING: I think I am right. What I want is that the Committee shall not be compelled, at any time it does not think it ought, to sit in public. At present it can sit in public if it wishes to. That is as far as I want to go. When you are dealing with such questions as the selection of sites for new roads, you
    330
    would be in this position, that members of county councils, who would be compelled by their own standing orders to sit in private when dealing with these matters, would be compelled to sit in public in dealing with them on this Advisory committee. The public protection lies in the criticism of the Minister in this House. He must be held responsible for whatever the Committee does. The Committee must sit in private whenever it wishes and only in public when it thinks it ought. I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: I should like to support the Mover of the Amendment, but I feel I cannot. In the first place, it really seems to me the Amendment would not have any effect at all. The hon. Member has pointed out that he has provided that the Committee can sit in camera when it wants to and in public when it wants to, but it already has that power. Therefore the effect of the Amendment would really be nothing at all. I am afraid that the hon. Member is placing too great a reliance on the Press to safeguard the public in a matter in which the traffic combine is concerned. I think that all hon. Members must have been very much struck by the way in which the Press was completely nobbled by the traffic combine a few weeks ago when this Bill was being brought forward. I and other hon. Members on this side of the House are anxious to support hon. Members in resistance to any proposal putting the traffic combine into a position of privilege, which certain Clauses of this Act do. We feel that that should be resisted in every way. The genesis of this Bill being brought forward in the way in which it was introduced, was very largely the demand which Lord Ashfield made to the Government, "If you give me a monopoly, I will give the trade unions any terms they like, at the expense of the public." We are out to protect the public against that sort of thing. I do not think the hon. Member would get much by this Amendment, because the Press has been completely squared by the traffic combine, and the security which he seeks to gain would not be achieved.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I regret that the Noble Lord has made such a sweeping attack on the Press. I agree with him that there were indications in connection with this

    331
    Traffic Bill, that the traffic combine has considerable influence with the Press, just as we had in the case of the McKenna Duties indications of influence due to the same causes. While it is true that a large part of the Press, possibly the majority, are so influenced, there are still one or two organs whose incorruptibility is unimpeachable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] I might mention the "Morning Post," for example. There are one or two, not many, and it is very important that such journals as are willing to give publicity should have the opportunity of giving publicity in this case.
    The negotiations to which the Noble Lord referred in connection with the settlement of the strike, provide a case in point. We had there one of the worst examples of secret diplomacy. We know that a settlement was arrived at, but we have no knowledge whatever of the consideration which was given on one side or the other. I have always been surprised that a Government which has put open diplomacy in the forefront as far as national affairs are concerned, should, in respect of industrial negotiations, so signally fail to put all their cards on the table. Had the cards been placed upon the table I do not believe we should have had this Bill. Had the cards been placed upon the table, and this Bill had been introduced, I believe the House would not have accepted it in its present form. It is because of the warning in regard to these negotiations that my hon. Friend has put down this Amendment.
    The Minister of Transport has accused my hon. Friend of making the same speech to-day that he made in Committee. The Minister is under this misapprehension
    because he evidently believes that this is the same Amendment that was moved in Committee. As it is not the same Amendment it is not the same speech. The misfortune is that the Minister has made the same speech. He has been imperfectly advised by his officials as to the exact meaning of this Amendment, and they thought that the same brief that he had in Committee would do just as well this afternoon. When there is a matter which requires secrecy, this Amendment gives the Committee power to sit in secret. The importance of the Amendment is that it gives a general direction to the Committee. In the absence of such a general direction, the Committee will sit in private all the time.
    It is nonsense to say that the Committee has the power to sit in public and that it may sit in public. As a general rule, when you have statutory committees of this kind, whether advisory or executive, and there is no statutory direction as to publicity, the tendency is for the majority of the Committee to hold their meetings in private, knowing that they thereby are withdrawn from public criticism and control. If we accept this Amendment in its present form it would be a general direction to the Committee to sit in public, and would give an opportunity for people to go there and see what is going on, and any such organs of the Press as were inclined could report the meetings and give necessary information to the public as to the way in which their interests were being managed by this Committee and the Minister. I hope my hon. Friend will adhere to his Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 299.

    Division No. 107.]

    AYES.

    [6.52 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Dickson, T.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Duckworth, John

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Ainsworth, Caption Charles

    Edwards John H. (Accrington)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    England, Colonel A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Falconer, J.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Black, J. W

    Falle, Major sir Bertram Godfray

    Keens, T.

    Bonwick, A.

    Finney, V. H.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Bowater, Sir. T. Vansittart

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Briant, Frank

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Lessing, E.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Foot, Isaac

    Linfield, F. C.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    McCrae, Sir George

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Hobhouse, A. L

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Maden, H.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Davies, Eills (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Mond, H.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Morse, W. E.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Royle, C.

    Vivian, H.

    Murrell, Frank

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Willison, H.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Raffety, F. W.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

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

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

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

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rea, W. Russell

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

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

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

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

    Dawson, Sir Phillip

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Alden, Percy

    Dixon, Herbert

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

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

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northn.)

    Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Dukes, C.

    Hudson, J. H.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Ammon, Charles George

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Egan, W. H.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Baker, Walter

    Elvenden, Viscount

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Banton, G.

    Ferguson, H.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Aberilliery)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Barnes, A.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Kennedy, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Becker, Harry

    Gates, Percy

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Kirkwood, D.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Law, A.

    Berry, Sir George

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Betterton, Hentry B.

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

    Lawson, John James

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gosling, Harry

    Leach, W.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Lee, F.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lowth, T.

    Broad, F. A.

    Greenall, T.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Bromfield, William

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lunn, William

    Buchanan, G.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    MacDonald, R.

    Buckle, J.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Mackinder, W.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Burman, J. B.

    Groves, T.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    March, S.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

    Marley, James

    Cape, Thomas

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Maxton, James

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hardie, George D.

    Meller, R. J.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Middleton, G.

    Clarke, A.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Mills, J. E.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Clayton, G. C.

    Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardine)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Climis, R.

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Montague, Frederick

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morel, E. D.

    Compton, Joseph

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Muir, John W.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Murray, Robert

    Cove, W. G.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Crittall, V. G.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Nichol, Robert

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Nixon, H.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hirst, G. H.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hodges, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Paling, W.

    334

    335

    Palmer, E. T.

    Shepperson, E. W.

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Perkins Colonel E. K.

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

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

    Perring, William George

    Smillie, Robert

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Perry, S. F.

    Simms, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Smith, T. (Ponterfract)

    Wells, S. R.

    Phillipson, Mabel

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Snell, Harry

    Westwood, J.

    Potts, John S.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillip

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Raine, W.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

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

    Whiteley, W.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Wignall, James

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E)

    Remer, J. R.

    Stanley, Lord

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Richards, R.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

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

    Sullivan J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Ritson, J.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Robertson J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Romeril, H. G.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ropner, Major L.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rose, Frank H.

    Thurtle, E.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wright, W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tout, W. J.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Varley, Frank B.

    Savery, S. S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Scurr, John

    Viant, S. P.

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. G.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Warne.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duties of Advisory Committee.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, leave out the word "First" and insert instead thereof the word "Second."—[Mr. Gosling.]

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Advisory Committee to hold inquiries.)
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, to leave out the words "such public inquiry as they may think fit, or."
    7.0 P.M.
    Sub-section (3) deals solely with the power of the Advisory Committee to hold inquiries. Clearly, if the duty of holding an inquiry under, say, the Motor Car Act be delegated to a Committee, the inquiry they hold must be under the Motor Car Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, at the end to insert the words
    "The Minister may direct that all or any one or more of the additional members shall form part of the Committee for the purposes of this Sub-section."
    This is an Amendment to enable the Committee, if they wish, to have the assistance of additional members in holding an inquiry.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am not quite certain that this Amendment is desirable or necessary. As I understand it, additional members are placed on the Committee because of their special knowledge, for the purposes of transacting the ordinary business of the Committee. Under this Clause we are making provision for inquiries. These inquiries, I understand, are to take evidence, and the interests affected will be entitled to appear as witnesses before the Committee. In these circumstances, it is surely wrong, and not in accordance with sound practice, to have the interests concerned at once represented on the Committee which is holding the inquiry, and giving evidence before the Committee. I hope, therefore, the Minister will at least reconsider the matter. It seems to me that it is mixing up the functions of the Committee. When it is simply a matter of giving advice without an inquiry, namely, when the additional members are to give advice to the Minister through the Committee on matters within their knowledge, I agree that it is advisable that their services should be available; but under this Amendment the Minister proposes to include them upon the Committee of Inquiry, in which witnesses representing their own interests will give evidence. It will be better, therefore, that the Minister should not make this change.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: May I point out that this Amendment is out of order? I have an Amendment, on page 4, which ought to have come before the Amendment which has just been moved by the Minister.
    Mr. SPEAKER: How is that? Was it wrongly printed on the Order Paper?
    Mr. HARRIS: I think so.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then I must take the hon. Member's Amendment first.
    HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, after the word "do" to insert the words, "or where an industry affected requests them to do so."
    This is a very small concession, which I hope the Minister will be prepared to make. It concerns a number of interests likely to be affected by the Regulations under the Bill. It merely says that the Committee may, at the instigation of any industry that is likely to be affected by its Regulations, have an inquiry. I see an hon. Member opposite who is very much interested in the theatre industry. The theatre industry is very nervous indeed lest some of these Regulations should interfere with proper access to places of entertainment. It is not a very big matter, but it is one in regard to which, I understand, the police and the theatre managers in the past have always worked most amicably together, with reference to queues, etc. Not merely theatres, but many other industries are likely to be affected. My Amendment merely suggests that any industry affected should have the right to make representations to be heard in a Committee of Inquiry, and the Committee—I am not suggesting must hear them—may hear them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member was too late in raising his point, because we have already put in the Bill an Amendment on page 5. I did not notice the error in the Order Paper. The hon. Member should have drawn my attention to it before we actually inserted that Amendment. I was willing to go back as far as the second one moved by the Minister. Now my attention is called to the fact that we have actually inserted an Amendment in the Bill on page 5. Therefore, we cannot go back beyond something we have actually concluded. It is necessary now to proceed with the
    338
    Minister's Amendment. I will put that Question again to the House.
    Question again proposed, "That the words 'The Minister may direct that all or any one or more of the additional members shall form part of the Committee for the purposes of this Sub-section,' be there inserted in the Bill."
    Viscount WOLMER: Now we are back on the Minister s Amendment, I should like to reinforce the protest of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) against it. I think the Minister might have given a few more reasons in support of it, when he moved it. It is really an extraordinary proposition, that when you are holding an inquiry, the interested parties about whom you are holding the inquiry to a large extent, and who may be expected to appear in the witness box, should be represented in the jury box. That is an extraordinary proposal at any time, but especially so coming from the Labour party. I hope very much that the House will not agree to it. I do hope hon. Members, irrespective of party, will realise the very great danger we are running in this matter. I am not out to attack the traffic combine as such, but I confess I do think we ought, in the interests of the public, to prevent that combine having an unfair, or privileged position, as compared with that of the small motor omnibus owner or any other individual who tries to compete against the combine for the London traffic. The combine is a highly efficient organisation, and, on the whole, gives a very good service to the public; but we must protect its competitors, the ex-service men and the other small men who are starting in competition with Lord Ashfield. The organisation and machinery we are setting up under this Bill possess tremendous powers. At every turn we have got to be careful that where an inquiry is held, preparatory to administrative action, and when administrative action is taken, the small man is treated on an absolute parity, and receives absolute justice, as against Lord Ashfield and the combine.
    The House has decided, I am sorry to say, to keep the additional Members. I regret that decision and voted against it; but it is going a great deal further to say that these additional members shall have the power and the right, if nominated, to sit on these inquiries. These inquiries

    339
    will be very important indeed. The results will probably be published; they will be quoted in Parliament and the Press, and Ministers, as a rule, will find it very difficult to depart from their findings. An inquiry into a technical matter of this sort carries a great deal of weight, and it requires a strong Minister, one who knows his business thoroughly well and who has a good deal of leisure, to be able to go against the findings of a committee of inquiry. Therefore, these inquiries are very important. In so much as the small man will be practically unrepresented among the additional members, we can take it that the additional members mean the combine and their employés; and those are the interests to whose mercies the public should not be left unprotected. Therefore, I hope very much that the House will not agree with the extraordinary proposition that interested parties should be both members of the inquiring board and witnesses in the witness box.
    Viscount CURZON: I cannot understand the reasoning of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) in this matter. For exactly the same reason that he opposes this Amendment, I wish to support it. The small omnibusmen will get their representation through the additional members of a committee. I can imagine a case of an inquiry being held, where the London County Council might oppose the omnibuses or something to do with the omnibuses; indeed, any matter affecting traffic in the London traffic area. The London County Council might be opposing the interests of the small omnibus owners. Surely they would, at the same time, be represented on the advisory committee in their capacity as ordinary members. Would it not, therefore, be fairer for the additional members to come in as far as possible without any distinction between them? That is what we want. We do not want any distinction between them at all. We want them all to be on the same footing, so that there shall be no suspicion of favouritism, in order that the small men may get exactly the same chance as the London County Council, or any other traffic authority. I hope the House will support the Amendment which does something to get rid of the distinction between the ordinary and additional members of the committee.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I agree that the additional members ought not to be both judge and jury. This seems to me a combination of bureaucracy, plutocracy and autocracy, and I object to people being allowed to act as judge and jury in their own cases. I shall, therefore, vote against this Amendment.
    Mr. PALMER: I do not think that any question arises of these additional members acting as judge and jury in their own cases—
    Mr. BROWN: Why not?
    Mr. PALMER: This is an advisory committee to the Minister of Transport. If the Minister wants advice from people other than those specified in the Bill, there is no reason why he should not have it. There are representatives of trade unions and others who might quite usefully, in so far as they definitely represent a body and are in a position to render first-hand information, and reasonably be added to the committee. It is rather stressing the point to represent this Amendment as a provision for placing a body of persons in the anomalous position of being judge and jury. I support the Amendment.
    Mr. REMER: I think the Minister of Transport should explain the position more in detail, so that we may know exactly what his proposal is. We have heard speeches from two Noble Lords giving an absolutely contrary version of the purpose of this Amendment, and I feel in a great difficulty to know exactly what the Amendment really calls for. I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman the Minister every opportunity of getting his Bill through as quickly as possible, and I hope, therefore, before we go to a Division, he will give further explanations of exactly the effect of this Amendment.
    Mr. GOSLING: I feel that in dealing with matters which come before the advisory committee these additional members could be used with great advantage. It must be remembered all the time that they are experts, and I do not understand the idea underlying the suggestion that they will be acting both as judge and jury. They will be doing nothing of the kind.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will these gentlemen be allowed to vote? Suppose an inquiry

    341
    is being held, will they be allowed to vote on the recommendations they themselves make?
    Mr. GOSLING: Voting is not of very great importance. As to the advisory committee, I should want to know, not only what the advice of the additional members was, but on what grounds they came to their conclusion. I should want to know if the committee came to its conclusion by a narrow majority or by a unanimous vote. I do not want to press this unfairly if the House does not want the Amendment, but I think it would be a useful addition to the Bill that the Minister should have power to add these gentlemen, who are experts, to the committee.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry, but I still do not understand the position. Let me put it as I see it. These gentlemen are to be called in on an inquiry which is being conducted into circumstances in which their interests may be involved. They will make certain recommendations. Are they also to be allowed to vote? If so, then it seems to me they are acting both as judge and jury. If these experts are to be called as witnesses, the decision on the matter should be left to people who are absolutely independent.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: I still feel that the Minister of Transport has not made yet exactly clear what will be the functions of these additional members. On a previous Amendment he stated, rather vaguely, I admit, that the additional members would in a matter which affected their interests not be entitled to vote, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill of any kind or sort to say that. If the Minister for Transport will add words to the Bill which will make it impossible for these additional members to vote on the committee of inquiry, it will go some way towards meeting the objections which have been expressed. These committees are empowered not only to inquire into matters affected by this Bill, but also into matters affected by every previous Act of Parliament which gives the Minister of Transport any power whatsoever to inquire into the question of transport facilities in London. It will have very wide powers, and it is proposed to add the additional members to the sub-committee which will
    342
    conduct the inquiry. They will make their report; it may or may not be unanimous, and the additional members representing various interests which are deeply concerned under this Bill and under previous Acts, may, by their weight on these committees, overrule the opinions of the independent members. I think it would be a very grave infringement of the proper function of government to allow representatives of special interests to make inquiries into the functioning of their own interests and to probably outweigh independent opinion on that inquiry. Everyone knows that a majority report of an advisory committee of this nature is very difficult to overrule, and I should have thought, under the circumstances, the Minister would be wise to withdraw his Amendment.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I, too, would like to know what the Minister really means by this Amendment. There are two totally different sets of opinion in regard to it. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that, if the Minister wishes to call certain gentlemen, being experts, as witnesses in order that the Advisory Committee may arrive at a decision as to what is, or is not, the correct thing to do in certain circumstances, then the Amendment can be supported. But if it means that the Advisory Committee is to be composed of persons who are not impartial, but who are interested in the business either as trade unionists or in any other capacity, then I contend the Amendment ought not to be adopted. I do not think it matters much whether the interests concerned are big or small. It is entirely a matter of principle. If experts are to be called, they may equally be called from those representing small interests as from those representing large interest. If the persons composing the committee are themselves interested, then it becomes a question of principle, and it does not matter whether the interest is big or small. So far as I am concerned, the Minister has not made his meaning clear, and I want to get further information as to what is to be the constitution of this Advisory Committee.
    Mr. GOSLING: This proposal for using these additional members seems to have

    343
    given rise to a considerable difference of opinion, and to save time I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Closing of streets for works.)
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out the words "its width," and to insert instead thereof the words "the width of the carriageway."
    This Amendment is moved in fulfilment of a pledge given in Committee to the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon), and I think he will agree that it carries out his desire.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, to leave out the word "they," and to insert instead thereof the words "the works."
    This Amendment is proposed in consequence of another Amendment which was made in Committee and which was not quite clearly expressed. Its object is to show that it is the works and not the authority that are to be executed.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Provision for mitigating obstruction to traffic.)
    Amendment made: In page 7, line 37, after the word "mitigate," insert the words "or discontinue."—[Mr. Gosling.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power to attach conditions to grant of omnibus licences plying in the City of London and the Metro- politan Police District.)
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, at the end to insert the words
    "Any person who proposes to establish a regular service of omnibuses within the area of the licensing jurisdiction of any such licensing authority upon a route which is not an approved route may apply to the licensing authority to define that route as an approved route, and in the event of the licensing authority refusing so to define such route an appeal shall lie to the Minister who may, if he thinks fit, define the route, either as originally proposed, or subject to such alterations as he thinks proper, and any route so defined by the Minister shall be deemed to be an approved route."
    This is in fulfilment of a promise which was given in the Committee stage to the
    344
    hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Sir T. Inskip). Under this Amendment there will be an appeal to the Minister, if the police, on the grounds of public safety or the convenience of traffic, refuse to licence a route as an approved route, This will leave untouched the right of the road authority to apply to the Minister under the Roads Act, Section 7, Subsection (4), to close a route to omnibus traffic either on the ground of public safety or because of the unsuitability of the route.
    Mr. KEENS: I would like to know what is the exact meaning of "regular service" as mentioned in this Amendment, and who are to be the advisory authority to advise the Minister of Transport? The Minister is taking powers to override the ordinary licensing authority and set aside their decision, and I would like an assurance that that power shall not be used in an autocratic way.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: I would also like further information as to the meaning of the word "regular" in the proposed Amendment. It is possible to imagine the owner of one, two or three omnibuses proposing to ply on a certain route which he wishes to have approved by the licensing authority, and he might be refused under this Amendment on the ground that his service does not constitute a regular service. If it were so ruled in one case would it apply in every other case, or should we have the spectacle of the London General Omnibus Company bringing in its organisation and running omnibuses which would be able under this Act to apply to a licensing authority to approve a new route. I can fairly understand it being ruled to mean that by a legal authority. If that be the meaning we should have some variation of the proposed Amendment.
    Moreover it is not clear what is to be the advice on which the Minister is to act. As far as I can understand from the Amendment he is to act arbitrarily. He is to override any licensing authority without the advice of any committee. Many hon. Members of this House are of the opinion that the arbitrary powers of the Minister are increased to an undue extent under this Bill, and many hon. Members would be sorry that under this Amendment increased powers should be given. I would like to know the exact meaning of the word "regular" and I

    345
    would like an assurance that the word would not be used to rule out a small independent concern from applying for a licence on these routes.
    Mr. STORRY-DEANS: If my hon. Friend will look carefully at this Clause he will find that it is plain even to his non-legal intellect that "regular" is opposed to "irregular" or spasmodic. If anyone proposes to run a spasmodic or irregular service I take it that he requires no licence at all. It is only when he wishes to turn some route into part of a regular omnibus route that he will require permission under this Amendment. Omnibuses, though it may not be known to the hon. Member for Willesden (Mr. H. Johnstone) sometimes run in an irregular fashion. For instance, parties who wish to go to a dance and are not able to afford motor cars sometimes combine together and hire an omnibus, or parties who wish to go to Wembley, and Ascot I believe, hire omnibuses. These people clearly are not people who are supplying a regular service, but I take it that an omnibus which runs along a well-defined route, even if only once a day, or weekly, even if only once a week, is running a regular service. I imagine that the hon. Member can be reassured if I say that probably any legal authority would hold that a service of that kind was a regular service, so I shall support the Amendment proposed by the Minister of Transport.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Hon. Members are, perhaps, under a slight misapprehension. As I read it, this Amendment is only put in for the protection of the small omnibus proprietor. As hon. Members know, the police are the authority who are to define omnibus routes, and if a large or small owner of omnibuses wishes to start on a route different from the ordinary omnibus route laid down he would have to apply to the First Commissioner of Police for permission, but if the Commissioner refused him permission all that it is sought to do under this Amendment is to give to that small man, or big man, a second chance by enabling him to apply over the head of the Commissioner of Police to the Minister of Transport, so that he may have, at any rate, authority to go into the matter.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I dare say that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is right. My hon. Friend opposite has
    346
    told us what he imagined a legal decision would be. The right hon. Gentleman gets much more down to brass tacks in saying what this means, but what about the Minister of Transport? It may be an improvement. This is a bad Bill, but if we can improve it by this provision I will vote for it. As this is a matter of great public interest, I would appeal to the Minister of Transport to explain what it does mean.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think that a great deal of misapprehension has arisen, largely owing to the inaudibility of the Minister. Had the object of the Clause been explained at the beginning there would have been very little misapprehension. I agree with the interpretation of the Amendment which has been given by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley). This is a new addition. The object of this Amendment is to safeguard a person, who applies for a licence to run on a new route not already approved of, against the licensing authority exercising its powers unfairly. If the licensing authority decides that there shall be no such service on this route, then the applicant is entitled to appeal to the Minister so that he has two chances instead of one.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, to leave out paragraph (b).
    The licensing authority is to have power to licence omnibuses, and the Clause provides that the licensing authority may attach to any such licence any of the following conditions. To the conditions in paragraph (a) nobody could take any objection because they are to be imposed only on the ground that the omnibus is unsuitable, but paragraph (b) and, to some extent, paragraph (c), as to which I have another Amendment, specify conditions which the Minister may or may not attach to the licence. Under this Bill the licensing authority and the Minister on appeal are going to have a very difficult task. Everybody will agree that it would be most undesirable if there were to be any discrimination between omnibuses belonging to a large or a small owner, or belonging to somebody who might be for one reason or another objectionable to the Minister or to somebody else, and this power to insert

    347
    conditions—the wording of the Clause is "may attach conditions" and not "shall"—to one licence and not to another is a power which, I will not say under our excellent Minister of Transport, but in the hands of another, would be open to abuse
    I suggest that it would be fairer in relation to all owners of omnibuses, particularly to small owners, to say that this is a condition which is to be attached either to every licence that is granted, or that it shall not be a condition of the licence. This particular condition, as I understand it, is intended to give the Minister power in the case of persons who apply for authority to run a omnibus on a new route to say, "You may run the omnibus provided you charge fares which are reasonable." It is a very cumbrous way of effecting that intention. If this language were only to give the Minister power to do that, and to say that when an omnibus is running on a new or exceptional route the Minister shall have power to say that proper fares shall be charged, I should not have objected so much. But it gives the Minister very wide powers. It states:
    "A condition that the omnibus shall not, without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of general application. … "—
    relating to a special occasion or relating to every occasion—
    ". … and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions. …" —
    that the Minister or the licensing authority may think of—
    ".… ply for hire except upon approved routes."
    We all desire, although we have different opinions as to the way in which it should be done, that there should be absolute equality amongst the owners of the various vehicles that ply for hire. I respectfully suggest that this paragraph, and paragraph (c), which follows, should be excepted, and that if the Minister desires to have the power of saying that an omnibus which is undertaking a special adventure on some day, where it is going to run only once in the year, shall run subject to some control by the Minister, proper words with that object should be put into the Bill in another place. I object to the very wide and vague powers which are given by this paragraph to the
    348
    Minister to attach conditions which may conceivably be attached to one owner and not to another.
    Mr. GOSLING: This paragraph relates to the power to require omnibuses to confine themselves to approved routes. Any attempt to deal with the problem of the omnibus traffic of London must fail unless the omnibus services are restricted to routes which are safe and convenient. That is the object of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the question of an individual omnibus wanting to run one day to one place. I suppose that he was thinking of the Derby or something of that kind. Even then, it is just as well for the passengers to know under what conditions they are going, what fares they are to pay, and matters of that kind. You must confine the whole of the services to conditions that are laid down and to routes that are approved. Directly you begin to interfere and to take out those conditions, you make the Bill unworkable for the benefit of the community.
    Mr. KEENS: I trust that the Minister will not regard that decision as final. We have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, a skilled lawyer, who finds himself in great difficulty in deciding what the Clause really means, and the Minister of Transport does not seem to be any too definite as to what it means. Surely it is possible to have these words reviewed in such a way that there can be no doubt whatever as to what they mean. If the meaning is what the Minister states it to be, I agree that he must have power to confine traffic to approved routes, and there must be power to prevent the fleecing of the public. But we have the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, whose abilities are well known, saying that he cannot make out that that is the meaning of the Clause. Surely it is possible to have a little more definition. I hope the Minister will see either that the paragraph is withdrawn now or inserted in some other form in another place.
    Mr. H. MORRISON: Surely the Clause is quite clear. The House must remember what we are doing by this Clause as a whole. The object of the Clause is to remove the congestion upon London streets. That being the object, the way in which the Clause proceeds to do it is

    349
    by saying that upon a given approved route there shall not be more than a certain number of omnibuses, and that the number shall be adequate to meet the reasonable requirements of traffic on that route. That is the principle of the Clause. It is to secure that on certain approved routes, where congestion now exists, and which are ordinary omnibus routes, there shall not be a flood of additional and unnecessary omnibuses. The Clause does not lay it down that no omnibuses may ply upon any route other than the approved route. There are, apparently, certain routes where omnibuses may ply, in addition to the approved routes where the congestion exists. Paragraph (a) of the Clause provides that
    "a condition [may be imposed] that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon specified approved routes or any 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."
    It is clear that an omnibus of given construction must not, ply on routes for which it is not suitable. There are various provisions in the several paragraphs of the Clause to cover varying traffic problems, and you cannot consider the one without the others. Paragraph (b) imposes the condition that
    "the omnibus shall not without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of general application and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes."
    Surely, if you consider the purpose of the Clause, that is a vital provision. If you accept the principle of this Clause, paragraph (b) is the vital and, indeed, the central part of it. It goes right to the heart of the Bill, but I am not sure that it is altogether appreciated by the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T Inskip).
    Mr. P. HARRIS: I am afraid that there is a good deal of confusion in the generally clear mind of the last speaker. It is due to the fact that we have two Clauses, Clauses 6 and 7, dealing with the same problem. They deal with a similar question in two parallel ways. Clause 6 deals with the licensing of omnibuses by the Home Office, acting through the Commissioner of Police. Clause 7 gives powers to the Ministry of Transport on certain special routes to restrict
    350
    the use of those routes. We have had several interpretations, and I hope I am interpreting the mind of the Minister when I say that the licensing authority has no power, as a licensing authority, to attach a condition to a licence. They cannot say that only so many licences can be given. That power is in the hands of the Minister of Transport under Clause 7. All that they can do is to say that omnibuses shall not ply for hire on such and such streets. If that is right, this is a very harmless provision. But we have the right to ask the Minister to interpret his Bill. It is a very complex Bill, and that is one of my objections to it. I suppose that we have had skilled draftsmen engaged on it, but to-day we find that such an eminent lawyer as the ex-Solicitor-General has been so puzzled as to move the deletion of a paragraph in a Bill largely fathered by the party with which he is associated. Therefore, we have reason to ask the Minister, who has the special advantage of expert officials behind him, to give a clear interpretation of the exact effect of this paragraph.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is a pity that we should have any Division upon this Amendment. I was hopeful that the Minister would clear the matter up. I have been applying my mind to the best of my ability to ascertain exactly what this paragraph means. To put it in plain language, it seems to say simply that one of the conditions laid down is that the omnibus shall ply for hire only upon approved routes. It does not lay down a condition about any particular route. It is a general condition that the omnibus will ply for hire only upon approved routes. There are certain exceptions, that with consent it may go somewhere else under certain conditions. I see no objection to that. I assume that that was the principle of the Bill. I do not see why this is in the Bill at all, for it seems to add nothing to it.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It seems to me that what this paragraph states is, that the licensing authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, shall, when he gives a licence, say to the person to whom the licence is given, "You may ply only upon certain routes."
    Mr. PRINGLE: It does not say that at all. It is upon "approved routes."
    Colonel ASHLEY: Upon a certain approved route, or certain approved routes. In Clause 7 power is given to the Minister to discriminate among the people who hold licences, so as to reduce the number of licences upon that route.
    Mr. GOSLING: I made this as clear as I could in my earlier speech. Here is a condition that the omnibus shall not,
    "without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of general application, and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes."
    A condition of that kind is fundamental if you are to deal with London traffic. Otherwise, the chaos will continue.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would the hon. Gentleman excuse my interrupting? Is the interpretation which I have given or the interpretation given by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) the correct interpretation?
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. GOSLING: I do not intend to be an arbitrator between the two hon. Members. This is a perfectly simple Clause and I want it in the Bill, because without it the present chaos will continue. What I fear is the attempt to let omnibuses run wild, as they do now. There must be restrictions. The conditions in the Clause have been drawn with very great care, and I must ask the House to accept them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question, namely, whether the omnibuses are to be confined to one specific, approved route, or are they to be allowed to ply over all such routes?
    Mr. STORRY-DEANS: Before the Minister replies, I should like to reinforce, if I can, the point put by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), because it does not matter in the least what the Minister of Transport thinks this means. When this comes to be interpreted by a Court of Law, if anybody were to say to the judge, "The Minister of Transport in the House of Commons said it meant such and such a thing," the judge would say, "What have I got to do with that? What I have to look at is the words in the Section, and what is their plain grammatical meaning." I
    352
    respectfully submit that in their plain, grammatical meaning, the words of the paragraph in question mean that the Minister can attach a condition that an omnibus shall only ply upon approved routes. That means it can go along any approved route it likes. Obviously it means that. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman may take it from me, that if one with some experience of the interpretation of Acts of Parliament holds that opinion so strongly, he may find others who have to interpret Acts of Parliament holding that opinion. If it is really intended to confine the omnibus to a particular specified approved route, that is to say, that such an omnibus shall be licensed only to ply between A and B along a certain route, then it ought to be made perfectly clear, and I should think it would not be beyond the wit of man, beyond those expert advisers, upon whom the hon. Gentleman can call, to make this clear. If that is what is intended, I suggest to him quite respectfully it does not mean that, and if he intends it to mean that an omnibus shall ply on a particular specified approved route, he should make it quite clear in unmistakable language.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Perhaps I may say one more word. Clause 7, as has been pointed out, gives the Minister the amplest powers to restrict the running of omnibuses in any place which is congested. In Sub-section (2) of that Clause it is provided that where the Minister has declared any street, or part of a street, to be a restricted street, he may determine "the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire," and apportion the number of journeys an omnibus may run, and do everything to prevent congestion. Where, in fact, congestion occurs, that is very reasonable, but this Clause says that when a licence is granted, before it is known where the omnibus is going to run, or before it is known whether to anticipate congestion where the omnibus is to run, a condition may be inserted which may contain any other condition which the licensing authority may put in not specified in the Bill, and I object to the Clause, because it may be used hereafter to differentiate unfairly — perhaps unintentionally — between two different proprietors, and I object again because, as my hon. and learned Friend and hon. Members opposite have pointed out, the Clause is really so involved and ambiguous, that side by

    353
    side with Clause 7, it is very difficult to discover its intention. Somebody has said something about criticising a Bill which proceeded from a Government in which I had a humble part. Although the Bill is not in the form in which it was before us, it might have been my duty to look at the Bill more closely if we had been allowed to remain in office, and I cannot believe that, because this Bill had its origin in our Government, that prevents me from criticising, when I am sure I should have criticised it if my attention had been called to it in the course of my duties.
    Mr. MARCH: I do not profess to know anything about the legal position in connection with this Clause, but it does seem to me the Clause is to give powers to the Minister and to the licensing authority to find out which route or routes the omnibuses are going to take, and if they are proposing to go on certain routes which have not been approved by the Minister, then certain conditions will have to be imposed upon them. I know, as a member of a local authority, that we have omnibuses frequently going off the main road on to side roads which are not fit and suitable for those omnibuses to ply for hire, and very frequently the local authority makes complaint about omnibuses going down various streets. There is only one authority who can alter it, and that is the Ministry of Transport through the London County Council. If this is not in the Bill, what right has the Minister of Transport got to prohibit omnibuses going down certain roads which are not approved routes? It seems to me there have got to be certain conditions placed upon the owner of the omnibus who applies for a licence, unless he is going to ply for hire on approved routes. If he is going along routes not approved, then, I take it, the Minister wants the power to stop those omnibuses going there. Therefore, I hope this Clause will remain to give him that authority and power.
    Mr. BECKER: To a humble Back Bencher, without the slightest bit of legal mind, this Clause appears to enact that when an omnibus is licensed, the licensing authority can stipulate that it shall go on any approved route. The Minister says that an omnibus shall be bound to one route. If, however, it is the case that an omnibus can go on any approved route, I need not pursue the matter further.
    Mr. GOSLING: The restrictions are in Clause 7. Clause 6 deals with approved routes. If I find, after taking advice, that an alteration is wanted, I will take the necessary steps. I hope the House will accept the Clause on that promise.
    Sir T. INSKIP: If the hon. Gentleman will do what he now promises, look into the matter more closely and put it right in another place, I am content.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 8, line 43, at end, to insert a new paragraph:—
    "(d) it shall be a condition attached to every such licence that the same shall be held and shall be valid only so long as the persons on behalf of whom the licence is held shall not either by themselves or by others manufacture motor vehicles, or parts thereof, or apply their funds to the manufacture of such vehicles, or parts thereof, except for use on approved routes."
    The object of the Amendment is to prevent anybody who may be in a position hereafter, as some hon. Members anticipate, of having a monopoly, from using their entrenched position to enter into competition, which may have an unfair effect on the trading of other motor manufacturers. I do not want to take up the time of the House with this Amendment, beyond asking the House to consider the position in which motor manufacturers will be. I want to call attention to the possibility that a manufacturer may be faced with competition from another manufacturer who is able to rely upon resources derived, not from the manufacture of motor-cars, but from the running of omnibuses on the London streets. Hon. Members are aware of the large business carried on in the manufacture of motor-cars by the Associated Equipment Company, which is connected with the London General Omnibus Company. I say nothing about the way in which the London General Omnibus Company and the Associated Equipment Company conduct their affairs, because I have no criticism to make upon it from my point of view. But I think, as one who supports this Bill generally, and who believes in the efficiency with which that undertaking, on the whole, conducts the traffic of London to the advantage of residents of London, it is the more incumbent upon us to see that it is not in a position to use that power which it has, and those resources which it will derive

    355
    from the exercise of that power, in manufacturing motor vehicles in what, in one sense of the word, will be unfair competition with other motor manufacturers. I do not know what view hon. Members may take of it, but I have felt the seriousness of the position which might arise, and for that reason I moved this Amendment in Committee, and I regret very much that no one saw the matter as I thought I saw it in Committee. I hope it may be more successful in the House in obtaining the support, which, I think, will not interfere at all unfairly with the activities of the combine—or the monopoly, as some people call it—or anybody else, and will secure fairness between the various manufacturers of motor-cars.
    Viscount CURZON: I have put my name on the Order Paper in support of this Amendment, and I wish to give one or two arguments which have not been touched upon in support of it. The reason this Amendment is put down really arises out of the inquiry which was held after the traffic strike. In the course of that inquiry a question was put by the representative of the trade unions to Lord Ashfield, with reference to the Associated Equipment Company. Lord Ashfield was asked whether he was making a profit or incurring a loss in this transaction, and he said the Associated Equipment. Company showed large losses. That led some of my friends and myself to make inquiries with reference to this matter. I am not absolutely certain as to all the details or the figures, but it is a fact that the Associated Equipment Company has been trading abroad. They have made lorries at their works here and exported those lorries overseas, where they compete in such markets as they can find and in order to secure a footing in those markets, I have reason to believe prices have been somewhat reduced. I submit that in doing so a company may be incurring a loss, and it is very unfair that such losses should be incurred by a company trading on the London streets, because it is obvious that in such an event the company might easily pass those losses on to the public in the form of increased fares. I submit to hon. Members above the Gangway opposite that they should examine this proposal with some care, because if a company incurs these losses it will be more diffi-
    356
    cult for that company to meet demands for increased wages. I am sorry I was not present at the Committee when this matter was raised there. It was the only day on which I was unable to attend its sittings, but I do not think these reasons were then advanced or that these arguments were present to the minds of the Committee.
    Mr. GOSLING: I do not see the connection between the control and regulation of London traffic and a matter of this kind. I do not see how such a condition could be attached to the licence. The police could not enforce it because they would not have the necessary information, and if such a condition is required it should be separated from the question of licensing. It does not seem to me that this is a necessary part of a Bill to deal with London traffic, and I do not see how it finds its way into this part of the Bill. I feel bound to resist the Amendment more particularly as it was fully discussed in Committee.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I agree with the Minister that these words are unnecessary and inappropriate at this point, but I mainly rise to call attention to the extraordinary doctrine which has been preached by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). The Noble Lord is greatly concerned at the idea that the Associated Equipment Company was increasing export trade at a slight loss.
    Viscount CURZON: I wish to correct my hon. Friend. My point was that I did not want a company running omnibuses on the London streets, to be incurring losses in trade operations overseas which might be passec on to the general public in increased fares.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Noble Lord does not really understand the effects of his own doctrine. Here you have a protected industry, because, in fact, this motor omnibus industry is protected so far as the London streets are concerned. It can make its profit here, and the theory is that under those conditions you can increase your production and spread your costs and consequently afford to lose abroad, yet make a profit on the whole project. The Noble Lord evidently does not understand the theory of mass production which the ex-Prime Minister is constantly preaching.
    Amendment negatived
    Major MOULTON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, at the end, to insert the Words
    "Provided that no such conditions shall prevent any omnibus from being temporarily used on another routs in case of interruption of, or serious interference with, any of the normal means of traffic within the area to which this Act applies."
    I do not think this Amendment should be regarded as of a contentious character. It is intended to deal with a rather difficult question which may arise. I think the House should be very careful lest, in attempting to promote the convenience of London, it ties the hands of London traffic authorities so that it will bring about a serious inconvenience should certain circumstances arise. This Amendment is proposed with the idea of enabling the greatest possible amount of alternative traffic to be available in the case of an interruption of railways or other normal means of traffic. We do not require long memories to realise the desirability of this proposal. We only require to look back to a fortnight ago, when there was a break-down in the service on certain railways owing to a dispute. People from all over the country, to whom a bank holiday is a very important occasion, were coming to London and were desirous of getting to Wembley. I believe 1,000 omnibuses plied on that route on that occasion and got the people there. That is a right which London ought to retain.
    I do not suggest that it should be left to the Minister to say in such a case whether emergency measures are to be taken or not. You may get a Minister who does not wish to take sides in a dispute; you may conceivably get an Advisory Committee or a Minister who will decline to allow this relief to be given if the emergency arises, but I say London ought to have the right to these temporary means of traffic in case of necessity. A condition should be inserted in every licence that the omnibus is free to ply on another route in the case of a serious breakdown, or the Bill itself should provide that the licensees will not be liable to any prosecution for using another route in such circumstances. I ask the House, in the interests of the public and in order to prevent an increase of the possibilities of holding up the London traffic, to include these words, and I suggest that the Minister in his
    358
    own interests should accept them. I think the Minister might probably be very glad to be relieved of the responsibility of dealing with the situation which might arise in the event of a lock-out or a strike or any dispute. I do not think it should be made a penal offence to try to help London in its emergency when one particular method of communication has been broken down.
    Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I quite agree that the Minister ought not to be put in the position of having to decide this matter in the ease of a strike or a lock-out affecting any particular transport company, and he ought not to be called upon to play the part either of a strike-breaker or of a person who by his action or inaction can help a strike.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I do not see where that comes in on this Amendment, which deals with cases of the
    "interruption of, or serious interference with, any of the normal means of traffic within the area."
    Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I was trying to make a practical application of the words, because I apprehend that such a serious interference with London traffic would only really arise in cases such as those with which we are familiar. There have been two such occasions since this House met, when traffic has been seriously disorganised owing to strikes or other industrial disturbances.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would call the hon. and learned Member's attention to the words of the Amendment, which are
    "Provided that no such conditions shall prevent any omnibus from being temporarily used on another route in case of interruption." etc.
    Mr. STORRY-DEANS: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but you may have a case like this—
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. May I submit, with all respect, that the words in the Amendment are perfectly general in their character, and that the object is to deal with any interruption or serious interference from whatever cause it may arise? Consequently, if an interruption arose through a strike or a lock out, that would be an interruption, I submit, in regard to which the hon. and learned Member is entitled to speak.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think, if the hon. and learned Member will look at the Clause, he will find that "interruption" means something else, and in so far as the words go which were used by the hon. and learned Member about strikes they may mean that there may be no omnibuses or cars running at all.
    Mr. STORRY-DEANS: Far be it from me to attempt to argue with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a point of Order or on your ruling, but may I cite a case that actually arose in the last few weeks where we had a strike of certain employés in certain omnibus companies and there were other people who were not connected with that company at all, small proprietors, who had omnibuses of their own? These proprietors, many of whom had been plying in obscure parts of London, came on to the main routes and rendered yeoman service to those people who wished to go to and from their business. Such a thing happened in the part of London in which I live. Supposing under this Bill certain omnibuses were licensed to ply, say, between Peckham Rye and Croydon, and the associated omnibus company locked out its employés, or they went on strike, such a strike not affecting the small man or his employés. What happened on the last occasion was that the omnibuses which were plying on these obscure routes at once rushed on to the main routes into the City, and very greatly helped those people who wished to get to and from their business, and it is because we wish to preserve that right and that protection, small as it is—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. and learned Member point to anything in the Bill as it stands to prevent that being done?
    Mr. STORRY - DEANS: As I understand it, it is the intention to license omnibuses to ply on approved routes and to limit them to certain approved routes. If that be the intention, a licensee holds a licence for a certain approved route, and then, of course it would be a penal offence for him to diverge on to another approved route, and I want to preserve the right of anybody who likes to put an omnibus on a route, provided, of course, it could be licensed as a suitable vehicle, in case of emergency. I appeal to the Minister, in the interest of his Depart-
    360
    ment and of himself and his successors, to give way on this point.
    Mr. GOSLING: This Amendment is redundant. The conditions do not tie down a particular omnibus to a particular route, but merely require a proprietor to use his omnibus in maintaining a regular service. If he runs services on several routes, particular omnibuses may be used on any of them or sometimes on one and sometimes on another. Ample provision is made for elasticity in dealing with special emergencies, through the discretionary powers given under the Bill, and in these circumstances I ask that the Amendment be withdrawn.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: After the explanation of the Minister of Transport. I scarcely see what the Bill is for. I say that most distinctly, because Stoke-on-Trent is trying to deal with this subject, and the main features of this Bill are based on some special precedents laid down last year in the Act which that corporation obtained from Parliament. What was discovered was this, that if you licensed an omnibus for all the routes, what happened was that the omnibuses ran on the most profitable routes and crowded those routes to such an extent that you had worse confusion after you had begun to make Regulations than before. Luckily, therefore, in the Act which the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation succeeded in getting, it was provided that the omnibuses could not without special permission, which can be given almost instantly—it is only a question of a few hours, or, at the outside, a day or two in special cases—ply except on certain routes. Otherwise, if you are going to license enough omnibuses for the town and work the different routes of the district, and you suddenly decide that an omnibus proprietor on his own initiative can run the whole of his omnibuses on any route, ignoring the less profitable, but not the less essential services to the community—
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is not the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: If the Transport. Minister is really aiming at the proposition that you are going to have an enormous number of Regulations, and yet the proprietor, on his own initiative, can roam all over London, wherever there happens to be an approved route, you are not going to get any control.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Look at Clause 7.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: If Clause 7 prohibits that, then the statement of the Minister is incorrect, and, therefore, what is the use of his standing at that box and telling us that, as a matter of fact, when once you have licensed an omnibus, the proprietor can go on any route he likes? The hon. Gentleman has just said that. Under these circumstances, while I hope—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) interrupts so much that it is almost impossible to get a direct argument upon the subject; but I understood most definitely the Transport Minister now to explain that the proprietor, having once got a licence, can take his omnibus into any route he likes. The hon. and learned Member for Penistone says that there is another Clause in the Bill which prevents that. Then the Transport Minister is incorrect. It is a wrong interpretation of the Bill for the Transport Minister to make a statement of the kind he has made. He should have said they will be able to do so and so if it were not for another Clause in the Bill.
    That is the whole point of the confusion in our minds on the subject. We have got the powers at Stoke, and we have succeeded in doing what I am explaining. That was only by fixing a certain number of omnibuses along a certain definite number of routes along which the proprietors have to send them, and no other. That is the only way in which congestion has been prevented. There is just one long main street in Stoke-on-Trent, running to between six and seven miles in length. The whole of the licensed omnibuses wanted to travel along that way. The surrounding districts that really required the attention of the omnibus proprietors at certain hours of the day for the purpose, it might be, of conveying workmen backwards and forwards, though there was no necessity for them to ply in these districts at other times, was entirely avoided. We have ow got authority, and that has enabled us to reduce the thing to something like order. Because of our order and the sending certain omnibuses down certain routes our transport difficulty and our traffic problem has been considerably improved.
    Amendment nagatived.
    Amendment made: On page 10, line 36, leave out the words "Common Council" and insert instead thereof the word "Corporation."—[Mr. Gosling.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District.)
    Viscount CURZON: I beg to move, in page 13, line 4, after the word "omnibus" to insert the words "or tramway car."
    This Amendment requires very little explanation. It was brought up in Committee, and only defeated by a very narrow majority. As the Bill is drafted it deals solely with omnibuses and with no other form of traction. What we say is that a Bill which is to give the Minister power should deal with all forms of traffic. We think that thereby we ought to secure much more elastic arrangements. We think also the trams are unsatisfactory in some places and may be in some other places a cause of grave obstruction of the traffic. I am not nearly so much opposed to the trams as a good many hon. Members opposite may think, and for this reason: that I believe you cannot deal with the traffic problem of London unless you have the tramway system. It is quite impossible for anybody to imagine that you should uproot the tramway system, and then, without the trams, bring the working population of London to their work in the morning, and take them back at night to their dormitories. At present there would be nothing—to take an extreme case—to prevent the tramway authority, say the London County Council, from attempting to crush out the competition of the buses by running an enormous number of trams over particular roads or, it might be—to put it the other way about—that the omnibuses might endeavour to get rid of the competition of the tramways by doing a somewhat similar thing.
    We think the Minister ought to have power, under these circumstances, to deal with the trains as he would deal with the omnibuses. I know it will be said that the tramway system is not really the same as the omnibus system, because the first has got rails laid down and cannot change its routes. But after this Bill passes neither will the omnibuses be able to change their route. They will get tied

    363
    down very much in the same way as are now the tramways, except that in the case of the one they run upon the rails. Therefore I do submit that the Minister ought to have the power to deal with the trams in exactly the same way as the omnibuses may be dealt with, if it should be found necessary. If hon. Members think that some safeguard is necessary I would point out this, that it is the ambition of myself and some of those with whom I associated to bring the Minister more directly in touch with the House of Commons than is done under this Bill at present. I am perfectly certain that the House of Commons, at any rate, would never tolerate undue interference with the tram system of London by a Minister or anybody else, if it operated to the, detriment of the working population of London. The Minister must come here every year for his salary, and in that lies the safeguard against any excessive use of such power as we are seeking to give him. It is purely a permissive power and it says that he may do it supposing he finds it necessary.
    Mr. BECKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not quite agree with the Proposer of this Amendment on one point, and that is where he says that the trams are necessary to carry the large number of people who wish to be carried. A tram is a vehicle which weighs anything from 15 to 30 tons. It is fixed to a permanent way, and it has to go in one definite direction. The tramway undertaking has become a high example of municipal enterprise, and we are continually legislating against the omnibus, although nothing is being mentioned about the tram. As a matter of fact the tram is looked upon as something sacred and as something which should never be assailed. It is an inflexible vehicle which has to keep in one particular line. The object of this Bill is to make traffic more free, and if you are going to allow tramcars to stop in the centre of the road how are you going to reduce the congestion without reducing the number of trams which are allowed to run on a particular route? I will take for example the City of Manchester. I think that city ought to be ashamed of itself for having such an abominable system of trams. There you will find routes with no competition
    364
    from the buses and only trams, and there you find a greater congestion than there is in London. Let me cite another instance where the trams have an absolute monopoly, and that is Leeds. I had a personal experience of this on Sunday last, in Leeds, when I travelled three and a-half miles on a tram to a very fine park called Roundhay Park. When I wanted to get home I found there was only one means of transport to get back to Leeds. About 8.30 I came out of the park gates, and there was a queue 250 yards long of people being marshalled like animals into a tram. Passing this gate were chars-a-banc, and they were not allowed to pick people up at that gate because the council controlled that line, and hundreds of people had to walk home, and I was one of them.
    That might happen in London where the Minister of Transport might say, "There are too many omnibuses, and we are going to stop them and let the trams go on," and then you would be in exactly the position which I have described. I hate trams myself. I regard them as a legacy of the last generation, and they are an old man's novelty. Personally, I think a lot of work could be found for the unemployed by pulling up the tramways. I think the Minister should have power to restrict trams, and it should not always be the omnibuses. The tram is doomed, and it will have to go within the next 50 years. Let this Bill be the first nail in the coffin of the tram, and I think the Minister should be able to say that this inflexible, heavy, cumbersome vehicle should be prohibited from being used in a narrow street. Therefore, we want to include the trams so that London will not get into the same deplorable condition as we find exists in Manchester and Leeds.
    Mr. H. MORRISON: I do not know whether the hon. Member who has just sat down appreciates the fact that the London County Council tramways carry about 25 per cent. of the passengers who travel from day to day in London. During the early morning rush and the evening rush, when the omnibuses and the tubes do not lay themselves out to deal with the traffic, and particularly in the case of the workmen's traffic, I can assure hon. Members that you could not possibly deal with London traffic if the tramways were abolished. I would also like to point out that some £14,000,000

    365
    have been invested in the London County Council tramway enterprise, and that would all be destroyed if you abolished the trams. Hon. Members opposite will insist on putting public authorities and private liability companies on exactly the same footing.
    May I point out that the tramways cannot be run at all without the House of Commons and another place giving them power to run, and another place is very active indeed in interfering with traffic Bills, and quite improperly so. All the embargoes imposed by this Bill are additional to the serious obstruction that already exists. If Parliament has sanctioned a tramway there should be no higher authority, and this House ought not to give power through a Minister to restrict the number of tramcars to be run. The second consideration is that surely, if you have a considerable amount of fixed capital such as is represented by the laying of a tramway track, with its conduit or overhead wires, it would be contrary to the highest principles of public economy that you should then diminish the use you are going to get out of that fixed capital. If an omnibus changes from one street to another it loses nothing except that it must eater for a different traffic, but if the use of a tramline is to be diminished by, say, 50 per cent., it means that the capital cost of running each of those trams is immediately going to be doubled. Again I say, that coming from and hon. Member whose election some time ago had something to do with public economy, that seems to me to be an extraordinary proposal.
    Mr. BECKER: May I say that we have no trams in my constituency. We have more sense.
    Mr. MORRISON: That may account for the hon. Member's position. The sooner the Richmond Corporation gets some tramcars the sooner will he change his opinion. But I have no violent prejudice in favour of tramways. I think it is unfortunate for Members, either of this House or of a local authority, to get a violent prejudice in favour of the tramway as against an omnibus, or in favour of the omnibus as against the tramway. I believe there is room for all of them within their proper sphere, and that is one of the reasons why I strongly resent the action of Parliament in the past in
    366
    refusing powers to the London County Council to run omnibuses as well as trams. If only Parliament had been sufficiently broad-minded, which it was not, to allow us reasonable freedom in running our own traffic the London County Council would be in a position of far greater freedom to consider the merits of particular forms of transport, instead of being driven to use tramways when, perhaps, in certain individual cases, it would have been better not to do so. To prove my impartiality on this question of the different forms of traffic, and to show that all I am out for is to get the best results in the interests of the citizens of London, I may mention to the House that recently at the London County Council—this terrible Tory body that hon. Members opposite hate so much—I moved a Resolution on this very matter in order to get the facts, because I thought there was something in the case of omnibuses and rail-less cars in given circumstances. I wanted the facts, and I moved this Resolution:
    "That it be referred to the Highways Committee to consider and report as to the relative costs and efficiency of municipal rail-less trams, and motor omnibuses operated by provincial corporations as compared with the council's tramways and the London combine omnibuses; and as to how far it would be sound policy for the future development of the council's undertaking to be by way of rail-less trams and omnibuses rather than fixed track tramways."
    That is an impartial Resolution, aimed at getting the facts. That is all. Let the facts determine the traffic policy on these matters. What did we find? Let it be remembered that a tramcar in London carries something like double the number of people that even a modern omnibus will carry—certainly 50 per cent. more. Therefore, its carrying capacity is very much greater, and its cost per passenger seat must be revised accordingly. The total expenditure per car-mile of operating London County Council tramcars during the year 1922–23 was 13·85d. Such a car carries 50 per cent. more passengers than one of the London General Omnibus Company's omnibuses. The London General Omnibus Company's omnibuses cost per car-mile 14·42d., carrying a substantially smaller number of passengers; so that the London County Council tramways, carrying, I suggest, at least 50 per cent. more passengers, cost actually about ¾d. per car-mile less than the omnibus.
    Mr. BECKER: Why, then, did the Liverpool Council adopt omnibuses?
    Mr. MORRISON: Members of local councils are often of similar mentality to the hon. Member for Richmond. They are very much dominated by prejudices, and many of them are going to be on the Minister's advisory committee to bring an impartial mind to bear on this matter. A tramway map in London is a political map. The West End has a great hole in it where no tramway may come. That is partly because of silly political prejudice—simply because the tramway is municipally owned, which is a crime in itself according to some hon. Members opposite—and partly because the people in question do not like such proletarian vehicles as tramcars to come into their districts. As a matter of fact, the majority of the local authorities in London have agreed to tramways. Poplar Borough Council does not object to tramways; Hackney Borough Council does not object to tramways; nearly all the borough councils do not object, except those superior people in the West End of London, nearly all of whom are the owners of private cars; and it is the same with the City Corporation.
    Mr. BECKER: Are you speaking with an unprejudiced mind now?
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. MORRISON: I did not interrupt the hon. Member when he was speaking. I think I have dealt with almost all his interruptions, and I think it is time he realised that he has had enough interruptions. The question was put to the managers of certain provincial traffic undertakings. Let me take the case of Birmingham, and I wish that some of the hon. and right hon. Members for Birmingham were here. They ought to be here advocating the municipal ownership of these forms of traffic. Birmingham is fortunate in having powers to run all three forms of traffic, and it does so. It runs tramcars, it runs trolley omnibuses, and it runs petrol omnibuses, and, therefore, the manager, who is the common manager of the whole undertaking, may surely be accepted as an impartial person in regard to these various forms of traffic. What does the Birmingham tramway manager say? This is his summing up at the Municipal Tramways Association in August of last year:

    "(1) In anticipation of an extension, of an existing tramway, where it was reason-
    368
    ably probable that tramways would be required at some future date, I would use the trolley omnibus.

    (2) I would use the trolley omnibus in substitution for a single line of tramway where the traffics are light or where it was not possible to double the track, particularly when faced with reconstruction.

    (3) On routes in suburban districts where some sort of transport is necessary and where there was no likelihood of trams being required, I would certainly use the petrol omnibus.

    (4) I would use the petrol omnibus in running cross-country routes and in connecting up the outer termini of tramwavs.

    (5) I desire to repeat and emphasise that for the transport of large masses of people expeditiously and cheaply, the humble tramcar has no competitor and still holds the field."

    That does not come from a man who is prejudiced, but from a man who, running all three forms of transport, bases his opinion on experience. I would beg the House, in considering future traffic policy, to give the municipalities full powers to run all sorts of traffic, letting them decide as to each upon its merits. In this particular case it would be the height of folly, having sanctioned the tramways, and large sums of money having been expended in Parliamentary expenses—it is one of this tragedies that municipalities have to come to this House at all to run tramways in their own streets; it is wrong and a waste of money, and other authorities waste money in fighting them—it would be an act of confiscation on the part of this House, having given the powers and allowed the tramways to be laid down, to say now that they shall only be used to the extent of half their capacity. It would be a waste of capital also, because the maximum load would not be got out of the capital used. For these reasons, and on the merits of the case and on the sheer facts, I hope the House will reject this Amendment.
    Mr. GOSLING: We felt, in framing this Bill, that all that we could deal with was the omnibuses. I know that there are three or four other Amendments which seek in one way or another to take away these powers. Tramcars are essentially in a different position from omnibuses in every way. First of all there is the permanent way. You cannot move them. You have either to scrap them or let them go on. Large sums of money have been spent and they have

    369
    statutory rights which there is no power in the Bill to take away from them. It seems to me it is useless to go on with the idea of dealing with the matter in this way at all. Certainly I could not accept the Amendment nor any other Amendment dealing with tramcars in one way or another with a view to restricting them.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said on the Second Reading that it was a great pity the municipalities which were given the power to indulge in transport trading were not given the power to do the whole business and to choose whatever form of transport they thought most desirable for dealing with the masses in London. It is, I think, owing to short-sighted policy in the past that we have got into the position to-day that municipalities will look upon the transport system in London through tramway eyes. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendment because, although you cannot, I think, under this Bill take away the statutory right which exists to-day to run their trams, one must remember that as the traffic grows and as London becomes busier and busier, so those parts of the tramway system which abut into very crowded areas really become a non-paying part of your tramway system, because it is essential that when you have a vehicle which carries, as a tram does, nearly 80 per cent. more than an omnibus, if you are going to earn money and to run it efficiently it must be a moving and not a stationary vehicle. That is really what is happening to many of your tramway lines. You are getting congestion at the terminus through other traffic, and that is not paying. You will see now, because of one bridge being closed, as many as 45 trams in a row from Westminster Bridge down to Walnut Tree Walk, and that is the sort of thing that is going to occur more and more in future as traffic becomes worse. Consequently, although I will not go so far as to press that an Amendment of this kind should be accepted, I think the municipalities themselves will have to consider where their terminus on the London side is going to be fixed, because if they will soon have the power, as I hope they will, of running omnibuses as
    370
    well as trams, it becomes purely a matter of £ s. d. to see where your traffic terminus is most suitably placed. As to the hon. Member's remarks with regard to the West End of London and the blot that it is that there are no trams, take a route like 25, which goes down Bond Street and Piccadilly to Victoria. Does anyone really seriously suggest running two lines of trams dawn Bond Street, because that is the alternative, and that is a route which can never be filled by omnibuses. It is very overcrowded from the point of view of traffic in the streets, but you can never put too many omnibuses on the 25 route. Yet what is the alternative? Will it be a solution to put trams down? You must look on the West End as a problem quite apart, and not blame one particular party of London administration for not doing a thing like that, which I think you will admit will not be for the benefit of traffic as a whole.
    Mr. MORRISON: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that there are plenty of streets in the West End which are wide and suitable for tramway traffic, and it was of those streets that I was speaking.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: That is quite true, but I have been trying to explain that where you get bottle necks, trams must not go right through. Trams should start on broad roads and run to the outlying districts.
    Mr. MILLS: The point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) was that this puzzle of London, with no real road from East to West or from North to South, has been made more difficult of development by reason of the limitation placed upon trams. Because of that the development of traffic has proceeded in such a way that we have the chaos that we have got to-day. But if you draw the conclusion that as the result of the closing of Waterloo Bridge the fault lies solely with the tram cars, anyone who has watched the traffic problem, as we have done, day after clay could point sometimes to half a dozen No. 12s one after the other waiting. So the evil is not confined to one particular form of locomotion, and indeed it is a problem which must be solved. Some day or other I hope the railway termini will end on the South side

    371
    of the river, and that we shall be able to deal with our traffic in a much better way than we do at the moment. I hope ultimately we may have powers which will take the tramway system through at least one end of the great parks of London and thereby give us a chance. The argument of the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker) really verges on the ridiculous. We can travel at mid-day, when there is a real necessity for easing the congestion of traffic, and get people to come out and market and home before the big crowds commence. The omnibuses will carry you on the terms laid down by the publicly-owned tramways right to the end of Westminster Bridge and then charge you at their own sweet will until they come again on to the traffic lines of the Council tramways. As to comparing Leeds and Manchester one can only accept the hon. Member's own statement that he visited Roundhay Park, and I suppose the beauty of the park really upset his sense of proportion, because he actually said he was one of a queue going out on Sunday evening from Roundhay Park 250 yards in length. Any student of traffic problems knows that a queue 250 yards in length, or three-quarters of a mile, can be dealt with in 10 minutes by the tramway system as no other form of locomotion can deal with it
    Mr. BECKER: Not in Leeds.
    Mr. MILLS: The other point is, of course, a matter in which ordinary common sense ought to operate, and I will not go further with it. It is merely that if you look at the Manchester Corporation tramway service, operating in very narrow streets with a success which is remarkable, it is due to the fact that they have not had to end their termini at bottle necks and are given the opportunity of circular roads, which are denied to us. Take my own Division. We have the county council tramway cars ending at Abbey Wood. The Erith Council tramways begin there, and their vehicles go round to Bexley Heath Broadway, of which the hon. Member has faithful recollection. There they end, and the Erith Council admittedly bears a loss on its rates and will not give up its power of owning these trams. From there they run back in a circle and complete the circle through Erith and Bexley Heath back to Abbey Wood—two separate urban authorities
    372
    running two wretched little lines of tramways, both bearing a loss on the rates, and all due to the limited powers which have been conferred upon the county council. For these reasons, I would suggest that this Amendment be not proceeded with, and that we proceed to the next Amendment.
    Mr. REMER: I should not have intervened had it not been for two of the speeches we have heard from the other side. It is more or less a tragedy that so much municipal capital is invested in the tramway system. In the next ten years the muncipalities of this country will have to scrap completely the whole of their tramway systems.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: I have allowed this Debate to go a little too wide. Future developments of tramways are not concerned with this Amendment.
    Mr. REMER: I was replying to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills).
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I allowed the hon. Member to go a little too far.
    Mr. REMER: The tramways in London would be exceedingly dangerous in the West End. They drop their passengers in the middle of the street, and it is well known that the accidents which occur in the street are very much higher under the tramway system than under the omnibus system. I had the privilege not long ago of speaking to a gentleman connected with the "Safety First" movement, and he proved conclusively to me that the accidents which happened in connection with the trams were much higher than the accidents which occurred in connection with the omnibuses. I fail to see why hon. Members wish to place the disadvantages which are suffered in the East End into the West End, and why the West End should be made to suffer. I feel very strongly on this matter, because I know that in other towns the opinion is far from unanimous that the tramway system has been a success. I believe that tramways prevent the traffic problem from being dealt with in the way that it ought to be dealt with. It is a serious matter to the trade and commerce of this country that motor lorries have to waste much time owing to the regulations which are brought about because of the

    373
    impediment to traffic caused by trams in the streets of London. I hope my Noble Friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 242.

    Division No. 108.]

    AYES.

    [9.20 p.m.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Gates, Percy

    Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peal

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Becker, Harry

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Berry, Sir George

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

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

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Harland, A.

    Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardine)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Samuel, A. M. (surrey, Farnham)

    Burman, J. B

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Savery, S. S.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    King. Captain Henry Douglas

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Cunliffe. Joseph Herbert

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Thurtle, E.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    M'Connell, Thomas E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    MacDonald, R.

    Waddington, R.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    McLean, Major A.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Maden, H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Wells, S. R.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wragg, Herbert

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Penny, Frederick George

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Phillipson, Mabel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Raine, W.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Remer.

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Groves, T.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Crittall, V. G.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Alden, Percy

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Dickle, Captain J. P.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Dickson, T.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dodds, S. R.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Duckworth, John

    Haycock, A. W.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Dukes, C.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Baker, Walter

    Duncan, C.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Banton, G.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Barnes, A.

    Egan, W. H.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Batey, Joseph

    England, Colonel A.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Falconer, J.

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

    Black, J. W.

    Ferguson, H.

    Hodges, Frank

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Finney, V. H.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Bonwick, A.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Briant, Frank

    Foot, Isaac

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Broad. F. A.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Jenkins, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Bromfield, William

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Buchanan, G.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Buckle, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Cape, Thomas

    Gillett, George M.

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Gosling, Harry

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Clarke, A.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Climie, R.

    Greenall, T.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Kedward, R. M.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Keens, T.

    Compton, Joseph

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Eills

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Potts, John S.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Lansbury, George

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Law, A.

    Purcell, A. A.

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

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Lawson, John James

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Leach, W.

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Lee, F.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lessing, E.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Toole, J.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Tout, W. J.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Richards, R.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Lowth, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Lunn, William

    Ritson, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Vivian, H.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Robertson, T. A.

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

    Mackinder, W.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Warne, G. H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

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

    Romeril, H. G.

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

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Rose, Frank H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    March, S.

    Royle, C.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Westwood, J.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Scurr, John

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

    Maxton, James

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Whiteley, W.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wignall, James

    Middleton, G.

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Mills, J. E.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Mond, H.

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Williams, Lt - Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)

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

    Smillie, Robert

    Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Willison, H.

    Morse, W. E.

    Snell, Harry

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Spence, R.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Murray, Robert

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Murrell, Frank

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Windsor, Walter

    Nixon, H.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Paling, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

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

    Palmer, E. T.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wright, W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Perry, S. F.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sullivan, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Sunlight, J.

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Kennedy.

    Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, after the word "also," to insert the words
    "in calculating the number of omnibuses required to maintain a regular service on any particuar route and determining the number of omnibuses that alone may ply for hire under this Section, seating accommodation alone shall be considered."
    I attach great importance to this Amendment, and I hope the Minister will assent to it, especially as, so far, I have not had a single Amendment accepted. As he knows, we criticised Clause 7 very closely in Committee, and this is an Amendment with which he expressed considerable sympathy when it was moved before the new Clause, and he suggested then that, if it were put in Clause 7, he would be prepared on Report stage to give it sympathetic consideration. I would just like to point out that I see under Clause 7 certain streets are going to be scheduled as restricted streets. Since Bond Street has been mentioned to-day, I might very well mention it again. Certain narrow streets like, I assume, Bond Street, and parts of the Strand,
    376
    which are at present very congested, the Minister is going to have power to schedule as restricted streets, and to limit the number of omnibuses that are to be allowed to ply for hire on those routes: a very big power. I am asking that, in calculating the number of omnibuses required to provide a sufficient service on a particular route, seating accommodation should be taken into consideration. Everybody knows, especially those who go to work early in the morning, and return at certain hours of the day, the struggle that takes place to board omnibuses throughout London.
    At points like Liverpool Street and the Bank, women's clothes are almost torn off their backs in the struggle to get on an omnibus; and where they have succeeded in doing so, only a small percentage find seating accommodation, and the rest have to stand. I am afraid no amount of ingenuity is going entirely to do away with strap-hanging, but I am going to ask that the Minister, when he uses his very great powers to restrict the use of certain streets by limiting the number

    377
    of omnibuses, should allow in his calculations for strap-hanging in the ordinary way, and should work out how many omnibuses are required to give proper seating accommodation to the public. I attach great importance to that, because it is always assumed that all the congestion is due to the omnibus and the train. Considering the amount of road space they occupy per number of passengers they carry, I maintain that the omnibus and the tram are very much less the cause of congestion than the taxicab and the private car, and if there is going to be diversion on some of these routes, the men and women who have got to get to and from their work each day should not be made to suffer this great inconvenience day in and day out. This applies to women especially, who suffer great mental and physical strain from standing on their way home after a hard day's work.
    The Minister has not, made many concessions to-day. He has been very adamantine. I think I am right in saying he has made only one concession since the beginning of the afternoon. This is a slight concession which would be much appreciated by thousands of the traffic public, and it would remove a great deal of opposition to this Bill. It would remove a sense of grievance which is bound to be felt increasingly every day by the young roan or woman, and, indeed, by old people, who very often suffer more than young people from the strap-hanging which they have to endure in journeying to and from their work. This discomfort will be attributed to a wicked Minister restricting the use of the streets. That conclusion would probably be quite unjust, but if this phrase were put in, I believe it would be some guarantee to the public that the powers in this Bill will not be used unfairly.
    Mr. BRIANT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    What I am honestly afraid of is that the number of omnibuses necessary in a particular thoroughfare will be settled according to the advice of the representatives of the motor omnibus concerns. Indeed, the presence of the additional members, nearly half of whom will consist of those representatives, will make it pretty certain that they will carry great weight in the settlement of the precise number of vehicles.
    378
    It is obviously certain that if the omnibuses are running overcrowded now, the omnibus concerns will put down a lower figure than is essential to carry the total number of passengers in a proper manner; and if later on there are complaints of strap-hanging, they will be able to turn round and say, "This is the number of passengers we are allowed to take." We are granting a great monopoly to certain omnibus companies. I wish we could go further, and not only say that they may run a certain number of omnibuses, but that they must do so, so as to provide the passengers with proper accommodation; but since we cannot do that, the next best thing is to make quite sure that we do not settle on a number that is less than what is requisite. We shall then, at any rate, not be met at some later date with an answer to the complaints of the general public to the effect that they are not allowed to run the necessary number to provide proper accommodation.
    I do hope the Minister can in some way, if he does not accept these actual words, suggest other words to meet what every Member feels, namely, that the public should be protected more than they have been in the past from this gross overcrowding, which brings added profits to the shareholders and less comfort to those who use the vehicles. After all they pay their fares, and that fact should be recognised by giving them something better in the way of accommodation than straphanging.
    Mr. GOSLING: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment complained that I had made no concessions. The difficulty is that he gives me no opportunity for doing so. This is really an attempt to deal with the question of straphanging. The great difficulty London is faced with is not to consider the number of seats for people who use the omnibuses, but the number of streets that are used by the omnibuses. We have to consider the-overcrowding of the streets by the omnibuses. Personally, I am in favour of the abolition of straphanging, but the difficulty is to find enough seating accommodation. If straphanging is wrong in omnibuses, it is equally wrong in tubes, train and trams, and we shall have to revise the traffic arrangements for the whole of London before we can begin to deal with that question. It is quite impossible for me to accept an Amendment

    379
    of this kind, as it would hamper the opportunity for other reforms in the future. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) said he was afraid that the omnibus companies would ask to have too small a number of omnibuses licensed, and would still continue to overcrowd the vehicles. That is going to be our difficulty for some time. The competition is there all right. The competition is absolutely reckless, and we must have this control which we seek in this Bill. I want to secure proper accommodation in omnibuses, trains and trams for people who pay their fares. But there is one other difficulty. We all of us want to get to our job at the same time. We calculate how many minutes it will take us to get there from the time we leave our homes, and we fail to make allowance for possible delays through congestion. Further than that, there are many people who prefer to go inside the vehicle and straphang to going outside and getting wet through. Under the circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am sorry the Minister cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. I think he should go into some of the congested areas and see what occurs. There is an omnibus service that runs past this House, No. 53. It gives a six minutes' service. On a wet morning people are standing at the starting corner without any possibility of any nearer accommodation except Marlborough Road Station, and with these people it is a question of straphanging or going on top of the omnibus. There are not sufficient omnibuses there now, but I am sure that if in calculating the number of vehicles to be licensed, seating accommodation alone was taken into consideration, you would be more likely to get a larger number of omnibuses on this route and a more frequent service. Considering these facts, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes. 95; Noes, 260.

    Division No. 109.]

    AYES.

    [9.43 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

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

    Robertson T. A.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Robinson W. E. (Burslem)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Royle, C.

    Black, J. W.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Bonwick, A.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Kedward, R. M.

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Keens, T.

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

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lessing, E.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Sunlight, J.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Maden, H.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mansel Sir Courtenay

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Crittall, V. G.

    March, S.

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

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Vivian, H.

    Dodds, S. R.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Duckworth, John

    Mond, H.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Morse, W. E.

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

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Williams, A (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    England, Colonel A.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Falconer, J.

    Murrell, Frank

    Willison, H.

    Finney, V. H.

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

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

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Foot, Isaac

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harbord, Arthur

    Rea, W. Russell

    Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Briant.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

    Ayles, W. H.

    Barnes, A.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Baker, Walter

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Alden, Percy

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Becker, Harry

    Ammon, Charles George

    Banton, G.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Richards, R.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)

    Ritson, J.

    Bromfield, William

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Buckle, J.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hodges, Frank

    Rose, Frank H.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Hudson, J. H.

    Savery, S. S.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Illffe, Sir Edward M.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Scurr, John

    Clarke, A.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Climle, R.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jewson, Dorothea

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

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smillie, Robert

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Smith, T. (Pontelract)

    Compton, Joseph

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Cot. George L.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Snell, Harry

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Kirkwood, D.

    Spence, R.

    Dalkelth, Earl of

    Lansbury, George

    Spoor, B. G.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Law, A.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lawson, John James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Leach, W.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lee, F.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sullivan, J.

    Dickson, T.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Dixon, Herbert

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dukes, C.

    Lowth, T.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Duncan, C.

    Lunn, William

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    M'Connell, Thomas E.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacDonald, R.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Thurtle, E.

    Egan, W. H.

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Elvedon, Viscount

    McLean, Major A.

    Toole, J.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tout, W. J.

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

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Ferguson, H.

    Maxton, James

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Middleton, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Mills, J. E.

    Waddington, R.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Warne, G. H.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Montague, Frederick

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Gates, Percy

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

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Murray, Robert

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gosling, Harry

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wells, S. R.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Welsh, J C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Nixon, H.

    Westwood, J.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Whitley, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wignall, James

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wilson, Sir c. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Groves, T.

    Perring, William George

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Perry, S. F.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    Potts, John S.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Wright, W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Raine, W.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Harland, A.

    Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Rawson Alfred cooper

    Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardine)

    Remer, J. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOTES.—

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.

    Kennedy.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Power to make Regulations.)
    Amendment made: In page 15, line 16, leave out the word "Second" and insert instead thereof the word "Third."—[Mr. Gosling.]
    Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move, in page 15, line 20, at end to insert the words
    "nor (so far as respects matters which may be dealt with by Regulations under Section One of the Metropolitan Streets Amendment Act, 1867) with street traders."
    This amendment is introduced to clarify the position as regards street traders. It is applicable to the street traders with whose representatives I have had a conference on the subject.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt), providing for the holding of an inquiry which persons likely to be affected shall be entitled to be heard, has already been dealt with in the previous discussion. I do not select further Amendments on this page.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: The Amendment which stands in my name is one to which several hon. Members attach great importance, because the provision which it contains is the only security which the House of Commons would have over the Regulations which might be made. In the normal way these Regulations would be drawn up by the local authorities and criticised, and the only security which we have is that there may be a full discussion in the House of Commons. I do not want to say much about the matter, but I would like to move this Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: On the understanding that he will be brief, I will call the hon. Member.
    Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (7), and to insert instead thereof a new Subsection—
    "(7) If at the time when it is proposed to make any such Regulations the Commons House of Parliament is sitting or is separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will expire within one month, the drafts of the proposed Regulations shall be laid before that House, and the Regulations shall not be made unless and until a Resolution is passed by that House approving of the drafts either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Resolution, and upon such approval being given the Regulations may
    384
    be made in the form in which the drafts have been approved. In any other case Regulations may be made forthwith, but all Regulations so made shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after its next meeting, and shall not continue in force for one month after such meeting unless a Resolution is passed by that House declaring that the Regulations shall continue in force, either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Resolution; and, if any modifications are so made as respects any Regulation, the Regulations shall thenceforth have effect subject to such modification, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
    This House has always been very jealous, when powers like these are given to a Minister, about retaining control and provision, such as that which is now proposed, for dealing with such powers is made in the new Housing Bill, and it is also made in the case of the electricity Regulations and in the case of the Regulations made under other Acts, and it is desirable in every case that before these autocratic powers are given the force of by-laws, binding on the citizens of London, they should go through formally as Resolutions which have to be carried in the same way as the electricity Orders under the Electricity Act.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Though the Amendment is a very simple one it is one of first rate importance in regard to the financial procedure of the House. The Bill as drafted provides that Regulations shall be laid on the Table for a certain period before they become operative. Old Members of the House know that that is apt to become a mere form. I do not know whether there are many Members of the House who could tell me whether there are at this moment any Regulations lying on the Table waiting to be disposed of. I submit that the Regulations to be made under this Bill are of such importance that the House ought to sanction them before they become operative. The expenditure under the Bill does not come before the House at all. The money is taken out of the Road Fund, and that is not considered by the House. It goes before the Committee on Public Accounts upstairs, after the money has been spent. The only opportunity which the House has of reviewing this expenditure is when the Regulations are put forward. They should be put forward in the positive way

    385
    of requiring the assent of the House, and not merely being laid upon the Table for a given time. The Government have recognised that that is the proper way to deal with Regulations, because in their very important Housing Bill they have made a provision that
    "An order shall not be made unless and until a Resolution is passed by the House approving of the draft"
    That is the precedent which the Government ought to follow in this Bill.
    Mr. GOSLING: This is much too complicated a proposal, in view of the fact that many of the Regulations are quite small. This Amendment was thoroughly discussed in Committee, and On a Division was rejected by 28 votes to 7. The provision in the Bill is that the Regulations, when made, are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and may be annulled if within 21 days on which the House is sitting an Address is presented to His Majesty. This Amendment proposes that, instead of this procedure, draft Regulations are to be laid before the House of Commons only if the House is sitting or will be sitting within a month's time, and the Regulations are not to be made until a Resolution approving the draft has been passed by the House of Commons.
    The restrictions imposed by the Amendment would be positively mischievous. The making of Regulations will sometimes be a matter of extreme urgency, and this procedure, particularly if the House does not happen to be sitting, though it is going to meet within a month, would necessarily mean a good deal of delay. The present sudden closing of Waterloo Bridge is a good example. If the Bill had been law, it would probably have been necessary at once to make Regulations under, for instance, paragraph (1) of the Second Schedule, prescribing the routes to be followed by different classes of traffic. This could not have been done without considerable delay under the provisions of this Amendment, and such Regulations would be of little use unless they could be made at once. The draft Regulations are referred solely to the House of Commons, not to both Houses, which was suitable enough in the Safeguarding of Industries Act where a tax was in question, but is quite improper here. Consider also the amount of Parliamentary
    386
    time which would be taken up if it were necessary for a Resolution to be passed every time the Minister proposed to make a Regulation.
    10.0 P.M
    Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry to see that the Minister, although he has been in office only a short time, is already the complete bureaucrat. He has not dealt with the arguments advanced by the Mover of the Amendment. He says that the procedure proposed is much too complicated for the trumpery orders which his Department would have to make. But there is no complication about the procedure at all. It is a procedure with which the House is exceedingly familiar, and it is employed in the most trumpery matters. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade it was my duty to move a great number of Gas Orders about the minutest trifles of gas undertakings in various small towns or even villages. The importance of the Amendment lies in the fact that it casts the initiative on the Government and directs the attention of the House to what is being done. That is the exact reason why every permanent official always tries to adopt the opposite course. I do not wish to make any attack on the permanent officials and I do not even blame them. Naturally, they regard the House of Commons as nothing but a nuisance. But the House of Commons ought not to sit down in that position. We should insist that something of this sort be put into the Bill. If the Minister says that the form of words proposed is not suitable, and if he would undertake to introduce an improved form of words in another place, I think the Mover of the Amendment might well accept the offer. But it is important that these Regulations should be passed by the House of Commons in the same way as Orders under the Electricity Acts and under the Gas Regulation Acts are passed. It is a thoroughly simple and familiar procedure, and it secures the inestimable advantage that the Minister who wants to make a change has to draw the attention of the House of Commons to it, instead of letting things slip through. The House ought to be very jealous about protecting itself against the always increasing power of the bureaucracy.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope that the Government will reconsider their position.

    387
    I put my name down to this Amendment, although I am not particularly interested in this Bill, because I think that the Amendment affects the House of Commons very deeply. It is a perfectly simple Amendment. If a Regulation is highly objectionable, the only power which the House has over it is the power of a private Member, who gets up to move a Resolution after eleven o'clock at night and tries to set the Regulation aside. Anybody who has been in this House a week knows that that is an absolute farce. The Government Whips persuade Members to leave the House with the result that the Member who is speaking is counted out. The Amendment throws upon the Government a duty which is obvious and one which ought to be put upon them in every case, namely, that before the Government passes a Regulation which may affect the property, if not the lives, of a very large number of people, and does it merely upon the authority of a Minister of a Government Department, the matter must be brought before the House of Commons. It will go through in 99 cases out of 100 as a matter of course, but in the hundredth case notice will be given and opposition will be dealt with in the proper way.
    I think that the Minister in his reply hardly did himself justice. I cannot imagine who gave him the extraordinary illustration that he used. He simply told us that if this Bill had been enforced and Waterloo Bridge had been closed, he would have been powerless to act without incurring great delay. I wonder what Government official's inventive genius put that illustration into his mouth. Whoever he is, I hope that he will be promoted and made an O.B.E. It shows very clearly the class of mind with which we have to deal. If Waterloo Bridge was unsafe for traffic, all that would be necessary would be for it to be closed by the police. An omnibus driver would be told "You cannot cross the river unless you choose to go by Black-friars Bridge," and if, after such a warning, any driver tried to go over Waterloo Bridge his blood would be upon his head. Really, speaking seriously, is it fair to treat the House of Commons like this? Is it fair to put forward an argument like that to men who are supposed to be business men? It is a matter
    388
    not affecting this Bill alone. If you have an argument of that kind put before the House, it is really an insult to the intelligence of the House. I ask the House to insert a provision of this sort, and once and for all assert the rights of the House of Commons. This is not a question as between Liberals and Conservatives or Liberals and Labour members, or Socialists, but it is a question of back bench against front bench. Every man is just as bad when he gets on the Front Bench, and the only chance we on the back benches have is in occasionally asserting our rights. This is an occasion when, I do submit most strongly, anyone who has the position of the House of Commons at heart should vote for this Amendment, and not allow a valuable power to be taken away from the House of Commons.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: This is not the first time, although I am a comparatively new Member, that I have heard similar speeches from my hon. and learned Friend. There is little difference, as a matter of fact, between passing a Resolution which is on the Order Paper and introducing a Prayer to revoke an Order in Council. I say this more especially, because, after all, the Members for London are not particularly sleepy Members, and if there are Orders in Council which relate to London, I am sure that the Members for London will be fully aware of them. From these benches we really do not care which way it is done. It seems to me that to suggest that the Minister is trying to get away from the authority of the House is altogether unfair.
    Captain BENN: it is somewhat surprising how strangely the hon. Gentleman selects his friends. When there are many on these benches and on the benches behind him, who support democratic institutions, yet he must seek the assistance of the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and a fledgling bureaucrat like the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazen).
    Mr. SPEAKER: I remember the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) being on the Front Bench.
    Captain BENN: I mean no offence to my hon. and gallant Friend, but it is a

    389
    case of the House of Commons and the rights of the House of Commons against bureaucracy. The Government have refused to give London the right it ought to have to control its own traffic, and now it proposes to take away the small chance that the elected Members of London have, namely, to assent to or dissent from the regulations made, because everybody knows that a humble Address is always presented in a diminishing House, which very often reaches numbers under 40, when some obliging Member draws
    attention to the fact that 40 Members are not present, and the thing comes to an end. The Minister is going to be defeated if he insists on his attitude. Why not give way to an Amendment which has everything in the way of democratic principle to support it?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, l95.

    Division No. 110.]

    AYES.

    [10.12 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Alden, Percy

    Haycock, A. W.

    Potts, John S.

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

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Richards, R.

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Ritson, J.

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Banton, G.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hodges, Frank

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Scurr, John

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hudson, J. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Broad, F. A.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Buchanan, G.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Smillie, Robert

    Buckle, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Spence, R.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.(Bradford, E.)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Clarke, A.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Climie, R.

    Lansbury, George

    Sullivan, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Law, A.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham North)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawson, John James.

    Thurtle, E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Leach, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crittall, V. G.

    Lee, F.

    Toole, J.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tout, W. J.

    Dickson, T.

    Lowth, T.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dukes, C.

    Lunn, William

    Varley, Frank B.

    Duncan, C.

    M'Entee, V. L.

    Viant S. P.

    Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mackinder, W.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Warne, G. H.

    Egan, W. H.

    March, S.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Marley, James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

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

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Maxton, James

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gates, Percy

    Middleton, G.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Mills, J. E.

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Montague, Frederick

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

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

    Wignall, James

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murray, Robert

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)

    Greenall, T.

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Nixon, H.

    Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Paling, W.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Perring, William George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Perry, S. F.

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Becker, Harry

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)

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

    Black, J. W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Robertson, T. A.

    Bonwick, A.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Briant, Frank

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Royle, C.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Burman, J. B.

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Savery, S. S.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W Derby)

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn(Merloneth)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kedward, R. M.

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Keens, T.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Lessing, E.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Linfield, F. C.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    M'Connell, Thomas E.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    McCrae, Sir George

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sunlight, J.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    MacDonald, R.

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    McLean, Major A.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Terrington, Lady

    Dickle, Captain J. P.

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Dixon, Herbert

    Maden, H.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Dodds, S. R.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Duckworth, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Vivian, H.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Mond, H.

    Waddington, R.

    England, Colonel A.

    Morse, W. E.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

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

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Falconer, J.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Wells, S. R.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Murrell, Frank

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Ferguson, H.

    Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

    White, H. G (Birkenhead, E.)

    Finney, V. H.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Willison, H.

    Foot, Isaac

    Phillips, Vivian

    Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leads, Central)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Ralne, W.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

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

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Remer, J. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Harland, A.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Mr. Percy Harris and Mr.

    Rawlinson.

    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committed to a standing committee.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Limitation upon imposition of expenses upon local authorities.)
    Viscount CURZON: I beg to move, in page 16, line 18, to leave out from the word "any," to the word "without," in line 19, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "Obligation upon a local authority to incur any expenditure on or in connection with the improvement of any road or the construction of any new road."
    392
    The object of this Amendment is to reverse a decision arrived at in Committee. The only reason why I then supported an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny), Which was carried, was because I did not fully appreciate the reasons why it was undesirable that his Amendment should be accepted. I have since had an opportunity of further acquainting myself with its possible effects, and if the Clause stands as it is in the Bill at present it will mean that

    393
    any local authority will be able to check the Minister in declaring an approved route simply by saying that it is going to throw an increased cost upon them for road repairs. I do not think that would be reasonable and it would destroy in a large degree the usefulness of the Bill, and therefore I hope the present Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GOSLING: I accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Notice of and inquiries into accidents.)
    Amendment made: In page 16, line 28, leave out the word "that."—[Mr. Gosling.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Expenses.)
    Viscount CURZON: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    The object is to remove the charge for this Bill, when it becomes an Act, from the Road Fund. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I gave my reasons, I think, fairly fully for so doing, and the reason is really that the Road Fund was never instituted in order to defray the cost of such a Bill as this. The Road Fund applies to the whole country and not alone to the people of London, and it seems unfair that this charge should be levied, say, in Northern Ireland. I therefore submit to the Minister that the money for the payment of these expenses should be found from some other source than the Road Fund.
    Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I object to the money subscribed by my constituents to the Road Fund being used for the purpose of defraying the expenses in connection with this Bill, and I cannot see any argument which can be brought forward by the Government why money so subscribed should be so used.
    Mr. WEBB: This Amendment, if carried, would at once reduce the Bill to a futility. The annual levy on the Road Fund would be extremely small, and certainly very much below the contribution to the Road Fund which is made by the contributors who live inside the London area. It is not
    394
    merely the London area, but the traffic area of 25 miles round, which really comprises, though I do not remember the figure, a very considerable portion of the total payers to the Road Fund. Considering the great advantage which, shall I say, the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who, I take it, is typical of a large number of those who contribute to the Road Fund in this great area, would obtain under the Bill, I cannot believe he would grudge this charge falling on the Road Fund. After all, the biggest purpose of this Measure is not merely to deal with omnibuses, but it is actually to promote the making of new kinds of traffic, to open up additional routes, and to open up new main roads, not merely in the centre of London, but within the 25 miles radius of London, and, consequently, I suggest that it is not going very far to say that it is a fair charge to put upon the Road Fund. I do not know quite what would happen if you knocked the foundations of the Bill entirely to the ground at this late stage. Surely we want this Measure to come into law at the earliest possible moment, and I appeal to the Noble Lord, having made his protest, to withdraw his Amendment. The whole Bill has been proceeded with on the assumption that it would be a charge on the Road Fund, and it is too late at this last hour to knock the substratum of the Bill to pieces.
    Viscount CURZON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? Would he give me an undertaking that the expenditure thrown upon the Road Fund in respect of this Bill will not exceed, say, £50,000?
    Mr. WEBB: I have not got figures with me, but I could not imagine that anything under the Ministry of Transport would come to anything like that sum. Surely the Noble Lord means that there should not be more than that sum?
    Viscount CURZON: The figure quoted by the Minister of Transport upstairs was £30,000.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: This is the Clause which makes the necessary provision for the money to carry on the work. If this be withdrawn, another Clause, or Money Resolution, will have to be introduced; but I do think that Parliament is justified in asking for some control over the expenditure of this particular Depart

    395
    ment. For all we know, there may be something involved which increases the expenditure, or creates very elaborate machinery to carry out this particular work. The Road Fund was established for one particular purpose, to improve the road services, not only in the London area, but throughout the country. I am very doubtful whether this is really within the purpose of the Road Act. I suggest that the Minister might insert some words an the lines of the Amendment further down on the Paper standing in my name that the House of Commons could keep its constitutional control over the expenditure, and especially keep its control over the expenditure of administrative Departments.
    Viscount WOLMER: I hope my Noble Friend will not withdraw his Amendment. I have no doubt that it is important that this Bill should pass into law as soon as possible,, but the particular Amendment suggested by the Noble Lord would not mean more than the delay of a very few days. This House and the Government have spent a good many weeks before we have reached the present stage. A few days more or less would not matter very much. It is a very important principle that is at stake. I do not attach, perhaps, so much importance to what has been put forward by my Noble Friend, but I do think that the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) is a point of the first importance. If my Noble Friend's Amendment is carried, the result will only be that the Government will have to bring in a new Clause and will have to have a new Financial Resolution to the effect that the expenses of the Act must be met by moneys provided by Parliament.
    That is exactly what I should like to see—that the Minister of Transport should have to come to this House every year for a Vote on the administration of this Bill. The House would then be enabled to get some control. The danger which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has pointed out is a very real one. If you have a Department or a large branch of a Department, drawing its resources from a fund which this House does not control, this House has no control at all over that Department. The numbers of its officials may be enormously
    396
    increased—and all Departments naturally tend to grow—it may take on new functions that this House never intended, and this House may subsequently find it extremely difficult to correct any grievance that our constituents may want us to correct. Therefore it does seem to me to be a very unsatisfactory arrangement that the money should be drawn from the Road Fund. The Road Fund was instituted for agricultural roads all over England—[HON. MINISTERS: "No, no!"]—at any rate I do not think agriculture gets as much assistance as it ought to do from that fund. The actions of the Ministry should be controlled by Parliament and the expenses ought to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament in order that Parliament may exercise some control.
    Mr. BLACK: I should like to support this Amendment. Coming from a district essentially rural, and which has to contribute to the Road Fund, I cannot see by what principle of justice and equity the money is to be deducted from this fund and diverted to paying the expenses of an advisory committee. It has been said that new main roads would be arranged for. Of course, they have their remedy to appeal to the Road Fund for any new main road. We should not object to that, or to improving the roads under the ordinary provisions of the Road Fund, but as the Member for a rural constituency, I object to this money being diverted from the fund when the Minister is denying to many of these counties money which they think they are entitled to receive. I trust the Noble Lord will carry this Amendment to a Division, and if he does so I am sure many hon. Members representing rural constituencies will support him in the Lobby.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I congratulate the last speaker upon bringing in the question of rural roads on this Amendment, but I appeal to the Noble Lord to withdraw it because at this time it is nothing more or less than a wrecking Amendment. One arrangement suggested is that the charge for administration for this particular Measure should be an Imperial charge. If that is so, surely the whole of England is contributing towards London, and the injustice complained of is the same in that case as in the case of drawing the money from the Road Fund. If you pretend that this is entirely

    397
    a London affair, then you must draw the money from London, and if you draw it as a rate then you must give complete control of that expenditure to the elected bodies of London. It is no use saying that the Road Fund is entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Transport, because they cannot deal with that money except by the consent of the Treasury, and they keep a very tight hand upon it. There is also the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Transport every year upon which we should be able to discuss the expenditure on London traffic.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not so much concerned whether this money comes from the Treasury or the Road Fund, but I am concerned about the control of Parliament over this expenditure. I shall certainly vote for this proposal if I do not get some assurance from the Minister of Transport upon this point.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I hope I have shown that, so far as I am concerned, I have been anxious to help this Bill get through to-night, but I am bound to say that, after what has taken place on this particular Amendment, I shall support the Noble Lord if he has to go to a Division, unless we have a most definite assurance on the part of the Minister that he will accept such an alteration as is embodied in the next Amendment on the Paper. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) suggested that it was not necessary to get rid of this at all, or to limit it, for two reasons—firstly, that the Treasury would keep a very tight hold over this Road Fund, and, secondly, that a Motion could be made for a reduction of the Minister's salary. But that does not meet the constitutional point in the least degree whatever. The Treasury may be, and presumably is, as bureaucratic as the Ministry of Transport, and these two could perfectly well put their heads together to defy the House of Commons and to prevent it from exercising that constitutional control which it ought to have over expenditure. A Motion to reduce the Minister's salary is merely in the nature of a Vote of Censure upon him for something which he has done, after it is done. To do that would be, in a case of this kind, merely locking the stable door after the steed has gone.
    Here you have what, for present purposes, is an enormous fund, a fund estab-
    398
    lished for a special purpose, and now a particular Department is coming forward and proposing that that Government Department shall be, to the extent of that big fund, absolutely relieved of any Parliamentary control over its expenditure. I do not think there has ever been such a proposal before the House. We have had some extraordinarily revolutionary proposals during the four or five years that I have been in the House, but I have never yet, even in these extraordinary times, come across such a proposal as this to put, to the extent of that enormous fund, a Government Department entirely outside the financial control of Parliament. And this proposal, of all others, comes from the benches on which are supposed to sit the representatives of democracy. I sincerely trust that everyone who has any regard for the control of Parliament over expenditure and over the Government will press for and vote for the Noble Lord's Amendment, unless we get a specific assurance that there will be a modification of this Clause on the lines of the next Amendment.
    Mr. WEBB: With the leave of the House I should like just to say that all these terrible consequences which have been alluded to were certainly not in the minds of the Government in making this proposal. I am afraid that it is quite impossible to accept the Noble Lord's Amendment as it stands, for reasons which he will realise and which have been made sufficiently clear, but I want to say that we are quite prepared to do certain things. In the first place, there is no suggestion whatever that any of the expenditure of the Ministry of Transport as it stands at present will be shuffled off on to the Road Fund. That is not desired, and, if any words are necessary to make that clear, that can be done. The next thing is that it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for the House of Commons preserving its power to pass a Vote, and, therefore, while I cannot commit myself to the exact terms, we will consider whether it is not possible to arrange to put down a Token Vote, so that the House may come to a decision upon it, and at the same time provision can be made for the total proposed expenditure under this Bill to be reported to Parliament. It is not possible, if we take it from the Road Fund, to put it in

    399
    the form of an Estimate, because that is a separate thing, but there must be some way in which it can be done.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that he will embody, if not the actual words, the sense of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris)? If he will do that, I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. WEBB: That is what I was trying to explain, but I was trying, in order not to mislead the House, not to say that in so many words because I think it would not be in order quite to put the words in that form. I may be wrong, but the intention of the Government is certainly to put in whatever can be done to meet that contention. The total amount, so far as can be foreseen, is not expected to exceed, perhaps not even to reach, £50,000 a year. There cannot be any question of an enormous sum. We wish to provide some way by which that can come out of the Road Fund and yet can be laid before Parliament in such a way that Parliament can in Committee come to pans a vote upon it. That may be done by a Token Vote, coupled with a statement of the amount to be taken from the Road Fund, or in some equivalent way, so that Parliament would have an opportunity of expressing its approval of the amount.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a token Vote. I am not sure that that would satisfy us. What we want is not an opportunity for the House of Commons to pass judgment on what has been done. We want a definite undertaking that the words shall be such that the House of Commons can restrain and prevent expenditure which it does not approve of.
    Mr. WEBB: That is what is intended, but I cannot at this moment say whether the words of the suggested Amendment would suffice.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I gather the intention is to put a token Vote down, so that the proposal to spend can be discussed in advance, and not an examination post mortem of the appropriation. I wish to ask you, Sir, how that can be done in another place.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is just the point which has been present to my mind. I do not think these suggestions could be made in another place. Seeing what the time is now, would it not be well to take a little while to consider the matter rather than continue the Debate, unless this also were done on recommittal, and then I do not think we can complete the Schedule to-night.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    This will give the Government an opportunity to consider what form of words would be best to meet the point which I think every section of the House desires so that another day, without any further debate, we can carry the form of words which the Government are advised would be most suitable to effect the purpose the House requires. It obviously cannot be done now. If you go on and get past this stage, you have either to go against the present sense of the House or you have to accept an Amendment which the Government are not satisfied about. You cannot remedy this matter in the House of Lords, and therefore I think it will be to the advantage of everyone that the Debate should be now adjourned.
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): We have no objection whatever to this course, perhaps mainly for the reason that in the time at our disposal to-night the concluding stages of the Bill cannot be completed. The President of the Board of Trade did not say it was intended to insert any words in another place. What was in mind was that we should hear and discuss the merits of the Amendment later on on the Paper, and accept it if, in our judgment, it met the intention referred to by my right hon. Friend. In the circumstances I think the best course would be to adjourn the Debate. If we are to pass this Bill speedily into law, we must have the co-operation of all those who urge on the Government the character of the Bill. It is not the work of the Labour Government. We took it over after being strongly urged to do so for a definite and very urgent purpose, and we say that not much more time of the House of Commons should be spent upon it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I suggest that, as the Bill will have to be recommitted in regard to one Clause, it would be better if it were recommitted in regard to this Clause also. That would allow an opportunity for the draftsman to consider a very difficult situation.
    Mr. CLYNES: There will be an opportunity for considering that matter if the House carries the Motion made by the Noble Lord.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It may be convenient to the House if the adjournment takes place now, not only in regard to this particular Clause but the Clause which we discussed at our last sitting on the Bill. The Deputy-Leader of the House said that this Bill had been pressed upon the Government. It has not been pressed upon the Government by the House. It was introduced without any request or appeal from any quarter of this House. It was due to an undertaking come to outside this House, and in the circumstances I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can complain of the way it has been received.
    Sir GERALD HOHLER: I much regret the decision of the Government. I would have supported them in regard to this proposed Amendment, which I believe to be a wrecking Amendment. This is not a question which divides us on party politics: it relates to traffic in London. I deeply regret that this very useful Measure should be subject to attempts to wreck it in this way. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) proposed a wholly different Amendment in Committee.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion is that the Debate be now adjourned. We cannot go into the merits of the Noble Lord's Amendments.
    Sir G. HOHLER: Is it not in order to show on this Motion that it is a wrecking Amendment, and that it was put in a different form in Committee, and has never been presented before in the form in which it has been presented to the House to-night?
    Viscount CURZON: May I protest against the hon. Member saying that am trying to wreck this Bill?
    Sir G. HOHLER: The Noble Lord says he is not trying to wreck the Bill. It is not what people say, but what they do.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go back on those matters while the present Motion is before the House.
    Sir G. HOHLER: On that Motion, I should like to continue my speech. If this Debate is to be adjourned, to what date do the Government intend to adjourn it? The Bill which was passed last night is to be discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House. When do the Government suppose that they are going to have time to resume the adjourned Debate on this Bill? The Liberals are always ready to kill the Government except when it is material, but when they think the Government are really going to go, they always support them.
    Mr. MILLS: On a point of Order. Those of us who have followed this Debate and have been called to order, will be struck by the fact that the hon. Member is talking wide of the Motion.
    Mr. CLYNES: Perhaps it may satisfy the hon. Member opposite if I tell him that we intend to put down this Bill for Thursday night.
    Mr. REMER: We have had no Member of the legal profession on the Government Front Bench to give advice in the difficulties in which the House has found itself. The Attorney-General has not been here at all this evening. The President of the Board of Trade a few minutes ago could not ascertain what was the exact position, but if some legal luminary of the Government had been here, we should not have found ourselves in the present impassé. I strongly protest against the absence of the guidance which this House should have in the matter of legal knowledge, to explain the exact meaning of the different Amendments. The Government would get their Measures through the House much quicker if they had one of their legal Members on the Front Bench.
    Viscount CURZON: I wish only to deal with the allegation which has been made against me.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
    Viscount CURZON: Then I want to put forward another point, if you will allow me, and say a word on the question of the Adjournment. I am anxious that the Government should have fall opportunity

    403
    to examine the whole situation brought about by my Amendment. I do not think the Government can fairly complain that they did not have warning as to what was intended. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I made the most energetic protests I possibly could against the cost of this being borne on the Road Fund.
    Sir G. HOHLER: On a point of Order. I desired to draw attention to the very point my Noble Friend is raising, and you ruled it out.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am giving the same measure of justice to both hon. Members.
    Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

    ARBITRATION CLAUSES (PROTOCOL) BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. WEBB: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    This Bill has passed through all its stages in another place after examination by the legal luminaries there.
    Sir G. HOHLER: On a point of Order. I go to the. Vote Office and ask what business is going to be taken and the only Bill I am presented with is the London Traffic Bill. I had then to go and ask for the Administration of Justice Bill. I wish to call attention to the fact that the Bills we are called on to deal with are not presented to us, and we are therefore unable to ascertain exactly the nature of the business that is being done.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has no need to go to the Vote Office. The whole business before the House is on the Paper, and is constantly before the House.
    Mr. WEBB: This Bill has been brought in in order to ratify a Convention which
    404
    has been come to between various nations. It is to give effect to a Protocol on arbitration clauses signed on behalf of His Majesty at a meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations held in September, 1923. It provides for the staying of Court proceedings in respect of matters referred to arbitration under agreements between nationals of different States, parties to the Convention. We are now asked to ratify the Convention and to make an amendment of our own law in accordance therewith. The proposal has received the approval of many Chambers of Commerce and of many commercial Members of this House—
    Mr. BALFOUR: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "commercial Members of this House"?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I feel that the explanation given of this Bill is not adequate to its importance, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many nations who have signed the agreement have ratified the Convention and proceeded with the necessary legislation to put it in force?
    Mr. WEBB: I cannot give an answer to that question. This is a Protocol which has been accepted by the nations concerned, and we should be among the first to ratify it. Somebody must begin to do it. This Bill was introduced and passed through another place, and I now ask this House to let it go upstairs so that it can be examined.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.

HOUSING.
  LETTER BOXES.
  LETTER BOXES.
  CLEARANCE AND RE-DEVELOPMENT, LAMBETH.
  CLEARANCE AND RE-DEVELOPMENT, LAMBETH.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  DRIED MILK (REGULATIONS).
  DRIED MILK (REGULATIONS).
  MILNROW DISTRICT.
  MILNROW DISTRICT.
  SANITARY INSPECTION.
  SANITARY INSPECTION.
  BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS.
  BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (SURCHARGES).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (SURCHARGES).
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
  BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  POST-WAR MARRIAGES.
  POST-WAR MARRIAGES.
  Windows' PENSIONS (MRS. MASSEY).
  Windows' PENSIONS (MRS. MASSEY).
  ALLOWANCES FOR CHILDREN.
  ALLOWANCES FOR CHILDREN.
  COMMUTATION OF PENSIONS.
  COMMUTATION OF PENSIONS.
AGRICULTURE.
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  CANADIAN STORE CATTLE.
  CANADIAN STORE CATTLE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE).
SCOTLAND.
  LOCHBOISDALE PIER.
  LOCHBOISDALE PIER.
  SOUTH LOCH ERISORT ROAD.
  SOUTH LOCH ERISORT ROAD.
  LEWIS (ROAD WORKS).
  LEWIS (ROAD WORKS).
  RHELONIE HILL (GRAZINGS).
  RHELONIE HILL (GRAZINGS).
  BALANCRA BRIDGE SCHEME.
  BALANCRA BRIDGE SCHEME.
ROYAL NAVY.
  PRIZE MONEY AND MEDALS (F. TONGUE).
  PRIZE MONEY AND MEDALS (F. TONGUE).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (HIRED MEN).
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (HIRED MEN).
BRITISH ARMY.
  WELFARE COMMITTEES.
  WELFARE COMMITTEES.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).
  EUROPEAN ARMIES.
  EUROPEAN ARMIES.
  GIBRALTAR.
  GIBRALTAR.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  BRITISH AND VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUMS.
  BRITISH AND VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUMS.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  CROWN SERVANTS (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE).
  CROWN SERVANTS (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE).
  INCOME TAX (SUBSCRIPTIONS).
  INCOME TAX (SUBSCRIPTIONS).
POST OFFICE.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP-SELLING MACHINES.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP-SELLING MACHINES.
  WEATHER FORECASTS.
  WEATHER FORECASTS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT.
  COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT.
  RUSSO-CAUCASIAN COMPANY.
  RUSSO-CAUCASIAN COMPANY.
  MEXICO.
  MEXICO.
TRANSPORT.
  PASSENGER MOTOR BOATS (THAMES).
  PASSENGER MOTOR BOATS (THAMES).
  PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES (TOP-DECK COVERS).
  PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES (TOP-DECK COVERS).
  SUFFOLK (ROAD GRANTS).
  SUFFOLK (ROAD GRANTS).
  RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (WAGES).
  RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (WAGES).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ROLLING STOCK AND OVERCROWDING).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ROLLING STOCK AND OVERCROWDING).
Preamble
Re-assembling after the Whitsuntide Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NEATH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LIQUOR (POPULAR CONTROL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, I hope it will not be necessary to occupy so much of your time this afternoon as on a previous occasion, three years ago, when I introduced a Bill for Second Reading drawn up on very similar lines. I need only 6ay at the outset that the proposals in the Bill have received in the interval the closest scrutiny and criticism as the result of public discussion and private conference, and have elicited interest and support from quarters which have not been usually or directly associated with licensing legislation and, indeed, have stood aloof, as I myself for a considerable number of years remained detached from a movement which seemed to me to allow very little opportunity for the voice of moderation to be heard on either side. But what is most encouraging and most significant to me is that a measure of agreement has been reached amongst those known as temperance reformers which. I think, ten years ago seemed to be almost impossible.

917
The fundamental principle of the Bill is simple. The inhabitants of boroughs and counties shall determine the mode in which, and the extent to which, the liquor trade in those localities shall be carried on. The Bill claims to provide machinery to enable them to express their judgment and to give effect in practice to their wishes. Four years after the passing of this measure a poll is to be taken, and every three years subsequently certain questions are to be submitted to the voters. Polling areas are constituted, and the First Schedule states what those polling areas are. The electors are persons entitled to vote as local government electors. By means of the alternative vote, they can vote preferentially in favour of one choice and alternatively in favour of another. The object of that is obvious. The alternative vote is adopted in order to avoid the risk of carrying one of the options by a minority vote. It is a safeguard, but for which it would be possible to carry through one of the options by a minority vote, if those who voted for either of the two other choices should split their vote.
As to what the modes are, it seems, so far as I know, that in this country there have been suggested only three ways of dealing with the liquor trade—(1), by a system of private, open competitive ownership, or (2), by a system conducted on the lines of what we now know as disinterested management, or (3), by the withholding of all licences. It is, therefore, natural and fair, as there are in England—and this Bill applies only to England—some supporters in a varying degree of each of those three alternative methods of carrying on the trade, that the three choices should be offered. Either there is to be no change in the existing system, or else there is to be reorganisation along the lines of disinterested management, or there is to be no issue of licences.
The question is at once raised what happens in an area in favour of the reorganisation of the trade on the lines of disinterested management. After the passing of the Bill, so soon as the Secretary of State deems it expedient, he appoints a very small Board of Management to take over Carlisle and any other district which votes for reorganisation. This Board is approved of and is dis-
918
missible by Parliament. It acts through its own servants—its managers and its officers in the particular area concerned—and is responsible for the liquor trade in that area. Its functions are limited to the production and distribution of intoxicants in those areas which have voted for reorganisation. It could not, for instance, vary the hours of closing, and it is subject to the laws relating to licensing. The salaries payable to the Board are determined by the Secretary of State, and the salaries payable to their servants in particular areas are fixed by the Board subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the Secretary of State, so soon after the passing of the Bill as he deems it expedient or necessary, shall set up a Central Advisory Council consisting, as to not less than two-thirds of the members, of persons qualified to represent, the views of (1), bodies interested in, and with knowledge of, the trade; (2), temperance associations; (3), organisations representative of the manual workers; and (4), local authorities. This Council would report periodically to the Secretary of State and so to Parliament, and the purpose of the body is that it is intended to prevent the exploitation of the sale of drink by the Board itself, or to prevent any unfair competition with adjacent areas who do not happen to have adopted the choice of reorganisation. The Council is unpaid, and the term of office for its members is three years. One-third of the members of the Council, following a common practice in this country, retire each year.
Besides this Central Advisory Council there will be local advisory committees, and these you might say, for practical purposes, will be the most important body At any rate they will be responsible in their different localities, from their knowledge and experience, for giving direct advice. Such a committee will be appointed by the Secretary of State for the area in question, and will consist, as to one half of its members, of persons nominated by the local authorities of the area and, as to the other half, of persons nominated by the justices acting in that area. The members of the local advisory committee are unpaid and the term of office in each case is determined by the Secretary of State. It will be the duty of the local advisory committee to notify the Board of Management as to the number of public-

919
houses in that particular area that is required, as to where they are wanted, and as to which should be closed as redundant, and the Board will be empowered to make such structural alterations as may be required for the supply of food and non-intoxicants. They will not take over hotels and clubs, but they have the power, in so far as the sale of intoxicants is concerned, to impose such conditions as are thought necessary, or expedient for the purposes of their control and the management of the sale of intoxicating liquor in that area.
I now pass to the financial arrangements and the arrangements for compensation. I need hardly say that this is the most complex part of our problem. It is the Part of the Bill which, as we are all aware, is most easily exposed to criticism, and to destructive criticism—so long, that is to say, as the critics are not required to produce any constructive proposal of their own. This part of the Bill has received the closest and the most scrupulous attention. It has been deemed wise and natural and right not to proceed on lines of our own, but to follow the lines of recommendation laid down by responsible persons who have from time to time been entrusted with the duty of investigating this very complicated question. To begin with, I would say that so far as the practical part of the financial arrangements is concerned, a central fund is established and is provided for, first of all, by the trade levy of 1904, increased (and the rates are given in the Second Schedule) in a reorganisation area. The Board of Management, of course, pays equally to the central fund. Secondly, all profits arising from the reorganised area go to the fund. The fund is available for compensation in areas which vote for reorganisation or for no-licence. It is not under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it has been our object to see whether it was possible to devise a solvent scheme whereby none of the compensation money required would come from the taxpayer and there was no actual or contingent liability upon public funds.
I said that we have tried to follow the lines of recommendation that have been adopted by responsible committees or bodies of persons entrusted with the duty of dealing with this question. For instance, as was done by the Government Committee of 1917, this Bill does not
920
take Stock Exchange quotations or the valuation of individual premises in ascertaining the total value of interest to be compensated. That Committee, upon which the Treasury was represented, recommended unanimously that the capital value of an undertaking—that is to say, of the brewery and all its tied houses—should be arrived at by taking a certain number of years' purchase of the net profit of the whole undertaking during a given period. Clause 26 of this Bill applies the same principle but modifications have to be introduced. That Committee had to provide for the contemplated acquisition by the State of the whole drink trade at a given moment. This Bill has to provide for the possible acquisition of the trade—the possible acquisition of the trade—in various localities by the Board of Management at different times; that is, after the expiration of a varying number of years' notice.
There is another point in which a differentiation has been made. This Bill recognises an intrinsic value and a permanent property interest in the bricks and mortar, but there is no permanent right recognised to compensation in respect of the additional value which happens to be conferred upon premises because there is attached to those premises a monopoly licence, which is granted and which is also liable to be resumed by the community at its own discretion. On the other hand, it recognises that a market value in licences has, in fact, existed for many years. Large sums are constantly changing hands in that market, and severe hardship would be caused if the community were to take back licences into its own hands without either giving notice of its intention, or without paying compensation. Consequently, the Bill prescribes that compensation must be paid, always at a constant rate, for the bricks and mortar element, by whatever poll the reorganisation resolution is carried, but that compensation for the licence element shall be on a descending scale—highest in the case of properties transferred to the Board of Management as the result of a reorganisation resolution carried at the first poll, and descending with later polls in consideration of the longer notice given and the longer profitable user allowed. The principle with regard to licence value is, in effect, this: that the

921
community is entitled to resume at its discretion, subject to its time limit, the licences, with a power to anticipate the expiration of the time limit, on condition that compensation is paid.
The compensation payable in respect of the first poll resolution is equal to twelve years' purchase of the whole property, and is thus—there we have tried to be guided by the recommendation of the Government Committee of 1917—approximately the same as the basis adopted by that Committee, who recommended for a normal concern fifteen years' purchase of the total profit, subject to a scaling down proportionate to the depreciation of capital values since the outbreak of the war. Provision is also made for dealing with companies which are in an abnormal class or for breweries which have houses in an area which votes for a change, but are themselves in a no-change area and vice versa. It seems to me that it is impossible to claim the creation of a property in perpetuity in monopolies which have been granted, and are being granted from time to time, to certain individuals. That is the principle of the time limit, as I understand it.
We have, therefore, to ascertain at what rate the value should be scaled down under a time limit. The Bill assumes that if, after the expiration of the time, limit, no compensation for licences should be given, and that if, at the beginning, 100 per cent. compensation or twelve years' purchase should be given for licences, then, at the second poll, seventy-five per cent., or nine years' purchase, at the third poll fifty per cent, or six years' purchase, and at the fourth poll twenty-five per cent. or three years' purchase should be given. To guarantee the solvency of the compensation fund the Home Secretary is empowered, in Clause 13, to postpone the taking of the poll by one year if he thinks it desirable to augment the fund by one year's extra premium and by the profit from reorganised areas. This postponement obviously diminishes the liabilities of the fund, as there will be a proportionate reduction in the number of years' purchase.
There is only one other financial point that seems to be of importance—namely, that in this Bill there is now no contingent liability upon the Exchequer as was the ease in the Bill of 1921. I can only deal with these questions very briefly, but
922
we are constantly being asked whether this scheme is solvent. We are confident that it is solvent unless a very large number of areas, the majority of them in fact, vote for no-licence at the first or second poll. Neither the experience of Scotland, nor what is claimed by Prohibitionists themselves, nor our acquaintance with public sentiment has led us for a moment to suppose that this is in the least likely to happen. After the first two votes have been taken, the decreased scale of compensation which can be claimed for licences and the accumulation of income from premiums and profits would more than meet any possible call.
In regard to the question as to what is to happen to the fund at the end of the time limit, I do not know that 1, or any one, can possibly tell what the assets and commitments of the fund will be sixteen years after the Bill has passed. No one can tell how many and which areas will have voted for no-licence; no one can tell how many and which areas will have voted for reorganisation or how many and which areas will have voted for no change. All I can say is that the compensation fund may have been receiving a large annual income from the premiums which arc specified in Clause 24, subsections (1), (2) and (5), and it may or may not have had to meet heavy and numerous claims. What we feel is that the scheme is solvent, unless England, to use a common expression, "goes dry" at once, and that it is for the Legislature to prescribe at the end of the time limit—sixteen years after the passing of the Bill—what, if any, changes are needed.
Before bringing to a close what I have to say about compensation I must refer to the Liquor Compensation Commission which is dealt with in Clauses 10 to 13. That Commission is to consist of not less than three Commissioners. It shall be a court of record and shall have an official seal. One of the Commissioners shall be a barrister of at least ten years' standing at the time of his appointment and he is to be appointed on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, one at least of the Commissioners shall be a person who has special knowledge of the valuation of the particular sort of property concerned, and one at least shall be a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants (and I would add in that particular paragraph "or of the Society of Incorporated Accountants"), and both are to

923
be appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. The Commissioners are to be paid such salaries as the Treasury shall determine. I draw attention to that because your Lordships will see, if you read the clause, that it gives a certain elasticity to our scheme. In arranging the terms of compensation, the purpose of the Bill has been to secure agreement and a good understanding between the persons concerned, and a good deal of discretion has been allowed to the Commissioners to assist in securing agreement and in arranging terms within certain prescribed limits.
I should like also to try to clear up some misapprehensions that have evidently arisen in regard to Clause 40, which deals with the repeal of certain Acts. The Bill doubles the levy which was originally created by the 1904 Act. Obviously, however, it would not be fair to make the trade pay into the national compensation fund under this Bill and also into a local fund under the previous Act; therefore, the Bill abolishes the levy under the Act of 1904. But we do not propose that magistrates should have the power of closing redundant licences without compensation and we intend to suspend this also. If the Bill as drafted does not safeguard the owners of licences, an amendment to carry out more fully the intentions of the Bill would, of course, be accepted
Another point that has been raised is that the Bill proposes that an increased levy shall be imposed even after the expiration of the time limit. I have only this to say in reply, that it might be advisable to insert a clause making that continuance dependent, either in whole or in part, every year upon the initiative of the Home Secretary; that is to say, he would only continue the levy if it were required for the purposes of the compensation fund. He might conclude that only a half, or even a smaller proportion, would suffice.
I presume that it would not be in order for me to raise at this stage a discussion on a great many of the complex details of the Bill, or to attempt to discuss them. There are a great many details. We all know that this is a complex question and that a large number of interests are involved. Those matters have received the most careful consideration, and we believe that the Bill as presented to your
924
Lordships' House contains no serious gap in the details to which I have referred. No criticism that I have met so far has shown that the machinery itself is unworkable or that the trade cannot give what is required in order to finance an insurance scheme. But the details are open to modification and adjustment. Those who support me will be ready, I am sure, to consider amendments so long as the main structure of the measure is preserved. For instance, in Clause 2 polls are made obligatory. It might be desirable to give the initiative by requisition to the locality. Similarly, Clause 2 provides for an interval of three years between polls. It might be desirable to extend the period. The Bill proposes that the choices should be carried by a bare majority. It might be thought desirable to provide that a definite proportion of votes must be obtained in order to carry any change, but I am mainly concerned with placing before you, as clearly as I can, the main structure of this Bill.
If I might be allowed to disclose what is in my mind, I would say that my great desire has been that the Bill should receive a Second Beading, and should then be referred to a Select Committee of the House. If my desire is not fulfilled I would make an earnest appeal to the Government to call together a round table conference, representative of all parties, in order that it might be possible to have an agreed measure on constructive lines to deal with the complex question which has disturbed our political life for a considerable time.
But if I might ask your forbearance for a few moments, I should like to conclude very briefly with two general observations. The first is this. This is a Bill which surely does not lend itself to exaggeration—either to exaggerated hope, or exaggerated alarm. It is an honest attempt to approach the problem of what we call licensing reform in the light of the many interests that are concerned, and an honest attempt to treat all those interests with due consideration. I decline to believe that the conflict between those interests is so intense and bitter that it is impossible they should he reconciled; or, to put it into other words, that it is impossible to give practical effect to the temper of reasonableness. Nor, again, is this Bill

925
an insidious attempt to introduce Prohibition, or to undermine generally private enterprise. I claim that the Bill has decided merits, and should at this stage, whatever modification might be introduced later, be considered fairly on its merits. My second observation is this. If there is to be any legislation at all I am convinced that it should be legislation on these lines. I believe that much of our social and much of our educational reform will move more steadily, and more sanely, so far as it allows scope for experiment to be made, and throws upon localities the responsibility for making experiments and adjustments to meet the varying conditions, circumstances, sentiments and traditions in the diverse localities of a country like ours. None of the experiments suggested in this Bill are fanciful. They can all be made, or they can all be reasonably declined, in the light of experience that has been gained in our Dominions, in the course of the war, or in other parts of the world.
But, more than that, I believe in legislation along these lines because, if we are to live in a democratic community, the principle of this Bill lays stress upon the right trend and only right trend of democracy—which is to learn and to teach the obligation of a common responsibility. At the same time I know quite well that it will be urged that there is no need for any legislation, that we are living in the best of all possible but necessarily imperfect worlds, or that, if legislation should come, it should come upon the initiative of the trade itself, and that we had better mind our own business. It is true that, legislation or no legislation, it will he our business to inculcate the habits of temperance and soberness by all the means available to us, and I am not called upon to rely entirely, or in the last resort ever, upon Acts of Parliament, but I do ask your Lordships seriously to consider the fact brought to our notice by those who are directly responsible for the administration of law and order, that the record of drunkenness, and of the evils, consequent upon it, is bad, and that since there has been a relaxation of control it has become steadily worse.
I would venture also to warn you that if there is no legislation and we drift on, we are running the risk of entrenching, year by year, more and more strongly, the amalgamated interests of the trade
926
which, on the one hand, is so powerful and so penetrating as to be able to influence large departments of our political life, and on the other hand, because it is so large and so powerful those; who conduct it with the very best intentions in the world—and I should be the last to attribute to them anything but the best intentions—are compelled to act upon the maxim that business is business, and to put the attractiveness and the prosperity of their business in the first place. That business is no ordinary business, and those who conduct it incur no ordinary responsibility. This Bill is a fair attempt to include the community itself in some degree, within certain prescribed limits, in their share of responsibility. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, in moving, in accordance with my Notice, the rejection of this Bill, I should like to make it clear that I am quite as anxious as the right rev. Prelate opposite, or as any advocate of temperance, to see a sober nation, but I disagree with the advocates of this Bill in that I do not believe its machinery will bring about that desired result. The right rev. Prelate who has just sat down made some allusion to the power of the trade which, as I understood him, is so great that it impels people to vote for what they know to be wrong. I have never had anything to do with the trade—perhaps, from a pecuniary point of view, unfortunately—and I have never held any shares in any brewery. I am not moving the rejection of this Bill because of any pressure which has been put upon me by the trade, but because I believe it is a bad Bill, and one that will not bring about the results which we all have at heart—that is to say, it will not make the nation as sober as is possible.
It is not as if no other nation has tried prohibition. America has tried prohibition. I am glad to see the right rev. Prelate the Lord Bishop of London in his place, because that right rev. Prelate, in 1921, on the Second Beading of a somewhat similar Bill to this—he was quoting the effect of Prohibition in America—said this:—
"I find these facts are really worth knowing. The cases of drunkenness in Philadelphia have gone down from 43,000 in 1917 to 20,410 in 1920."

927
With regard to that, Prohibition, though it has halved the number of cases of drunkenness, has not done away with them, and if the right rev. Prelate could have told us to-day that this result had been continued I think something might be said for it. But what are the facts? The facts are these. In 1920 the figures for drunkenness were 20,410, but in 1921 they were 27,570, and in 1922 36,299. The effect of prohibition is wearing off.
I have taken some trouble to ascertain the population of Philadelphia and I find that it is 1,833,000. That figure is taken from the Statesman's Year Book. I have here the number of cases in which proceedings were taken for drunkenness and disorderly conduct in the Metropolitan Police District. The estimated population of Greater London is 7,466,492 as against a population of 1,833,000 in Philadelphia, and the cases of drunkenness in 1922 in the Metropolitan Police District were 32,688. In the London area, in which there is no Bill of this sort, with a population of 7,466,492, there are 32,688 cases of drunkenness as compared with 36,299 cases of drunkenness in Philadelphia with a population of 1,833,000. The right rev. Prelate said these facts are worth knowing, and if they are worth knowing when they are in his favour they are also worth knowing when they are in mine. Philadelphia has actually more cases of drunkenness than London at the present time.
Having pointed out that fact, I think I might sit down. That is sufficient to show that this Bill is quite unnecessary. However, there are a few other points which I should like to bring before the attention of your Lordships which show that the effect of prohibition in the United States is wearing off. The figures I am about to quote are the official figures of the police in Washington. Arrests for intoxication out of a population of 1,356,000 were 2,812 in 1918, 5,415 in 1921, 6,375 in 1922 and 8,099 in 1923. Instead of Prohibition having any effect in America in reducing those numbers, the facts are quite to the contrary. I agree with the right rev. Prelate as to crimes which drunkenness sometimes undoubtedly occasions, but what about the crimes which prohibition occasions, the evasions of the law which take place under prohibition?
I have here a report, which appeared in the Morning Post of June 9 of this
928
year, of a statement made at a political meeting in America. This is what the speaker said:—
"The alleged attempts to enforce prohibition represent the most disgraceful chapter in our judicial and legislative history. It has made cowards of many of our legislators, crooks of many of our officials, sneaks of many upstanding citizens, and has created an army of bootleggers, whose illegal operations have no counterpart in history. It has destroyed respect for authority in the rising generation and is slowly but surely undermining the morals of the country. Ask any school teacher what effect the flask is having on the morals of her pupils, boys and girls. We prate of moral leadership of the world while the world laughs at us as the most guileless race of hypocrites ever gathered together under one flag."
That is a very good description of what is taking place in America at the present moment.
But that is not the only example. We have another in Scotland. I have been informed that in a place called Auchterarder, a place associated with the Lord Chancellor, a no-licence resolution was carried, with the result that the inhabitants of Auchterarder went to the neighbouring villages and consumed as much liquor as they wanted. The publicans in these neighbouring villages did such a roaring trade that the people in Auchterarder, being Scotch, and seeing their money going into the hands of some one else, were most anxious to go back. I am told they wanted to go back.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: They have gone back.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am informed they have gone back. But let me show you what has taken place in Scotland. In Scotland, since local option came into operation, there have been 590 polls, and in 527 there has been no change. Forty-one voted for no-licence in 1921 but ten have since seen the error of their ways and have gone back to no change, including the district associated with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. So that now there are only thirty-one areas which are "no-licence." In these circumstances I submit that there is really no occasion whatever for this Bill. Wherever a Bill of this sort has been in operation its only effect has been to increase drunkenness and create distrust of the law. Instead of doing good, it has only led to people getting drunk on worse liquor and at greater expense.

929
The right rev. Prelate who moved the Second Heading said that a certain number of points in the Bill might be amended in Committee. He enumerated several. My Suggestion is that he should bring in a new Bill and not attempt to amend a bad Bill in Committee. It must be remembered that if this Bill becomes an Act polls are compulsory every three years. I have been informed—I do not know it of my own knowledge—that each poll will cost £250,000. At a time when we are all groaning under excessive taxation it is proposed to institute new polls which will cost £250,000 each time, and which will probably result in there being no change at all. It is said that this is a local option. It is nothing of the sort. If, on the first poll, an area voles for no-licence, then there can be no further change until the termination of the world. We go on under the system of no-licence. But if it votes for no change—mark the fairness of this—there can be another poll every three years, and the decision can be reversed, it is almost incredible to me that any one should bring forward a Bill in which such an utterly unfair proposal is embodied.
The Bill itself makes a very bad start. It begins with a Memorandum, and I feel quite certain that the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, did not write that Memorandum, because it contains five statements which are inaccurate and misleading.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: And one bad mistake in grammar.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend below me, who is an authority, says that there is also one bad mistake in grammar. The Bill begins with the Title: "Liquor (Popular Control)." I have shown that it is not popular control. It might happen that in the County of London, which is one of the areas concerned, there were 30,000 electors voting for "no licence" and 29,999 electors voting for "no change." If the no-licence resolution is carried by a majority of one, we are to have nothing whatever to drink in any club or private residence or in any part of the County of London, except in a restaurant car on a railway. I was for many years a director of the Great Northern Railway Company, and for some years its Chair-
930
man, and as an old railway director I welcome that exception, because, if I. were still a railway director, I should attach a restaurant car to every train, and I am quite certain that it would be full "from morn … to dewy eve." The next misstatement is to the effect that there is to be
"a central body (called the Board of Management) appointed with the approval of and dismissible by Parliament, but otherwise bearing some such relation to Parliament as do bodies like the Port of London or Mersey Dock Board."
But this is a body appointed, with one exception, by the Secretary of State. The Port of London is quite a different body. It consists of twenty-eight members, of whom eighteen are elected, not by a local body of electors or by a Parliamentary franchise, but by the payers of dues, wharfingers and owners of river craft. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, is present, but he made a statement during the last debate on a similar Bill with reference to public ownership and the Port of London Authority, which lie described as being a popularly elected body—which it is not—and which he said was successful. I will show your Lordships in a moment how it is that it has been more or less successful. In addition to the eighteen members whom I have mentioned ten others are appointed, three by the Government, four by the London County Council, two by the Corporation, and one by Trinity House.
Why has the Port of London been more or less successful? In the days before it was constituted we had that which was called free water, that is to say, the lighters could come into the docks, paying nothing, and discharge the goods which were in the ships. Now you will see, if you will refer to the Act of 1908 which set up the Dock Board, that all the goods have to pay dues, whether they are discharged in a dock or landed on the premises, and, in addition, there is an authorisation to charge rates which shall be sufficient to meet expenditure for ail purposes. Further, they have a monopoly. Anybody can manage a company or an undertaking which is a monopoly, and which has power to charge as much as is necessary to provide for their expenditure, with a certain amount of success. I beg to point out that this part of the Memorandum again is entirely misleading.

931
The next point refers to contributory insurance. The Memorandum says:—
"The Bill extends to the members of the licensed trade the principle of contributory insurance against certain definite risks to them which has been already applied to large classes of the community in the schemes for insurance against the risks of unemployment and of sickness."
It is also pointed out, in the preceding paragraph of the Memorandum, that none of the compensation money will come from the taxpayer. But all these contributory schemes are contributed to by the taxpayer. There, again, we have a misleading statement. Then comes the time limit, which, it is said, has already been recognised by Parliament. When, and by whom? I do not know any Act of Parliament which recognises the time limit. I have had some experience of Acts of Parliament; in fact, for thirty-one years in the House of Commons I read every single Bill that was brought in, and I have no hesitation in saying that the worst Bill I have ever read is this one. Then, with regard to the compensation, it is stated that this will be given on the basis "recommended unanimously by the Government Committee in 1917." I do not know whether anything turns upon the word "basis," but the compensation recommended by the Government Committee in 1917 was fifteen years' purchase, the State to find the money. Under this Bill the State finds nothing, the highest purchase is twelve years instead of fifteen, and in many cases it comes as low as six and even three years.
I hope I am not taking up too much of your Lordships' time, but the Bill really is a very bad one. In the first place, we are to have a number of committees. How many committees are there going to be? As I make it out, there are to be four. There is the Secretary of State first of all; then there is a Board of Management appointed by the Secretary of State; then there is a Central Advisory-Council, also appointed by the Secretary of State, to advise the Board of Management and the Secretary of State; and then there are local bodies, which are not actually appointed by the Secretary of State—or rather, he appoints them but the members are, I presume, recommended to him by certain people in the local area. These bodies are to advise the Central Advisory Council, which is to advise the
932
Board of Management, which advises the Secretary of State. How on earth car any business be conducted if you are going to have a number of bodies all advising etch other? It is perfectly unworkable.
Then there is to be set up another Star Chamber. The promoters of the Bill know perfectly well—at least, I presume they know—that if any dispute arises as to the terms of purchase, and so on, of the breweries and various properties which are to be acquired, it would not be wise to go to a court of law, and so they set up another Commission—another Star Chamber really—and the Board of Management and the Secretary of State are to be plaintiffs and judges in their own cause. Indeed, this Bill does require amendment. Are we now, in these days, going to set up another Star Chamber? Are we going back to the days of Archbishop Laud? Are we going to set up another Star Chamber, which, as we know, had such bad effects in the old days?
I notice that there are to be plenty of expenses. There are to be any number of new officials, and they are all to be paid. I have some figures here showing the expenses of the Civil Service, which under this Bill is going to be increased. I may say that I was Chairman of the Select Committee on National Expenditure after the first Chairman, Sir Herbert Samuel, went, to Palestine, before that I was Chairman of one of the sub-Committees, and I was Chairman of the Estimates Committee during the whole of its existence in the House of Commons. I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that the great, majority of the members of those Committees were unanimously in favour of reducing the expenditure on the Civil Service, if ever we were to get back to anything like normal taxation. This Bill, however, proposes to add to the cost of the Civil Service. In 1913–14 the cost of the Civil Service was £57,515,000, and in 1923–24 it was £256,341,352, or nearly five times as much. Yet the cost of living has not doubled. And we get nothing out of it. We are bothered by forms and requisitions, and we get nothing out of it, and here we are asked to put something more on. These figures do not include the expenditure on the Post Office, which in 1913–14 was £24,198,000, as against £50,871,000 in 1923–24.

933
Now let me for a moment deal with the Star Chamber, which I think is one of the worst features of the Bill. Clause 10 provides that:
"There shall be established a commission, to be called 'the Liquor Compensation Commission' … and consisting of not lees than three Commissioners, which shall be a court of record and have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed. The Commissioners shall be appointed by His Majesty before the first reorganisation or no-licence resolution shall come into operation, and from time to time as vacancies occur."
Therefore, before anything is done, before any area has decided for reorganisation or no-licence, we are to set up a Commission which is to appoint officials and pay them salaries.
I need not trouble your Lordships with the qualifications of the Commissioners, but one Commissioner is to be a barrister of at least ton years' standing. I am not a member of the legal profession, but I always understood that it took at least ten years before a man knew anything about the bar or had got any practice, and yet here a man who has been ton years at the bar, but who may have no practice, may be appointed a Commissioner and deal with property of enormous value, without any appeal. Clause 11 says there shall be attached to the Commissioners such officers, etc., as the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury as to number, may from time to time appoint. The salaries of the Commissioners, and of all such officials, and all their expenses, are to be paid out of the central fund. There will be very little left out of the central fund to be paid to the brewers if they begin paying all these gentlemen salaries.
The Secretary of State, if satisfied either of the inability of a Commissioner to attend at the hearing of any case, or of there being a vacancy in the office, and in either case of the necessity of a speedy hearing, may appoint a temporary Commissioner to hear such case. The Secretary of State will be all powerful, and we may assume for the purpose of argument that he is a temperance fanatic. He might be Lord Astor, whom I do not see in his place. What might he do? One of the Commissioners might be unable to attend, but is it not possible that the Secretary of State might say: "Here is a Commissioner to try this particular case whom I do not think is
934
very sound; he is not going sufficiently strong against the brewers, and I will appoint a Commissioner whom i know, and he will decide as I would have him decide," and he will appoint one of his own creatures, who will do as he is told? It is setting up a Star Chamber, which is repugnant to a lover of freedom like myself, who has a great belief in the Judicial Bench. I will ask the Lord Chancellor how he likes to be set aside and a barrister of ten years' standing appointed in his place.
To my mind, Clause 16, or at any rate a part of it, is not at all clear. I cannot understand what it means. It says:—
"On and alter the date upon which any area becomes a no-licence area, no person shall sell by retail any intoxicating liquor within the area, and no retail licence, whether justices' or excise, for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be granted or renewed in respect of any promises within the area, and the bolder of a wholesale or manufacturer's licence shall not be entitled by virtue of such licence to sell any intoxicating liquor in the area, except to a trader for the purposes of his trade."
What on earth does that mean? A publican is a trader is he not? And he buys liquor for the purpose of his trade. Therefore, so far as I understand it, that part of the clause contradicts the first part of it, which says that on and after a certain date no person shall sell by retail any intoxicating liquor within the area. All through this Bill, if you read it carefully—during the vacation I had nothing to do and I rend it every night, and I begin to know something about it—you will find clauses which you think are not very clear. After very careful study you begin to think you understand what they mean, and then you go on to find some proviso that lands you in a state of worse confusion than you were in at the beginning.
Next we come to the provisions as to reorganisation which sets up official public-houses. Why should it be not harmful for a person to drink intoxicating liquor if he buys it at a Government house, but wrong and harmful if he buys it from a private trader? If the thing is wrong you should go for the whole thing—Prohibition. But if it is right, as I think it is, for people to be able to buy alcoholic liquor in moderation, why should you say that they may buy it from the Government, but not from a private trader?

935
That brings in the question of Government management. I was for twenty years a director of the Great Northern Railway, and for the last six years, terminating last April, I was its Chairman. I take the ease of that Company because I know the facts. As your Lordships know, the railways were under Government control, and what was the effect of Government control? Government control finished at the end of August, 1921. During the first eight months of 1921 the Great Northern Railway Company was not only not earning sufficient to pay anything on its debentures, but it was not earning sufficient to pay its expenses. In the last four months of 1921 we palled up a little under private management. The State had to pay the revenue which existed in 1913, and out of that we paid certain dividends. In 1922, the first year in which we resumed control of our property, we not only earned dividends on the debentures and on the preference shares, but we earned seven per cent. on the deferred stock, and paid it. We did not take a single shilling from the Government compensation fund; it was all paid out of earnings, properly earned. That is the difference between State management and private management.
With regard to compensation, Lord Sumner's Committee required fifteen years' purchase. The most to be paid under this Bill, on the first poll, is twelve years' purchase. On the second poll it goes down to nine, on the third to six, on the fourth to three, and afterwards to nothing. That is very different from Lord Sumner's recommendation. The brewers, who, since 1904, have contributed to the fund which was set up then, in order to recompense them if their livelihood was taken away, are to have that fund taken away from them. It is not to be devoted to compensation for licences which are taken away, and the contribution is to be doubled. I do not believe your Lordships will miss a clause of that sort.
There are the most extraordinary clauses with regard to the purchase of breweries. If there is a brewery, not in a reorganisation area but outside it, and if fifty per cent. of its trade is done in the reorganisation area, then the Board of
936
Management can step in and buy the brewery at the absurd figures which I have just quoted. And, further than that, if the Commissioners—the Star Chamber—approve, the Board of Management can step in and buy this brewery. Take Clause 34, which says:—
"No notice to treat need be served upon any person interested in any premises or property which vests in the Board under Part IV of this Act, and Sections one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-two of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act. 1845, shall not be incorporated with this Act, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, all questions of disputed compensation arising under this Act shall be determined by the Commissioners in the manner provided by this Act."
I do not think I need comment upon that.
I have endeavoured, I am afraid very feebly, to put before your Lordships the effect of this Bill. I am anxious to see a sober country and I believe that, by example, we may get it. All the figures in my possession—with which I have not troubled your Lordships but can produce if necessary—show that cases of drunkenness are decreasing and have been decreasing during the last fifty years. It is true that for the first year or two after the war, though the numbers were much lower than they were thirty years ago, they did go up. That was the effect of the war, and of people having too much money. But now the numbers have gone down. For many years I walked home from the House of Commons every night, and I used to see a picket and drunken men outside Wellington Barracks. Twenty-five years ago that was done away with, and I did not see a drunken man afterwards. There were a few after the war, but that was all.
I would remind the right rev. Prelate that there was a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, and that the governor of the feast had not provided any wine, and our Saviour turned the water into wine. Has the right rev. Prelate a better authority than that? I believe in a moderate amount of alcohol. It has never done me any harm, and I do not believe it has ever done anybody else any harm. I have known occasions in my life when, if I had not been able to get a glass of wine, I should probably have been ill; at any rate, it put me on my legs for the time being. And, furtherfore, believing in freedom, I

937
do not think any man has a right to say to me that, because A or B sometimes drinks to excess, I am not to have a glass of wine if I choose. It is the very negation of freedom. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill, and, as I believe that there will be a considerable number of speakers, I would suggest, if it meets with the approval of the Government (whom I do not see very largely represented at the moment) and of my noble friend, that if, by half-past six or seven o'clock, we cannot take a Division, we should adjourn the debate until to-morrow or the next day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months")—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, my noble friend said he thought that after the few opening sentences of his speech and the facts which he would disclose it would be quite unnecessary for him to say anything more. The destructive criticism which he has levelled at the right rev. Prelate's Bill has made it unnecessary for anybody else to go into details; he has destroyed the Bill from the first clause to the last. The right rev. Prelate, in his interesting speech, told us that he and the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept Amendments in regard to certain details. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam that the only course to adopt in the circumstances is to withdraw this Bill and to produce a fresh one.
The Amendments suggested by the right rev. Prelate go to the very root of the measure. One of the fundamental objections to it, one of its most serious blots, is that it proposes to hold these elections triennially, and not by the choice of the people but by command. The right rev. Prelate dwelt with great force upon the contention that this Bill is a measure of local option. There is not a word of local option in it from beginning to end. It is the most autocratic measure of which I have ever heard I have never quite understood what the word "democratic" means in English, but supposing it to bear its ordinary interpretation, the Bill might be democratic when you have, a Labour Government and a Labour Secretary of State, but if you suggest that the putting of all the power there is in this Bill into
938
the hands of a Secretary of State is an example of democratic legislation, I can only say it is something very different from anything that I have ever hoard of under that description. You are giving the Government more and more power.
I do not believe that anybody who has watched the development of government in this country during the last quarter of a century does not feel—at all events, I hear men of all creeds and classes and shades in politics concurring in this view—that the tendency towards what is called bureaucracy has been dangerously on the increase, and that to-day the interference of the Central Government in the administration of affairs generally is far more serious, more general and more widespread than it ought to be. It is true that when these bodies have been created under this Hill they are to have certain powers; but how do those bodies come into existence? Do they come into existence by the will of the people? Not a bit of it. They are to be selected for certain reasons. When they have been selected and appointed, they are compelled under the Bill to hold an election whether they want it or not on the three resolutions which are to be submitted to the electorate.
Perhaps I might dwell for an instant upon the point made by my noble friend, to which I think too much importance cannot be attached—that this Bill gives power to adopt what is called the no-licence proposal, which practically means Prohibition, and that once it is adopted you cannot go back a single step. You may adopt either of the other alternatives, but however bitter your experience may have been, however convinced you may be that you have made a mistake, however willing you are in a straightforward way to acknowledge that yon have been wrong, this Bill says that you shall not go back. You may if you like substitute something else of a less drastic character, but you shall not abolish the no-licence policy. Is that popular legislation? Is that the clothing of local bodies with power to administer their affairs? I venture to repeat what I said a moment ago that there is nothing in the shape of local option, local government, or popular control to be found in this Bill from the first clause to the last. I look upon it as a case of bureaucracy gone mad.

939
I have not been the industrious apprentice that my noble friend below me was during his long years of service in the House of Commons, but I have had what is probably a unique experience in preparing Rills for Governments of which I had the honour to be a member and in fighting Bills on behalf of my Party against, the Government of the day in the House of Commons, and I entirely endorse what my noble friend said. I have read many a bad Bill, and many a Bill which gave one an infinity of trouble to understand and interpret and to gauge what action would be taken under it when it passed into law; but I never read a Bill so difficult to interpret or one so full of direct contradictions as this Bill is. Therefore, on all grounds I submit that the rejection of this Bill is the only fit and proper course to adopt.
The right rev. Prelate made a very powerful appeal to us not to sit with our hands folded, but to do something. I was immensely struck by the fact that in the course of his extremely comprehensive and interesting speech—no doubt, the omission was due to pressure of time—there was not one single word or quotation regarding the causes which made further legislation necessary at the present time. Lord Banbury of Southam has told us that according to the best information that can be obtained there is undoubted evidence that since the temporary increase of convictions for drunkenness which followed the war, there has been a steady decline, the figure having fallen to about half of what it was in the early days of the war. It must be borne in mind that it is not fair to dwell upon those years after the war in which the figures increased, because of the return of the wearied fighting population who had lived under great restrictions during the war and were physically not in a position to protect themselves against undue consumption. There is one further reason which weighs more than anything else with me as an Englishman, proud of my country and proud of my race, as I am sure the right rev. Prelate is. I refuse to believe that if you impose shackles of this kind upon our people you can by any possibility do it without the degradation of their character, the weakening of their moral power and, in the end. I believe, the weakening even of their physical powers. One, to a large extent, follows the other.
940
When we are asked to pass a drastic Bill of this kind we ought to be given more information than we have received—we have had none in this debate—to show us that this reform is necessary. Lord Banbury quoted the reduction in the figures of drunkenness. In addition to that, a most remarkable change has taken place in the number of public houses in the last few years. That number has steadily decreased at an average rate of something over one thousand a year, and that reduction has been brought about exactly under the conditions which the right rev. Prelate said that he desired to see established and maintained here—namely, good will on all sides and a readiness to join in the movement for reduction. That has been done. There is no injustice in the Act of 1904 as amended by the Act of 1910. The Act provides a just method of compensation. I am informed that the parties interested are satisfied with it. At all events, advantage has been taken of the powers contained in the Act, and houses are gradually disappearing. Let me remind your Lordships that they are abolished in some cases without compensation, where evidence is forthcoming that compensation would not fairly be payable. This work is going steadily forward.
I can confirm what my noble friend said. I go about the country a great deal. Twenty or thirty years ago I used to see, as he did, drunken men in the streets of London, in the country villages and, in fact, everywhere. To-day, thank God, the sight of a drunken man in a village or a small town is almost unknown. The cases of drunkenness have enormously decreased. Let any one go into our country villages, where they are constantly deploring the lowness of wages, and he will find that in the clothing of the men, the women and the children, in the general appearance of the people and the condition of their homes, a change of a most startling character has been effected, due in large measure, no doubt, to the altered conditions in their lives. Many of your Lordships are old enough, as I am, to remember the day when drunkenness was not confined to the lower orders, when drunkenness obtained in all classes, and was paraded almost ostentatiously before one's eyes. Those days have long gone, and to-day, thanks to a variety of causes, the country is steadily progressing along the path which must be followed if the

941
nation is to be sober. I beg your Lordships to do nothing which will attempt to hurry this work by compulsion, or by depriving the poorer classes of this country of those opportunities which they enjoy at present and which they are ceasing gradually to abuse. If the young generation is to grow up reliant and strong it must retain that freedom which is enjoyed by us to-day. I feel that my noble friend, Lord Banbury of Southam, has said all that can be necessary at the present time upon that aspect of the matter.
I, like my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, have never been connected in any way with this great trade. I wish that I had to make the avowal that I was largely interested in it, because it is one of the most prosperous industries. I have, however, nothing to do with it. I do not pretend to be familiar with it in its details, or even with it in its general aspects. I have looked at this question quite apart from the trade aspect. I think the right rev. Prelate and those who are around him will forgive me for saying this. They will feel that the last thing I would be guilty of would be any sort of disrespect to their Bench collectively or to them individually. I am, I hope, an honest and a devoted member of the Church to which I belong, and in the work of that Church I take a humble interest. I have tried to look at this Bill from the point of view not at all of the trade, but to dismiss the trade altogether from my consideration of the measure.
The right rev. Prelate sought to prove that this Bill is wholly for the best, and that it is going to work wonders. I asked myself this: Will this Bill, if it passes in anything like its present form, be beneficial to Church and Stale—to the Church from the layman's point of view, and to the State from the point of view of the ordinary practical politician and administrator? The answer I have been forced to come to is an absolute negative. So far as my own Church is concerned, never in its long and glorious history has it been more sorely in need of hearty co-operation and union than it has to-day. We have great wants. The condition of our parochial clergy, of our incumbents, the pay of our curates, and a whole host of other things call with voices which must be listened to for immediate assistance, and yet a Bill of this kind is going
942
to alienate some of the best friends that the Church has got, not because it makes them selfish, still less because they want to retaliate, but because, if you threaten a man in all that he desires, if you threaten a great interest, all other interests immediately take a line.
I am not thinking of wealthy members of the trade who are well able to give, and do give most generously, to all good objects, but I am thinking of other men altogether of whom I have seen a good deal, and from whom I have heard a good deal, in the course of the last two or three years about this question. I assure your Lordships that they are filled to-day with a great feeling of anxiety and misgiving because, they say, this Bill is in itself not only unsound but unjust, and is so framed that it would become very easily a method of confiscation. They say: "If we are to receive at the hands of the leaders of our Church legislation of this character, what must be the effect of it upon those who are hostile to our Church, or hostile to the Church's various interests? Will they not say: 'If it is right for the Bishops to lay violent hands upon the property of this industry, is if not right, for us to take what we think we ought to have for State purposes, and to confiscate your tithe or endowments or any other part of Church property?'" I hope nobody will think that I am using these words from any desire to threaten, but I can assure the right rev. Prelate that I have heard within recent days that this is causing a grave feeling of anxiety, and that if continued it will do infinite harm to the Church to which I have the honour to belong. Therefore, from the point of view of a layman of the Church, I believe that legislation of this kind, coming from the leaders of any particular Church, will do that institution immense harm.
Then look at the question from the point of view of government, both central and local. What are you doing? You are giving to a Secretary of State power to issue certain regulations, and to make certain appointments, and, in fact, generally to lay down how this particular measure is to be worked. What is your Secretary of State? He varies with every Government. You get a Labour Government with a Labour Secretary of State. He may be followed by a well-known member of the Liberal Party or by a member of the Party to which I

943
have the honour to belong. I ask your Lordships to remember that these questions of what we call regulation are regarded in a very different way by men of different political Parties. I am sorry to say that to a very large extent politics during recent years have been associated with this particular question of departmental regulation. The right rev. Prelate told us with perfect accuracy that there has been during recent years a great deal of embittered controversy upon this matter. Embittered controversy is not the word for it. When you get a country fighting over this question of whether you shall issue a licence or not, whether you shall impose these regulations, you then get family against family, children against their parents, neighbours against their neighbours, and you stir a whole district into quarrels, disunion and disturbance, breaking up the very thing you want to maintain—namely, the quiet friendly character of those living in one area.
When I pass from the question of central government to local government I feel myself most profoundly exercised. I have always been a firm believer in local government. I have had something to do with a variety of measures which have from time to time been passed through Parliament altering the system of local government. You have reached the end of your powers. I warn your Lordships that you have given to the local authorities, and above all to the county councils, more work than they can possibly do, and you ought not to add one single task to the burden which they have already to carry. It is hard, to-day, to get capable men to come and do the work that has to be done. Many a man has said to me: "I have been a member of this council since its origin. I have always been willing to give one or two days a fortnight or a month to the work of the council, but now you are throwing so much work upon us that it is not one day a fortnight or a month but one day and perhaps two days a week." It is unreasonable to expect men who are engaged in business affairs to give up so much of their time to work of this kind.
If you throw this burden on county councils, borough councils and the larger urban district councils, you will taint all their elections, it will enter into everything they do, and you will produce a feeling of bitterness in our local areas
944
which happily does not exist to-day. In my opinion you will ultimately destroy that local government which is to-day one of our proudest boasts. If they were unable to carry on I do not know to whom we could turn. Therefore, from the point of view of the State this Bill is altogether mischievous and undesirable, and I join with the noble Lord in the hope that it will be rejected by such a majority as to show that the general opinion of men who have nothing to think of but their own views, actions and duties, is that if we are to proceed along any new lines in dealing with this question then they must be very different lines from those found in the four corners of this Bill.
I do not think the figures which are available show, as the right rev. Prelate suggested, that we live in the best of all possible worlds. No, I do not think that; but no case has been made out for the passing of any Bill of this kind. If fresh legislation is required—it has not been proved to my satisfaction that it is—then I would beg of those who make themselves responsible for it to abandon this Bill altogether and make entirely fresh proposals. I dare say the proposals of the right rev. Prelate may be workable, and that the Government may call a general conference. I only say, in advance, that if they do anything of the kind, I hope they will not ask me to serve on it. It is the last thing I should care to do. The statement of figures and facts leads me to believe that we are going steadily on in the way the right rev. Prelate desires, and with the consent of all reasonable men and women. All the information your Lordships can get will confirm the truth of what Lord Banbury of Southam and I have said.
What moves me most is not the fact of an injustice to a great industry, nor the fact that many men have been doing their best to provide themselves against the need for compensation by paying large sums of money for fourteen years since the Act was placed on the Statute Book. They will lose every penny they have, and that is a very cruel state of things to which I could not assent unless it was absolutely necessary in order to effect some urgent reform. I say that we should go warily and steadily, and remember that the greatest asset of this country is not the brains of our great men, not the powers of leadership of our great leaders,

945
but the high moral qualities, the unfailing courage and steady determination of the working classes of this country, and your Lordships will agree with me that the least we can do—it is our solemn duty—is to take care that nothing is done to weaken their position.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, after the two speeches to which we have just, listened, and which have been so absolutely destructive of the Bill, I do not want to say anything about its details. I only want to make one remark. A considerable amount of support has been accorded this measure throughout the country, and the right rev. Prelate has chimed that he has received support from unexpected quarters. That is mainly owing to the entirely misleading character of the Memorandum which is printed with the Bill. A great many people who want to learn what a Bill does look at what appears to be a comprehensive memorandum, and after reading it think they know all about the provisions of the Bill. They do not read the Bill. Any one who has done so in this case has gone wrong.
Attention has already been called to the statement that "the Bill gives to the inhabitants of boroughs and counties the right of deciding periodically whether they are to have no change in the conduct of the liquor trade in their area, or whether the trade is to be reorganised, or whether all licences are to be abolished." With all respect to the right rev. Prelate that statement is absolutely untrue. It is contrary to Clause 2, and once a no-change resolution has been adopted there can be no going back. The only alternative is either a so-called reorganisation, which is another something between State purchase and disinterested management, or a no-licence resolution. I do not know whether I understood Lord Banbury of Southam correctly when he said that one of his objections was that if a no-licence resolution was adopted there was no going back on that. I do not read the Bill in that way.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, yes.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: If that is the case it, is certainly another objection, and shows the utter hollowness of the argument that there is to be anything in
946
the nature of a periodical revision of any decision which may have been come to by an area, very likely on a mere chance vote. It is said that it is subject to the supervision of the justices. It is not subject to the supervision of the justices at all. We have heard about various powers which are in the bands of the Secretary of State, and all that the justices can do is to act with the Advisory Committee and any recommendations which are put forward by the Advisory Committee are to be taken into consideration. There is absolutely no obligation on anybody to accept the advice of the Advisory Committee, and it is a perfect farce to say that it is to act under the supervision of the justices.
The climax comes with regard to the contention about compensation. It is one of the most extraordinary statements in the whole of this Bill. The Memorandum says:
"The Bill extends to the members of the licensed trade the principle of contributory insurance against certain definite risks to them which has been already applied to large classes of the community in the schemes for insurance against the risks of unemployment and of sickness."
Apparently, the idea is to compel them to pay an increased levy into a fund from which they are to be compensated if the area votes for reorganisation or prohibition. But at each poll at which the vote is for "No Change" the compensation is lowered, until, I believe at the end of twelve years, they get nothing. This is a very ingenious way of applying a squeeze to those who are interested in the trade or in public-houses, in order to lessen their desire to continue their existence and to make them see that the longer they Jive the less they will get-when they die. It seems to me that it is tantamount to telling a man whose existence is at the mercy of a chance vote, to insure himself against the expenses of his own funeral on the understanding that the longer he remains alive and the more premiums he pays the less he will get in the end, until at last nothing is contributed to the funeral at all.
I desired to call attention to this point because I believe that a great deal of the so-called support which has been given to the Bill has been due to complete misconception. I only hope that everybody who is interested in this question will read the speeches of the two noble Lords

947
who have just spoken. If they do so they will, I think, gain a better idea of the probable result of the passing of this Bill by Parliament than they would ever obtain by reading the Memorandum.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I will leave what may be called the Committee points mentioned by the last speaker to be dealt with by my right rev. friend when he replies, but I should like to say a few words in reply to one for whom I have the profoundest respect as has all the Church—my noble friend, Viscount Long of Wraxall. The noble Viscount made a very touching appeal to us for justice to the people. I can only ask, in reply, when the working man has ever had the chance up to now of saying whether he wants this traffic in our midst or not. He has never had such a chance. One of the Labour leaders, Mr. Burt, whom everybody, I think, respected, once made a remark which I have always remembered. "You talk," he said, "about the public house as the working man's cellar. For Heaven's sake give him the key." We must always remember that we have never had a chance to find out whether the people of this country want this traffic, and whether they desire working men and their wives and children to be at the mercy of it.
Lord Long also asked the perfectly natural question: "Why should anything be done?" I am told that this has not been very clearly stated to the House at present, and this is the case which I have undertaken to put before the House myself. Before I come to it, however, I will say a, word in reference to the speech of Lord Banbury, who made various quite polite remarks about me in a most good-tempered manner. He cited the case of America. We are not out for Prohibition. But do not forget that, whatever you may say about America, there is not a man who could become President of the United States if he once proposed the abolition of Prohibition. The other day I had the pleasure of meeting the American Bishops at the Lambeth Conference. I asked all fifty-two of them down in order to find out from them the real state of things in their country, because we hear such very misleading statements on the subject. They were very honest about it, and said that they had nothing to do with the change. One dear old Bishop told me that he had
948
opposed it. I asked: "Will you change it?" They told me there was not the slightest chance of that. They said: "We have seen such a wonderful improvement that we would not change it for anything." That is worth thinking over when we read such statements as are made from an interested point of view in the Press. That is the statement of fifty-two men. whose opinion is absolutely unbiassed, of that which is happening over there.
I think my noble friend Lord Banbury must have nodded once or twice when he was reading this Bill, up to midnight apparently, night, after night. He made a little mistake on one or two points. For instance, I may remind him that not a penny of the Government's money will go towards compensation. It comes out of the compensation fund.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I never said that it would.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: That is how we understood it on this Bench, but, of course, I accept the correction Then again, there is a tremendous difference between Government control and disinterested management. My noble friend seems to me to be confusing the two. Government control is one thing, disinterested management is another. If you go up to Carlisle, as I have done on my temperance tour round England, you will see the difference between the public houses elsewhere, with their flaming advertisements, and the quiet restaurants which they now have at Carlisle. You will there see what we mean by disinterested management, and the difference that results where a man is not paid to make his customers drink as much as possible, but has a steady salary whether he sells intoxicating liquors or not, with a small percentage on the non-intoxicating drinks.
I now come to the question which my noble friend Lord Long specially put before the House regarding the case for anything further happening at all. One would really suppose from some of the speeches that one hears that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I must at once admit that there has been a great improvement. That improvement has not been brought about, however, by sitting still and voting against everything in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, but by the indomitable efforts

949
of those who are keen on temperance—efforts spread over thirty or forty years—to get something done. When I last spoke here it was in opposition to a noble Lord who actually proposed that we should go back in London from ten o'clock to eleven o'clock as the closing hour. What 4,200,000 people were under the ten o'clock rule and only 200,000 under the eleven o'clock rule, in order to have symmetry we were to go back from ten o'clock to eleven o'clock I think I convinced your Lordships—indeed I know I did, because it was not pressed to a Division—that in such districts as White-chapel, Bethnal Green, and Islington it would be disastrous to go back to that extra hour, disastrous to children who were getting to bed earlier and to wives whose husbands were coming home sober. Shorter hours and more expensive drink have certainly contributed to the cause of temperance in England.
What am I to say as to the state of affairs now? Is all well? One would gather from the noble Lord's speech that his policy is to let well alone. Is it well that at this day when, as Lord Banbury himself says, all economy is necessary, we should be spending £365,000,000 a year on drink? That is a thing which we cannot get over. We now know a great deal more about alcohol than we did forty or fifty years ago, because we have had expert reports, not from temperance fanatics or from people like myself who have been teetotalers for so long, but from the eight Government experts who undertook to tell us what alcohol was. Everybody knows row, unless we give the lie to those men, that alcohol does not warm at all. It drives the blood from the inside of the body to the skin. I remember saying, in one of my temperance tours around England, that this was the cause of the toper's red nose. We have to be careful, because the noble Lord who was taking the chair said to me afterwards: "You did hit me hard over that red nose." I looked at his nose, and it was purple. It must always be remembered, therefore, that a red nose, sometimes comes, not from excessive drinking, but from natural causes.
Then it must not be forgotten what extraordinary results were deduced from the experiments made with a hundred riflemen who had had a little alcohol and a hundred who had had none, and from
950
a hundred clerks who had had a little alcohol and a hundred who had had none. In every case the riflemen who had none won hands down. The extraordinary thing was that the men who had had alcohol thought they had never done better in their lives. Therefore, it has been shown that alcohol is not a stimulant at all but a narcotic, and a dangerous narcotic. Of course, when it is mixed with water, and taken with the strictest moderation with food, it does not do much appreciable harm, but it is a narcotic and it is harmful to man. Only the other day a man who had served for fifteen years in the Navy, with a good character, was executed for first violating and then killing a child, and it was because this drug had drowned his higher nature and turned him from a man into a beast.
With regard to the increase in the length of life, this is a very important thing. Out of a hundred thousand, starting at the age of thirty and reaching seventy, 55,000 who do not take alcohol reach the age of seventy as compared with 45,000 who do. Therefore we have to consider what is now proved by scientists to be the nature of alcohol and its effect upon the human system, and when I find that £365,000,000—of course, I know that £200,000,000 comes back to the State—is spent on something which neither warms nor nourishes a man, but tends to shorten his life, and does not improve his efficiency, surely it is a matter to think of when you come to the question of economy. Further, you must remember that we have to reckon in the matter of trade with a dry America. I can recall the story of a deputation to one of the Prime Ministers. A speaker, who was a Member of Parliament, stated that the great firm with which he was connected was competing with America, and they had had to make it a rule, not from any moral or temperance point of view but from a business point of view, that all the 1,500 men employed in their factory must be teetotalers, because otherwise they could not compete with their American rivals. Therefore, it will be a serious thing to the country if we are going to allow this £365,000,000 drink Bill to continue.
When we come to figures, I wish I could agree with Lord Long that everything is improving so tremendously that it is unnecessary to do anything. Take, for

951
instance, the figures as to drunkenness among women. In 1918 the number of convictions was 7,222. In 1919 the figure was 11,183, and in 1922 13,094. Can your Lordships picture the awful misery which this drunkenness among women means in the homes?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Will the right rev. Prelate tell me from what figures he is quoting, because they are contrary to my information?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Yes, I will do so presently. We must also look at the figures of deaths from alcoholism. The Registrar-General tells us that in 1020 there were 200 more deaths from alcoholism than in 1918. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report that 5,000 cases with which they dealt were due to drinking parents. Can we say that this is a splendid world, and that we cannot do anything to improve it, when cases like that occur?
As to this Bill, it is not really my job to defend the measure. I am merely answering the question whether there is any ground for further legislation. When, however, I turn to the Bill, we who are heads of the temperance societies look upon it as a most moderate measure. The United Kingdom Alliance will not look at the Bill because they consider it too moderate. We are offering compensation, and another thing which we have included in the Bill is disinterested management, a question over which we have had a great fight with some of the temperance societies, because they do not believe in it. They want to do away with the trade altogether. We have, however, consented to this option being put in the Bill, and therefore there are two points in this Bill both of which are very questionable from the extreme temperance point of view.
In conclusion I would only say to those two noble Lords who have told us that this is a most rotten and bad Bill: What are you going to produce in its place? You have never yet introduced a Temperance Bill, or made any great efforts to deal with the matter. It is no use offering destructive criticism. If your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is a genuine attempt at a fair settlement, then, in Committee, we can consider any point that may be raised.
952
Do let us, however, read this Bill a second time, so that it may be seen that the House of Lords is really keen upon a fair settlement of this matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in offering you some observations upon this controversial subject, I hope that I shall not add to the controversy. After what has fallen from the right rev. Prelate I do not think I need labour the point as to whether a problem which requires urgent and immediate attention exists or not. If there is a problem, it is relevant to inquire why there is a problem, and what is the principal obstacle in the way of reform. The answer to that question lies quite simply in the fact that the liquor trade in this country is carried on under a system of competitive private ownership. The bald fact is that there is a direct conflict between the interests of the nation, on the one hand, and the interests of the liquor trade, on the other. This conflict is inherent in the situation, because, while increased consumption of intoxicants is contrary to the national interest, an increased demand for intoxicating liquors is essential to the prosperity of the liquor trade.
I am not one of those, if there be any, who think that alcohol is an evil thing in itself, nor do I desire to suggest that the liquor trade consists of people who desire deliberately to harm others in order to make money for themselves. On the contrary, I have no reason to doubt that brewers and the holders of shares in distillery companies are as decent and as high-minded as other citizens. The fact, however, remains that anything which promotes temperance to the extent of involving a decrease in the consumption of intoxicants is contrary to the interests of the trade One can hardly picture, for instance, the director of a distillery company appearing before his shareholders in general meeting and asking them to re-elect him for another year on the plea that, on the grounds of national interest, he has effected a gratifying decrease in the sales of the company's products The inevitable conclusion, which I do not think we can possibly escape, is that it is absolutely impossible that the trade should reform itself.
There is one other consideration of some importance which supports the conclusion that the liquor trade is not

953
suitable for competitive private ownership. By our existing system the trade has been forced into politics. Innumerable trade societies have been formed to support, the interests of the trade at every stage, from manufacture to consumption, of each and every form of alcoholic liquor. No secret whatever is made of the fact that such societies exist, not only for technical but also for political purposes. The trade machine, thus constituted, undoubtedly exerts a large political influence. Naturally enough, there exists an extensive liquor Press, and references to those political activities can be found on almost every page of the trade newspapers.
I do not think that the point that I am making is really a controversial one, but some illustrations I may perhaps give from the trade papers. I find in the National Guardian of June 7 last that Mr. Belsher, who, I think, is Chairman of the Board of the Licensed Victuallers' Central Protection Society, is quoted as having referred to his organisation as "the strongest political machine in any trade defence in any country." I little doubt that the boast is well-founded. Then again, the following is rather interesting. In the Morning Advertiser of January 31 last Mr. Belsher, at a meeting of his Society, is reported as having said:
"Of course, they must have regard to what the trade did during the last General Election. He wished to repeat what he had often said in the past, that as a licensed trade they had never, within his own experience as Chairman of the Board, identified themselves with one particular Party. Their questions had always been addressed to candidates of all political complexions. They had invariably given their official support to candidates, irrespective of political Party, who returned satisfactory replies to their test questions, and whom they could trust to carry their pledges into effect if they were returned."
Every candidate who has stood for the House of Commons will be familiar with those questions. They are questions affecting purely the prosperity of the trade, and the support of the trade machine can be had in return for favourable answers to those questions. If a candidate does not chose to pledge himself body and soul to the trade, the trade will give neutrality if only he will promise under those, circumstances at least not to give a pledge to the temperance party. That is why at Parliamentary elections
954
temperance reform has come to be looked upon as such a thorny subject. Candidates and political organisers know very well that it is a subject which it is better to leave alone.
I find some evidence also in the trade papers that the methods of persuasion sometimes adopted in the political activities of the trade appear to be rather questionable. At least, I see that in Harper's Gazette of May 5, 1923, a gentleman at a meeting of the Wine and Spirit Trade Defence Fund is reported as having said:
"The accounts were not published but could be circulated privately to any member who would like to look at them. … It was impossible for them to tell even their subscribers everything they had been doing. …"
I do not want to stress that aspect of the matter. It is sufficient for my argument that here we have a powerful trade, extremely wealthy, extremely well-organised, exercising a large influence on our national and municipal politics. That influence is frankly exercised, not in the direction of national interest, but in the narrowest interests of the business of its members. One last quotation will illustrate this point. The leading article in Harper's Gazette on June 14 said:
"It is important that we should have a clear conception of the future prospects of our trade in view of the political outlook. … From the national point of view it may be sound policy to boycott the Labour Party …, but when taking the future position of our trade in politics into consideration we cannot afford to pursue such a simple policy."
Surely it is self-evident, in these circumstances, that private ownership stands condemned as a menace to the purity of our political life.
When I turn to alternatives, admittedly I am on rather more controversial ground. The first alternative, against which we have heard some very eloquent speeches this afternoon, is Prohibition. I am convinced that there are no arguments in favour of Prohibition which are strong enough to justify the interference with individual liberty which would be involved. I do not claim to know what are the results of Prohibition in the United States, but, even if I were convinced that they were good, that is no reason why that should induce us to adopt the same remedy over here. Our national characteristics and circumstances are entirely different. Above all,

955
our geographical situation is entirely different. Our coast line—and we have an enormous coast line in relation to the area of our country—would, I think, make the problem of coast guarding a very difficult one if we adopted Prohibition. But Prohibition, whether it be good or bad, is not practical politics to-day. Private ownership and Prohibition alike, in my opinion, are condemned. I believe the real solution is to be found in some form of disinterested management, and that is the reason why I support this Bill.
The war-time Liquor Control Board reported unanimously, at the end of 1916, that although much had been done it was impossible under competitive private ownership fully to control the drink trade and get the best national results. Mr. Carter, himself a member of the Control Board, summed up the matter thus:
"A necessary element of any thoroughgoing scheme of reform is the removal of the barrier of private interests in the sale of drink. The breadth and variety of changes made under the rule of the Control Board mark how far legislation was in arrears of the needs of industry and social demands, and how swiftly advance can be made towards sobriety when the hostile barrage of private interests is lifted."
The Control Board, as a result, recommended State purchase. At that juncture German submarines became extremely active, and, owing to the destruction of enormous quantities of food, the materials available for the trade had to be reduced, and therefore the problem was solved in another way. If it had not been for those German submarines I believe that State purchase would have been an accomplished fact to-day.
State purchase is to-day impossible on the grounds of finance. This country is somewhat in the position of a company which, though entirely solvent, suffers from a heavy load of debenture debt. Capital expenditure is inadvisable even though the investment would prove ultimately amply remunerative. But this is what the War Cabinet said about disinterested control. The War Cabinet in 1917, which included Mr. Bonar Law, Lord Milner and Lord Curzon—it is in the Report—said:
"Under disinterested control at Carlisle progress has been achieved which would have been impossible under the system existing now over the whole country."
956
It is therefore at disinterested control that we must look, and that is what this Bill seeks to achieve.
I am quite aware that there are other things in the Bill besides disinterested management. There is, for instance, the Prohibition option. So far as I am concerned I should be very glad to see the disappearance of that option; but I recognise that short of experiment you will never convince Prohibitionists that their policy will be a failure. Moreover, I am also convinced that when you have a Prohibition option alongside disinterested management the live issue will be between no-change and disinterested management; Prohibition will disappear and we shall never hear any more about it. Another reason why this Bill meets with a good deal of opposition is the fact that it is a local option Bill of a sort. That is largely due, I am convinced, to habit and tradition. Hitherto local option has always meant local veto. The whole aspect of the matter is changed by the introduction of a constructive option. Surely the sting is out of local option when there is no interference with liberty and when there is no attempt to make temperance compulsory.
We have heard a great deal about the Bill being a confiscatory measure. I will be no party to any unjust or confiscatory legislation. In introducing the Bill the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, removed one or two misconceptions. There are the points about national and local levies and about no compensation being given in a no-change area. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, who moved the rejection of the Bill, told us that he had read it many times and that he had read it every night. As I think the Bishop of London said, the noble Lord must have nodded. Perhaps he nodded also during the remarks of the right rev. Prelate, who made it quite clear that that was not the intention and that if the Bill did not give effect to the intention it might be put right. We believe, and people who have read the Bill believe, that its effect is not that stated by the noble Lord.
In regard to the charge of confiscation, so far as it does not rest on this misconception, it appears to have to do with the time limit. The time limit is a technical matter on which I think I should not be justified in taking up your Lordships' time. But surely the principle of a time

957
limit is unassailable. It is only a question of the duration. There may be discussion as to a fair length of time, but even if you make it ninety-nine years, the principle obviously is unassailable.
It is alleged, again, that this Bill means nationalisation and that it affords on that score a dangerous precedent. In considering that question the same considerations apply as apply to the advisability of having a system of private ownership for the liquor trade. There is no analogy, for instance, between alcohol and coal. There has been a good deal of talk about the nationalisation of coal. In the case of coal the national interest demands that we should have the largest possible supply at the lowest possible cost, a result which a system of competitive private ownership is admirably suited to produce. Again, there is no analogy between alcohol and such other commodities as bread and milk. The greater the consumption of bread or milk the better it is for the State and the consumer. A comparison of the advantages of a greater consumption of bread or milk with a greater consumption of, say, gin or milk reveals the absurdity of the analogy.
Others object that nationalisation would lead to elections on the quality of beer, and so forth. This is not nationalisation in that sense. All those objections can be referred to Carlisle where, as the Bishop of London said, State control works perfectly satisfactorily. Under the Bill there would be no State Department responsible to Parliament for routine. Certain lines are laid down in the Bill on which the statutory body must work, as are the limits within which it must work; otherwise, they have a free hand to run the business in the best interest of the community. Lord Banbury is making a mistake when he thinks that once Prohibition is voted there is no getting away from it. I do not think that a reference to the Bill will show that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, yes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The question is between a Prohibition option and disinterested management, and I do not think there is any doubt as to which one will win. In regard to Canada, we
958
sometimes read that a Canadian Province has gone "wet" or "dry." But it is worth noting that the change has nothing to do with private ownership; it means going back to disinterested management. I can conceive nothing more sane, more proper, or more consistent with Conservative principles than this proposal. It is the marked failure of private ownership and the proved necessity for disinterested management of some kind or other which leads me to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I venture to express the hope, as a member of the rank and file of the Conservative Party, that if any invitation is issued such as that which is suggested it will be responded to in the spirit in which it is made.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, judging from the speeches we have heard from both right rev. Prelates and the very interesting address we have had from Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I venture to think that the real gist of this Bill has hardly been appreciated, and it is about time that we came to closer quarters with it. I suppose we are all agreed in desiring to see England sober and temperate, and we seem to be nearly all agreed in thinking that Prohibition has great dangers and that there is something to be said for a glass of wine. But if there is any interest in this Rill at all it rests in that part of it which is concerned in the institution of the Board of Management and in the provision of what is supposed to be a fair and just compensation by means of the said Board. If those two things crumble no amendment in Committee can put them right, and if all that is left of the Bill is the necessity of having periodical local elections upon the three questions of no-change, no-licence and reorganisation, I think even those moderate temperance reformers who stand behind this Bill will feel that they cannot press it forward any further.
As I understand the scheme—the Bill is an obscure one, and I may be wrong—it is this. Almost every part of the scheme was expounded to us by the Bishop of Oxford with a lucidity that was most gratifying, but he and, I think, the other speakers who supported the Bill have fought rather shy of considering what, the nature of the compensation is. They are anxious that the brewers should be fairly compensated. They are anxious that they

959
should get their money. Are they fairly compensated? And will they get their money? It all rests upon the central fund. It is one of the great features of this Bill, we are told, that it takes no State money whatsoever, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot lay hands on the central fund, so carefully has it been protected in order to spare the taxpayer.
How is the central fund made up? It is made up from two sources. One is the compensation fund and the other is the profit made from disinterested management. When, under disinterested management, the disinterested managers manage a disinterested public-house, they are bound under the Bill to pay the compensation levy upon their house, but if they prefer to leave it in the hands of a publican whom they authorise to carry on the business subject to their control, of course it is out of the publican that the money will come that goes into the compensation fund. Therefore, except to the extent to which the directly managed house belonging to the Board pays compensation levy into the fund, it all comes out of the existing publicans. We are told also that there is a source of income of some importance which consists of the profits that the disinterested managers will make out of public-huoses where it is expressly their duty to en courage consumption of everything except alcoholic drinks, and your Lordships must judge for yourselves whether there is likely to be much contribution of that kind. But all the rest comes straight out of the pockets of the brewers and the public-house owners, themselves—every penny of it.
The Bill lays hands on the compensation fund which has been built up by the contributions of the brewers and public-house owners It levies for the future upon brewers and public-house owners a doubled compensation levy. It levies on houses which, I think, were free from it before. As I understand it, it repeals in the Third Schedule the sections under which any further working of the Act of 1904 is possible. Thus, the money being all put up from one source or another from the trade itself into the central fund, it is out of that central fund that eventually the compensation is to come. The right rev. Prelate rightly said that everything
960
turned upon the solvency of that fund, and, without explaining the calculations upon which the result had been arrived at, he said that he believed there could be no doubt of its solvency, unless a considerable number of districts at the start carried a no-licence resolution. I think that was the conclusion he relied upon. As I do not know upon what his calculations were based I cannot criticise the result, but there is one thing that I fail to notice in the Bill which, it seems to me, may very much alter that result. When the Board of Management undertake to exercise all the vast powers that they possess where are they going to get their working capital from? They can buy, by compulsory acquisition, breweries and any other places where intoxicating liquor is manufactured. They can buy or lease premises. They can buy or lease public-houses. They can carry on the trade of a public-house keeper, of a refreshment house keeper, of a manufacturer and of a brewer or distiller. Where are they going to get working capital for that purpose? And if they make losses instead of profits how are the losses going to be paid? The Bill does not say. The Bill proceeds, so far as I can make out, on what I, with great respect, venture to call the principle of supposing that disinterested management is going to make profits out of the public-houses when the whole point of that kind of management is to make the profit as small as possible.
It is, of course, possible that they may get their working capital in this way. They take the premises by compulsory acquisition. They go to the Commissioners and have the compensation adjusted, and during the interval between the judgment which makes the money payable and the moment of acquisition they may, of course, be disposing of the stock in trade and thereby, if not making a profit, at any rate accumulating some working capital; but unless it is done in that way, I do not know where the working capital is to come from, except out of the compensation fund. If they make losses—and nobody that I know believes that they will be free from making trading losses—unless they can come upon the compensation fund to make good their losses then the people who trust them, whether traders for raw materials or brewers for the drink they sell, will

961
find that, they have no security whatever, because the Board is a corporation, and the members of it cannot be sued. The Board is a trading corporation itself. It has no assets except the public-houses that are vested in it, and I can only suppose that when judgments are given against the Board execution of those judgments must go against the free public-houses and breweries which are supposed to be in the Board's hands for the purposes of disinterested management.
Unless something is forthcoming to meet this difficulty it seems to me that the solidity of the central fund is shaken at the outset, because, instead of your being able to say: "Here is money raised by annual compensation levies and earmarked and set aside," if it is liable to be raided at any time because boards of management are not successful then you never know when your central fund may be depleted for making good those losses. If it is not the central fund that is to be the source of making them good what is to happen? Nobody suggests that these concerns can be allowed to go down in bankruptcy. The Board of Management would have to throw the losses upon the State. In that case, by the vote of a majority of a few people in favour of disinterested management, you will have the State committed in a certain area to trade in beer with the certain result that if losses are made they will have to be make good out of the Exchequer. Such is, as I understand it, that part of the system.
I will now deal with the other part. When the fifteen years have elapsed, the compensation has come to an end. Who will find the money for the compensation then? I agree, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree, not the rates. I agree also, not those fervent persons who have succeeded in carrying a disinterested management resolution. Where has it come from? It all comes out of the pockets of the trade, and, with the single exception of the sums that may have been paid in out of problematical profits, and of the sums which may have been paid in as compensation levy on the managed houses, the trade will have compensated itself out of its own money and by itself. Of course, there will have been a redistribution of the money. There are some
962
people who seem to think that so long as you transfer money out of one pocket to another that is all right. In many parts of the country that kind of nationalisation is rather popular just now, but I fail to see the fairness and the justice of a system which is based essentially and finally upon the proposition that the brewers and the publicans themselves will find the money with which to compensate themselves. Yet that I believe to be the exact truth.
I wish to say something in regard to the time limit. I think there was some confusion in the speech of the noble Lord who spoke immediately before me about this. It is not merely that you limit the number of years' purchase of the property. It is not a question between 99 years' and 50 years', 25 years' and 10 years' purchase, but it is that there is to be no compensation after a certain length of time, in this case 15 years, and the longer it is put off the less compensation you get. Of course, there is a reason for that. It is said that the longer your expropriation is put off, the longer time you have in which to make money, and, therefore, that you must make hay while the sun shines. You must, during the three, six, ten years, or whatever the period is, make enough not merely to provide an income, but also make enough to constitute what is called an insurance premium, but whether you say that it is to be done by means of an insurance premium, or by saving up your money against the day of expropriation, however it is done, it is always the same thing—the money comes out of the pockets of the compensated persons themselves. Whether you put upon them the necessity of insuring their licences with an insurance company and paying the premiums, or constituting their own insurance fund and putting up the money themselves—however you do it, if you are going to say at the end of fifteen years that there is to be no more compensation for anybody, then you have not instituted a system by which you calculate the amount of compensation but a system under which the man who gets expropriated earliest will come off best.
In this Bill there, is apparently a desire to get a certain portion of the brewing trade in favour of the earliest possible

963
form of disinterested management so that they may come in for compensation on a twelve years' basis. You can quite conceive of intelligent brewers saying they had better get out as soon as possible, and all supporting State management and putting upon the Board of Management the obligation to take over their public-houses. In that case the central fund is bankrupt at once, and all that the scheme provides is to induce people who are going to get compensation to try to get their compensation at the earlier stage of the scheme rather than hang on. If there is any justice in this at all it must rest on the idea that the brewers do so very well that if you give a man fifteen years in which to trade he will get out of the public enough to pay the total value of his house and still have a proper annual return for his capital and labour. I will not labour this financial scheme any further. It is a matter on which we ought to have detailed figures in order to show on what ground these rates are based.
The right rev. Prelate made a reference to the Committee which sat in 1917, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, and suggested that its Report had been followed with respect and with a certain amount of adoption, but that it had been departed from in suitable particulars. That Report was made in circumstances so different that it affords little or no guide to any scheme now, unless it is frankly recognised that there is the whole difference in the world between a war scheme and a post-war scheme. The terms of reference to the Committee stated:—
"His Majesty's Government being of opinion that it may shortly be necessary as an urgent war measure to assume control of the manufacture and supply of intoxicating liquors during the war and the period of demobilisation and that such control would involve the purchase after the war of the interests concerned in such manufacture and supply. …"
I understood from that that the policy was that the control was so strict during the war, and the beer was so severely watered during the war, that the compensation to be paid after the war would be so high that you might buy the whole thing and yet save money. I do not know
964
more about the policy of it than I have told your Lordships.
We reported unanimously upon a scheme by which the purchase price could be arrived at, as we thought on the evidence, justly, and I only mention that it was an unanimous Report in order to show that it was not, and could not be, a Report in favour of any manner of purchase whatever. It was merely an answer to the question by saying that if you calculated in a certain way you would find, as we believed, that a fair value would be arrived at, and then you could buy. That was a war measure. In 1917 there was no experience at all, except pre-war experience. We proceeded therefore on pre-war profits. We proposed to capitalise pre-war profits, and pay the result; and the State was to pay. At any rate, the brewers and publicans would have got their money. They would not have had to find it themselves or never see it at all. In order to ascertain the amount of compensation we asked what the profits were over a given period of years, then took an average, and multiplied that by a multiplier. We agreed, after some little difference, on the multiplier, I think fifteen, which would bring out the result that would have to be paid. It was not a multiplier of twelve, which would only be paid if the axe fails on you after three or four years; nor would the compensation disappear altogether if the axe falls on you after fourteen years. The departures from this simple scheme seem to be much more extraordinary than the respect paid to it in the speech of the right rev. Prelate.
It seems to me that a wholly new valuation should be made. The brewers are said to be doing well, some very well. I do not know whether that is so or not. But we have now a surfeit of figures by which we can ascertain the truth from 1920 onwards, and as three years have to pass from the passing of the Bill to the holding of the first election there is a matter of another four years or so during which more materials can be obtained before any question as to the amount of compensation payable can arise. I suggest that before any scheme is put forward we ought to have some machinery or estimate of a new valuation of the whole.

965
I am not so sanguine about there being no no-licence resolutions carried. The right rev. Prelate was willing to allow this Bill to be adapted if it was first adopted, and suggested that we might get rid of the no-licence vote. But there is that sword always hanging over the brewers and those degraded persons who consume brewers' products. As the Bill stands, and we can only discuss it as it stands, under the name of local option you arc to have in every one of a large number of constituencies in England, which may be as small as 50,000 persons, an election on these three issues. Mechanically, and without any regard to the state of business or to a General Election, this question is to come up again, and every time, until "no-licence" has been resolved, the owners of property of this kind will have to fight for their lives. Is that a prospect which is very attractive or temperate? Is that bringing peace or a sword? I cannot imagine a scheme more likely to embitter a controversy, the sole solution of which is by the cultivation of a reasonable spirit and reasonable habits, and of faith.
Why is it to go to local option? Is it really right that Parliament should delegate to the inhabitants of boroughs of 50,000 persons the right to engage us in the State management of public-houses?—because I cannot see how the Board of Management is anything but a State board, and some Minister must be responsible for it in Parliament. Is it right that Parliament should delegate to a body of persons like that the right to pledge somebody or other to this enormous compensation scheme? Is not Parliament recreant if it throws aside the duty put upon it to make up its mind for the whole country what policy ought to be pursued? Is there anything exceptional about the sale of drink? Is it right that there should be a different policy in one place from that which prevails in another?
I know nothing of the instances which my noble friend quoted concerning Scotland, so I will say nothing about them, but I have occasion in the way of my calling to know something about the disputes which arise in Canada on the frontier that runs between two Provinces where they have divergent liquor laws, or in the case of institutions which manufacture liquor under the Dominion laws when they are restrained in their local enterprise by local powers. Wherever the
966
line is drawn you always have these frontier differences all the way along it concerning the sale and manufacture of drink, and this does not seem to me to make either for peace or for dignity. Nor can I understand how it is that people who live on one side of the street in one county should be, more interested in the decision as to the existence of public houses in the rest of the county than the people on the other side of the street, who cannot take part because they happen to be on the other side of the line.
To my mind, in a matter of this sort, Local Option is not a policy at all. It is a dodge—a dodge to enable an inconvenient political question to be put off upon other shoulders. My recollection of politics is that of a reader of the newspapers, but it goes back a good long time, and my impression is that when Local Option was first heard of it was regarded in a very different light, and I am pretty sure that it suddenly became popular because it was a way of getting rid of a very disagreeable and awkward question. The question of the right of the individual to consume liquor and to sell or to manufacture liquor is, at any rate, a nationwide question. We have gone very far in having separate legislation for Wales and also—though there, perhaps, it may be said that we have not gone quite so far—in having separate legislation for Scotland. I should have thought that the whole of Great Britain should be treated as a single area in which one policy should prevail, and that counties and boroughs should not be agitated every three years on a requisition signed by so many inhabitants.
That is a suggestion which I cannot understand. Nor do I understand how this procedure is to be justified when you consider who the electors are. If Parliament were to decide the question, it would be decided ultimately according to the votes of the whole of the manhood of the country, and perhaps, before long, by the votes of the womanhood as well; at present, at any rate, it would be decided by the votes of women over thirty years of age. But that is not the electorate which will decide the question under this Bill. If is a wide electorate, no doubt, but it is a very different electorate from that one. I should have thought those who speak for the great heart

967
of the people have the light to say that this Bill prejudices their right to be heard rather than gives them an opportunity of being heard for the first time. That, however, is a hypothetical matter.
The other proposition which I should have thought was evident is that a Bill like this ought not to be introduced by a private member, even by a right rev. Prelate. It is a Government matter or nothing, and a Bil of this sort, so drastic, so far-reaching, interfering so deeply with liberty, is not likely to go very far unless the Government, backed by the power of Government, is prepared to take it up. We have been challenged for having criticised this scheme. I have always thought that when a Bill was introduced into either House it was introduced for the purpose of being criticised. Sometimes it obtains that criticism and sometimes it does not. We have been challenged because we have criticised it, and we are asked what we have to propose. Is that the right way to conduct controversy? Surely it is not incumbent upon us to withhold our criticism on a Bill which we are asked to pass because we do not come forward with any working scheme of our own. Twenty thousand superfluous public-houses have been suppressed under the Act of 1904. That is to come to an end. Under this Bill they are to be suppressed in other ways.
Nobody disputes that things are still very bad in some places, nor must we be thought to be disputing anything that has been said upon the other side of the House about the dreadful fate of those who have a drunkard in their homes. But I think we have to recollect that this is not an evil that can be swept out with a besom or eradicated with a high hand. There is a story, which I dare say many of your Lordships will know, of a Bishop—I believe it was said to be the ex-Bishop of Manchester—who found a man much the worse for drink, and said to him: "My man, how can you do such a thing as this? How can you make a beast of yourself?" The man's answer was: "Because it is the shortest road out of Manchester." I am a Manchester man, and, although I do not say that it is any worse than any other town of the sort, I do say quite sincerely that I should think long, in the existing state of housing, of wages and social conditions,
968
before I made it impossible for that shortest road out of Manchester to be found by any man who wanted it. But we look at these things from different points of view. I cannot profess to have any faith at all in this complicated piece of mechanical legislation. I have the greatest belief in a well-managed public-house if only the licensing justices will allow it to be well managed, but you cannot reconstruct everything at once. You cannot alter the social habits of the people in a year or two. You must take time, and accordingly I respectfully say that it is no answer to us to say that we ought to produce something better or else vote for this Bill. For myself, I do not propose to vote for the Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I believe there is a general desire to resume the discussion on Monday, and therefore the debate will be adjourned until Monday next.

WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (TELEGRAPH) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, there is a quite minor Amendment to be proposed to Clause 1, but I do not intend to move it until to-morrow, on the Third Reading, which will give an opportunity for the Amendment to be printed, and seen by your Lordships.

EX-SOLDIERS IN THE POST OFFICE.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government how many ex-Regular soldiers were given employment under the Post Office in 1923; and of these, how many left the Colours after 1st January, 1922. My object in putting down this Question is to draw attention to a paragraph in the Annual Report of the National Association for the Employment

969
of Regular Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen. The paragraph reads as follows:
"Post Office employment in general has continued to be very unsatisfactory. During the year 406 men were placed in Post Office appointments. Only 52 vacancies in the London postal area were allotted to the Association's head office; of these 42 were for men who had previously served in the Post Office as boy messengers, and who were therefore entitled to preferential treatment. In accordance with an agreement made over thirty years ago, fifty per cent. of all Post Office vacancies should be allotted to men of the Regular Forces who are registered on the Association's books for that purpose. It is much to be regretted that notifications are continually having to be sent to discharged sailors and soldiers who have been waiting their turn for years to inform them that their names are being struck off our list on account of the age limit having been reached. At the time of their enlistment the agreement that 50 per cent. of Post Office vacancies were reserved for discharged men of the Regular Forces was a factor in inducing them to enlist."
I do not think that it needs any words of mine to emphasise the gravity of this charge, brought against a Government Department by an influential and authoritative body like the National Association for the Employment of Regular Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen.
LORD HORNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government, I, as a member of the executive committee of the National Association, desire to make a brief statement. The National Association, as your Lordships know, is practically an official body. It is recognised by the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. Facilities are given to it for registration in connection with discharged men, and its work is to find employment for men discharged from the Regular Forces. On its executive committee are representatives of the three great Departments of State. The agreement has been referred to by Lord Raglan, by the terms of which preference is given to discharged men of the Regular Forces, to the extent of 50 per cent. of the vacancies. The Post Office and National Association worked in great harmony up to the time of the war, but when the Ministry of Labour came into existence matters altered.
The Ministry of Labour proceeded to fill up vacancies, as they occurred in the Post Office, without any reference to the
970
agreement which existed with regard to offering vacancies to ex-Regular Service men. That was followed by a protest from the National Association, which was very strongly backed up, I know, by the War Office and also, I believe, by the other two Departments of State concerned. The result was that after a prolonged period of negotiation—about two years—an arrangement was arrived at with the Post Office and with the Ministry of Labour, and a circular was issued by the Ministry of Labour in June, 1920, laying down the procedure which was to be followed, and which is supposed to be in force to-day. Roughly speaking, the arrangement is that 50 per cent. of suitable vacancies shall be allotted to ex-Service men, preference being given to Regular ex-Service men registered on the books of the National Association, the applications from the Post Office and the nominations by the National Association, respectively, passing through the books of the Labour Ministry and its exchanges.
Meanwhile, during these two years, while the negotiations were in progress, the Labour Exchanges had been filling the vacancies, 50 per cent. of which should have been allotted to ex-Regular Service men, without reference to the National Association, and there is no doubt that a very large number of vacancies were thus lost to the ex-Regular Service men. But even after the Labour Ministry issued its circular of June, 1920, there was no improvement. The matter was not settled by that circular, because, in spite of the circular, the situation remained most unsatisfactory. In connection with this may I be allowed to quote figures? In the year commencing April 1, 1913, and ending March 31, 1924, 2,742 ex-Regular Service men were employed by the Post Office, but from April 1, 1922, to March 31, 1923, the number was only 346. Taking the three years' period from April 1, 1911, to March 31, 1914, the average was 2,307, while in the three years April 1, 1920, to March 31, 1923, the average was only 628.
I submit that the instruction cannot have been observed by Post Office and Labour Exchange officials generally. This is borne out by the fact that the Ministry of Labour found it necessary, both this year and last year, to issue further circulars calling the attention of Labour Exchange officials to the disregard of

971
their instructions in this particular matter. I admit that there may have been genuine misunderstanding at times, and confusion arising between the claims of the ex-Regular and the "hostilities" man, and it has been urged that all ex-Service men might have equal claims with ex-Regulars, but the right was given to the ex-Regular men as a privilege and that privilege has been taken away.
I know that Post Office officials, and the officials of the Labour Exchanges, are just as human as anybody else. Temptation does exist to put your friend into a job that is open and I think steps should be taken to stamp out any favouritism of that sort.
There has, unfortunately, been a loophole behind which the officials screened themselves. In the circulars issued by the Labour Ministry it has been emphasised that these vacant posts were only to be given to ex-Regular Service men when the employment was permanent, and the word "permanent" is put in italics. The National Association have found out that there is practically no such thing as a vacancy for permanent employment in the Post Office. Candidates go in on probation for a period extending in some cases to three or four-years, and they wait until they pass certain qualifying examinations before these temporary appointments are made permanent. That is where there has been a great deal of injustice done to the ex-Regular.
There has been no gain to the Post Office, for the ex-Regular man had proved himself before the war to be specially fitted for the particular employment that the Post Office gives. Periodically a Return is published showing the number of ex-soldiers employed by the Post Office who have been convicted of serious offences. Taking the four-year period ending December 31, 1923, the number of convictions was 646, but, if you take the period of four years ending July 31, 1914, just before the war broke out, it is only 65. Those, I think, are very striking figures.
I am sure it is not necessary for me to remind your Lordships of the claims the ex-Regular soldier has upon his country. He enlists before he has acquired a trade. Many of them serve practically the whole of their service abroad, and have no
972
opportunity of getting into touch with trade unions or other sources of employment. It is for the Government to do what they can for them. They understand—it appeared in print in my young days, and right up to 1913 I know it was in print—that ex-Regulars may look forward to preference in employment in the Post Office.
I am also in a position to state that the fact that they have not been given their just dues is militating against recruiting. Recruiting at present is in no wise satisfactory. Young men nowadays look forward, and they like to see something before them which will stand them in good stead when they grow older. They do not think that the Army offers a career in that way. It is not a bad career while it lasts, but they think there is nothing before them, and over and over again they point to the fact that their friend the ex-Regular, thinking he was to be preferred for employment in the Post Office, has been passed over in favour of a man who had not similar claims. I hope that, this Question having now been raised in your Lordships' House, the Government may be able to do something to ensure that the Regular soldier may have what he looks upon as his rights. I offer the suggestion that if we could revert to the old system, by which the Post Office made its requisition and demand direct on the National Association and its agents, a good deal of the trouble and misunderstanding would disappear.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, the Question placed by the noble Lord on the Paper was a very short one, and I was under the impression that I should have a very short answer to give, but the noble Lord who has just spoken has raised many points that I am quite unable to deal with myself. It happens, however, that the Post Office supplied me with more information than seemed necessary for the Question, and it appears to cover in several respects the points brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Horne.
What they say is this. Under a longstanding arrangement made by the Government of the day in 1897, 50 per cent. of the vacancies for postmen and porters are reserved for men who have served in the Army or Navy, the remaining 50 per cent. being reserved for boy messengers in the Post Office who are employed with

973
a definite view to appointment on reaching adult age. Speaking generally, it may be said that recruitment for all male posts not required to provide adult employment for youths and others already in the Post Office service is reserved for ex-Service men, preference being given to ex-Regulars among both disabled and able-bodied men. The number of ex-Service men appointed in 1923 was 6,601. It is not possible from the records available to state the number of ex-Regular soldiers and other ex-Service men separately, except as regards the 1,110 men appointed full-time postmen and porters, of whom 477 were ex-Regular soldiers, 113 were ex-Regular sailors and the remainder were ex-hostilities men—that is, men who, generally speaking, enlisted for the duration of the war. The figures I have read refer to the permanent appointments carried out in 1923, and, as a period of temporary service is frequently served before establishment, they may differ to some extent from the figures of men employed for the first time in 1923.
The records kept at the General Post Office do not show, except as regards postmen, how many of the men appointed in 1923 were ex-Regulars, or how many ex-Regular soldiers left the Colours after January 1, 1922, and this information could only be obtained by taking an elaborate return at local post offices. It may be mentioned that since the Armistice over 40,000 ex-Service men have been appointed to permanent and quasi-permanent post office situations, over 19,000
974
of these being disabled men. The total number of ex-Service men now in the employment of the Post Office is over 90,000, which represents more than half of the total male staff. Over 25,000 of this total are disabled men. I am afraid that the particulars I have read do not give the answer in the precise way that I should have been glad to give it if I had had notice of the points that were to be brought up, but I dare say that if the noble Lord wishes to enter into the subject further he will give me some other opportunity when I am better instructed to supply the information that he requires.

PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.
Message from the Commons, that they have disagreed to one of the Amendments made by the Lords, and have made an Amendment to the words restored to the. Bill, and that they disagree to the remainder of the Amendments made by the Lords, for which they assign reasons.
WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Thames Conservancy.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING TO CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Thursday, July 3 next.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a(Lord Muir Mackenzie) and reported from the Committee.
ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE CORPORATION BILL.
  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT (EXTENSION OF TIME) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
KING'S LYNN DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
STAFFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.