Sitting of 7 December 1926

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FORTH AND CLYDE NAVIGATION (CASTLECARY AND KIRKINTILLOCH ROAD BRIDGES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords],
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  GLASGOW GOLDSMITHS COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow Goldsmiths Company," presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
  TRADE UNION LAWS.
  Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I beg to ask leave to present a petition from 43 branches of the National Citizens' Union in various parts of the country. The petition contains 10,321 signatures, and the petitioners ask that the Trade Union Laws may be amended so as to restore the liberty of the British working man to work or withhold his labour as he himself thinks fit.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE FILMS.
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken by his Department with a view to the effective organisation for producing and distributing Empire films?
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is able to state the policy he proposes to adopt for the encouragement of the production of British films, in view of the importance attached to this question by the Imperial Conference?
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has anything to report with regard to the inclusion of a proportion of British-made films to be shown throughout the cinemas of this country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I will answer these questions together. The whole subject of Empire film production and showing is receiving careful consideration, but, as I informed the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) yesterday, I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the subject.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what encouragement or protection will be given to the producers of these Empire films?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is asking the same question in another way. When His Majesty's Government are prepared to make an announcement on the subject, I will, of course, make it.
    Mr. WELLS: Is it proposed to introduce legislation shortly to deal with this matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think my hon. Friend will agree that that, again, is asking the same question in yet another way.

    SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (JOINT COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has yet decided to take any action as a result of the Joint Committee of Inquiry which was set up to consider foreign competition and conditions in the shipbuilding industry, and which issued a Report in June of this year;
    (2) If he has investigated the operations of rings and price-fixing associations in the supply of materials; and whether he is taking any action with a view to bringing relief to shipbuilding as recommended in the Report of the

    1875
    Joint Committee of Inquiry which was set up to consider the conditions in the shipbuilding industry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Report of the Joint Committee to which the hon. Member refers has not yet been communicated to me officially, but I understand that it has now been approved by all the organisations represented on the Committee, and I expect to have an opportunity of discussing with the interests concerned the particular parts of the Report to which the hon. Member directs attention.
    Sir R. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman gave me a similar answer about three months ago. Having regard to the severe depression in the shipbuilding industry, does he not think it is time something should be done, and done quickly
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am in this difficulty. When the hon. Gentleman asked me the same question several months ago I then said I had not had the Report communicated to me by the people concerned, and they have not yet communicated it to me. I understand they are discussing it, and as soon as I get the Report I propose to take the action which I indicated to the hon. Member.
    Sir R. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman has very considerable influence. Will he not bring pressure to bear upon the authorities to supply him with that Report?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I do not think I can do that. As I understand it, this Report arises out of a very long series of joint meetings between the shipbuilding employers and a very large number of trade unions concerned with shipbuilding, and I do not think I can intervene in the course of their discussions, but as soon as I get their Report I am ready to consider it.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been asked to receive, or is he prepared to receive, a deputation from the joint Committee?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think I have received an application, but I would like notice of that.
    Mr. KELLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen and read the Report of that particular Committee, seeing that that Report is completed?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have had the privilege of seeing the form of the Report which, I understand, is going to be submitted to all the constituent bodies, but I cannot very well act upon it as if it were their joint representations, until it has been submitted to them.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Report has been submitted to the constituent bodies and, I believe, has been sent to the Board of Trade?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am advised that it has not been sent to the Board of Trade.

    CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state when the whole or any part of the Report on the Census of Production is likely to be published?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that the publication of preliminary summaries for the separate trades may be begun early in the New Year. I propose to issue these preliminary reports in the Board of Trade Journal as they become available.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will circulate the film in which the Cabinet appears?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, that is not the Census of Production.
    Mr. MACLEAN: It is not even a sensible production.

    COTTON GROWING COMPANIES.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the cotton-growing companies that have received assistance from the State; where they are situated and the amount of assistance granted to each company; and whether any of the companies are taking action to restrict the production of Empire-grown cotton?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is that no cotton-growing companies have

    1877
    received assistance from His Majesty's Government, and consequently the remainder of the question does not arise.

    EMPIRE TRADE.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of our exports to the overseas Empire and their proportion to the total export trade of the country, and the value of our imports from our overseas Empire and the proportion they bear to all our imports?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information which my hon. Friend desires will be found at page 497 of the "Board of Trade Journal" for 11th November last.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Government have any plans to increase the exports of the Dominions?

    MERSEY TUG-BOATS (OVERTIME).
    Mr. SEXTONasked the President of the Beard of Trade if he is aware of the action of two firms of tugowners plying on the River Mersey, the Alexander and the Screw Towing Companies, whereby on alternate days, when overtime is worked, the crews are reduced from seven hands to five, including deck hands, engine room, and stoking; and if he will inquire into these conditions?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information at present, but am making inquiries, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES INQUIRIES.
  Mr. MacLARENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with regard to the private and confidential documents which are issued by him to members of committees of inquiry, acting under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is by his authority that members of such committees read extracts from these documents in reply to questions which may be raised during an inquiry?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has come to my notice that in one ease, in reply to a request by a committee to be
  1878
  furnished with any relevant information in the possession of the Board of Trade, the information supplied included a confidential document. The hon. Member will appreciate that information of value to industry in this country is not infrequently obtained from confidential sources, and must, obviously, be treated in a confidential manner. I have, however, given instructions that no documents are to be given to committees, under the Safeguarding procedure, unless these documents can properly be disclosed to all parties concerned.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD BENN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the whole basis of these committees, as committees making judicial inquiries, is shattered if their judgment is to be affected by confidential information?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is the point, that they are judicial inquiries, and I have given instructions that the committees are not to receive any information which cannot be disclosed.
  Mr. MacLAREN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that if the parties in question ask to be allowed to see this document, they will be permitted to do so, seeing that it has been submitted as evidence?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that suggestion is a very reasonable one, and I have already given instructions that if the committee regard any confidential information pot to them as relevant to an inquiry, it should he communicated to the parties, subject, of course, to this, that, for the reasons I have given, the confidential information cannot be broadcast, and that any such information should he treated by the parties concerned exactly as confidential evidence is treated at any such inquiry.
  Mr. HARDIE: May I ask why it was that only one member of the committee was supplied with the document concerned?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is not so. I understand the whole of the Committee were supplied with the information. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When my attention was called to this, I went into the matter with some care, and it is my information that the document was supplied to the Committee.
  Mr. MacLAREN: Is the Minister aware that it was a member of the Committee who raised the question, and that he himself was not in possession of the document in question?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am quite clear on the point, because I made careful inquiries. The Committee had a mass of information which included certain confidential information, which was certainly supplied to the Committee as such.
  Mr. MacLAREN: In view of the unsatisfactory position which is made evident by the answer to this question, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the adjournment.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    PRICES.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is within the scope of the Food Council to consider the prices now being charged for coal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. MORRISON: In view of the very considerable patience shown by the public in face of the very high prices that are being charged for coal, particularly the coal sold in small quantities, would it not he possible to widen the scope of the Food Council to include coal?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question which has already been answered.

    EXPORT RESTRICTIONS (REMOVAL).
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Secretary for Mines if the restrictions on the export of coal from the Humber ports will now be removed; and, if not, will he state the reasons why this cannot be done?
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any further statement with regard to the export of coal and coke?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): There is now no greater restriction on the export of coal from the Humber than elsewhere: at all ports it is allowed under permit whenever it is impossible to find a market for the coal
    1880
    in this country. I am, however, anxious to free the export trade altogether at the earliest possible moment, and think that the time has now come when this can be done without undue risk to home supplies, except in the case of anthracite and coke. I have, therefore, decided that, as from midnight to-morrow, permits need no longer he required for the export of any coal other than anthracite.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can my right hon. Friend say when the limitations will be withdrawn from anthracite and coke?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir; it entirely depends on the state of stocks.

    OUTPUT OF COAL.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary for Mines the output of coal in Great Britain for each of the last six weeks and the comparative figures for the six weeks in 1925?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    The latest available figures are as follow:

    Output of Coal from Mines in Great Britain.

    1926.

    1925.

    Week ended

    Tons.

    Week ended.

    Tons.

    23rd Oct.

    1,218,000

    24th Oct.

    4,822,000

    30th Oct.

    1,367,000

    31st.,

    4,834,000

    6th Nov.

    1,577,000

    7 th Nov.

    4,793,000

    13th Nov.

    1,779,000

    14th Nov.

    4,878,000

    20th Nov.

    2,024,000

    21st Nov.

    4,872,000

    27th Nov.

    2,313,000

    28th Nov.

    5,175,000

    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the statement in the "Board of Trade Journal" be resumed this week?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I must have notice of that question.

    COAL WAGONS (CLEARANCE).
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that laden coal trains are standing in sidings until present supplies of high-priced coal have been disposed of, with the result that

    1881
    coal is not reaching the public in the quantities required; and whether he will take any action in the matter?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am aware that there has been a disinclination to buy pending a fall in price, but the substantial reductions recently made will no doubt stimulate demand; indeed, there are already indications of an improvement in the rate of clearance of wagons in London.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary for Mines the approximate number of miners who have returned to work on an eight-hours, seven-and-a-half hours, and a seven-hours day, respectively?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have no official figures of the number of men actually at work for a period later than the week ended 27th November. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question next week.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this question conclusively proves that the Government never meant the Eight Hours Act to be compulsory?
    Mr. PALING: We will see when the answer comes.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give an estimate of the number of mine workers who are likely to be thrown out of employment as a result of the application of The Coal Mines Act, 1926, under which 66 per cent. of the men have returned to work on an eight-hours day?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. The amount of employment will depend mainly upon the demand for coal, which I cannot attempt to prophesy.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman now reject the recommendation of the Royal Commission and the reference they made to possible unemployment as a result of the application of the Eight Hours Act?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, I do not reject any opinion of the Royal Commission on that point; it depends on the circumstances as they arise.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to admit that there will be a large Volume of unemployment as a result of the men working an eight-hour day?
    Colonel LANE FOX: What I am prepared to admit is that the men who have gone back to work are getting very much better wages than they would have got if they had continued to work a seven-hour day.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the Royal Commission's estimate as to the effect on unemployment was based on the assumption that no more coal would be sold.
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir; that is so.

    BRITISH ARMY.

      CAPTAIN F. J. CLARKE.
      Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for War why over-looker Captain F. J. Clarke was recalled from Hereford to Woolwich on the 20th May, 1926, and informed that his employment at Woolwich depended upon a. suitable vacancy presenting itself?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The employé referred to was recalled from Hereford for the reasons already explained to my hon. Friend in letters from my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Captain King).
      Sir S. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated that this employé was recalled because he wrote an improper and insubordinate letter, and that the employé absolutely denies having written such a letter Will the right hon. Gentleman send to Captain Clarke a copy of the alleged letter?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have seen the letter, or I have seen a copy of the letter, and I am satisfied with the description which has been given of it.
      Sir S. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send to the accused person a copy of the letter, which he denies having written?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. Friend is mistaken if he thinks the

      1883
      gentleman in question denies having written the letter. He does not deny having written the letter; what he denies is that it is insubordinate, and that is a matter for those who are employing him.
      Sir S. ROBERTS: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the first convenient opportunity, on the Adjournment.

      ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
      Sir S. ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for War whether Regulation 80 of the Rules and Regulations of the Ordnance Factories precludes a workman from making an application as to wages through a trade union or a Member of Parliament?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Rule 80 of the Rules and Regulations of the Ordnance Factories, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend, makes no specific mention of trade unions or Members of Parliament, but prescribes the normal recognised procedure for the representation of grievances, through the employé's immediate superiors.
      Sir S. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grievances have been dealt with by them on application through trade unions and by Members of Parliament in certain cases, and that a certain Captain F. J. Clarke was called up before Major Hunter and reprimanded for having made an application through a Member of Parliament?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, I am informed, inaccurate. As regards the former part, certainly the rule is not observed, and nobody is endeavouring to enforce it. Complaints do come from Members of Parliament and also from trade union representatives.
      Sir S. ROBERTS: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment upon the first convenient opportunity.
      Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to abolish the Ordnance Factory Rule under which at Parliamentary Elections workmen are given a half-day's leave with pay to enable them to record their
      1884
      votes; if so, will he state the reason why; and whether, in view of the fact that the Rule has been in force for many years and taken into account in the establishment of present conditions, he will have the matter reconsidered?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no longer any justification for the continuance of the Rule in view of the improvement in voting facilities since it was made. The matter has already be-en fully considered, and I regret that I am not prepared to reverse the decision arrived at.
      Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether this is a condition of employment that, is made known to those centering the services of the War Office when they enter the ordnance factories?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a privilege which has been allowed to the men employed for a good many years. OrigiNally it was intended so that they might exercise their right to vote, but, now that the voting hours are from 12 to 14 hours, it does not seem to be reasonable any longer to allow a half day for the purpose of voting. I may point out that a. half day for this purpose costs the taxpayers £6,000.
      Mr. KELLY: Is it not a fact that this half day is used by the officials of the War Department when answering questions regarding the pay of the unemploy6s of ordnance factories?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should not think so, bat I do not know.

      BRANCEPETH CASUE BARRACKS.
      Mr. DUNNICOasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to inform the House of the estimated cost of adapting Brancepeth Castle, Durham for use as a barracks?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is estimated that the cost, including the erection of necessary additional buildings, would be approximately £70,000.
      Mr. DUNNICO: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there was an attempt to dispose of the site previously purchased?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, it is not proposed to take any action with regard to this offer.

    WAR OFFICE (COST)
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the attitude of the Government towards the proposal for the appointment of a special Commission to reduce the cost of the War Office?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Select Committee on. Estimates has this year examined and reported upon the cost of the War Office, and I do not think that the appointment of a special Commission would serve any useful purpose.
    Captain A. EVANS: Can the Secretary for War say whether he is going to act on the recommendations of the Committee?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am considering that matter.

    SCOTLAND.

      SHERIFF COURTS BILL.
      Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether and, if so, when it is proposed to proceed with the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I hope that as the result of correspondence now proceeding all the associations concerned will agree to this Bill going through as an unopposed Measure so far as they are concerned. In that case I would propose to proceed with the Bill early next Session.

      SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS, PEEBLES.
      Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that several months ago the Peebles Town Council adopted a by-law (Clause 9b) making humane slaughter compulsory in Peebles; that such adoption was duly confirmed by the Sheriff; that the Peebles Town Clerk made application to the Under-Secretary for confirmation as required by Section 318 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, on 10th August last; that since that elate the town clerk has sent two reminders of his first application, but so far has received no reply to his communication will he state the reason for delay; and will he now confirm the by-law unani-
      1886
      mously approved by the town council and confirmed by the Sheriff for the county?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply to the first four parts of the question is in the affirmative. I am in favour of the object of the by-law, and I received a deputation on the general subject to which it relates about 10 days ago. Confirmation in this particular case has, I regret, been unavoidably deferred pending the Consideration of certain general questions as to the best method of achieving the object in view. I appreciate the desire of the Town Council of Peebles for an early decision, and I shall do my best to meet it.

      SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, ORMISTION.
      Colonel CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the scheme submitted by the education authority of East Lothian for an increase of the School accommodation at Ormiston will receive his approval?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The Department have asked the education authority to consider an alternative proposal, and they now await their reply.
      Colonel CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the scheme, which was unanimously approved by the authority, in view of the fact that the proposal put forward by the Department was more costly, and entailed a dispersion of School buildings?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: My information is that it will be less costly, and will have some advantages which I shall be glad to discuss with my hon. and gallant Friend.

      ERIBOLL ESTATE (SALE).
      Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, before the estate of Eriboll was sold, offers were made to the existing holders on the estate to purchase their holdings; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to safeguard them in the possession of their holdings and glazing rights?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The holders settled by the Board of Agriculture have the protection afforded by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886–1919, and I do not consider that there is any necessity for further action on my part.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not in accordance with the policy of the Government to offer these holdings to the sitting tenants in the first place when an estate is for sale?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: Every case is considered on its merits.
      Mr. EVERARD: Would it not be entirely contrary to the policy of the Liberal party that the sitting tenant should have the option of buying the holding?
      Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what respects the conditions under which Eriboll and the sheep stock have been sold differ from those under which they were offered at public auction; and whether any attempt was made to obtain competitive offers on the revised basis accepted by the present purchaser?
      Sir J. GILMOURThe terms of sale to the present purchaser differ from those offered when the estate was exposed for sale by auction in respect that special agreement was made, after negotiation, with regard to various matters, namely. the price of transfer of the five-year-old ewes, the sale of the "Shotts" by the Board, the number of tups to be taken over and the charge on the estate in connection with the transfer of the Church property. As regards the last part of the question, negotiations were entered into with the present purchaser after the auction had proved abortive, and the terms agreed in these negotiations were not made the subject of competitive offers.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: If the whole basis of the transactions was to be revised, surely competitive bids could have been sought from other quarters?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The estate was put up for public auction on two separate occasions.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: It was not put up on the basis of a Martinmas valuation, with permission to reduce largely the sheep stock.
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is the House to understand that after this estate had been offered for sale and failed to get a bidder the right hon. Gentleman then
      1888
      revised the conditions of sale, and sold it to a private individual without advertising the new conditions?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The facts are that this estate was offered for public auction on two separate occasions, and no bidder came forward. Subsequently a private offer was made, and after being considered on its merits this offer was accepted.
      Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely, if a private offer was made at all, should it not have been made to the smallholders in the first place, for the benefit of whom this estate was acquired?
      Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot argue this point now.

      NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (WOMEN).
      Miss BONDFIELDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of insured women referred by approved societies to the district medical officers between 1st July and 31st October, 1925, and between 1st July and 31st October, 1926; the number of such women who were certified by the district medical officers as not incapable of work for each of the said periods; and the number of insured women over the age of 60 years who, being in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit at the time of examination by the district medical officer, were certified by that officer to be not incapable of work?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The figures for the two periods are as follow: As regards the first part of the question, 4,371 and 6,236, respectively. As regards the second part of the question, 1,076 and 1,653, respectively. As regards the third part of the question, 85 and 90, respectively.

      CONON LODGE (SALE).
      Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, seeing that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland own parks and lands in the neighbourhood of Conon Lodge, which are now occupied by local tenants, he will say whether, since the sale of Conon Lodge, these tenants have been informed that their tenancies may not be renewed?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: Notices of termination of their tenancies have been given in terms of the respective missives of let

      1889
      to the joint tenants of a park of seven acres, namely, the Board of Agriculture's factor and the local doctor, and also to the tenant of a plantation extending to 16 acres and let at a rent of 10s. per annum.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Is this answer not a contradiction of the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave last week, and does he intend to offer this particular part of the estate to the new purchaser of Conon Lodge when the individuals to whom notice has been given vacate the land?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; my reply must not be taken as contradictory of anything I have previously said on this subject. So far as regards the conditions, the letting was for a short term and notice was given to terminate it.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that this estate, which was bought for the special object of providing small holdings, is now being split up in such a way that the ground is to be used for shooting instead of smallholders getting the benefit of the ground for their own specific purposes?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman must not assume anything of the sort.
      Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any agreement or arrangement or understanding, apart from what is contained in the articles of roup of the lodge, was arrived at between the Board and the purchaser of the lodge that the latter would have an opportunity of acquiring the shootings owned by the Board of Agriculture in the neighbourhood of Conon Lodge on the expiry of the present lease thereof; and, if so, whether such options were disclosed to other intending purchasers of the lodge?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
      Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any arrangement, agreement, or understanding has been arrived at between the purchaser of Conon Lodge and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, by which the former will acquire the parks and fields adjacent to the lodge so far as these are
      1890
      now in the occupation of local tenants; and, if so, whether these options were disclosed to other intending purchasers of the lodge?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: The purchaser of Conon Lodge was informed on 23rd October, in response to an inquiry by him, that in the event of his being the successful offerer for Conon Lodge at the public auction, the Board would be prepared to accept an offer from him of £300 for Rha Park and Rha Plantation. In the case of property offered for sale at public auction, it is not known who are intending purchasers; and the inquiry and reply to which I have referred were not published. The Board had no other inquiries from prospective bidders.
      Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that this individual is going to get further land from those who have been notified that they have to quit? I think we should have some answer as to this, which is one of the worst pieces of sharp practice that has gone on in Scotland.

      EDINBURGH SHERIFF COURT (CONVICTIONS).
      Mr. WESTWOODasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware of the case which was tried in Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 3rd November where two sons of miners were charged with theft of coal, found guilty, and filled 2s. each; and whether, in view of the youth of these children, he will cause the fine to be remitted?
      Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiry, and have ascertained that no children were fined in Edinburgh Sheriff Court on the 3rd November for theft of coal. But on that date three miners (the eldest of whom was over 50 and the youngest 16) pleaded guilty at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to a charge of theft of 2 cwt. of coal. They were each sentenced to a fine of 2s. or five days imprisonment, 14 days being allowed for payment of the fine. I see no ground to justify me in advising any interference with the sentences.
      Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not the fact that it was the parents who were charged for an act done by the children; and, further, is it not the case that, in the same court, on the same day, two young persons who had stolen stamps

      1891
      were admonished, while two miners' children were fined through their parents?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument on the question.

      TRANSPORT.

        SUTTON BY-PASS ROAD.
        Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the state of the surface of the new Sutton by-pass road; and what action he is prepared to take?
        The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I understand that this matter, which has been previously brought to my notice, is receiving the attention of the Surrey County Council, who are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the road.
        Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this road is so bad that very few motorists use it, and that they mostly go by High Street, Sutton?
        Colonel ASHLEY: I have just informed the hon. Gentleman that the Surrey County Council are dealing with the matter.

        TRAMWAYS (ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS).
        Mr. FORRESTasked the Minister of Transport how many towns have changed or are changing over their service of tramways with metal lines either to a trackless trofley system or to a motor omnibus system and whether, as many towns desire guidance on the point. he proposes to investigate in any way the various systems with a view to advising on their application, if requested to do so, in different areas?
        Colonel ASHLEY: Complete information on the point raised in the first part of the hon. Member's question could only be obtained from the various tramway authorities. I may, however, say that I am aware that powers have been obtained in about 26 cases by local authorities and in one case by a company to work trotley vehicles over the whole or part of an existing tramway system, and that these powers have been exercised to some extent in, at any rate, about 11 instances. I cannot say in how many cases omnibus
        1892
        powers have been obtained by local authorities with a view to substituting an omnibus service for a tramway service. With regard to the second part of the question, while I shall always he glad to give such assistance as I properly can, it must not be overlooked that the form of transport most suited to the needs of a particular area depends to a large extent upon the local conditions, of which the responsible operating authorities in the locality should usually, I think, be in the best position to judge.
        Mr. PALIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account, in considering these Orders, the additional cost that will he thrown on his Department and on the local authorities for road mending?
        Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, Sir, all those considerations are taken into account.

        UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (OVER CROWDING)
        Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the overcrowding of trains on the Underground railways, particularly on the Underground tube and the Clapham to Edgware line in the mornings, when men, women, and young people are travelling to their work; and will he take steps to insist upon the companies concerned providing better facilities for the travelling public?
        Colonel ASHLEY: The railway companies concerned have informed me that during recent months they have experienced difficulty in maintaining adequate services owing to the inferior quality of the coal available at the power house, and the delay, as a result of the coal dispute, in the delivery of additional rolling stock on order. They hope that these difficulties will now rapidly disappear, and meanwhile they have been able to arrange for six additional trains to be put into service.
        Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this dangerous overcrowding was in operation prior to any stoppage in the coal trade?
        Colonel ASHLEY: That is not my information, but, if the hon. Member will give me the facts, I will go into them with the railway companies.
        Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the various railway

        1893
        companies to run longer trains in the morning and in the evening, which would obviate a good deal of this difficulty?
        Colonel ASHLEY: I have not gone into that point, but I imagine that possibly the length of the platforms would have something to with it.
        Mr. THORNE: Then lengthen the platforms!

        TOLL-BRIDGES.
        Mr. PENNYasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consult with local authorities on the question of taking over privately-owned toll-bridges in their districts, in view of the heavy charge placed upon the industrial activities of people owing to the necessity of reaching markets, so that the cost is more equally distributed amongst the residents of those particular areas; and whether he will grant a payment from the Road Fund to minimise the cost to the local authorities as a compensation for the use made of the bridges by outside traffic?
        Colonel ASHLEY: Officers of my Department are in frequent consultation with local authorities who contemplate the freeing of toll-bridges, and I am prepared to consider any application which may be formulated by the responsible bodies for assistance from the Road Fund for the purpose of eliminating tolls.
        Mr. PENNY: Has not this policy been adopted in regard to the Mersey Tunnel, and, in view of the very unsatisfactory position of toll-bridges throughout the country, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a Committee to inquire into the whole position, so that something may he done which is not being done at the present time?
        Mr. LAWSON: Is not this an unwarranted interference with private enterprise?
        Colonel ASHLEY: I see no useful purpose in setting up a Committee. The people responsible for putting forward these proposals are the local authorities, and, as far as I can remember, no concrete proposal has yet been put to me. When these proposals come forward, I will give them my careful consideration.
        Several HON. MEMBERS—
        Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter now.
        Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House of the number of toll bridges at present in the country?
        Colonel ASHLEY: I supplied the information for which my hon. Friend asks in an answer which I gave to a question which he put to me on 2nd March last, and of which I am seeding him a copy. I am not aware of any material charge since then.
        Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me haw many of these toll bridges are in Hampshire?
        Colonel ASHLEY: No, but I can tell him that there are about 64 toll roads, and double the number of toll bridges, in Great Britain.
        Mr. PENNY: Seeing that this involves a great hardship on the general public where the toll bridges are—
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is trying to debate the question.

        LEVEL CROSSINGS.
        Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the cases in each of the last five years in which the Board of Trade or the Minister have exercised their powers under Section 7 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, to require a railway company to erect a bridge instead of a level crossing?
        Colonel ASHLEY: During the last five years no railway company has been formally required, under the provisions referred to, to erect a bridge instead of a level crossing. As I have previously explained, in answer to the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Waterloo Division of Lancashire, on 16th November, I am glad to say that on a few important main roads the allocation of grants from the Road Fund has rendered it possible for local authorities to face the expense of erecting bridges over level crossings. In other cases, as on the London-Tilbury road at Purfleet, and at Colnbrook on the Bath road, the construction of new by-pass roads has been undertaken to afford alternative and shorter routes free from level crossings.

        EDINBURGH RAILWAY DISASTER.
        Mr. WESTWOODasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that further evidence has been given since the first report issued by his inspecting officer on the St. Margaret's, Edinburgh, railway disaster; if he is aware of the supplementary report; and will he order another inquiry into the accident?
        Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that the evidence given at the inquiry into this accident has subsequently been found to be inaccurate in one respect. This point was dealt with in the supplementary report made by the inspecting officer, who, as stated in that report, does not consider that it affects the conclusions he arrived at and the recommendations he made in his original report. I see no grounds for any further inquiry.
        Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that it was the same individual who made the monstrous charge against the railwaymen who gave wrong information to the inspecting officer, and under the circumstances, seeing that the people of Scotland have now no faith in the inspecting officer, who would not visit the locus of the accident—
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting a speech into a question.
        Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, in view of all these facts, to institute a new inquiry so as to re-establish confidence in his inspecting officer's report?
        Colonel ASHLEY: No, because the alleged statement on the part of one of the officials of the railway company has nothing to do with the finding of the inspecting officer. That evidence was given in the course of the inquiry, but it in no way affected the inquiry, which was to find out the cause of the accident.
        Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that if they had knowledge of the working of the block system no accident need have taken place?
        Sir JOSEPH NAIL: Is it not the fact that the aspersion cast on this officer is absolutely without foundation?
        Colonel ASHLEY: Yes. He is an old and valued officer of the Ministry. No such suggestion has ever been made before and there is no ground for it.
        Mr. WESTWOOD rose—
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, in putting supplementary questions, made a statement which carried with it some imputations. It was right for a further question to be put on that point. He cannot debate the whole matter now. He has put one or two long supplementaries.
        Mr. WESTWOOD: On a point of explanation. I did not charge the inspecting officer with doing anything. I charged Major Stemp.

        FINSBURY PARK TUBE.
        Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has examined the recent Reports of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and particularly the recommendation that the London Electric Railway Company should be invited to give serious consideration to the immediate construction of the tube northwards from Finsbury Park; whether he has yet been in communication with the company on this matter; and whether he is in a position to make a statement?
        Colonel ASHLEY: The question of the construction by the London Electric Railway Company of the suggested tube has been discussed between representatives of the company and of my Department, but I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time. The problem, as the hon. Member is aware, is largely one of finance.

      MOTOR LICENCE DUTIES.
      Mr. EVERAROasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, before the next. Budget, the advisability of extending the relief of motor-licence duties to cars manufactured at a more recent date than 1912?
      Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the question asked on 16th February by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury, and to my reply thereto, of which I am sending him a copy.
      Mr. EVERARD: Is it not a fact that some of these cars are 13 years old, and that the, value is not so much as the annual licence paid?
      Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. It has nothing to do with the age of the car.

      CURRENCY AND BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES.
      Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer were the currency note issue and the Bank of England note issue combined, what the total note issue would be; what would be the gold and silver holdings held as a reserve; and what would be the total fiduciary issue and the percentage rates of the same to the total note issue?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): As the reply contains many figures, I will with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Following is the reply:
      Combining the figures in the weekly Bank Return and the Currency Note Statement for the week ending 1st December, the position shown is—

      £

      s.

      d.

      Bank of England Note Issue

      171,164,110

      0

      0

      Currency Notes etc. Outstanding

      284,493,689

      10

      0

      455,657,799

      10

      0

      Deduct, Bank Notes held for Currency Note Account

      56,250,000

      0

      0

      Net Total Note Issue

      399,407,799

      10

      0

      Gold Coln and Bullion

      151,414,110

      0

      0

      The Currency Note Statement includes £6,300,000 silver Coln but this is not reckoned as reducing the fiduciary issue

      —

      Total Fiduciary Issue

      £247,993,689

      10

      0

      The gold cover represents 37.91 per cent. Of the net total issue.

      IRISH LAND PURCHASE FUND.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any rebate or allowance is made by the Treasury to the Government of the Irish Free State for collecting the payments due to the Exchequer under the various Irish Land Purchase Acts; and, if so, will he state the total annual amount?
      Mr. McNEILL: The payments referred to are due to the Irish Land Purchase Fund. The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.
      Colonel GRETTON: Do I understand that the full amount collected is paid into the Treasury?
      Mr. McNEILL: Yes, to the National Debt Commissioners.
      Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is the cost of collection debited to the Irish Land Fund?
      Mr. McNEILL: I am not sure about that. I will inquire.

      JUDGES (CIRCUIT ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES).
      Mr. W. BAKERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the circuit allowances and expenses of the Judges of the King's Bench Division, Commissioners of Assize, and their clerks amount to approximately £22,000 per annum; and whether lie will consider whether economies and greater expedition can be secured by a change of method?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. The question whether economy and greater expedition can be secured by a modification of the circuit system has been considered on more than one occasion during recent years. By Section I of the Administration of Justice Act, 1925, machinery is provided whereby it becomes unnecessary to hold an Assize at any place on a circuit if it appears that there is no business, or no substantial amount of business, to be transacted at the Assizes about to be held at that place, and it is hoped that some economy may result.
      Sir EDMUND TURTON: In the interest of economy, does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has come when the marshal of the judges, which serves no purpose, might usefully he abolished?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not see that that has any reference to the question I was asked, and I do not agree with the suggestion that the marshal of the judges is of no use.
      Sir E. TURTON: On a point of Order. An objection has been taken by the Attorney-General that this does not arise out of the answer. The question was as regards certain allowances. I submit that I am perfectly in order in putting the question whether at present the judges marshal is not an unnecessary expense and ought to be abolished.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member put his question, and received the answer.
      Mr. MORRIS: Cannot some further steps be taken to reorganise, on lines such as those suggested by the Swift Committee, the existing circuit system?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am always glad to pass on suggestions to those whose duty it is to consider them. I have not heard of any practical suggestion for the re-organisation of the circuit system, but we did devise certain alterations last year which I hope will result in economies.
      Mr. MORRIS: Will consideration be given to the recommendations that were made with regard to the Welsh circuit system?
      Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate. The question had better be put down on the Paper.

      POST OFFICE.

        UNANSWERED TELEPHONE CALLS.
        Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General what action has been taken by his Department with a view to apprising telephone subscribers of unanswered calls?
        The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The Postmaster-General is considering the advisability of introducing this system.
        Colonel DAY: Has an experimental test already been made at the central exchange, and with what result?
        Viscount WOLMER: A working test has not been made. It would have to be carried out before the system was introduced.

        LOST PACKAGES.
        Sir WILLIAM REFIRINGasked the Postmaster-General the number of registered and other postal packages lost in transit containing valuables and money orders during the period of nine months prior to 30th September, 1926; the total amount of claims made by senders in respect thereto and the amount paid in settlement of claims, respectively; and the number of parcel post packages lost during the same period in transit, the estimated value claimed in compensation and amounts paid in settlement of claims, and the number of Post Office servants prosecuted and convicted for thefts or larceny during that period?
        Viscount WOLMER: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
        The figures referred to are an follow:

        Number.

        Amount of Compensation Paid.

        £

        Registered letters

        597

        2,532

        Registered parcels

        29

        45

        Unregistered parcels

        6,465

        6,267

        The numbers of Post Office servants prosecuted and convicted for theft out of the post during the same period are:

        Prosecuted.

        Convicted.

        England and Wales

        131

        129

        Northern Ireland

        3

        3

        Scotland

        14

        14

        Total

        143

        146

        The total number of inland parcels for the nine months was 94,500,000, and the number of registered letters and parcels about 45,000,000.
        Sir W. PERRINGasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the losses incurred by West End stores by reason of parcels lost in transit in the parcel post service, particularly through the South-Western Post Office, during the past 12 months; what measures he has taken to prevent these losses and theft during the transmission in the postal service; is be aware that in privately-owned parcel delivery companies serious losses do not occur, with the system of checking in operation; and, in view of the circumstances, will he introduce a higher scale of compensation than that now in vogue in the postal services?
        Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Every effort is being made to stop the losses referred to. Registered parcels can be insured up to £400, which sum is,, I think, sufficient; but I am considering whether any improvement can be made in the existing system of checking parcels.
        Mr. AMMON: Is there any evidence that the large number of temporary persons employed has anything to do with these losses?
        Viscount WOLMER: No, I cannot say that there is any evidence of that.

        SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS).
        Sir W. PERRINGasked the Postmaster-General the terms and date of the pledge given to the temporary women clerks in the Post Office, Savings Bank Department, Blythe Road, West Kensington, whereby they are rendered immune from replacement by permanent writing assistants; and the number of female writing assistants imported into the Savings Bank Department during the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, respectively?
        Viscount WOLMER: The undertaking in question was given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 1st January last, and was to the effect that for a period of two years from that date, no appointment should be made to the writing assistant grade or to the clerical class (women) in any headquarter establishment of any department from the successful candidates at any future open competition, if such appointment would involve the discharge
        1902
        from that establishment of an efficient temporary woman clerk fully capable of performing the duties of such post; this arrangement to be without prejudice to the promotion of writing assistants to posts in the clerical class. The total number of writing assistants appointed to the Savings Bank Department from outside during the three years mentioned are 282 in 1924, none in 1925, and two in 1926 (up to date).

        ADVERTISEMENTS.
        Colonel PERKINSasked the Postmaster-General the amount of revenue derived from the advertisements of the dairy company appearing on the backs of old age pension books; what is the system of tendering for advertisements and whether any firm can tender for space in Government publications; how much revenue the Post Office has derived during the past year from advertisements of every kind; and whether, in view of the value of such advertising spaces, the Post Office is satisfied that the highest possible rates are being obtained?
        Viscount WOLMER: I regret that I cannot depart from the principle of treating contract prices as confidential. The general practice of the Post Office is to appoint after competitive tender an advertising agent. The revenue derived by the Post Office during the last financial year from advertisements under its control (which does not include those in the Telephone Directory) was £61,545. I have no reason to doubt that the prices obtained were the highest obtainable; but the revenue shows an upward tendency, and I hope that as the value of Post Office advertising space becomes better realised, the rates obtainable will improve still further.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is this contract an annual one?
        Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir. It is for a period of years.
        Mr. BRIANTasked the Postmaster-General if there are any regulations regarding the nature of the advertisements exhibited in post offices, or if these have to be submitted prior to acceptance to his Department:
        Viscount WOLMER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
        Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General (1) the amount of revenue derived during the past 12 months from the advertisement of alcoholic liquors on Post Office premises and in Post Office publications;
        (2) the amount of revenue derived annually from advertisement of alcoholic liquors in books of postage stamps?
        Viscount WOLMER: The revenue derived annually from advertisement of alcoholic liquors in books of postage stamps is approximately £700. In respect to the other liquor advertisements, the orders already in hand represent an annual revenue to the Department of about £4,000.
        Mr. AMMON: Does the Noble Lord think that the cash return is sufficient, having regard to the advertising of a commodity which is reputed by many-people to be the cause of much social and economic wrong?
        Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the Noble Lord say how much revenue from alcohol was collected by the Government of which the hon. Member for Camber well North (Mr. Ammon) was a Member, during the time it was in office?
        Viscount WOLMER: I am afraid that, I must have notice of that question. In regard to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), I think there are a great many commodities the abuse of which causes social wrong, but there is nothing either illegal or improper in the moderate use of alcoholic liquor. I cannot see why the Postmaster-General should not allow advertisements of that character in the Post Offices.

        BEAM WIRELESS STATIONS.
        Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether any arrangements are in hand for the erection of beam stations in other parts of the British Empire following that now being completed for communication with South Africa?
        Viscount WOLMER: The agreement with the Marconi Company provides for the erection in this country on behalf of the Post Office of beam stations for communication with corresponding stations in Canada, Australia, South Africa and India. The stations for the Anglo-
        1904
        Canadian service are now operating; the stations for the Anglo-Australian service are undergoing preliminary trials and are expected to be ready for the, official tests in a few weeks; the stations for the Anglo-South African and Anglo-Indian services will, it is hoped, be completed early in the New Year.
        Commander BELLAIRS: Can the Noble Lord say anything about arrangements for overland service as well as for oversea?
        Viscount WOLMER: It; is not necessary to have a beam service over land.

        CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.
        Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General the number of parcels posted cash-on-delivery during the first six months' working of the cash-on-delivery system; whether this figure is in excess of the estimated number for the period and, if so, by how many; and can he state the approximate contribution of this service towards the revenue for the period?
        Viscount WOLMER: During the first six months approximately 450,000 inland cash-on-delivery parcels were posted. The approximate gross revenue was £11,250.
        Mr. AMMON: Can the Noble Lord say whether the figures are in excess of the estimated number for the period?
        Viscount WOLMER: The Postmaster-General never asked for a very close estimate of the number of cash-on-delivery parcels that would be likely to be purchased, because it would be obviously impossible to obtain that with a new service. The closest estimate that I have heard was something under a million and it appears that that has been close to the mark.
        Sir W. PERRING: May I ask the Noble Lord whether the expenditure already incurred in connection with this system is not about 10 times as much as the revenue?
        Mr. AMMON: Can he Noble Lord say whether the amount of business done is up to expectation?
        Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir. In reply to the hon. Member for Paddington (Sir W. Perring) I can assure him that

        1905
        there is no loss whatever to the Post Office. The system is making a slight profit to the Government.
        Sir W. PERRING: The Noble Lord has not answered the question. I asked him whether the expense incurred in connection with the system was not about 10 times more than the net revenue?
        Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir. The net revenue more than covers the expense.

        THIEVES' BOGUS TELEPHONE MESSAGES.
        Sir W. de FRECEasked the Postmaster-General whether warnings to the public issued by Scotland Yard in respect of such practices as the luring away by thieves of house occupants deluded by bogus messages over the telephone are broadcast; and, if not, whether he will state if he can arrange for this to be done to protect the public?
        Viscount WOLMER: The police authorities already use the broadcasting service for certain urgent notices and, if they desired that such notices as that mentioned by my hon. Friend should be broadcast, I have no doubt that the necessary arrangements could be made.
        Mr. LAWSON: Does that apply to miners houses?

        NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

          CLAIMS (TIME LIMIT).
          Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now prepared to reconsider the operation of the seven years' limit on claims for pensions in respect of disabilities resulting from war service?
          The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend sees no ground for adopting the course suggested. I would remind the hon. Member that, as my right hon. Friend has repeatedly stated, arrangements have been made whereby he is enabled to deal specially with any exceptional ease in which a man shows that he is seriously incapacitated by, his war service, and there was good reason for his failing to make his claim within seven years from discharge. I am glad to be able to say that, from information
          1906
          gathered at recent meetings with Chairmen of War Pensions Committees throughout the country, I am assured the present arrangements are operating satisfactorily.

          SALTASH HOSPITAL.
          Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Pensions how many patients at the Saltash Pensions Hospital have discharged themselves during the last 12 months; and if he has made inquiry into the food and general condition of that institution?
          Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: During the period referred to, 63 men discharged themselves against medical advice from Saltash, after an average period of stay in the institution of close upon six months. I understand that while in several of these cases the men must be regarded as practically irresponsible for their actions, most of the men discharged themselves for domestic reasons. The hospital is regularly visited by medical inspectors of the Ministry, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the feeding and general arrangements are satisfactory.

          STATISTICS.
          Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions the total number of persons in receipt of pensions on 30th November, 1926, as compared with the corresponding date in 1925?
          Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The total number of beneficiaries of all classes to whom and in respect of Whom pensions or allowances were in payment at 30th November last was 1,711,000 as compared with 1,856,000 at the corresponding date in 1925.

          FINAL AWARDS (REVIEW).
          Mr. MacNeill WEIRasked the Minister of Pensions (1) how many cases of final award have been reviewed under the error procedure arrangements; in how many of these cases has the Medical Board agreed that serious error existed and recommended an increased assessment accordingly; and in how many such cases has the finding of the Medical Board been disallowed;
          (2) what is the character and composition of the authority which reviews the findings of the Medical Board under the

          1907
          error procedure arrangements; and what are the names of the members of whom it is composed?
          Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No complete record is available containing all the information desired by the hon. Member; but I may say that in the great majority of the cases reviewed the Ministry are able to concur in the recommendations of their local medical officers, though I am unable to state the exact proportions. I would point out with regard to both questions that the issue in these cases is not merely one of opinion as to assessment, but the question whether, exceptionally, a case which has received a final statutory settlement should be again considered, and a further grant made. On this point, while local medical officers may properly advise as to the medical condition of the case, the decision must rest with the Minister on the advice of his most experienced medical and other advisers. There is no board or similar authority at headquarters which has the duty of reviewing these cases.
          Brigadier-General CHARTER'S: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether in cases in which the reviewing authority at headquarters disagree with the recommendations of the local board, that reference is made or will be made before a final decision is arrived at?
          Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Speaking from memory, I think reference is frequently made.

          WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
          Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions if he will issue regulations that a war widow shall not be deprived of her pension except on the same conditions as prevail in the case of widows receiving a pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?
          Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The basis of the free grant of pension under the Royal Warrants to the widow of a deceased soldier is altogether different from that of the contributory pension contemplated by the Act referred to. I am therefore unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

          VOLUNTARY FUND.
          Mr. OLIVERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider an
          1908
          extension or alteration of the scheme governing grants from the Voluntary fund at his disposal so as to admit applications for assistance towards paying the cost of training or apprenticing children of men badly disabled in the great War?
          Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend is advised that he would have no authority to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
          Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions the grades and salaries of the officers engaged at the Ministry headquarters in dealing with applications in respect of the Voluntary fund at his disposal, the cost of administering which is defrayed by the State; and if any of them are in receipt of pensions, apart from disability pensions, and of what amount?
          Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The cost of the staff dealing with applications for grants from the Voluntary fund at my right hon. Friend's disposal is a charge on the fund and not on the State.

        AGRICULTURE.

          TITHE RENTCHARGE (REDEMPTION).
          Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the costs charged for the compulsory redemption of tithe rentcharge; and whether he will secure that, in the compulsory redemption of tithe rentcharge of amounts up to 411 annual value, the costs of such redemption shall in no ease exceed an amount equal to one-quarter of the capital value of the tithe redeemed?
          The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Compulsory redemption usually entails a survey of the lands, the assessment of the shares of redemption money and expenses amongst all the landowners concerned, and the collection and recovery of such amounts. The scale of fees has been framed in order to ensure, as far as possible, that no expense is thrown on the Exchequer as a result of the Ministry exercising its statutory duties with regard to the redemption of tithe rentcharge, and I am, therefore, unable to adopt the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend.
          Sir G. WHELER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in cases where the capitalised value has been only £12 10s. the unfortunate man has had to meet a charge of £10 in costs, and that in many cases the amount of charges has gone up to the equivalent of 82 per cent. of the capitalised value; and whether it is fair that the tithe payer should be compelled to meet so large a charge.
          Mr. GUINNESS: I admit that in these small cases the redemption charges are very high in comparison with the rentcharge, but for the reasons I have given these are the most costly cases, and we have no alternative except to put the charge on these people or on the Exchequer.
          Sir G. WHELER: Is it fair that up to 82 per cent. should be charged in cases like that?

          SMALLHOLDINGS.
          Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture the area of land acquired by county councils under the Smallholdings Act, 1892: and the number of smallholdings established under that Act down to the end of 1907?
          Mr. GUINNESS: The area of land acquired by county councils under the Smallholdings Act, 1892, up to the 31st December, 1907, and still held by them on that date was 881½ acres. The number of holdings provided on this area was 245, including three let respectively to a committee, an association and a parish council.

          PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.
          Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now disposed of the Patrington estate; if so, will he state the terms upon which the estate has been disposed of; whether any provision has been made for the men recently employed by the Ministry; and, if so, what is the nature of the provision?
          Mr. GUINNESS: The Ministry's lease of the Patrington Farm Settlement will be surrendered to the Commissioners of Crown Lands next Ladyday Meanwhile the Commissioners have provisionally arranged to let one of the farms as from that date, and negotiations are proceeding for the re-letting of the other farms. I hope that a substantial pro-
          1910
          portion of the employés will secure work on the farms under the new tenants. A number have already secured work elsewhere, and the Ministry will render every assistance it can in making known the existence of suitable openings in other districts for any men who desire such information. The Ministry is also providing assistance in respect of the removal expenses of men and their families in those cases where work is obtained elsewhere.
          Mr. RILEY: May I ask whether it is a fact that. the Minister has erected some 40 cottages on this estate, and what will be the position of the tenants of these cottages when it is disposed of?
          Mr. GUINNESS: I think many of the tenants will get employment on the estate. Seven have expressed their wish to remain in their cottages and take additional land for small holdings.
          Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous to taking over of the Patrington Estate 57 people were kept on it, but since the Government took it over 257 persons have been established there. What does he expect will happen to the 200 persons who will be thrown out of employment?
          Mr. GUINNESS: I think the hon. Member took the figure in my answer as being the number of people living on the estate. They are the people employed there.
          Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that since the Government took over the Patrington Estate the population has been multiplied by five, and what is going to happen now when these people are deprived of their livelihood?
          Mr. GUINNESS: In the great majority of cases arrangements either have been or will be made shortly for their employment.
          Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this estate is a monument of the folly of land nationalisation?

        JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
        Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Attorney-General whether nominations

        1911
        are received from organisations or from individuals for election to the Lord Lieutenants' Advisory Committee for the appointment of magistrates?
        The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Lieutenant, and any other person whom he thinks fit, about the members he appoints to his advisory committees. He does not bind himself to consult any particular organisation or individual. The committees are appointed to advise the Lord Chancellor, and my noble Friend is, of course, free to select his advisers in the manner he thinks most suitable.

        JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (INDIAN APPEALS).
        Mr. BUCHANANasked the Attorney-General the number of Indian appeals that have been heard by the Judicial Committee during the last six months; the Judges who have heard the appeals; and the number still on the list?
        The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Thirty-eight. Indian appeals have been heard between the 1st June and 30th November last, and 137 of such appeals still remain for disposal. I will circulate the names of the Judges who heard the appeals in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
        The following Judges at various times took part in the hearing of these appeals:
        The Lord Chancellor, Viscount Haldane, Viscount Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sumner, Lord Phillimore, Lord Carson, Lord Sinha, Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Darling, Lord Merrivale, Lord Warrington of Clyffe, Syed Ameer Ali, Lord Salvesen, Chief Justice Anglin, Sir John Wallis and Sir Lancelot Sanderson.

        GOLD COAST (ELECTIVE REPRESENTATION).
        Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Order in Council of 1925, which gave elective representation to Sierra Leone and Nigeria, conferred a more restrictive measure of representation on the Gold Coast, and that this
        1912
        differentiation is a blow to the Federal Union of Native States, he will recondsider the whole question, with a view to adopting a larger measure of elective representation in the Gold Coast?
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The several Constitutions recently set up in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, and inure particularly the extent to which and the machinery by which the principle of elective representation was introduced, were devised with a view to meeting the differing circumstances of the three Colonies, and it appears to me premature to reconsider the new Gold Coast Constitution in any important point until experience has been gained of its working. I may add that I do not understand the allusion to the Federal Union of Native States. Such an organisation does not exist in West Africa.

        STANDING COMMITTEES (OFFICIAL REPORTS).
        Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, on a point of procedure?
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given me no notice of any question. Is it with regard to the business of the day?
        Mr. STEPHEN: No. it arises out of the discussion last night. I should like to know whether von can inform me to whom a question should be addressed in order to get the number of Committees that have met and considered Government Measures without a report of the proceedings being printed?
        Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will write me, I will try to get him the information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of time Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 123.

Division No. 554.]

AYES

[3.48 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

Ganzoni, Sir John

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Gates, Percy

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Albery, Irving James

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

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

Penny, Frederick George

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Goff, Sir Park

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

Gower, Sir Robert

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Grant, I. A.

Perring, Sir William George

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Barclay-Harvey, C, M.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Pleiou, D. P.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Raine, W.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ramsden, E.

Bontinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Berry, Sir George

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

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Bethel, A.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Remer, J. R.

Betterton, Henry B.

Hammersley, S. S.

Remnant, Sir James

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Hanbury, C.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)

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

Harrison, G. J. C.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Ropner, Major L.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Haslam, Henry C.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowater, Col. Sir T, Vansittart

Hawke, John Anthony

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Savery, S. S.

Brittain, Sir Harry

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Shepperson, E. W.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Holland, Sir Arthur

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Skelton, A. N.

Burman, J. B.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Blimey, Lieut.-Com. Charles O.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Smithers, Waldron

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hurd, Percy A.

Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

Campbell, E. T.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H,

Carver, W. H.

Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midl'n& Peebles)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Jacob, A. E.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

James. Lieut. -Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Christie, J. A.

Jephcott, A. R.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

Storry-Deans. R.

Clarry, Reginald George

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Streatfield, Captain S. R.

Clayton, G. C.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir G. K.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

hen, Major J. Brunei

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Tinne, J. A.

Cope, Major William

Knox, Sir Alfred

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Looker, Herbert William

Waddington, R.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

McLean, Major A.

Watson, sir P. (Pudsey and Otley)

Drewe. C.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Watts, Dr. T.

Duckworth John

Mac Robert, Alexander M.

Wells, S. R

Eden, Captain Anthony

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Elveden, Viscount

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)

Malone, Major P. B.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Margesson, Captain D.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Everard, W. Lindsay

Meyer, Sir Frank

Wise. Sir Fredric

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Wolmer, Viscount

Fanshawe, Commander G. D

Moles, Thomas

Womersley, W. J.

Fermoy, Lord

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

wood, B. c. (somerset, Bridgwater)

Fielden, E. B.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Forrest. W.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Murchison, C. K.

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYE.—

Frece, Sir Walter de

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

Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Thomson.

Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

Nuttail, Ellis

NOES

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Ammon, Charles George

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

Attlee, Clement Richard

Baker. Walter

1914

1915

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hardie, George D.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Barnes, A.

Harney, E. A.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Barr, J.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Rose, Frank H.

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, G. H.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Bondfield, Margaret

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sexton, James

Briant, Frank

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bromfield, William

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Sitch, Charles H.

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Cape, Thomas

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stamford, T. W.

Charleton, H. C.

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Taylor, R. A.

Connolly, M,

Kirkwood, D.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Cove, W. G.

Lansbury, George

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawrence, Susan

Thurtle, Ernest

Dalton, Hugh

Lawson, John James

Tinker. John Joseph

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Lee, F.

Townend, A. E.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Day, Colonel Harry

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

MacLaren, Andrew

Wallhead, Richard C.

Duncan, C.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Dunnico, H.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Fenby, T. D.

March, S.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Gardner, J. p.

Maxton, James

Welsh, J. C.

Gillett, George M.

Montague, Frederick

Westwood, J.

Gosling, Harry

Morris. R. H.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

Whiteley, W.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Murnin, H.

Wiggins, William Martin

Greenall, T.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Oliver. George Harold

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Palin, John Henry

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Groves, T.

Paling, W.

Windsor, Walter

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wright, W.

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

Potts. John S.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Riley, Ben

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Hayes.

LICENSING ACT (1921) AMENDMENT (No. 2).
Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1921, in so far as it enables State management of certain districts in Scotland to be continued by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to enact that the continuance of State control shall be subject to the local option of the district affected."
This Bill should commend itself to the approbation of the whole House, imbued as the House is and as the Bill is with the root principles of all democratic government, namely, that the people should decide for themselves by their votes on matters concerning their government and control. The Bill goes back to Abe Licensing Act of 1921. By that Act the Board of Control for the liquor traffic was wound up, and the properties and powers of the Board were transferred to the Secretary of State in England, and, in the case of Scotland, to the Secretary for Scotland, now the Secretary of State for Scotland. Under the provisions of the Act of 1921 the power extended over only two small
1916
areas of Scotland—in the counties of Ross and Cromarty over three boroughs and several parishes, and in the county of Dumfries over the borough of Annan and several parishes in its vicinity. Carlisle comes under the provisions of the Bill in England, and other places. With England the Bill is not concerned. In Scotland we have already the principle of local option with regard to the control of the liquor traffic. We have established in Scotland a system which is working with reasonable success—the principle that the people there, at a poll taken for the purpose, do express their opinions on various matters concerning the liquor traffic.
It is the extension of that principle that I am asking the House to apply to the question whether the control by the State through the Secretary of State for Scotland should be continued or should not be continued. At the present time a Commission appointed by the Government is sitting, and has been seeking to collect evidence. In the main, so far as I can get information, the evidence which they are trying to collect is evidence regarding the wishes of the people in the

1917
areas concerned. Of course, they are concerned with other matters as well, but the evidence which has been laid before them points to an endeavour to find out the wishes of the people in the areas affected. There is already in Scotland machinery existing for finding out far better than any Commission can find out by evidence what are the wishes of the people in the areas.
I have tried to think what might be the objections to the Bill. It may be said that the State is making money out of this traffic in liquor. I feel sure, if that be so, that; it will be equally important to hon. Members who share the opinion of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and those who share the views of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). It may be that those who oppose the Bill may consider that State control tends either to advance the principles of prohibition, on the one hand, or to defer any application of those principles, on the other hand. In actual fact, State control sets out to do neither, nor does it do either. In my view, this Bill does not affect the question whether or not prohibition is desirable or whether any restriction in the liquor traffic is desirable. That does not come within the purview of the Bill at all. The point of the Bill is that at one poll and one final poll the decision and wish of the people in the areas affected should be taken on the question whether they do or do not desire that State control should continue. May I say, as regards the area with which I am more immediately connected, the constituency of Dumfriesshire, that so far as I can see all parties, Liberal, Labour, and Unionist, are in thorough agreement with the principles of the Measure, and, judging by one's post bag and by two or three visits which I have paid to the constituency during the past fortnight, both the prohibition section, which is very strong in parts of the constituency, and those who are opposed to prohibition are equally of opinion that it is right and proper that the area itself should decide as to whether State control should continue or not.
After all, if it be an experiment, we have had six years of this control and it is time that some decision was come to on it. I submit that the proposal
1918
that a poll should be taken is more reasonable than one to abide by the recommendations of any Commission or Committee, even if we assume, and it is a big assumption, that that Commission or Committee would make a direct recommendation one way or the other. A Commission, as we know, is played upon by the various interests affected—the Trade, on the one hand, and Prohibition, on the other. All those are put to a far better test by an appeal, through a poll, to the wishes of the people than can be done by any Commission. I submit the Bill in the hope that it will meet with the approval of the whole House as regards the First Reading, and that the poll, if it be taken, will give a definite and final answer in those areas of Scotland as to whether national control is wanted or not. If the poll be in favour of national control, it will be an enormous argument in favour of extending the experiment, and, if it be against, it will bring those parts of Scotland back on to the same lines as all the rest of Scotland, will establish uniformity, and will in that way remove what is obviously an injustice to the areas concerned.
Mr. JOHNSTON Mr. JOHNSTON rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?
Mr. JOHNSTON: I do. Doubtless, if the hon. and gallant Member carries the first Reading of his Bill to-day, we shall have before us the exact text of the Measure. But his speech this afternoon, so far as I can understand it, conflicts in some degree with his professions of democracy. He said, if I understood him aright, that there was to be one poll and one poll only, and that it would decide the matter for all time. If that be so, he is not widening the options. He is not extending the powers of democracy to settle in these particular areas exactly whether they want this particular form of dealing with the liquor traffic to continue or not; he is only having one poll, and, if there is to be only an option in one area for one vote and if that vote is to settle the whole question, then I submit he is taking a niggling way of amending the Scottish Temperance Act. I am in favour of giving the electors in any area any option which those electors want. I would give them every option—munici-

1919
pal ownership, improved public-houses, or anything else the people want, provided that you give them the right to vote the traffic out altogether. This Measure deals only with two small areas in Scotland, one in the south and the other in the north. It is only to be one poll, and it is curious—
Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: This one poll will decide whether or not those two areas shall come into line with all the rest of Scotland and be subject to the same law as to local option.
Mr. JOHNSTON: In that case, why does not the hon. and gallant Member come forward with an Amendment -to the Scottish Temperance Act to extend the options under that Act to all the areas in the country? Why should he
deal only with two places where the State already has control; why should he give an option which may be used for winding up this control in those two areas and not give the same options as they have in the other areas of Scotland? For that reason alone, I submit that the House should not give a First Reading to a Measure which deals with a big question in a. niggling and undemocratic fashion.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1921, in so far as it enables State management of certain districts in Scotland to be continued by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to enact that the continuance of State control shall be subject to the local option of the district affected."
The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 118.

Division No. 545.]

AYES

[4.9 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Raine, W.

Barr, J.

Hanbury, C.

Ramsden, E.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Berry, Sir George

Haslam, Henry C.

Remer, J. R.

Bethel, A.

Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard

Ropner, Major L.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hurd, Percy A.

Savery, S. S.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Bullock, Captain M.

Jacob, A. E.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Burman, J. B.

Jephcott, A. R.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Burney, Lieut. -Com. Charles D.

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

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Templeton, W. P.

Clayton, G. C.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Looker, Herbert William

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Waddington, R.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

McLean, Major A.

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

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Maitland, Sir Arthur D Steel

Warner. Brigadier-General W. W,

Drewe, C.

Malone, Major P. B.

Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Duckworth, John

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Watts. Dr. T.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Wiggins, William Martin

Fenby, T. D.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Fermoy, Lord

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Forrest, W.

Morris, R. H.

Wolmer, Viscount

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Womersley, W. J.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Murchison, C. K.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Goff, sir Park

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Yerburah, Major Robert D. T.

Grattan-Doyte, Sir N,

Oman. Sir Charles William C.

Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Owen, Major G.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Penny, Frederick George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Brigadier-General Charteris and

Captain Streatfield.

NOES

Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)

Buchanan, G.

Duncan, C.

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

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Dunnico, H.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Cape, Thomas

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Charleton, H. C.

Elveden, Viscount

Baker, Walter

Connolly, M.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Cove, W. G.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Barnes, A.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Gardner, J. P.

Batey, Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Gillett, George M.

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Gosling, Harry

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Briant, Frank

Day, Colonel Harry

Grant, Sir J. A.

Bromfield, William

Dennison, R.

Greenall, T.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Montague, Frederick

Thurtle, Ernest

Greenall, D. H. (Glamorgan)

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

Tinne, J. A.

Groves, T.

Murnin, H.

Tinker, John Joseph

Grundy, T. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Townend, A. E.

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

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

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

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

Oliver, George Harold

Viant, S. P.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palin, John Henry

Wallhead, Richard C.

Hardie, George D.

Paling, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Hayes, John Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Henderson,, T. (Glasgow)

Potts, John S.

Welts, S. R.

Hirst, G. H.

Remnant, Sir James

Welsh, J. C.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Whiteley, W.

Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)

Riley, Ben

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Kelly, W. T.

Roberts, Rt, Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Kennedy, T.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Kirkwood. D.

Rose, Frank H.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Lansbury, George

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lawrence, Susan

Salter, Or. Alfred

Windsor, Walter

Lawson, John James

Sexton, James

Wise, Sir Fredric

Lee. F.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

Lowth, T.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wright, W.

Lunn, William

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Stamford, T. W.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Stephen, Campbell

Mr. T. Johnston and Mr. West

March, s.

Taylor, R. A.

wood.

Maxton, James

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

POLITICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (PUBLICATION).
Mr. SEXTON: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to compel the publication by all political parties, organisations and associations of income and expenditure duly certified and audited by chartered incorporated accountants."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am encouraged by those cheers. The present Statute dealing with this matter is limited in scope and applies only to one political party. I do not complain of that. Indeed so beneficial have been its effects with respect to the Labour party that we earnestly and seriously recommend it for adoption by the other political parties. It is therefore in no spirit of retaliation that I suggest this legislation. On the contrary, I am anxious to help hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to prepare their brief, in anticipation of the "Nosey Parker" legislation which it is said they are going to introduce. It will be in the recollection of the House that we on this side have been charged by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in and out of season with not truly representing working-class feeling in this country. We have had the example to-day of the introduction of a petition and up and down the country we are told there are Conservative working men's associations and Liberal working men's clubs, the members of which are consumed with the idea of escaping from the bondage of a
1922
tyrannical Labour party. But up to now we have had no evidence of that feeling except the statements of certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and I wish to supply these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen with a means of securing such evidence if any exists. If there be any truth in these statements, why not give these loyal Conservative and Liberal working men an opportunity of sharing in the glory of publicly subscribing to the funds of those parties? The advantages of a Bill like this are obvious. Why should not the Conservative and Liberal working men who are now, as we are told, held in bondage by the Labour party participate in the honour and glory? Why should not their names appear on the subscription lists along with such illustrious beings as Members of the Upper House and the common or garden aldermen in our town and city councils. Every opportunity therefore should be given them to show that they were recognised. These working men should be in a position to hand down this record to posterity and to show their children and their children's children that they have, subscribed, if only to the extent of 6d_ or is., in order to stem the alleged devastating tide of Socialism which is supposed to be spreading itself all over the private enterprise of the British Empire—upon which the sun never sets and in which the tax collector never sleeps. Just think for a moment of the glory and the "kudos" of the Liberal

1923
working man's name appearing in a subscription list to help to pay the forfeit of Liberal candidates in moral victories where many are called but very few, if any are chosen—all for a nimble 6d. or 1s. a year. Bat why go on? [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] It is dirt cheap at the price. If there is any truth in the statement that these men are burning with the desire to subscribe to the Liberal and Tory parties, then they should welcome the opportunity of having the fact placed on public record.
Bill ordered to be brought in by M.r. Sexton, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Riley, Mr. Ammon, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Lees Smith and Mr. Dunnico.

POLITICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (PUBLICATION) BILL,
"to compel the publication by all political parties, organisations and associations of income and expenditure duly certified and audited by chartered or incorporated accountants," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL.
Mr. GOSLING: I beg to move,
"That, leave be given to introduce a Bill to confer powers on the Imperial War Graves Commission with respect to the erection of a memorial to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine who perished in the late War."
The object of the Bill is to enable the Imperial War Graves Commission to use a site on Great Tower Hill for a memorial to those members of the British merchant service who were "missing" in the late War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!") Some 12,000 officers and men of this service, many of them from the Dominions overseas, lost their lives at sea through enemy action, and have no graves but the sea. They can only in this way be individually commemorated. The Royal Navy have their memorials at Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham, which were finished three years ago. No corresponding national tribute has as yet been paid to the "missing" of the merchant service, who, by their gallantry and self-
1924
sacrifice did their part in maintaining the food supplies and commerce of the Empire. The public demand, that this task should be undertaken, is widespread and pressing. The Commission, after consulting the various organisations interested in the welfare of merchant seamen, and after considering many different suggestions as to the form the memorial should take, have found that the most generally acceptable solution is the erection of a monument on some prominent site in London. A design has been prepared by Sir Edwin Lutyens, R.A. The governing consideration in the design has been to provide, in a beautiful setting, space on which each of the 12,000 names can be individually inscribed, as in the case of the naval and military memorials to the "missing," and in such a way that they may be easily read by the relatives and the public generally. The entire cost of building the momorial, and of maintaining it afterwards, will be met from the Commission's own funds, and it is noteworthy that the Governments of the Dominions overseas, as well as that of the United Kingdom, contribute to those funds and are thus in a. practical sense associated with the object for which this Act is sought.
The site which has been chosen, in the garden on Tower Hill, is regarded as eminently suitable for such a purpose no less from its proximity to London's shipping than from its comparative quiet. The land is Crown Land, but under an old Statute of 1797, the management of the garden is exercised by a body of trustees, representative of the Corporation of Trinity House and of the Port of London Authority as well as of other occupiers of houses and premises abutting on Tower Hill, who with these occupiers enjoy the right to use the garden under the provisions of the Act in question. The memorial will have separate entrances direct from the public footway which skirts the garden, so as to enable members of the public to have free access to the memorial during the day time without interfering with the users of the garden. The Tower Hill Trustees have approved the design and have agreed, on certain conditions accepted by the Commission, not to oppose the grant of Parliamentary powers to enable the memorial to be built but they have no

1925
power effectively to sanction the building unless an Act of Parliament is obtained. The Commissioners of Crown Lands have likewise agreed not to oppose a Bill, and the First Commissioner of Works has approved the scheme so far as his Department is concerned. Other authorities who have expressed assent are the Council of the Borough of Stepney—the site being just within the borough boundary—and the Lord Mayor of London. The London County Council are not thought to have any special interests involved, but were informed some time ago of the scheme and have raised no objection. The Commission are not aware of any opposition or likelihood of opposition from any quarter. This I feel is a Bill, the object of which is far above party. It has far-reaching support both in this country and in the Dominions.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gosling, the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George.

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL,
"to confer powers on the Imperial War Graves Commission with respect to the erection of a Memorial to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine who perished in the late War," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, 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, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is based upon the Report of the Food Council, which has for many months been in the hands of Members. That Report represents an exhaustive inquiry extending over four months, and a very illuminating Report it is. I think the thanks of all Members of the House are due to the Food Council for the work which they have put in on this Report. This Bill is, in effect, an amplification and a development of the existing law. As far back as 1878 the Weights and Measures Act was passed, which enacted that it should be a penal offence if there was fraud in the use of weighing or measuring instruments. The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, similarly made penal a false trade description, and a false trade description was defined to include an indication of number, quantity, weight, or measure. The Sale of Tea Act, 1922, which is now on the Statute Book, and which perpetuated Orders which had been in force for some years previously, already provides that tea may only be sold by net weight and in fixed quantities. In the same way, the Sale of Food Order, 1921, again carrying on what by Order had been law for four or five years before that, applies similar provisions with regard to bread. In Scotland, the law has gone somewhat further than in England. I do not know whether it is that the Scottish are more vigilant, but in 1892 Scotland obtained the Burgh Police Act, the object of which was to enable local authorities to prosecute in cases of wrong weight, and that general Scottish Act has been reinforced in Scotland, by local Acts, in the cases of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and several other big municipalities, giving them special powers.
  But these Measures, general or particular, have failed to achieve their object. A prosecution under the Weights and Measures Act can only succeed
  1944
  where an inspector actually sees the weighing take-place and can prove that there has been fraud, and in the same way, even in the local Scottish Acts, except, I think, the Edinburgh Act, deliberate fraud has got to be proved, and thus it has come about that the purpose of the old legislation is not effected. There is an enormous Volume of evidence, coming from local authorities all over the country, from inspectors of weights and measures, and from many others, which establishes the need for further protection of the public. The Food Council, in their Report, very properly draw attention to the fact that what is needed is not to prevent any general perpetration of fraud or short weight—they are careful to say that this is not a general practice—but that what is needed is that the consumer should be protected against the fraudulent or the careless trader, who is certainly the exception and not the rule. They say, in paragraph 10 of their Report:
  "We do not in the least desire to suggest that the giving of short weight and measure is generally prevalent in the retail trade of the country, or to overrate the extent to which the practice prevails. It is, on the other hand, equally desirable, both from the point of view of the consumer and from that of the honest trader, not to underrate the opportunity which the absence of adequate protection affords for giving short weight and measure, or the extent to which some traders, as shown by the detailed evidence before us, take advantage of these opportunities."
  If I might sum up in a word, what it is sought to do by this Bill is not to make any novel and revolutionary change, but to standardise, in common and staple articles of food, what is the established practice of sound traders throughout the country. The evidence which has been adduced shows the need, in the interests of both the trader and the consumer, of further legislation. I could multiply examples, but I will take just two. In Glasgow (where there have been special powers) over a period of five years, 23,000 tests were made, out of which 3,600 cases of short weight were found. I will not stigmatise Scotland, but I will come to England. In the Metropolitan district of Essex, out of 63 cases where samples of milk were taken, there were 45 cases of deficiency. And instances are given—they are within the common knowledge of Members of this House—of meat, bacon, and butter where

  1945
  there is short weight and where there are mistakes not only in weight but also in price. This appeal for further legislation comes to us with an irresistible chain of authority behind it. It is backed by the County Councils' Association, it is backed by the Association of Municipal Corporations, it is backed by the London County Council, by the Middlesex County Council, and by many other local authorities, individually and collectively. Moreover, there is a precedent for it in, I think, every one of our Dominions. I think in every single Dominion legislation of the kind which I am submitting to-day has been in force for some time, and similar legislation is also in force in the United States of America.
  But it is not only that the representations in favour of this legislation come to us from every local authority which has studied the matter, but the views expressed by the local authorities and the Food Council in regard to their inquiries are endorsed by a large number of representative trade associations in the different trades. They are seeking protection as much as the consumer. The Association of Multiple Shop Proprietors are entirely in favour of these proposals in this Bill, and join with the London County Council in backing the proposals which the Food Council have put forward. The Scottish Federation of Grocers and Provision Merchants, who represent, I understand, 70 per cent. of the grocers in Scotland, are in support of this Measure, the National Federation of Meat Traders supported it in their evidence, and the National Federation of Dairymen's Associations supported it, and they all supported it because what is sought to be done is to make the backslider, who is, I believe, rare, conform to the sound standard practice. I may say that the Co-operative Societies are also heartily in favour of the proposal. Therefore, I think it is not too much to say that the case for legislation of this kind is established by general consent.
  The Clauses in the Bill are all based on recommendations of the Food Council, and I think the most convenient course will be if I take the House shortly through the provisions of the Bill to indicate their effect and explain certain Amendments which I shall have to propose in Committee as the result of
  1946
  further close discussion with the trades affected and with the Food Council, on all of which I think I may say the Food Council are in general agreement. Clause 1 of the Bill lays down the obvious proposition that, if you sell by weight, measure or number, you shall deliver what you purport to sell. The recommendation to that effect is in paragraph 15 of the Food Council's Report. That provision at once raises the question of whether this Bill should be made to apply to the wholesale trade as well as to the retail trade. Practically all the evidence which was brought forward was evidence with regard to retail trade and retail transactions and the whole of the recommendations which are made are in the interests of the individual consumer and have regard to the transactions by the individual consumer. It is true that in paragraph 54 of the Report there is a tentative recommendation that the wholesale trade should be included, but I think I shall do no injustice to the Food Council when I say that it is but tentative, for they themselves say that the ease of the wholesale trade was not at all exhaustively considered. Pre-packed articles stand on an entirely different footing from the ordinary whole-sale transaction. A pre-packed article is, in the nature of the case, prepared, wherever it is manufactured, ready for retail sale, and, therefore, in dealing with pre-packed articles, we have an entirely different set of propositions to deal with, as compared with where we are dealing with ordinary wholesale transactions.
  I certainly should not propose to exclude pre-packed articles from the scope of the Bill, but I think consideration will show that there are almost insuperable difficulties in applying the Bill to the wholesale trade generally. Let me take, for example, the position of the farmer. The farmer says, with reason: "You may legislate to bind me, and bind me strictly, so long as goods are on my premises and under my own control," but in the course of his business the farmer—and in the term "the farmer" I include the market gardener—consigns his goods by common carrier and parts with possession of them, so that he no longer has any control over them. They pass into the hands of an agent or salesman in the market. The farmer then has no control over his goods, and he cannot prevent some petty larceny

  1947
  occurring or, possibly—such things may occur—some agent breaking a parcel, altering it, and making up deficiencies in one parcel out of another.
  I submit, therefore, that it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to subject the agriculturist to a penal enactment in respect of transactions which, in the nature of the case, are really outside his control. We come again to the big wholesale exchanges. On the big wholesale exchanges business is conducted in accordance with recognised rules, and, therefore, there is no need and no justification for a further interference. Moreover, there is on the exchanges a regular practice of meeting deficiencies in quantities by adjustments of price. That is a recognised trade practice. Moreover, the dealings between retailer and wholesaler raise a totally different case from the dealings between retailer and individual buyers who go into the shop. The retailer is dealing on a relatively lower scale than the wholesaler, who is dealing not in a domestic transaction but in a recognised course of business. He is in a much better position to pursue his civil remedy in law than is the ordinary purchaser who goes into a shop. There is also, as I have pointed out, the regular practice of adjusting deficiency by price; and, finally, if a retailer is dissatisfied with the treatment which is meted out to him by the wholesaler, he can change his wholesaler, and deal with a different firm. Therefore, I suggest that the balance of equity and convenience undoubtedly lies in limiting the operation of this Bill to retail transactions.
  With regard to the Amendments which I am going to outline to-day, I think it is convenient that I should at the earliest possible moment explain what the Amendments are which I shall propose. As soon as the Bill receives a Second Reading, these Amendments will be put on the Order Paper, so that they may be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. Clause 2 provides that
  "A statement as to the weight or measure of a pre-packed article of food"—
  which is defined in Clause 14—
  "shall be deemed to be a statement as to the net weight or measure thereof unless otherwise specified"
  That provision, Members will appreciate, is necessary to the general scheme of the
  1948
  Bill. Clause 3 provides that there shall be no misrepresentation by word of mouth or otherwise. Clause 4 is a most important Clause. It provides that the articles of food which are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill must be sold by net weight, and the articles referred to are provisions and groceries which are universally and by common practice sold by weight. Hon. Members will find the recommendations in regard to that in paragraph 24 of the Report, and the preceding paragraph. As the result of the discussions to which I have referred, I propose to table two sets of Amendments which, I think, will prevent the provisions of the Bill from interfering with the regular and convenient trade practice, and will facilitate its working without any detriment to its effect and to its purpose. In the first place, the grocers have represented, quite reasonably, that in the ordinary course of trade they use paper in some cases, and paper bags in other cases, in which they weigh out the commodities which they are selling, and they say that in order that their business may be rapidly transacted, that practice ought not to be unreasonably restricted. I quite agree with them. The Food Council recommended that it should be made clear that the use of a counterweight—a piece of paper of the same weight as that used—put on the weighing pan of the scales is permissible. I am advised that that is permissible as the law now stands, and therefore, it would not be right to insert a provision to that effect in the Bill. But merely to confirm the law would not meet the difficulty. In the first place, many of the most recent types of scales would not admit of it—I refer to the automatic type. In addition to that, even where you can use a counter-weight, it is said, and I think with reason, that to make every transaction depend upon that would lead to delay and mistakes, and a good deal of waste of time and material, and I think that is reasonable.
  What do we Want to insist upon in this legislation? We want to get fair and accurate delivery, but to interfere as little as possible with reasonable and rapid business practice. I should like at once to acknowledge the great assistance which the Board of Trade have received from the Scottish Federation of

  1949
  Grocers' and Provision Merchants' Associations who devoted a great deal of time and trouble to devising what is the most practical means of treating this admitted difficulty, while retaining the essential provisions of the Bill. After exhaustive experiments, they submitted a proposal to the Board of Trade, which I propose to endorse and embody in the Bill. They say, in communicating it to me:
  "How to overcome this difficulty and at the same time not to take away the value of the Bill has caused this Federation much thought, and many experiments have been made to find a way out of the difficulty. After most careful consideration and practical demonstration we have arrived at a solution which we hope will be acceptable to you and which we feel can be made acceptable to the trade, while at the same time it provides ample safeguards for the public. We suggest that an article shall be deemed to be of nett weight provided that in the case of provisions the wrapper weighed with the goods does not exceed one-hundredth part of the gross weight of the package, and that in the case of other goods when the wrapper or container weighed with the goods does not exceed one-sixtieth part of the gross weight of the package. It is felt that by adopting this suggestion most of the opposition to the Bill will disappear. Careful experiments have been made, and we have no hesitation in stating that our suggestion is practical. The proportion of weight which we suggest should be allowed is exceedingly small, and the public will have no cause for complaint."
  I do not propose to do it by percentage, but by actual weight of drams, which I am advised is more convenient. I have received communications from a number of district associations of grocers in various parts of England—hon. Members probably have had the same experience in their districts—who regard this as the most practical and convenient way out, and I am quite sure it would appeal to the commonsense of any practical man that a simple scheme of this kind is far preferable to a suggestion once thrown out, that people should be allowed to sell a "reasonable" amount of paper as net weight, or to have some enormously complicated schedule of weights which would vary with each kind of article. It is only right to say that those who make the papers concerned have been ready to come forward and meet the general convenience. I received only a few days ago a communication from the Association who represent the makers of these papers, to say that they are quite
  1950
  prepared to endorse and accept this proposal in the general interests of trade and the consumer.
  The Amendment which I, therefore, propose to table in order to give effect to this recommendation is as follows. I propose that we should permit tare on paper at the rate of 2½ drams per pound for bacon, ham, butter, lard, suet and margarine, and at the rate of 4½ drams per pound for the other articles which are set out in the Schedule, with the exception of tea, coffee, cocoa, chocolate and potatoes, in respect of which no difficulty really arises. Broadly speaking, the lower weight is where the article is weighed with a piece of paper, and the higher where it is the common practice to sell with a bag.
  Mr. G. HARVEY: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the word "reasonable" as being in doubt, but in Subsection (2) of Clause 13, the word "reasonable" is used.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The word "reasonable" may be reasonable in one case, but not in another. I think anybody would agree that to leave it absolutely at large for any Court to decide what in any given circumstances was a reasonable weight of paper would be far more injurious to a trader than to give him a perfectly definite weight to work to which is known to him and in common use, and that is the considered view of the Scottish Association. Provided those weights are not exceeded, traders will be deemed to have complied with the requirements of the Act.
  Mr. STORRY DEANS: How does that compare with the proposal of the Scottish Federation?
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It exactly follows the proportion given by the Scottish Federation, with the exception that where they suggested 1·66 I am allowing 1·75. That is just a fractional point of 1 per cent. more. Then I propose to ask the House in Committee to make one other Amendment.
  Mr. HARNEY: What about proviso 1?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The proviso, of course, will have to come out if we confine the Bill, as I propose to do,

  1951
  to retail trade. The other Amendment I propose is in Sub-section (2), which lays it down that prepared articles must be sold in certain defined amounts. Investigations have shown that the defined amounts which are proposed do not cover all the variations which are used in practice with regard to pre-packed articles, and therefore I propose to table an Amendment which will allow a greater variety, and which will include all the packages which are commonly in use at present. While giving a greater variety it does not alter the provision with regard to net weight, because the House will see that there is still to be an indication of the net weight. The Amendment which I propose will cover all the trades which are conducted on that basis. There is just one other matter.
  Sir FREDRIC WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Amendment?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am going to table it to-night. What it will do will be to allow amounts which, as the Bill is at present framed, have to be sold in quantities of two ounces, four ounces, eight ounces, twelve ounces, one pound, or multiples of one pound, to be sold in quantities of two ounces, four ounces, six ounces, eight ounces, twelve ounces, one pound, one pound and a quarter, one pound and a half, one pound and three-quarters, two pounds, two pounds and a quarter, and so on, up to four pounds, and over four pounds by the pound.
  Sir F. WISE: That is complicated.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I agree it is rather complicated, but it is necessary that people who sell pre-packed articles in these multiples shall be free to do so. I do not want to complicate things, but to help the trader. It has been represented that there are manufacturers of certain types of pre-packed articles who will have to change their practice if I do not make this Amendment.
  Mr. HARNEY: What effect will that have on foreign imports in sizes which are outside those proposed? Does any liability attach to them?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This is a domestic Act, and covers any trade here.
  1952
  I can assure my hon. Friends that there will be no preference given to the foreigner over the Britisher.
  Mr. HARVEY: Nothing can be received from abroad except it is specified to us?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is so in one way, but what this Amendment will do will be to cover all the types of carton which are at present in use. If someone wants to send foreign pre-packed articles into this country no doubt he will have to conform to our domestic legislation. Surely that is only right and reasonable.
  Sir WILLIAM PERRING: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that you cannot plead warranty in respect of goods which come from outside the United Kingdom. When we are dealing with the Dominions will that apply to the pre-packed articles, which bear a warranty up to 2 lbs.?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would be better that we should deal with these technical questions, such as the question of warranty, when we come to the Committee stage, but substantially the position is this. The Second Schedule applies the defence of warranty in the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts to transactions of this kind. Of course it is true that we cannot proceed crimiNally against somebody who is outside the jurisdiction. We give to the retailer a defence of warranty in any ease where warranty has been given by any person who is in that jurisdiction.
  Sir ROBERT BIRD: To go back to the proposed Amendment, I understand it covers the sale of pre-packed articles in quantities of 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 ozs., 1 lb., and multiples of 1 lb. So far as I can see the only difference in the Amendment from the Sub-section as it stands in the Bill is it permits the sale of those articles in quantities of 6 ozs.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend did not realise that I went on to speak of 1¼ lbs.,1½ lbs., and 1¾ 1bs., but I think that could be considered in Committee. I am sure the House will agree that we had better not anticipate the Debate on the Committee stage on a number of details. I thought it was right, however, that I should give to the House at the first possible moment the

  1953
  broad and important Amendments which I propose to make. I propose to table those Amendments to-night so that hon. Members will see them on the Paper tomorrow before we go into Committee on Thursday and, if my hon. Friend wants to move art Amendment to my Amendment, I do not promise him to accept it, but it is open to him or any hon. Members to move it.
  There is one other matter I want to mention. I am going to ask the House to exclude cheese for the time being from the First Schedule. The reason for that is this. It is quite possible to point to certain types of cheeses and to say that they ought to be included and to point to other types of cheeses—fresh cheese which is subject to great evaporation—which obviously ought to be excluded. But it is one thing to take, on the one hand, a cheese which should plainly be included and on the other one which should be excluded, and it is quite another to draw a dividing line or make a definition. We ought not to put an article into this Schedule unless we are certain not only that we can get a satisfactory definition but that every trader, big or small, who is dealing in those articles will know exactly where he stands. It was suggested to me from the other side of the House that we should distinguish between pre-packed cheeses and other cheeses—that pre-packed cheeses should be exempt and that other cheeses should be subject to the obligations of this Bill. But I am sure that that would not be a sound distinction. There are many pre-packed cheeses which compete directly with non-pre-packed cheeses made in this country, and which, undoubtedly, ought to be included if we include cheeses at all. The only effect of excluding pre-packed cheeses would be to give them a preference—they are very often foreign articles—over the article which is not packed. That is not a satisfactory solution, and it is not what is desirable. What is desirable is to define cheeses in such a way that every trader will be able to appreciate the sort of cheese which under the Bill ought to he excluded. Therefore, I am going to ask the House to leave cheese out of this Measure until we are satisfied it can be brought in fairly and in a way which every trader will be able to understand.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend that to other articles which are well known to be subject to evaporation?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The only other article in the Bill which requires consideration in respect to evaporation is meat.
  Mr. G. HARVEY: Imported meat?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not going to embark on any unnecessary controversy.
  Sir H. NIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman include sultanas?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, not the best sultanas. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should buy Empire sultanas. I do not think there is any necessity to take any other articles out of the schedule. Clause 5 provides that butchers' meat must be sold by net weight and also that a legible statement of the net weight must be delivered with the meat. That is paragraph 31 of the Report of the Food Council and the Federation of Meat Trades state in their evidence that that was merely enforcing what every reasonable butcher would carry out today as a matter of course.
  Mr. HARVEY: There may be delay in delivery. There is such a thing as evaporation during the delay. Will the weight be the weight at the time of purchase or at the time of delivery?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In that case the butcher has his remedy quite plainly. He delivers a certain weight which is paid for. There is sold by a butcher a certain weight and at the time of that sale the purchaser states that he requires the meat in a few days and the butcher undertakes to send it to him. In that case the butcher clearly has a remedy. All he has got to do is to put on the weight when the thing is sold and if evaporation does take place—I think the question of evaporation is a great deal exaggerated—let him weigh the article again before he delivers it and add to his note that the weight at the time of contracted delivery was so much. There is however the case of boned meat where it is necessary to provide a safeguard and that safeguard I propose to give in an Amendment that there should be two weights given.

  1955
  We are continuing the provisions of the Sale of Bread Order which has been in force since 1917, and I do not think there will be any dispute about that. Every successive Government has pledged itself to continue the Sale of Food Orders dealing with bread by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act until specific legislation could be introduced. It has been a matter of common agreement on all sides that at the earliest possible moment that legislation should be made permanent.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: How can the loaf be made an exact weight?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I hope hon. Members will allow the Minister to make his speech without raising points which are, in essence Committee points.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no difficulty in making a loaf of the exact weight. For the last 10 years every baker in the United Kingdom has been compelled so to do under an Order in Council. The hon. Member will see that, in dealing with cases like that of loaves of bread, we do not take isolated instances, and that before a man is prosecuted it will have to be shown that he has gone wrong in a number of cases. I do not think we need waste time over bread. All I am doing here is to keep the law where it has been for the last 10 years, by common consent. Milk is to be sold in half-pints or multiples of half-pints, and here again, the trade agreed that it is a very reasonable practice.
  Clause 8 exempts petty sales, that is, penny sales or sales of under 2 ozs. Clause 9 gives power to the Board of Trade to make Regulations, and there I propose to submit an Amendment. The Food Council recommended that the Board of Trade should have power by Regulations to add to or to subtract from the articles in the lists. I do not think an article ought to be added to the Schedule or taken out of the Schedule without a positive Resolution of Parliament, and I, therefore, propose to table an Amendment to provide that in the case of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—that is, where the effect of a Regulation would be to bring within the purview of the Bill an article which is now outside it, or to take out of the Bill an article which the House has decided shall be put in it—
  1956
  such a decision shall only be operative where there has been a positive Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I propose to limit the ordinary power to make Regulations to purely administrative Regulations, where we are simply carrying out the general instructions laid down in the Bill.
  With Clause 10 1 need not trouble the House, because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture does not propose to proceed with it, if the Bill is limited to retail sales. Clause 11 gives inspectors of weights and measures the usual powers of inspection and entry—purely the powers under the Weights and Measures Act, 1878. Clause 12, the Penalty Clause, is in line with the ordinary provisions of such Clauses. Clause 13 provides a number of safeguards to traders and will cover the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), providing that when dealing with bread or pre-packed articles one must not take a single instance but take a number of articles and see whether on the average full weight is given. It deals with cases of bona fide mistakes, with the question of responsibility as between master and servant, with shrinkage in the weight of meat, and with provisions as to warranty. The First Schedule sets out articles which are required to be sold by weight. The Second Schedule applies the provisions of the Sale of Ford and Drugs Acts, which established warranty as a defence, and provided penalties for giving a false warranty. The Third Schedule provides for the consequential repeal of existing Statutes.
  I think that, with the Amendments which I have indicated, this Bill will command general agreement. The discussions which have taken place since the Bill was first introduced have enabled us to improve it and to make it more, convenient for traders without sacrificing any question of principle or any interest of the consumer. I would only add that I think it is important that where one has. as is the case here, a very strong demand for strengthening the existing provisions of the law we should not hesitate to strengthen them, but we should be careful to do so in the manner which is most practical and convenient and consonant with the ordinary reputable trade practices of the day,

  1957
  provided that we do not thereby sacrifice any of the necessities of the case; and I submit that if the Committee assent to the Amendments I propose, the Bill, as it emerges from Committee, will safeguard the interests of the consumer and the trader without interfering unreasonably with any existing trade practices.
  Mr. WEBB: I think the House will congratulate itself on having at last got this Bill, and will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having surmounted so many difficulties. Heartily do I congratulate the Department which has worked under him and which has had this thing in hand for I do not know how many years. Before the War it was on the stocks—but we do not count the War. Ever since the Armistice, that is to say, for eight years, the Department has been striving to get a Measure which would satisfy the needs and provide all the safeguards which are required. It has been a very difficult task, and at first sight I am inclined to say the Bill represents far and away the best draft that has ever appeared, but I think the House is entitled to complain a little at having such a very complicated Bill, and a Bill which has given rise to controversy on one side and the other, presented for Second Reading eight days, or thereabouts, before the Prorogation. In spite of the fact that it has already passed through another place, it will be extraordinarily difficult to get the Bill made into law before the close of the Session, and I hope all Members who care for the object the Bill seeks to attain will do their best to get it passed. The prospect of its failing from sheer lack of time fills me with dismay, and we ought to make every effort to avoid any attempt to wreck the Bill this Session either by too much discussion or by too ingenious Amendments. Still, I cannot help feeling a little sorry that as this Bill was prepared so long ago it was not presented to the other place at an earlier date, and that at the last moment we are still to have a number of Amendments. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not cause those Amendments to be introduced in another place, because the fact that they have to be brought forward now will add greatly to the danger of the Measure not being passed at all.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When the Bill was under consideration in another
  1958
  place I had not received from the Food Council the representations which made the Amendments necessary.
  Mr. WEBB: I withdraw any criticism of the right hon. Gentleman himself, but we may express our criticisms of the Government machine as a whole. I do not want to anticipate the Committee stage but we shall have to consider very carefully the scope of the exceptions and the retreats which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make in response to the very legitimate demands of a number of sections. There is a very valuable victory for honesty and common sense in the previous legislation insisting that an article which is stated to be a pound in weight shall weigh one pound not weight. That was applied to the ease of tea. This provision would be required mostly for pro-packed articles, and I should be very sorry if the right hon. Gentleman were to go back in any way upon that decision of the House, which has been thoroughly successful.
  I can quite understand that when selling butter or wet things over the counter there may be an objection to dumping them down on the bare pan of the scales, and that it is difficult to avoid weighing in paper with the article, but I should not have thought that made it necessary to depart from the principle of net weight, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has done it. We cannot discuss his reasons, but he must have had good reasons. There is an allowance of 2½drams in respect of these cases, and it seems to me that there is that much departure from principle. With the old-fashioned balance it was quite easy to even things up by putting a piece of paper in each pan of the scales. I admit that that cannot apply to the automatic balances, but we have long required the trader to see that the 4 lb. loaf of bread is of full weight and he has overcome the difficulty of guaranteeing that each loaf shall weigh 4 lb. by adding a little more in order to be sire of giving 4 1b. Therefore, I cannot see why, when weighing out sultana raisins or oatmeal into a bag, he cannot estimate the weight of the bag and give that little bit more that will be required to ensure that it is 1 lb. net weight. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen what is the easier course, but I do not see why he should extend an extremely dangerous exception

  1959
  or privilege to the pre-packed article. When the pre-packed article is called a pound surely it ought to weigh a pound. There is not the same difficulty there about introducing something between the article and the pan of the scales, and I do not see why the packet should not be made up net weight. The right hon. Gentleman has still to convince me that he should apply his exceptions to the pre-packed articles sold by the retailer.
  I do not want to go into other Committee points, but there is one general observation which it is fair to make. Whilst, on the one hand, this Bill will protect the consumer, and will protect also the honest trader against the dishonest trader, at the same time nobody wishes to make life impossible for the small shopkeeper, who has not the same facilities as the large multiple shop or the co-operative society. We do not want to impose anything too onerous upon him, and the Bill will have to be looked at from that point of view. Here I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that the right hon. Gentleman is confining the provisions of this Bill entirely to the retail trade. He is not offering the small retailer any protection against certain malpractices, misrepresentations, and may be fraud, of the wholesale firm which the ordinary retailer can protect himself against. The small village shopkeeper has not any particular choice, and he is very largely in the hands of one wholesale trader. I think something might be done to protect the small trader against the possible malpractices of the wholesaler. There is the practice, for example, of selling articles in bags purporting to contain a cwt., but which, when examined, do not contain anything like one cwt., and the retailer has either to get an allowance to cover the short weight, or else he is expected to pass on the fraud by giving short weight to his customers. While we ought to do everything we can to protect the customers, we ought not to shut our eyes to the fact that the retailer suffers very much from the practices of the unscrupulous or careless wholesaler.
  I do not know how far that requirement may be met by Clause 10, which enables the Minister of Agriculture to make Regulations for the purpose of prescribing units of sale, including the
  1960
  dimensions and materials of construction of standardised containers to be used in wholesale dealings in such agricultural and horticultural produce as may be specified in the Regulations. I think something may be done in that case. In my view, trade suffers very much in the aggregate from the variety of names used for selling the same article. We have got rid to some extent of the differences in the definition of such measures as a gallon, a hogshead, or a bushel, but we do not know what a bag means. It certainly is not uniform, and the retailer is apt to suffer from the variations. It is certainly a misrepresentation on the part of the wholesaler who says a bag contains 112 lbs. when he is supplying the customer with very much less than that weight. I hope this Bill will be given a prompt Second Reading so that we may get to a consideration of the Amendments, and I trust the House will not he led too far from the original simplicity of net weight. We ought carefully to consider what can be done to safeguard the petty retailer, who needs protection against the wholesaler, just as the consumer needs protection against the retailer.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I feel sure the House will rejoice to know that the President of the Board of Trade has proposed some drastic changes in this Bill, and to that extent he has anticipated the objection which many of us might have had to make. I am glad to notice that this Bill has not been inspired in any sort of war by any sort of feeling that short weight is practiced in the grocery trade, and that there has been no suggestion of that. The honesty of the grocery trade hits not been called into question in any way. Last night I had the pleasure of meeting a deputation of the grocers in my constituency and I was very much struck with the fact that they were all extremely anxious to take every possible step to prevent short weight in their trade. As they very truly said, their trade depends upon goodwill, and it never pays a grocer to resort to short weight, because, if he does it once or twice, he loses his customers, and competition is too keen to make that possible. I was hoping the President of the Board of Trade would have done something more than he is proposing with regard to standard weight. I understand

  1961
  that it is the desire of the Grocers' Federation to have a standard weight of paper—
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is exactly what I have done. I have given two standard weights which, I am sure, is the easiest thing. The exact standard weights are what has been recommended by the Scottish Federation, and that means one standard weight for the article weighed on the bit of paper and another for the article in a bag. If the hon. Member for Accrington will get the grocers to agree to that, I think it is far better to have those two standard weights than to have an infinite variety.
  Mr. EDWARDS: The statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is far more lucid than the one he made when he introduced this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Webb) made a very illuminating speech but we were unable to understand what he was really saying, and I hope that the next time he speaks he will turn occasioNally in our direction so that we may have the benefit of his wisdom. I was quite satisfied with the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade, and inasmuch as his proposals really represent an acquiescence of the demands of the grocery trade I think the right hon. Gentleman has done very well, and I shall be quite prepared to support him.
  Mr. HARVEY: I do not know whether I shall be in order in referring to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, to commit this Bill to a Select Committee.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be perfectly in order.
  Mr. HARVEY: I would like to say that under no circumstances whatever would I, or any of my hon. Friends, be a party to any subterfuge or trickery in business, and no Member of this House is more averse to trickery in business than I am. There are means of dealing with trickery in the present law in the shape of the Merchandise Marks Acts and various Weights and Measures Acts as they stand at the present time. I would like to give the following quotation from paragraph 4 of the Report of the Select Committee which sat in 1914:
  1962
  "The Committee are of opinion that some grounds exist for allegations of short weight on the part of sellers, but on the whole the retail trade of the country is honestly conducted."
  The Royal Commission on Food Prices followed that up in 1925 by saying: that they did not bring any general accusation of dishonest trading or profiteering and the recent Report of the Food Council endorses this statement in practically the same strain. This, at any rate, is a good beginning. Another passage of the Report of the Select Committee of 1914 contains the following words:
  "It is largely a matter of custom and convenience whether goods are sold at gross weight or net, by piece or by package, and there appears to be no adequate ground for interference with these methods except in certain cases."
  The Food Council, who are the originators of this Bill, is the outcome of the Royal Commission on Food Prices, and this Commission issued its Report only last year, In the Majority Report which they issued they evidently set out with a determination to create a Food Council, and they recommended that it should be composed of 12 members with a paid chairman. I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade the other day, in which I asked what was the cost of maintaining the Food Council, and I was told it was £2,613 per annum. In the Minority Report of the Royal Commission over the signature of Mr. T. H. Ryland, it was suggested that there was the old Department in existence called the Ministry of I wonder if this Department is still in existence, because Mr. Ryland in his Minority Report said that he gathered that his colleagues were anxious to continue that Department under a new name with spreading wings.
  Under this Bill it is now proposed to proclaim small grocers and butchers as dishonest traders and to police them accordingly. Every item in these proposals seems to indicate that these are people that want watching, and I think that is distinctly unfair because it does not accord in any way with the statements that have been made by the various Committees. That is my reason for suggesting that these matters should be referred to a Select Committee. A Select Committee of the House of Commons seems to me to be the only kind of Committee that is competent to

  1963
  consider this matter in all its bearings. Even a Standing Committee of the House upstairs is not quite appropriate, and with all due deference to the suggestion that is now being made, I think that a Committee of the whole House is the most inappropriate way of dealing with this Bill. In a Committee of the whole House only one thing can happen. It is not a question of hon. Members considering the various Amendments and aspects of the subject to be brought up, but it is simply a question of what the Whips will do in the Division Lobby. My feeling is that the composition of the Council as it stands does not inspire confidence. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single person on that Council who can be described as having any practical experience of the subject with which he is dealing. You will have to have a considerably larger number of inspectors to carry this into effect, and if they are to justify their position, their policy must be to initiate cases to prove to their superiors that they are doing their duty.
  Another item in regard to this Bill is that seven days' delay may take place between the time when a defendant may be informed that proceedings are going to be taken against him. I need not say that in the food trade that is quite impossible and is not just, and I think that some amendment ought to be made to that when the Bill goes through its various stages. The principle of net weight, in itself, is not a practical proposition without extra scales and extra staff, though the counterpoise, I understand, has been done away with. A great number of the scales in use at the present time are automatic, and I believe that these scales, which are very expensive, will have to be considerably augmented. There are 26 articles in the Schedule, and power is given to add to their number.
  I was wondering this morning, when I was looking through the Schedule, if there was any idea of adding 50 per cent. to it, so that it would become comparable with the Articles of Faith. I wonder, too, if it is asserted that the public are going to benefit from this Bill. My feeling is that the public will not benefit from it but will eventually suffer by it. The percentage in the grocery trade that is obtained on turnover at the present time is, as a general rule, approxi-
  1964
  mately 15 per cent., and such things as sugar are sold at a loss. Grocers as a class are not people who make money. They are not people who run about in Rofis Royce cars. They have no superfluous funds to use for any purpose whatever, and certainly they have no funds available for such latter-day luxuries as directors' fees. I saw in the paper this morning that the Board of Trade list of failures was issued yesterday. I had no time to see exactly how many grocers had failed, but I did hear that the number was considerable; I am sorry I did not take the trouble to look it up. When people talk about net weight and gross weight, the inference is that the grocery trade itself is making money that it ought not to make; no other inference can be drawn from it. The only people who can tell whether these people are making money or not are the Inspectors of Taxes, who have the net profits before them.
  This Bill is purely and simply an interference with trade, and it must mean a rise in prices, which the public eventually will have to pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Hugh Edwards) has said, there is very keen competition, and very expert supervision is necessary in order to make it pay at all, and there is no room at all for what are commonly called "duds."
  The other day I was considerably struck by a heading in an evening paper, "Butchers' Bloated Profits." It said that certain butchers were making a gross profit of 70 per cent., but when I analysed it I found that it referred to some solitary butcher—I do not know where he is—and that it was TO per cent. on his cost, and riot on his turnover, which is a vastly different thing. No doubt, however, it answered the purpose for which it was inserted. I took this reference in the paper to be a timely appearance, in view of the discussion that is taking place to-day. It has rather emphasised my point that the Food Council is essentially an amateurish body, and, if the matter were not so serious, statements of this description would he amusing.
  I should like to tell the House how such statements as this arise. There is issued in Smithfield Market what is called a Fair Retail Price List, and the man who compiles this is Mr. Milman,

  1965
  the superintendent of the market, a very accurate and clever man, who knows his business as superintendent thoroughly. The issue of these lists was deprecated by the Royal Commission on Food Prices, in paragraph 229 of their Report, as being very misleading, because there are so many varying qualities of meat that it was impossible to get down to any standard that was at all reliable. I have here a quotation from the Fair Retail Price List, which shows the prices from the lowest to the highest, the item quoted being topsides of Argentine beef. I have also a corresponding list that was issued by someone in connection with, or acting for, the Food Council. The Fair Retail Price List of the market said that reasonable prices were 10d., Is., and Is. 2d., according to cut, bone and waste being reckoned as 1 lb. I am prepared to pass over the question of bone and waste, though 1 lb. is not a fair allowance. I myself had it tested twice yesterday, and my own and the general experience of the trade is that it is not 1 lb., but 3 lbs.; the 1 lb. applies to the very best Scotch heifer beef. The Food Council, however, instead of putting down these prices, namely, 10d., 1s. and 1s. 2d., or even quoting the middle price, stated in their price list that the butcher was getting 1s. 2d. all round. This could riot have been actually a mistake, and, although I am very sorry to have to say it, it seems to me a little like sharp practice.
  If the House will permit me, I would like, in support of the Motion that stands in my name, to refer again to the Report of the Royal Commission. In paragraph 194, on page 82, dealing with certain shops, it takes the turnover of shops averaging £50 a week. It takes 27 such cases, and states that the gross profit of those shops, on the turnover, is 20 per cent., and the net profit 8 per cent. It should be noted, in dealing with small shops like this, that they are as a general rule proprietarily owned. The next paragraph, No. 195, refers to 86 returns, with a turnover of from £50 to £100 a week, and in those cases it is declared that the average net profit, on turnover, is 6·6 per cent., yielding an average annual income of about £260 a year, or £5 a week. The next paragraph refers to shops with a turnover Of between £100 and £200 per week, and it is stated that large numbers
  1966
  of the butchers in this country come within this category. it is there stated that the average net profit earned by private firms in this group is 5·7 per cent., giving an annual income of about £475. The last case I have to quote shows 37 returns taken haphazardly, properly certified, where it is stated that the net profit is just under 5 per cent.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not quite clear how the hon. Member connects this argument with the Bill. He appears to be arguing about fair prices and profits, whereas the Bill deals with the question of weights. Perhaps he can establish the connection.
  Mr. HARVEY: I rather expected you to ask me that question, Sir, but this Bill has been initiated by the Food Council, and I was endeavouring to prove that its intricacies are such that only by reference to a Select Committee could they he properly dealt with.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understood that the hon. Member was suggesting that the Food Council was not a good authority in the matter, but now he is quoting the Report of the Royal Commission, which is a different, matter.
  Mr. HARVEY: I had to refer to the Report of the Royal Commission, because it refutes the very statements that have been made by the Food Council. I have nearly finished, and, perhaps, I may be allowed to proceed for a moment or two. The Report also goes on to say, in Table 13, that the very highest profits made at any time were made by the Cooperative societies, which showed 23·1 per cent. gross profit, and 10·1 per cent. net There is one item which I think might be interesting, if I might be permitted to refer to it, and which was omitted from the Report of the Royal Commission, namely, that when a number of profits were tested in 1922 and in 1924, certified accounts showed 4·2 per cent. net profit in 1922 and 4·4 per cent. in 1924. These items agree with my own accountancy experience, and I only want to say that the statements which have appeared in the papers, suggesting that prices could be reduced by as much as 2d. per lb., are absolutely absurd when the average profit obtainable in any butcher s shop is somewhere in the region of ½d per lb. I will conclude by saying that in my opinion, and in the opinion of friends of mine who

  1967
  have studied this question in all its details, the Bill is absolutely and unqualifiedly unnecessary. If Departments of the Government cannot assist traders, I wish, and everyone wishes, that they would not hinder. Government Departments, as a rule, do not distinguish themselves for their business acumen. We preach economy, and we have it placarded in front of us at every turn, but we do not practise it. There is no profiteering in this particular trade, and the wholesale market treats this Bill with absolute contempt.
  6.0 P.M.
  The Food Council was never intended, when it was set up, to deal with complicated trade subjects such as net weight, because no member of the Council possesses any but superficial knowledge whatever of this subject, and they are incapable of carrying a Bill like this into reasonable effect. The whole Bill spells dislocation of trade. It puts into the hands of grand inquisitors trades which do not deserve to be so pilloried. There is only one thing for the ordinary trader to do eventually and that is to raise prices or quit. The Food Council's object when they started out was to justify itself. Small traders are evidently to be beaten by the official stick and pilloried for offences they have not committed and never had any intention to commit. I therefore desire to move in all sincerity, and in the interests of fair play, "That a Select Committee be appointed, composed of Members of all sides of this House, who can view without bias the position of trader and consumer alike.' The Whole House sitting in Committee cannot possibly deal with this subject.
  Sir H. NIELD: I do not rise to Second the Amendment.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A Motion for a Select Committee cannot be moved as an Amendment to the Second Reading.
  Sir H. NIELD: Precisely. That is why I was wondering my hon. Friend was called upon so early in the Debate to clear the, pitch as to where the Bill was to go. However my hon. Friend has made his speech. I think the Government ought to consider twice before they initiate this perfectly new legislation in the Autumn Session. Autumn Sessions were first used for the purpose only of clearing up business which could not be
  1968
  done during the normal session of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said in answer to criticism from the other side that the reason why certain proposals he intends to make by way of Amendment were not in the Bill before it left another place was that he had not received the Report of the Food Commission.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not say anything of the sort.
  Sir H. MELD: I apologise if I have unintentioNally misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly so understood him. However, whether that be so or not, the Bill was introduced on 10th November, and we are therefore having new legislation not included in His Majesty's speech at the opening of the session, and we are expected at very short notice to pass the Second Reading and, with an interval of only one day, to proceed with the Committee stage. The Government surely cannot be aware of the feeling of the country or they would not propose a Measure which is going to create great difficulties. Perhaps the concessions for-shadowed by the President of the Board of Trade will very largely meet the case of the grocers. He has taken the advice of the Scotch grocers but I am told, though I have no reason to advocate the claims of any particular trade, by the English grocers that they by no means meet the case as it presents itself to them. It is strange that the large Federation of Grocers in England and Wales should not have been consulted in order that we might endeavour to come to a basis which would have been more acceptable than the Bill. The Government must not suppose, because they introduce legislation, that it is of necessity such as could be accepted by the whole community,
  I understand the Select Committee of 1914 distinctly reported that there was no case of habitually selling under weight. Then comes the setting up of the Food Council charged with the duty of enquiring into the allegation of profiteering in food and leaving humanity nothing to do with the question of short weight. They also exonerate traders as a whole from dishonesty in that respect. It is the Food Council who, I understand, are the parents of this Bill. They are the persons who have induced the Government to take it up. They

  1969
  are persons who sat to deal with a totally different subject—profiteering. Of course profiteering is wrapped up in the question of short weight but it is a different subject from that we are engaged upon now, and although I have no knowledge and it would ill become me to make any reflection on the members of the Food Council, when you deal with technical matters of this sort you ought to take advice and not be moved to action by the conclusion of persons who meet together for another purpose. I am asked to indicate, on behalf of the grocers in my constituency, their sense of satisfaction with the Bill as it was up to the moment of the announcement of the proposals. It may be that by cutting out those articles which are supposed to be cut out in Clause 4 the point will be met which they raised, but there is one point to which I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that is the question of warranty. These smaller men who have to sell proprietary articles have no warranty at all unless it is expressly stated. I think anyone engaged in trade will appreciate the difficulty of getting written warranties from those who supply goods. The right hon. Gentleman will go a long way to mollify the grocers if he will provide in the Bill that an invoice indicating weight shall amount to a warranty and shall be so construed. They will then have a definite remedy and it will make the wholesaler far more careful in packing his goods than he probably is at present. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to that and put an Amendment on the Paper which will give that protection in any case, that an invoice qua invoice, indicating the weight on it, shall ipso facto be a warranty that that weight is correct. I do not propose to vote against the Bill because the Clause itself is sufficient justification.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Will my right hon. Friend look at paragraph 8 in the second Schedule:
  "For the purposes of the foregoing provisions a statement on any container or any wrapper, band or label affixed thereto or delivered therewith shall be deemed to be a written warranty."
  Sir H. NIELD: If the right hon. Gentleman will consult his advisers he will find that invoices stand in a totally different category. The words "which will contain the weight of the parcel
  1970
  sold" will not refer to the individual trader. I ask him to consider the point because, although apparently a small one, it is of enormous value to these traders who are obliged to take these packets and who perfectly honestly pass them on. The Bill deserves to pass for the first Clause only, because we all wish, by any means possible, to put down anything like systematic dishonesty. On the other hand, it is most desirable, particularly at this moment, that we should consider the difficulties of any part of the community.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: I think the last two speeches we have heard would have been much more in order on the Merchandise Marks Bill. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was seconding the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no Motion!"] It seemed to me it would have been much more honest to move to reject the Bill, because reference to a Select Committee would simply he to destroy it. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Harvey) made an attack on the Bill first of all from the point of view that it was injurious to trade, then he launched out into an attack upon the Food Council, then he made a complaint that the Government had left the question too late, and he finished up with a very spirited defence of the butchers, suggesting that there were no high profits made by them. I want to deal with one or two of those points. First of all, I gather the right hon. Gentleman said he thought the President of the Board of Trade had been misinformed as to the attitude of the English grocers.
  Sir H. NIELD: My observation was directed to this point, that he had consulted the Scottish grocers but did not appear to have given the same attention to the English.
  Mr. MORRISON: At any rate, I have received a letter to-day from the Tottenham Grocers' Alliance, which is affiliated with the Grocers' Federation, and the Greater London Council of Grocers' Association. They say they favour the adoption of net weight standards, but as it would be impracticable to carry out the principle, in common practice the Measure should be amended to allow the

  1971
  use of paper of a net proportion to the weight. They suggest that the wrapper weighed with the goods should not exceed one-hundredth part or one-sixtieth part of the gross weight.
  Sir H. NIELD: I congratulate the hon. Member. What Tottenham thinks to-day the world will think to-morrow.
  Mr. MORRISON: John Bright said adulteration is only another form of competition. He might have added that short weight was a form of competition and a very unfair form. No one will suggest in this Debate that shopkeepers give short weight as a general habit. There does not seem to be anything in the Bill to prevent the shopkeeper who earns his living honestly, as the overwhelming majority of them do, from sleeping soundly in his bed. The question we have to consider is whether the Bill will benefit the public. May I give an example in respect to the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who are the largest distributors of tea in the world? For many years they sold their tea net weight, as against all their competitors selling it by gross weight. That cost them £90,000 per annum. Had they followed the practice of most other shopkeepers and put the tea in the bag and then weighed it, they would have been £90,000 to the good every year. That figure applied some years ago. With the increased trade that they have to-day that costs them £400,000 per annum. This Bill is a somewhat timid extension of that some principle that the public are entitled to know what weight they are getting.
  I suggest that the frauds—I can show that there are frauds—that are taking place inflict greater hardship upon the poor than upon any other class, because the poor have to buy in small quantities and have no means of checking the weight of the goods they buy.
  Mr. HARVEY: Tea is sold by net weight now.
  Mr. MORRISON: True, tea is net weight now. and this Bill is a small extension of the same principle which has proved successful, and, as far as my information goes, has saved consumers in this country something like £3,000,000 a year, as against the time when tea was sold in the bag and generally in a leaded
  1972
  bag. No one will suggest that shopkeepers in general, or any large percentage of them, are dishonest. Most important evidence was given before the Royal Commission on Food Prices by Mr. Cole, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures for the City of Manchester, who gave evidence on behalf of the Incorporated Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures, of which he is a past president. He said:
  "It is not alleged that the general run of traders give short weight or measure or that they have a desire to trade other than honestly, but there is a minority which does not hesitate to stoop to one of the meanest forms of robbery, and the people who suffer most are those who con least afford it."
  The danger of legislation like this is that it is often designed to catch the little shopkeeper and to allow the big manufacturer to go scot free. For example, may I give some of the big offences which I hope this Bill will go a little way towards stopping, although it is only a beginning? It was pointed out in evidence by Mr. Cole that there is a practice growing up in some quarters of selling butter by the pat instead of the pound. As a result, certain shopkeepers are offering pats of butter which only weigh three and a-half ounces or seven ounces, instead of four ounces and eight ounces. The ordinary housewife who goes to buy her butter and buys by the quarter pound or the half pound purchases these pats. There is no liability on the man who is selling the butter by the pat. He is not committing an offence, because he is selling by the pat instead of by the pound. That. I take it, will be stopped by this Bill.
  Mr. Cole in his evidence also gives a most glaring example, and I hope nobody in this House will defend it. He said that when the grocery trade started to sell packet peas, they were put on the market packed in 16-ounce packets, full weight. Later, the packets fell to 15½ ounces, then to 15 ounces, later to 14 ounces, and eventually to 13 ounces. No intimation was given to the public that the weight had been altered, and the packet was the same size as origiNally. Mr. Cole went on to say that some of these packets to-day contain 10 or 11 ounces. No one in this House will defend a practice of that sort. Here is a large manufacturer putting packet peas on the market with 16 ounces in the packet at first, and gradually reducing the quantity, accord-

  1973
  ing to Mr. Cole's evidence, until the weight to-day is 10 or 11 ounces, while the packet remains the same size. The public is being cheated by a practice of that sort, and every honest shopkeeper ought to rise against it.
  In his evidence, Mr. Cole also dealt with two other items which I regret to say are not in the list. The first is jam. I know there are difficulties in the way of that. A firm in which I take some considerable interest in London, which has a very large number of customers, has been increasing its trade lately. Many of the new customers in changing over have brought their empty jars with them in order to buy new jam. The firm has not been able to accept the empty jars because they are no use to them as they do not hold 2 lbs. It is impossible to get 2 lbs. of jam into the jar. From the evidence, it appears that some jam manufacturers are sending out jars as much as three ounces short of the weigh that people expect they contain; but the manufacturers are riot committing any penalty, because they are selling jam by the jar. A very grave case has been made out in regard to soap. Evidence was given by Mr. Cole that a large firm of soap makers who used to pack standard weight bars of washing soap—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Soap is outside the title of this Bill, unless it can be made edible.
  Mr. MORIRISON: I was endeavouring to show that the most important part of this Bill is the part that applies to the packet goods that are made by large firms and put on the market. The illustration which I was endeavouring to give with respect to soap applies to foodstuffs. In the case to which I was referring, two bars of soap are put up, one in tissue paper and one in a cardboard box. The one in tissue paper weighs 12 ounces and the one in the cardboard box weighs 10 ounces. The public think that there is no difference and that they are of the same weight. Evidence was also given in regard to milk. Mr. Cole quoted a case which occurred in 1919 of a firm selling 1,300 gallons of milk per week in alleged pint bottles. He pointed out that one of the inspectors tested 130 bottles and out of the 130 bottles tested only 38 would hold a pint. Some 73·8 per cent. of the bottles were found too
  1974
  small to hold a pint. By this dishonest means this firm was making an extra profit of £1,400 per annum. Another case which was quoted in evidence was an advertisement from a weekly trade paper giving a quotation for chocolates:
  "Chocolates. Special cheap line. Suitable for cheap market trade, in ½ lb. box containing about 4 ounces of chocolate, but showing appearance of box being quite full. 1 lb. size ditto, contains about ½ lb."
  I have mentioned these instances in order that some hon. Members may realise that, apart altogether from the suggestions made by trade organisations, from the point of view of the Inspectors of Weights and Measures, the servants of local authorities, whose business it is to deal with this sort of thing, a case has been made out, and a case which every honest shopkeeper should welcome.
  There are other points which one would like to deal with, but they are Committee points. I intend to support the Bill, although I am sorry it does not go considerably further. I repudiate altogether the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey) that this Bill casts an aspersion upon the honesty of shopkeepers. Shopkeepers would be well advised to repudiate that view. There is no intention to cast an aspersion upon them, but there is an intention to prevent honest shopkeepers from being defrauded by a few unscrupulous people in the trade, and there is an intention to prevent the public from being cheated by being sold packet goods of articles, when they do not understand what they are buying.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I congratulate the hon. Members who have spoken on the fact that they have stated, what the Food Council themselves stated, that they have no desire in the least to say that the giving of short weight is generally prevalent in the retail trade of this country. I am glad to have heard that statement from hon. Members, because on behalf of the shopkeepers I should have been prepared to repudiate any suggestion of general dishonesty. The shopkeepers are agreed that any deliberate giving of short weight ought to receive reprobation and be regarded as a penal offence. We are one on that point. When the Bill first appeared in print we who represent shop-keeping interests felt that it was not fair to the honest trading community. I wish to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the very lucid manner

  1975
  in which he has explained the provisions of the Bill. I was delighted that he took the Bill Clause by Clause. I also thank him for the Amendments which he has promised. There are still one or two things which I hope he will be able to concede to the trading interests which will not in any way weaken the Bill, but make it much more easy for the traders to carry on their business.
  I am wondering why he has excluded the wholesalers from the purview of the Bill. The only reason I can give is that the wholesalers, through their organisation and the agriculturists, have been able to bring sufficient pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman to get him to keep them out of the Bill. Surely, the law that is good for the retailer should be equally good for the wholesaler. In the way of the delivery of goods from the wholesaler to the retailer there are many glaring cases of short weight. One knows of a sack of potatoes which contains, say, 1½ stone of dust, as well as the potatoes. However, the right hon. Gentleman has decided to exclude the wholesalers, and I suppose we cannot have them included. With regard to the question of the Scottish Federation of Grocers, I am puzzled to know why the right hon. Gentleman has not consulted the English and the Welsh Federation of Grocers. The Scottish Federation represents 4,000 members. He says that it represents 70 per cent. of 4,000 grocers. The English and Welsh Federation has a membership of 16,000 and represents 40,000 shops. He would have been well advised to have consulted the English and Welsh grocers and not to have taken his views only from the Scottish Federation. But he has suggested, in the method of dealing with wrapping paper, one way out of the difficulty which, I think, with a further slight amendment will meet our point.
  Let me say a word on the question of warranty which is dealt with in the Second Schedule. It is laid down there that a warranty can be set up as a defence; but in paragraph (4) of the Schedule it says that
  "A warranty given by a person resident outside Great Britain shall not be available as a defence to any proceedings under this Act."
  I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was going to bring all the
  1976
  foreign packers under the same rules and Regulations as the English packers, and I think that the Sub-section, therefore, should be altered. Surely a retailer ought to be able to rely on the warranty of a packer whether he is a resident in this country or not. Further it seems to me, I hope I may be wrong, that this particular paragraph will exclude Ireland, that a warranty from an Irish packer will be of no use to a retailer in this country, and that is a point to which the right hon. Gentleman ought to attend in the Committee stage. We all know the tremendous amount of produce that is sent from Ireland for sale in this country. I hope he will be prepared to consider further slight Amendments to the Bill, and then he will probably get the co-operation and support of those who up to now have been somewhat opposed to the Measure.
  Mr. HARNEY: I only wish to refer to one or two points, because most of the criticisms which I have been desired by my constituents to pass on the Bill have been met by the proposed Amendments of the President of the Board of Trade. There are, however, still two points to which I want to draw attention, with the view of his considering whether he will not make further Amendments in respects. The first point is this. Clause 4, as it stands, provides that goods must be made up in packages of certain sizes. The proposed Amendment is that the number and variety of these packages should be increased. It goes no further than that; and it seems to me that a difficulty arises there. The warranty, of course, does not refer to imported goods, but at the same time the retailers of this country are bound to sell imported goods as they are hound to sell home-produced goods. If therefore some foreign countries choose to make up the articles that are required in this country in packages of different sizes to those specified in the Bill then any person who sells these packages must do so at his own peril or refuse to import these goods. I do not think that is intended. It is not for me to suggest an Amendment at the moment, but I think it should be possible to say that packages of home-produced goods shall be of a certain size but that in the case of imported goods, if they are sent in the sizes recognised in the importing countries, they may be sold in this country.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Surely that would enable a foreign importer to give short weight if he was so disposed.
  Mr. HARNEY: No, it would not. The warranty is there. Whatever the foreign warranty says is the weight is some protection to the person who sells it in this country. It will prevent the foreigner getting away with short weight. It is said that goods of a certain description can only be sold in specified sizes of packages and weight, and I am putting it to the President of the Board of Trade that if the foreigner chooses to make up goods which we want in packages that fall outside the limits specified, then it is impossible for merchants in this country to import these goods, no matter what demand there may be for them, and they would commit an offence under this Bill if they sold to their customers in sizes which might suit the foreign importer but which do not fall within the specifications of this Bill. The President will understand that I am putting this forward in a thoroughly friendly spirit. There is another objection to which want to refer. If he would be good enough to refer to Clause 5, he will see that it deals with butchers' meat. I do not know any more about meat and groceries than do about sandwiches, I am simply putting to him questions which my constituents have represented to me. It has come out, in the course of the Debate, that sometimes meat is sold for delivery two or three days' hence, and that that period of time is quite sufficient to cause considerable evaporation, that the meat when sold is of one weight and when delivered is another weight. The Clause as it stands says that the person shall deliver meat with a statement of its net weight, presumably, at the time of delivery.
  The President answered that objection by saying that the seller's remedy is in his own hands. He can have two weights; the weight which on the Monday when it is sold, is 20 lbs., or the weight on Thursday, when it is delivered, which is 19 lbs. What is the selling weight? Is it the 20 lbs. or the 19 lbs.? If the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me, according to the law of the land the sale weight is the 20 lbs. on the day of sale, yet, according to this Bill, the only price he can be paid for is the price of the 19 lbs. weight delivered. I
  1978
  do not think it is intended to rob the unfortunate butcher of this 1 lb. in this way. I wanted to make these two points, otherwise I thoroughly approve of the Bill. I do not think it implies any slight whatever upon the retailers of this country, any more than an Act of Parliament making offences punishable implies a slight on the community. The honest traders should be the first to see, and no doubt they are, that the dishonest among them are brought to justice, and it is well that we should have on the Statute Book a Measure which will protect honest traders from the dishonest endeavours of others.
  Mr. RAINE: I should like to say that the Amendments which the President of the Board of Trade proposes to put down on the Paper, particularly with regard to wrapping paper, will give great satisfaction to the grocers, and will withdraw the sting from the serious opposition they have put up to the Bill so far. But there is another aspect which has not been mentioned during the course of this Debate, and which, had it not been for the Amendments which have been put down, I should have felt it my duty to refer to at greater length than I propose to do this evening, and that is, the position of the consumers in regard to some of these articles. One great consideration is that these articles should be sold in a clean condition, and if they have to be weighed on the scales without paper those which are of a sticky substance would, in the nature of things, make the scales very dirty. I am not going into any great detail because the Amendment proposed covers the point, but I had an ocular demonstration in one of the beet shops in my own constituency only a few months ago, and I was absolutely convinced that without such an Amendment as is proposed the consumer might get the correct weight, but there would be a very great chance of his goods being delivered not in a clean condition, because it is quite impossible after weighing a pound of some articles to clean the scales, and in actual practice that would not he done. However, the continuance of weighing the article along with the paper removes that objection.
  A question was asked by an hon. Member opposite as to why they should not give this net weight. At the time I had this interview, at the request of the Grocers' Association in my own

  1979
  constituency, I asked the question point blank of one of the members, and he said that the cost of the paper per annum was about £600, and that the profits would not allow a small trader to pay that sum or anything like it; that the only alternative would be to increase the price to the consumer, and, if that was done by the smallest fraction, one farthing, it would be out of all proportion to the cost of the paper. I desire to join with other hon. Members, although I shall not vote for the Bill going to a Select Committee, in expressing my surprise that a Bill like this should be brought in at the fag-end of the Session. It would have been far better to have kept it until next Session, when we could have discussed it quietly in Committee upstairs. Instead of having to pass this Measure, as I understand, by Thursday next, we could then have looked at it more calmly and more leisurely in the Committee Room upstairs.
  Let me say one word on the question of the honesty of the great bulk of the shopkeepers of this country. They are noted for their honesty, and one fact which is often overlooked in connection with this point is that if a person desires to defraud anyone they can get round any Act of Parliament they like. But in any well governed town the Inspector of Weights and Measures has his officials out continuously examining weights and scales in the various shops, and in my own constituency, for example, whilst that work is constantly going on we only get a very few cases in the course of the year where there are any grounds for complaint that the scales are not correct. Without saying anything more, because I am delighted we are going to get these Amendments inserted in the Bill, I support the Second Reading of the Measure.
  Mr. TAYLOR: I should like to utter a word of welcome to this rather anæmic child of the Food Council. The doctoring it has already received at the hands of the President of the Board of Trade has removed some of the more serious objections with regard to its practical application. We all welcome the principle that net weight is going to have a wider application in this Bill, and I am quite sure that the majority of our traders will themselves work it, provided that in the administration of the Bill there is the minimum of interference. There are still,
  1980
  however, a number of practical difficulties to be faced, and I have no doubt when we come to Committee stage the President will consider with sympathy and regard the convenience of the people generally. But I rise for the purpose of drawing his particular attention to Subsection (5) of Clause 13. The Clause provides for the shifting of a prosecution from the employer or the proprietor to the assistant in certain vases. As I read the Clause the position will be that when a prosecution has been launched against an employer for contravening the provisions of the Bill, he will be entitled, by laying an information, to secure a transference of the prosecution from himself to his employé, and in this way he will be able to avoid the publicity that comes from the prosecution, and to appear before the public as quite an innocent party.
  I have the gravest possible doubts as to the principle embodied in this Clause, because it obviously opens up a way for very serious abuses. It opens up a way for connivance between the employer and the assistant, in order that the employer may avoid the penalty of misconduct. I am not going to suggest that in the ordinary case of the average small private trader there is anything like systematic dishonesty or the giving of short weight, but I am going to put it to the right hon. Gentlemen that in the distributive trades to-day you have huge trusts and combines which have lost all personal relationship between the employé and the actual employer, and in these circumstances the employés are simply profit-making instruments for a limited liability company, whose first object is to make the maximum amount of profit. It is well known to those who have had experience of the distributive trades that in the multiple concerns there is a sort of constant pressure on the manager by the district inspector, and by the manager on to the rest of the staff, and that the allowances, in the grocery trade, for instance, for determining shortages, and the principles upon which responsibility is taken over by managers for stocks, are not at all satisfactory from the managers' or assistants' point of view. It is true to say that in this connection there is a constant pressure on the whole of the employés to keep the shortages arising from evaporation aid waste of various

  1981
  kinds at an absolute minimum, and there is a pressure in this connection towards, shall I say sharp practices? that does not perhaps exist in the case of the individual trader.
  This will be a very serious matter for the assistants if the Clause goes through in its present form. Let us take, for example, the case where a prosecution takes place and where the employer, perhaps by connivance or otherwise, transfers, under the terms of the Clause, the prosecution from himself to the employé. The employé, if he is convicted and dismissed, will find it exceedingly difficult to get other employment; that is to say, in a case where perhaps there had been no connivance and where the assistant was bearing the penalty for a breach or the Act. He would have the utmost difficulty in getting further employment. But in a case where connivance had taken place, you might have an assistant convicted in order to save the employer's face, and then, after a time, the assistant is dismissed in order that the employer may keep right with public opinion and not appear in any way to assent to what has taken place. I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will review this Clause, and consider, if it is not possible to delete it altogether, whether he can give additional safeguards to secure the thousands of shop assistants who are the servants of great combines in the retail trades.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I was rather interested in the remarks just. made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), who appears, however, to have overlooked the fact that the Sub-section which he criticises appears in substantially the same form in the Merchandise Marks Bill, and that when we were in Committee on that Bill we had long discussions on this particular point, and there was general unanimity, after we had analysed the whole situation in detail, that it was right to provide some protection for an employer who, though perfectly innocent himself, might be punished for the offence committed by his assistants after he gave specific instructions to the contrary. I think that most of us who have certain views, not about the principle of this Bill, because on the principle we are all agreed, but certain views about some of the details, will have had our minds very consider-
  1982
  ably set at rest by the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. On the other hand, I must join with those critics who regret that we are having such a short time to consider this Bill, because it is the details that matter and not the general principle. You might have unanimity on a general principle, but when the details are complicated, if you rush a Bill through there is danger of had legislation. The important Amendments which the President of the Board of Trade has announced this afternoon will not be known to the interested parties until to-morrow. They will have very little time to consider the Amendments, and very little time to convey their views to their various representatives in Parliament. Therefore, some of the Amendments will not receive quite the consideration that they ought to receive.
  There are still a few points left for consideration. Like some other Members of Parliament, I have received a number of communications from grocers and butchers in my constituency. As constituents they are fully entitled to make representations to their Member. The object of the Bill is to protect the consumer, but in protecting the consumer you have no right to inflict an injustice on another class of the community. It is my function to represent every legitimate point of view in my constituency, and I shall always do so. One aggrieved person is as much entitled to protection as a large number of persons, because justice does not take numbers into account. It is only Socialist politicians who judge a thing from the point of view of the number of persons involved. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) drew attention to the problem which faces the butcher who is requested by his customer to delay delivery, and I think the President of the Board of Trade must give some further consideration to the rather acute problem which arises when there are two official net weights in respect of the same commodity. The other point to which reference was not made was the question of boned meat. I understand, however, that there is some, possibility of the right hon. Gentleman moving an Amendment

  1983
  with regard to boned meat, and that will remove another very serious difficulty. Provided the right hon. Gentleman can meet us on those two points, he will remove one of the most serious blots on the Bill. I have no intention of hindering the progress of the Bill, though I do regret that we have had so little time to consider it.
  Mr. W. BAKER: I do not, propose to follow the last speaker in his party references. I content myself with saying, in the first place, that I think the statement of the President of the Board of Trade has met the criticisms which have been brought to my notice. I wish to ask one question. I have looked in vain for a reference in the Schedule to jam or any similar article of food. There may be quite excellent reasons why jam should be excluded from the Schedule, but I should be glad if an explanation could be given.
  Mr. GROTR1AN: I want to mention one small point which has not been referred to so far. I feel that the Amendments adumbrated by the President of the Board of Trade do go a long way to meet the difficulties that are felt by the grocery trade. My right hon. Friend has promised an Amendment which will allow a certain amount of paper to be included in the net weight of an article. The chief difficulty with regard to paper is the blue sugar bag, which is, of course, a paper of substantial weight. That is an industry which is entirely British, and it would be unfortunate if anything were to occur under this Bill to throw these people out of employment and render their machinery useless. The question I put is this: Has my right hon. Friend been in communication with the makers of these papers, and does the Amendment which he has promised meet their difficulty, and is sufficient weight to be allowed in the net weight so that people can still use the blue sugar bags of a certain thickness?
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

  PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS (GUARANTEE) BILL.
  Order for Second reading, read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  When I introduced the Financial Resolution of this Measure in Committee in July last, I fear that I trespassed considerably on the patience of the House. On that occasion I gave the Committee full figures for all the territories concerned, in order to bring out the fact that their general revenue and their railway revenue afforded ample security for the guarantees which this House is invited to offer. Secondly, I showed also that the prospects of development in these territories were such that the result of the railway and other schemes which the House is asked to sanction wilt he not merely substantial orders for material from this country, but also a very substantial advance in our general export and import trade.
  7.0 P.M.
  I do not think that I need go over that ground again, nor need I traverse again the whole of the two interesting debates which took place, the first in July last and the other only a few days ago. All I think that is necessary on the present occasion is that I should briefly remind the House of the reasons which have prompted this Bill, and possibly deal with one or two of the misconceptions which have been apparent in the course of our discussions. We are asking the House to authorise the granting, under certain conditions, at varying future dates, of a guarantee by the Treasury simply for the reason that most of the territories themselves are unable as protectorates or man-dated territories to avail themselves of the facilities of the Colonial Stock Act. In no section of the House will there be any disagreement with the point of view already expressed in these debates that it is our duty to do what we can for our protectorates and mandated territories and not to leave them in tiny essential position worse off than those territories which are in the full sense British territories. That guarantee, I am convinced, is not one which

  1985
  will cost the country anything, nor will it involve adding any strain to the general financial position. I do not think on that point I need elaborate the conclusive arguments brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the other day. My view is not only that the guarantee is amply covered, but that a guarantee of that amount spread over a number of years and with such substantial cover behind, cannot possibly affect, in any sense except to strengthen it, the credit of this country.
  May I now pass to the actual subject matter of the Measure, and, if I may, reversing the order I took on previous occasions, I should like to say a few words about Palestine first of all. The position there, as far as the distribution of the loan is concerned, is a fairly simple one. In the Schedule of the Bill it is set out that this £4,500,000 is divided as follows: £1,640,000 is to go to railways; £1,000,000 to the purchase of railway and other capital assets from His Majesty's Government; £1,115.000 goes to harbour construction and port improvements; and £745,000 to public works of various kinds. I would like to make the situation clearer by putting the figures in a rather different way. This loan is to be raised to a very considerable extent for the purpose of repayment. In the first instance for the purpose of repaying something like £2,000,000 which has already been spent in the last year or two after every scrutiny, both by the local government, the Colonial Office and the Treasury, on a number of public works including large extensions and improvements in railway services. That money has been borrowed, some of it from the Crown Agents, by a very usual procedure, by which the Colonies borrow as and where they need a certain amount of money in advance of the loans they intend to raise, the main part of it from the surplus produced by the excess of current revenue over current expenditure which the Palestine Government has been accumulating against emergency. There is a further £1,500,000 which, it is hoped, will be spent in the near future, probably £1,000,000 of it on the thing Palestine needs above all others, and that is an adequate harbour. Some money will be needed to improve the harbour facilities at Jaffa. But there is no doubt that an adequate harbour is needed
  1986
  for that country and the development of traffic across Transjordania to Iraq, and such a harbour can only be found at Haifa. There we are proposing to construct the main harbour of the country. Lastly, there is an item, with which no section will quarrel, of £1,000,000 for the purchase of railways in Palestine from the British Government. I am afraid on the last occasion I unwittingly misled the Committee by suggesting that there was still a large outstanding amount to be paid. That £1,000,000 will in fact pay off the railway debt.
  Sir F. WISEDoes that mean that £2,000,000 will come back to the Treasury?
  Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. The Treasury will get first of all £1,000,000 which is the assessed agreed value of the Palestine railway. I think it is a thing no one could anticipate a few years ago, that by now it would have been possible for Palestine to raise money effectively to pay off that debt. In addition to that, Palestine will be put in the position, as soon as the loan is raised, of paying the Imperial Government a further £260,000 of which about £200,000 will represent the deficit of the so-called Occupied Enemy Territories Administration, which preceded and handed its assets over to the Civil Administration. This amount was advanced by the Treasury. The balance of about £60,000 represents the value of certain stores taken over from the military authorities. This is in addition to something like £250,000 which Palestine has paid off in the present year for stores and other services rendered. The total which Palestine is paying back to the Imperial Treasury is thus in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000. It is also paying off, but this does not go to the Treasury, certain sums to the Crown Agents for money borrowed from them in advance of the raising of the loan.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is about £2,000,000 to the Crown Agents?
  Mr. AMERY: No, not so much. The amount to the Crown Agents is between £500,000 and £600,000. The raising of the loan will liberate the surplus of current revenue over current expenditure, which has been advanced to loan funds, to pay off £260,000 to the British Government and to carry out various other public works which may be required over and

  1987
  above the loan. I want to make it clear that we are dealing with a progressive policy of development, not so rapidly perhaps as some would wish, but certainly a substantial policy, and one we would like to see accelerated by the raising of the loan.
  Now I come to East Africa. The policy of railway and harbour development there is not new. It was begun with the extension of the Uganda line towards the Nile on to the Kasingisha plateau in the time when Lord Milner was Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was given a very substantial further impetus by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) when he was Colonial Secretary, when he secured agreement to a loan of £3,500,000 interest free for five years for further railway extension in that direction, which is at this moment still proceeding. There was, however, a very general feeling in this House that the whole problem of East African development ought to be regarded as one, and that was voiced on both sides of the House in a very interesting Debate initiated by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn), and received with the greatest sympathy by the right hon. Member for Derby, who, as the outcome of that discussion, sent to East Africa the Commission which was presided over by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. That Commission recommended the raising of loans totalling £10,000,000 for East Africa. I would like to ask a question. Why did they recommend a round total of that sort instead of suggesting that individual separate loans should be raised and specially guaranteed by the House from time to time?
  The answer I think is a perfectly simple one. It is not that they thought it at all possible to spend £10,000,000 on East Africa at once. They realised that construction in East Africa must be limited by a number of factors. One of the factors is that we are dealing in an economic sense and an engineering sense with an unsurveyed and largely unexplored region. They put forward a series of proposals, not as a final scheme, but as an indication of the kind of thing they thought necessary for the development of East Africa. Those
  1988
  proposals would naturally want to be followed up by an economic survey as to the routes; and an engineering survey to see what routes were feasible. That is not the only factor. You cannot go ahead in East Africa without a skilled supervising staff and a survey staff. The reason why a round sum was suggested was because what is needed is a consistent steady programme of expansion, not going beyond either the staff or the labour supply in those territories nor on the other hand leading to inefficiency, delay and worse by coming to a stop. Work might be stopped because of waiting for legislation in this House which, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary time, might not be forthcoming. Therefore, the solution they suggested was to indicate a broad general figure to cover the programme of the next few years, and not to ask for an immediate authorisation that this money should be raised, but to get the authority of this House that as and when the Treasury are satisfied after careful scrutiny that each particular schemes justifies action being taken, then, and then only, should the actual guarantee be given for such sum as may be required.
  That I think answers a great deal of the criticism that I noticed in the Debate the other day, criticism that this money was being asked for at a time when in some cases even an economic survey had not been carried out. There is another criticism of a very different character. That is the criticism voiced by several Members, and not least by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) that we have been indulging in gross delay. He suggested we had wasted the whole of the two years which have intervened since the return of my hon. Friend's Commission. I can assure him there has been no delay whatever. That Commission gave a general outline of the kind of thing which they believed to be useful, and this was at once sent out to all the governments concerned and they were invited to offer their suggestions. The moment those suggestions came back, they were placed before the Schuster Committee as well as before the Colonial Office, and while they were under consideration the actual immediate work was still going on. Nobody has been stopped working and no delay has occurred. The Schuster Committee produced its final Report last July, but

  1989
  before that they had produced an Interim Report in March in which they recommended certain obviously necessary schemes. On those schemes work has been going on ever since and the whole of the recommendations of the Interim Report of the Schuster Committee are in process of being carried out.
  At this moment the work of completing the Tabora-Mwanza Railway and the work of the construction of the Moshi-Arusha Railway are being carried out, though I regret to say that delay has been caused in each case by the coal stoppage of the last few months. In the same way, other recommendations made by the Schuster Committee in the summer are now being carried out. The two additional wharves at Kilindini have already been sanctioned and the recommendations made with regard to road and bridge work in Northern Rhodesia are in process of being carried out. In Nyasaland, where the Committee advised close examination by experts of the economic and railway situation before the Zambesi railway scheme was started, the Government have been busy collecting the necessary data. A railway engineer is already on his way out there, and an economic adviser on the situation leaves this country next week. Elsewhere, surveys, as recommended, are being carried out by survey parties which have been considerably strengthened and which are all at work. I think there can be no basis for the suggestion that the work has been in any sense held up in the period during which very necessary communications have been passing backwards and forwards with East Africa in regard to future activities. During this time the work of survey and investigation has been going on, and I can assure the House that no time is being lost.
  There is just one other point on which I wish to touch and that is the criticism of those Members of the House—largely hon. Friends of mine—who feel that we have fallen short both of the lead which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) gave us two years ago and also of the recommendations of the Commission which he appointed in not making this loan interest free for the first five years. Certainly if essential developments were being held up for the want of that provision, I should not feel myself in a position to rebut that criticism. I
  1990
  want to point out, however, as the Schuster Committee pointed out, that as far as the £10,000,000 guarantee is concerned there are already more than enough schemes to cover that amount which are on a commercially paying basis. Obviously in the interests of everybody—the Colonies, Protectorates and territories concerned as well as the taxpayers of this country—if you have a great deal of work to do it is better to do the paying part of the work first. By the time it is finished you will have additional revenue to justify the raising of further money for propositions which may then be nearer paying propositions than they are to-day. Further, there is the additional abjection that those particular schemes which are largely vital as the great arterial connections through East Africa are at present necessarily in a vague shape.
  Even the broad general lines were not quite clear when my hon. Friend was in East Africa, though I think that problem is now becoming clearer. Thus, we want a main through railway connection from Northern Rhodesia round Lake Nyasa to the Central Railway in the Tanganyika Territory somewhere near Dodoma, but we are still very far from having all the necessary information, and while this information is being obtained, it is much better that we should devote the credit of this House to what is immediately feasible. When we have the report of the surveys we can then tell in the light of the development which has taken place, as well as of the information which has been obtained, how far loans for this purpose will need special financial assistance, and we can then judge of the cases which cal] for special financial assistance on their merits. Meanwhile, I again assure the House that no time is being lost. Two survey parties will in the immediate future start work on the Dodoma-Fife line, beginning from both ends. That really is all I think it necessary for me to say on this occasion, as I have dealt so fully with the subject before. I would only say in conclusion that we are dealing here not with any ambitious visionary scheme or with a scheme which is going to impose any burden upon the credit of the country. Our proposals are essentially modest and reasonable. We only seek to secure from the House such authorisation as will apply to schemes which will bear the

  1991
  closest scrutiny and will enable steady and continuous progress to take place in East Africa, and in doing so we hope to meet what I believe to be the wish of every section of the House, namely, to help the general development of the British Empire and to do our immediate duty to the populations in our charge in those countries.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: One of the advantages of a Bill which is preceded by a Financial Resolution is that we are afforded four or five opportunities of very fully debating it, and the House will recall that this is perhaps the third or fourth occasion on which we have discussed the broad outlines of this proposal to guarantee £4,500,000 to Palestine and £10,000,000 to British East Africa. There are certain advantages in a form of repetition in a case of this kind, because no section of the House disputes the very great importance of the principle which is now before us, and very few will deny that in all probability at the moment we are laying the foundations of a financial programme which may operate on a large scale in the development of the British Empire. Accordingly, it is vital at this stage that we should use every opportunity to discuss the broader features of the Measure, and, certainly, we should do so on the Second Reading of the Bill. No one can study the Report of the Commission, presided over by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonial Affairs, without being impressed by the fact that, apart altogether from what we have already done in Palestine—and I am thinking here more particularly of British East Africa—we are to-day coming in to almost violent contact with local conditions of every description. There is the possibility of a substantial Volume of capital being poured into these territories. There are native customs and traditions. There is, undeniably, on the spot, and to some extent in this country, a, certain amount of suspicion. There is the fear that unless these schemes are very carefully guided they may tend, in part, be degenerate into a scramble of vested interests, and those vested interests may be assisted to some extent, perhaps not with intention on our part, by the very guarantee which is being afforded at the hands of the British Government. Any development of that kind it is our purpose and, I think,
  1992
  probably, the purpose of the House, to try to avoid, but, in any case, the difficulties are real and plain to every student of these matters.
  It seems to me we can very largely safeguard ourselves in regard to this probable development by putting the finance of the scheme on the soundest and broadest possible basis. This controversy inevitably suggests some of the lessons which have been derived from the operation of the Colonial Stock Act of 1900. Hon. Members will be familiar with the debate which has recently taken place regarding sums raised by Australia. There has been criticism on the ground that they have abused the privileges of that Act by failing to make proper sinking fund provision and also by failing to give proper publicity to investors in this country for the money which has been raised. There is, at the moment, a suggestion that the House should review that Act of 1900 and bring it up to date and in particular that steps should be taken to find out how far it could be applied to the kind of problem which is now under discussion. As I understand the situation, it is probably only Kenya, under the proposals now before the House, which would be afforded the benefits of that Act of 1900. The other territories in question would proceed with loans raised in the open market in the ordinary way guaranteed as to principal and interest by this Measure. The question arises whether it would not be desirable at this stage, when we are probably embarking upon a very big scheme, to make preparations for it by a review of the Colonial Stock Act, by making safeguards which are undoubtedly necessary in legislation of that kind and by ascertaining how far we can bring territories which are not strictly Colonies in the accepted sense within the operation of its terms.
  The Government propose at the present time to proceed only in piecemeal fashion with these guarantees in British East Africa. It is true that while we are putting down £10,000,000 by way of guarantee on paper at the present time, the Treasury will investigate, probably with the aid of some Committee, each scheme as it is put forward. Accordingly it seems to me that the position will be substantially what it was under the Trade Facilities Acts with the operation of an Advisory Committee on each proposal in

  1993
  respect of guarantee or of loan—in that case of course very often by private enterprise but in many cases also by public authorities. Side by side with that the House is definitely laying down another principle. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the £3,000,000 interest-free loan of 1924. It is perfectly true that there was such a loan, but what was also recommended at the Imperial Conference of 1923 and embodied in, I think, the first of our Trade Facilities Acts of 1924? There was a recommendation to give £5,000,000 at the rate of £1,000,000 a year for the purpose of paying three-quarters of the interest on loans raised by public authorities in various parts of the Empire designed to provide employment in this country upon schemes of a public utility character. That seems to have been running in their minds and to have been the early idea of the Commission over which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Colonial Office presided, and apparently the thought was that we should proceed, when this matter came to a guarantee on the Floor of the House of Commons, by giving these territories a loan interest free, or at all events, by giving freedom from any interest burdens during the first five years of the operation. After consideration, apparently, with the Treasury, there has been agreement that we cannot proceed on that basis, and from the very start the Colony of Kenya and these other territories will be expected to put these schemes upon a strictly economic foundation, that is, in this sense, that they would be expected to provide for the interest charges right away.
  That lands us at once in the whole problem of the finance of these territories and into the question as to whether they can stand up immediately to an obligation of this kind. I dare not take time to-night, because this is a purely general Debate, to discuss the merits of that interest-free proposal. There are many Members of this House who would like to see the British Exchequer, as an investment within the Empire, embarking upon a scheme of that kind, and there are other hon. Members in different parts of the House who are violently or very strongly opposed to these proposals. But it does riot seem worth while to argue the question of
  1994
  investment or anything else to-night, because we must have regard to the position of the national finance of Great Britain, and whatever may be our private and public views, it is plain to all of us that it is going to be a matter of the greatest difficulty to impose any fresh burden or even credit for this purpose, and certainly a matter of great difficulty to give anything by way of cash contribution while we have this enormous load round our necks and no immediate prospect of a reduction in expenditure or taxation.
  If that be the state of affairs, I cannot help thinking it is very much better and a far more practicable course to make up our minds at once that this is going to be, as far as we can humanly make it from this end, an economic proposition, and that these schemes are to carry the load which is inevitable in every economic development, whether in this country or anywhere else. Surely we can best safeguard British East African development if we try to put the whole policy on comprehensive lines. The Colonial Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some nights ago indicated the individual character of the proposals, hut most of the Reports which have been published on this subject, and, indeed. some passages in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, indicate quite clearly that there are advantages in taking a long, comprehensive, and unified view, if I may so describe it, of the whole scheme which is now under discussion. The doubt which occurs to me is whether, by proceeding piecemeal within the limits of the paper £10,000,000 guarantee in British East Africa, you are going to raise these amounts on the open market, even with the guarantee of the British Government thrown in, on the best possible conditions. In other words, would you not raise them rather more easily if you could achieve some kind of co-ordination or agreement on economic policy in the territories? I do not for one moment, in reading these Reports, minimise the difficulty of this problem. I have not in mind any question of federation or anything like that. It is plain to all of us that that cannot be entertained, and we also recognise that it is very difficult to get them to agree, even in a matter of this kind, in the interests of their common economic progress, but when one turns to the Minority statement which was made

  1995
  by Mr. Linfield in the Report of the British East African Commission, I am bound to say that more than a passing case was made out for some kind of Development Board, or at all events for some form of co-ordinated effort.
  As I understood the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a night or two ago, he did not look with particular favour on that idea, but it seems important to remember that if it is going to be a question of even one-half or one per cent. above what need be paid, with the Government guarantee thrown in, in the open market, that may make all the difference in the world to the balancing of some of these local budgets when these schemes begin to be properly applied. We are all familiar with the controversy in Kenya at the moment, and there is difference of opinion in other territories. The budgets have balanced in some cases very narrowly indeed, and in a number of eases they have anxiety as to aggregate debt which will exist in 1935. Even when we have made allowance for a very considerable measure of development up to that time, there is still some legitimate doubt with regard to their future financial position. Now we are becoming partners with them in this development, and accordingly it is very important indeed that we should try to march hand in hand, with complete co-operation, to see that we and they are protected to the fullest possible extent. My impression is that, if it were possible to launch these loans on a rather larger and more comprehensive scale, we might get the benefit of better terms, and, if that were so, then we should be taking steps to safeguard the territories and to avoid the grave danger of having our part misunderstood by some failure of a local budget to balance, and of criticism on the ground that we have not been sufficiently-generous with the vast resources which are supposed to be at our disposal. I would beg the Government to-night, on the Second Reading of this Bill, not to close their minds to the prospect of some more comprehensive scheme, by Board or otherwise, of dealing with the proposals now before us, especially when the whole matter is to be put ab initio upon an economic basis, and they are to carry the interest charges right away.
  1996
  The Colonial Secretary and the Financial Secretary, if I may say so with respect, gave, of course, a perfectly accurate description of the position of the £10,000,000 guarantee in East Africa, and made it clear that the Commission over which the Parliamentary Secretary presided never thought for a moment that the £10,000,000 could be spent at once, and had always in view the fact that a very considerable amount of additional survey would be required. We have had some of that survey at the hands of the Schuster Committee, and the broad fact emerges that out of the £10,000,000, unless we have misunderstood the Report of that body, they are able to point to only about £1,500,000 which can be immediately undertaken. They go on in every other direction to point to the importance of survey and investigation and very far-reaching inquiry in every shape and form. Now what do the Government do in the Schedule to this Bill In the case of British East Africa, within the limits of the £10,000,000 guarantee, they allocate £6,500,000 to railways,£2,500,000 to harbours, and £1,000,000 to roads and other schemes. My difficulty is to find out how, in the light of the Schuster Committee's Report, which calls for all that additional investigation, and which, by common consent in this House, includes scores of matters which are obviously in debate and must remain in debate for a very considerable time, the Colonial Secretary arrives at that allocation in the Schedule, and I would be inclined to say to him that unless the Treasury, for a reason which I do not at present appreciate, want the allocation, or whether it is the case with the Colonial Secretary that the allocation proceeds on the broad terms of the Schuster Committee's Report, because the figures bear a very close resemblance—unless that is the explanation, I am inclined to say that they would be very much better without a Schedule at all. At the moment it might be better to keep this matter in a perfectly fluid condition.
  I have no doubt that later on the Colonial Secretary will tell us why these figures have been introduced, hut on the Schedule one further point emerges. Under the heading of the guarantee to British East Africa, there is provision for research. On this side we are quite clear in this view, that unless that

  1997
  research is a reality and has strict regard to education, native labour, morale, production, and all the other factors which are operating in this territory, you are not going to get a basis upon which some of these schemes will proceed with any safety at all. It must be clear to all of us that the provision for research should be generous both as regards the capital expenditure and, I would also suggest, as regards current needs. I am not clear at present as to whether the provision under that head is restricted to capital expenditure in this Bill, and whether these territories will be expected to find the money for current needs in research from other resources, from various schemes which in fact are even now in operation for purposes and objects of that kind. Research is vital in our view, especially if you are going to carry the people in the locality with you and make it plain that you are there for some great and generous public purpose, and not merely for selfish ends.
  May I say that we, on this side of the House, are not opposing this Bill, but are very anxious to see that it leaves us in the fairest and the most efficient form, and it is mainly for that reason that I am trying to raise these particular considerations on Second Reading. We want to be parties with the right hon. Gentleman to this scheme of Imperial development for a variety of reasons. No doubt immediately these contracts will provide a certain amount of work in this country, but while we remain, many of us, on this side, Free Traders, and while we are anxious to have a maximum commerce with every part of the world, there is not the least doubt that we have a great deal to gain by special attention to the British Empire and by the development of those resources, abundant and generous, which are found within its borders. For my part, I would be inclined to say that, if we can make schemes of this description a success, we can do a very great, deal to safeguard the standard of life of a considerable section of our people at home, and to improve the prospects and the conditions under which they are to be employed.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: There has already been a considerable discussion on this subject when the Financial Resolu-
  1998
  tion was before the House, and now that we have the Second Reading of the Bill it is the fit and proper time on which to offer some general remarks and criticisms on the scheme as a whole. In the first place, I should like to refer to certain remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) during the discussion on the Financial Resolution. I am sure there is no other Member in the House who is so anxious as he is to protect the interests of the taxpayer—I wish there were more like hiln—but at the same time I think that he allowed his interest in the taxpayer rather to blur his vision when regarding this scheme that we now have to consider. He need not be afraid for the future. The security is perfectly good, and that is the thing that has to be remembered when considering this scheme. There may be criticism of the finance, but the scheme itself is absolutely sound. For this reason the majority of the money that has to he spent under this scheme is to be spent on improving transport. Transport is absolutely the key to the development of Africa. Without transport there is stagnation, the riches that are locked up in that country cannot be reached, and when we are considering how we can best apply our credit for the benefit of Africa, for the benefit of the people in those countries, and for the benefit of the people at home, there is no question that by spending our money and lending our money for the development of transport we are doing the very best that we can to make our security good and valuable to the whole world.
  I would like, if T may for a moment—because this matter is, perhaps, imperfectly understood in the House, and is certainly imperfectly understood outside the House—quote one or two figures as an illustration of what I mean. Thirty years ago, it took a caravan of porters six weeks to go from Mombasa to the Great Lakes, which is now done in sixty hours. One trainload of 200 tons would require no less than 10,000 men to carry an equal amount, even supposing it were possible for porters to carry such things as bales of cotton on their heads. It is absolutely impossible. that the riches of that great Continent can be tapped without improving the means of transport, and when I say improving the means of transport, I

  1999
  mean primarily and essentially improving railways. There is always a little danger, especially in these days of motor transport, that great claims may be put in for the building of roads. The building of roads in Africa, although necessary to a certain extent, should never be allowed to get in the way of the building of trunk lines of railways. A road can never carry in Africa, what a railway can, and it is nearly as expensive to keep up as the railway.
  Then, again, take Kenya as an instance of what has been done by development by means of transport. Thirty years ago the revenue of the Colony—Protectorate as it then was— was £30,000. The estimated revenue for 1927 is £2,500,000. That may be said to be almost entirely due to the improvement of means of transport in that country. I emphasise this point to assure the hon. Member for Ilford, and people who think like he does, that the security is perfectly good. I do not think that this country realises the growing interdependence between Africa and Europe, and the great extent to which this country is now relying, and will in the future rely, on the products of Africa. We get all sorts of grain and fibres, oil seeds, cotton—things that are most necessary for our people and for our manufacturers, and we return for those raw materials our manufactured articles in ever increasing quantities, and the first result, as the Secretary of State says, of putting the scheme into force, is no doubt an immediate increase of employment in this country, by the making of rails, machinery, engines and so on, which are necessary for development in Africa. But further than that, we must remember that by opening up Africa we are increasing the wealth of the world, and so tending to make abundance greater at home, and reducing the cost of living at home, while we are improving the condition of the natives in Africa, and thereby improving their capacity to buy from us our manufactures in the future. It is not only immediate benefit that springs from a scheme like this, but we have to take the long view, and see what the conditions are to be in the years to come, as well as in the years immediately in the future.
  To look for a moment at the Bill itself, I take it, of course, that is based on the Schuster Report. The
  2000
  right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh referred to the Schedule. Anyone who has read the Bill must have noticed what an extraordinary free hand has been left to the Secretary of State. I think that is an advantage. It is even suggested he might have done without a Schedule altogether, but from another point of view I think it is important that the Schedule should show to a certain extent the lines on which the money is to be spent, particularly with regard to research, because in the item under which research occurs roads are also included, so that it is a little difficult to see what it is intended to spend on research, and what it is intended to spend on roads—very different matters.
  With regard to the complaints that have been made as to delay, I think they were answered fairly fully by the Secretary of State, but it is, in my opinion, of the utmost importance that we should proceed with the greatest caution in putting the scheme into effect. Far more harm may be done by undue haste than by, perhaps, a little over-caution. We have to see the effect of building a line in a new country, the drafts that can be made on the labour, and the prospect of the crop which is going to be grown in that country; and, particularly, when we are dealing with the cotton crop, we have to consider the danger of a fall in prices, and it might he a most disastrous thing to spend large sums of money in opening up a cotton country when the market for cotton was falling very seriously. Our railways, as far as they exist in that part of the world, are merely skeletons at present, and they undoubtedly require to have feeder lines attached to them before they can properly become paying propositions, and before they can properly do the work for which they are intended. The items that are scheduled in the Report are undoubtedly such as will be of enormous benefit to the country when the surveys are completed to enable them to be taken in hand. As far as I can offer any opinion from experience of the country, I should say there is not one of them which will not be extremely useful, and, undoubtedly, in time to come the main line from Fife to Dodoma, and from Dodoma to Arusha, will have to be undertaken, although, undoubtedly, that will have to be a costly project, which can hardly

  2001
  be included in the scope of the present scheme. I mentioned just now the item of scientific research in the Schedule. On that, I am afraid, we must all have felt in reading the Report that the conclusions of the Committee in that respect have been left somewhat in the air. They came to one conclusion about Amani with which the Secretary of State did not altogether agree, and I think the majority of the House will be on his side in that respect, and, as regards research, the direction in which, I think, our efforts should be guided, first, is that of native welfare service. That is absolutely important, because, without the natives, we can do absolutely nothing in the country. It is not only for the good of the native himself, but, to put it on the lowest ground, he is the greatest asset to the development of the country. We do not know at the present time whether populations are increasing, stationary, or diminishing. We must have machinery established at the earliest possible moment to ascertain what the position of the native is under our rule in that country, whether his health is improving, whether his strength is improving, and, if not, to see that we take measures that it does. To put it on the very lowest ground, it is absolutely essential in any scheme of development of the country.
  I should like to say a word or two about the finance of the Bill, which has been dealt with by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh. Personally, I must say I rather regret that the recommendations of the East African Commission were not accepted. I realise that the financial position of the country is exceedingly difficult at the present time, but when we are considering a large scheme of development, if the Committee, whose duty it was to consider that scheme, were compelled to confine their views to those schemes merely which show a prospect of an immediate financial return, they were, obviously, limited in their conclusions, and I suggest to the House that we should have been able to have taken a longer view of the whole proposition if we had not been limited in this manner. Having to consider proposals only that show any immediate economic return, of course rules out other proposals which may be of equal, or greater, importance to the general development of the country, because it may
  2002
  not be for some years, and perhaps many years, that they will be able to show any actual financial return. To that extent, I think it is regrettable that the considerations have been limited. The Secretary of State is no doubt aware of the views of the Joint East African Board on this matter, and the views that they hold are not confined to them, but are widely held outside. In that connection, I should like to draw attention for a moment to the last Clause of the Schuster Report, which is of extreme importance, particularly the last sentence where they say:
  "We venture to express the view that it might prove a sounder method for encouraging development within the Empire to create machinery which would provide for the continuous study of new developments and afford to the various Dependencies an assurance that they would have fair chances at all times to raise money for really sound and carefully prepared projects."
  I hope that we shall advance in the future on those lines. This is almost what we might call the first step. I do not think it will be by any means the last. I am satisfied myself that the scheme now before us, if carefully carried out, will prove an enormous success, and will be followed by other schemes on a wider basis, and when we have to consider other schemes, I think we might take into consideration the experience that we are gaining in the launching of this one, and not only the launching, but to considerations of the finance of the scheme such as were outlined by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh.
  8.0 P. m.
  There are two matters on which I would like an assurance from the Secretary of State. Those are the money charged on the revenues of the different Colonies and Protectorates concerned. We know that the manner in which taxation is levied in Kenya has been a subject of discussion and comment in this House. In a speech which he recently made, the Governor of Kenya pointed mil that only one quarter of the revenue of that country is raised by Europeans. If they were prepared to finance schemes of importance, they must also he prepared to submit to the necessary taxation for the financing of those schemes.
  There is a tendency, and there must be a tendency, in countries such as that, where the sources of finance are inclined

  2003
  to be rather dry, to push the burden of taxation on to the shoulders of the natives. I want to have an assurance from the Secretary of State that, so far as he can control or influence the matter, such a tendency shall not be allowed in Kenya, and that the burdens of taxation shall be as far as possible equally allocated between the native and the European populations. The second point on which I should like an assurance is with regard to the labour conditions for the works which are to be carried out. I hope that there will be no attempt to introduce forced labour in the building of these lines. I believe that the Secretary of State himself considers that this is unnecessary. If labour is properly treated, labour will always be forthcoming, and I do hope that, whether the works are to be undertaken by the Government or by a contractor, under no circumstances will resort be had to forced labour.
  After the works are concluded, we have to remember that every fresh area opened up in these countries will mean a fresh demand for labour supply. The Governor recently made a remarkable speech in which he pointed out the very great importance of balancing the necessities and the rights of the natives fairly and fully, and not allowing them to be weighted down by the claims and demands of the settlers. It was a speech for which I think he deserves to be thanked; we know the very difficult position which he holds; and it was a speech which showed the keenest desire that fairness and equality should be dealt impartially as between the peoples living in the country of which he is Governor. The scheme as a whole, whatever criticisms may be offered upon it, will, I believe, receive the general approval of the House. It is the particular duty and obligation of this House to see that in any schemes of this sort, as far as it can, justice is done equally, and that we never forget the duty of our trusteeship to the natives, and not only that we do not forget it, but that we see that what we call our duty of trusteeship is carried into practice.
  Mr. E. C. GREENALL: I do not intervene in this Debate as having any knowledge of East Africa or of Palestine, but from certain remarks which
  2004
  have been made on the financial question, during the discussion of the Money Resolution, I feel rather shocked at the somewhat light view which certain Members of the House take of financial questions. I have noticed that, while some hon. Members have spoken with due regard to the importance of the financial position, others have spoken as if the Bill is a stingy one because it deals with only some £16,000,000. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), for whose financial knowledge I have the greatest regard, stated when the Financial Resolution was being considered that a sum of £16,000,000 was almost negligible to-day as compared with what it was before the War. Because we have been accustomed to speak in hundreds and thousands of millions since the War, it is surely more important than ever to think of the odd millions to-day. I should like to deal with this Bill as a commercial man would deal with a prospectus. This Bill is to authorise the Treasury to guarantee certain loans to be raised respectively by certain Governments. We are referred to certain particulars which are given in the Schedule on page 4. Speaking commercially, if a prospectus were issued which was based on this Bill, the public would subscribe entirely because it was guaranteed by the British Government, but if you attempted to gild refined gold and paint the lily, and added a description of what the security is which the Government offer in addition to their guarantee, you would add nothing to the security so far as the investor is concerned. At the same time, when you read the Schedule for extra securities, you begin to criticise the security which is given in a totally different manner to the way in which you would criticise the actual guarantee.
  This would not make a bad prospectus; it would make a very good prospectus if you left out the Schedule, but it does not make it a bad prospectus when you leave in the Schedule. So far it is good, but from the moment that you were good enough to present us with the Schuster Report, and the moment we observed that these figures in the Schedule of the Bill were connected in some way with the figures in the Schuster Report, at once the public would be filled with suspicion and they would riot subscribe.

  2005
  They would take the figures of the railways, which appear there, figures of £1,640,000, and figures of £6,500.000. They would see figures which are dealt with loosely; they would see £745,000 here, and £1,000,000 there, and these figures mean absolutely nothing. It may be that the returns when they are made after a term of years will justify the £750,000 and the other amounts if by some extraordinary luck, when the surveys are made, the figures correspond with one another. But here it is mere guesswork. Speaking from a, banker's point of view, I can see that these figures mean nothing, and they vitiate any prospectus that is based on this Bill. I think it is a mistake that the Schuster Report was ever published in connection with this Bill. This very able Report definitely states, as the Colonial Secretary has said to-night, that nothing is settled as regards the cost of these railways, nothing can be settled until the survey is made, or nothing can be settled except for a very short distance ahead.
  I speak merely as a business man. and in no way because I wish to stop development in the Colonies or in the mandated territories, but I do think this House should he given information which is reliable, so far as it can be given, and should not be given information which is purely and entirely guess work. That seems an entirely wrong conception of the object of this Bill. With regard to the railway security, I take the word of the Colonial Secretary that it is good, and I also take the word of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), when he says that transport and railways in these new countries have nearly always paid their way. But I can tell them what happened in 1914. A very large number of important houses in the financial world thought they could establish a net-work of railways over the whole of South America. I cannot say what the figures were, but they ran into £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, and all that was lost. These eminent financiers made mistakes, but it was their money that was invested. They started with £10,000,000 or £20,000,000, which they got from the public and along with which they invested a good deal of their own money, and then it was discovered that these railways could not be linked up without expending, a further very large sum. In East
  2006
  Africa we are quite aware that £10,000,000 does not cover the work. They will probably want £10,000,000, but it is not made clear, and it is not well to disguise the fact that what is set down for transport facilities here is only an estimate. It is useless to deceive ourselves by imagining that £10,000,000 is all that we are going to be asked to subscribe.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury the other night said we were letting the world know once and for all that the whole cost of these operations would be £14,000,000. If the world thinks that, they will be wrong, and it is very probable that much more will be required. I am not against guaranteeing this loan. I think probably it will be justified, but I feel quite certain that it will be only a matter of a few years when the Governmnt will bring in another Bill to guarantee a considerably larger sum. The reason I object, as a general rule, to such guarantees is this: It may have been reasonable before the War to give guarantees for developing our Colonies, but to-day I think we have many more important uses for our credit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is faced with a very bad time. He will probably have to face the refunding of something like £800,000,000 or £900,000,000 in the next two or three years. For that purpose he requires to find investors in long securities to replace the short ones. I do not imagine that he will be able to find long-term investors for £800,000,000 or £900,000,000, but the more he can get the better for the country, and the greater will be the load of care that will be lifted from us.
  What has been the history of our Governments since the War? They have not husbanded their resources of long securities. Because, and quite rightly, they were disturbed at unemployment, they invented the Trade Facilities Act, and, undoubtedly, that was justified for a time, but it is high time that stopped. Under that Act, some 260,000,000 to £70,000,000 has been taken out of the long market which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will badly want in the next three years. Even if the Trade Facilities Act is to cease to operate we have in the last few weeks agreed to the Electricity Bill, and added another £34,000,000 to the long debt, if and when required. We have added £13,000,000

  2007
  under the Sudan guarantee, and to-day we are adding another £14,000,000. The total of those things I have mentioned—and there are many others—is £130,000,00, and to that extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury have weakened themselves for refunding purposes. I think it would be difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury to resist further demands to make them pass guarantees such as the one initiated under this Bill. Once this Bill is passed, although the last word is with the Treasury, it will be difficult for them to resist. I would not suggest that his Bill is inadvisable, but I do warn the House, and the country generally, that the sooner these guarantees are stopped the better it will be, and the better for the restoration of our credit, which is the greatest asset we have.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Bill is unfortunate in that it embraces two entirely different questions. All the speeches we have had hitherto have dealt with the East African loans, though, if the House will look at the Bill, they will find that the Palestine loan comes first. The Palestine loan is not what we generally understand by a guaranteed loan. Of the £4,500,000 proposed to be guaranteed to Palestine, £3,500,000, as far as I can make out, is paid back to this country; it is not a loan for the development of Palestine, but a form of refunding to this country moneys owed to us by the Palestine Government. That is an entirely different position from the case of East African loans. I would direct the attention of the House to the Palestine loan. As I understand it, £3,500,000 of this £4,500,000 comes back again. £1,000,000 represents the assessed value of the railway lines taken over from the British taxpayers. The rest represents two things, though in what proportions we have not been told; capital expenditure on various concerns, on telegraphs, telephones, surveys, and also, as I understand it, it represents the repayment to this country of the deficits in the Palestinian Budget during the last eight years, or till the time when the Palestine Budgets began to balance. I have no objection to the funding of this money, and no objection to this Government demanding payment of this money to the taxpayers of this country, but I do want
  2008
  the House to realise that this is the first case of any British Crown Colony and of any Mandated Colony repaying all the money they have received from the British taxpayers since the War.
  In the case of other countries there have been deficits year after year, they have not been able to repay the money, and do let us give one word of credit to a Government which has managed first of all to repay money we have advanced, to dear off all debts, to purchase back their own railways and to put themselves in a position of financial security and soundness. It is a great credit to the Palestinian Government, due in no small measure, I believe, to the abilities of the Treasurer of that Colony; but let us remember also that it is due principally to the fact that the Jews of the whole world have been pouring money into that country for the last eight years. The Budget has been balanced, the debts have been paid, owing to the fact that the Jews of the world have been subscribing on positively a gigantic scale to the rebuilding of their own homeland. We ought to recognise that, and to recognise it in a practical way in Palestine by making it easier for the Jews to acquire land in that country, and to rebuild both the agricultural industry and the industrial industries of the country. After all, we have entered into a joint contract to rebuild Jerusalem. So far, it seems to me, the Jews have been doing everything, and we have been content to sit back with the Balfour declaration. In future, in view of this astonishing result in Palestine, I think there might be a little more co-operation in the building up of that country.
  As far as £1,115.000 is concerned, that is to be new money invested in Palestine, principally in development of the port of Haifa. I want to know from the Under-Secretary in the first place when the works of construction at the port of Haifa are to commence. Obviously the construction of Haifa Harbour is not a matter which merely interests the people of Palestine; it interests the Admiralty in this country at the same time. I would like to know, also, what steps the Colonial Office are taking to see that the pipe line from the Mosul oil fields to the Mediterranean comes to Haifa instead of going to Alexandretta. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the files, I think he will find that the decision on

  2009
  this point rests with the British and the French Governments, and I hope he will realise that the security for this £1,100,000 which is being spent on Haifa harbour depends upon the successful development of the harbour and of Palestine, a, successful development which depends more than anything else upon acquiring the pipe line mouth at that place, to provide cheap petrol for industry and large transport facilities.
  There is one other word I would say about Palestine. I have just come back from that country, and everybody wants to know whether the Arabs are suffering from the incursions of the Jews; and it is pertinent to this subject, because unless it is possible for the Arabs and the Jews to get together it is obviously unwise to spend this large sum of money on capital development in that country. It seemed to me that the only result upon the Arabs of Jewish immigration into Palestine had been to raise the standard of wages of the Arabs working in the towns, to raise their cultural status; and, so far as the country was concerned, to teach the fellaheen new methods of cultivation, so that to-day he is cultivating more land than before and making bigger profits out of it. It is perfectly true, so far as the Bedouin are concerned—the wandering nomad Arabs who use large tracts of country for grazing purposes—that as agriculture extends, whether it be fellaheen agriculture or Jewish agriculture, the Bedouin has to go back. That has happened in every country on earth, and it cannot be helped if there is to be progressive development. As for the other element, the rich Effendi Arab, very often a Christian, their hostility to any Jewish immigration would be equally marked even to British immigration. They do not want Western ways or the Western population, but they want a docile population that will do as it is told. We cannot allow the development of the country to be checked because a few reactionaries on top prefer Palestine to be in Asia rather than in Europe.
  Let me now turn to another section which I do not regard with any enthusiasm. Let me say at once that I am delighted that the Treasury had the strength of mind to stand up against the suggestion of interest free loans to the Colonies. It seems to me that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  2010
  Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) spoke, he referred to interest free loans as being an investment by the people of this country, but in that I think he is making a mistake, because it is not an investment at all.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I did not say that.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad to hear that, and I am pleased to near he still has a Treasury mind. Taxing the taxpayers of this country to find money for successful colonists in Kenya is neither sound politics nor sound finance. Let us clearly understand the position. Why is this Bill necessary at all? Why has the House spent day after day discussing these proposals? Simply because the Government completely changed their mind. When the right hon. Gentleman first made his Report these £10,000,000 were to be interest free for the first five years. The result was that each of these Colonies put forward large suggestions as to how they could use the money. Anyone can always find excellent ways of using other people's money. Consequently these Colonies drew up a long list of schemes which were put before the Schuster Committee. Sir George Schuster, possessing the Treasury mind, looked at these things, and I do not know any Report which I read with greater pleasure than the one which showed that there was need for further inquiry before any loan could be sanctioned. I am not quite clear if the Government have approved of the Schuster Report.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): That was very emphatically stated last week.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad to hear it, and I hope the Government will stick to it. Does that mean that the Government also agreed to the Report on Amani?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend definitely stated that he disagreed with the Amani Report.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry to hear it. Let us see what happened. Every Colony has sent in their claims, and they are very numerous. Afterwards they found out that they were not to have free interest for five years, and at once they said, "This is not what we bargained for." The result

  2011
  is that these various Colonies are not so keen now about borrowing money when they know they will have to pay interest on the loans, and the whole situation has changed. To my mind, the introduction of this Bill is quite premature. We do not know which of these schemes reported on in the Schuster Report are going to be approved by the Colonies concerned. We have no guidance on that point, and the Government does not know what they are going to do.
  We are here guaranteeing an advance of £10,000,000 which may not be repaid for 10 years, or even longer. It seems to me that, in spite of the criticism of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), we find that the Government is actually premature in bringing in a Bill to guarantee a large sum of money which nobody wishes to borrow. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) said you could not throw money away if you invested it in railways, but I do not agree with him. At present the railways are going through the unpleasant process which canals went through about eight years ago, and I think we should be very cautious about investing money in railways or roads.
  Any hon. Member reading through the Schuster Committee Report will see there are two different items, one is a railway from Dodoma to Nyasaland and the other is for a road from Dodoma to Nyasaland. Until the Government is quite clear as to which is the best method whether by road or by rail I think it would be very unwise to make such large investments of public money in this direction. Let me point out one other matter. I think there are others on these benches who feel that if British capital is to be invested, it should be invested in a country where it will help the natives, and not where there is already too large a demand upon the labour market. In this country we are accustomed to a state of things where there are two men for one job, but in the country where it is proposed to invest this money there are two jobs for every man, and the whole trouble is how to keep down wages in a country where there are two jobs for every man. Sir Edward Grigg said:
  "He regarded with anxiety the further development of crops which made a heavy demand on labour."
  2012
  If that argument is good as applied to the extension of agriculture the same objection will apply to all extensions of railways and roads which demand more labour.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there are no proposals for any new railways in Kenya and the object of this proposal is not to cover Kenya but the mandated territories and Protectorates?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member forgets that there are recommendations for roads in Kenya which demand the employment of more labour, and he also forgets the extension of the Uganda railway northwards. He forgets that the labour shortage is notoriously acute in Kenya, but the same also applies to the state of things in Tanganyika. There are quite sufficient opportunities for the natives to find employment on their own land without taking them off and putting them to other work. There should he more caution exercised in selecting the country where capital can be employed most properly. The Under-Secretary has pointed out that that difficulty exists in Kenya and not so much elsewhere. Let me draw attention to the real key of the whole situation. We have a certain amount of capital which we are prepared to invest in Colonial development, but so far we have only considered the East Coast of Africa. The hon. Gentleman has recently been to the West Coast. Is there any reason why the West Coast should not be treated on exactly the same lines as East Africa? Does not the hon. Gentleman know that on the West Coast this form of capital enterprise would not involve a call upon an already over-stocked labour market?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On the contrary, as I have pointed out in my Report, every single mile of new railway in West Africa means nothing but forced labour. Every mile has been built by forced labour in West Africa, and by free labour in East Africa.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman surprises me when he says it is all done by forced labour in Nigeria.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: In Nigeria they were certainly paid—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: So they were in East Africa.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The line that the hon. Gentleman draws between forced labour and labour that is not, forced is very difficult to draw. He knows that in East Africa, as well as in West Africa, recruiting takes the form of force, or is very difficult to distinguish from force. The hon. Gentleman himself would be the last to urge that the recruiting, for the purpose of building railways on the West Coast, has been in any way more forcible than it has been in East Africa.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would like to say quite definitely that it has been much more forced, because it has all been what is called community labour. There is, practically, no free labour supply there, and, when a railway is built, it is invariably necessary to call up the community for so many days in a year to do the work.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman has been there, and must know better than I do, but, certainly, I have never heard any complaints from the West Coast—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There are none.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: But we have heard so many from East Africa, and where there is smoke there may be fire. As we have had complaints from Kenya, and not from the West Coast, it is to be presumed that the force employed on the one side is different from that employed on the other. Apart from, that, would the hon. Gentleman say whether investments in railways or roads are not as economically profitable on the West Coast as in East Africa It is all very well to consider a. long programme in East Africa, but it seems to me that what is really required is an inquiry as to where, in the whole of our Colonial domain, capital can be most profitably invested. This is not a question of giving bribes to good children; it is a question of the economic advantages of alternative investments of capital. What I should like to see would be the Schuster Report applied to demands from the whole Empire, so that we should have
  2014
  a definite selection, by a skilled financial body, of the best possible investment for our money. Several hon. Members have spoken of these loans as though they provided work for people in this country. Of course, every loan made to a foreign country provides work for the people of this country. £1,000,000 lent to China must leave this country origiNally as British goods—whether we get back interest or not is a different matter—and, whether it is made to Kenya or West Africa, it means work for people in this country. The problem we have to face is where, by investing this money, we can get the best return, and for that purpose I should say that we want a. Schuster Committee dealing with the Empire—not giving away our money or guaranteeing any promised payment of interest, but directing the investment, of the money of the British public in the way most profitable for the British Empire. It seems to me that that would be the right method, rather than introducing a, Bill when the Government themselves are not sure that the Colonies concerned will ask for the money, are not sure that the schemes asked for are sound, and, finally, are not sure whether the financial position of the Colony is altogether capable of hearing the burden of the additional debt. I was horrified to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) suggestions that it would be desirable to amalgamate and federate the East African Colonies.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I assure my right hon. Friend that I never made such a suggestion.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hear that gladly. What we want to avoid is any suggestion of passing on the heavy burden of debt in Kenya to the other surrounding Colonies. I know there will be a strong movement presently, particularly if the Kenya debt rises as it has recently risen, to federate in order to spread that debt. Let us see in future that we do not overburden any Colony with debt, and that the investment of our money in any particular Colony is used to increase the prosperity of the country; and does not go straight into the pockets of a few fortunate landlords who got in on the ground floor.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: I am afraid I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in many of the things that he has said, and more particularly in regard to what he calls the Treasury mind and in regard to the Schuster Committee. It seems to me that, if we had sufficient Schuster Committees, and if we only used the Treasury mind sufficiently, we might put such a brake on the development of the British Empire as to stop it very effectively indeed. I am one of those who regret very much that the financial conditions of this loan do not permit the interest to be dealt with by the Imperial Government for the first five years in any case, and I feel very strongly that this provision is going materially to hinder the development of the weaker parts of the African Territories. It is all right as far as the richer colonies or protectorates are concerned, but when you come to some that are not quite so fortunately situated from the financial point of view, you are, in effect, telling them that, because they happen to be weak, we can do nothing for them, and cannot help them in any way. As two instances of such colonies I would mention Nyasaland and Tanganyika. These, undoubtedly, are two of the weaken brethren, and it is suggested that, because they will not be able to guarantee and pay the interest on any loans for the first five years, nothing can be done for them at present.
  I am afraid that the Schuster Report, which, with the Treasury mind, seems unfortunately to dominate the whole of this Bill, has placed pathetic faith in surveys and forecasts. In a number of cases the Committee suggest that surveys should be made, and also that nothing should be done until it can be proved that in a certain number of years such-and-such an amount of trade will take place, and such-and-such an amount of produce will be ready to leave the country. I am of opinion that, if this Treasury mind and Schuster Committee idea had been in operation 50 or 60 years ago, when the Dominion of Canada was being developed, and railroads were being run right across that great Continent, it would now be in a very different position from that in which it is at the present moment. I am sorry that a very much longer view has not been taken—one that would say that
  2016
  this money is worth while spending, because we shall certainly get back the benefits many times over in the years that are to come.
  I am afraid, too, the Report on which so many seem to pin such great faith is not as accurate as one would like. I could point out quite a number of inaccuracies in it, and I will instance one or two. Take, first of all, page 16, paragraph 38. It says:
  "We understand that a site for the bridge crossing has been examined and reported upon by Messrs. Livesey, Son, and Henderson, acting on behalf of the Central African Railway, and that designs have been prepared and estimates framed, but that no survey of the coal line or of any connection which will have to be constructed between the bridge and the Trans-Zambesia. Railway has yet been made."
  That is inaccuracy No. 1. As a matter of fact, a flying survey of this coal line was made some time ago—a sufficiently good survey to enable a contractor to quote a price for the construction of the line. Again, on page 17, paragraph 46, it is pointed out that a. survey should take place. In this instance, again, a topographical survey was made which would really be practical enough for all ordinary purposes. We must remember that in a country like East Africa we are not dealing with one that is thickly populated, like a European country, and that the question of surveys from a technical point of view does not possess the same necessity as it would here. As another instance of the mistakes that occur and the wrong impression they create, may I point to paragraph 50, where they say:
  "These are five links in the chain each under separate control. namely, the Shire Highlands Railway, the Central African Railway, the Trans-Zambesia Railway, the Beira Junction Railway, and the Port of Beira."
  It is rather a curious thing that they should not know that the first three railways are managed by the same individual, are under exactly the same management, and have in London the same secretariat. I bring to your notice these three cases in order to show that we must not take this very unfortunate Schuster Report as being really indicative of conditions as they exist, in East Africa. I sincerely hope the Government will deal with the problems they will have to attack under this Bill in a

  2017
  very practical way. They must look at it with a long view and not simply consider the amount of money we are going to expend, and the necessity for economy, the necessity for which no one urges more than I do. We must economise as much as we can, but it is not true economy to hold up the development of any part of the Empire which can be made very valuable indeed to us.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I am certainly opposed out and out to the whole of this transaction of guaranteeing loans. On previous occasions I opposed just as clamorously the very nature of these guaranteed loans, as affecting the working classes of this country. I know it is rather difficult when the whole of my friends on this side see no objection to agreeing to this loan but for a few detailed comments here and there, I feel confident that from the Socialist or Communist point of view this loan is bound to do the greatest possible harm to the workers of the country in the long run. In the first place, let me offer my objections on general grounds. If private enterprise has all the virtues which are claimed for it, let it go on and build the railways, harbours, bridges, and roads and carry on all those mediums through which they hope to make further profits in land and other industrial development alongside the railways and harbours, but if private enterprise says, "No, I am afraid of this harbour in Palestine; I am afraid of these railways in Palestine or East Africa—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said the Jews of all countries of the world are simply pouring money into Palestine, and that is a fact. Just imagine those Jewish friends of ours, who always have a reputation for shrewdness as to the safety or unsafety of investments, who are free to pour in money but are not willing to pour in £1,000,000 to build this harbour. What is the meaning of it? If our friends are not reluctant to find money for the welfare of their new homeland, why do they trouble the British Government to ask for a guarantee? If private enterprise runs away and declares itself unable to move in a certain direction it
  2018
  is a wrong policy for the Government to give a guarantee. In effect it amounts to this, that if profits are made, not only directly from these investments but owing to harbours and railways and other concessions and improvements, they belong to the private speculator.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does the hon. Member realise that they are all State railways?
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am telling him in clear words that, owing to the State railways, which will lose money, the landowners and other industrial investors and speculators will make money? That is the position, that the landowners, the merchants who deal in raw products, the people who will set up industrial organisations either in Africa or Palestine, will get rich in their industries by the existence of railways and harbours, for the sake of convenience called State railways and State harbours, but if they saw a chance of making a profit they would invest their own money and not let them be State concerns. What will now happen is that all the profits which will accrue to the landlords and industrialists in the neighbourhood of the State railways and harbours will belong to them, and whatever losses are to be incurred on supplying this medium of profit to them will have to be borne ultimately by the taxpayers of this country or their own country. I would much prefer to make it a bona fide State concern. I would prefer that if English credit was to be given, it might be just as well that these railways and harbours should be constructed directly by English money, and that adequate taxes should be levied and adequate charges made on these concerns so as to provide profit, or remuneration, to the taxpayer who finds the money. But what else can a guarantee mean except "the profit is yours, and the lose is mine"?
  We are always told, whenever this sort of demand is made, that there is no real danger, It is a mere formality. Surely everyone is agreed that the danger must be a very real one. There are financiers not only in Great Britain but in America who do not know what to do with their money, and if there was anything financially sound in it, these schemes

  2019
  would not go begging for want of money. But the very fact that they are finacially not so sound as to make the speculative, gambling public put their money in them causes the Government to come forward with a guarantee, and they always say, "It is perfectly safe, it is a mere formality." It is not a formality. I will give a parallel illustration. Not long ago in this House we were told that the Government were making a temporary loan to McGrigor's bank which had failed, that the Government were helping bankers who had failed in order that the higher paid Army officers might not lose their money, although at the same time the Government were unable to pay the ex-service men. If right hon. Members opposite will read the speeches made from the Government Benches on that occasion and will notice how reassuring they were that it was merely a temporary loan and they would now render an account of the winding-up of McGrigor's bank, and where that safety has gone, there would be a lesson, and this House would not be so ready to believe when the Government talks about things being perfectly safe when they want money.
  There is another serious matter, and here I speak unhesitatingly as representing the revolutionary elements and forces of this country or anywhere else. Loans were granted to the Czar of Russia. The people of Russia were innocent; they knew nothing about it. Loans were granted to the bankers of Russia. The people of Russia had no voice in the Government of that country or in those loans. Now, the Government feel very hurt that the people of Russia say, "We knew nothing about these loans. Go to the Czar and the Grand Dukes and take the loans back." Something similar is happening in China. We shall be told that the British investments are repudiated there.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member asked my permission to give one example. He has given that example. He did not ask my permission to give others. Had he done so, I should not have given permission.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am not pursuing the argument. The point which I am submitting is that the people in whose Country monies have been invested
  2020
  by this country, when they begin to recover their political consciousness have repudiated their indebtedness, and very rightly so. The people of China may do so, the people of India may do so and the people of Palestine may do so. That is no longer an abstract theory; it is a concrete fact. The poor Arabs, the poor negroes, the poor Jews, the voiceless people of Palestine and East Africa, are certainly not responsible for these financial transactions that are being carried through to-day, and when they recover their political consciousness and their political power and independence they will be perfectly right in refusing to pay back any of these loans, which are being spent on objects not from their point of view. The danger from the historical events which are happening day after day is not a mere temporary danger but a real one. If we were granting the loans to any of our self-governing Dominions, where every citizen is a conscious citizen, that would be quite a different way of granting a loan, because it would be to citizens who are directly held responsible, but to make a loan in the name of poor negroes and Arabs and then expect them to pay back when they no longer will be as foolish as they are to-day, is expecting too much.
  With respect to the Palestine loan, the wording in the Schedule is unfair. In the Schedule, the Government put No. 2 as
  "Purchase of railway and other capital assets from His Majesty's Government, £1,000,000."
  9.0 p.m.
  That wording gives the direct idea to Members of this House that this is paying back for something which is already created. That gives the idea that other items not so expressly described do not fall in a similar category. No. 1 Item says, "Railways, £1,640.000." In view of the description of Item No. 2, it would appear that Item No. 1 meant that new railways were to be constructed for that amount. A similar comment might be made with respect to Item No. 4. It would appear that these items are put down as entirely new amounts which are to be spent for new construction, whereas we learn from some of the speeches that that is not so. Some of our friends from Palestine believe that

  2021
  most of this money, more than 50 per cent. of these loans, is for payment back to Great Britain. If Great Britain has spent some money, or has advanced some money or has given it already, why not wait in a straightforward, honest manner until the Palestine Government pays it back in the usual course? Why should there be this farce of loaning money and getting yourselves paid back by it? There must be some underlying motive.
  With regard to the harbour construction, the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) pointed out that the Admiralty is very anxious about the harbour at Haifa. I have put that question but I have received no answer. Is the Admiralty anxious about it or not? I pointed out during the discussion on the Financial Resolution that there were people in Palestine who were desirous of having the harbour at Jaffa, while some people wanted it at Haifa, and that some of the people who wanted the harbour at Haifa wanted it not for the benefit of the rich and poor Jewish population in Palestine, but with an eye to the future, that Haifa was a great natural pipe-line for oil development. If that be so, why should not a future oil company undertake the construction of the harbour at Haifa? Why have a guaranteed loan, putting a burden upon the taxpayers of Palestine and creating a running sore of guarantee upon the taxpayers of this country. As regards the interests of the Admiralty, we are not quite sure whether Haifa is chosen as more suitable as a future Singapore to overawe the Ægean Sea, the Red Sea and the Black Sea.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: These are mandated territories.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I know that it is mandated territory, but that is another name for enslaving people and cribbing other people's land through that hypocritical body the League of Nations. Under the term "mandated territory," you find a new means for enslaving other people and interfering in other people's countries and dominions.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does the hon. Member know that there is an Article in the Mandate which prohibits the establishment of naval bases in mandated territories?
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I would reply that politics are more often dishonest than honest, and because there is that Clause in the mandated agreement that is why the Government have artificially used the word "harbour" instead of "fortification." Hon. Members laugh. It is no use trying to laugh the matter away. The Government's ultimate intention, despite anything in the mandated agreement is, one way or another, to create a future Singapore at this place. It is for that reason that Jaffa has been set aside and Haifa selected. After I spoke on the last occasion, a. certain Jewish organisation wrote me a strong letter saying that I was a friend of the Arabs, of the aristocracy, as against the Zionists. I am against nobody, and I am for nobody. I am against every capitalist exploiter, whether he is a Zionist or an Arab. I am against every land grabber, whoever he is, and in favour of everybody who is dispossessed and struggling to get the people's land back for the people. They point out that I was wrong, that the harbour at Jaffa is asked for not only by the. Jews but by the Arabs as well. I never disputed that. But how wrong it is, when the Arab and Jewish population, almost the entire population, desire Jaffa to be the chief harbour of Palestine, that they are told no, it will be at Haifa; and the people of Jaffa, as taxpayers, will have to pay for the harbour at Haifa which they do not want.
  I would not object so much to these loans if the general revenues of these Colonies were not charged. If arrangements were made for a charge on the goods passing on these railways and through this harbour, if arrangements were made to levy a tax on the land which is going to improve in value because of these roads and harbours and railways, if the taxes were placed on the companies who are going to profit by the creation of these railways and roads, that would be all right, but to tax the poor citizens in these Colonies in order to provide a profit for a few inhabitants in that land is altogether unjust. The Government have not made it quite clear how much of this £4,500,000 is merely a repayment and how much is going on new construction. They have not made it

  2023
  clear whether this harbour at Haifa has been recommended, directly or indirectly outside, the Mandated Agreement as being a. more favourable spot for a future oil company rather than a help for the poor Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. I put it that the Admiralty believes that Haifa is going to be a better fortification and naval base for the future than Jaffa, no matter what the Mandated Agreement says about it. These agreements can be altered, and as soon as the harbour at Haifa is constructed and the military possibilities are there, the Government will be more able to laugh at the agreements and the clauses in the Mandated Agreement.
  I want the Government to make this point quite clear. It does not seem like a common business transaction that the Government should sink money on railroads and roads constructed for war purposes during war time, and certain other buildings which were constructed, and which during times of commotion had their full economic and market value. The Government now say, "We do not wish to wait until the Government of Palestine pay us back, some day, we want them to take this loan and give it back to us to-day." I want to ask whether it is true, as the people of Palestine say, that this is a sort of bribe offered to Great Britain to permit the Palestine Government to break the pledge to the Arabs and enable them to create a Second Chamber of nominated members on which the Arab population will have no voice at all. I understand that it is in return for that bribe that the Palestine Government says, "Take up your rotten unremunerative railways, and we will let you have your money back." Let me put forward my general argument against this loan from the purely Socialistic and working-class point of view. It is all very well for this country to facilitate this loan and guarantee that there will be orders for railways, harbour, materials and bridges, and so on. That is quite true, but has it not been the case in the past that, after these developments have been constructed, they have become a source of permanent unemployment in this country, and what guarantee have we that this Measure, which is simply the advancement of Imperial capitalism in other countries, is not going to
  2024
  produce further unemployment in our engineering, textile and other trades in this country.
  I put it to the House that when railways and roads and harbours are constructed, they always train a large number of the natives of the land to become industrial workers. We have seen it all over the East. Large numbers of people who were employed on road and railway construction became a trained population suitable for factory work immediately these constructions were finished. Once you construct harbours and railways and roads you offer a tempting invitation to the manufacturers of this country to plant their factories where these roads and railways are available and near the raw material. I want to know why the Government ignore the fact that this development, this training of native labour for industrial work, the African negro and the Jew and Arab of Palestine, is going to create further industrial rivalry against the workers of this country. I am advanced enough to hold this point of view, and I hope my colleagues in the Labour party will wake up in another five years and hold it too, that whenever we help and assist in the industrial awakening of other countries we must make up our minds to take the natives of these countries into the entire brotherhood of the industrial population of this country. If we are not prepared to take them into the entire brotherhood of the industrial population of this country they become the prey of the capitalistic exploiters of labour, who would destroy the trade unions of this country by supporting these rival factories and harbours and docks in these other countries, It is on this account that I want the whole of the Labour party to make this a principle, as I have made it a principle, that wherever we have any financial control, our first demand shall be that the human beings who will be employed in the utilisation of this money will be looked upon as people thrown out of the ordinary life into our Western industrialism, and as soon as that is done that their standard of life, their hours of work and wages, shall no longer be in a progressive ratio to their old nomadic life but in a more reasonable and intelligent ratio to the industrial workers of this country.

  2025
  I say emphatically. that it is a betrayal of the great working-class interests of this country for any hon. Member in any part of the House to vote for these loans unless we can get a definite guarantee that no human being is to be employed under these schemes for more than eight hours a day or for less than 3s. 6d. a day. We should not vote for a single pound of money without such a guarantee. We shall be told that the Arabs do not need it, that the Palestinian Jews do not require it, and that the African negroes may live on much less. All these arguments are good only as long as these native races are left untouched in their ordinary life. If they are to be drawn alongside the families of western nations for hard industrial work, such as engineering, road, railway and bridge construction, which are very good things for creating factory labour in the future, then I submit that from the first day that the Arab and the negro, the Indian or the Chinaman, are employed, they should be considered as part and parcel of the industrial family of the West, and their wages and hours should be regulated from the first hour in ratio to what goes on in the West. If that is done there will be permanent work and permanent prosperity, and a permanent demand for the goods of this country; but if we pay only 7d., 8d., 9d. or 10d. a day, and work the negroes and Arabs for 10 to 14 hours a day, and then say, "We have now developed this country," and then make it easy for the capitalist to start factories, to get hold of these ready-trained natives, with raw products close at their doors, and then start cotton and jute and engineering works, and do ship repairing at Haifa and Jaffa and on the East Coast of Africa, that is inviting a veritable graveyard for the workers of this country and of the world.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Captain FOXCROFT: It has been said that adversity makes strange bedfellows. Evidently Palestine makes rather strange bedfellows too, for I never thought for one moment that in any conceivable political circumstances I could agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Although I do not desire to assist his Amendment, yet I do feel that a good deal of what he said had some substance
  2026
  in it. I believe that the Zionist Jews of Palestine should receive financial support as much as they need, but I feel also that the native Jews and Arabs of Palestine should likewise receive such financial support as they need. From personal experience I cannot say that British Governments think quite as much of the native Palestine Jew or the native Palestine Arab as they do of the imported Zionist Jew. I ask the Secretary of State very seriously to see to it that the Government of Palestine does its absolute duty by the Arabs and by the native Palestinian Jew. The latter has been for generations living in Palestine, while the Palestinian Arab is descended from the oldest inhabitants of that country, and is not by any means the ordinary Nomad Arab, but has been for centuries seated in Palestine. I hope that the Government and those responsible in Palestine will see that while the Zionist Jews are given all that they should have in the way of financial assistance, the native Jews of Palestine and the Palestinian Arabs, who helped us very much during the War and who in their religion represent tens of millions of our most loyal subjects in India and elsewhere, shall have as much justice done to them as is done to the Zionist Jews whom, under the Balfour declaration, we have imported.
  Mr. HADEN GUEST: I agree very heartily as to the importance of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) as to laying down a. financial policy for Empire development, and I am, therefore, all the more disappointed that in this particular Measure the foundation that has been laid does not seem, to me at any rate, to be one upon which we can hope to get a very strong policy of Empire development developed. Let me first of all draw attention to a fact which seems to have been rather overlooked with regard to the Schuster Report. The decision not to pay the interest on loans raised for the purpose of development in East Africa was not made after an inquiry into the details of the proposals put forward in the Report on East Africa, was not made after a detailed examination, but was made actually before the appointment of the Schuster Committee. In fact, if hon.

  2027
  Members will turn to page 5 of the Report they will see these words at the top:
  "It had been decided, before the appointment of our Committee"—
  the Schuster Committee—
  "not to adopt the recommendation of the East African Commission that interest on loans from the £10,000,000 fund should be met by the Imperial Government …"
  That is to say, that as a matter of general financial policy, apart from the particular schemes in the Report of the East African Commission, the point had been decided—one would like to know by whom. Was it by the Treasury independently, or by the Cabinet, or by whom? Was this imposed on the Government from outside, or was it a. decision in which they fully concurred, or was it a decision to which they were dragooned by Treasury pressure? That seems to me a rather important aspect, and I cannot help feeling that it is rather regrettable that in establishing a policy, not the financial policy, but the general policy of Empire development, the Treasury should have such a very large and over-large share. May I refer to a very remarkable speech from the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Greenall). My constituency adjoins his; we are separated only by London Bridge. I am glad to find that Empire ideas are so much better represented in Southwark than in the City of London. The hon. Gentleman said that we had very much better—I do not know his exact words—employment for our money than by investing it in the Empire, or words to that effect. In effect he said, speaking with the authority of the City of London, he wished to discourage investment in the Empire. I regret very much that the hon. Member is not here to reply. That is in fact what it means. A gentleman who was examining this Bill, as he said, purely from a business man's point of view as a company prospectus, turned down, not this particular Bill, although he did not think much of it as being a prospectus, but he turned down the general proposition of Empire development as not good enough at the present, time, or as something beyond our resources.
  In this the hon. Gentleman was joined by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), who has also something
  2028
  of the same kind of ideas with regard to Empire development. It is rather interesting to notice that in the extremes of the Capitalist and Communist spectra you get an identity, or at all events a similarity, of view. The real interest of the Empire is not in the particular commercial schemes such as were mentioned by the hon. Member representing the City of London, but in a general improvement of the trade of the Empire and in the general leveling up of the prosperity of Africa, particularly tropical Africa, as a whole. It is that which is going to be at real advantage to us in this country. If the schemes are limited to only that which can be done according to the narrow limits of a purely commercial proposition such as would recommend it to a financier looking for an immediate return on capital, then we are going to get very serious limitation of the possibilities of Empire development. The possibility of Empire development is going to be entirely overshadowed by a very cheese-paring variety of Treasury finance. I would suggest that at the present time the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office should break free from this thraldom of the Treasury, and that they should say quite boldly and definitely that just as in business of every kind at the present time it is necessary to think big, and to have big organisations, to deal with all the important substances which we are using in our lives, so it is also necessary to have a big conception with regard to Empire development if we are going to get a really serious result in the way of the big expansion of activities.
  Let me remind the House of this, that one of the great and urgent necessities is Empire research. There is no doubt about that. What is going to happen under these provisions? As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) pointed out, and I think everybody will agree, with those Governments in East Africa working on a very narrow margin on their budgets, if they are saddled with having to pay interest or loans for development purposes in the early stages, they will be debarred from spending money on research. It is no use putting up capital expenditure on research if you have not the current cash to pay your running expenses. I very much hope that in the

  2029
  reply, which I hope will be made by the Under-Secretary, he will deal with that, and tell us how we are going to get the urgently required money to carry on the particular kinds of research which are so badly needed.
  I want to stress further the point of native policy. There is nothing more unsatisfactory in the Schuster Report than its reference to research into native welfare. On page 35 of this Report you will find a paragraph headed "Research into native welfare" which states that the Governor of Kenya has telegraphed asking that the sum of £100,000 may be provisionally reserved, and stating that a despatch from him giving full explanation of his proposals is on its way to this country, and that consideration of these proposals must necessarily be deferred until after its receipt. If one weighs what that means in a document surveying a programme of very considerable development in East Africa, that the most serious part of the critical Schuster Report dealing with native welfare can only base itself on a telegram received from the Governor of Kenya stating that we must await the receipt of that before laying down the lines of policy, one can only think that the Government are very ill-prepared indeed with the lines of a native policy. I suggest that this very inadequately conceived native policy is the turning point, or should be the turning point, of the whole question of the development of East Africa. We want something very much more than a telegram from the Governor of Kenya. We want a well-thought-out native policy, worked out, not from the narrow sense of what is called native welfare, but also from the standpoint of men with some economic imagination of what is going to happen in the future when these countries are opened up. We have to think of what civilisation is going to do to the black man. What is going to happen when our railways, our roads, our commerce, the movements of people, telegraphs and posts, and perhaps wireless come into that great continent of 40,000,000 and wakes this people up, and brings them into contact with Western civilisation? What is going to happen to the black man? It is a very much bigger question than the question of whether we are getting a sufficiency of labour in one place or another.
  2030
  This question of what is going to happen to the negro, especially in tropical Africa, is one of the two or three big questions which the British Empire will have to face and try to solve in the next 25 years. We have not begun to get to the solution of the problem yet. It is beginning to dominate the politics of all countries which come more closely into immediate touch with it than we do ourselves. The politics of Australia are dominated with this question of the relationship between the coloured and the white man. In South Africa, the most urgent and burning questions centre about this question of the method of treatment of the coloured man and his relation with the white man—using "colour," as meaning for the moment, negro. In tropical Africa they are speeding up this development and we are speeding it up without providing adequately for the future. Every time we build railways and roads and improve the public health, we are uprooting native habits and upsetting native traditions, and one wants to know exactly where we are going. It has been said today that we do not know very definitely what the populations of these countries are and whether they are increasing or decreasing. I do not think it is quite as bad as that. We do know a little. There are in the "Abstract of Statistics," published a short time ago, certain facts with regard to the population of Uganda, Kenya and Somaliland; in fact, all parts of the British Empire are published. I have extracted some figures, and they show broadly that from 1901 to 1921 there, has been, if the figures can be relied upon, a decrease in the population of Uganda, and of Kenya, a slight increase in Somaliland, a, considerable increase in the Sudan, and a steady increase in Northern Nigeria and in Southern Nigeria.
  The point is that where the government has been best, where the state of things has been most settled, and where our influence has endured for the longest time, you have the best social conditions and a steady increase of population, and it seems inevitable that as a result of this Measure we shall bring about a state of things in which the population of tropical Africa may very largely increase. What are we going to do with this vastly increased number of people?

  2031
  Are we to allow them to remain an uneducated mass or are we to educate them If we are to educate them, how are we going to pay for it? Are we to allow these people to be used, without any safeguards, in factories and other ways to compete against white labour in other countries? Are we to allow the standard of life of the white workers of the world to be degraded by the competition of the black workers? All these questions ought to be considered, not, of course, in detail but in broad outline, before we go very much further on the path of the development of these East African Colonies.
  I believe these problems can be solved but I believe it is very urgent that we should not go forward blindly and without a plan. It is possible to draw up a plan which will gradually incorporate the native peoples into the type of civilisation in which we are living. "Organisation" has been said to be the dominant word in Empire development for the immediate future. I believe in no field is organisation more necessary than in that of our native policy towards the peoples of tropical Africa. Up to the present we have not had any clear statement of that policy. I do not think this particular guarantee is on a sufficiently large scale, to do much harm —in fact I believe it is going to be of very great good. I think at the same time it is urgently necessary that at the earliest possible moment we should have a carefully and fully considered opinion on the means of bringing about good relations between the immense black population of Africa and the great white populations in other parts of the Empire, so as to maintain, on the one hand, a decent standard for the white man, and on the other, enable the black man to climb gradually from his present standard up to that of the white man.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: This Bill outlines a considerable measure of development both in Palestine and East Africa. With the first portion, which refers to Palestine, I am not to-night concerned, but before the Under-Secretary replies I should like to say a few words on the East African part of the Bill. It has already been indicated that we on this side propose to give the Bill general support, but it is fair to say that in the
  2032
  case of some of us at any rate that general support will be tempered or qualified by some doubt regarding certain aspects of the problem. A great deal of public money is to be expended upon these projects, and this proposal has been submitted to the House and backed in the House on the ground that there is the possibility of a favourable reaction from this expenditure of public money upon the condition of affairs in this country. That is undoubtedly true, in a degree, and, so far as it is true, none of us will have any regrets whatever, but I do not think the reaction of that expenditure upon our own country ought to be the prime consideration. We might very well take for our guidance in this matter the principle underlying the declaration of the Duke of Devonshire when he was Colonial Secretary, that the interests of the natives of these areas should be paramount in our minds.
  The question therefore arises: What is to be the reaction of this proposal upon the areas concerned, and particularly upon the conditions and outlook of the natives of those areas? Doubts have been expressed by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Greenall) and by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) as to the effect of these loans upon the financial conditions of these areas. The Colonial Secretary has assured the House that there need be no misgiving upon that account and I should not presume to intrude upon an argument between the Colonial Secretary and one of his principal supporters. But whatever may be the ultimate effect upon the financial future of these areas, it is quite clear that these proposals will cost a good deal of money. That money must ultimately be repaid and obviously the repayment must be borne in some measure by the Europeans in those areas and in some measure by the natives. The problem then arises—how is the native to shoulder his share of the burden. He can do it in one of two ways. He must either provide the money to pay the taxes, by his own industry on his own land, and with the crops which he grows himself, or else he must secure his share out of wages which he earns by working for somebody else.
  It is on this question of native labour that I wish to ask some questions. I do not feel that the point has been thoroughly met in previous speeches from

  2033
  the Treasury Bench. What is the view of the Government in this matter? Is the native to be regarded as a free man in an economic system; is he to be a free citizen destined sooner or later to control his own government, or is he a person who, at any given time, through the exercise of some form of economic or political pressure or otherwise, may be called upon to render service to the European settlers? In other words, is he to be liable to some form of conscript labour?
  There would seem to be differences between the point of view of settlers in places like Kenya and elsewhere, and Members on this side of the House, in regard to the proper status of the native. That may be disputed, but in order to fortify my position, I have provided myself with two quotations, which, if they represent in any large measure the point of view of European settlers who exercise any measure of control over Government decisions in those parts of the world, show that we are entitled to feel no small degree of misgiving. I quote first a speech delivered by Lord Cranworth to the Boyal Colonial Institute at the Hotel Victoria, reported in the "Times" of 14th April of this year:
  "Dealing with the future, Lord Cranworth said that the area available for white settlement was not vast. It was doubtful if as much as 5,000 square miles remained to be allocated to Europeans. It was unlikely that another 20 years would see a white population of more than 100,000, unlees minerals in unexpected quantities should be discovered. … But in saying that one stipulation must be postulated. Never must the interests of the white population be allowed to he swamped by the interests of natives, however numerous, and that applied especially to the highland of Kenya, where the people of our own race had built up and fought for a heritage in the face of every difficulty. That heritage was their own, and could never be taken from them."
  Up to a point, of course, one is bound to agree. In so far as they have used certain social and economic advantages as a result of their own personal labour, they are entitled to a share of it, but I very much question the proposition that the rights of a few hundred or a few thousand white settlers are to be supreme over the interests of many, many more natives, however numerous they may be. That is the first point of view, and here is another on the same line of thought:
  2034
  "In May, 1924, at a farmers' meeting at Songhor, in Kenya Colony, the number of natives working for white employers was said to be 12,200 less than the demand. Mr. Conway Harvey, a member of the Legislative Council, in an address, estimated the number of potential workers for white settlers and Government Departments at 519,000, one-fifth of the total population, as against the 134,000 actually working. The difference between the number of potential labourers and those actually working is in the region of 300,000, and the problem is how to get these slackers out."
  That is the expression of a member of the Legislative Council. I do not suggest that it is so, but if it be the fact that those statements indicate the point of view of people who are able to exercise some measure of control over the legislative powers of the areas with which we are now concerned, surely we are entitled to feel some misgiving as to the future of these natives. On the other hand, one is entitled to say, as one ought to say in fairness, that we have the assurance of the Duke of Devonshire in his famous despatch concerning the inherent rights of the natives as such, but though we have the assurance that that was the view of the Government of the day, we have since then, in a document issued by the Government, entitled "Compulsory Labour for Government Purposes," Command Paper No. 2464, on page 14, dispatch No. 4, a dispatch from the acting Governor of Kenya, in which he speaks of the problem of getting compulsory native labour and says:
  "I consider it essential that the pay of compelled labour be slightly lower than for Voluntary labour; otherwise the whole value of the lesson will be lost."
  I admit that the present Colonial Secretary pounced upon that phrase and promptly asked what was its meaning or significance, but in the reply that was given to the question of the Colonial Secretary, there was very little reassurance to be got, for in that reply I read the sentence:
  "It must be remembered that little economic pressure or inducement to earn money at present exists."
  The reply also states a little earlier:
  "By 'the whole value of the lesson' reference was intended to the general impression which would be created in the native mind if it were found that the Government pays to men who are called out the same rate as it offers to men who are accustomed to seek and obtain Voluntary employment."
  What is, in fact, the actual attitude of the Government concerning compulsory

  2035
  labour, for it is vital in reference to this problem? If it be true, as I gather is the fact, from a report of the Governors' Conference held this year, that the reservoir of native labour is very limited in quantity, then obviously, if we are going to spend a vast sum of money on public improvements in these areas, the question arises as to how the native labour is to be obtained. Is it to be done by some form of compulsion, or is it to be done by offering attractive terms to the native labourers, so as to induce them on economic grounds to offer their services Voluntarily? I would very much like to have an answer to that question. And there is another question that I would like to ask. I notice from the Reports of the Governors' Conference one or two other somewhat difficult and, to me, un-understandable proposals. They speak of limiting in certain directions the energies, or the initiative, indeed, of the natives in regard to certain crops. For instance, there is a certain type of coffee, called Arabica, which, according to the Governors' Conference decision, the native is not to be allowed to grow. What is the use of telling this House that the native is going to be encouraged to develop his land in his own way, and from his own point of view to he stimulated to follow the lines of European civilisation, and so on, if, when a certain rivalry develops between the native and the European settler, the native is given a sort of feeling, which may or may not be justified, that such rivalry is to be stopped by the imposition of governmental authority? That may he a right view or a wrong view to take of the Governors' decision, but I would like to have it made quite clear to-night.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, when he first spoke on this question, justified this loan on the ground partly that the money was to be spent upon what he called complementary services. I think it is my duty, as representing a mining constituency, to ask the hon. Gentleman a question to-night. In the Schuster Report, he will find, on page 16, a reference to the Tete coalfields. As I understand it these coalfields, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. T. Johnston) pointed out
  2036
  last week, are not being worked by British capital at all. They are being worked by Belgian capital, and they are not in British territory. They are on Portuguese territory, and the proposal, as I understand it—I may be wrong, but I think I am right—is to take a railway up to the confines of the Portuguese territory for the purpose of bringing this coal, which is in the ownership of a Belgian company, to the sea. May I say, in passing, that no one, apparently, knows how much the output is going to be, but I think the total is expected to be in a few years 300,000 tons. No one has made an adequate survey of the area, but it is quite clear that at the back of the minds of people who have considered this proposal is the idea of bringing this coal into competition with the coal of South Africa. What I want to know is, seeing that Welsh miners depend upon the export trade and Durham miners depend upon the. export trade, can you justify this proposition that you are guaranteeing a loan which will develop coalfields owned by Belgians, by building a railway to bring that coal to the sea, thus bringing that coal to the market at a time when the market is already overstocked with coal?
  The other question I want to ask is as to the expenditure upon research. It is no use our being blind to the fact that, there has been no clear statement adduced here at all on this occasion or on previous occasions as to how much money is to be spent on research. It is lumped in with other things in a certain amount of money. The Report of the hon. Gentleman himself gives overwhelming evidence as to the shameful way in which research has been neglected. I quote a short passage on page 155 of his Report. It refers to a state of things of which no one can be particularly proud:
  "We were informed that, in the Kitui district of the Ukamba province, where there are 110,000 Akamba natives, the only assistance received from the Agricultural Department in 10 years has been the issue of a few bags of seed."
  That is a pretty eloquent commentary upon the starving policy which has been followed in regard to research in that particular part of the world. On page 156 we find:
  "The Animal Husbandry Department, which embraces the veterinary services, seems to devote the greater part of its time

  2037
  to the care of European cattle and the setting of quarantine boundaries about native cattle areas where disease is known to exist."
  10.0 p.m.
  I admit it may not be entirely fair to life two single passages like those out of the context, but I think the general trend of these passages indicate that the hon. Gentleman himself is convinced that research has been very largely starved in that part of the world. I plead that we shall be told to-night what part of this money is to be spent on actual research, and particularly upon the agricultural side. I would specially implore the hon. Gentleman to develop in some measure—indeed, in a large measure—the educational services of that area. I was surprised to read in a passage in the same Report that even the children of European settlers are not over well-treated in this matter. They visited, he says, no European School where there was a science laboratory or where instruction in agriculture or handiwork was given. To my mind, it indicates a hopeless state of affairs, and if, as we all agree, educational development is the first step in the direction of preparedness for self-government, to say the least of it, we must obviously do far more than we are now doing to endow those people with educational opportunities. I beg the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to be so good as to give us assurance on the matter of native labour, and especially on the general question of research.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Gentleman has only given me two minutes in which to reply, as I understood this Debate was to finish at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I thought you were to start at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, to stop at 10 o'clock, to enable the House to finish two other Bills. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for being extremely brief in my reply. The object of the proposal is primarily in the interests of British Nyasaland, and the population of Nyasaland, because owing to the fact of the break at the Zambesi, and the inability of transport to cross that river, except during certain months of the year, when there is neither flood nor the opposite of flood, namely, sand banks, which block the ferrying of anything at all, it means
  2038
  that the whole standard of life of the native population of Nyasaland is lower than other parts of East Africa. It is true things are much cheaper because they cannot be exported. None the less it is perfectly clear that all the more energetic members among the people are being driven out of Nyasaland simply because the communciations are inadequate and you find all over that country and Kenya, as pointed out by Dr. Jesse Jones, the communications are inadequate. The Zambesi Bridge is one way—I do not say the only way which has been suggested—for enabling British Nyasaland, with its increasing population which is extremely industrious, to get a chance of exporting something and buying something. When the Schuster Committee, however, came to examine the finance, they discovered it was a work of gigantic proportions. It was a very big river, liable to tremendous runs of water, and they doubted without further inquiry whether the million people of Nyasaland and their production could, with the conditions laid down by the Schuster Committee, pay from the start. So they examined to see whether there was any project not in Nyasaland but nearby that would aid the Nyasaland traffic passing over such a bridge, and they were informed that the Portuguese Government has given that concession to a Belgian company for the development of Portuguese coal in Portuguese East Africa. It has nothing to do with us, and we could in no way interfere with the Portuguese Government or the Belgian Government. If they do develop that coalfield—whether they will or not I do not know—it will, of course, be of material use for traffic over that bridge, and it will enable that bridge to pay and the roads to be used by the native production of Nyasaland.
  On the general question I think I ought to make it clear both to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) that you cannot lay down a proposition that in the interests of this country you are to lock up the resources of any part of the world or the possibility of the advance—social, economic and industrial—of any race of the world. The idea that you can say to East Africa, "You have to be kept primitive and the resources and minerals

  2039
  of your country are to be kept out," is a proposition which, I for one, would never subscribe to.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: I never suggested that. I said that when we introduced industrial capital we must also introduce the wages and the hours of labour in proportion to the trade and conditions in this country.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is a secondary matter. If the impression got about that in the interests of one particular country we could keep back the other there would be a great deal of resentment felt on the part of many people. I am very glad that that matter has been cleared up. Let me congratulate the hon. Member for North Battersea on his vigorous attack on Socialism to-night. After all, it is proposed to get people with savings that may be invested in profit-making concerns at a higher rate of interest, to put those savings at a lower rate of interest in Government expenditure—Government railways and Government harbours—carried out by Departmental work. Usually, on these occasions, I am accused not of propping up private interests and private enterprise, but on the ground that His Majesty's Government are being unduly Socialistic in their methods of developing these undeveloped countries. The hon. Member, I understand, on the last occasion received representations, I think from the representatives of Jaffa, when he made a vigorous attack on Zionism and the Jews, but, overawed by the greater knowledge of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), he has rather dropped that in this Debate and now says that both Jew and Arab at Jaffa are very anxious that the harbour works should be carried out there. Of course they are. The Jews at Jaffa and Haifa are anxious that it should be carried out there, but the decision of His Majesty's Government is that there shall be made the best harbour in the interests of the country as a whole and on that alone will the decision he taken. The pipe line does not enter into the discussion of the matter, which is being looked at entirely from the point of view of Palestine and Transjordania. Whatever happens even if Haifa—as is the more probable—develops into the principal commercial harbour, the country
  2040
  and the ground being more fitted for it than the reaches of Jaffa, it is not proposed to neglect Jaffa altogether. A certain sum of money will be spent in endeavouring to improve the landing at Jaffa which, as everybody knows who has been there as I have been, now leaves much to be desired.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the pipeline does not enter into the question at all?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question may be raised in the future but it is not an immediate practical proposition. The other point that the hon. Member for Caerphilly raised was when he was talking about conscript labour and the prohibition or the discouragement of the growing of certain crops. We have had a great many questions on these matters for many months, and I thought that the policy of His Majesty's Government had been declared so often and had been made so clear that I am sorry it has been raised again. We have laid it down again and again that neither in East Africa nor in West Africa nor in any British colony will His Majesty's Government, as long as they retain power, allow the compulsory recruiting of labour for private profit on private estates of any kind. I renew that pledge to-night. But with regard to public works and services, there are occasions when it is necessary to call upon local labour to assist in those works.
  Our policy is to dispense with that necessity as soon as we possibly can; as soon as a free-labour population grows up in those countries, and it is a matter of very slow growth in West Africa. It is faster in East Africa, by the existence of a certain number of capitalistic enterprises. We shall dispense with that necessity, as I have said, if we can get free labour to come forward and to work. We have only used compulsory labour in Kenya once. In Uganda we have had to use more compulsory labour. A great proportion of the roads, for enabling cotton production to take place, have been built by communal labour. Twenty-eight days is the limit in a year, and it is remarkable with what speed the natiyes construct the roads and how cheerfully that labour is performed, especially as they

  2041
  see that it inures to their benefit. It is true that in the West Coast of Africa we do find it necessary to call upon compulsory labour for the construction of both railways and roads, but that is strictly limited by law to so many days in the year. It is properly rationed, and is properly organised under suitable officers.
  The matter has been under discussion. Those conditions obtain in various parts of that continent which have only recently come out of slavery or where there is no industrial population—practically no white labour of any kind. There it is necessary to have recourse to this system for essential work such as I have mentioned. In places like Kenya and the more developed parts of East Africa we are getting to the point where the use of forced labour is becoming rarer and rarer, and will in the end be eliminated. With certain of the tribes whose sole occupation in the old days was military service and fighting, it is very desirable that the male part of the population should be adapted to undertake agricultural work for themselves, or to work for the Government, or to learn something useful on a plantation. I do not say in large areas of Africa, but in some areas of Africa, we have stopped the tribal wars, and have broken up the old customs, and the male section of the population are doing absolutely nothing, and that is bad for them and bad for the tribes, and the sooner it comes to an end the better.
  On the question of taxation it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton), who has spent so many years in East Africa, has said, that the white population in Kenya is estimated to pay a quarter of the taxation, and the native population—or, rather, the Indian, the native and the Arab population—pay about three-quarters. I am not in a position to confirm or dispute his exact figures.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: I was quoting from the Governor's speech. For myself, I made the figures somewhat different.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not checked them but, taking them from the Governor's speech, look at the immense disproportion in numbers as instancing the difficulty of making such a comparison. There are between 10,000 and 11,000 Europeans all told, including officials, and there are 2,250,000 natives
  2042
  and 30,000 Indians, and some thousand Arabs. The European quarter of the taxation has to be divided by 10,000, and the non-European three-quarters has to be divided by 2,000,000 odd. I do not think any European in Kenya would ever suggest for one moment that he should not pay in direct and indirect taxation a great deal more per head in proportion to the members of any other race, but the working out of a fair and equal incidence of taxation amongst many races, with varied elements in each race, is by no means an easy task, for any Government, however much alive to this problem, and I do assure the hon. Member that the present Government are alive to it.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that the railways had meant a great strain on the Kavirondo labour. I can assure him that no Kavirondo labour has been used in the construction of railways in East Africa. Uganda does provide its own labour supply. Take the very plan of the railways, such railways as the Schuster Committee foreshadow as among the earliest of those which it has already agreed to. The Tabora-Mwanza line runs through a district where there is not a single European settler, and the general line of development of railways in East Africa has been based upon an endeavour to reach areas where there is the densest and most native population. White settlement takes place in East Africa only in small patches. It is perfectly true that there is only a comparatively small area in that part of the world which will ever be available for European settlement. Land under 5,000 feet above sea level, which comprises the greater part of that country, will always be a country for native population. The bulk of the native population does live and work in the lower areas, and in the highland areas where Europeans go, there are comparatively few natives, although there is there in many cases actually the richest soil for the purposes of production. After all that has been explained before and it is a considered opinion of the African Government that the natives should be encouraged to grow robusta, although arabica coffee is worth more than robusta. The reason is that robusta coffee grown in Java is a fairly hardy plant with a fairly regular yield

  2043
  and does not require perpetual pruning and attention and that is not so in regard to the very high-grade arabica coffee which is required. When they do get a good year they do not get a tremendous yield. In Ceylon where they grow arabica coffee it was all destroyed in one year by one disease. In a wide country like East Africa, unless you have the natives growing that crop in a ringed fence, and unless you have perpetual inspection you may have the whole of the industry in a very short time stamped out by the spread of diseases. In the neighbourhood of Arusha the plots producing this kind of coffee were carefully inspected and the conclusion was arrived at, that they were very dangerous, that they were already diseased and that they should be grubbed up. At Kilimanjaro, where we have a Government officer in control there is a place where the arabica coffee is being grown, but robusta coffee growing is much safer everywhere else and is more successful, and it makes a very much better crop. That is all I need to say on that point.
  One final word in regard to the main question, which is finance. In this connection may I say a word about research? Proposals are coming forward in regard to research, and I may say that nobody is more anxious than the Colonial Secretary and myself to get every penny we can to promote scientific research within the Empire. I have spent a great deal of my life pointing out the shortcomings of my fellow-countrymen in regard to the matter of scientific research. I have found many glaring instances all round the world, and I find that I have had to preach to a lot of very unconverted people, and I shall continue to do so. I agree that research should be interpreted in its widest sense. It is not merely the investigation of the diseases of plants and animals and human beings, but the problems we are up against are such that we need a very much greater staff than we have had in the past. The more fundamental research on these economic and social relations in the higher ranges of policy and development is quite as important as all the other fundamental sciences, and, in the intimate relation of these several things, it is absolutely necessary, if we are to avoid making mistakes, and if we are to get the maximum pro-
  2044
  duction in the interests of the world and of the people of these countries.
  As to finance, I was profoundly sorry to hear the line that was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. Greenall). I had thought that, after the speech of the Financial Secretary the other day, and after what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on more than one occasion, he would have been converted, but it appears that he was not. It seems to be said that we have many better means of using our credit, but, speaking for myself Personally, it seems to me that this particular use of credit is a really productive use, and that that is the only way in which we can get more credit in the years of the near future, when we shall want it most. Credit seems to me to be entirely bound up with the Volume of production and the Volume of trade, particularly on a sterling basis, and the produce that is obtained on a sterling basis in the British Empire seems, to my mind, to be the foundation of our whole credit system. Credit is not a thing apart from trade or development; they are mutually inter-dependent. Looking round the world, I say quite frankly that, although my hon. Friend may know more about the City than I do, I am absolutely convinced that Great Britain, and British finance and British trade, will depend for their continuance on the development of tropical countries, of which the greatest are the British Colonies.
  The twentieth century is only just beginning to realise the dependence of industry upon trop cal raw materials. Industry in temperate countries cannot be developed as it is developing to-day without an increasing supply of all the tropical raw materials, not confined to fibres, oilseeds, and things of that kind. It is the marriage of tropical production with temperate industry that will give a new impetus to industrial development in the temperate countries, and, if one looks around the world, one sees that there are no two richer areas awaiting development than British West and British East Africa. I am perfectly convinced that the future prosperity and standard of life of the working people of this country are bound up with increased markets and increased purchasing

  2045
  power of overseas customers, and that every £1 of increased purchasing power that can be created, say in Uganda on the part of the native growing cotton, or in Nigeria on the part of the native producing palm oil, would be an immense increase in the purchasing power—
  Mr. BROMLEY: Increase the purchasing power of your own people!
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, it would increase the purchasing power of every British subject under the King, not only white men, but black men and yellow men and all our fellow-subjects. The hon. Gentleman may take the little England view, but we on this side of the House are determined, in using our credit and our energy to regard the Empire and its productive power and its purchasing power as one, as a great group in the world, and not to be narrow, parish-pump little Englanders, but people who do realise the dependence of the people of this island on the greater world outside.
  Bill committed to Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Amery.]

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 24.—(Exemption for sales under statutory authority and for sales by sheriffs and bailiffs.)
    Amendments made: In page 16, line 7, leave out the word "and" and insert instead thereof the word "or."
    In page 16, line 8, leave out the words "satisfy a" and insert instead thereof the words "enforce a right or to satisfy a claim or."—[Mr. Guinness.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I was not a member of the Committee on the Bill, but in the course of the Committee proceedings, as the result of an undertaking which I had given privately to some deputations I received, in view of our system of public
    2046
    prosecution in Scotland, of which we are justly proud, the Solicitor-General gave an undertaking on my behalf to the effect that I would undertake, on the Scottish application Clause, to instruct the Procurators Fiscal, who act on my instructions and are responsible to me, to consult with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland before instituting any prosecution to which the veto of the Minister in England would have applied. I desire to give that undertaking to the House.

  INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords.].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords.].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Divorce jurisdiction of High Courts in India where parties are domiciled in England or Scotland.)
    Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "England" and insert instead there of the word "India."
    After the interesting discussion in which the House has just been engaged, I fear this subject will seem rather dull, but I think I shall be able to move, in a very few words, the Amendments in my name, and I am particularly desirous so to do, because I do not want, if I can help it, to obstruct the speedy passage of the Bill into law. It is to us lawyers a question of very great importance, and it is an entirely new question which is raised in this Bill. The first Clause provides that the Courts in India
    "shall have jurisdiction to make a decree for the dissolution of a marriage, and as incidental thereto to make an order as to damages, alimony, or maintenance."
    Those are the matters which follow a decree in the English Courts. They are matters which provide for the future of the innocent party at the expense of the guilty party—
    "custody of children, and costs, where the parties to the marriage are British subjects domiciled in England or in Scotland."
    That is in our law an entirely new departure. The Courts have been very careful always in this country to confine their divorce jurisdiction to those who are domiciled in this country. The ques-

    2047
    tion of domicile is a matter which has received very careful consideration from the highest Courts of the Realm, and the accepted law which has emerged is this, that the Courts will exercise no jurisdiction except over people who are domiciled in this country, that is, who have made their home here, which is not an unjust provision. If a man lives in a place and has made his home there it is just that on questions relating to his domestic relations, his divorce and things that belong to his status, should be regulated by the laws of the country where he has made his permanent home.
    This Bill contains a departure, and the first departure, from that rule, and it is included in Clause 1. When we come to the proviso in (1, a) we find that when an Indian Court is taking into consideration a divorce case brought before it by a British servant engaged in India, residing in India, they shall be allowed, for the first time, to ignore the law of this country, which is, that jurisdiction is confined to those who are domiciled in this country, and they shall have power to deal with British subjects domiciled in England or in Scotland. What is the law which they are to apply under this new departure, under this new law, to the people with whom they are dealing in India, although they are domiciled in England or Scotland? It provides that
    (a) the grounds on which a decree for the dissolution of such a marriage may be granted by any such Court shall he those on which such a decree might be granted by the High Court in England according to the law for the time being in force in England."
    The object of my Amendment is to leave out the word "England" and to insert instead thereof the word "India" in paragraph (a), so that the paragraph would read:
    "The grounds on which a decree for the dissolution of such a marriage may be granted by any such Court shall be those on which such a decree might be granted by the High Court in India according to the law for the time being in force in India."
    The reason that underlies my suggestion is that it so happens that the law of divorce in England and Scoland is not the same. The Scottish Courts have a rather easier system of divorce than we have in England. If this Bill stands as it is drawn, the result will be that, supposing a Scotsman domiciled in Scotland,
    2048
    that is, a man whose home is in Scotland, but who resides in India, comes under the operation of this Bill in India, there will be applied to him the law of England, which is not the same as the law of his own country. It is not the same law that would be applied if he were at home in Scotland, and you have this curious result, when he, as a Scotsman, goes before the Courts in India, be will be dealt with according to English law, while if he can afford to come to Scotland he will be dealt with according to Scottish law, which is 'not the same. If he remains in India he will have one form of law, if he goes to Scotland he will have a totally different law. There seems to be a hardship in that, and there has been considerabe opposition in Scotland to the proposal.
    If people invoke the laws of the country where they reside, it is only reasonable to say that they shall be subjected to the laws of that country. There is a divorce law in India. I have made inquiries and I understand that the Indian Courts have a law not unlike that of England, perhaps formed upon it, by which they can divorce people who are at present domiciled in India. That is the existing law. I believe the jurisdiction remains with the District Judges, and that there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal in India. Therefore, they are not without jurisdiction and a knowledge of the law. What I submit to the House is this, that if you are going to make this a really workable Bill, it is reasonable to say to Englishmen and Scotsmen who are domiciled at home but who are employed in India, that if they are going to resort to the Indian Courts, then they must submit to the law of the country of the Courts to which they go. It is always inconvenient for the Courts of one country to decide cases according to the laws of another country, and that would happen here if the Bill stands as it is.
    Another curious position will arise under the Bill as it stands. In the first Clause it says that when the Court in -India has pronounced its decree, according to English law, it is to have the right to order alimony or maintenance. According to English law, that is to provide for the innocent party, and the allowance or the sum secured is to be paid by the respondent, that is by the

    2049
    guilty party. That is not the law of Scotland. In order to provide for the hardship that this will obviously entail, the Lord Advocate told us that rules are to be framed—it is in Sub-section (4, d).
    "for preventing, in the case of a. decree dissolving a marriage between parties domiciled in Scotland, the making of an order for the securing of a gross or annual suns of money;"
    In Clause 1 the Bill expressly states that the Court is to have the power to grant to the innocent party an order securing a gross or annual sum of money, and then in paragraph (d) you find that rules may be made preventing them doing so. That seems a very clumsy way of doing it, to allow it to be specified in terms that the Court which grants the decree is to be allowed to give the innocent party a sum of money, which is to be secured, and at the same time to form rules which are to provide that when the parties happen to be domiciled in Scotland they are not to do anything of the kind. That is one of the curious anomalies that results from the way the Bill is framed. Therefore, I submit that it is reasonable, where you are making this departure from the law, when you are granting the Indian Court a right which I think they should have —there are many public servants in India, and it is desirable that they should get their remedy in India, where the offence has been committed and where the evidence is to be obtained—it is desirable that they should resort to the Indian Courts, and, therefore, the Bill is much needed and has my entire support; but I think that if you make this serious departure from long-established and well-considered law, which is that the domicile of the parties should regulate their divorce—if you depart from that, it is only fair that you should submit to the laws of the country. Scotsmen have a very legitimate cause of grievance. They say, "You are going to allow people who are domiciled in England or Scotland to be treated—"
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is now anticipating another Amendment which has been handed in, relating to Scottish juris diction as a separate issue.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I was not aware of that Amendment.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Comittee if I replied at once to the point put by my hon. and learned Friend. I do not propose to reply to the reference which he made to the Scottish aspect of the Bill, which is to be raised on a specific Amendment later, and to which it is more appropriate that the Lord Advocate should reply. I think I can dispose of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment in a very few words. In the first place, the Amendment, as drafted, would make nonsense of the Bill. It proposes to alter the words "High Court in England" to the words "'High Court in India." There is no one High Court in India. There are a number of High Courts in the various provinces. The Amendment should read "High Courts in India." Apart from that, I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend could have appreciated what the effect of his Amendment would be. The preamble of the Act contains the words:
    "An Act to confer on Courts in India and other parts of His Majesty's Dominions jurisdiction in certain cases with respect to the dissolution of marriages, the parties whereto are domiciled in England or Scotland."
    That is to say, it applies to Europeans who are resident in India and are domiciled in this country. The effect of the Amendment would be exactly the opposite of that which my hon. and learned Friend is seeking, according to the speech which he made. It, would, for example, allow India to make its own divorce laws, without any control by this House, for Europeans not domiciled in India but resident in that country. That is the first point. Not only would it do that, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman has not moved to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 it would mean that these decrees given in India under a law over which we would have no control would have to be registered in this country and have effect in this country. My right hon. Friend and the Government of India have been careful not to invade the principle of domicile more than it has already been invaded by the Act of 1869. It is only by a judgment made in 1921 that we learned for the first time that these decrees are not valid in England; they are still valid in India. I think my hon. and learned Friend,

    2051
    will see that his Amendment does not secure what he has in mind. It would be the most extraordinary and inconvenient way to proceed, this particular departure from the principle of domicile never having been recognised before in this country or in the Empire. The other departure from the principle has been recognised by the Act of 1869, but his proposal has never been recognised in any Act of Parliament, and I certainly, on behalf of the Government, should not agree to it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after the word "England," to insert the words
    "or the Court a Session in Scotland according to the law for the time being in force in Scotland."
    The last night when this Bill was before the House the Lord Advocate put forward certain pleas in defence of the Bill as it stands and against objections that were taken to the Bill as it stands by Members representing constituencies in Scotland. I want to submit that the two points he made against the objection raised to the Bill were, in his opinion, fundamental and sentimental. May I put it to him—he shakos his head. He can probably correct me if I have interpreted what his position was. It is not sentimental to the extent of the fact of a man being domiciled in Scotland. That becomes purely legal. It states in the Bill that this is for the purpose of parties who are domiciled in England or Scotland.
    The purpose of this Bill is to bring an individual domiciled in Scotland outside the law of Scotland and inside the law of England so far as divorce goes. I want to put it to the Lord Advocate, who is here to look after the legal interests of Scotland, that he might just as well say that anyone who is living in Scotland at the present time, and who is seeking a divorce would have to appear before the Court of Session in Edinburgh when that individual ought, though domiciled in Scotland, to have his divorce settled by the Courts of England.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman smiles. I put it to him frankly that if he is going to destroy the law as it applies to an individual domiciled in Scotland, in a Bill intended to validate divorces in India, he might as reason-
    2052
    ably argue that the same principle could be applied to a person actually resident in Scotland who is seeking a divorce. The Bill as it stands is resented by lay and legal opinion in Scotland and if the Lord Advocate cares to canvass the advocates with whom he is acquainted in Edinburgh he will find the vast majority are opposed to the Bill as it stands. That view is held by the majority of the legal fraternity all over Scotland. They are in favour of bringing in a proposal of this kind in some way and if the Amendment which I move does net effect that purpose, then I hope other words will be found to bring this Bill into line with the law in Scotland as it applies in the Court of Session.
    The Lord Advocate is doing this with his eyes open. He is a Scotsman, but he does not represent Scotland. He sits for an English constituency and he is supposed to represent the law of Scotland. I am not saying that in any belittling sense, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is domiciled in Scotland and I suggest that he would take it very hard if, because he represents a constituency in England, he were, by a Bill of this sort, to be brought under the law of England. I put it to the Lord Advocate that he ought to take cognisance of and have respect for the opinion of Scotland, not merely sentimental but legal, and he ought to agree to insert such words in the Bill as will cover the point I am making. Scottish opinion is becoming restless because of the constant frittering away of Scottish rights established by ancient Scottish laws and customs. This is another attempt on the part of the Government to cut deeper into the laws of Scotland and the rights of the Scottish people, and I am convinced that sooner or later there will be a heavy reckoning. If the Lord Advocate is prepared to meet us by inserting words on the Report stage to cover this point I am prepared to allow the Bill to pass its present stage.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: This point was fully debated on the Second Reading and the Committee will excuse me if I deal with it somewhat briefly. Some fresh reasons and some interesting ones have, however, been suggested on this occasion. It has been said, and I gladly accept the challenge, that I ought to protect the legal interests of Scotland.
    Mr. MACLEAN: And the lay interests.
    11.0 P.M.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: It has further been suggested that my attitude in this matter is caused to some extent by my representation of an English constituency. It has always been a matter of pride to Scotsmen that their sway and their dominion are not confined to Scotland itself. Nowhere more than in India will you find a more striking illustration of that, and it is just because I am prepared to consider the interests of Scotsmen in not merely the narrow bounds of geographical Scotland that I am heartily supporting and helping to promote this Measure. I am sorry to observe there is still much misunderstanding as to the facts of the situation. I agree it may not have been made sufficiently clear on Second Reading, but I beg the Committee to observe that what this Bill does is to carry on something which has existed for years and is part of the existing law for domiciled Scotsmen. So far from cutting deeper into the existing system, we are keeping more back for Scotland, because the conditions on which this facility, which has existed since 1869, are being cut down and restricted under this Bill. Therefore, if this Bill does anything at all, it narrows the situation.
    It is true that I referred to one of the points dealt with in the Second Reading Debate as mainly a sentimental objection, and to the other as a practical question, and it is a practical question that is raised here. This Amendment accepts that the Bill shall apply to domiciled Scotsmen, and the only question that it raises is whether the Scottish law of matrimonial relief is to be applied under the Bill in India. That is purely a practical question, as I endeavoured to explain the other night, and as we are advised by those who do know the conditions of the Courts and Bars in India, that it is not practicable at the present time and under present conditions to get the complete code of Scottish law administered in India, we are driven to continue the existing system: of the application of the principles of English law.
    I agree that if it were practicable to have the full code of the Scots matrimonial relief administered in India, I would have been the first to have seen
    2054
    it put in the Bill, but no amount of sympathy and changing of words will get over the practical difficulty. I have no doubt that, if in the course of years the members of my profession, who have not apparently taken advantage of opportunities to the extent to which they might have done, do so, and the result is that you can get the full code of Scottish matrimonial relief administered, it may well be that we might alter the conditions and get it put on the most satisfactory basis,, but I beg the Committee to believe that this Bill continues, but on a narrower and stricter basis, an existing system.
    only want to add this—and I do not think this has been fully appreciated by the Mover of the Amendment or the previous Amendment—that under Subsection (3) of Clause 1, the decree of dissolution en its registration in Scotland, has all the effects of a Scottish decree. Therefore, as soon as the decree acts to Scotland—and it cannot be effective in Scotland before—and gets registered there, it has the effect of the Scottish decree. Therefore, it is wise to make rules to see that in the intervening stage there is nothing put in with regard to something which would be consistent with Indian practice but inconsistent with Scottish practice. It is an obvious matter of machinery to prevent any complication when the decree comes to be registered in Scotland. This does not prevent a Scotsman resident in India from applying for a remedy in Scotland if he prefers it. Therefore, on the ground of impracticability, it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If a Scottish lawyer, one of the same standing in the legal profession in Scotland as the right hon. Gentleman were competent to take in hand a case in India, so far as the methods apply to the Courts of India permitted him to appear on behalf of the case, is he to be allowed to appear as a Scottish advocate in the Court in the case of a Scotsman being tried under Indian law?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, of course not. Consider what the procedure would be to take a Scottish counsel in order to plead with members of a Bar unacquainted with the Scottish law!
    Mr. MACLEAN: That is not my question. Would he be allowed to appear there?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I said "No."
    Mr. MACLEAN: Then that settles the matter. The arguments of the Lord Advocate are not arguments against the Amendment, but are really arguments in favour of my Amendment.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that members of the Scottish Bar are placed in an inferior position in India under this Bill?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No. There is no change made in their position.
    Mr. MAXTON: Are the members of the Scottish Bar placed in an inferior position in comparison with the members of the English Bar in India?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No. I understand you must be a member of the Indian Bar before you can appear at the Indian Bar. Doubtless, if a member of the Scottish Bar, who has confidence in himself, goes out and satisfies whatever preliminaries are necessary to join the Indian Bar, he can do so.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I understand that the two main grounds stated by the Lord Advocate are that, since 1869, the law of England has been applied to Scotsmen
    domiciled and resident in India, and that being so, we should continue that. I rather suggest that, if we have erred in the past, we should change that now. His second ground is that it would be impracticable for the High Court in India to take evidence under Scottish law. It seems to me to be rather a strange argument. There are plenty of Scottish barristers in India and the High Court in India could take evidence under Scottish law and apply it.
    Mr. HERBERT: Supposing a couple in India, domiciled in Scotland, were married in India, and their marriage settlement was made in India. according to Indian law, then that a divorce decree was given, and that it was registered in Scotland, and, as the Lord Advocate has has told us, that has the effect of wiping out the erring spouse—
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I must answer that with reserve.
    Mr. HERBERT: May I ask whether a divorce decree of this kind, registered in Scotland, would have what I might describe as the Scottish effect on the settlement which was made in India according to Indian law?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 70 Noes, 144.

    Division No. 546.]

    AYES.

    [11.15 p.m.

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Riley, Ben

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bromfield, William

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watlord)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromley, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sinclair. Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Hudderstleld)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Compton, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Dalton. Hugh

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Dunnico, H.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Edwards. C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)

    Kennedy, T.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Fenny, T. D.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Watson, W. M.. (Duntermline)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lunn, William

    Westwood, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Murnin, H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Owen, Major G.

    Wiggins. William Martin

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

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Windsor, Walter

    Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Potts, John S

    Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hardie, George D.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Nell Maclean and Mr. Maxton.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Alexander, C. E. (Leyton)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

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

    Bethel. A.

    Albery, Irving James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Birchall. Major J. Dearman

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Roberts, E. H. O. (Flint)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hendereon. Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Briscoe. Richard George

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major L. A.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Herbert,S.(York. N. R., Sear. & Wh'by)

    Rye, F. G.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Carver, W. H.

    Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Savery, S. S.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hutchison, G. A. Ciark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Clayton, Q. C.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O,

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smithers. Waldron

    Copt, Major William

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Crooke. J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Stanley, Hon. o. F.G. (Westm'eland)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strong

    Duckworth, John

    Lougher, L.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    England, Colonel A.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Everard. W. Lindsay

    McLean, Major A.

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macquisten, F. A,

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

    Finburgh, S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Forrest, W.

    Moles, Thomas

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Foxcrott, Captain C, T.

    Monself, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wells. S. R.

    Frece, sir Walter de

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

    Williams, Cam. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Oman. Sir Charles William C.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Goff, Sir Park

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Withers, John James

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Womersley, W. J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rafne, W.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Harland, A.

    Ramsden, E.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Remer, J. R.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. u.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.

    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out paragraph (d).
    What is provided here is only to he enjoyed under certain conditions, and before they can plead their case they have
    "to show that by reason of official duty, poverty or any other sufficient cause, he or she is prevented from taking proceedings in the courts of the country in which he or she is domiciled."
    I submit that that is altogether superfluous and indeed unjust. If this is a just law, then it is just for all. If it is right that a man in the public service in India, who has cause of complaint in India and has to prove his suit in regard to what happened in India, should be allowed to bring his petition in India it is right for ail. It is very hard that some distinguished official in the service of the English Government, for example, should have to leave his duties and spend a considerable sum of money in going to England or Scotland, taking with him witnesses and evidence from
    2058
    India, instead of being allowed to bring an English suit in India where the cause of complaint has arisen and the evidence in the case is in India. I submit that this paragraph is totally uncalled for. We do not want any limitation of that sort. From the richest to the poorest, it should be open to every man to take advantage of this new law, which I confess I think is a just one, and, when his complaint is in India, and when he resides in India, he ought, under the circumstances of this Measure, to be allowed to bring his action in India, whatever his condition may be, and whatever his financial status, without being put to the trouble of proving to the Indian court that he is unable, either because he is too poor or for some other reason, to bring it in this country.
    Sir HENRY SLESSER: I support this Amendment. I think the hon. and learned Member has made it quite clear that underneath this proposal there lies a very vicious principle which we should

    2059
    always attack, and that is that any discrimination should be made between the rights of any class of persons, rich or poor, to legal remedies. We had a reference yesterday, in connection with another Bill, to houses suitable for the working class, and all through this kind of legislation there is a growing tendency to give people different rights according to their financial status. I think the hon. and learned Member has raised a real point in this case. I agree that here it is the more wealthy who are affected, but the vice of the proposal is just the same, and, therefore, I hope that we on this side of the House will give him full support in endeavouring to get this paragraph deleted.
    Earl WINTERTON: I appreciate the attitude of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), but I do not quite understand why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) should desire the deletion of this paragraph. This is not the first time that a departure has been made from the well-established principle that jurisdiction in divorce depends on domicile; that well-established principle has been departed from in India since the Act of 1869. In this paragraph we are reducing the distance by which we have departed from that principle. In other words, we say that only to those who can show, to the satisfaction of the Courts in India, that they cannot get their divorce in England, shall the Bill apply. I may say that this paragraph has been inserted in the Bill as the result of the advice given to the Secretary of State and the Government of India by a Committee, to which I referred on the Second Reading, consisting of several high legal authorities, including Lord Merrivale. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment on my assurance that it reduces the distance of the departure, which has always existed, from the ordinary principle that jurisdiction in divorce depends on domicile, and is an attempt to make it apply only to cases where hardship would ensue if the parties had to come home. Incidentally, I may remark that my hon. and learned Friend made no reference to the hardship which may be suffered by the respondent he referred only to the petitioner.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I suppose this Bill accomplishes something. It is dealing with the existing condition and therefore this new provision is inserted. It is that new provision that I desire to take out.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I am sorry the Government is not prepared to accept the Amendment. It is most undesirable that jurisdiction in the matter of status should depend on the poverty or the wealth of the petitioner. It is a proposition which I am sure must be repugnant to all members of the House. Further, it must result in a different law being applied to the poor man and a rich man. I think the Government should accept the Amendment.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I should like to add my plea to the Noble Lord. There is no question about which horse I am going to back to win in this case because I should not have supported my hon. and learned Friend in his first Amendment if it had been pressed. The Noble Lord referred to the petitioner only having been mentioned and not the respondent. I do not quite see the point of that. It seems to me if there is any point at all in considering the question of the respondent as well as the petitioner it is against the Noble Lord's case. Take the case of one party to the marriage contract wishing to bring a suit in India. Under this Bill, if the Amendment is not accepted, he would have to come home at extra expense to himself, and that extra expense falls upon the respondent as well as the petitioner. It seems to me there are two absolutely unanswerable arguments. One is that if the case is one that should he brought at all, on every possible ground of expense it ought to he brought in the Courts of the country where the alleged misconduct has taken place, where the evidence can be obtained and where the witnesses reside. The other ground has been urged already, that you should not have one law for the poor and one for the rich. Here it seems to me it is almost archaic to suggest, in favour of the Noble Lord's points, that you are not to let this extend to any except poor people and those who are prevented by duty. He argues that it is only to apply to them because you are making a mistake, first of all in having

    2061
    the law of Scotland interpreted by an Indian Court, and then, having made that mistake, you are going apparently to make it worse by applying it only to a particular class of people, determined on a most extraordinary basis—either duty or means. It seems to me grossly unfair, and I hope the Noble Lord will consider this again very carefully and see whether something cannot be done. We know what a. poor person is who is entitled to certain free assistance or something of that sort. What is the kind of poverty that is to apply to a case where it is going to make a difference in the cost to the parties between £300 and £3,000? I suggest that this is a matter which ought to be considered and I hope the Amendment will he pressed to a Division and that a large number of Members will support it.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I would like the Committee to realise exactly what is the position in this case, because, judging from these speeches we have heard, some hon. Members have nut fully appreciated the terms of the Bill. In the first place, let me point out that paragraph (c) makes it clear that a decree of dissolution can be granted in a case where the marriage was solemnised in India even though the offence was not committed there, or in the alternative where the adultery or crime complained of was committed in India. Secondly, I wish to point out that while stress has been laid on certain words of paragraph (d) the Committee should recognise that the matter is governed from beginning to end by the closing words, and the whole purpose is to secure that where, in the interests of justice, it is desirable that the suit should not be determined in India, the Indian Court shall have discretion to refuse jurisdiction. If this Amendment he accepted the Indian courts will have no discretion at all, and if a petitioner appears before them in a case, where the offence was committed in England and the marriage took place in India, the court would be bound to try it. I do not think the, House desires that. We approach this matter from an entirely different point of view. We accept the desirability on general principles of sticking to the law of domicile as far as we can, but. at the risk of repeating a little of what I said before, I may say we
    2062
    found that there did exist a jurisdiction in India and obviously the reason for the existence of that jurisdiction was because there were people who could not easily or conveniently, or without great expense or hardship, bring their suits in the true court of their domicile. I have not the slightest doubt that the purpose of the Act of 1869 was to serve those people and not to serve people who in all fairness ought to bring their suits in the court of their domicile. Having that fact in view, and the expression of opinion by Lord Merrivale and the advice of the Committee to which the noble lord has referred, these limitations were put in. Let us read the whole of them:
    "Any such court may refuse to entertain a petition in such a case if the petitioner is unable to show that by reasons of official duty, poverty, or any other sufficient cause, he or she is prevented from taking proceedings in the court of the country in which he or she is domicilled and—"
    I ask the Committee to note that this would be cut out by the Amendment.
    "—the court shall so refuse if it is not satisfied, that in the interests of justice it is desirable that the suit should be determined in India."
    Even in a case where the offence has been committed in England and the marriage has been solemnised in India, it will not be uncommon for at least one of the parties to be in India at the time when the proceedings are brought and it will be possible if this paragraph is taken away, for a person who thinks he will have an easier time in India or have less risk of opposition in India, to go out to India and bring proceedings there and the Indian court will have no choice but to try that ease. I ask the Committee to look at this matter in a broad spirit and from the angle which I suggest is the true angle, namely that we ought to preserve as far as we can, consistently with the need of this specially placed population in India, our domicile foundation for divorce. I suggest that these are quite fair safeguards, in the form of a discretion—except when it is made imperative with the closing words—to put into the hands of judges who, after all,, are—I say it without any offence—the hierarchy of judges in India. Anyone who knows the kind of Court which exercises discretion will see at once that it does not matter two-pence whether you say "shall" or "may" with these closing words, because if a Court is. satisfied that it is

    2063
    in the interests of justice that the suit should not be determined in India the Court will say that the ease must go back to its domicile. I do not lay any particular stress on the word "may." I urge the Committee to approach the question from a reasonable point of view.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: We were told just now that a person can go out to India for the purpose of bringing a suit. Paragraph (c) contains these words:
    "No such court shall grant any relief … except in cases where the petitioner resides in India at the time of presenting the petition and the place where the parties to the marriage last resided together was in India …"
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is my point. That is what happens. The parties are residing in India. A matrimonial offence is discovered, and they part, and both go home. It is the easiest thing in the world for the parties to make it a residence in order to bring a suit. That does not take much away from my argument.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Let us look at this question, not only from the
    point of view of paragraph (d), but from the point of view of the injustice of paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) says that a Scotsman shall be subject to English law. Paragraph (d) says that a rich Scotsman may evade that, but a poor Scotsman shall be subject to English law. Is that correct?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: On the contrary, it says that he shall not be subject to it unless there is real necessity.
    Mr. ALBERY: May we have a further explanation of paragraph (d)? It says:
    "Any such court may refuse to entertain a petition in such a case if the petitioner is unable to show that by reason of official duty, poverty or any other sufficient cause …"
    Does "any other sufficient cause" include any form of employment other than official?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I think that is clearly what it is intended to cover.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 547.]

    AYES.

    [11.46 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Radford, E. A.

    Albery, Irving James

    Harland, A.

    Raine, W

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ramsden, E.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Remer, J. R.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Crott

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Rye, F. G.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Burman, J. B.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Mldl'n & P'bl's)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Jacob. A. E

    Savery. S. S

    Christie, J. A.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cope, Major William

    Little, Dr- E, Graham

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cunon, Captain Viscount

    Loder, J. de V.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'tden, E.)

    Carver, W. H.

    Lougher, L.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Duckworth, John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Steel, Major Samuel Strong

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    England, Colonel A.

    McLean, Major A.

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

    Everard. W. Lindsay

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Fielden, E. B.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Finburgh, S.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Moles, Thomas

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

    Fraser, Captain Ian

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nuttail, Ellis

    Watts, Dr. T.

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wells, S. R.

    Goff, sir Park

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Womersley, W. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Margesson,

    Withers, John James

    NOES.

    Barr, J.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bromfield, William

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bromley, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J, H. (Huddersfield)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Charleton, H. C.

    John, William (Rhondda, Wist)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cowan, O, M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Townend, A. E.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Kelly, W. T.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dunnico, H.

    Kirkwood, D

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Lunn, William

    West wood, J.

    Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

    Greenall. D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Maxton, James

    Windsor, Walter

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paling, W.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and

    Hayday, Arthur

    Riley, Ben

    Colonel Woodcock.

    Mr. B. SMITH: May I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that in the Division which has just concluded five Members were in the Lobby whose votes had been taken, but the Tellers had left the door, and so their votes were not counted?. I want to know whether those votes cannot be registered. We have to wait for the doors to be locked before the Tellers leave.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Tellers agree as to certain numbers, and those have to be reported. It is not in my power to give any redress.
    Mr. SMITH: But the point surely is that until the door is locked the Division is on, and my colleagues and myself waited to clear the Lobby, and there were five votes which were duly recorded there, but no Tellers to take those votes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the responsibility is with the. Tellers. They agreed, apparently, on certain numbers, and I have no power in the matter.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that those names can appear in the Division Lists in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow? It appears that the Tellers left the Division Lobby exits before the Lobbies were cleared.
    The CHAIRMAN: My duty is to announce the figures as given me by the Tellers. That is the limit of my duty. It may be that in the Division Lists tomorrow that discrepancy will appear. I presume that it will be in order on some
    2066
    occasion to put down a Motion of censure on the Tellers.
    Mr. MACLEAN: While everyone will agree that that is the extent of your duty, Sir, at the moment, still, as Chairman in charge of the business, your business, ought to be to protect the rights of Members, and it is one of the rights of Members to have their votes duly recorded and counted in any Division in which they may take part. I want to put it to you, acting, not as the Chairman who has read out the figures as given to you by the Tellers, but as the Chairman in whose keeping lie the rights and privileges of Members of this House, and their protection, that there is surely some method by which the names of those who were in the Division Lobby, but who were not counted by the Tellers, can be included in the Division Lists to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The CHAIRMAN: I take it that they will be included, and that their names will duly appear there, but that is a matter that is not within my jurisdiction.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: If 56 names appear in the list, and the numbers are stated to be 51, can you tell me which five will be considered as not having voted?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think any further questions on this point had better be put to-morrow to Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. HAYES: If an agreement can be reached between the Tellers that there

    2067
    has been a mistake in the numbers, would it not be in order, upon the Tellers reporting that to the Chairman or Mr. Speaker, to authorise the adjustment?
    The CHAIRMAN: I believe there are precedents for the Tellers immediately correcting certain numbers. It appears that in this case the five hon. Members in question—I know nothing as to the facts but I am assuming the facts to be as stated—have not passed the Tellers. I do not think it is in my power to adjust the matter. I am afraid that I can only say it is another example of the inconsistency of human affairs, that the list of those voting may be more than the numbers given in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
    Mr. SMITH: If in fact the Tellers were actually submitting their figures before the order was given to lock the doors, does not the Division become void?
    Mr. F. C. THOMSON (Lord of the Treasury): The doors were locked a considerable time before we left.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot go into this matter further. The numbers have been given to me by the Tellers and I must take them as correct. Any question as to any further matters must be discussed later on.
    Captain BENN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the House or Mr. Speaker have any jurisdiction whatever over what happens in Committee, and whether it is not a fact that Mr. Speaker has repeatedly ruled that he can give no opinion about the happenings in Committee? May I submit that this is a matter within our jurisdiction as a Committee, and that, in the circumstances, it is within your power as Chairman to declare the Division void? If the numbers declared by the Tellers obviously disagree with the numbers who passed through the Lobby, do you rule that you have no power as Chairman to declare the Division void?
    The CHAIRMAN: It would be a little dangerous to give answers to hypothetical questions. There is one definite question before me on which I have ruled. With respect to Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the question of the Report. I presume that the names and numbers will be given in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which is
    2068
    under the general jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. HARDIE rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot pursue this matter further.
    Mr. KIDD: In the unavoidable absence of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. MacIntyre), I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, after the word "Chancellor," to insert the words
    "and after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session."
    As I listened to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) I had a good deal of sympathy with him. On the other hand, I could not but be impressed by the explanation given on the Second Reading and to-night by the Lord Advocate. He made it quite clear that the policy pursued in the Bill in regard to Scottish law was inevitable. I was glad to learn from the Lord Advocate that, while he was practical in his work, he shared the sentiments of Scotsmen who took exception to the Bill as it stands. I rely upon that sentiment now. I suspect that the law of India has been developed under the influence of English law, and certainly not under the influence of Scottish law. I hope the Lord Advocate will agree with me that the provisions under (1, 4) will permit. of the Amendment which I have proposed. Sub-section (4) provides that
    Proceedings before a High Court in India in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act shall be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State in Council in India with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor.
    12 M.
    If the Amendment be accepted, I hope it will remove to some extent the displeasure some hon. Members feel towards the Bill. Better half a loaf than no bread. If the Lord President of the Court of Session, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, has to do with the framing of the rules under which these divorces are to be conducted, then we may take it that if by any chance Scotsmen or Scotswomen would be in any way prejudiced by the Bill as it stands, that prejudice will be removed as far as possible by the intervention of the Lord President of the Court of Session.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I quite appreciate the sentiment which actuates

    2069
    this Amendment, but I think it is clear that it would be essential as an administrative matter for my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, in order to frame these rules in correlation with Scottish procedure for the purpose of registration, to consult some Scottish legal authority, and it seems equally obvious that the only appropriate authority for him to consult is the Lord President of the Court of Session. It did not, therefore, seem to me absolutely essential that this Amendment should be inserted in the Bill, but my Noble Friend has authorised me to give an undertaking on his behalf that he will consult the President of the Court of Session in making these rules, and I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will be satisfied with that.
    Mr. KIDD: In view of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: "No!"
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: If the undertaking be there, why not put it in the Bill?
    Captain BENN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "after consultation with."
    The Sub-section would then read, that the rules shall be made
    "by the Secretary of State in Council of India with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session."
    If the Secretary of State requires the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor of England, why should he not in this matter, which concerns a British population, 80 per cent. of which is Scottish, require the concurrence of the Lord President of the Court of Session? If the Amendment be a good Amendment, as I think it is, I think it is better if we put the Lord President of the Court of Session on exactly the same footing as the Lord Chancellor, and, I therefore propose to leave out the words "after consultation with."
    Mr. MACLEAN: If an undertaking is given by the Secretary of State for India that he will act upon the principle of this Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) and consult with the Lord President of the Court of Session—if he is authorised to
    2070
    give that undertaking to the Committee—why not include it in the Bill? I have been a Member of this House for some years, and I have heard similar undertakings given to the House and subsequently I have heard that we are not bound by verbal undertakings given in the House. If it is a solemn undertaking on the part of the Secretary of State for India, and he accepts responsibility by making that undertaking public, he must also share the responsibility so far as this House is concerned. Why riot, therefore, put it into the Bill itself and thereby make it absolutely beyond the shadow of doubt and not merely leave it to the caprice of any individual saying that we did not understand that this was the undertaking or that we forgot altogether what the undertaking actually was, and consequently we did not consult the President of the Court of Session. I suggest to the Lord Advocate, since he has said that he will, on the authority of the Secretary of State for India, give the undertaking to the House, let him put these words in the Bill itself, and then the matter will be at rest. I hope he will carry that into effect.
    Mr. KIDD: I want to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), that I can appreciate the Amendment he proposes, but I think he will admit that having submitted an Amendment myself and having proposed to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking given by the Lord Advocate, it is only fair that I should give my reasons. I was bound to recognise that the Lord Chancellor was the head of the House of Lords or the head, so to speak, of a Court which itself was the Appeal Court of Scotland. The Lord Chancellor is a British Judge and having that in view, if that British Judge on a peculiar Scotch matter was prepared to consult with the Lord President then I am satisfied. I hope I have given reasons sufficient to show that I have displayed a jealous regard for the position and the feelings of Scotland in this matter. If the Lord Chancellor, as head of the British Court, consulted the Lord President of the Court of Session, I am satisfied and I propose now to withdraw the Amendment on the Paper on the undertaking given by the Lord Advocate.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am surprised at the hon. Member putting forward this

    2071
    wonderful excuse. I would point out to him when talking about his great sentiment for Scottish legal rights and natural rights that he is only paying lip-service when he accepts this kind of undertaking. I am not in any way reflecting upon the honesty of the meaning behind it, but we know what undertakings have been in the past, and the hon. Member in his own recollection as a Member of this House, certainly knows of undertakings solemnly given to this House that have been broken, not perhaps wilfully but inadvertently. The spirit of the undertaking has been broken and the undertaking has gone for nothing. If we are going to have it definitely stated now that Scottish rights are to be protected merely by an undertaking hidden away in the records of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which may be turned up later on and repudiated by the Government that may be in power at that time because none of its Members are in any way responsible for the undertaking, I must say that I cannot trust memories, legal or political. I am hoping that the Committee will not allow the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, but will insist upon the spirit of the undertaking being put down definitely in words in the Bill itself, and if the Lord Advocate is not prepared to accept the matter of defining the undertaking and putting words into the Bill, that the hon. Gentleman will go to a division on the matter.
    Captain BENN: If it is the fact that the Lord Advocate means that by not accepting the Amendments he will avoid a Report stage, I am glad to give him an undertaking on my own behalf that I shall not take advantage of the Report stage to move Amendments.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: It is desirable that we should not have to return this Bill to the other House. My Noble Friend will consult with the Lord President of the Court of Session in the ordinary course. This Amendment is not necessary. I very much regret that it is feared that an undertaking given by a Secretary of State should not be observed.
    Mr. MACLEAN: While we agree as to the avoidance of a Report stage, as this Bill originated in another place, that
    2072
    place, if it makes a mistake, ought to have that mistake corrected.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not agree that there has been a mistake.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Lord Advocate knows perfectly well that a great deal of money has been spent because so many of our legal matters are left to assumption. If we could get the matter down definitely in words we should know exactly where we were.
    Captain BENN: If it will assist further, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment. The Lord Advocate must not think that this is an attack upon any Government if we say that it is desirable that these words should be put in the Bill. I never intended to reflect upon the honour of any Minister, but it is desirable that if we mean a thing we should say it. It is a very dangerous doctrine to say that, because a Bill comes from another place, we must not amend it, because it will involve sending it back.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and gallant Member put that question to me, and I merely pointed out that that would be the result.
    Captain BENN: I do not want to labour the point if we are not at variance, but if it is to be said that, because a Bill originates in another place it is undesirable to amend it here, it is a dangerous doctrine. I suggest respectfully to the Lord Advocate that if I withdraw my Amendment, which I am quite willing to do, he should accept the words of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), and then it will be a matter of two minutes only, and the Bill will become law with this desirable aspiration actually in it.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: We have the undertaking of the Government that the Lord President. shall consult with the Lord Chancellor, and is not that sufficient for all practical purposes?
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the words 'and the Lord President of the Court of Session' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 109.

    Division No. 548.]

    AYES.

    [12.18 a.m.

    Barr, J.

    Hardie, George O.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (uelth)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromfield, William

    Henderson. T. (Glasgow)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Buchanan, G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Varlty, Prank B.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dalton, Hash

    Kelly, W. T.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Kirkwood, D

    Westwood, J.

    Duckworth, John

    Lindley, F. W,

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    England, Colonel A.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maxton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Potts, John S.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Riley, Ben

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Henderson,Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd, Henley)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Hennessy. Major J. R. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Albery, Irving James

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'byl

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. Putney

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hume-Williams, sir W. Ellis

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)

    Carver, W. K.

    Jacob, A. B.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cazalet. Captain Victor A.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'tden. E.)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Christie, J. A.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip

    Steel, Major Samuel Strong

    Clayton, G. C.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Lougher, L.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Dixey, A. C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McLean, Major A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Fielden, E. B.

    Maktns, Brigadier-General E

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Finburgh, S.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Foxcroft. Captain C. T.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Moles, Thomas

    Wells, S. R.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dae & Hyde)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Radford, E. A.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Harland, A.

    Raine, W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ramsden, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Remer, J. R.

    Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts-y)

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power to extend Act to other British possessions.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. MOLES: It will be remembered that, in moving the Second Reading, the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State, said that this Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. That seemed to me to imply scone limitation of the rights of equal citizenship that we have always claimed, and I ventured to disagree in
    2074
    that regard. I also demurred to the statement that there were no facilities for divorce in Northern Ireland, mentioning that I was Personally aware that a Bill had been introduced and passed through Parliament. There therefore appeared to be a conflict of opinion between myself and the Noble Lord. What the Noble Lord was speaking of, however, were facilities for divorce by the Courts, and he was entirely correct as to that. What I was speaking of was the quite different procedure which is followed in regard to divorce in Ireland.
    All the jurisdiction that the Irish Courts have in this matter is that the

    2075
    Judge may pronounce a decree a mensa et thoro, which is equivalent to a judicial separation. If the aggrieved party desires, or feels that he or she has justification for, anything further, a Parliamentary agent has to be approached and a Private Bill presented. The apparent difference between myself and the Noble Lord really arose from a certain incompleteness of expression on my part. He was good enough to say that, if the view that I had presented were correct, he would, and he did, in fact, in the most generous way, agree to keep the Bill open, so that representations might be made. This is a Bill which proposes to confer on the Indian Courts precisely the same powers with respect to divorce which the Courts in this country enjoy, and that may be perfectly correct so far as England and Scotland are concerned, but, as I have indicated to the Committee, the Irish Courts have no power to divorce, and, therefore, the Noble Lord was quite justified in his point of view that it was not possible to transfer to an Indian Court, with respect to Northern Ireland, powers which the Northern Irish Courts did not possess. Therefore, what looked like a difference of opinion between the Noble Lord and myself is entirely extinguished. All that could be done in the circumstances would be for my countrymen to exercise, in choosing a spouse, that prudence which has always been
    2076
    their leading characteristic, and thus make it unnecessary for any question regarding these powers to arise in their case. I thought it was due to the Committee and to the Noble Lord that I should make this explanation.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clauses 3 (Validity of certain decrees) and 4 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes before One o'Clock.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ESTABLISHED MEN'S ASSOCIATION).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ESTABLISHED MEN'S ASSOCIATION).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SHIPBUILDING TRADE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SHIPBUILDING TRADE).
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  TATFIELD COLLIERY, DURHAM (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  TATFIELD COLLIERY, DURHAM (EX-SERVICE MEN).
BRITISH ARMY.
  DISCHARGED MEN.
  DISCHARGED MEN.
  WAR MEDALS (SALES).
  WAR MEDALS (SALES).
RUSSIA.
  SOVIET ARMY (BRITISH OFFICERS).
  SOVIET ARMY (BRITISH OFFICERS).
  CHERVONETZ NOTES.
  CHERVONETZ NOTES.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
POOR LAW.
  DUDLEY, WEST BROMWICH AND WALSALL UNIONS.
  DUDLEY, WEST BROMWICH AND WALSALL UNIONS.
  PROVISIONAL SCHEME FOR AMENDMENT.
  PROVISIONAL SCHEME FOR AMENDMENT.
  BURTON UNION (MINERS' DEPENDANTS).
  BURTON UNION (MINERS' DEPENDANTS).
  CASUAL WARDS, YORKSHIRE (OVERCROWDING).
  CASUAL WARDS, YORKSHIRE (OVERCROWDING).
  LOANS AND OVERDRAFTS.
  LOANS AND OVERDRAFTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SOUTHBOROUGH CANDIDATES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SOUTHBOROUGH CANDIDATES).
  JURORS (EXPENSES).
  JURORS (EXPENSES).
  MANDATES COMMISSION (QUESTIONNAIRE).
  MANDATES COMMISSION (QUESTIONNAIRE).
  ALL-IN ARBITRATION TREATIES.
  ALL-IN ARBITRATION TREATIES.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  CONON LODGE, UIG.
  CONON LODGE, UIG.
  LONDON SUBURBAN RAILWAYS (ROLLING STOCK).
  LONDON SUBURBAN RAILWAYS (ROLLING STOCK).
  FACTORY ACTS (MULTIGRAPH PRINTING).
  FACTORY ACTS (MULTIGRAPH PRINTING).
POST OFFICE.
  POSTMARK ADVERTISEMENTS.
  POSTMARK ADVERTISEMENTS.
  PORTABLE WIRELESS SETS.
  PORTABLE WIRELESS SETS.
  EMERGENCY REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  EMERGENCY REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MAILS.
  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MAILS.
  LANCASHIRE COTTON MILLS (FINANCE).
  LANCASHIRE COTTON MILLS (FINANCE).
  CIVIL SERVANTS, NIGERIA (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  CIVIL SERVANTS, NIGERIA (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
BAMPTON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER. 1926.
FIFE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, &c.) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 9th of November last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
CARK AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
CREWE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
ETON WICK, BOVENEY, DORNEY AND HITCHAM ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 16th of November last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

MERSTHAM ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 27th of September last be approved with the modifications proposed by the Special Orders Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Constitution of Central Electricity Board.
(3) The chairman of the Board and any member of the Board who is, by the terms of his appointment, required to devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this Act shall, within three months after his appointment, sell any securities which he may hold for his own benefit in any company carrying on the business of supplying electricity or the manufacture or sale of machinery or plant for the generation or transmission of electricity; and it shall not be lawful for the chairman or any such member of the Board whilst he holds office to purchase for his own benefit any securities in any such company, and if the chairman or any such member of the Board under any will or succession becomes entitled for his own benefit to any securities in any such company, he shall sell them within three months after he has so became entitled thereto.
(5) The Board shall be a body corporate with power to hold land without licence in mortmain.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "which he may hold for his own benefit" and insert "in which he may be beneficially interested." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to extend the duty under the clause as regards securities held by nominees.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("which he may hold for his own benefit") and insert ("in which he may be beneficially interested")—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment to move, in subsection (3) after "own" ["purchase for his own benefit"] to insert "or another's." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I like the phraseology of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill so much better than my own that I am going to ask him to let me steal his phraseology either at this stage or a later stage and adapt it to the second part of the subsection.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Viscount does not move his Amendment?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Not till the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Do not let us have too many Amendments on the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add to subsection (5):—
"and shall have power to regulate their own procedure:
"Provided that the quorum of the Board shall not be less than one-third of the full number of the Board"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is to fulfil an undertaking I gave during the Committee stage. The object is to give the Board power to regulate its own procedure, and the proviso is put in because the necessity of providing for a quorum was very much pressed upon me by noble Lords on this side of the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, after ("mortmain") insert the said words—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, but will he tell us what one, third of eight is?
VISCOUNT PEEL: One third of eight is three.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The noble Viscount's arithmetic is not quite the same as that which I was taught at school. But if he means that there are never to be less than three as a quorum I am quite willing to accept the proposal.
LORD WITTENHAM: Why cannot you say "not less than three" instead
1200
of one third of eight, which is an impossibility.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new subsections:
"( ) A person shall be disqualified for being chairman, vice-chairman or other member of the Board if he is convicted, either on indictment or summarily, of any crime, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine, or to any greater punishment, or is adjudged bankrupt, or makes a composition or arrangement with his creditors.
( ) If the chairman, vice-chairman or any other member of the Board is absent from the meetings of the Board for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister, he shall on the expiration of those months, vacate his office.
( ) Where the chairman, vice-chairman or other member of the Board becomes disqualified for holding office, or vacates his office from absence or otherwise, the Minister shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this, I think, will get over an oversight on the part of the Government. It is usual to have this sort of clause in, and in fact I am rather disappointed that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has not seen his way to do what he promised on the last occasion—namely, to get rid of people who wilfully disobey the order to get rid of their shares. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will be able to move an Amendment of that sort on the Third Reading. If not, I will put one down.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, at end insert the said new subsections—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my feeling about this Amendment is that it is hardly necessary with a Board of this quality to suggest that they must leave it if they are convicted, or go to prison, or are adjudged bankrupts, because, after all, the Board is selected from men of the highest standing both in character and in business. I wonder whether the noble Viscount does not think it would be sufficient if he moved the last two paragraphs, with one or two little alterations. I can hardly conceive of a member of this Board who had been put into prison for three months calmly coming back and

1201
taking his place on the Board. I would suggest that in the second subsection on the Paper, in order to cover the first subsection which I propose should be omitted, the words should be inserted after the word "Minister"—"or fails to comply with the foregoing provisions of the section." That is to say, if for any reason a member should turn obstinate and should not get rid of his shares then he cannot sit any longer. That seems to be a fair provision. Even a man of eminence might possibly become obstinate, but I do not think he is likely to become a criminal. If the noble Viscount is willing to leave out the first of his proposed subsections I would accept the second and third with the Amendment I have suggested.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged. I simply took the Port of London Authority Act, 1908, and copied the phraseology from that. In that case there is a provision covering the case of imprisonment. If the noble Viscount thinks these people are so superior to the people on the Port of London Authority I am quite ready to withdraw that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have not heard of any member of the Port of London Authority going to prison.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: No, but this provision is in the Act in case they do.
LORD CARSON: May I ask whether, if a member of this Board becomes a bankrupt, he will still be entitled to sit?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Is it necessary to provide for every case that might happen? I could give a great many other possibilities. A member of the Board might conceivably become a lunatic. Does the noble and learned Lord think it necessary to provide for every case of that kind? Of course, if he does not come to the Board meetings then, by the second subsection, he resigns his position.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: But a lunatic could not very well come to the Board, could he? He would probably be locked up. A bankrupt, however, might come. It might be his only means of living; he might even sleep there.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Everything is possible, but is it conceivable on a Board of this kind that a man who goes bankrupt would really seek to attend meetings of the Board?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I suggest that the two latter of the proposed subsections overlap one another, and, if it would meet the views of the noble Viscount, I suggest that he move only the third subsection, with an addition of certain words from the second, so that it would then read:—
"Where the chairman, or other member of the Board becomes disqualified for holding office or is absent from the meetings of the Board for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister, the Minister shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Would the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack add the words "of Transport" after "Minister"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. Then the Amendment moved is:
"Where the chairman or other member of the Board becomes disqualified for holding office or is absent from the meetings of the Board for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Transport shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Preparation and carrying out of scheme.
4.—(1) The Electricity Commissioners shall, as soon as practicable, prepare and transmit to the Board a scheme or schemes relating to the respective areas specified therein—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection

1203
(1), to insert as a new paragraph:
"(c) Determining the places at which transformers for reducing pressure and secondary lines shall be placed by the Board as part of the main transmission lines, and the pressure at which electricity shall be supplied by the Board from such transformers and secondary lines."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as on the Committee stage, I ask the House again to consider the question of the supply of cheap current to country districts. That such a supply is desirable is, I think, common ground between the Government and its critics; but the Government say that it is the business of the undertakers and not of the Board, and they have no doubt whatever that the undertakers will supply the electricity because they will find it profitable to do so. That is the sole point—will it be profitable to any existing electricity company to supply current in sparsely populated districts, villages and small towns? All the knowledge I have of matters electrical, whether in connection with the generation of current or its transmission, leads me to think that these smaller areas will never be profitably supplied with current unless power is given to the Board to assist in the erection of transforming stations and thus to enable a secondary line to be put along the main trunk line to carry current of a less potential than the high pressure line is capable of supplying.
Members of the Government go up and down the country giving rosy accounts of what will happen when the Bill becomes law and suggesting that every labourer before long will have electric light in his cottage. Such a thing would be highly desirable; indeed, it is particularly desirable that there should be cheap power for use by all bigger farmers and small industrial plants. As your Lordships know, there is nothing more praiseworthy than the increase that has taken place under the auspices of various associations and individuals in village industries, and it is clear that if cheap electricity were available to help these industries and farming operations it would be a great benefit to the countryside. But scientifically and economically there is not the least chance of cheap electric current in these country and small industrial districts unless the burden is laid upon the Electricity Commissioners and the Board of building
1204
transforming stations and, having done that, of supplying current from the station to the local distributors.
Under the Bill at present there is the duty of taking the current from the big "grid" line, and the moment that current leaves the big "grid" line it is the duty of the local undertakers to turn it into current of less pressure for use in the district. As many of your Lordships know, that is done in France, Switzerland, Italy and other places. I believe I mentioned during the Committee Stage of the Bill that it is nearly always done in this way—that where big lines carrying high-pressure current run through a department, or whatever the political or civil district may be, it is a condition of the line being allowed to go through the district that facilities should be given for cheap current. We shall not get cheap current in this country if it is not provided in this Bill that the expense of erecting the transforming stations must fall upon the Commissioners and the Board.
Several remarks have been made tending to show that one of the excuses for borrowing from, or guaranteeing £33,000,000 by, the Treasury is that the poorer districts shall be able to have a share in the distribution of cheaper electricity. When I brought forward a similar Amendment during the Committee stage the noble Viscount said that though he had great sympathy with the demand in the country districts for cheap electricity, it was the business of the local undertakers and not of the Board or Commissioners to supply it. I was strengthened in placing that Amendment on the Paper by the fact that at page 18 of the Weir Report, after dealing with certain other things, the Committee say:
"Where these new Supply Companies cover wide areas, they will be responsible not only for actual distribution, but also for regional transmission. Where their activities are confined to a limited area, as will probably be the case in the purely non-industrial regions, the Board should be empowered to lay down secondary lines connecting their system to the 'gridiron.' This will at once provide the nucleus of a regional transmission system, and open up the possibilities of development in further directions."
That is exactly what I desire to see carried out, but it cannot possibly happen unless there is in this Bill a

1205
mandatory clause or permissive clause—I should prefer a mandatory clause—at any rate a clause providing that the Board and the Commissioners together are empowered, when the demand arises, to supply cheap power and to put up the transforming stations themselves.
I have in mind a transmission station in France, on a tributary of the Rhone. It is a bigger station, of course, than is usually put up. I visited that station a year or two ago and it cost, I think, no less than £20,000. I do not say that such a station for a, country town of 6,000 or 7,000 inhabitants should cost as much as that; but I cannot conceive of a transforming apparatus being put up for less than £10,000 Five per cent. on £10,000 is £500 a year; in other words, £500 a year has to be paid in interest by the consumers in a small town in addition to any charge they may have to pay for the current. In these days when such wonderfully cheap small sets for generating electricity can be bought, there is not much chance of a small town getting the whole of its electricity consumers to combine to put up a transforming station unless it is made cheaper for them to do so.
I think that the Government should decide definitely one way or the other. If they say it is too expensive to supply these country districts, do not let us have any more high falutin' talk about supplying the countryside with cheap current and the great benefit that would be to the farmers and small industries in the country. It is a somewhat expensive thing to transform a very small quantity of current, especially when you have to bring it down not in one step but in two steps from the high pressure current. If the Government really and sincerely desire that the countryside should have the benefit of cheap current, I know that the noble Viscount will not contradict me when I say that there is nothing in the Bill to compel either the Commissioners or the Board to supply it.
What will happen will be this. A small town or district will say: "We want this cheap current," and the supply company will apply to the Board. The Commissioners of the Board will say: "You can have this current, but you must build yourselves a station to transform it." Your Lordships know that the supply company do not build stations. I may remark in passing that £33,000,000 is a
1206
considerable sum if it is all to be spent for the benefit of the larger towns, but I do not for a moment begrudge any thing that will be spent if it has the effect of cheapening current. It is, however rather hard on the country districts whose taxpayers are going to provide some of the security for the money which is lent that they should have no benefit whatever from the expenditure of the money. I think the Government should have said definitely that either they were willing or were not willing to make this a part of the scheme. On paper it is possible, but it is improbable. I desire that the Government should make it clear on the Third Reading of this Bill, or in another place when the Bill goes back there.
Colonel Moore-Brabazon, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, who knows a great deal about electricity and whose explanations on all stages of the Bill are well worth reading, rather threw cold water on the idea of the country districts getting anything. He said:
"The only thing we have said from the beginning is that in that interconnection which will now take place there will be lines running from one town to another which would not have existed before and in those districts where the lines run it will be possible to tap off the current at a very low rate for the benefit of that particular part of the country. It will be interesting to see what type of consumption goes on in these new areas."
There it was definitely foreshadowed that the supply to country districts of cheap current will take place. The noble Viscount on the Front Bench, Viscount Peel, himself on Second Reading said:
"Again, the existence of the "grid" ….will make it possible to carry supplies through parts of the country where at present no distribution system exists and thus afford a welcome opportunity for the development of rural industrial areas."
That is quite clear. The noble Viscount, like myself, desires to encourage these rural industrial areas. I understand that in this country only 400 farms, or ·8 per cent., have a supply of electricity whereas in Germany no fewer than 90 per cent. of the farms are supplied.
My point, however, is not that; it is, that the noble Viscount held out in his Second Reading speech a distinct hope to all of us that he would make this a benefit to country districts. My Amendment is to the effect that transformers shall be placed by the Board as part of

1207
the main transmission lines; in other words, that the burden of the expense of making these transformers should be put on the Board and not upon the undertakers. I have no idea of raising any frivolous point. I think this is a most important matter. It is really a question of whether the rural districts are to get any reasonable supply and I hope the noble Viscount, who may not be able to meet me to-day, will, before the Bill reaches its final stage, go into the matter still further and see if he cannot meet us on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I dare say it was my fault and not the fault of the noble Lord but he has apparently misunderstood, or I misstated, exactly the point of this Bill as regards these transforming stations. He quoted me as saying that this matter of setting up the transforming stations was purely a matter for the distributors. I do not recollect saying it but I may, of course, be wrong. What I intended to say and what I believe I did say was that this was a matter for arrangement between the Board and the distributors. I am quite sure I did not say that it was for the distributors necessarily to put up these transforming stations. The whole business is a matter for arrangement. The various undertakers say that they want a supply of electricity to a rural district. Then it will be the duty of the Board to discuss with them where the lines are to be laid and for the Board to arrange where the transforming station will be set up. I do not think I did suggest, and I never intended to suggest, that the whole burden shall be thrown on the distributor. Transforming stations are paid for in the same way as the other operations of the Board are paid for, by the charges they make on the sale of electricity.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I wondered whether it was the Board or the Commissioners or the local distributor that had to pay for it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course, in the first place, the Board pay for it and then the question of the way it is spread out after they have paid for it will be a matter
1208
for the Board to consider, as in the case of their other charges. I again say that I do not disagree with my noble friend about the benefit or necessity of having electricity supplied to rural districts, and I repeat that that is one of the results which I hope we shall have from the Bill. Perhaps I have dispossessed him, or, at any rate, your Lordships, of the idea that it is the distributors who have to pay in all these cases for the transforming stations.
What the noble Lord wants, I understand, is this. He wants a scheme to determine the places at which secondary lines should be placed by the Board as part of the main transmission lines and the pressure at which electricity shall be supplied by the Board from such transformers and secondary lines. I submit that we ought not to put that into the Bill, because it would be very difficult, I might almost say impossible, to carry it out. The question of the different points at which transformers should be set up for the purpose of carrying electricity to the different villages is a matter for arrangement between the Board and the distributing authorities. It is not something that you can put in the first place into the scheme. It is a matter, when the scheme is arranged, that can be discussed between the Board and these distributing authorities.
There is ambiguity in the words "transmission lines". It is necessary to look back to the Act of 1919 and see in Section 36 what "transmission lines" mean. "Transmission lines" there includes transformers; therefore there is no need to put the word "transformers" into this Bill, because transformers are already included in transmission lines. When the scheme is drawn up and is published it is open for any person to come forward and urge that this or that special provision should be made in it, but I hope your Lordships will not urge me to introduce into this Bill something to determine, at the early stage when the scheme is made by the Commissioners, exactly at what points these transformers shall be put on the transmission lines. I submit that to do so would really hamper the action of the Board in dealing with the matter and hamper also the distributing authorities.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Do I understand then that the word "supplied" means supplied as it leaves the transformer?
VISCOUNT PEEL: What words are you referring to?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The last words in my Amendment. I want to get it clear for the benefit of the House and myself. Will the current as sold to the distributor be current as it comes from the "grid" line or as it leaves the transformer?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I assume it will be current after it has left the transformer. Arrangements as to stepping down will of course be made after discussion with the authorised undertakers.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise for as short a time as possible because time is precious and if we have long speeches we shall not get through our work. I entirely agree with the attitude of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. It must be realised, and the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment must realise, that this scheme has to grow. We cannot establish it all at once. You cannot put upon the Electricity Board obligations of which you cannot foresee the character. Once we have got generating stations, once we have got transmission lines, once we have got frequency conversion then we have a basis on which everything will be arranged according to the demand of the local authority. You will put in transforming centres where you think proper, but you cannot foresee them nor is it desirable that you should try to. These things may present a different aspect a year hence from that which they now have. I am therefore in favour of the attitude which the noble Viscount has adopted in reply to the noble Lord's Amendment which would require I do not know what liability to be put upon the Board and the Treasury. It would be an enormous addition to the cost and I do not myself care to incur that cost without knowing more about it.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am sure all of us who are interested in agriculture would approve of the Amendment moved by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. One cannot help feeling disappointed
1210
that two noble Viscounts, one on each side of the House, seem to think it is well to wait to see what will turn up. Agriculturists are always being put off and being told that they will get something later on. I am surprised that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill takes the line he has taken because we have always been told that although agriculture could not expect Protection and other things the Government would do all they could by side means to assist agriculture. This is an opportunity when something might be done, as Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has pointed out, to assist agriculturists and to help to improve village life. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said this must be a matter for consideration between the transmitters and the Board. I am afraid that if this is not put into the scheme as suggested by the noble Lord opposite it is very likely to be lost sight of. If the scheme does well in the towns the unfortunate people in rural areas may get something thirty or forty years hence.
I expect other noble Lords have had experience like myself of having large unsightly steel poles put up upon which current is taken at great voltage across one's land, interfering very often with cultivation of the land, and we have had no advantage at all. In fact I myself, when giving assent to the erection of such poles, suggested that it might be possible to get some of the current distributed over the estate, but I was at once told by the transmitters that it would be much too expensive and that they had no idea of doing it. Apparently the noble Viscount is perfectly ready to leave us in that condition for the next ten or twenty years.
LORD FORRES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just spoken misconceives the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is not to take electricity to any person who wants it at a low price. If someone in a remote district wanted electricity the price asked for it might render the proposition impossible. The fact is you have to leave it to the Board and to the distributing authorities to settle who is to pay for the transformer, for the simple reason that it depends entirely on the amount of current you wish to buy. If the amount of current which a local authority wishes to buy is so large as to make it very good

1211
business for the Board, the Board might reasonably say: "Very well, the price is so and so, and we will pay for the transformer." But if the population is small and the quantity of electricity intended to be bought is small the Board then would naturally say: "If we have to supply you you ought to pay for the transformer. It is not going to be profitable business." In such a case if the Board had to pay the cost of the transformer the cost would have to be spread over the rest of the district and industrial areas would have to pay for a supply for rural areas. It is unjustifiable to tie the hands of the Board. You must leave it as a business matter to be dealt with on business lines. Those are the only lines on which the Bill can be made a success.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Existing selected stations.
5—(1) The Board shall make arrangements with the owners of existing generating stations which by virtue of a scheme are to be become selected stations for the stations being operated in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and for such extensions and alterations thereof as may be required by the scheme, and for such additional extensions and alterations as the Board, with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, may from time to time direct:
(2) If the owners of any such station are unwilling to enter into or fail to carry out any such arrangements to the satisfaction of the Board, the Minister of Transport may by order empower any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board, or, failing such authorised undertakers company or person, the Board, to acquire the generating station at a price to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, but where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted that authority shall be given first opportunity to acquire the station, and on payment or tender of such price the Minister of Transport may make an Order vesting the generating station in the authorised undertakers, company or person, or the Board:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), after "scheme," to omit the words "are to." The noble Viscount said:
1212
My Lords, this is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("are to")—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2), after "constituted," to insert "or in the area of supply of a power company." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which I now move is somewhat different from the one which was moved at the Committee stage. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that it was proposed in the Committee stage to omit certain words which appeared in the Bill between lines 18 and 22 which were inserted at the instance of a Labour representative in another place. The insertion of those words did a real injustice to the power companies. I think I can show your Lordships that the four Amendments that stand on the Paper in my name—they are consequential one on the other—are necessary in order to place the power companies in their proper position. The effect of the words inserted in the clause in another place is to give a joint electrical authority the first option of acquiring any selected station in the district of that joint electrical authority, but under the Act of 1922 it was made quite apparent that in a joint electrical authority's area any power company within that area could erect stations and carry out its obligations and the joint electrical authority could not carry out any operations in the area of a power company without the qualified consent of the power company. If the selected station were in the portion of the district of a joint electricity authority which comprises the area of a power company, it seems to me that it would be unreasonable, and I believe that in many cases it would be unworkable, to allow the joint electricity authority to acquire the station.
Under the Bill in its present form the Minister would be prevented from transferring the station to the power company, even though they were willing to operate it and even though the Central Electricity Board itself might consider it to be better in the interests of consumers of electricity generally that the station should be operated by the power

1213
company and not by the joint electricity authority. Accordingly I suggest these words in order to remove what would obviously be an unreasonable condition imposed upon the power companies, and a condition that might in some cases be unworkable.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 20, after ("constituted") insert ("or in the area of supply of a power company")—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the Bill, as the noble Lord has stated, gives the first option to the joint electricity authority. I submit, first of all, that the joint electricity authority is the only proper body to which this first option could be given, because it represents the authorities in that large district, speaks for them and controls electricity in that region. Accordingly I think that, from a business point of view, it would be the first authority to which an option should be offered. As I understand the Amendment of the noble Lord, he wishes to give the first option also to the power company in the area of that power company. I do not quite see how that scheme would be workable. The area of a joint electricity authority is very much larger than the area of a power company, and there may be one or more power companies within the area, so that you would have the difficulty that, when you were dealing with a generating station, you would have to give the first option both to the joint electricity authority and to the power company. I fail to see how you can give the first option to two separate people, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. It would really bring business into inextricable confusion in the areas where there are joint electricity authorities. The number of such areas is increasing, and probably where they do not exist now they will be set up after this Bill has come into operation. I hope that the noble Lord will not complicate the Bill by presenting such a difficult problem.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I admit that this is a complicated question, but it does seem to me to be quite fair that, where you have a body willing to do the necessary work in its own area, it should be permitted to do so; and I am quite sure that there will be cases where it may be expedient, even in the opinion of
1214
the Central Electricity Board, that this work should be left to the power company.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It can be so left. All that the clause says is that the first option should be given to the joint electricity authority. If the joint electricity authority do not want to accept this option they need not do so.
LORD GAINFORD: Do I understand that it would then ipso facto devolve upon the power company in its own area to carry out these obligations?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not ipso facto, but, the first option having fallen out, of course the option could be offered to somebody else.
LORD GAINFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
New selected stations.
6.—(1) The Board may make arrangements with any authorised undertakers in whose area of supply, or in the neighbourhood of whose area of supply, any new generating station required by a scheme is to be situated, for the provision of such station, but where such area of supply is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with the authority for the provision of such station.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to omit from subsection (1) all words after "station," where that word secondly occurs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment stood in my name on the Committee stage of the Bill and I withdrew it under a misapprehension because similar Amendments stood in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and, I think, of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, with reference to the preceding clause which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill found himself unable to accept. It therefore appeared to me at the time that it was not worth while troubling your Lordships to divide on that Amendment, and I withdrew it. Since then, however, I have gone into the matter and I find that the circumstances relating to Clause 6 are quite different from those

1215
which decided my noble friend to oppose the exclusion of certain words on Clause 5.
Clause 5 refers to cases where the Board has selected a station and has required that station to undergo certain alteration, and where the undertakers have not felt themselves ready to do the work. In that case it is said that the Board shall give the preference to the joint electricity authority, rather than to any other body, to carry out such work. My noble friend knows that I have not such an affection for the joint electricity authority as he has, but I can see that in that special case there may be a good deal to be said for his contention. But in Clause 6 the matter is quite different. This deals with new generating stations and, in that connection, it does seem to me to be a pity that the Board should be hampered in their proceedings by being obliged, whether they like it or not, to go first of all to the joint electricity authority. It is quite possible that they may be the proper people to go to, but on the other hand it may be thought that a power company would be better for carrying out these requirements. I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to agree to this Amendment, and to give the Board those full powers which we feel that they should have in regard to this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 11, leave out from ("station") to the end of subsection (1).—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am very glad to see that my noble friend is anxious to give even larger powers to the Board than it has at present, but I really do not see why he should accuse me of having this passion for joint electricity authorities that he seems to attribute to me. I was only combating his extreme dislike and my feelings are rather in the middle way with regard to them. But I agree with the noble Lord that, as regards Clauses 5 and 6, there is a marked distinction which he has very clearly pointed out, and, if he really presses his Amendment very strongly, I am content, I will not say to accept it, but to let it go to another place, if he is willing, and to take its chance of surviving.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount and am glad to accept the proposal that he has made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had given Notice to move to insert the following proviso in subsection (1):—
"Provided that where a new generating station is required in the area of supply of a company which is a London Company within the meaning of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, such company shall have the first option of providing such station."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask leave not to move this Amendment, because it is of no importance if the Amendment of Lord Oranmore and Browne is taken in another place. I prefer the noble Lord's Amendment to my own.
Clause 10:
Obligation of Board to supply electricity to authorised undertakers.
10.—(1) As soon as the Board, as respects, any area or part of an area, notify that they are in a position to supply electricity, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be under an obligation to supply either directly or indirectly to any authorised undertakers in that area or part thereof demanding such a supply such an amount of electricity as they require for their undertaking at a price ascertained in accordance, with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that, subject to the provisions of this Act relating to the rights of owners, of selected stations, the Board shall not—

(a) supply electricity directly to authorised undertakers situated in the area of supply of a power company without the consent of the power company unless the undertakers have an absolute right of veto on any right of the power company to supply electricity within the area of supply of those undertakers or any part thereof; or unless the power company are unable or unwilling to supply electricity to such authorised undertakers on reasonable terms and conditions to be determined in case of dispute by the Electricity Commissioners;

(b) without the consent of the joint electricity authority, supply electricity directly to any authorised undertakers in the district of a joint electricity authority which the joint electricity authority are authorised to supply;

(c) supply electricity directly to any authorised undertakers in the

1217
Edinburgh and Lothians electricity district without the consent of the corporation of Edinburgh.

(2) Where any authorised undertakers have demanded such a supply from the Board, and it appears to the Board that the outlay incurred in providing the main transmission lines required for the supply would, having regard to the supply required, entail unreasonable expense on the Board, they may represent the case to the Electricity Commissioners, and the Commissioners may, if it seems to them to be just, authorise the Board to impose such terms and conditions as the Commissioners think fit on the giving of the supply.
(4) The Board may, before the carrying out of the works specified in a scheme in any area is completed, if they think fit, enter into arrangements with any authorised undertakers in the area (being undertakers to whom the Board on the completion of the scheme would be entitled to give a direct supply) for giving those undertakers, pending the completion of the scheme, a supply of electricity of such amount and upon such terms as may be agreed between them.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert the following new paragraph:—
"(2)—(a)'supply electricity directly to authorised undertakers situate in the area of supply of a power company or the district of a joint electricity authority without the consent of the power company or the joint electricity authority, unless the power company or the joint electricity authority are unable or unwilling to supply electricity to such authorised undertakers on reasonable terms and conditions to be determined in case of dispute by the Electricity Commissioners."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another case in which it appears that an injustice is being done to the power companies, and I suggest that the power companies and the joint electricity authority should be placed in a similar position by the omission of paragraphs (a) and (b) and the substitution of that which appears upon the Paper. This, it seems to me, will be a fair arrangement. It must, I think, be recognised by your Lordships that the actual or prospective customers of power companies are important assets in connection with their work, and it is necessary that the power companies, who undertake their obligations, should be permitted to do so. If the Board are given an unrestricted right to supply electricity in bulk direct to authorised undertakers, the power companies are likely to lose most
1218
valuable existing or prospective business. This clause will make it still snore difficult for the power companies to supply electricity at lower prices to their other customers and therefore it will be detrimental to the bulk supply of power companies to their consumers. On those grounds I move this Amendment, so as to place the power companies exactly on a par with the joint electricity authorities and I hope the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, lines 9 to 25, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert the said new paragraph—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the Bill, as it stands, recognises the existing position that, in power company areas where according to the existing rights of the parties the municipality, let us say, has an absolute right of veto on the supply by the power company in its area, the municipality shall still maintain that right, and shall be able to go, if it chooses, direct to the Board for its supply. The noble Lord, by his Amendment, wishes to alter the present statutory position and to take away that right from the municipalities. I submit to your Lordships that nothing has been changed and therefore the position ought to remain as it was. Under the Bill there is nothing to prevent a municipality, if it likes, from going direct to the power company. There is nothing to prevent them getting a supply from the Board through the power company, if it is convenient, but the clause as it stands merely retains the existing position. I do not think the noble Lord has really shown any reason why this power of veto should be taken away from the municipalities, and why the liberties of the power company should be enlarged in this way at the expense of the municipalities. I submit to your Lordships that the position ought to be left as it is.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the Amendment is not moved with a view to interfering with the veto of the municipal authorities who are interested in the supply of their own area, but it is moved to enable the municipal authorities to obtain from the power companies these supplies instead of placing the new Board in a competitive position in relation

1219
to the power companies. It is because the power companies ought to have the opportunity of supplying the deficiencies of the municipal authorities rather than the Board that I suggest that, at any rate, the right should be given to the power companies and they should not be prejudiced.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In answer to the noble Lord the municipalities can, if they like, go direct to the power companies and deal direct with them. There is nothing to prevent them from doing it. All it means is that they retain the power not to go to the power companies if they do not want to. The position is left as it is at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:—
"Provided that the outlay incurred in providing and maintaining transformers or other apparatus for reducing the pressure at which a supply of electricity is furnished to an authorised undertaker shall not be deemed to be an unreasonable expense."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord said just now that in his opinion the current would be obtainable after it had left the transformer and become suitable for general use. I put this Amendment down merely to say that the erection of such transformers would not be an "unreasonable expense," as defined by subsection (2), where these words occur:—
"having regard to the supply required entail unreasonable expense on the Board."
It is a question of what "unreasonable" might mean in that case. If the noble Viscount can accept my Amendment, it makes it quite clear that the Board would be justified in incurring the expense of these transformers, and that would not be in the words of this Bill, an "unreasonable expense."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I suggest to my noble friend that really the matter should be left as it is, because these questions of the price of current and so on are matters to be dealt with on business lines between the Board and the different authorities. After all, in some cases high-tension electricity would be
1220
demanded without much transformation, while in other cases electricity of different voltages would be needed. You really cannot lay down details of that kind in the Bill. I suggest that that should be left to the authorities concerned to fight out among themselves. As for the definition of "unreasonable expense," I am advised that this reference to unreasonable expense is a clause which is put in all power companies' Bills for the protection of the power companies. I think the clause in those cases is rather an intricate one. In this case I think the exact bargain to be, made between the authorities must really be left to the authorities themselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add to subsection (2):—
"Provided that in every case in which the Commissioners authorise the Board to impose terms and conditions under this section the Minister of Transport shall make a special Report to both Houses of Parliament stating the circumstances of the case."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, the second part of my Amendment, is merely to lay down that, in every case in which the Commissioners authorise the Board to impose terms and conditions under this section, the Minister of Transport shall make a special Report to both Houses of Parliament. Unless you have some condition of that kind, it might be possible for the Commissioners of the Board to refuse to supply a district in which there was a slight loss. There would be no remedy, and nobody would ever hear about it because it would never come to the knowledge of anybody. If matters are left as indicated by one noble Lord, and this scheme is only to be applied to the great industrial areas, it means, as I told the House before, that it is a farce for the country districts. It is important where there is a dispute that there should be a Report to both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, this is really a very large matter that my noble friend is asking. He says that, in all these cases, a special Report should be made to both Houses of Parliament. These terms and conditions will be of a highly technical kind and, as far as I

1221
know, there is no precedent for making such very detailed technical Reports and laying them before both Houses of Parliament. I submit, with all respect to noble Lords and members of another place, that they will probably find it very difficult to understand them, because they would be conditions imposed with reference to transactions in which they were not engaged. I think it will be very difficult for them to be appreciated, and I very much doubt whether any advantage would be gained.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment, in my name, is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 19, leave out ("scheme") and insert ("works")—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Tariff for electricity supplied directly by Board]:
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the next Amendment is practically drafting. The object is only to put in rather clearer language that by order of the Commissioners a tariff of a more elastic nature may be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 40, after ("Commissioners") insert ("or the tariff may be framed in such other manner as may be determined by an order of the Electricity Commissioners")—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 41 and 42, leave out ("Provided that an order of the Electricity Commissioners under this subsection") and insert ("but such an order")—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Limitation, on price to be charged to owners of selected stations.
13. Where any authorised undertakers, being the owners of an existing generating station which by virtue of this Act becomes a selected station, who take a supply of electricity from the Board prove to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that the cost of taking that supply front the Board on the terms provided by this Act in any year exceeds the cost which
1222
they would have incurred had this Act not been passed in themselves generating the like quantity of electricity, then the charges by the Board to those undertakers for the supplies of electricity furnished to them shall be so adjusted that the amount charged in that year does not exceed the cost which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, the undertakers would have incurred in themselves generating the electricity.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to omit all words after "Electricity Commissioners that" and to insert:—
"the aggregate of (i) the cost of taking that supply from the Board on the terms provided by this Act, and (ii) the cost properly incurred by those undertakers in generating at any other generating station belonging to them and not being a selected station, any additional quantity of electricity required for the purposes of their undertaking exceeds in any year the cost which they would have incurred had this Act not been passed in themselves generating a total quantity of electricity equal to the sum of (a) the quantity so taken from the Board, and (b) the additional quantity of electricity so generated by them, then the charges by the Board to those undertakers for the electricity supplied by the Board in that year shall be so adjusted that the aggregate of (i) the amount so charged by the Board, and (ii) the cost properly incurred by the undertakers as aforesaid in generating the said additional quantity of electricity does not exceed the cost which in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, the undertakers would have incurred in themselves generating the said total quantity of electricity."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is believed that a power company owning several stations may be prejudiced by the fact of the Board taking selected stations and imposing certain special obligations on the power company. The company may be prejudiced thereby in the cost of operating the other stations in its area. In other words, if there was no Board to deal with the selected stations there would be a certain specified cost to the power company with regard to all its stations, but if the Board select a station, which is called a selected station, and by the imposition of terms on the power company prejudice the power company thereby in the working of its other stations, it is obviously fair that there should be some adjustment so that the power company should not be prejudiced by the imposition of those obligations. It is with a view to secure that the power company should have a claim which should be properly adjudicated, and which would be approved by the

1223
proper authority, that I venture to move this Amendment, so as to secure a fair adjustment of price in the interests of the power companies.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 30, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause, and insert the said new words—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I understand that the Amendment of the noble Lord applies to a case where an authority has several power stations, one or possibly more of which is selected by the Board, whereas others are not selected by the Board and become in the technical language of this Bill "non-selected stations." He suggests that the advantages which are given to the owners of a selected station qua selected station, as to the guarantee, should be also extended to the non-selected stations which the authority or company own. I submit to your Lordships that the Board have no control over non-selected stations. They are dealing with selected stations, and there seems no reason why the benefit of the guarantee should be extended to the non-selected stations. Supposing the owners find themselves in some difficulty as regards the non-selected stations as to the question of price, they can always put the matter right by taking their supply from the Board. When they take their supply from the Board they get the other advantages of the stations which get their supply from the Board, and therefore it seems to me that both ways they do not suffer, and the Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount, I think I must press this Amendment, because it only applies where a fair claim can be put forward as the result of new obligations being placed upon a company, which are going to prejudice their existing stations. It is only fair where these obligations are placed upon an authority, prejudicing them in connection with their cost at other stations, owing to the operation of the selected station, that they should have a right to a claim. If they are going to benefit, as the noble Viscount suggests, then there would be no claim. It is quite possible that they might be benefited by working the selected stations, but if their other stations are going to be prejudiced thereby, it seems to me that they ought
1224
to be able to put forward a claim. After all, under the Amendment which I propose to introduce, such a claim has to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners, and therefore no unreasonable claim can possibly be allowed. As the noble Viscount said on the last occasion that the Government intended to be reasonable, I hope he will accept the principle of my Amendment, even although he is not going to accept the technical wording of it, and give the matter further consideration.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords. I hope the noble Viscount will see his way to accept this Amendment. Very great hardship may be inflicted upon authorised undertakers who have several stations—not only companies but big municipalities. These big electrical systems are made up of three or four capital stations. The whole system is looked upon as one station, although it is scattered over a very large area. It is electrically interconnected far more rigidly than if it were connected by mechanical ties. In fact the revolutions of the machines synchronise over a very large area. Seeing that this Bill, if it goes through, would give the Board authority to say that one of these stations should be a selected station, and not the others, it would very likely throw out of balance the whole of the complicated system. These other stations, which have been erected and provided with very costly and elaborate machinery with a view of running parallel to another station which is now being made a selected station, will not be able to operate with their full efficiency. It seems to me that ample safeguard is offered by the fact that this question will have to be looked into by the Electricity Commissioners. Any claim that one of these undertakers may make has to run the gauntlet of an inquiry by the Commissioners, and that should be sufficient to prevent any unjust claim being made on behalf of the authorised undertakers.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I really do not think that either noble Lord has been able to point out any respect in which these non-selected stations would be damnified, because what happens in the case of a selected station? It will produce the same, or a larger, amount of electrical power, and it would thus

1225
get a better load and produce electricity more cheaply. I do not see how the undertakers could be damnified in respect of their selected station. The noble Lords have not told us how they are damnified. They say that these stations are operating in a connected system, working together. No doubt that may be so, but why one of them producing more power under the direction of the Board should put the others out of gear is, I must say, extremely difficult to understand. But, even supposing they were injured, they have the opportunity of taking their supply direct from the Board.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 14 [Power to close generating stations in certain events]:
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved the insertion of the following new subsection:—
"(5) Where an undertaking or any part thereof of any authorised undertakers is liable to purchase at any time within ten years after the passing of this Act, and the cost to the undertakers of taking the whole of their supply directly or indirectly from the Board, as provided for in subclause (1) hereof, will be more than the then prevailing
LORD GAINFORD: May I explain that the Board, under the provisions of the Bill, when they select a station may impose conditions on the power company possessing other stations, which will prejudice it in connection with those other stations,, and it is only then that the claim will be put forward, and it is reasonable that they should have an adjustment made in the price.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chaplin, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage)

Churchill, V.

Gorell, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Devonport, V.

Hampton, L.

Falkland, V.

Hawke, L.

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wellington, D.

Hood, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Peel, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Airlie, E.

Kylsant, L.

Calrendon, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Lawerence of Kingsgate, L.

Lindsey, E.

Atkinson, L.

Meldrum, L.(M. Huntly.)

Lovelace, E.

Biddulph, L.

Merrivale, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Revelstoke, L.

Onslow, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

Roundway, L.

Russell, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Saltoun, L.

Spencer, E.

Dynevor, L.

Suffield, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Wyfold.

Faringdon, L.

Wynford, L.

Astor, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain)

Askwith, L.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Reading, M.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carson, L.

Newton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Charnwood, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.)

Clwyd, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Danesfort, L.

Phillimore, L.

Falmouth, V. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Strachie, L.

Novar, V.

FitzWalter, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Wittenham, L.

cost to those undertakers, the Board may come to an arrangement with the undertakers whereby the undertakers agree to take the whole of their supply of electricity from the Board directly or indirectly on condition that the Board agree to repay to the undertakers any expenditure necessarily incurred by them in carrying out a change of their system of supply from a direct current system to an alternating current system, such payment to be provided for by the Board in like manner to the payments made under Section nine (1) and (2) of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage the noble Viscount

1227
said that he would consider on Report the question of companies coming to an end. This Amendment is designed to deal with companies which come to an end within a time-limit of ten years. If a change had then to be made from direct to alternating current it would be very difficult for them either to raise the necessary capital or to employ it; it would, in fact, have a stultifying effect on the action of the company. It is suggested, therefore, that when companies come to the end of a short tenure it is to the advantage of the purchasing authority that the change should be made from direct to alternating current before they are taken over. I submit that it is both advantageous to the consumer and to the welfare of the undertaking itself that the change should be made in due time and not be throttled, as it were, by the short tenure.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I understand that this Amendment applies to the case of companies which, as the noble Lord says, have a short tenure of life, and which may want to change from a direct to an alternating current and do not feel it worth while to do so because of their short tenure. He suggests it might be an advantage to those who take them over that the change should be made within the ten years. I understand that Clause 38 provides for that particular state of things, and that if they have to put some of their machinery, as it were, out of gear through the change from one system to another they will be repaid the capital so expended by the particular party that takes them over. In that case it would appear that my noble friend's fears are provided for, so to say, and that there is no necessity for this Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: If the noble Viscount assures me that this is already provided for, I do not wish to press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after Clause 18, to insert as a new clause:—
special provisions as to London.
"Where any obligation to carry out any technical scheme imposed on a joint electricity authority, local authority, company
1228
or body by or under the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, or the London Electricity (No. 1) Act, 1925, or the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925, conflicts with any obligation arising out of a scheme under Section 4 of this Act which is imposed by or under this Act, on any such authority, company or body, the last mentioned obligation shall prevail."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this clause is rather in the nature of a precautionary measure. Supposing a scheme is being made under the London Order of 1925 and another scheme under this Bill, it suggests that this scheme should prevail and that there should be no discrepancy, therefore, between the two schemes and no difficulty as between the different power companies to whom the schemes apply.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, after Clause 18, insert the said new clause—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Application of Electricity Supply Acts to Board.
19.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board shall be deemed to be undertakers and authorised undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and this Act in relation to the Board shall be deemed to be a special Act for the purposes of those Acts, and for the purposes of this section there shall be incorporated with this Act the provisions of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners:
Provided that sections two and three of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888 (which relate to the purchase of undertakings by local authorities) shall not apply to the undertaking of the Board.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that," to insert "section 13 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882 (which relates to the breaking up of private streets, railways and tramways) and." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to allow the Board to proceed rather more quickly than it might otherwise do. Section 13 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, imposes restrictions upon the breaking up of private streets, railways or tramways without the consent of the repairing authority unless in pursuance of special

1229
powers inserted in the licence, Order, or special Act or with the written consent of the Board of Trade. I understand that a similar clause is contained in most Power Acts for the purpose of obviating the consent of the Commissioners in a particular case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, after ("that") insert the said new words—(Viscount peel.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I understand that power lines are to be laid, as a rule, alongside of the road, but when they are laid allowance must be made for future widenings. Will the noble Viscount tell me whether the local authorities have power to prevent the breaking up of roads and power also to compel the cables to be laid on the verges of roads so as to preserve the highway intact?
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, will he kindly say whether this power, which is a power of breaking up streets, does anything contrary to the London Traffic Act or will it still be subject to the provisions of that Act?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, I do not think it affects that. As for the fear of streets being broken up, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, referred, it only deals with the matter so far as the consent, of the Electricity Commissioners is concerned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add to subsection (1):—
"and that Section twenty of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, in its application to the Board, shall have effect as if after the words 'electric signalling communication' wherever they occur, there were inserted the words 'or electrical control of railways.'"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a rather technical Amendment. It merely transfers certain words from the schedule into this part of the Bill so as to apply to the works of the Board only and not to existing undertakers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, after ("Board") insert the said new words—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Acquisition of land by the Board.
20.—(1) The Board may acquire laud or any easements or servitudes or other rights in or over land by agreement, or may be authorised to acquire land or any such right compulsorily, for the purpose of any of their powers and duties under this Act (including the construction of main transmission lines) in like manner as a local authority being authorised undertakers may acquire or be authorised to acquire land under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, for the purpose of a generating station, and those Acts and the Acts incorporated therewith shall apply accordingly; and the Board shall be deemed to be a public authority for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to substitute "other than" for "including" ["including the construction of main transmission lines"]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I will do my best to avoid repeating any arguments I used either on the Second Reading or during the Committee stage in regard to Clause 20. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee I withdrew ray Amendment at the request of my noble friend Lord Peel in order that we might talk over the question. I regret to say that no agreement has been arrived at. Your Lordships may remember that my two chief objections to the Clause were, first, the compulsory purchase by the Board for transmission lines and the causing of severance; and, secondly, that there is no alternative route offered by the Bill when the owner wants to use the land for development purposes either for building or for mineral development.
I should like to point out to your Lordships that my two Amendments roust be read together—this Amendment and the proviso which follows on the Marshalled List of Amendments. One is useless without the other, so that I will explain the two together with your Lordships' permission. My first Amendment prevents the compulsory purchase of land for transmission lines, but I leave the right to purchase land for transmission lines by agreement. Then I leave the power to the Board to buy land compulsorily for all purposes in connection with the Bill other than for transmission lines. Next comes the proviso that the Board can acquire compulsorily an easement, servitude or other

1231
right of way for the transmission lines, but the owner of the land can demand a permanent wayleave. I then put in words for an alternative route for the transmission lines. Lest anyone should suggest that if the owner of the land is receiving a full wayleave rent for his land he ought not to put the Board to the expense of moving the transmission lines to an alternative route, I have inserted words that if the owner accepts a nominal rent or one shilling per pole or standard he shall then only have the right of asking that the poles should be moved and he must offer an alternative route on his land; also if it can be proved to the Railway and Canal Commission that his loss is greater than the cost of an alteration of the transmission lines when the land is wanted for building, mining or any other industrial purpose or for roads or sewers necessary in connection with any of these purposes.
I think I really have fully considered thy, position of the Board. The owner of the land must give facilities for altering transmission lines and providing an alternative route on his land. I would remind your Lordships of the assurance given me by the Ministry of Transport in 1922 that they would put into all future applications a power of revision to the Minister in case diversion of the lines should be at any time desirable. That assurance is not in any Act of Parliament nor is it in this Bill. It has not the force of law behind it and I should like to put it into this Bill, although up to the present I have no knowledge that it has not been so acted upon. In the Government Amendment, which I see my noble friend Lord Peel is to move later on to this clause, I see no reference to that assurance. As I said before, I have no wish to prevent lines crossing the country, but this can be done as at present under Section 22 of the Electricity Act, 1919, by means of a wayleave. I have spent many hours in considering the best method of dealing with this most difficult question and I have had many interviews. I regret that there is really a deadlock. I am trying to look after the interests of all landowners both large and small and at the same time trying to assist the Government. I really have gone as far as I can and I have also given way in my objection to the Board acquiring land under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment and Compensation) Act,
1232
1919. But I am still ready to offer the Government an olive branch. If my noble friend Lord Peel will give me in this House a definite promise that the assurance given me in 1922 by the Ministry of Transport that they would put into all future applications a power of revision to the Minister in case diversion of the lines should be at any time desirable will be carried out, I would then withdraw my Amendment and accept my noble friend's Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 11, leave out ("including") and insert ("other than")—(Lord Dynevor.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I think it might perhaps he convenient for your Lordships if I am permitted to make a reference to my Amendment when discussing the Amendment of the noble Lord, because my Amendment really is an alternative one and I put it down in the hope that my noble friend might withdraw his and allow mine to be moved. I also took a great deal of trouble and had a great many interviews on this rather difficult clause and I thought I had almost met my noble friend. He tells me that is not so. I felt the force of the point he urged when he was discussing this matter on Second Reading, and when he asked: Was it necessary that this land should be acquired for these wayleaves and that all sorts of severances should be established when these lines were going across country; and was it not quite enough to have way-leaves and servitudes over the land? I was much impressed by the argument of my noble friend and I thought it would be very much better to do it in that way if it were possible to carry the lines, subject to those rights.
May I read my Amendment to your Lordships?
"Provided that the Electricity Commissioners shall not make and the Minister of Transport shall not confirm any special Order authorising the Board to acquire land or a right in or over land compulsorily for the purpose of a main transmission line unless satisfied that the objects sought to be attained cannot consistently with efficiency and economy be attained by the acquisition of a wayleave in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1918."

1233
That suggestion which I have put upon the Paper does, I think, substantially meet the point raised by my noble friend. May I say a word then as to the second point regarding the possibility of the owner insisting upon an alternative route? I am afraid that it would not be possible to accept the Amendment put down on that point by my noble friend. There are a considerable number of objections to it. My noble friend says that if the loss to the owner is greater than the cost of moving it then the Railway and Canal Commission shall order—there is no option for the Railway and Canal Commission, they have to order—the Board to remove the line. You cannot put a thing like that into the Bill merely on the question of cost. There are also a great number of technical considerations involved which may make it wholly inadvisable either to move a particular line a particular way or to move the line to new land pointed out by the owner. It may easily happen that the owner has not any other suitable land.
LORD DYNEVOR: It must be on his own land.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But if he has not any other land.
LORD DYNEVOR: Then he cannot ask for the alteration.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In any case the technical difficulties are not considered. My noble friend really puts the matter on the question of expense, and that is one among many reasons why I am afraid it is impossible to accept it. My noble friend said that if I could make some statement about the policy followed by the Ministry of Transport in these matters that would go some way to meet him. May I let the noble Lord know what is the practice of the Board in these matters? The Minister in these cases of wayleaves invariably reserves the right to revise his consent after a specified number of years, generally five. This course would naturally be followed in the case of the wayleaves asked for by the Board. At any time after the expiry of the term of years the owner is entitled to approach the Minister and ask for the case to be reviewed, and then, of course, when the case is reviewed alternative routes could be considered.
1234
But I do want to make it quite clear to my noble friend and other noble Lords that these are not on exactly the same lines as many of the ordinary poles that are put up by electricity companies. These high-tension cables are a much more serious business. It is a much more serious business to move them. The columns which bear them are more permanent. Therefore I should not be quite frank unless I made it clear that it is more difficult to move poles and lines in the case of high-tension cables and columns than in the case of ordinary transmission by an electricity authority. But, subject to that warning, I have tried to meet my noble friend as best I can. I think I have met him as regards the acquisition of land. I agree I have not met him entirely about the removal of the lines in case of development and so on, but I have done my best to do so by what I have stated about the invariable practice of the Minister. I hope in these circumstances he may see his way to withdraw his Amendment and allow mine to be put forward.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I just want to ask my noble friend what is exactly the assurance he has given. He refers to the general practice, but I am not quite sure what he really has promised me. Will he give me in this House a definite promise that the assurance given me in 1922 by the Minister of Transport shall continue. That assurance was that instructions would be issued that in all future applications to Mace lines on private land no consent under the Act of 1922 should be given without reserving to the Minister a power of revision in case diversion of the position of the lines should at any time he desirable. Can he give me an assurance that that will continue?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am rather sorry my noble friend has asked for that assurance, because what is the value of it Presuming the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, gives the assurance, and presuming in three or four years' time the noble and learned Viscount opposite is head of a Labour Government, and the noble Earl who I see has been promoted to sit on the Front Bench is at the Ministry of Transport, what will happen? They will disregard the promise altogether. If they were reminded by my noble friend that three or four years

1235
previously a promise was given in this House, what would they say? The noble and learned Viscount would produce the Act and say: "There is nothing in the Act which says anything about doing this or doing that. All I have got to deal with is the Act of Parliament. Here is the Act of Parliament, and I am going to carry that out. I cannot help what pledges may have been given by a Minister even of my own Party, let alone pledges given by a Minister in a previous Government. I shall not pay any attention to them." And the noble and learned Viscount would be right. How could anybody administer the law, not in accordance with what is contained in an Act of Parliament, but in accordance with something which somebody had said in this place or in another place? I sincerely hope my noble friend will withdraw his proposal, and that he will adhere to the proviso which he has put on the Paper. I think I should be in order in saying a word upon the proviso which my noble friend Viscount Peel has on the Paper.
VISCOUNT PEEL: What do you want me to do exactly?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I want you to accept my noble friend's Amendment. With regard to the proviso of my noble friend Viscount Peel, would he leave out the words "consistently with efficiency and economy"? That might make his clause of some value. As it is now it is of no value at all because any future Minister of Transport—no one
knows who on earth he may be—might say: "Oh, in my opinion it is not economical," or "It is not efficient," and there would be an end of it. If he would leave out those words, and if my noble friend Lord Dynevor agrees, I think that might meet the difficulty.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid it would be rather difficult to leave out the words "consistently with efficiency and economy." Does my noble friend mean that if it is inefficient and uneconomical it should be done?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If those words were omitted the clause would then read "unless satisfied that the objects sought to be attained cannot be attained by the acquisition of a wayleave." That would be a clear direction then.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think if there were very large questions of expense—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not think that expense appeals to the present Government.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It might appeal to a later Government.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Later and worse.
On Question, Whether the word "including" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63: Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Scarbrough, E.

Faringdon, L.

Spencer, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Forres, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Sutherland, D.

Allendale, V.

Gainford, L.

Wellington, D.

Chaplin, V.

Gorell, L.

Churchill, V.

Hawke, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Falkland, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Jessel, L.

Reading, M.

Haldane, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Hood, V.

Kylsant, L.

Airlie, E.

Novar, V.

Merrivale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Peel, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Clarendon, E.

Olivier, L.

De La Warr, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Rodesdale, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Revelstoke, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Arnold, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lindsey, E.

Biddulph, L.

Roundway, L.

Lovelace, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Charnwod, L.

Teynham, L.

Morton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Thomson, L.

Onslow, E.

Darling, L.

Wyfold, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Wynford, L.

Russell, E.

Ernle, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

Newton, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Penrhyn, L.

Askwith, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Phillimore, L.

Avebury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Wittenham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that the Electricity Commissioners shall not make and the Minister of Transport shall not confirm any special Order authorising the Board to acquire land or a right in or over land compulsorily for the purposes of a main transmission line unless satisfied that the objects sought to be attained cannot consistently with efficiency and economy be attained by the acquisition of a wayleave in accordance with the provisions of Section twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not think I need say anything about this Amendment, because I have already explained it to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 20, at end insert the said proviso—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 22:—
Protection of Government observatories, &c.
".The Board shall not provide, construct, equip, or alter or use any generating station, sub-station, transformer station, building, plant, machinery, electric main, appliance work, or apparatus, or use or permit to be used, transmit, convert, or transform any electrical energy either under this Act or otherwise in such manner as to affect injuriously in any respect whatever either by vibration or obstruction or smoke or by electric or electro-magnetic action or influence, or by any means whatsoever whether similar to those enumerated or not any Government observatory or laboratory existing at the passing of this Act or any instrument or apparatus in or adjacent thereto, and used in or in connection therewith."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is merely an Amendment to protect Government observatories and other buildings of that class.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 7, at end insert the said new clause—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 27:
Power to Treasury to guarantee loans to Board.
27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury may guarantee in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the interest and principal of any loan proposed to be raised by the Board, or of either the interest or the principal:
Provided that the aggregate amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be so guaranteed, shall not exceed thirty-three and a half million pounds.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move, after subsection (1), to insert a new subsection. The noble Lord said: My Lords, by Clause 27 the Treasury are empowered to guarantee payment both of interest and principal on any loan proposed to be raised by the Board up to the amount of £33,500,000, and the object of my Amendment is to provide definitely in the Bill that the Treasury, before it guarantees the principal or interest of these loans to the Board, shall ascertain on what objects the money is to be spent and whether the expenditure is beneficial for the purposes of the Bill and is likely to prove remunerative. I propose to add a few words at the end of the proposed subsection, so that it will read as follows:—
"(2) A guarantee shall not be given under this section unless the Board has furnished the Treasury with a statement showing how and for what purposes the loan is to be expended, and the Treasury are satisfied after consultation with an Advisory Committee nominated by them or are by some other mode of investigation satisfied that the expenditure for which the loan is required is proper and necessary for carrying out the objects of this Act, and is likely to prove remunerative."
I venture to think that this raises a very serious question. Are we, or are we not, to have in the Bill some provision that will ensure that the Treasury, before guaranteeing these loans to the amount of £33,500,000, are satisfied that the objects for which the loan is raised are

1239
proper and that they will prove remunerative?
My noble friend Lord Peel, speaking in the debate in this House on November 30—the words will be found in Column 965 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—admitted that the Treasury ought to do this. He said:
"… is it not plain that it is not only their business but their duty to find out on what objects the money is to be expended and to lay down such conditions as they choose?"
Those are admirable words, and I am merely asking the noble Viscount to give effect to them. It is true that the noble Viscount said that the objects that we both desired to achieve were already secured by the Bill as it stands, and in support of that he pointed to the words of the Bill—
"…the Treasury may guarantee in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the interest and principal…"
and so on. I submit with great deference to my noble friend that, when the Bill says that they are to guarantee "in such manner as they think fit," this refers only to the mode of guarantee and not to the conditions and does not impose upon the Treasury any obligation to make any investigation whatsoever before they guarantee these loans.
Whether my noble friend is right or not in his interpretation of the clause, I would submit to him that it is far better to put definitely into the clause what he suggests, and what I humbly submit, to be the duty of the Treasury, rather than leave it to be inferred from what I venture to think are exceedingly vague and unsatisfactory words. My view upon that point is strongly confirmed by what was done when the Trade Facilities Acts were passed. I will quote very shortly what precautions were taken and imposed upon the Treasury before it guaranteed any loans under the Trade Facilities Acts. I notice with great satisfaction that this precedent of the Trade Facilities Acts is the very precedent which the noble Viscount himself invoked in speaking in this House on November 30, when he said:
"The terms of the guarantee are what are known as trade facilities terms.'"
I looked at once at the Trade Facilities Acts in order to see what precautions are imposed upon the Treasury by those Acts.
The Act of 1921, which was the first of those Acts, said:
"If the Treasury, alter consultation with an advisory committee nominated by the Treasury, …are satisfied that the proceeds of any loan …are to be applied towards or in connection with the carrying out of any capital undertaking, or in, or in connection with, the purchase of articles other than munitions of war …and that the application of the loan in the manner proposed is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom—"
one of the main objects of the Bill—
"the Treasury may …guarantee in such manner and form and on such terms and conditions as they think proper the payment of the interest and principal of the loan or of either interest or principal."
So that the House sees that under that Act the Legislature were not content to say that the Treasury might guarantee the loan as they thought fit, which is what this Act says, but they imposed certain obligations upon the Treasury to inquire into the matter, and to satisfy themselves as to the main objects of the loan before any such guarantee was given.
If you look at the next Trade Facilities Act, that of 1922, which was to guarantee a loan to the Soudan, you find almost exactly the same provision. Section 3 of that Act says:—
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury may guarantee, in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the principal of and the interest on any loan raised by the Government of the Soudan for or in connection with works for the purpose of irrigating the Gezireh Plain…not exceeding in the aggregate …three million five hundred thousand pounds."
Then there is a special subsection on which I have somewhat framed my subsection:—
"A guarantee shall not be given under this section until the Government of the Soudan have provided to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Secretary of State—"
and then there are a series of provisions with which the Government of the Soudan have to comply as, for instance, provisions for raising, and appropriating, and duly applying the Soudan loan.
The last of those Acts with which I shall trouble your Lordships is the Trade Facilities Act of 1924, which extended the period during which facilities could be given under the two former Acts up to

1241
March 31, 1925. Section 2 of that Act says:—
"If the Treasury are satisfied—

(a) that the proceeds of any loan … are to be applied by way of capital expenditure on or in connection with a public utility undertaking in some part of His Majesty's Dominions in accordance with a scheme approved by the Government of that part of His Majesty's Dominions; and

(b) that the expenditure involved in the scheme is in anticipation of expenditure which would normally have been incurred at a later date; and

(c) that the application of the proceeds of the loan in the manner proposed is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom—"

one of the main objects of the guarantee—then
"the Treasury may … undertake to pay … not exceeding three quarters of any interest payable … so however that the amount payable … shall not exceed … five million pounds in all."
So that in cases where far less sums than £33,000,000 were involved the Treasury were authorised by Parliament to make inquiries and see that the objects of the loan were in accordance with the objects of the Bill and were beneficial, and, unless they were satisfied with their inquiries they were prohibited from making the guarantee. That is the precedent I ask your Lordships to follow in this case.
May I point out to my noble friend that this is a case where above all such provisions should be inserted because this Board, as we are truly told over and over again, will not be subject to the control of any public Department whatsoever. It is under no responsibility to Parliament or to any one else as far as I can see. If it acts wrongly or spends money improperly, there is no one to whom we can appeal or complain. There is no one who will give any undertaking that the money will not be badly spent once more. Therefore it is all-important in this kind of case where money is advanced to an irresponsible Board, irresponsible in the sense that it is not responsible to Parliament or any other authority, that, before the money is guaranteed and the taxpayers' credit placed in jeopardy, the Treasury should make these inquiries and satisfy themselves on this point. I urge upon my noble friend that we should not leave it to the Treasury without any
1242
direction as to how they are to proceed. We may have every confidence in the Treasury of to-day but we may not have an equal confidence in the Treasury that will exist in five, ten or twenty years' time. It is vitally important that some check should be put upon the granting of these guarantees and the Treasury should be urged to make those inquiries which the noble Viscount himself has said it is not only proper but it is their duty to undertake.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 33, at end insert as a new subsection:—
("(2) A guarantee shall not be given tinder under this section unless the Board has furnished the Treasury with a statement showing how and for what purposes the loan is to be expended, and the Treasury are satisfied after consultation with an Advisory Committee nominated by them or are by some other mode of investigation satisfied that the expenditure for which the loan is required is proper and necessary for carrying out the objects of this Act and is likely to prove remunerative.")—(Lord Danesfort.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my noble friend has made to your Lordships a forcible appeal as to the necessity of introducing some words into this clause which will give more definite directions to the Treasury than are contained in it at present. He is apparently satisfied with the Treasury as it stands now, but he thinks that a Treasury may arise in fifteen or twenty years' time which will not be so cautious as the Treasury which now exists.
LORD DANESFORT: I think it is a better Treasury than one that might exist some years hence. I do not say I trust them altogether.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord does not trust any Treasury, but he trusts the present Treasury more than the Treasury we are likely to have in fifteen or twenty Years' time. I cannot conceive any Treasury that would guarantee a large loan without inquiring what the security is, how it is to be spent, and other conditions of that kind. If a Treasury did not ask questions of that kind one could not call it a Treasury. It would not be a financial body at all. In the maddest system of administration, even if we have a Communist Government, they would have to consider when they lent money what the security was—at least, I should imagine so.

1243
Turning to the very interesting speech of my noble friend as to the Trade Facilities Acts, those, of course, were special Acts dealing with certain particular cases. They did no doubt—it was a new experiment—suggest that there should be set up a special committee of business men in each case to inquire into the particular conditions of the particular industry whose shares were to be investigated. That was right. After all, it was not within the general knowledge of the Treasury to be familiar with the way in which some particular industry, whose shares it might want to guarantee, was carrying on its business. To some extent the analogy is not quite so close in this case because this is a Board in the nature of a public Board carrying on operations all over the country, and much better known, anyhow, than any private company could be. But I take exception first of all to the addendum of my noble friend, which makes it far more difficult to accept the Amendment than it was before, because he says "and is likely to prove remunerative." That raises many difficult questions, because it is intended by the Bill that the Board shall make any profit, but merely pay its way, and when you ask whether a thing is going to prove remunerative, you mean is it going to result in the payment of dividends. When I invest money I want to know whether it is going to be remunerative or not. Apparently my noble friend has more philanthropic objects is view in the investment of his money.
The object of guaranteeing this money would be largely that the supply of electricity should be much cheaper than otherwise it would be. It is difficult to accept words so ambiguous as are the words proposed by my noble friend, with all respect to the great skill which he possesses in drafting. After considering the matter, and after discussing it with the Treasury, I find it difficult to know how the Treasury would have more control than they have now by the insertion of the proposed words in the Bill. I cannot conceive that any Treasury would not do these things without any direction coming from my noble friend. I was going to make a suggestion, because I certainly contend that "in such manner" applies not only to the particular method of guaranteeing the money but also implies conditions, and if my noble friend is really convinced that that is not so, I
1244
would ask him to consider whether after "in such manner" there should be inserted "subject to such conditions as they may think fit." If he likes a sentence of that sort to run the gauntlet in another place, I would let it go.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Perhaps I may be permitted to make a suggestion. Would the noble Viscount accept the words "pay its way" instead of "prove remunerative."
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, I could not accept them.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think the words suggested by Viscount Peel would certainly be an improvement upon the clause as it now stands. I do not quite see why he objects to accepting the words of Lord Danesfort's Amendment, because, as I understand him, his argument is that the Treasury would do what Lord Danesfort desires without the direction being put in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is unnecessary, and one never wants to overload a Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have heard that argument advanced when Ministers—I do not suggest it is the case now—rather want to get out of an awkward Amendment. They say: "Oh, it is unnecessary to put that Amendment in, because it is understood." My own idea is that the clearer you make a Bill the better, and the clearer the Bill is the less chance there is of legal gentlemen having a great deal of work to do. That, not being a lawyer, I think is a good thing. What I want to point out is that as the Bill stands the Treasury may undoubtedly do what my noble friend wants them to do, but it is permissive only—they need not do it—and what he suggests is that it should be made obligatory upon them to do it. With regard to the words at the end of the Amendment "and likely to prove remunerative," after all does not the taxpayer want his money, if spent, to be remunerative? Presuming it is not remunerative, how is the taxpayer going to get his money back? Does that mean that this £33,500,000 is going to be given as a subsidy? What I am so very much afraid of, and always have been, as to this clause, is that the Treasury will advance the money, the

1245
idea that it is going to be a great financial success will be very soon exploded and the result will be that the money will be lost. In order to avoid that I think those words should be inserted. Can I not persuade Lord Peel to be a little more generous? We have been very kind to him, moved very few Amendments, and made very short speeches. Cannot we get a little reward for that, and will he not go a little bit further and accept at any rate a considerable portion of the Amendment?
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, as I understand my noble friend, he is entirely in agreement with my Amendment, in this sense, that he thinks the Treasury ought to act as it is suggested they must act by this Amendment. He made some comment, it is true, upon the word "remunerative." I should have thought that the meaning of that was quite plain. The meaning I attach to it is that it would cheapen electricity. I do not want, however, to discuss such a small point as the technical meaning of particular words. He agrees that the Treasury ought to do that which I say they ought to be compelled by the Bill to do, and therefore I cannot imagine why those words should not be put in. If, however, he is not going to be moved by the rather pressing appeal of Lord Banbury, and reward us for having been so very considerate in the discussion on this Bill, then I think I shall be justified in saying that I will take the smaller measure and accept the words which the noble Viscount has suggested. I am not sure, however, that I can move them now, because my Amendment is at line 33 and the words which he proposes would come at line 27. If there is any technical difficulty about the moving of such an Amendment now perhaps he will put it down, or allow me to put the Amendment down, on the Third Reading. Do I understand that if I put the Amendment down on the Third Reading he will accept it?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will not oppose it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30:
Relation of charges to dividends.
30.—(1) Where any company, being authorised undertakers and not being a power company, receive a supply of electricity either directly or indirectly from the
1246
Board, the Electricity Commissioners may by a special order under section twenty-six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision as to the relation between the charges to be made for electricity and the dividends to be paid by the company, and the order shall have effect, as if the provisions contained therein were in substitution for the provisions (if any) contained in the Act or order relating to the undertaking of the company as to the relation of charges to dividend:
Provided that where any such company carries on two or more separate undertakings one or more of which receive a supply from the Board, any such order shall regulate the charges to be made for electricity in the case of the undertaking or each of the several undertakings receiving such a supply in relation to the divisible profits on the capital attributable to that undertaking.
LORD A SKWITH LORD A SKWITH had on the Paper two Amendments, the first to leave out all words in subsection (1) after ("section") and to insert "twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, regulate the charges to be made for electricity in respect to the undertaking or several undertakings for which the supply is received; and the second to add to subsection (1):—
"Provided that no such provision, shall be made unless at the same time the period before which the undertaking of the company affected becomes purchaseable is adequately extended."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with regard to these two Amendments, which are alternatives, would ask the leave of the House to move an Amendment of which I have given the noble Viscount private notice, and which I understand is better drafted than the Amendments on the Paper, and meets the point in rather a different way. The Amendment is, in subsection (1), after "may," to insert "if, having regard to any change in the cost of electricity to the companies attributable to this Act, they think it expedient." The point of the Amendment is that the Electricity Commissioners should consider the very different position which these distributing companies hold from the power companies. The power companies have their position revised. According to Clause 30 the distributing companies would have to have a sliding scale, and my original proposal was that the revision should apply to all of them, but I understand that this new proposal is more satisfactory. It would

1247
be rather unfair to upset all the capital arrangements if some provision of this character were not made.
Certainly the matter would be still more difficult if a certain alleged pledge by the Attorney-General to which I called attention on the Committee stage was an actual pledge. I refer to what occurred on November 11, and appears in the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1356; but I am now told that that report was incorrect, and that it is going to be revised in the final edition of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is as well that attention should be called to the fact that a pledge printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT has been incorrectly reported, and is not really a pledge.
Amendment moved—
Clause 30, page 26, line 17, after ("may") insert ("if, having regard to any change in the cost of electricity to the companies attributable to this Act, they think it expedient")—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD GAINFORD: I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will accept it, but I shall have to confirm what the noble Lord said about the misreporting of the words of the Attorney-General.
Clause 32 [Power to lop trees and hedges obstructing electric lines]:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert, after subsection (5), the following new subsection:
"(6) Where for the purpose of the construction or maintenance of a transmission line it is necessary to fell any trees, this section shall apply to the felling of trees in like manner as it applies to the lopping of trees."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment becomes necessary because of the Amendment I moved and your Lordships accepted upon the wayleaves.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:—
"Where the local authority object to the construction of an overhead electric line by the Board or any authorised undertaker
1248
on the ground that it will prejudicially affect the antiquarian or artistic value of villages, buildings, forests, woods, trees and lakes in their district, they may make representations to the First Commissioner of Works who may require the diversion of the line or the placing of the works underground."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I notice that the noble Viscount has given Notice of an Amendment which deals more or less with the point that I raised in the Committee stage, but his Amendment is very circumscribed. We want to protect beauty spots all over the country from having great cables and standards erected in their midst. I think we have the sympathy of a very large majority of the outside public in this matter, and of the societies concerned in the preservation of beauty in this country. The noble Viscount's Amendment only goes a short way to meet our objection. For instance, he only schedules ancient monuments which are classified as such under another Act of Parliament. If the schedule is confined to those monuments you would leave untouched the question of amenities along the roads. It would be possible to put a great electric line in Richmond Park, the New Forest, or the Lake district, or any part of England which is now an absolutely priceless possession, and it seems to me that to confine the appeal to the First Commissioner of Works merely to the schedule under the Ancient Monuments Act makes the protection almost useless. I appeal to the noble Viscount to accept my Amendment either in its present or in a modified form.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 26, at end insert the said new clause—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I think it would be too great a burden at the present time to place upon the First Commissioner of Works the power to require the diversion of a line or the placing of works underground. Being the present First Commissioner of Works myself I should in many ways be very glad to be able to order things in this commandeering fashion, but at present I am not sure that we in this country do value beauty so highly that we are ready to pay for it. Painful experience makes me pretty certain that we have not reached that altitude at present. But there are other technical reasons also why you

1249
could hardly put this duty on the First Commissioner, because he is not really equipped to take into account all the technical considerations which may arise as regards the diversion of lines and placing lines underground.
The noble Lord very justly observed that in the Amendment that I put down I confined the action of the First Commissioner to ancient buildings and ancient monuments. Of course, that covers a good range of buildings. I am not sure that my Amendment carries us very far, but I will explain why I am rather anxious that it should be accepted, although it is perfectly true that it may be in some ways unnecessary as the First Commissioner can often make representations, and does make representations already, to the Minister of Transport. That is almost common form. But, as First Commissioner of Works, I do rather value the point that under this Bill a statutory right is embodied in this Bill permitting, and even enjoining, the First Commissioner to make representations about possible damage that may be done to ancient monuments and ancient buildings by some very useful and practical operation. It shows, at any rate, that the Legislature has proclaimed that it is not indifferent to considerations of that kind.
My noble friend says that I have circumscribed it, and I have for this reason. As regards the beauty of forests and woods and lakes and so on—all matters, of course, which we are very anxious to preserve—there is power already to make representations in certain cases in Section 2 of the Act of 1919. The Minister of Transport already has to take into consideration the amenities, and. I think that under "amenities" all these questions to which my noble friend has alluded come in. Then, under Section 21, though the word "amenities" is not mentioned in it, the local authority has power to make protests and representations, and they no doubt will be moved, and are moved, by these societies to which my noble friend referred as well as by their own constituents to make vigorous representations on the subject. If I might put it on the lowest ground, a local authority which derives a good deal of money from some beauty spot in its area is not likely without struggle or protest to let that beauty spot
1250
be destroyed. We have a great many instances of that already. So I think those two points are safeguarded, and if your Lordships will allow me to leave it till later I think we shall give statutory expression to the protection of these ancient monuments, and I hope that will satisfy my noble friend to a certain extent.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I cannot say that I am satisfied, but one, of course must take what one can get in this House. At any rate, I know the noble Viscount is in sympathy with me. But I cannot see that the words he puts in will have anything more than a very limited application. They will not help our forests or the Lake district; but, as I say, we must take what we can get.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, is it not the case that if the noble Viscount puts his Amendment into the Bill in the form in which it stands he will be confining the matter to ancient monuments? The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and I are concerned as to the rural villages, and if your Lordships put ancient monuments into the Bill, cannot you put rural villages into it as well? After all, you are only putting in an enabling provision. If it becomes too expensive or is impossible owing to engineering difficulties it cannot be done. At any rate, I am not suggesting it should go to the full extent in regard to the woods and forests mentioned by my noble friend Lord Montagu; but we all know the villages and what the case would be if these great concrete posts that the noble Viscount has described were put in. Therefore I hope that he will be able to put into the Bill something of the sort we ask for and not leave it at ancient monuments. It will not matter to Stonehenge or to a tumulus scheduled under the Ancient Monuments Act. It will matter and it does matter, not only to the people who go through these villages, but, I venture to say, it will be very strongly felt by the villagers themselves.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord press his Amendment?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33:
Protection of county bridges.
33.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall in any way limit or affect the powers of any county council (in this, section referred to as "the county council") to rebuild, alter, widen or repair the structure of any bridge upon which any work by this Act authorised shall be Constructed, or impose upon the county council any liability which was not by law imposed upon them prior to the commencement of this Act.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert:
"(1) Unless and except so far as may be otherwise agreed between any county council (in this section referred to as 'the county council') and the Board the following provisions shall have effect (that is to say)."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is quite a small Amendment; I do not know whether the noble Viscount is prepared to accept it or not.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 27, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "county council (in this section referred to as the county council')" and insert "local authority (including for the purposes of this section a county council)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on a point of order, may I ask whether if this Amendment is accepted it excludes mine? If it would do that I must move my Amendment now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord cannot move his Amendment on line 28 before we get to that line. We are on line 27 at the moment.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, there must be some method by which I can raise my point. I want to insert instead of the words "county council" the phrase "local authority (including for the purposes of this section a county council)." I should have thought on the face of it and as a matter of fact that this clause was hardly required because there is nothing whatever in the measure, so far as I can make out, to affect the powers of county councils or local authorities to rebuild or alter their bridges. But I raise no objection in principle to what the clause seeks to do. If this provision is to be carried I think
1252
it should refer to the bridges of all classes of local authorities. As it stands the clause would be construed, I think, as excluding bridges belonging to other local authorities from the protection it gives. I have only just found it out and I admit it is true that in Special Orders regarding electricity in the past there has been a common form clause dealing with bridges belonging to county councils, and I am told that no such clause has been applied to the bridges of local authorities. No other local authority, I think, has asked for such a clause, and the main reason for that is, of course, that most local authorities, at any rate the important ones, the county boroughs and so on, are themselves authorised undertakers.
But we are passing new legislation. We are setting up a Board with very special powers. We do not know what the requirements of that Board may be, and I think that all local authorities should be treated alike. In the case contemplated as to expenses, I think as between the local authority and the Board the expense in certain cases should be borne by the Board rather than by the local authority. I apologise for introducing this question at this moment, but it seemed to me that I should have been out of order in doing so later and, therefore, I thought it might be for the general convenience if I mentioned it now. I cannot move now, but I can put my case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord can move his Amendment as an Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD EMMOTT: Perhaps that is the simplest way of doing it, and I beg to move it as an Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("county council (in this section referred to 'as the county council')") and insert ("local authority (including for the purposes of this section a county council)")—(Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am going to make an appeal to my noble friend not to press this Amendment, because it brings in such a tremendous range of protest. I do not know what is included technically under the term "local authority." I suppose parish councils would come in. At any rate all the rural and urban authorities would come in, and

1253
they would be a very large number. There is always an objection in this House to an alteration in a model clause. This is a model clause giving certain rights to county councils, and I suggest it would be a great pity if this were altered. I do not think there is any real ground for altering it. I cannot see that by the operations of the Board any of these small bridges under the charge of district councils would be affected. I have explained the nature of the carriage of this electricity, and I do not think that a case has been made out for altering this model clause. If you did so your action would have great effect. Once you made a gap for these local authorities to rush in, they would find it necessary to rush in on every occasion and get the powers of the county councils. I hope the noble Lord will not press this and disturb the existing model clause.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, this was a new clause that was put in by this House on Committee stage. It will, therefore, go down as an Amendment to another place and there will be a chance of considering the matter there. I should be very much surprised if a considerable effort is not made to get it altered in the other House. I must remind your Lordships that one part of the scheme of this Bill is the provision of "grids" all over the country and the laying down of these "grids" may very often affect local authorities. There really is in new general legislation of this kind a case that is not in the least met by what the noble Viscount has said about model clauses. There is a real case for this to be applied to other local authorities. Were it not that I should hesitate to take up your Lordships' time any longer this evening I would press this to a Division, but I hope it will be taken up elsewhere.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(5) In the application of this section to Scotland, the county council shall mean the county road board, or if the bridge is not wholly situated within one county, the joint bridge committee if such committee has been appointed."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved to put the matter right as regards Scotland.
Amendment Moved—
Page 29, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 37:
Provisions as to companies with large area of supply.
37.—(1) Where after the commencement of this Act a special order is made authorising a company to supply electricity, and the area of supply is, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the right of purchasing their undertaking:—
(c) The purchasing authority—
(i) where the area of supply is situate wholly or mainly within the district of a joint electricity authority, shall be the joint electricity authority: Provided that if the area of supply is situate partly within the district of one joint electricity authority and partly in that of another, the right of purchase shall be exerciseable by such one of those Authorities, or shall be divisible between them as the Electricity Commissioners may determine;
(2) The Special Order in any case to which subsection (1) of this section applies may make provision as to the relation between the price charged for electricity and the dividends paid by the company or where the company to which any such Special Order is granted is a company carrying on one or more other undertakings, the relation between the price charged for electricity in the case of the undertaking authorised by the Special Order and the divisible profits on the capital attributable to that undertaking.
(3) Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any Order made thereunder, or under any deed et transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such Order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority) the authorised undertakers may at any time within ten years before the date of purchase next occurring after the passing of this Act, or within ten years of any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local authority to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase on the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding upon the parties.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from and including

1255
"dividends" and to insert "divisible profits on the capital attributable to the undertaking authorised by the Special Order." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the abject of the Amendment is to reconcile the passage with a similar passage on page 26. It is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 18, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of subsection (2) and insert ("divisible profits on the capital attributable to the undertaking authorised by the Special Order."—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subsection (3) was moved as a subsection to the old Clause 37 (which becomes Clause 38) and has been printed in the wrong place. I am, advised by the Parliamentary draftsman that instead of coming as a subsection to Clause 38 it had better come as a new clause, and I shall so move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, lines 35 to 41, leave out subsection (3)—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD ASKWITH: I now move that this subsection (3) be inserted as a new clause after Clause 38. It has already been passed by the House and is only inserted as a new clause after Clause 38 for drafting purposes.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert as a new clause the said subsection (3) deleted from Clause 37—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause:—
Notice of intention to purchase by purchasing authority.
"—(1) Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any Order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such Order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority), the authorised undertakers may, at any time within seven years before any date when such undertaking or part thereof may be purchased or when notice may be given by the local authority requiring the authorised undertakers to sell such undertaking or part thereof, require the local
1256
authority to declare whether they intend to exercise their right to purchase.
(2) If the local authority notify to the authorised undertakers their intention not to exercise their right it shall not be exercisable at such date.
(3) If the local authority within six months of such requisition do not notify to the authorised undertakers their intentions with regard to the exercise of the right to purchase, or as a condition of not exercising their right, seek to impose terms which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners are unreasonable, the Electricity Commissioners may suspend the right to purchase for such period and on such conditions as they think fit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause in regard to notice of intention to purchase by the purchasing authority is in direct fulfilment of a very strong recommendation by the Weir Committee in which they say, in regard to distribution companies:
"We find only one point in which we suggest that an alteration should be made. This relates to the purchase of undertakings by local authorities…It appears to us that the possibility of purchase at such short notice has the effect of sterilising the activities of the undertaker during the latter years of his franchise owing to his reluctance to sink capital in an undertaking which may be compulsorily purchased. We recommend that in the interest of electrical development this statutory right of purchase should be modified."
They suggest a longer notice and that is embodied in the Amendment that I have put down on the Paper. It came on in another place on the Report stage and the Speaker held that it was out of order because it dealt with finance. The financial provisions are now left out, and the Amendment follows the Weir Report with regard to the extension of time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 25, at end insert the said new clause—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my noble friend quotes the authority of the Weir Report, but I am not quite sure what is the value of this clause if the financial provisions are left out. I should like to say that the existing Acts and Special Orders already provide for prior notice of two years in the case of purchase. Now, my noble friend apparently wants to extend that up to seven years, which I think is a very long period. It is extremely difficult, I think, to see how a local authority could answer for the

1257
action of the second or third local authority which might come into being after it had itself perished. It would be very difficult for a Local authority to bind itself, or rather to bind successive local authorities, so far ahead as to what they should do, and if the matter came before the Electricity Commissioners I think they would have very great difficulty in coming to any decision upon it. How could they know the conditions five, six or seven years hence which would make it advisable or not advisable that the rights of expropriation of the local authority should be exercised? I think they would be in no better position than the local authority itself. Therefore I rather hope that my noble friend will leave the position as it is. I would suggest that two years is really quite long enough for a local authority to decide beforehand whether to exercise this particular right. I think it would be very difficult really to lengthen it to the extent my noble friend suggests.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I would point out that it is only permissive. The clause says they "may" within seven years, and if the local authority say they do not want to do so then the undertakers would know where they were. If the local authority acted unreasonably then the Electricity Commissioners would have the right to intervene. But if my noble friend objects I do not desire to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Amendment of s. 21 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919]:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Where the Board or any authorised undertakers have in pursuance of powers conferred on them under Section twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, erected on any land supports for an electric line above ground, the Board or undertakers shall, for the purposes of Section eight of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, be deemed to be persons having an interest in the land on which such supports are erected."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this new subsection will really only enable the Board to go to the. Railway and Canal Commission and ask for supports in a mining district. The Board have got to
1258
pay for them and they would naturally do that.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following further new subsection:
"( ) Where an application has been made to the Minister of Transport for his consent to the placing of any electric line above ground, and representations are made that the line will prejudicially affect any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient monuments (Consolidation and Amendment) Act, 1913, the Minister of Transport, in determining whether to give or withhold his consent, or to impose conditions, shall take into consideration any recommendations made to him by the Commissioners of Works with a view to preventing the ancient monument being prejudicially affected."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the new subsection to which I have alluded previously when we were discussing the question of advice to the Minister of Transport in the matter of ancient monuments. I agree that it really only puts into statutory form the present practice and if my noble friend who raised this matter thinks it would not add very much to what goes on at present I do not wish to press the Amendment. The Amendment cannot do any harm, I think, and therefore I move it, but if any noble Lord objects I do not wish to press it.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 44:
Use for other purposes of electricity supplied for haulage or traction to railway companies, &c.
44.—Where any authorised undertakers may supply and are supplying within their district or area of supply electricity for haulage or traction to any company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway, tramway, dock, harbour or canal undertaking situate partly within and partly without that district or area, such authorised undertakers may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, so supply electricity to be used for any purposes of such undertaking, whether within or without such district or area of supply, and such company or authority may, subject

1259
to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, use the electricity so supplied for any purposes of their undertaking for which the are entitled to use electricity.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, after "may" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "with the consent of the Minister of Transport and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it may be convenient to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill and to the House if I deal quite briefly with the whole of the Amendments which I have put down to this clause. This is a new clause added in Committee and those for whom I am speaking do not like the clause at all. They consider that railway companies, dock companies and harbour companies already have powers which are adequate. Those powers, speaking generally, are that a railway company whose lines pass through several areas of supply can, with the consent of the Board of Trade (now replaced by the Minister of Transport) obtain a supply from the authorised undertakers in any one of such areas for use throughout their system for the purposes of traction and lighting of trains and stations. The existing law also provides that the Ministry of Transport may by Provisional Order (now a Special Order) authorise any authorised undertakers to supply electricity for the purpose of working or lighting railways. That is the law to-day.
For traction, therefore, the railway companies, with the consent of the Ministry of Transport, can obtain all they require or would get under this clause, but quite properly consent is not to be given by the Ministry without notice having been given to the other parties who are interested and without hearing those other interested parties in case they object. This clause would enact that a railway company or a dock company or a harbour company can use its supply of electricity taken from one authorised undertaker anywhere for all purposes, including even the lighting of shops let to outside tenants. Nowadays, of course, the railways quite properly, after obtaining Parliamentary sanction, build hotels and houses and shops and other buildings and let them to outside tenants. The Great Western Railway Company has a great building of flats and shops in Baker Street and I could give
1260
other instances. The principle of legislation as regards this matter has been that each authorised undertaker should be confined to his own area. Of course railway companies are an exception to that and I think quite properly so, but it is going altogether too far to allow, as this clause does, say, Marylebone to supply electricity for lighting shops in Westminster. That is really what could be done under this clause.
The Amendment which I have put down seeks to give the Minister of Transport a right of veto which he does not seem to have under this clause although he has the right of laying down limitations and conditions. It would also provide that notice of application must be given to interested parties and the Minister must hear them before he comes to his decision. As matters stand under this clause a local authority which was being prejudiced might never have a chance of being heard or of showing, as they might be able to show, that they could supply electricity more cheaply. Then again, the clause as I wish it altered would exclude lighting, except of course the lighting of trains, and I think that is only fair. It would also not allow a railway company to supply electricity taken from one local authority and supplied in the area of another local authority to tenants of theirs for the purposes of lighting and cooking. I think these are perfectly fair alterations and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 25, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of the Minister of Transport and")—(Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: My Lords, I must on behalf of the Great Western Railway Company plead "Not guilty" to building shops and flats in Baker Street. It is another company, I think, to which the noble Lord refers. But, in any case, I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I understand that the noble Lord was speaking generally on all the Amendments standing in his name and I will deal with them. The position at the present moment is that the railway companies, by this clause, are subject in the use of electricity to conditions and limitations imposed by the Minister of Transport. I submit that this is surely sufficient safeguard on the points that

1261
he has mentioned. The Amendment is not very vital to this clause and, if the Ministry are content to be burdened with tie substantial amount of extra work (including, no doubt, additional staff) which the Amendment will impose upon them, I should not wish to divide the House on behalf of the railway companies. I submit, however, that these Amendments are wholly unnecessary.
The object of the clause, and the general spirit of the Bill, is to induce the railways to take the very large loads which they use in bulk from outside suppliers, whereas, with all the extra expenses that are necessary under the present conditions, the railways are not encouraged to do that but rather to increase their own supply or to start fresh supplies for fresh sections of their lines that they contemplate electrifying. If it is found that some addition to the clause would help matters, perhaps some such words as these might be added in another place:—
"Provided that no such supply shall, without the consent of the Minister of Transport, be given to or used by such company or authority for purposes of lighting, other than the lighting of vehicles or stations and other premises in the occupation of such company or authority."
I merely suggest that something on those lines that would be considered by the other side might be inserted in another place.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, so far as I am concerned I should be content with an arrangement of that kind in the case of lighting, which, after all, is on a different basis from power. In reply to my noble friend Lord Emmott, who dealt with his Amendments generally, he is proposing to move to insert a proviso at the end of Clause 44 which, I may say at once, I should be prepared to accept. I think it is a very fair Amendment.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I do not know that I quite understood the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Churchill. I did not hear what he had to say about the consent of the Minister of Transport, which is covered by the Amendment actually before the House.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: If I may speak again by leave of the House, my point was that I considered that the consent of the Minister of Transport under the present clause is quite sufficient safeguard.
LORD EMMOTT: So far as I am concerned, I very much desire that the consent of the Minister of Transport should be required. If he has the power to lay down limitations and conditions, he practically has the power to veto the whole scheme. Certainly he ought to have such a power, and that is all that I seek to obtain. I was very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, for offering to accept one of the Amendments that I have put down, and I shall be very glad to move it when the time comes, but I do not quite understand what he desires to do about this Amendment, which I should really like to press.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It does not seem to me to be necessary to do that which is really the effect of this Amendment—namely, to make necessary the consent of the Minister before a railway uses electricity for these purposes. I was suggesting that it is not necessary to get the consent of the Minister in all these cases.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD EEMOTT LORD EEMOTT moved to add the following proviso:—
"Provided that—
such company or authority shall not supply to any other persons electricity supplied to them under this section and such electricity shall not be used on any part of the premises of such company or authority which is not in their occupation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have not before me the alteration suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Churchill, and for my own part I will content myself with moving this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 35, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Emmott.)
Clause 47:
Use for any purpose of electricity supplied to port, etc. authorities.
47. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or Order, electricity supplied by any authorised undertaker to any company, body or person owning or working an undertaking being a port, dock or harbour may be used for all or any of the purposes of such undertaking or any part thereof.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to leave out Clause 47. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not desire to press this to a Division, but there is one point that. I

1263
should like to raise. This clause and Clause 44 distinctly overlap. They lay down different conditions for similar sets of circumstances. They were both inserted during the Committee stage and, in regard to Clause 47—though I had not the pleasure of being present during the late sitting of your Lordships' House in Committee—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, said that he would accept the clause and let it go down to another place, where it might be properly considered. I should like to ask the noble Viscount what he has to say on that point, because obviously these two clauses overlap. Clause 47 was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, with special reference, I suppose, to the Port of London. I think the Bill requires amendment in that respect, and I shall be glad if the noble Viscount can promise to give his attention to the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, leave out Clause 47—(Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I must say that there is an appearance of overlapping in this clause. I think the clause does really apply to the special case of London, but I will have the point looked into.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after the reference to "authorised undertakers" in subsection (1), to insert:—
"The expression 'local authority' shall include a joint board or a joint committee constituted in pursuance of section eight of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 29, at end insert the said words—(Viscount Peel.)
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Provisions as to the Acquisition of Generating Stations and Main Transmission Lines.
The price of a generating station or main transmission line shall be such sum as may be certified by an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners to have been the amount of the expenses properly incurred on and incidental to the provision of the generating station or main transmission line, less depreciation on a scale fixed by Special Order:
Provided that if the owners of the generating station or main transmission line or the Board are dissatisfied with the sum so certified, the matter in dispute shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the arbitration of a barrister (or in Scotland an advocate) appointed by the Minister of Transport from the appropriate panel set up under section four of this Act, and the arbitrator may, if he thinks it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more qualified assessors and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit all words in the first paragraph after "Commissioners to" and to insert "be the value of the same as a going concern." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to give the price of a generating station or main transmission line such sum as may be certified to be the value of the same as a going concern instead of
"the amount of the expenses properly incurred on and incidental to the provision of the generating station or main transmission line, less depreciation on a scale fixed by Special Order."
I notice there that the scale of depreciation is, unless I am mistaken, to be fixed by the purchasers. The object of my Amendment is to give a fair price to the owner of the generating station or the main transmission line. Unless my Amendment or something similar is inserted, this is what would happen. A generating station, let us say, was built and equipped before the War at a cost of £50,000. The value of that station at the present moment would be at least £100,000, because it is well known to your Lordships that the cost of building and the cost of machinery have certainly doubled since the War. What would be the effect of this? Instead of getting the value of it as it is now they would get the cost at which it was built, less depreciation, and that might be possibly, not £100,000 as it is worth now, but only £20,000 or £30,000. I do not think that is the intention of the Government, and I am sure it is not the intention of my noble friend, but that might be the effect of it.
I do not know whether I have made my point clear. It is that the cost of buildings and plant have increased since the War and therefore the value cannot be ascertained on their cost less depreciation,

1265
because at the present moment they are worth much more than they cost. The result might be that a person, who had built a generating station a year ago which had cost him£100,000, would get £100,000less a year's depreciation, while someone, who had built a generating station, which is now worth £100,000, ten years ago at a cost of£50,000, would only get£30,000 or£40,000. My noble friend has only accepted one Amendment of mine, which was to insert the word "lawfully," which was an extremely good Amendment. In the circumstances—I have had some private conversation with him—I think he might accept the Amendment I am now proposing. It does not interfere with the Bill or with the Government's scheme; all it does is to give certain people who have certain property something like a fair price if it is acquired from them compulsorily.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, Line 7, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 10 and insert ("be the value of the same as a going concern")—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend recognises my generosity in accepting so large a proportion of the Amendments he has moved and I am much indebted to him. As regards this Amendment, I did have some private conversation with him and I hoped, as a result, that he would not have found it necessary to move the Amendment. The point is that it is suggested that it is not always fair to take over the generating station at the price of construction, etc, less depreciation, and that it ought to be taken over as a going concern, that is, I suppose, with the good will attached and so on. I would point out that really there is very little disturbance, practically no disturbance at all, to the operations of the company. They do not lose a single customer. On the contrary they probably increase their customers because, when customers find that they are getting the same article, or perhaps more of the same article, at a reduced price, they usually stick to the suppliers who give them such excellent terms. There fore their business goes on exactly as before. All that would happen would be that they would take their supplies from the Board at a cheaper price and therefore there is no good will attached
1266
and there is no loss to the company except the actual building. It does not seem to me to be necessary in that case to give anything beyond the value of the construction less so much for depreciation. That would meet the whole case. If you were paying for a going concern, paying for good will, you would be paying for something you did not acquire and compensating people for something they had not lost at all. I hope the noble Lord will not be disappointed if I do not add this second Amendment to the row of scalps he has already obtained.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: There is something in what my noble friend says and possibly the words "as a going concern" may go a good deal further than they ought to. There is also a good deal to be said for the point I made. Will he accept "such sum as may be certified by an auditor, being the value at the time of purchase" I What I want them to get is the actual value and no more than the value. Under this Bill as it stands they will not get the value. Will he consider, instead of "a going concern," for he has converted me on that, the words "value at the time of purchase"? I suggest that is a very reasonable offer and I hope that he will accept it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought I persuaded my noble friend that the actual sum properly expended, less sinking fund, was all the company could expect to get. They are not damnified. In fact, their position is improved by enlarging the number of customers, and to give them an additional bonus because of the change in the value of money, because that particular building could only be replaced at the particular moment for a larger sum than it cost when it was put up, would be giving them a bonus which would be unjustifiable to other consumers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord press the Amendment?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No, I do not press it. I am afraid success has rather turned my noble friend's head.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to add to the first paragraph:—"and, in the case of a main transmission line, such additional sum as will compensate the owner for the severance of the line from the owner's undertaking." The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend said on Committee stage:—
"Main transmission lines do not form part of the business of the authorised undertakers and, therefore the case would not arise; so I do not think it is necessary to make any provision for it."
I am informed that London companies especially press strongly that my noble friend is not quite correctly informed and that it is extremely difficult to ascertain in many cases whether a line is a main transmission line which belongs to the authorities or not. If it does so belong, then if severance took place it has to have a sum paid over. The question would be, What is a main transmission line? and the definition given in Clause 49 is one of those definitions that so unpleasantly refer to another Act of Parliament:
"The expression transmission line, when used with reference to a line which is a main transmission line within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, shall include all such works as are mentioned in that definition."
I turn to the Act of 1919 and at Clause 36 I find that:—
"The expression 'main transmission lines' means all extra high-pressure cables and overhead lines (not being an essential part of an authorised undertaker's distribution system or the distribution system of a railway company or the owners of a dock undertaking) transmitting electricity from a generation station to any other generating station, or to a sub-station, together with any step-up and step-down transformers,"
and so on. The point that is made upon that is that you cannot tell whether a portion of an undertaking is really a main transmission line or not in the way it is defined by this Bill.
Take the big County of London Company's main transmission lines from Barking. They go to undertakings in London and elsewhere. Each of these undertakings—Finsbury and Holbon, Wandsworth, Camberwell, Croydon Rural District, etc—are separate undertakings under different Orders. The main transmission lines are not essential parts of the distribution system in either case, although they are essential parts of the County Company's system as a whole.
1268
Then there is a main transmission line connecting the Barking station of the County Company to the Brimsdown station of the North Metropolitan Power Company. This line is owned in part by each of the two companies. It is not an essential part of the distribution system of either company, but is used to enable either station to assist the other if required, under an agreement for mutual assistance. In those circumstances as these undertakings have different positions, and I am told that it is extremely difficult to say whether they are main transmission lines or not, I move that this alteration should be made. It would be much better really, I think, if the compulsory purchase of main transmission lines were dropped altogether. Under Clause 21 You allow the Board to lease or use such lines by agreement, and power to purchase by agreement might also be authorised.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 10 at end insert ("and, in the case of a main transmission line, such additional sum as will compensate the owner for the severance of the line from the owner's undertaking"—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I think that the idea suggested by my noble friend, that the severance of transmission lines is hardly likely to occur, is probably correct. As will be observed from the definition he read out, if a transmission line forms part of the distribution system of any undertaker it is not a main transmission line, and is extremely difficult to think of any line which can be called a transmission line which is not part of the distribution system of the undertaker. Therefore, this line would not be likely to be taken over. Supposing you had the case he mentioned, of a transmission line between two different generating stations, After all, if the generating station, or one of the generating stations, was taken over by the Board, then supposing in addition the transmission line was taken over, the transmission line would be performing exactly the same duties as it was before—it would be carrying electricity from the generating station, and the generating station would remain under the control of that particular undertaker. Therefore, in either hypothesis, if it is used purely as a transmission line or partly as a distribution line, I cannot see that there would be

1269
any damage done or any severance for which compensation ought to be applied. In the circumstances I really think the Amendment is not necessary.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not agree with the noble Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Rules for Determining Cost of Production of Electricity at Selected Stations.
The cost of production of electricity at any selected station shall be ascertained by calculating the following costs, charges and allowances in respect of the year of account:
(e) interest (exclusive of interest payable out of capital), on money properly expended for capita purposes (whether defrayed out of capital or revenue) and attributable to the generating station and the plant suitable to and used for the purpose of generating electricity therein, and interest on working capital properly attributable to the station and the product ion of electricity therein.
The rate of interest for the purposes of this paragraph shall be—

(i) where the owners of a selected station are a joint electricity authority, or a local authority, the average rate payable on the money raised by the authority for the purpose;

(ii) where the owners of the station are a company, the average rate of dividends and interest paid by the company on their share and loan capital during the preceding year; so, however, that the rate shall in no case be less than five nor more than six and a half per cent. per annum.

LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in paragraph (e) (ii), to leave out "average rate of dividend and interest paid by the company on their share and loan capital during the preceding year; so, however, that the rate shall in no case be less than five nor more than," and to insert "rate of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the point of this Amendment is this: When a company which owns a selected generating station sells compulsorily to the Board the electricity generated at that station, the price which the company
1270
will get from the Board for the electricity depends in part upon the rate of interest which is to be allowed to the company upon the capital which they have expended in equipping or improving that selected station. The Bill proposes that the rate of interest should vary between 5 per cent and 6½per cent. My Amendment proposes that this should be a uniform rate of 6½per cent.
I moved this Amendment in Committee, and I ant not going to trouble your Lordships by repeating the arguments which I then used, but may I remind your Lordships that in the Weir Report it was suggested that in a case like this the suitable interest was a uniform rate of 6½per cent. Moreover, in the debate in another place the Attorney-General, on a similar Amendment, is reported to have said that the Government thought that 6½ per cent was a fair average. There are many cases which I have worked out where the Government proposal of a variable rate would work grave hardship to the companies. I have given my noble friend a number of illustrations showing how hardly the Government proposal would work, especially on the owners of power stations.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with the arithmetic, all the more because I understand that the noble Viscount has had my calculations examined and is satisfied that they are correct. May I tell you in a few words what is the effect of those calculations? Take the case of a selected station, to erect which money has been borrowed on loan, and the rest provided by share capital. The loan falls due and has to be paid off. The amount of interest that would have to be paid on the new loan to-day would be considerably greater than ten or fifteen years ago. The effect of a case like that, as I think I have satisfied my noble friend, would be that the company, when they sell their electricity to the Board, would only get such an amount as would pay them 4½per cent, in some eases, and in other cases less than 4½ per cent, on their ordinary share capital, although they might have been earning in the previous year 6 per cent. Surely that is not reasonable.
Take another case. Suppose a selected station and it becomes necessary to spend

1271
a largely increased amount of capital in improving it for the purposes for which the Board requires it. Cases will arise when the effect of the proposals in the Government's Bill will be this: When the company have expended all this extra money in raising further capital, in order to comply with the directions of the Board, they will only get enough money from the Board for the electricity supplied to pay 4½per cent on the ordinary share capital expended on this generating station, instead of, according to my illustration, 6 per cent which they had previously earned. Surely that is not reasonable, and I hope that my noble friend will accept this Amendment. I believe that 6½per cent all round would avoid any real hardship. If my noble friend is still as hard hearted as he has been in many other cases, and cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, would he be willing to accept it in this form, that, instead of giving a uniform 6½per cent on the capital in question he should allow the percentage to be from 54½to 64½instead of from 5 to 6½as the Bill proposes? I know it is difficult for him to come to a decision now, but I hope that he will consult his expert advisers, because I am told that if that concession is allowed, although it is far less than what many people think they are entitled to, it will remove many of the really undoubted cases of hardship that would arise under the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 18, leave out from ("the") to ("six") in line 21, and insert ("rate of")—(Lord Danesfort.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my noble friend is always undaunted and undefeated, and he has returned to the attack on this question of the allowance. He has been good enough to send me a number of calculations and figures. I have studied them with great interest, and I do not quarrel with most of the figures he produced, but I did notice that in the first set of figures that he sent me after all these divisions have taken place he worked out the return at about 4½per cent. Of course, the minimum under this Bill is 5 per cent., and therefore the Bill gave him better terms than he had worked out. My noble friend, I think, noticed that he had worked it out at 4½per cent., and so he sent me another
1272
set of figures most ingeniously contrived to show that it worked out at more than per cent., and that he ought to have a minimum of 5½per cent.
I want to say two things about this. The first is that this particular percentage only applies to the amount of the electricity generated by the selected stations for the Board beyond the amount which they require themselves; it does not affect the cost of the electricity which they generate and buy back from the Board, because the same figures appear on both sides of the equation and therefore cancel each other out. Moreover, some of the figures taken by my noble friend seem to show that the owners were damnified because this calculation was made on the basis of the figures of the previous year, and he took several cases where the rate of interest or dividend had gone up in one year, and therefore (he said) it was rather hard to calculate this basis for cost of production on the figures of the previous year. But that would work both ways. It only works badly on the assumption that dividends are always rising. My experience of companies is that dividends are not always regularly rising from year to year, and as soon as they begin to fall, as they are bound to do, the compensating influence takes place, and the contrary effect follows when the man is having the figures calculated on the previous year when the interest was higher than it is in the existing year.
My noble friend has made a strong appeal to me about certain hard cases where the owners would suffer if they are kept within the strict limits of the 5 to 6½per cent. These figures in the Bill have been put forward as a very fair average. Averages, of course, cannot meet every case, but still the figures represent a substantial allowance in order to calculate the cost of production. Of course, I cannot resist the invitation of my noble friend to look into the matter again. I cannot promise anything, but possibly if I do look into it again my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble Viscount has met me fairly enough. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after paragraph (e) (ii), to insert:—

1273
"Provided that in the case of any company which is a London company within the meaning of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, such average rate aforesaid shall be taken to be the average rate of the interest payable by the company and of the dividends which such company is entitled to retain or distribute in the year of account under the provisions of the London Electricity (Nos. 1 and 2) Acts, 1925, together with a proper proportion of any co-partnership benefit payable in such year under the said Acts or either of them."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in reference to the London companies. There is a similar Amendment on the Third Schedule, also in reference to the London companies. These companies are authorised to pay dividends on a specified scale relative to the price of power. They are also authorised to set up co-partnership schemes, with a distribution to employees, also related to the prices charged. It is reasonable that the dividend items which are to enter into the cost of production and the cost of transmission should be the same on the capital employed as on the whole of the companies' capital. It has been suggested that as the standard of ordinary dividends in the company is to be reduced in 1931 from 10 to 7 per cent. the terms of this Amendment might be limited to that date, and I am authorised to say that the London companies would accept that alteration, and it would make a great deal of difference in the feeling they have towards the way in which they have been treated financially under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 22, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not know that at this stage of the Bill I should be justified in accepting so substantial a change as is advocated by my noble friend. I did say on the Committee stage that I would have the matter further considered, but I submit that the London companies really must be placed on the same level as other companies, and that they should receive the average rate of interest paid, not exceeding 6½per cent. I see no case for differentiation. My noble friend seems to want to link up provisions contained in the London Act with respect to sliding scales
1274
with the provisions of this schedule, and this schedule deals with cost of production only. Clause 30 (2) recognises the London sliding scale, but I think my noble friend will see that it is very difficult to make any distinction between the London companies and other companies on the grounds that he has suggested.
LORD ASKWITH: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule:
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
Amendment of Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.
S. 7.… In paragraph (1) for the words from "The undertakers shall carry" to the words "maximum rate of profit" there shall be substituted the following words:
"The undertakers shall apply the net surplus remaining in any year and the annual proceeds of the reserve fund when amounting to the prescribed limit—
"(d) in aid of the local rate: Provided that—

(i) the amount which may be applied in aid of the local rate in any year shall not exceed one and a-half per cent of the outstanding debt of the undertaking; and

(ii) after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty, no sum shall be paid in aid of the local rate unless the reserve fund amounts to more than one-twentieth of the aggregate capital expenditure on the undertaking.

S. 20.… After the words "electric signalling communication," wherever they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or electrical control of railways."
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in proviso (1), to leave out "outstanding debt of" and insert "aggregate capital expenditure on." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should have desired to bring this Amendment forward on the Committee stage but your Lordships sat so late that I was enabled by the courtesy of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to raise it again upon the present stage. The object of the Amendment is a little to diminish the very considerable change that is made by Clause 40 and

1275
the Fifth Schedule of the Bill with regard to municipal corporations which have undertaken the business of supplying electricity. Clause 40 of the Bill and this schedule seem to an outsider hardly germane to the Bill, which after all, is a Bill for providing better and cheaper electricity.
This clause deals only with the relation of the distribution of profits between the ratepayer and the consumer. As the law now stands Section 7 of Ike Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, runs in this way—
…The undertakers shall carry the net surplus remaining in any year and the annual proceeds of the reserve fund when amounting to the prescribed limit, to the credit of the local rate as defined by the principal Act or at their option shall apply that surplus, or any part thereof, to the improvement of the district for which they are the local authority, or in reduction of the capital moneys borrowed for electricity purposes.
"Provided always that if the surplus in any year exceed five pounds per centum per annum upon the aggregate capital expenditure on the undertaking, the undertakers shall make such a rateable reduction in the charge for the supply of energy as in their judgment will reduce the surplus to that maximum rate of profit.…"
If your Lordships would permit me to refer to the Fifth Schedule, for all that is substituted this:
"In paragraph (1) for the words from 'The undertakers shall carry' to the words 'maximum rate of profit' there shall be substituted the following words:
"The undertakers shall apply the net surplus remaining in any year and the annual proceeds of the reserve fund when amounting to the prescribed limit—

"(a) in reduction of the charges for the supply of energy; or

"(b) in reduction of the capital moneys borrowed for electricity purposes; or

"(c) with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners in payment of expenses chargeable to capital; or

"(d) in aid of the local rate:

Provided that—

(i) the amount which may be applied in aid of the local rate in any year shall not exceed one and a-half per cent of the outstanding debt of the undertaking; and

(ii) after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty, no sum shall be paid in aid of the local rate unless the
1276
reserve fund amounts to more than one-twentieth of the aggregate capital expenditure on the undertaking."

That proviso makes three alterations in the present state of the law, and I may remind your Lordships that under Clause 40 this matter is not to apply merely to new municipal undertakings but is to alter the position of existing municipal undertaking and the existing rights of the ratepayers and of the corporations.
Of those three changes those who have approached me in this matter—the Association of Municipal Corporations—do not ask your Lordships to object to two. That proviso at the end about the reserve fund they submit to and the proviso reducing 5 per cent to 1½per cent they do not ask your Lordships to interfere with. What they do respectfully request is that the 1½per cent shall be calculated on the capital expenditure and not on the outstanding debt of the undertaking.
VISCOUNT PEEL: On the "aggregate capital expenditure." Those are the words.
LORD PHILLIMOHE: On the aggregate capital expenditure, quite true, and not on the outstanding debt of the undertaking. If you take a test of the outstanding debt of the undertaking, it really depends upon how a municipal corporation has managed its funds. As your Lordships know, all these debts are not permanent; they have to be paid off in instalments. Some municipal corporations have paid off their instalments more rapidly than they need with the result that they now have a very small debt. They will only get 1½per cent on that debt, while other corporations which have not paid any faster than they are compelled to will have 1½per cent on the residue of the debt that is left to them. I believe that Hampstead is the classical case. In Hampstead they have paid off a great deal more of their debt than they need have done, and the result is that in the event of there being a profit the ratepayers would get less benefit than they would if the comparison was made the other way.
This matter, I know, has been tossed backwards and forwards in another place,

1277
and I am not sure really whether it has been twice altered or once. But I know that the original proposal was as we ask your Lordships to make it now. Amongst other reasons, you are not to measure the liability of a corporation entirely by the residue of the debt. It might quite well happen, so I am informed, and from my knowledge of municipal matters I can well believe it, that a corporation might find itself carrying on at a loss. There may be some very large ratepaying company that goes bankrupt. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed the other day the case of the winding up of a company with assets of something like £900 at the suit of the Government for Excess Profits Duty amounting to a great many thousands. That is the sort of thing which may happen with a company. It may be carrying on at a great loss and one day be wound up and, as a large ratepayer, may be unable to contribute its rates. Or, again such a thing as the coal strike may make the cost of supplying electricity such that the authorised charge is not sufficient to enable it to pay. Therefore, it is submitted by those who have very much experience in these matters that it is a hardship upon the ratepayer and upon the corporation that this repayment, which, after all, is only at the rate of one and a-half per cent, should not be calculated upon the expenditure which the corporation has Incurred liability for and raised a very large sum by way of lean to meet, but upon the accidental and casual figure which is represented by the existing debt at the moment when the estimate has to be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 32, leave out ("outstanding debt of") and insert ("aggregate capital expenditure on")—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend has stated the real principle which should guide the Government in considering whether the advantages of all these changes should enure to the consumer or whether they should enure to the ratepayer; that is to say, to the ratepayer qua ratepayer, because he may also be a consumer.
LORD PHILLIMORE: And very often not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, sometimes not. But in this case I think these changes brought about by the Bill have really been paid for by the consumers of electricity. After all they have to pay the interest and sinking fund on all this money raised for the changes of frequency, for the establishment of these great transmission lines and for the expenses of the Board. That being so, in my opinion—I am not speaking in this sense for the Government—the advantages ought also entirely to enure to these consumers, because they are simply getting what they have paid for. There does not, therefore, seem any cause for saying that the advantage should go to the ratepayer who really has not done anything towards this particular fall in price. I understand as it has been the custom in the past that there should be a possibility of carrying in aid of the rates certain sums from these undertakings, it is felt that it would be rather a severe change of policy if this advantage were taken away altogether from the ratepayer. Moreover, there may be cases where the local authorities have, in the past; contributed from the general rates to their electricity undertaking and in those cases it seems only fair that the ratepayers should get back what they have so contributed. That is the general way in which I approach it.
I do not think either of these schemes is a very good scheme, if I speak frankly, and I am not surprised that opinion in another place changed, being first in favour of one thing and then in favour of the other. Your Lordships will see that there is considerable objection to taking the aggregate capital expenditure, as the noble and learned Lord wishes us to do, and saying that the 1½per cent contribution to the ratepayers should be based on that aggregate capital expenditure, because that aggregate capital expenditure may obviously be constantly growing. Therefore 1½per cent carried to the ratepayers may amount to a considerable sum, though they do not necessarily deserve it, because it is simply owing to the growth of capital expenditure.
I think there is a good deal to be said against the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, and that it is better to leave the point as it stands in the Bill.

1279
I do not myself think that the proposal as it stands is a perfect suggestion. I think it is open to some of the criticisms made by the noble and learned Lord. After all, the percentage is to be levied on the reducing amount of the outstanding debt and when the outstanding debt is very small the percentage also will be very small, but then the whole of the advantage will enure to consumers. I think that is right, though neither scheme is very good. The objections to my noble and learned friend's suggestion are in my view a good deal stronger than are the objections to the scheme which he criticises; therefore I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to stand as it is.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I wish the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill would answer me this question. Why should the reserve fund of 5 per cent, which must be built up by March, 1930, be levied upon the aggregate capital expenditure? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if that reserve is to be on the aggregate capital expenditure and if, as is the case in Hampstead, 9/10ths of that aggregate capital expenditure has been repaid, why should a reserve fund of 5 per cent.—that is to say, if I calculate accurately et this late hour, half the sum remaining to be paid—be levied upon the aggregate capital expenditure before even one and a-half per cent, on the remaining £25,000 at Hampstead can enure to the benefit of the ratepayer? The noble Viscount has failed to look at the gross unfairness of this and the probable effect on the local authorities of such a proviso as is inserted here.
Take the unfairness. One local authority happens to have an enormous loan and has paid off very little. They can make a relatively large contribution to the rate. Another local authority that has managed well and paid off rapidly has only a very small amount in and can only make a very small contribution. There is no sort of fairness in the principle laid down in this Bill. I do not know very much about it, but if I understand the psychology of these local authorities they work harder and they manage better if they have some little plum of this kind. It should be only a little plum I admit. The old 5 per cent. on aggregate capital expenditure was too
1280
large, but if they have some inducement of this kind I think it tends to good management. On every one of these points I maintain that the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend ought to be put into the Bill if only to give another place a chance of making up its mind properly. It has already spoken in both ways. If my noble friend goes to a Division I shall most certainly support him.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after the references to Section 7, to insert: "S. 13—In subsection (1) the proviso shall be omitted." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with boxes in the streets, and although I have put it down in my name, it was strongly pressed for by my noble friend Lord Gainford. The noble Viscount promised to look into the matter following upon the speech by my noble friend Lord Gainford. I would prefer to leave the chief argument to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 39, insert:
("S. 13…In subsection (1) the proviso shall be omitted")—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, as a director of the County of London Company, I may say that we have had a good deal of experience in making these boxes, and we have found that the borough councils very often refuse a company the opportunity of putting the boxes in at the street levels, which they often make free use of for their own current. The treatment of the companies is not at all fair, and it does seem to be right that private companies should have a similar right of erecting these boxes in the streets—a right that borough councils have for themselves. This thing really requires to be adjusted so that everybody should be treated alike. I therefore press the Amendment as a reasonable one. Under the Act of 1919 there is a safeguard granting an appeal to the Board of Trade. With that precaution I think the companies ought to have the same power as the borough councils.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I quite sympathise with what has been said about these boxes being placed in the streets by local authorities, but one

1281
wrong does not make a right. Everybody in London knows what a great obstruction to the streets these boxes are and the authorities are now trying to get rid of these obstructions in the streets. It would be a very bad thing in my opinion if the electricity companies were permitted to add to their number. Therefore I hope that the Government will refuse to allow this Amendment to be made. It does not apply merely to London but to the whole country. If you take away from local authorities the power to legislate for their own streets it would be a very retrograde step when we want our streets as free as possible.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am afraid there would be very great opposition indeed from the local authorities if I accepted this Amendment. They desire to be the judging authority in their own streets on the question as to what can be put up in those streets and I really think at this stage of the Bill it would be very difficult to—
LORD ASKWITH: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after the references to Section 7, to insert:—
S. 14 … In paragraph 1 (a) after the words 'one month' there shall be inserted or in the case of service lines, seven days'".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would substitute for the notice of one month seven days in the case of service lines. A month would be a very long time to make a consumer wait before he could get anything done and although there have been attempts made by the local authorities lately to insist upon this one month it really is not wanted for practical purposes. I understood the noble Viscount to say that seven days was not given in any other Act. The Postmaster-General happens to have under Section 25 of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1919 seven days' notice for service lines, though it would appear that no attention was then given to the month's notice allowed by Section 14 of the Clauses Act by local authorities and also by the Postmaster-General. In the 1919 Act it is perfectly clear that Parliament thought seven days' notice quite enough for these service
1282
lines. I suggest that seven days is a reasonable notice to be given all round.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 39, insert the said word—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I understand that the Postmaster-General has au objection to this Amendment, but if the noble Lord presses seven days I will not oppose it. It might go to another place where the Postmaster-General can restate his objections.
LORD GAINEORD: My Lords, I do hope this Amendment will be accepted because it is hard on consumers, when the lines are there and houses built and everything ready, that there should be a delay, sometimes of months.
LORD ASKWITH: I am much obliged to my noble friend for this piece of sugar which he has given me at the end of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit the reference to Section 20. The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, leave out lines 40 to 43—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I would like to say that I am very glad the noble Viscount has moved the omission of these words to meet the Amendment I proposed on the Committee stage with reference to track circuits, a very important matter.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount if he can say when the next stage of the Bill will be taken?
VISCOUNT PEEL: On Friday, if that is convenient.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill to add further to the safeguards

1283
relating to the disposal of the dead so as to reduce, as far as possible, the number of loopholes which still exist under the 1874 Act for the concealment of crime. It was introduced by a private member in the House of Commons and was taken over by the Government after it had been read a third time there. The first four clauses, which I think are self-explanatory, deal with existing Registration Acts, and by means of these clauses it is proposed to ensure that all classes of deaths are certified, and burials notified in such a way as to co-ordinate the authority for burial and the certificate of death. At present, although the law states that the registrar's certificate or the coroner's order is sufficient authority for burial, it does not always follow that either of these documents is produced, because it is still perfectly legal for a person to conduct a burial without any written authority, provided that he notifies the registrar after the ceremony. The machinery of this Bill ensures that by a system of counter-checking it will be impossible for the authorising document for burial of one individual to be used in relation to another, or for the burial of an unnotified person to be carried out without the knowledge of the registrar. It also standardises the form used in such notifications and will thus considerably facilitate the work at Somerset House.
Another class of crime which this Bill aims at circumventing is that of Infanticide. Under Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill, evidence will be required to support the registration of a still-birth and will thus prevent the burial of children as stillborn whereas in reality their lives may have been taken shortly after birth. Under Clause 6 of the Bill medical practitioners will be required to fill up, on a standard form, particulars regarding the cause of death. At present the Registrar-General has the duty of issuing forms but medical practitioners are not obliged to use them; and it is further proposed under this Bill, that the certificates should be sent direct to the registrar, instead of being handed to the relative. It is suspected that this practice of handing the certificate to the relative has made it possible for unscrupulous individuals to use certificates for improper purposes. By Clause 9 Regulations are proposed placing restrictions on the disposal of a
1284
body by means other than burial or cremation—such as burial at sea. By this method there seems to be no safeguard at present whereby criminal practices can be prevented, with any degree of certainty.
In view of the lateness of the hour I do not consider it necessary to go very largely into further retails of the Bill although I have information if any noble Lord desires it. This Bill does, I think, make it very much more difficult than it has been in the past for criminally minded persons to conceal the cause of death or to carry out fraudulent burials. It will also provide for the compilation of more accurate medical statistics than have hitherto been possible, by making compulsory the use of the standard form. I think in its present form the Bill is practically uncontroversial, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN IRELAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can explain in a very few minutes the purpose of this Bill. As your Lordships will know matters relating to the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland are reserved to this Parliament. The purpose of this Bill is to make some changes which are desired by the Government of Northern Ireland. The present position is that five Judges of the Supreme Court now receive salaries which are the same as they were when they had jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland. It is proposed now to reduce the salary of each future Judge by £500 a year, which will mean an eventual saving of £2,500 a year. I am satisfied that the salaries proposed are consonant with the dignity and status of the Judges.
The second point is this: the law now requires that civil actions shall be tried by a Judge with a jury unless Parliament otherwise decides. It is proposed to introduce into Northern Ireland the rule which has operated in England for many

1285
years that where a case may involve a long examination of documents or scientific or legal examination which cannot be conveniently made by a jury, it may be tried by a Judge alone. The third point is that opportunity is taken to include in the Bill a provision to enable the Government of Northern Ireland to make certain alterations in the law relating to juries. These minor changes are desired, and it is thought right that the matter should be in the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
House adjourned at half past eight o'clock.

BARONY OF MONTAGU.
Petition of William Reginald Joseph FitzHerbert Herbert-Huddleston of Clytha Park, in the County of Monmouth, and of Sawston Hall, in the County of Cambridge, claiming to be a co-heir to the Barony of Montagu, to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to determine in his favour the abeyance now existing in the said Barony of Montagu, and in case it should be held that the said Barony is affected by the Act of Degradation of George, Duke of Bedford, in 1477, attainder of referred to in the said Petition, to be graciously pleased to give directions for the introduction of a Bill into Parliament to relieve the Petitioner from the effects of the attainder as aforesaid, in so far as relates to the said Barony of Montagu, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney-General thereunto annexed: Presented (by command); read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
The Lord Northington (L. Henley)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BOLSOVER ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Bolsover, in the County of Derby:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CLAYTON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Clayton, in the West Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HOLBEACH ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Holbeach, in the Parts of Holland, in the County of Lincoln:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.