Sitting of 11 November 1926

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1925–26.
Copy ordered "of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1925–26, showing (1) the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1926; (2) the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. McNeill.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST YOUNG PERSONS.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider supplementing the circular issued to justices' clerks, embodying some of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Sexual Offences against Young Persons, by a further circular urging the importance of other recommendations of the Committee, particularly with regard to the hearing of children's evidence on oath, to the clearing of courts, and to the presence of a woman magistrate on the bench when cases of assault are being heard?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The circular was issued after very careful consideration, and I do not think that the objects which my Noble Friend has at heart would be advanced if I were to attempt to supplement it at the present time.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a good
  1224
  many people throughout the country, including women, feel that unless something further is done upon the points to which I have drawn attention, they may slip over?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My Noble Friend must not think that my attention wanders. I have issued this preliminary circular, which is a very important one, as a first instalment, so as to get certain very important points before the Justices. The question is being considered, and I shall not overlook it.

  LOCAL POLICE FORCES.
  Captain FOXCROFTasked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that he possesses powers over the local police forces sufficient to enable them to act, under all contingencies, in the public interest?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the existing police system of this country there is a combination of central and local responsibility which seems rather complicated, but it is well understood by those most concerned and, in practice, gives satisfactory results on the whole. The large number of separate police forces, some of them very small, undoubtedly introduces an element of weakness, and it would be an advantage if their number were reduced. But, apart from this, I do not consider it necessary for me to ask for further powers.
  Sir JAMES REMNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to recommend the merging of some of these smaller forces?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no power to do that without the sanction of Parliament, but I have advised on various occasions that very small forces should be merged. Naturally, however, there is the greatest reluctance on the part of local authorities to lose control of their own police.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Does the Home Secretary accept the suggestion in this question that the police do not act in the public interest?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not noticed that suggestion in the question.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Then read it again.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Home Secretary whether he has made any new regulations, and, if so, what are they, to differentiate between the powers of a constable and a special constable?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative.

  LEAD POISONING.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to three serious cases of lead poisoning in one factory in the potteries during 1926 affecting young women aged 19, 23, and 24, respectively, one proving fatal; and what steps does he propose taking with regard to the use of lead in this factory in future?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The three cases referred to occurred in a factory in which until this year no case of lead poisoning had been reported since 1913, about which time the factory was reconstructed; but it appears that recently the system of exhaust ventilation has not been maintained in an efficient state, and the matter has been actively taken up by my Department.
  Mr. DAVIES: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that the Regulations in the factories will be enforced?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Undoubtedly. This case is a bad one and it is being very carefully dealt with by my Department.
  Mr. HARDIE: Will the Home Secretary see to it that, before anyone makes any alteration in the ventilation where such a business is carried on, he has an assurance from his inspectors that the system which is going to be adopted is an efficient one?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I had better only say that the inspectors are very careful, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to put down a definite question on that point as to whether they have power to interfere beforehand, I will give him a definite answer.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    MINERS' RELIEF (RUSSIAN CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary if he can now state the aggregate sum of money which has been received from Russia for the relief of the miners?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: According to the latest information in my possession, the total is £1,087,000.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the Home Secretary say from what source this money is derived.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is derived from Russia.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is it a levy on the miners of Russia, or is it provided by the Russian Government?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is very difficult to say definitely, but the best information I have is that it was a levy which in certain circumstances is compulsory.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the authority upon which he makes that statement?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is made on information supplied to me, and it is certainly not usual to give the source of information supplied to Government Departments.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it customary for Ministers to make statements without being able to give the authority in regard to the affairs of any Government?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is customary for Ministers to answer questions which are put to them to the best of their power and information.
    Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask what percentage of this money ever gets to the miners or their families?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Home Secretary not aware that a good deal of money comes from other countries, and has there been the same objection to money coming from other countries as from Russia? [HON. MEMBERS: "From America?"] Yes, and from Germany, France and Belgium.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not taken any steps to prevent any of this money coming in from whatever source.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not a fact that the miners in Russia are working much longer hours than the miners in this country, and does the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable that blackleg money should come to this country to help the miners?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is argument.

    PROTECTION OF WORKERS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether, apart from the pledge given by him recently on behalf of the Government that miners wishing to work will be protected from violence and intimidation, it is the intention of the Government to take such steps as will ensure that all men now at work shall be safeguarded in any settlement that may be come to from future victimisation of any kind?
    Captain Viscount CURZON (for Colonel LANE-FOX): I have been asked to reply. The Government will certainly take every action possible to prevent victimisation on either side after the termination of the coal dispute.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Government have altered their policy since the Prime Minister stated that, the Government did not believe in interfering in industry, and now they are proposing to interfere in industry after the settlement?
    Viscount CURZON: I am unable to answer that supplementary question, but I would ask the hon. Member not to read into the answer anything more than is contained in it.

    PROHIBITED MEETINGS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Home Secretary if he will say for what reason two meetings to be held at Houghton-le-Spring and Herrington Burn, to be addressed by Mr. T. Mann and Mr. W. Gallaher, respectively, were banned?
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Home Secretary if it was on his instructions that a meeting of miners at Clown, Derbyshire, to be addressed by Mr. Thomas Mullins, on Sunday, 7th November, was banned; and for what reason?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These meetings were prohibited by the Chief Constables of Durham and Derbyshire
    1228
    respectively under authority given by me in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Mann spoke at Houghton-le-Spring only a few days before, and no disaffection or disturbance was caused by him being there; has his attention been called to the remarks made by Mr. Justice Finlay at the Assizes now being held in which he said that no case either directly or indirectly could be traced to the dispute; and has the right hon. Gentleman read the remarks made by the Chief Constable who said that Mr. Justice Finlay's remarks represented the spirit of Durham County.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Up to the present I have not had time to read the remarks of Mr. Justice Finlay, but as my attention has been called to them by the hon. Member, of course, I will read them.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men and other Communists have spoken continually during the coal dispute in the Durham coalfield, and no case of disturbance has arisen; and in these circumstances why not trust to the judgment of the people in the county?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the person referred to in question No. 15 is not a Communist, and will he be good enough to state why his meetings are banned?
    Mr. LEE: Is the Home Secretary aware that it has been the deliberate policy in Derbyshire to arrange meetings and lectures, whist drives and dances every day; that in this particular welfare hall meetings have been held every day since the dispute began and does he think it is good policy to keep these people out of these welfare halls and turn them into the street where disaffection may be caused, when it has been the deliberate policy of the authorities in Derbyshire to see that these people cause no trouble?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not objecting to whist drives, concerts, or anything of that kind. If the hon. Member will look at the question he will see that only two meetings have been stopped there, and he has just informed

    1229
    us that hundreds of meetings have been held. I am very pleased that they should continue to be held.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to Question No. 15, I would like to ask if he is aware that a summons has been issued to me from this district, because I was there last week, and on the summons it states that I delivered a speech which was calculated to restrict the supply of fuel—that is all. I have written asking—[HON.MEMBERS: "Speech!"] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have written to the superintendent of police there for the purport of the speech which is complained of, so that I may be in a position to defend myself when I go to the Court on Monday, and that he has replied as follows:
    "I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant concerning the summons received by you, and to say I have forwarded the same to the Chief Constable to be dealt with."
    That is because I was informed by a legal luminary of the law of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—that is more than some of you can make—that, unless they intended to be very nasty with me, they would forward to me, as a matter of courtesy—
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be entering on another question entirely. I cannot see the connection of what he is asking with the question on the Paper.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If I cannot get satisfaction now, I am going to move the Adjournment, and raise it to-night.

    DISTURBANCE, WIGAN.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the police baton charge at Pemberton, Wigan, on 15th October, 1926, when the Chief Constable ordered the constables to charge the crowd and use their batons after he had told the crowd that he would give them five minutes to clear; if he is aware that after one minute the charge was ordered; that men, women and children were struck and knocked
    1230
    down indiscriminately; that, after the crowd had dispersed, the constables went through the village and struck people who had not been within half a mile of the place when the charge was ordered; and whether he will order an inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which the Chief Constable ordered the charge and the conduct of some of the constables who took part in the charge?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member, I presume, refers to incidents which occurred on the 13th October, as to which I have received full reports. The police were compelled to charge because the crowd, instead of taking advantage of the Chief Constable's warning, made a rush at the police. No women and children were struck, but some, no doubt, were knocked down in the rush. A portion of the crowd collected again in a disorderly manner at a point about half a mile away, and were dispersed by the police, but batons were not used or drawn on this occasion. I see no ground for further action on my part.
    Mr. PARKINSON: May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the men did not wish the police to deliver the charge while the women and children were there, but that a charge was deliberately ordered by the Chief Constable, and that women and children were struck down, that one girl 11 years of age was struck down.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only ask a question.
    Mr. PARKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one man was struck down and was deliberately kicked by a police constable on the leg while he was down; that in another case a woman vas struck down, and that a man of 60 was struck across the back by a constable with a baton?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps I had better read a portion of the report which I have received from the Chief Constable:
    "I beg to inform yon that there is no truth in the statement that men, women, and children were struck and knocked down

    1231
    by the police. No women or children were struck, but, as there were many women present, a number of them certainly got knocked down in the rush. The police did all they could to assist the women out of the way."
    Mr. PARKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only one minute was given for the crowd to disperse? The police manœuvred the people into a kind of cul de sac where they could neither move one way or the other. The Chief Constable gave them five minutes to clear, but in less than one minute a baton charge was ordered. Women were struck while standing in their own doorways, and others were also struck by the police. One man working on the local railway—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man returning from his work on the railway was struck down by the police, that people going on their ordinary business were met by the police and struck, and that in one case a man coming from behind a house was met by two policemen —[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely out of order.

    MINERS' DEPENDANTS (RELIEF).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Health the total sum paid in outdoor relief up to date to the dependants of miners in the coal stoppage, and how this sum compares with the proceeds of the levy on the Russian workers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply given to a somewhat similar question on Tuesday, from which he will see that the cost of outdoor relief in areas directly affected by the dispute increased in the period from, the beginning of May to October last by approximately £5,800,000 as compared with the rate of expenditure in April, 1926. I am informed that sums amounting to £1,087,000 have been sent from Russia.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the large sums sent by Russia and other countries have been the means of saving ratepayers a good deal of money?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that much of the money advanced in relief is advanced on loan and those who receive it are expected to pay it back? Further, does the hon. Gentleman consider there is any moral turpitude in the sending of money by Russian workers in relief of the distress of British workers?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Has there ever been an account published as to how the money from Russia has been distributed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not come within the province of the Minister of Health.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that if the Home Secretary had the courage of his convictions, he would have stopped that money coming into the country?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: May I have an answer to my first, supplementary question?
    Sir K. WOOD: A great deal of the money has been advanced on loan, and I hope, as in the case of previous disputes, it will be repaid.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it fair that willing workers should be taxed in order to support the dependants of the miners?
    26. The hon. Member also asked the Minister the average weekly relief paid by Poor Law guardians to the wives and children of miners during the coal stoppage; and how these amounts compare with the relief granted in former trade disputes?
    Sir K. WOOD: The exact figures sought by my hon. Friend are not available, but it is estimated that in areas directly affected by the dispute in the coal-mining industry, the expenditure on outdoor relief increased from May to October by an amount equal to an average weekly expenditure of £223,000. In the same areas during the dispute of 1921 the average additional weekly expenditure is estimated to have been £65,400.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that prior to the dispute it was calculated that for every £10 paid

    1233
    by miners to poor relief they only received £1 back?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: That is the truth.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODasked the Minister of Health whether he has been informed of any cases where relieving officers have refused to receive applications for emergency relief, and, if so, in what areas; and whether he will immediately draw the attention of boards of guardians and relieving officers to the statutory duty of such officers to relieve urgent cases of necessity?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not been informed of any such cases. As regards the last part of the question, I am sending the hon. Member copies of circular letters recently issued dealing with the position of boards of guardians and of relieving officers.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member not aware that in the Doncaster area where relieving officers have been appealed to by 259 women, the relieving officers state that the action of the Minister and the resolutions of the guardians have restricted them in carrying out their statutory duty? Will the Minister intimate to the relieving officers that their statutory duties stand, whatever resolutions may be adopted?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no information of any such statement. Full instructions have been given to the relieving officers of the country, and I have no reason to think that they are not adequately and properly carrying out their duties.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the hon. Member's answer that the statutory duties of the relieving officers still remain with them, notwithstanding any resolution which boards of guardians may have passed?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should have thought that it was obvious that any statutory duty would remain.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Health what boards of guardians have suspended out-relief to miners' dependants; and what provision these authorities have made to relieve destitution?
    Sir K. WOOD: There are 24 cases in which boards of guardians have resolved that out-relief shall not ordinarily be given to the dependants of miners. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the names of these unions. Where such a decision is reached by a board of guardians the relief of destitution is carried out either in institutions or, in sudden or urgent cases, by the grant by the relieving officers of relief in kind.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Doncaster Board of Guardians propose to cease the payment of all out-relief this week; and whether he will make representations to the board to continue out-relief, in view of the insufficient indoor accommodation in the area under the control of the board?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that the guardians have reconsidered their decision, and will continue to make payments of outdoor relief. I may say that my right hon. Friend is not aware that the institutional accommodation available to the guardians is insufficient for their needs.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In case an application is made by any woman who feels that the 6s. allowed is insufficient to maintain her, can the Minister say whether or not the relieving officer will be obliged to deal with a case of that description?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think we had better await until such a case arises.

    REVENUE LOSS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state the loss which has been incurred by the national revenue as presented in the Estimates of the current financial year consequent upon the general strike and the coal stoppage which began simultaneously last May?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I fear that it is not possible at present to make any reliable estimate of the outturn of the Budget year.

    FOREIGN COAL.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary for Mines what the average screenings

    1235
    of foreign coal have been per ton screened?
    Viscount CURZON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. and gallant Friend regrets that he has no information on this subject.
    Mr. HARDIE: The last time I put this question to the Secretary for Mines he said he thought it was about 50 per cent., and he promised to get an answer. Cannot I have the answer now, seeing that I have waited a long time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put it on the Paper again.
    Sir W. LANE MITCHELLasked the Secretary for Mines if he will arrange for all imported coals to go to public authorities, gas, electricity, and railway companies, and confine home-produced coals to domestic use at a fixed price?
    Viscount CURZON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. and gallant Friend will carefully consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he sees great practical difficulties in its application

    CHESTER-LE-STREET (PROSECUTION).
    Mr. LAWSON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Castle Ward Guardians in prosecuting and securing a conviction under the Vagrancy Act against John Maddison, a miner concerned in the present dispute, for neglecting to maintain his wife and child by refusing to go to work; whether the prosecution was instituted as the result of any advice from his Department; and if not, whether in view of the present exceptional circumstances, he will consider the desirability of taking immediate steps to discourage any further prosecutions of a like nature?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has seen a newspaper report of this case. The prosecution referred to has not arisen out of any advice given by my right hon. Friend's Department, but the guardians do not appear to have exceeded their powers. It is not in my right, hon. Friend's power to direct that proceedings of this kind shall, or shall not, be taken by a board of guardians.
    Mr. LAWSON: In view of the fact that this involves the possibility of hundreds of thousands of miners, a great mass of them ex-service men, being declared vagrants and criminals, will the hon. Gentleman's Department not take steps to discourage the guardians from taking any action, particularly in view of the fact that the guardian on whose advice this course was taken is the appointed guardian for Chester-le-Street, as appointed by the Minister himself?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no knowledge of the latter circumstances. Each board of guardians must carry out the law to the best of its ability, and it is for the Court to decide in each case whether there is any justification for the prosecution.
    Mr. LAWSON: The Act under which action has been taken is over 100 years old. In view of the difficult circumstances which precipitated this action, will the Department not take some steps to deal with the matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to give notice that, in view of the answer of the Minister, I wish to move the adjournment of the House for the consideration of this matter.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time.

  BUILDING ASSOCIATIONS.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the number of societies or associations, not registered as building societies, which are advertising for and obtaining the money of would-be purchasers of houses, many of whom are ex-service men, and which fail to carry out the promises made; and if he will consider the desirabiity of compelling the registration under the Building Societies Act of all organisations which promise to secure the purchase of houses under a system of instalments?
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I am advised that registration under the Building Societies Acts would not be appropriate to most of the concerns to

  1237
  which the question refers. I understand, however, that the Board of Trade Departmental Committee on the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, is considering the position of these societies.

  ERAUDULENT EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the cases of fraudulent employment agencies; and if he intends to take any action to prevent their operations?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, my attention is called from time to time to such cases. Certain powers are already given to local authorities by the Public Health Act of 1907 in regard to registries for female domestic servants, and in particular to make by-laws for the prevention of fraud in the conduct of such registries. The matter is one therefore for the consideration of the local authorities in the first instance, and the proper course is for any complaints to be submitted to the local authority concerned. As most of us are aware, the whole subject is beset with difficulties; and I do not see what further the Government can usefully do in the matter.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not a fact that a number of these societies advertise in the big newspapers, and could not some action be taken to induce those newspapers not to publish their advertisements?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is very difficult, because I should have to decide at once whether they were or were not fraudulent.

  HOUSING.

    HOUSES ERECTED IN SIX MONTHS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built with State aid, by municipalities, and by private enterprise during the six months ended 30th September, 1926, and during the corresponding periods in 1925 and 1924, respectively?
    Sir K. WOOD: The numbers of houses erected with State assistance during the
    1238
    six months ended 30th September in the years mentioned were, in 1926, 36,732 by local authorities and 38,631 by private enterprise; in 1925, 19,548 by local authorities and 30,907 by private enterprise; in 1924, 8,082 by local authorities and 17,751 by private enterprise.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how many houses built by private enterprise were built for sale, and how many for letting?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better put a question down.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can my hon. Friend say how many of these houses were Weir houses?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, I cannot.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether a house built for letting accommodates more human beings than one built for sale?
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been completed to date under the various Housing Acts and how many are at present under construction, giving separate figures for municipal and private enterprise?
    Sir K. WOOD: Up to the 1st ultimo, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of houses which had been completed in England and Wales with State assistance under the various Housing Acts were 270,406 by local authorities and 196,465 by private enterprise. The numbers under construction under the Housing Acts on 1st October were 58,294 and 45,217, respectively.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are the houses built by private enterprise under the same restrictions as those built by municipalities?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think that question will take some time to answer. The hon. Member had better put it down.

    HOUSES SANCTIONED.
    Mr. THOMSONalso asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses sanctioned for erection under the Housing Acts at the present time, and the corresponding number a year ago?
    Sir K. WOOD: The number of houses authorised for erection under the various Housing Acts (including houses completed and under construction) is 706,699 as compared with 543,284 a year ago.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health the number of new old age pensions awarded and the number of old age pensions increased, respectively, under the provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?
  Sir K. WOOD: On the latest figures available, the number of new old age pensions awarded in England, Scotland and Wales is 108,421, and the number of old age pensions increased is 14,679.
  Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of health the number of pensions and allowances which have been awarded to widows and orphans to the latest available date, and how this figure compares with the actuarial estimate?
  Sir K. WOOD: On the latest information available, the following pensions have been awarded:

  To pre-Act Widows

  130,870

  as against

  an actuarial estimate of

  196,000

  To pre-Act orphans

  13,763

  No actuarial figures are available in this case.
  With regard to post-Act pensions, the numbers awarded are

  Widows

  …

  …

  36,448

  Orphans

  …

  …

  1,260

  It is not possible at present to compare these latter figures with the actuarial estimates, which cover longer periods than that which has elapsed.
  Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many widows and orphans have been refused pensions under the last Act?
  Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will put a question down, I will endeavour to give an answer.

  INFANTILE PARALYSIS
  Captain FAIRFAXasked the Minister of Health if he has any further statement to make on the progress recorded in dealing with the recent outbreaks of infantile paralysis in this country?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is glad to say that the number of cases of infantile paralysis notified in Broadstairs and Leicester during the past two weeks was only 15, as compared with 54 in the previous fortnight. There were no fresh cases in Broadstairs last week. He would like to take this opportunity of stating that infantile paralysis is a disease which has been prevalent in this country for many years. It is one of a group of epidemic nervous diseases of which our knowledge is still very imperfect, but research is being prosecuted, and it is hoped that means will be discovered which will lead to the exercise of more effective control over its spread. His Department has closely watched the outbreaks and a specially skilled member of his staff has visited the areas most affected to assist the local authority in providing for the supervision and control of the outbreaks.
  Captain FAIRFAX: How many deaths have occurred in all in this outbreak?
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not think a large number if my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down I will endeavour to answer it.
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Health the number of cases of infantile paralysis that have occurred each month since May last and whether he has any further information regarding the causes of the disease?
  Sir K. WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, with my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part, I would refer him to the answer which I have given to-day on this subject to a question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich.
  Following are the figures promised:
  The number of cases of infantile paralysis (acute poliomyelitis and acute

  1241
  polio-encephalitis) notified in England and Wales each month since May last is as follows:

  Notifications of

  1926

  Acute Poliomyelitis.

  Acute Polio-encephalitis.

  May

  …

  18

  3

  June

  …

  29

  3

  July

  …

  56

  7

  August

  …

  148

  16

  September

  …

  215

  7

  October

  …

  319

  54

  POOR RELIEF, LONDON.
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, in the last six months, many of the London boroughs have been called upon to find considerable additional sums of money, over and above the normal, for the relief of destitution; and if, in these circumstances, he will take steps to have the payments due to these boroughs from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund expedited or, alternatively, if he will be prepared to consider favourably applications from such boroughs for authority to borrow on account of the money already due to them from this fund?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not aware that the expenditure on poor relief in London has been greater during the last six months than during the preceding half-year. Even if it were so, it would not necessarily follow that larger payments were to be expected from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. In these circumstances, he sees no reason to vary the existing practice by an increase of the resort to borrowing for current expenditure. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the interval before payments can be made from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund has already been materially shortened and my right hon. Friend regrets that no further revision of practice in this respect is possible.
  Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these payments may still be in arrear for something like 12 months, and will he be prepared to consider sympathetically a request from the Shoreditch Board of Guardians for a loan?
  Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of revision, but I have gone into the matter myself to-day, and if the hon. Member would like to see me about it, I will gladly go through it with him again.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    DENTAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increased charges on the surplus funds of approved societies consequent upon the new agreement covering dental benefit; whether he is aware that a number of approved societies decline to operate the agreement because of those increased charges; and whether he will take steps with a view to removing the present impasse?
    Sir K. WOOD: The new agreement as to the scale of charges and conditions of service for the dental treatment of members of approved societies was arrived at by direct negotiation between representatives of the societies and of the dental profession with a view to securing a thoroughly satisfactory service. The new scale does involve some increased charge on the surplus funds of societies above that which would have arisen under the scale previously in operation, but the great majority of societies take the view that the additional advantages to be secured under the new arrangement justify the extra cost. My right hon. Friend is aware that a few societies, representing a very small fraction of the total insured population, have not yet decided to adopt the new scale, but he does not think that the position calls for any special action on his part at the present time.
    Mr. DAVIES: If the opposition to this new agreement grows, as is likely to be the case, will the Ministry call the parties together again with a view to securing new terms?
    Sir K. WOOD: No; I have no reason to apprehend for a moment that the other societies—about 80 per cent. of the total—are likely to alter the existing arrangements to which their representatives have agreed.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that dentists are following in the footsteps of the doctors, and unless some steps are taken they may in very many cases obtain remuneration out of proportion to the services they render?
    Sir K. WOOD: In this arrangement approved societies and members of the dental profession both think they have made a bad bargain. In these circumstances I am rather inclined to think this is a fair arrangement.

    POST OFFICE CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Health the number of Post Office contributors there are to the National Health Insurance; whether there are any surplus funds; and whether any special benefits are being provided to the contributors?
    Sir K. WOOD: The number of deposit contributors in England, Scotland and Wales at the present time is about 271,000. The Deposit Contributors Fund is made up of the sums standing to the credit of the individual deposit contributors, and there are, therefore, no surplus moneys in the fund. The benefits to which a deposit contributor is entitled are the ordinary benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts so far as the balance to the credit of the contributor is sufficient to cover the cost of the provision of such benefits.
    Mr. MACLEAN: May we take it that there are no funds available to provide the Post Office contributors with the special benefits now being provided by many societies?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. The system is different. A certain number of people who belong to this class could secure these benefits if they would only join an approved society.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The point of my question is whether there is any difference in administration which puts the Post Office contributor in a worse position than those who are contributing to approved societies.
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; a very considerable difference.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Why should that be?
    Sir K. WOOD: Because a large number of contributors will not take the trouble to join approved societies.

  BETHNAL GREEN GUARDIANS (ARMY AND NAVY).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the announcement that the Bethnal Green Board of Guardians has decided that no boy under its charge shall now, or in the future, be allowed to enter the Army or Navy; whether he is aware that boys under its control wish to enter the Services; and whether he can take any action to ensure that these children are given a chance of following the career they desire?
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Bethnal Green Board of Guardians to the effect that no boys under their care will be permitted to join the Army and Navy; if a board of guardians are empowered to deprive such boys of their freedom of choice of occupation; and, if not, what steps, if any, he proposes to take?
  Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Bethnal Green Board of Guardians not to allow any boys under their control to join any of His Majesty's Forces; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to prevent authorities entrusted with the expenditure of public money adopting such a policy?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been drawn to such a decision on the part of this board of guardians, but he will inquire into the matter.
  Sir F. HALL: If we put down a question again this day week, will my hon. Friend be in a position to give a reply, in view of the important question this raises?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: In view of the wretched condition of many discharged soldiers and sailors, does the hon. Member not think that the Bethnal Green Board

  1245
  of Guardians are justified in what they are doing?
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: May we take it that the facts are as stated in the question, and that the Minister will take immediate steps to stop national funds going to bodies whose whole object is to strike at the nation?
  Mr. MACLEAN: When the hon. Member is making inquiries into this matter, will he also inquire whether this board of guardians or other boards of guardians will make provision for boys or girls under their charge receiving the necessary facilities to give them a university education?
  Sir F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I will repeat the question this day week.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Member, in making inquiries, inquire how many boys are involved, and whether a board of guardians has any jurisdiction over boys whose parents are alive?
  Sir K. WOOD: I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will make the earliest possible inquiry into this matter, the gravity of which he fully appreciates. I will endeavour to get a reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on the day mentioned.
  Several other hon. Members having risen—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter.

  MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER, 1926.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware, that the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, is causing many small milk producers in country villages expense which they cannot afford, and that they must close down businesses which in some eases they have carried on without any complaint from sanitary authority for 30 years; and whether he will empower the local authorities in such cases to pay some compensation or grant an extension of time in which they must comply with the new Orders?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not heard of any such complaints, and he thinks that the producers to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers must be under some misapprehension as to the terms of the Order. Article 1 of the Order allows a considerable period of time to elapse before any of the provisions which involve any financial outlay become operative.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Member aware that the Ministry have recently sent to local authorities at Hereford, in answer to their question, a letter stating that cow keepers with one or two cows who provide butter and milk for the village, need not come under this Order? Will he look into the matter and disseminate that information and give some instruction to local authorities, so that they will not operate these regulations so harshly as at present on small men in country villages?
  Sir K. WOOD: I will certainly look into the case mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Mr. MARCH: Is it not a fact that producers and distributors had 12 months' notice before this Act came into operation?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that the better milk we have, the greater the demand will be, and that this Act will in the end help the farmers themselves?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on agriculture on this question.

  HOP FIELDS (SUPERVISION).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health how many county councils adopted the suggested rules for the supervision and regulation of hop fields; and in what districts were they in force during the last hop season?
  Sir K. WOOD: The "suggested rules" to which the hon. Member refers are, presumably, the revised model by-laws issued early this year. These by-laws are made, not by county councils, but by district councils. Five district councils have made new by-laws this year, and

  1247
  several are known to be considering them, but it should be added that 40 other districts, covering most of the hop-picking areas, already had similar by-laws in force.
  Mr. BRIANT: Have the inspectors of the hon. Member's Department visited the hop fields during the last season, and, if so, have they made reports, and can those reports be issued to the public?
  Sir K. WOOD: That is a totally different matter from the question which the hon. Member has raised.

  REFUSE DUMPS, PURFLEET AND TILBURY.
  Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take any action to put an end to the practice of dumping refuse in the Lower Thames area, particularly as regards the dumps now existing at Purfleet and Tilbury and the new dump at Purfleet now in course of construction?
  Sir K. WOOD: As I have informed my hon. Friend, these dumps have recently been inspected, and the inspection did not disclose that they are a menace to health. At the same time, I may say that the general question of the collection and disposal of London refuse and the practicability of making improvements is the subject of detailed investigation at the present time, and in connection with the investigation the dumps referred to are being kept under observation.
  Mr. LOOKER: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a dust heap at Tilbury, immediately behind the town, into which all the refuse and deposit from London boroughs is placed, and that numbers of people of all ages and sexes rummage daily in this refuse; and does he think that that state of things is consistent with the prevention of the spread of epidemic disease?
  Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry to hear the information which the hon. Member has given, and I will forward to the investigator the facts.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Cannot we have this refuse destroyed by destructors?

  TRADE FACILITIES AND EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will present to the House a full statement of the total amounts guaranteed as on 31st October, 1926, under the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme, and the total losses, if any, which the Treasury has sustained through such guarantees?
  Mr. McNEILL: A detailed statement of the guarantees which the Treasury have stated their willingness to give under the Trade Facilities Acts is presented to the House every quarter, the latest being House of Commons Paper No. 139 of 1926, giving the figures up to the 30th September, 1926. The total amount guaranteed under those Acts up to the 31st October, 1926, is £68,950,780; and the total losses which the Treasury has so far sustained are £29,174 4s. 11d.
  The total amount guaranteed under the Export Credits Guarantee Schemes up to the 31st October, 1926, was £6,213,079. The total amount which so far has been written off as irrecoverable in connection with these guarantees is £20,412.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in which countries this loss has been incurred?
  Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say that without notice, and I cannot promise that I can get the information.
  Mr. BRIGGS: Is it the fact that when this grant of £5,000,000 is exhausted, it is the intention of the Government to discontinue it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question has already been answered.

  RECEIPT STAMPS.
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many of the big department stores in the West End of London make it a custom to accept payment for goods for the value of £2 and over and issue a receipt without putting a 2d. stamp on same; and will he take the necessary steps to compel

  1249
  such department stores to comply with the statutory Regulations?
  Mr. McNEILL: The attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is constantly being called to cases where receipts which ought to have been stamped have been given without a stamp, and suitable action is taken by them in each case. The document commonly given in the larger shops when goods are sold and paid for over the counter is a form of voucher which does not constitute a receipt for the purposes of the Stamp Act, being more in the nature of an accounting convenience to the shop, and which, consequently, is not liable to duty. I would, however, remind the hon. and gallant Member that a stamped receipt must be given to any customer who asks for it if the amount of the payment is £2 or more.
  Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I myself purchased goods to the extent of £16, paid my account at the cashier's desk and demanded a stamp to be put on the receipt, and was informed that if I wanted a stamp on the receipt I should have to take it to the secretary's office and get it stamped there?
  Mr. McNEILL: I have no knowledge of the hon. Member's transactions.
  Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and see that people who require stamps on their receipts are treated in big department stores in the same way as they are treated in the small shops.
  Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask whether too many Regulations do not add to the cost.

  FOREIGN PLAYS (INCOME TAX).
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that two musical plays appearing in the West End of London have, during the past 12 months, paid royalties to the American holders of the rights of the same to the extent of over £100,000; will he state what steps, if any, are taken by the Treasury to see that Income Tax is paid on the same; and will he consider the introduction of legislation to
  1250
  see that, in future, these amounts are taxed at their source?
  Mr. McNEILL: As the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate, I am not in a position to furnish information with regard to particular cases of Income Tax liability. On the general question raised in regard to legislation my right hon. Friend is not prepared to make any statement at present.
  Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time 14 theatres in London are producing American plays, and royalties to the extent of between £300,000 and £400,000 are going to American authors without being subject to Income Tax?
  Mr. McNEILL: I am very sorry to hear it.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that American and foreign authors and dramatists producing plays in Britain escape payment of Income Tax, except when they remain in Britain six months, whereas British dramatists are taxed when producing plays in America, he is considering the imposing of Income Tax on all foreign dramatists producing plays and artistes and musicians performing in Great Britain; and whether he has estimated the amount likely to be raised in this manner?
  Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Tax is legally chargeable on these sources of income irrespective of the question whether the taxpayer visits this country or of the length of his stay. The problem is that of the machinery for collection of the duty in certain cases. I cannot say more than that this matter is engaging the attention of my right hon. Friend.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (GOVERNMENT SHARES).
  Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number and present value of the shares held by the Treasury in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, together with the sum received in dividends during the past year, as compared with the price obtainable

  1251
  when the Government proposed to sell this block of shares in 1923?
  Mr. McNEILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate a reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  His Majesty's Government hold the following shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company:

  5,000,000

  Ordinary Shares of £1 (fully paid).

  1,000

  8 per cent. 1st Preference Shares of £1 (fully paid).

  £199,000

  5 per cent. Debenture Stock.

  The approximate market quotations for the various classes of shares on the 9th November were:

  Ordinary Shares

  …

  £6

  5s.

  0d.

  1st Preference Shares

  …

  £1

  6s.

  6d.

  Debentures

  …

  96½

  At the end of November, 1923, the approximate market quotations for the same classes of shares were:

  Ordinary Shares

  …

  £2

  10s.

  0d.

  1st Preference Shares

  …

  £1

  3s.

  1d.

  Debentures

  …

  91½

  The total amount received in dividends on all classes of shares since 1st November, 1925, is £885,030.

  TRADE UNIONS.
  Captain FOXCROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to inform the House as to the probable date when His Majesty's Government will introduce legislation affecting the law relating to trade unions?
  Commander EYRES MONSELL (for the PRIME MINISTER): The Government propose to deal with this question next Session.
  Mr. BATEY: May I ask whether the Government propose to deal with this question, although they did not get a mandate from the electors at the last election?

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS.
  Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELLasked the Prime Minister whether, with
  1252
  regard to those Government pensioners paid on the pre-War basis and excluded from the benefits of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, and to the sympathetic statements relative thereto by Members of the present Government during the Debates of 19th May and 5th June, 1924, it is the intention of the Government at an early date to introduce legislation to provide for an extension of the benefits of those Acts amongst all or any of the pensioners hitherto excluded therefrom?
  Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 25th October, 1920, to the hon. Member for Devonport.

  WOMEN FRANCHISE.
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the present Government is entering upon its third year of office, he can now make any statement as to when he proposes to take steps to extend the franchise to women under 30 years of age?
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister what steps the Government intend to take to carry out
  their pledge in the matter of equal political rights for men and women?
  Commander EYRES MONSELL: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether, in view of the shortness of the life left to His Majesty's Government, we can have some idea when this question will be answered?
  Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is based on an hypothesis.

  CHINA (CANTON GOVERNMENT).
  Mr. VIANTasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is considering the desirability of recognition of the Canton National Government?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The Chinese authori-

  1253
  ties at Canton are recognised and dealt with as a local administration. Any step beyond this would have to be most carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, having regard to their treaty obligations, the facts of the situation and the wishes of the Chinese people.

  FRENCH WAR LOANS, 1917–18.
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if some consideration can be given to those who, on the security of the British Government's guarantee, subscribed to the French war loans in 1917–18 and who, in view of the depreciation of the French currency, have lost the greater part of their capital?
  Mr. McNEILL: I do not know what sort of consideration my hon. Friend has in mind. His Majesty's Government did not guarantee the French war loans, nor are they in any way responsible for the depreciation of the French currency.

  PORTUGAL (DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN).
  Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made with Portugal in regard to the debt of £23,000,000 due to Great Britain?
  Mr. McNEILL: The negotiations in regard to this debt have not yet resulted in any settlement.

  UNITED STATES (REPARATION PAYMENTS).
  Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the United States of America has received any payments from Germany under the reparation payments scheme; and, if so, what is the amount?
  Mr. McNEILL: Up to 31st October last, the United States had drawn for reparation 29,106,000 gold marks (about £1,455,000) under the Dawes Plan.
  Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether this reduces the amount that is due to Britain and the other Allies?
  Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend is quite capable of seeing the effect of that under the ordinary operation of the Dawes Plan.

  TREASURY BONDS (BROKERAGE).
  Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of brokerage paid at 5s. per cent., and the amount of brokerage at 2s. 6d. per cent. on the issue of the 4½ per cent. Treasury bonds, 1934; and if a brokerage of as much as 5s. per cent. on a British Government security has ever been paid before?
  Mr. McNEILL: The approximate amount of brokerage paid at 5s. per cent. was £168,000 and at 2s. 6d. £2,000. The arrangements made were those normal in the case of conversion offers; the same brokerage rates have been paid on many similar occasions.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Mr. HOPKINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims have been made for the repayment of Excess Profits Duty under Part III of the Finance Act, 1921, which is intended to grant relief to those holding stocks at excessive valuations?
  Mr. McNEILL: I regret that the statistics collected regarding the Excess Profits Duty do not contain particulars of the relief in question.
  Mr. HOPKINS: Has any relief under this Section ever been allowed?
  Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say, as there are no statistics on that point.
  Mr. HOPKINS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware whether there has been any relief given under this Section?
  Mr. McNEILL: There have been grants, of course, but there is no means of estimating the amount on one particular account.

  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY (WAR STOCK POLICIES).
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the number of five per cent. War Stock

  1255
  policies, 1929–1947, issued by the Prudential Assurance Company; and the number of these still in force?
  Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; I have not this information.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is it not possible for the Treasury Department to give some information with regard to the issue of these War Stock policies?
  Mr. McNEILL: So far as I know I have no more opportunity, or power, of getting the information than the hon. Member himself.
  Mr. HARDIE: The Government issue these War Stock policies, and have they no knowledge of anything that takes place in regard to them?
  Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.
  Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that any private firm can have these War Bond stocks and juggle with them as they like without the Government taking any notice of what they are doing?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

  GARDENERS (LICENCE DUTY).
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue is raised by the licence duty on gardeners, and the number of gardeners concerned?
  Mr. McNEILL: I regret that the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend cannot be furnished, as separate statistics are not available for the various classes of male servant in respect of whom licence duty is payable.

  DUNDEE LABOUR OFFICE (TEMPORARY OFFICERS).
  Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that certain temporary officers, P Class, in the Ministry of Labour Office at Dundee are being, or have been, superseded although their service records are marked good, and that these officers have from two and a half years' to eight years' service; and if
  1256
  he will have inquiry made with a view to removing any injustice?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. I am having inquiry made locally, and will reply to the hon. Member as soon as the requisite information is available.

  AGRICULTURE.

    LONG AND SHORT TERM CREDITS.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any advance has been made in the schemes for long and short term credits for farmers?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I regret I am unable to give my hon. Friend any definite information in regard to the proposals for long-term credit. Negotiations have taken place with various financial interests and, although some difficulties have been encountered, I hope, at an early date, to have an opportunity of exploring the matter further. In regard to the short-term credit, I hope that it will be possible to put certain proposals before Parliament next Session.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: May I take it that there is no truth in the rumour that the long-term credit scheme has been abandoned?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, no. We are just as anxious as ever to find a solution, but it is not an easy moment to get the financial interests to assist in this matter.

    FOREIGN MEAT (IMPORT PROHIBITION).
    Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give an assurance that the embargo will not be removed on foreign carcases without at least six months' warning of its intended removal being given to agriculturists?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Adequate notice will he given of any intention to withdraw the Order in question so as, on the one hand, to afford the Department a further period in which to satisfy itself that foot-and-mouth disease on the Continent is under effective control, and, on the other

    1257
    hand, to give farmers an opportunity to adjust their operations to the new conditions. I cannot, however, define more closely at present the length of notice which might be appropriate under hypothetical conditions. Judging from the increasing prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Europe, these conditions do not, seem likely to be realised for a long time to come.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    AEROPLANE CLUBS.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps, if any, are being taken to increase the number of pupils attending the De Haviland Aircraft Company's school and whether anything is being done to help to add to the membership of the light aeroplane clubs?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, the De Havilland Company's school trains both officers of the Air Force Reserve and also private pupils, including members of light aeroplane clubs. The Air Ministry is directly concerned with the question of the number of the former class of pupils only, and has guaranteed to send a total of 375 Reserve officers to the school in the period of four years from 1st April, 1925, with a minimum of 80 in any one year. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Don Valley on 7th July.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are any steps contemplated to give facilities for landing grounds anywhere near the centre of London
    Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that that arises out of the original question.

    EGYPT AND INDIA (AEROPLANE SERVICE).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in accordance with the agreement with Imperial Airways, Limited, signed in November, 1925, the fortnightly aeroplane service between Egypt and India will actually be in operation by the 1st January, 1927?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Unless some unforeseen difficulty arises, the service should commence operation at the beginning of January, 1927. For further information, I would refer my hon. Friend to the announcement on this subject made at the annual general meeting of Imperial Airways, Limited, and to their recently issued time-table, of which I am sending him a copy.

    CAPTIVE BALLOONS.
    Mr. GEORGE HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any official investigation has taken place into the cause of the accident by which E. T. Willows and four passengers lost their lives in a captive balloon accident; and can he state what steps he proposes to take to secure air worthiness of captive balloons, and thereby prevent as far as possible a repetition of such regrettable accidents?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the existing regulations require all aircraft, including captive balloons, to be certified as airworthy, and, in addition, special permission in writing is necessary before captive balloons are flown. I may add that the question of the procedure in connection with the certification of balloons is at present under review.

  TRANSPORT.

    CLIFTON EXTENSION RAILWAY.
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, despite the considerable increase of traffic which is being carried over the Clifton extension line, operated by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, maintenance work has been reduced by the decision that the permanent-way men should work no more than three days a week; whether he is aware that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have stated that they are prepared to take the responsibility for anything which may happen; and whether, seeing that it is the opinion of the local representatives of the railwaymen that the line is not being satisfactorily maintained, he will cause immediate inquiries to be made?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I will make inquiries and let him know the result.

    ROAD GRANTS, TIVERTON.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport if he will state his reasons for refusing a grant to the Tiverton Borough Council under Circular 234, in view of the fact that the number of people in the borough is below one per acre, and that over 16,000 acres of the 17,679 acres administered by the council are essentially rural in character?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that it is possible to regard Tiverton as essentially rural in character in view of its importance as the principal shopping and commercial centre for a wide area.

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (WORKING DAYS LOST).
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of working days lost through industrial disputes in Great Britain in the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, and up to the most recent available date in 1926?
  Mr. BETTERTON: The numbers of working days directly lost through industrial disputes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland were approximately as follow: in 1919–35,000,000; in 1920–26,500,000; in 1921–86,000,000; in 1922–20,000,000; in 1923–10,500,000; in 1924–8,500,000; in 1925–8,000,000; and during January to October of the present year—143,500,000. The foregoing figures relate only to days lost at the establishments where the disputes occurred, and no figures are available as to days lost at other establishments.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: Can my hon. Friend say, in regard to the figures for 1926, how much of that total is directly attributable to the coal dispute, and how much attributable to other causes?
  Mr. BETTERTON: Of the figure of 143,500,000 there is attributed to the coal dispute 126,500,000, to the general strike 15,000,000, and to other disputes 2,000,000.
  Mr. CLYNES: In publishing these figures, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of stating how many hours were lost in each case through the action of employers in locking out their workmen?
  Mr. BETTERTON: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes an answer to a totally different question from the original question, I will endeavour to give it him if he will give me notice.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that private coalownership under the present coalowners is a very expensive luxury?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the original answer, do the figures which the hon. Member has given include the number of days that the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) should have been here attending to his business, for which he is paid, and when he was away making money "on his own"?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the business to be taken next week?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: On Monday next we propose to take the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimate for Broadcasting.
Tuesday: The Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimate for the Relief of Unemployment; the Report of the Broadcasting Supplementary Estimate; and Ways and Means Committee, which will be a very formal stage.
Wednesday: The Committee stage of the Money Resolution for the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill; Report of the Relief of Unemployment Supplementary Estimate and Ways and Means, Report.
Thursday and Friday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second and Third Readings.
If time permit on any day next week, we shall take other Orders on the Paper including the Second Reading of the
Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Bill [Lords].
Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill [Lords].
Naval Reserve (Officers) Bill.

1261
Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland Bill.
Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill.
Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any information is available regarding the proposed Estimate for Belief of Unemployment; secondly, whether the Estimate and the White Paper promised with respect to broadcasting will be available, and, if so, how soon?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: I think at four o'clock this afternoon Papers in regard to both Estimates will be in the Vote Office.
Mr. CLYNES: What precisely is meant by the Estimate for Relief of Unemployment?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait to see the White Paper.
Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that, as there is no mention of the Merchandise Marks Bill, it is being dropped for this session?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: Certainly not, Sir.
Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that it is controversial Measure, and will take a long time?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and the Proceedings on the Electricity (Supply) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing. Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]
The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 114.

Division No. 453.]

AYES.

[4.2 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Albery, Irving James

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

Hawke, John Anthony

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

Astor, Viscountess

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

Hills, Major John Waller

Atholl, Duchess of

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hilton, Cecil

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Dixey, A. C.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Drewe, C.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Bennett, A. J.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Bethel, A.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Hume-Williams Sir W. Ellis

Betterton, Henry B.

Ellis, R. G.

Hurd, Percy A.

Blundell, F. N.

England, Colonel A.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Jacob, A. E.

Briggs, J. Harold

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Jephcott, A. R.

Briscoe, Richard George

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

Brittain, Sir Harry

Fermoy, Lord

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Fielden, E. B.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Finburgh, S.

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks,Newb'y)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Forrest, W.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Bullock, Captain M.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Fraser, Captain Ian

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Burman, J. B.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Gates, Percy

Loder, J. de V.

Campbell, E. T.

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

Looker, Herbert William

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Goff, Sir Park

Lougher, L.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Gower, Sir Robert

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Grace, John

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Grant, Sir J. A.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Christie, J. A.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Clayton, G. C.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Macintyre, Ian

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

McLean, Major A.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

Macmillan, Captain H.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hanbury, C.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Cooper, A. Duff

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Cope, Major William

Harrison, G. J. C.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Malone, Major P. B.

Raine, W.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Margesson, Capt. D.

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Remnant, Sir James

Waddington, R.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Rentoul, G. S.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

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

Rice, Sir Frederick

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretlord)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Watts, Dr. T.

Murchison, C. K.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wells, S. R.

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Sandeman, A. Stewart

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

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

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Sandon, Lord

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Nuttall, Ellis

Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Penny, Frederick George

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

Wise, Sir Fredric

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

Wolmer, Viscount

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Smithers, Waldron

Womersley, W. J.

Perring, Sir William George

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

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

Power, Sir John Cecil

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

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Preston, William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Price, Major C. W. M.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Radford, E. A.

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

Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

NOES.

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Rose, Frank H.

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

Groves, T.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grundy, T. W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

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

Scrymgeour, E.

Baker, Walter

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Scurr, John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hardie, George D.

Sexton, James

Barnes, A.

Harris, Percy A.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Barr, J

Hayday, Arthur

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sitch, Charles H.

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hirst, G. H.

Smillie, Robert

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Bondfield, Margaret

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Briant, Frank

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bromfield, William

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Stamford, T. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stephen, Campbell

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

Sullivan, Joseph

Charleton, H. C.

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Clowes, S.

Kenyon, Barnet

Taylor, R. A.

Cluse, W. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lansbury George

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Compton, Joseph

Lawson, John James

Thurtle, Ernest

Cove, W. G.

Lee, F.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dalton, Hugh

Livingstone, A. M.

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Lowth, T.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lunn, William

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Davison, J. E. (Smethw'ck)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Day, Colonel Harry

March, S.

Welsh, J. C.

Dennison, R.

Maxton, James

Westwood, J.

Duncan, C.

Montague, Frederick

Whiteley, W.

Dunnico, H.

Murnin, H.

Wiggins, William Martin

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Fenby, T. D.

Paling, W.

Windsor, Walter

Gardner, J. P.

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

Gibbins, Joseph

Purcell, A. A.

Gosling, Harry

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Ritson, J.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

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

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

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which I think must affect most Members of this House? I desire you, Sir, to explain exactly to which Minister questions should be put in this House referring
1264
to the action of superintendents of police or of presiding magistrates in ordinary police courts. You will remember that I submitted a private notice question to you earlier this week. Further, I approached the Clerk at the Table with a similar question, which was

1265
rejected on the ground that the Home Secretary was not in any sense responsible for the actions of superintendents of police. Since not only political motives are being attributed by a superintendent to a prisoner but other statements are being made, I should like to know how these matters can be brought to the notice of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: Matters which are under the control of local authorities must be dealt with by those local authorities, and not here on the Floor of the House. That is a well-recognised principle on which we work. It would never do to bring up here matters which have their remedy in another place.
Mr. WILLIAMS: May I respectfully suggest that as the Government are responsible for fifty per cent. of the salaries paid to the officers referred to, at least there should be some control by the Home Secretary and the House over the actions and attitude of such persons when they are performing their normal duties in police courts or elsewhere.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Arising out of your ruling, Sir, that it would not do if this House began to review the work of local authorities and to go into questions concerning that work, may I point out that three questions have been allowed which interfere with the local autonomy and full control of the Bethnal Green Board of Guardians? Are we to understand that the rule which you have just laid down is now to apply to all Members of the House and that no interference is to be allowed with the work of any local authority.
Mr. WALLHEAD: We have understood from the Home Secretary on many occasions that superintendents of police in various counties have acted upon his instructions. If the right hon. Gentleman can legally issue instructions to superintendents, may we not put questions to him regarding the actions of such officers?
Mr. SPEAKER: The three questions to which reference has been made show that it would be unwise for me to deliver a ruling which might not apply to all individual cases. I must deal with each case by itself as it arises, because the cases vary considerably. I can only lay down the general rule that we should not interfere with the local authorities in the discharge of their own
1266
duties. There are, I agree, some cases where the Minister has an overriding power, and in those cases questions might be allowed in the House; but I must deal with the questions as they come up, having regard to the particular case to which each question refers.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Since your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is against submitting any question on this particular matter, may I ask, through you, when are we likely to have an opportunity of debating a matter of this kind which is of a general character on the Floor of the House, so that the facts may be brought to the notice of the responsible administrator?
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as that is concerned, perhaps the hon. Member will put his question to the Prime Minister. There will be an opportunity of dealing with the matter, as it concerns me, when my salary is under consideration.
Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that there is a number of inspectors-general of constabulary whose salaries are paid wholly by this House, may I ask whether they are not responsible to the Home Secretary for the administration of the various police forces, and whether, on that ruling, hon. Members are not entitled to bring these matters to the notice of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: That question, again, shows how unwise it would be for me to give any ruling without going into the particular case.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I point out, without any offence, that your ruling, Sir, in regard to this question of local authorities is not being carried out exactly as your statement, Sir, would suggest? The question raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has, I understand, been ruled out as interfering with a superintendent's rights or with the rights of a local authority in that respect. Not long since, you allowed the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) to raise a point concerning the jurisdiction of police in Scotland. We put similar questions and they are refused, and it seems to me that this rule regarding local authorities can be waived on some questions and on other questions it cannot. Would it not be better that the House should discuss the whole subject of how far these questions

1267
are to be allowed or disallowed in the case of all Members of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: I may say that I would welcome anything which would relieve me of the responsibility, and I will be glad to help the hon. Member in that direction. Meantime, I have to administer the Rules as they are.

CHESTER-LE-STREET PROSECUTION.
Mr. LAWSON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Minister of Health to take steps to deal with the serious situation arising from the Castle Ward decision."
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a Motion which I can put to the House. It is quite clear that if the hon. Member wants to make an alteration in the law which is complained of, other steps must be taken.
Mr. LAWSON: What we are asking is that the Minister of Health should take steps to discourage the guardians in the action they are taking and should use his undoubted influence with the guardians to prevent them from creating a serious situation. The Minister knows that hundreds of thousands of ex-service men will be made vagrants and criminals by this decision.
Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask if the question raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is one, not of changing the law, but of criticising the administration, and is a notice of Motion on this line not in order?
Mr. SPEAKER: This applies to the action of the local authority, and not of the Minister.
Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the hon. Member criticising, or endeavouring to criticise, the action of a board of guardians acting under the instructions of the Minister, and, as these instructions have been given by the Minister, are we not entitled to criticise?
Mr. STEPHEN: This local authority has taken a certain action under a law which many of us consider to be obsolete,
1268
and by reason of them taking action there has developed a very serious situation. Surely, in view of the consequences arising from this action, it is possible for this House to press the Minister to consider the immediate introduction of legislation to repeal this law, which was considered to be obsolete.
Mr. SPEAKER: Not under Standing Order No. 10. The hon. Member must find some other means of pressing the Minister.
Mr. BECKETT: Might I point out that the authority whose action the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is questioning is not a locally-elected authority, but is one set up over our constituents by the Minister himself. The previous elected board of guardians was suspended for certain action, and we now want the Minister to use the same power of this House to deal with the board which he has set up as he did to deal with the board our people elected some time ago.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have given my ruling, and I cannot argue the matter with the hon. Member.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Industrial Assurance (Juvenile Societies) Bill [Lords): Rear-Admiral Beamish, Mr. Rhys Davies, Lord Fermoy, Captain Hacking, Mr. George Harvey, Mr. Hilton, Mr. Lawson, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Dr. Watts.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further re ported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Albery, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Major Birchall, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Captain Gunston, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Lunn, Lieut.-Colonel Angus McDonnell, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Preston, Mr. Ramsden, Mr. Scurr, Mr. Taylor, Captain Water-

  1269
  house, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Herbert Williams, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Blundell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hurd.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Lieut.-Commander Burney, Captain Austin Hudson, Lieut.-Colonel Angus McDonnell, and Sir Leslie Scott; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Christie, Captain Gunston, Mr. Rye, and Mr. Smithers.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill): Lord Advocate, Mr. Barr, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Brigadier-General Charteris, Colonel Crookshank, Major George Davies, Sir Thomas Davies, Major Elliot, Mr. Fenby, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Rhys, Major Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Wheatley, Major Sir Granville Wheler, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Amendment proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Compensation for deprivation of employment.)
    Amendment proposed [10th November]: In page 16, line 40, to leave out the words "alteration in," and to insert instead thereof the words "restrictions imposed by the Board on."—[Colonel Ashley.]
    Question, "That the words 'alteration in' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment: To leave out the words "by the Board."—[Mr. Kelly.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Mr. STEPHEN: Last night the Minister of Transport refused to accept this Amendment though he went some way in an endeavour to meet the anxiety that is felt in this matter. I am not altogether satisfied with what he said, and I would like him to tell us what objection there is to cutting out these words "by the Board." What is the fear in the mind of the Government if those words were omitted. I know it may be suggested that without those words various people would have certain claims in connection with restrictions who, in fact, should have no claim, but I would point out that everything is covered by Section 16 of the Act of 1919, which would rule out any sort of difficulty. Some of us are not at all convinced that what the Minister has said is going to safeguard the interest of the workpeople and I would like him to give us some idea what is in the mind of the Government, and some more definite assurance that the interests of individual workmen will be fully safeguarded, because, if anyone other than the Board—if the Minister of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners—are
    1300
    responsible for employés losing employment by reason of restrictions, then it is only fair that the same position should be taken up with regard to their action as with regard to the action by the Board. We desire to have something more definite with regard to the safeguarding of the interests of those employés.
    Mr. HARDIE: I would like to put a question. Unless we have some assurance that it cannot operate under any conditions, it would mean, if it is only the Board, and the Board deputises some one else to impose the restrictions, that that would put them outside the area of compensation in this Bill. The Minister of Transport shakes his head, but we want to be quite clear about it. We want an assurance that there is going to be no chance of any loopholes anywhere, and that the alteration that is sought to be made now is going to leave out nobody, no matter where the restrictions come from or at what point applied.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colone1 Ashley): In answer to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), any restrictions imposed by a delegatee of the Board are actions done by the Board, and, therefore, if the Board delegates any of its duties, the position will be exactly the same as if those duties were performed by the Board. The Government propose, as I think I indicated last night, to accept the Amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson), and others, to insert, after the word "Board," the words "or by or under a scheme." That will make it perfectly watertight and ensure that these advantages will be given to the employés either by the Board itself, or by the delegatees of the Board, or by or under a scheme, and, therefore, there will be no one left out of the provisions of this Bill; that is to say, anybody affected by this Bill will come into a compensation scheme.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of that very definite assurance, I wish to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir HERBERT NIELD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed
    Amendment, in line 2, after the word "Board," to insert the words "or by or under a scheme."
    Those who have asked me to associate myself with this Amendment have very carefully considered the words, and they are representatives of the Associated Municipal Electrical Engineers, the Electrical Power Engineers Association, the Association of Staff Officials of the Electrical Supply Companies of London, and the National Association of Local Government Officers. The matter has been thrashed out with the Department, and I am sure that every Member of the House will find that the words I am now moving will be adequate for all purposes.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Powers of authorized undertakers.)
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, at the end, to insert the words
    "(4) 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 any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers being a company 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 he binding upon the parties."
    The object of my Amendment is to prevent local authorities and private undertakers in future, where agreements are about to be completed between them for an extension of time, being obliged to come to this House either for a Provisional Order or for an Act of Parliament. The House is familiar with the conditions under which these Orders have been given under the Act of 1888, and knows that the undertakers who got their Orders were subject to the condition that their undertakings were purchaseable
    1302
    after 42 years. It may be that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it may be desired to bring about agreements of the kind suggested, for financial reasons, and to the advantage of electricity distribution, between local authorities and undertakers, in order to avoid the exercise of the right of purchase at what is called in the Act of 1888 their then value, on the determination of the period of 42 years. It may be that, in order to maintain the efficiency of a particular undertaking, the period should be extended somewhat beyond the limit of 42 years. Where local authorities and private undertakers come to an agreement with that object in view, they ought not to be obliged to incur all the expense and worry of coming to this House to ask for a Provisional Order or a private Act. I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will agree that it is not encumbering the Bill if we add this Amendment to it, and I hope he will be able to accept it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Anything we can do to reduce the expenses in connection with this Measure would naturally be acceptable to my hon. Friends in the Labour party, because I have heard, and rightly heard, them say so many times that in many cases there is an enormous waste of time and of money in bringing forward Bills and Provisional Orders. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): This is an Amendment to which I have given rather careful attention, because it looks rather formidable in length, and I am anxious not to encumber the Bill, but it has seemed to me, after discussion, to be not an unreasonable Amendment, and I would like to tell the House why in a sentence or two. The House will see, in the first place, that it is purely permissive and does not confer any power on any authorised undertaker to obtain or insist on having any alteration in the terms of purchase. It only operates if the authorised undertaker and the local authority are both in agreement and arrive at terms which are agreeable to both. If they arrive at such terms the position is that the terms have to be ap-

    1303
    proved by the Electricity Commissioners, so that there is an independent body to see that nothing is done which is undesirable in the public interest. If the authorised undertakers, who are the sellers, and the local authority, who are the buyers, agree upon terms which they both think fair, and if the Electricity Commissioners are satisfied that those terms do not contain anything detrimental to the public interest, then I do not think there is any harm in allowing such an agreement to be made, with these safeguards, in order to avoid the great expense of a private Bill which has to go through both Houses of Parliament. On those grounds, on the whole, I shall advise the House to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment, and I think an Amendment of this sort ought not to be introduced at this stage of the Bill, affecting, as it does, the purchasing rights and position of local authorities. It is all very well to say that it is only permissible, but what is the real intention behind the Amendment? The intention is that companies may take advantage of a fleeting majority of persons who are in their favour, or against municipal enterprise, on local authorities, and may hurriedly make terms for the extension of the period of their lease. I think that is entirely undesirable. This Amendment is not asked for by the local authorities, and it has not been discussed by them, but is now brought in at this late stage, and I think it is entirely improper to add such an Amendment to the Bill. The Bill as a whole does not deal with purchase prices, and the Amendment is hardly germane to the main purpose of the Bill. I could have understood it if there had been general provisions in the Bill dealing, with distribution, but there are not, and I see in this Amendment merely an endeavour by companies to obtain a longer tenure by taking advantage of some particular set of circumstances on some local authorities. I shall strongly oppose this Amendment, and I hope the House will reject it.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: May I press the Attorney-General to answer these two points? How long is it since this matter was brought to his notice, and could it
    1304
    not have been brought before the Committee upstairs, so that it could have been discussed fully, rather than being sprung upon us now? Secondly, has he or his Department had any opportunity of consulting with the local authorities and municipalities in regard to this matter before he has advised the House to accept this Amendment?
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I cannot understand hon. Members opposite opposing this Amendment, which, if I appreciate it correctly, as I think I do, is simply to give to a local authority or a company, where a right to purchase exists, the right that, if the local authority wishes to defer the purchase, but at the same time wishes to take advantage of the Statute to vary and improve the contract, it shall not be put to any expense in doing so. If the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) could lay before the House any sufficient reason showing now any local authorities would be damnified in any particular by this proposal, I am sure the House would not agree to the Amendment, and I am quite sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would not recommend it.
    Mr. HARRIS: I am very surprised that the Attorney-General, who, I think I am right in saying, said yesterday that he was not prepared to make any more substantial Amendments to the Bill, should give way at the last moment on what I consider a very important point of principle. I remember the great struggle in Parliament in 1910 to get the right of local authorities, at any rate in London, to purchase the interests of companies in the London area, and I remember that there were many Committees appointed, and that as a result of their inquiries they came to the conclusion that after a certain period, in London, the London County Council should have this right.
    Mr. HANNON: This Amendment affects not the London County Council but provincial councils.
    Mr. HARRIS: There is an old proverb which says: "Once bit, twice shy,' and we want to be very careful that the provinces do not suffer the same disabilities as does London. Local authorities are elected for a specific period, and the issues that cause the election of members vary from time to time. Very

    1305
    often the electricity issue does not loom large, but with the development of industry it may become a very vital question, and we do not want a local authority to fritter away its rights, without the approval of the House of Commons, to the prejudice of future local authorities. I remember very well the penalty that Marylebone had to pay for its lack of foresight in allowing a company to be set up in that district to supply electricity. The result was that Marylebone had to pay very heavily to buy out the company, and consequently, for some considerable period, the users of electricity in that district had to pay increased charges.
    The House of Commons naturally takes a larger view of all these problems than can be expected to be taken by a locality that has many other interests to consider. I remember the great fights in this House over the Electricity Bills in which the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has taken a very active part. Sometimes he has been successful in getting some concessions to companies; at other times, in spite of his persuasive eloquence, he has failed. Sometimes the House has rejected my views in favour of his, and sometimes the reverse. No doubt, on the whole, the House of Commons has been right, and I say the House should be very jealous in parting with this power, which, after a great deal of inquiry, was vested in the House of Commons. Even the Attorney-General has to admit he has not given the matter very lengthy consideration, and, certainly, the local authorities were not conscious until the eleventh hour that their rights were going to be stolen from them by an Amendment put on the Order Paper at a late stage.
    In these circumstances, in a Bill not dealing with this problem, but with a much larger issue, it is a mistake to introduce an Amendment of this character. The Attorney-General resisted bringing in other electricity problems upstairs other than those relating to the supply of electricity, cheapening its generation, setting up the grid and the network. I would say, therefore, to the Minister that he should take off his Whip, and allow the House to have a free vote. I have supported this Bill right through in principle, and it would be very unfortunate, considering the support he has
    1306
    got from all sides, if he should now allow a new issue to be raised, and rush through the House an unfortunate principle, against all the traditions of Parliament, which has been very jealous to keep these powers in its hands.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I suggest that this Amendment is distinctly in the interests of the consumer? When an undertaking is purchasable by a local authority, and there is uncertainty when that right will be exercised, or whether it will be exercised, the company is obliged to provide sums as a reserve. If they can come to an agreement with the local authority they know what their position is, and, consequently, the money which has otherwise to be put to reserve may be applied in reducing the price of current. If the matter has to be brought to this House, it is putting an obstacle in the way of agreement between the undertakers and the local authority, and in that way is preventing a reduction in the price of current to the consumer. I would, therefore, suggest to hon. Members opposite that, in the interests of the consumer, they should heartily support this Amendment.
    Mr. GARDNER: I am very much alarmed by the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite for this Amendment, and their newly-found interest in reducing legal costs, and by the fact that this is the third Amendment moved in this way by the hon. Member opposite. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would have taken steps to have each of these new proposals carefully examined before even considering the question of adding them to the Bill. If the Minister satisfied himself on the point he could easily have made arrangements in another place to make any such Amendment. Manuscript Amendments and other Amendments are handed in without giving any time for their consideration, or to realise the consequences that will follow. My experience of local authorities in exercising their powers in this respect has been a painful one. In my own area the county council had the right to take over the trams but postponed their option, entered into a new agreement, and my constituents have actually got to pay 50 per cent. more in fares by this arrangement than they would have done if the county council had run the service themselves.

    1307
    An Amendment of this kind has other great dangers to which I frankly object. I said yesterday that if a Tory majority had a large station in its control, it might be tempted to confer powers which should not be conferred. The civic enterprise of a successful local authority might be handed over for ever to a private company without the consent of Parliament. I do think, before such a great change in the law takes place, the House should have a, further opportunity to consider the matter. I would ask the Attorney-General further to consider this matter, and if he feels there are sound reasons for agreeing to the Amendment, there will be an opportunity to deal with it elsewhere. An hon. Member opposite was good enough to talk about a saving to the community, but the action of the power companies in London in distributing bonus shares make one very dubious about assenting to anything of this kind. I hope if the Attorney-General will not withdraw his assent to this Amendment, he will accede to the appeal of the last speaker but one, and take off the Whips, leaving the House a free choice on this very serious problem.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I find it very difficult to understand the anxiety expressed on the other side of the House with regard to this Amendment. Every speech which has come from hon. Members on the other side seems to me to have betrayed profound mistrust of the local authorities, in whose behalf they appear to be intervening in this Debate. As I understand this Amendment, it is a very simple proposal, that if there is an agreement between an existing company and the local authority, that agreement shall be facilitated by not requiring the approval of this House. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) has pointed out, is entirely in the interests of consumers of electricity. This Amendment, as I understand, puts no pressure on local authorities to assent to a proposed agreement. It merely enables them, if they are so minded, if they in their wisdom and prudence think it desirable, to come to an arrangement with the existing authorised undertakers to make that agreement without the intervention of this House. That, as I understand, is the simple purpose of this Amendment, and I do not understand the opposition from the other side.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I confess I am a little surprised at the outburst of opposition, which I certainly had not anticipated on this Amendment. It is perfectly true, as has been said by one hon. Member, that this Clause is not vital to the central feature of the Bill, the grid or inter-connection, which is the thing in which I am most interested. At the same time, I entirely fail to share that suspicion of local authorities which appears to animate some hon. Members opposite. They only like local authorities when they are of their own political complexion. I am afraid that is a narrow point of view. I had understood that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) was an Amendment which the local authorities, equally with the authorised undertakers, desired, and I still do not see how it could do anything but good in the interest of the local authorities.
    One hon. Member was good enough to refer to the case of St. Marylebone. In the case of St. Marylebone, if a power of this kind had existed, we should have been able to make a very much better bargain than we were ultimately able to make. At the same time, I am not anxious to force through, in a Bill which deals primarily with other matters, an Amendment which is not desired by both parties to it, and, in view of the suggestion which has been made, that some of those who are interested in this matter have not been adequately consulted, I propose to ask my hon. Friend, if he will, to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, so as to give a further opportunity for discussion with the local authorities. If he withdraws it, and if, after that discussion, I find my mind is unchanged, I do not undertake that I shall oppose this Amendment in another place, and then, of course, this House will have an opportunity of agreeing or disagreeing with the Amendment. I think that is a fair thing in face of the suggestion that not sufficient time has been given for its consideration.
    Mr. HANNON: With the permission of the House, I may say I have been personally impressed by the arguments from the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the local authorities did not have a full opportunity of examining for themselves the proposal in this Amendment, and I have no desire in the world to embarrass

    1309
    my right hon. Friend who, I quite understand, has not had, owing to the great pressure on his time, adequate opportunity to examine the Amendment. I am most anxious, in regard to any Amendment for which I am responsible, to consult the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as those on my own side, because I think it strengthens legislation if it can be passed with the concurrence of all parties. Therefore, on the understanding that my right hon. Friend will, after consultation with the local authorities, examine for himself at more length the merits of my Amendment before its introduction in another place; I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it would facilitate matters if we could now know how many Amendments have been adopted with the approval of the other side of the House?

    CLAUSE 17.—(Provisions consequent on acquisition by the Board of generating station or main transmission line.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 17, line 38, to leave out from the word "station," to the word "is," in line 41, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "acquired under this Act by any authorised undertakers, company, or person, or by the Board, or a main transmission line acquired Under this Act by the Board."
    This is really a drafting Amendment, which is necessary by reason of certain alterations in the wording of Clause 5 made in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: In page 18, line 2, to leave out the word "Board," and to insert thereof the words
    "body so acquiring the generating station or main transmission line (in this Act referred to as 'the acquiring authority')."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. ATTLEE: I would ask whether there is an omission in this Amendment? In the Amendment, just passed, we deal with the acquisition of a generating station by any authorised undertakers, company or person, or by the Board, or a main transmission line acquired by the Board. In this Amendment you are leaving out the Board altogether.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the answer is that the Board is a body; it is constituted as such under Clause 1.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 3, leave out the words "the Board," and insert instead thereof the words "an acquiring authority."—[The Attorney-General.]

    CLAUSE 18.—(Saving for necessity of obtaining certain consents.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 18, line 20, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that, in determining whether to give or withhold such consent or approval, the Minister or Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme."
    This is an Amendment which I promised to move when we were discussing the new Clauses the day before yesterday. It is a proviso to ensure that while consent or approval has to be obtained from the Minister or the Electricity Commissioners, as the case may be, in giving that consent or approval the Minister or Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme. It is to prevent the conflict which it was suggested might arise.
    Mr. BALFOUR: This Amendment is by no means a mere formality. It is a most serious Amendment. If hon. Members will look at Clause 18, they will find that it says:
    "Where the carrying out of any part of a scheme, or any arrangement or requirement in connection therewith, would involve any operation for which any consent or approval of the Minister of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners would be necessary under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall relieve the Board"—
    I would point out that "nothing shall relieve the Board"—
    "or any authorised undertakers or other persons concerned from the necessity of obtaining such consent or approval."
    After that we get the words of the Amendment:—
    "Provided that, in determining whether to give or withhold such consent or approval, the Minister or Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme."
    Whose scheme? The people who are to approve are the people who are to frame

    1311
    the scheme, and it is perfectly easy to make sure that there will be certain little paragraphs which will get rid of all obstacles in the way of the Board or any other joint authority, if they wish to favour them—not that I suggest that there would be any question of favouring such an authority. If this were a nationalised scheme this provision would be perfect—that is, in a case where the whole thing is to be run as a State organisation, with one authority to prepare a scheme and a Board to approve the scheme. By the Amendment the protection of Clause 18 is only to be afforded provided the Minister or the Commissioners have regard to the provisions of the scheme, and in the scheme itself provisions may have been included—without anybody paying particular attention to them, because they are not specially linked up with this Clause 18—and we shall find the whole thing fixed in the scheme. The appeal will be to the very people who have put in the provisions, and there will be no other right of appeal. As it stands Clause 18 gives, I think, ample protection. If the appeal is genuine the Ministers or Commissioners will, no doubt, discharge their duties within the terms of Clause 18, but now they will be able to refer to the scheme and say, "Yes, but the scheme provides that that must be done or that thing must not be done, and it is in conflict with the scheme for you to appeal to us, because the scheme says no appeal lies to us." That seems to me a ridiculous provision, and I am astonished that my right hon. Friend has had the temerity to come down to this House and put it before us. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that the parties who will be affected under the provisions of any scheme ought to have left to them some remnant of a right to appeal, but I cannot see how such right would be left to them if the provisions of the scheme barred appeal against certain things, because, under the terms of the Amendment, that would protect the scheme.
    Sir J. NALL: I was rather surprised to see this Amendment on the Paper, because it very largely nullifies the protection given by the Clause. If I am wrong in that interpretation, perhaps the
    1312
    Government spokesman will say in what way it acts.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will certainly do so if I am asked to do so. I understand that fears were expressed the day before yesterday that the Electricity Commissioners would not give consents which were necessary, and that thereby there would be a conflict between the Board which had made the scheme and the Electricity Commissioners which had a right to give or withhold consent. Clause 18, as it stands, preserves the necessity of getting the consents which are required under the Act of 1919. In order to meet the objection, as I understood it, of hon. Members behind me, I offered to put in a proviso that in giving or refusing consent they should have regard to the provisions in the scheme. If my hon. Friends do not wish that, I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment. It was put in to oblige them and to meet a contingency which I thought was never likely to arise, and if it does not satisfy them there is no purpose in moving it.
    Sir J. NALLI am very much obliged for that explanation. I can say at once that the Amendment does not meet the point I raised the other day when we sought to relieve the Board from the necessity of having to go to the Commissioners for consent in many matters of detail in the carrying on of their business. That is one point; but in this case, where the Board are adopting a scheme which may involve them, under the terms of Clause 18, in the necessity for getting consents from the Minister or the Commissioners before it will be possible for them to carry out particular work, it is an entirely different matter. If we say the Board may adopt a scheme and carry it out willy-nilly, the Minister being practically obliged to give his consent on matters of detail, a case might arise of high transmission trunk lines going across the middle of public parks, and the local authority concerned having no means of asking the Minister to withhold his consent to such details; and that is quite another matter. I am sorry if my right hon. Friend thought this Amendment met the point raised on this side of the

    1313
    House. I am bound to say it does not meet it at all. If put into the Clause it would, as I believe, prevent the Minister in certain cases withholding consent on some matter of detail where it would be in the public interest for him to do so.
    Mr. BALFOUR: May I, by leave of the House, add a word or two? I am quite sure that it is the desire of my right hon. Friend to meet the point which was raised, but I think I have indicated that the Amendment would operate in a different sense. It does not give effect to the promise which he made, and I am sorry my right hon. Friend did not consult us about it.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If this Amendment does not meet what my hon. Friends desire, I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Application of Electricity Supply Acts to Board.)
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 18, line 32, at the end to insert the words
    "but nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board to exercise the powers conferred on authorised undertakers by Section five of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, of giving financial assistance to joint electricity authorities."
    This Amendment seeks to ensure that funds raised by the Central Board under a guarantee backed by the general taxpayers, or funds accumulated by the Central Board arising out of the revenue which they may derive from various authorised undertakers, shall not be used for the purpose of financing joint authorities who may compete with the undertakers from whom those hinds have been derived. I do not think that was intended when it was originally proposed to give the Central Board the status of an authorised undertaking, and the withholding of this particular power would not in any vital way affect the status of the Board as an authorised undertaker. It would be wholly against public policy if the Board, having accumulated funds from various undertakings up and down the country, advanced those funds to authorities—
    Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. I do not see the hon. Gentleman's name attached to this Amendment.
    Mr. SANDEMAN: I beg to move the Amendment formally.
    Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member can move an Amendment on the Paper.
    Sir J. NALL: I am sorry that I did not say that I had been asked to move this Amendment by my hon. Friend whose name appears first on the Paper, and I did not observe that the hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandman) was possibly waiting to move it. I believe this Amendment to be in accord with the public interest; I believe it will preserve the finances of the Board and will prevent its funds being disbursed in directions where there is no need for such expenditure.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 18, line 36, at the end, to insert the words
    "(2) Before any such Regulations come into force they shall he laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days on which that House is sitting, and if either House of Parliament, before the expiration of that period, present an Address to His Majesty no further proceedings shall be taken thereon."
    In moving this Amendment I should like to move to leave out the word "present" and to insert instead thereof the words "agree to." The object of the Amendment is, shortly, to give a safeguard against any extensive modification of the Electricity Act of 1919 by requiring the approval of the House of Parliament to any modification which may be made.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I sent a message to say that the form of the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper did not seem to be very well drawn.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will move the Amendment as it is on the Paper. I think it might be improved in another place.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Acquisition of land by the Board.)
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move in page 19, line 16, to leave out the word "voluntarily," and to insert instead thereof the words "by agreement."

    1315
    5.0 P.M.
    I think the Clause will read with much more sound commonsense to have the words "by agreement" instead of the word "voluntarily," which is not really intended by the Clause.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Probably this is an improvement. I hope nobody will think that I am here making a radical change in the Bill, and I will accept this.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Annual Report, statistics and returns.)
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, to leave out the words "annually, at such date," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "not later than the thirty-first day of March in each year."
    This is a very small Amendment, and I would ask the Attorney-General if he cannot see his way to accept it. It lays it down clearly that the Board must present its account at a fixed time and period. It removes any uncertainty as to the Board deciding to put a sort of movable peace for the time when its accounts might be presented. I ask this for the purposes of clarity, and, I think, ultimately of assisting the working of the Board itself.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think I raised this matter in the Committee stage upstairs. If you take an Act, let us say one passed under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport in 1924, the London Traffic Act, in that Act a Traffic Advisory Committee was set up to make a report to be laid before Parliament. That Act came into force at the end of 1024, and the first annual report has not yet been published or laid before Parliament. From the point of view of Members of this House who desire to take an active interest in these affairs, by the time the report of this Committee is published it will be largely out of date. By this Amendment we want to secure that the annual report which is to be published under Clause 23, shall be presented within a reasonable time and not 18 months or
    1316
    two years after, when the subject with which it deals will have become obsolete. We are not anxious to tie the Government definitely down to this particular date, but what we want is some definite date to be put in the Bill.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I would be quite prepared to specify it as a fixed date.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite sympathise with the object of the Amendment. The difficulty which those advising me feel in accepting it is that at present we do not know what will prove to be the most convenient date for the Board's financial year to come to an end. I do not think the offer to put in any other date meets that difficulty.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I would be prepared to alter the Amendment provided that it will give us a guarante that there will be a fixed date.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The difficulty is that I cannot tell the House, because I do not know, what will prove to be the most convenient date for the financial year of the Board. I do not know whether it will take three months or six months to prepare the accounts. If you are going to finish the accounts on 31st December, one date will suit, but if it happens that the annual accounts are ending on the 31st March or 30th June, they will have to be different dates. The Board must annually present a report of their proceedings in any case.
    Mr. HARDIE: Would it not be wise just to add that whatever date the financial years end, there shall be a fixed time in which the accounts shall be presented?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should like to consider that suggestion, but not put it in just for the moment. I always hesitate to put in an Amendment without consulting those who may see difficulties that I should not be able to see. We have already got a provision that the Board must do it every year. In the case referred to by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) the committee was obviously in breach of its statutory obligations, because it could not present a report annually if it had not presented one for 24 months. I will consider this matter, but I think it will have to be done in another place,

    1317
    as I am not prepared to pledge myself without having an opportunity of discussing it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think the real difficulty is that in a year ending say the 31st December, the account has to be presented annually. Supposing it had to be presented in December, 1925, and the account was presented in January, 1927, you have nearly two complete years intervening. There is a substantial point in securing that the account is presented within a reasonable time after the closing of the account. I am not sure that a period of five or six months would be sufficient with all the complicated accounts you have to deal with, knowing the actual physical difficulties of assembling vast masses of documents that will be necessary in this case.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I am quite prepared that the account should be presented sonic time at which it could be discussed within a reasonable time of the period with which it deals. In view of what the Attorney-General has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 24 (Expenses of the Board.)
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 20, line 34, at the end, to insert the words
    "and payment to the Minister of Transport of any expenses and liabilities incurred by him before the commencement of this Act preliminary to the preparation of such schemes, together with interest in either case at the rate of five per cent. per annum."
    If the House will turn to Clause 24, they will see that all sums received by the Board shall be paid into a separate fund, and out of that fund various things shall be paid, including, at the end of the Clause,
    "repayment to the Electricity Commissioners of any expenses incurred in the preparation of any schemes under this Act."
    That was inserted in Committee so that the Electricity Commissioners should be paid. I desire to move the present Amendment because it seems only right and proper that, if the Board makes use of figures, data and surveys made by the Ministry, then the cost should be repaid by the industry to the taxpayer. I am in the recollection of the House when I point out that in July last year, I think,
    1318
    I presented a Supplementary Estimate under the following heading:
    "Special services and inquiries to cover the fees and expenses of consulting engineers and the expenses of a technical survey and joint scheme for the transmission of electricity in Great Britain."
    In the Estimates this year a further Vote was taken under the same sub-head for work during this year. I only explain this to the House so that they may know how the matter stands. We are doing this so that there shall not be the interminable delay in getting the work done when this Bill becomes law. If this step were not taken, it would mean a delay. There has already beers a wait of 12 or 18 months for the necessary legislation. That has been perhaps inevitable and unavoidable. It will hold up electrical projects, but it cannot be helped when you have legislation; but it is the duty of far-seeing people to prevent any avoidable delay when the Bill becomes law, and consequently we have taken this step.
    Colonel GRETTON: The Minister of Transport gave an explanation to the House including a figure involved in the Supplementary Vote. Can he tell the House how much money is involved in this Amendment?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Supplementary Estimate, my right hon. Friend will remember, was £15,000, and the Vote, this year will be, I think, £10,000. Anyhow, the total sum would be round about £25,000.
    Mr. BALFOUR: This Amendment is put before us to enable the authorities, after the Bill become law, to pay any expenses incurred before the commencement of the Act. It is noticeable that this special provision is being brought in by way of an Amendment, and does not appear in the original Bill. The Amendment says
    "expenses and liabilities incurred by him before the commencement of this Act."
    This raises some very serious considerations. The expenses incurred prior to the passing of this Act relate to certain things that are going on at the present moment. During the emergency sitting, a question was asked about certain instructions which had been given throughout the country. I know that the secretary of two companies received a letter which I shall be quite pleased to show

    1319
    to the Minister of Transport, and I am quite willing to give any information on this point to any hon. Gentleman opposite. The letter I refer to is addressed to the secretary of a power company operating in an area covering 2,500 square miles.
    The letter is from the Electricity Commissioners asking for information about the station belonging to this company to enable them to estimate the cost of production if their station should be selected for operation by the Central Electricity Board, and they point out the manner in which the cost is to be computed which is to be as set out in the Electricity Supply Bill, a copy of which was enclosed. May I point out to hon. Members that that relates to a copy of a Bill which has not yet been adopted by this House, and which has not received any consideration at all in another place, and yet it has been circulated by the Electricity Commissioners, and expenditure has been incurred which has ultimately to be met out of moneys to be provided within the scope of this Amendment. The letter to these companies goes on to say that the Electricity Commissioners will be pleased to have the detailed costs set out in Section (a) of the second Schedule and Sections (b) and (c). The letter concludes by saying:
    "The time allowed for the preparation of the information required is very short, and we should be glad to have the same as soon as possible."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It must be remembered that we have to deal with this question from the point of view of legislation. The Minister of Transport has already said:
    "If and when this Bill becomes law there must be no delay in getting this work done."
    I would like to know if the Minister approves of sending out this Bill as it was originally drafted in view of the fact that it may be altered. Is it suggested that another place has not full discretion to do whatever they desire, or is it contended that the right hon. Gentleman holds the other place in such contempt that it agrees to the circulation of a Bill asking for information in the terms of the Bill when those terms have been altered in this House within the last few days. We have not yet even arrived at the Schedules of the Bill. I do ask hon.
    1320
    Members opposite to be good enough w confine their attention to the consideration of this Amendment. My point is that this Bill which has not been passed, has been sent round by the Department asking for information required under this Bill, and has been incurring expenditure which has to be repaid under the provisions of this Amendment. Consequently you are putting these undertakings to the expense of preparing the necessary information—which of course they are most anxious to do, because they are quite ready to fall in with any regular demand or request made upon them. What I submit, however, is that it requires a very wide stretch of the imagination to reconcile action of this kind by the Department with the proper conduct of affairs in this House. or a due regard to the privileges of this House, to say nothing of the privileges of another place.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to that is—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken once. I do not know that it is necessary to pursue this matter further, but of course as the Mover of the Amendment he is entitled to reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to make a speech in reply?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not think I ever heard such a weak case put forward as that to which we have just listened. The argument used by the hon. Member for Hampstead is that because this Bill has not vet become an Act of Parliament it should not have been sent round to various bodies throughout the country.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am aware that anybody can send a Bill round, and ask for opinions and criticisms upon it. But a public Department should not send it out, and incur expense for the purpose of having things done under a Bill as though it were an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely any Minister of Transport who is worth his salt and requires information on which the House is to take action, would be bound to make such inquiries. Any member of the public can get this Bill for the payment of 9d., and therefore there is no breach of privilege at all about this matter. If the Minister of Transport cares to

    1321
    ask any electrical authorities to supply him with information based upon a certain schedule in this Bill, I cannot for the life of me see where there is the slightest breach of privilege. What is the use of hon. Members opposite taking up the time of this House in this way?
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Power of Board to borrow.)
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 21, line 19, to leave out the words, "Electricity Commissioners," and to insert instead thereof the word "Treasury."
    The object of the series of Amendments which I have put down to this Clause is to secure that all these financial matters shall be subject to Treasury control. I think it is absolutely necessary that where money is being borrowed with a State guarantee, it should be subject to the control of the Treasury. That is the form adopted in relation to other credits in regard to which it is provided that the Treasury must be satisfied and properly informed before such credits can be sanctioned. In this case the allocation of money to capital expenditure and various matters of that kind are dealt with in this Clause, and primarily are matters to be considered by the Electricity Commissioners. My view is that the final approval should be in the hands of the Treasury, and it should not be a mere question of confirmation by the Commissioners, but should be confirmed by the Treasury.
    Mr. HARDIE: We have had a continual repetition of objections to the Electricity Commissioners, and the whole of the arguments used in this connection have not been based upon anything that can be said against those Commissioners. Judging from the persistency of hon. Members opposite in this respect, I am inclined to believe that the real reason is that they envy the efficiency and the competency of the Electricity Commissioners. Personally I cannot see what is going to be gained by leaving out the mainspring in this Bill, because, after all, the Electricity Commissioners are going to be the mainspring of this Measure. I think it is a great waste of time to go on discussing matters of this kind.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The House will be pleased to know that I am
    1322
    not going to accept this Amendment. The position is that, under all these Acts, the Electricity Commissioners are the people who have to sanction loans and borrowings. They have even to sanction the borrowings by the Joint Electricity Authority, and they have to give their consent under Regulations made by the Ministry with the approval of the Treasury. The Electricity Commissioners is the body which has to refuse or consent to these loans, and they have to determine in the particular line of the Bill we are now discussing whether a particular expenditure ought to be spread over a term of years or not. Of course, it is a problem for an electrical engineer to say whether a certain expenditure ought to be spread over a term of years or not, and, therefore, we leave it to the Electricity Commissioners to decide that point. They have also to determine the period of repayment which, again, is a very technical problem. In view of the fact that the money borrowed is borrowed under a Treasury guarantee, they have to determine the period after consultation with the Treasury and, therefore, the Treasury is the proper body to give them financial advice. I respectfully submit, to the House that there is no reason for taking away from the Electricity Commissioners in this Bill the power which they already have under all the earlier Acts, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR Mr. BALFOUR rose—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understood that the hon. Member seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I understood that an hon. Member opposite seconded it, and I rose to make a few remarks on it.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Power to Treasury to guarantee loans to Board.)
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    It was with some diffidence that I put this Amendment on the Paper, especially having regard to the respect in which I hold my two right hon. Friends who have charge of the Bill, but I have given it full consideration, and, although it may he against my party, I feel that this is a national issue, and that it affects the tax-

    1323
    payer as much as any Clause in all the Bill. I often think, standing here and speaking on finance, or international finance, or Government expenditure, that I am like Robinson Crusoe on the desert island; but to-day, anyhow, I have my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), who is my Friday, and is going to support me in this Amendment.
    One of the important things to-day for this country is that we should have a reserve of credit, or, perhaps, I should say, a reservoir of credit. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not consider that I am fighting the Bill. I am not an expert in electricity, but at the same time I am not altogether a mushroom in finance, and I feel, in putting forward my Amendment, that it should have the full consideration of the House. Clause 27 guarantees the principal and interest on £33,500,000 of taxpayers' credit. When the Budget was introduced in April, one of the sound points in the introduction was the elimination of the Trade Facilities Act, but now almost a similar thing is being carried on in regard to Clause 27 of this Bill, which guarantees principal and interest on this large amount of taxpayers' credit. The Weir Report estimates that about £250,000,000 will be spent over 15 years. I welcome that; it will mean development and it will mean employment but that is not a taxpayers' guarantee. If anybody refers to the memorandum that was issued when the Financial Resolution was brought before this House, they will find the following:
    "The Board are required to fix tariffs which shall cover their expenses, with such margin as may be allowed, and are given the necessary powers to raise capital up to £33,500,000."
    I contend that with a fixed tariff it becomes a monopoly, and, if it is a monopoly, I see no reason why the taxpayer should guarantee this vast amount of money.
    Monopolies are not altogether a great success. I think that up to now railway amalgamations have not proved quite what was anticipated when the Railways Bill went through the House. If you go back 100 years, and consider when gas was introduced into this country, there was no guarantee then as to the furthering of gas in this country. As far as I
    1324
    recollect, and it is so now, I believe it was a case of participation between the shareholder, the person who used the gas, and the employed. There are two main points that I want to raise—1, is the guarantee necessary, and, 2, can the taxpayer afford it? Let me take the first point, is the guarantee necessary? The Weir Report is very complicated, but it does state that there will be a saving of millions of pounds. Recently the Prime Minister, at the Scarborough conference last month, stated that the annual saving in cost of generating electricity, if this Bill becomes an Act, will be approximately £11,000,000 a year. If there is to be this gigantic saving in cost of generation, why should it be necessary for the taxpayer to guarantee this large amount of £33,500,000?
    A lot depends, as I am sure the Attorney-General will agree, on who is on the Central Electricity Board. I remember that when the Financial Resolution was before the House I referred to the London Power Company. The London Power Company has a Board which is very difficult to equal in strength and if there is a strong Central Electricity Board I see no reason why this money should not be raised from the market without a guarantee. Naturally, you want good stockbrokers who would underwrite the issue. I should like to explain to the House that I have no interest in electricity and have no interest in underwriting; I am only putting this forward as a national necessity, because I feel that it is to the detriment of the county to use up its credit on something that is quite unnecessary. The Attorney-General said—I think it was when we were dealing with the Financial Resolution—that unless this money was guaranteed the money would not be got. I wonder if he has consulted anybody in the City? I wonder if he realises that, if he consulted certain City men, they would probably be willing to take up this big issue, spreading it over years and saving the taxpayer this guarantee? No doubt he realises that money rates are heavier to-day than they were in May when this Bill was introduced. The last Conversion Loan in September was more expensive than any that we have ever had. Might I ask the Attorney-General whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to this,

    1325
    because I cannot conceive any Chancellor of the Exchequer, having gone into the figures and understanding them, agreeing to this guarantee. He is going to lose money. For argument's sake, supposing the Government to be raising this loan on a guarantee basis at 5 per cent., and supposing that if it were not guaranteed it would be on a 6 per cent. basis, that represents a difference of £335,000 in the interest that would have to be paid. But what is the difference in the Income Tax? Surely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks to the Income Tax, and, if it is a loan at 6 per cent. instead of 5 per cent., naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reap in more Income Tax. The extra amount that he would reap in would be £67,000. Why does he throw that away?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Why not make it £70,000?
    Sir F. WISE: I am giving exact figures. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that it is to the detriment of the country to carry through this guarantee at the present time. I contend that the security is ample without the guarantee; I contend that it is an advantage to the investor, who would get 1 per cent. more interest, and an advantage to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if the loan is not guaranteed, it is an advantage to the taxpayer.
    My second point is, can the taxpayer afford it? I am sure the Attorney-General realises how loose the Government have been with their credit in the last two years—how we have squandered our credit. It does not matter whether it is an individual or whether it is the nation, we have only a certain amount of credit, and the loose way in which this credit has been thrown about is to the detriment of everybody who lives in this country. I wonder if the House realises the position of our National Debt? Does the House realise that there has been an increase in the National Debt since 1919? On the 31st March, 1919, the National Debt was £7,434,000,000; on the 31st March, 1926, it was £7,558,000,000, or an increase of £124,000,000 since 1919, and yet we are going to give this guarantee. Again I say that it is to the detriment of the country and therefore the taxpayer to give this guarantee. Then take the interest and management charges en the National debt. The interest and management
    1326
    charges in 1921–22 were £307,000,000; in 1925–26 £308,000,000, or an increase of £1,000,000. Does the House realise the state of the country? Does the House realise that in giving this guarantee we are making our National Debt literally bigger, and are putting the interest also on a higher scale than it is at the present time?
    May I also bring to the notice of the Attorney-General the maturities that we have to meet in the next two years? In 1927–28 there will be £300,000,000 of maturities to meet, and in 1928–29 there will be £470,000,000 of maturities to meet. This guarantee affects those maturities. It means that you cannot raise your money at so cheap a rate, and I sincerely hope my right hon. Friend will look at it from that point of view. He will probably criticise me in regard to the question of security; he will say that there are no assets. But this is a monopoly; this is a sheltered trade. The whole electricity supply throughout the country will be in the hands of this Board or the Commissioners, and, therefore, I contend that the security is ample to cover the needs of development in this country. The Attorney-General must also realise where this money comes from. It comes from the savings of the people, and it can only come from those savings. An issue, such as is suggested in the Weir Report, of £250,000,000, can only he subscribed from the savings of the people. There is one other point. Is this guarantee a subsidy? I contend that it is a subsidy. The Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry is against a subsidy. It says:
    "It is indefensible that the people engaged in other industries should be taxed in order to provide profits for the employers or to maintain the wages of the workers in the particular industry affected, their own profits and their own wages being often no better, or sometimes worse."
    That was condemned as a subsidy.
    Mr. HANNON Mr. HANNON indicated dissent.
    Sir F. WISE: Yes, it is a subsidy, and the Royal Commission condemned a subsidy.
    Mr. HANNON: There is no analogy.
    Sir F. WISE: My hon. Friend says there is no analogy—
    Mr. HANNON: I do not deny the suggestion that the Royal Commission on the

    1327
    coal industry was against a subsidy; what I do deny is that it is analogous to describe this guarantee in the same sense as the subsidy referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission.
    Sir F. WISE: I am sorry I differ from my hon. Friend. I contend that it is a subsidy. It is helping this particular trade, just the same as Trade Facilities Act. Trade Facilities Act is undoubtedly a subsidy. Some people did not call it a subsidy, but in my reading of the Trade Facilities Act it certainly was a subsidy. The Prime Minister at Scarborough last month used these words:
    "The last months through which we have passed have postponed for some time, and whatever Government is in power, any prospect of ameliorative legislation which requires money."
    Those are very strong words, and here is something which really is money. It does not matter what you call it. Your liability is there and you might as well call it money as call it credit. That principle is wrong.
    In conclusion, I must refer to the terrible crisis the country is going through at present in regard to the coal lock-out. The President of the Board of Trade stated that our loss was possibly £250,000,000 to £300,000,000. I have worked out figures which come very much bigger than that, in fact nearer £450,000,000, but yet we are going to guarantee something which is not necessary. That loss in regard to the coal stoppage should make us keep our reservoir of credit as full as possible, and I feel that we are melting it away when we give a credit of this sort. The Attorney-General, on 6th July last, said as follows:
    "I can imagine no more fruitful way of watering the field of industrial and agricultural life in this country than by providing this guarantee."
    I am indeed sorry to differ from my right hon. Friend. I admire his ability and I admire his eloquence, but when it comes to one's own particular subject of finance, I regret very much that I cannot agree with him. Here we have only to-day Supplementary Estimates for over £3,500,000, yet the Government are going to give this guarantee. It is a wicked guarantee, and it is time this House protected the taxpayer and protected the national credit of the country.
    Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I have opposed this Government guarantee consistently at every stage of the Bill, both downstairs and in Committee. Either my eloquence has failed, or the Attorney-General's views differ from mine. I do not know whether I shall have any more success to-day. This Government guarantee is unnecessary for the purpose of the Bill and is a definite subsidy for the benefit of the electricity users at the cost of the general body of taxpayers—a subsidy not to the electricity trade, but to the electricity users. In Committee the Attorney-General said that without this guarantee it would be impossible for the Electricity Board to raise their £33,500,000 of stock, or alternatively that they would have to pay such a rate of interest for the money as would make the cost of electricity as supplied by them unduly and prohibitively high. As to the first point, £33,500,000 is the amount of the issue. Of that, £25,000,000 will be spent either on the purchase of existing recaltricent generating stations or the erection of others and on the main transmission lines. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the main transmission lines constituted no security. What security do the permanent ways of the railways constitute—strips of land of 20 or 30 yards spreading over the country. Of course, only as a going concern are they of any value, and similarly with transmission lines. But they have an asset far and away beyond any question of the value of their tangible assets and that is their potential monopoly for the supply of electricity, and they have the right under this Bill, after they have purchased the current from the various electric stations, to load thereon the expenses of the Board, including the interest on their electricity stock, before they sell it hack to the undertakers. It is clear then that they have an asset there which is good security not merely for £33,500,000, but probably for £300,000,000.
    The next point made by the Attorney-General was that even if they could raise the money, they would have to pay a prohibitive price for borrowing it without the Government guarantee. With the Government guarantee they could probably borrow the money at 5 per cent., and

    1329
    without the Government guarantee, my hon. Friend stated, perhaps they would have to pay 6 per cent. When you have a good case it is better not to spoil it by being greedy, and therefore I will admit that they might have to pay as much as 2 per cent. more for the money. Assume they have to pay 7 per cent. [Interruption.] If hon. Members prefer me to base my argument on 1 per cent. more my case will be stronger and easier to argue. But I will concede that it may be 2 per cent. more. If they have to pay 2 per cent. more for borrowing this £33,500,000, that amounts to £670,000 a year extra interest. That extra interest has to be loaded by the Electricity Board on to the price at which they supply current. That figure of £670,000 is not a very serious amount. At present the consumption of electricity is over 6,000,000,000 units, and the Weir Report anticipates the figure rising to over 20,000,000,000 units. I will take the moderate figure of 10,000,000,000 and the extra interest, if it were £670,000 a year, would amount to one-sixtieth of a penny per unit. Is the consumption of electricity to be seriously prejudiced because the price is increased by one-sixtieth of a penny per unit?
    The next point is that it is definitely a subsidy to cheapen electricity to the users at the cost of the general taxpayer. My hon. Friend referred to some £1,200,000,000 of indebtedness which falls due for repayment in the next two or three years. In addition to that, there are £2,000,000,000 of 5 per cent. War Loan which the Government have the option to redeem in 1929. Taking the £1,200,000,000 and the £2,000,000,000 which they have the option to convert if the conditions of the market enable them to do it profitably, we have a figure of over £3,000,000,000 within the next three years that the Government have the right to convert either obligatorily or at their will. We are taught, and I think no one argues the truth of it, that supply and demand regulate price. Here we have a case where, not only is the supply of gilt-edged securities being increased by £33,500,000, but the demand is going to be weakened by £33,500,000 also, which counts two on a division. Either of these factors would tend to keep the price of gilt-edged securities down, but together their effect is equivalent to £67,000,000. I think it would be quite a reasonable hypothesis
    1330
    that this £67,000,000 difference can easily make one-quarter per cent. difference in the basis of British credit. It requires a very slight increase in the market value of gilt-edged securities to make a difference in Government borrowing powers of a quartet per cent. The 4 per cent. Funding Loan is about 85. If it were 89½ the British Government's credit would be a quarter per cent. cheaper. A quarter per cent. on the £3,200,000,000 of indebtedness which the Government either must or may convert in the next three years would be over £8,000,000 per annum. Here we have this proposition before us. In order possibly to cheapen electricity to the consumers to the extent of £670,000 a year we are going to prejudice the general body of taxpayers to the extent of £8,000,000 a year.
    This is not merely subsidy. It is subsidy gone mad. Every other subsidy that the nation has ever known has taken money out of the taxpayers' pockets and an equivalent amount of money has gone into the pockets of other persons. Here, on the other hand, you propose to take £8,000,000 per annum out of the general taxpayer and only give 2670,000 per annum to the people who are to benefit by it. If the Government holds the view that the Electricity Board would have to pay as much as 7 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. for the money they are to borrow, take away the Government guarantee and let us give the Electricity Board a subsidy of £1,000,000 a year. That would be eight times cheaper to the taxpayer than giving this guarantee. I sincerely trust the Government will accept the Amendment.
    6.0 P.M.
    Major KINDERSLEY: I have purposely refrained from intervening in the Debates on the Bill hitherto because the matters which have been dealt with are very technical, and I do not try to interfere in matters which are too high for me. Moreover I wish to make it clear that I am entirely in favour of what this Bill seeks to do and I only oppose the financial methods by which it is proposed to carry out the purpose of the Bill. In the first place I believe this guarantee to be entirely unnecessary. There is very ample security for £33,500,000, or a very much larger amount, in the statutory powers conferred on the Board by the Bill. Let me point out what those powers are. First

    1331
    of all the Board can select the cheapest market in which to buy the electricity. It can control the output of the market to suit its own needs. It can commandeer the whole output which it allows and prevent any competition. It can force any electricity which it has for sale—which means, under their control, all power they wish to sell—on buyers at a price which must be a profit to them. It is extraordinarily difficult for me to understand how any body of ordinary business capacity, and this will be a board of people who are recognised as businessmen, in such circumstances could fail to raise any capital that they require at a reasonable rate. It is quite obvious to me that if there is any risk of the Board nut being able to raise capital in these circumstances the whole case for the Bill must fail.
    The Attorney-General has raised the point that the Board have not any tangible assets. What tangible assets, in most cases, has a municipal corporation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I said "in most cases." A municipal corporation has simply the statutory power to levy rates. That is the security which a municipal corporation offers to people who invest in its loans. Whatever those tangible assets may be, they are nothing in comparison to the sums which the corporation raises on the security of its statutory power to levy rates. Here, in this Bill, we have a corporation which is endowed with enormous statutory powers, because it is able to buy such electricity as it requires and to add to the price the expenses of the Board, which include interest and sinking fund on the sum which is borrowed, and then to put it upon the consumers. I can only say that, speaking as a business man who knows something about issuing loans, I should be very glad to have the opportunity of making an issue for a Board possessing such powers as these.
    We are told that this money will be raised more cheaply if there is a Government guarantee. Let us take that point. The Electricity Commissioners have recently issued a report for the years from 1923 to 1925. If hon. Members will read that report they will find, curiously
    1332
    enough, that no less a sum than £33,000,000 has been raised during the last two years—almost the exact sum of money mentioned in this Bill—by electricity undertakings, without one penny of guarantee by the Government, and a lot of it has been raised on excellent terms. Let me tell the Attorney-General that in February last the London United Power Company issued 5 per cent. stock at 96. The other day I had to buy some of that stock, which I consider an excellent security, and I gave 99 for it. The stock which it will be necessary for the Board to issue could be issued on quite as favourable terms as, or even more favourable terms, because they have so large a monopoly, than the London United Power Company was able to issue its stock. Even granting, which I do not altogether do, that this money may be raised fractionally cheaper if you have a Government guarantee, I still maintain that it would be wrong to give this guarantee on the question of principle.
    The Attorney-General has been somewhat annoyed because this Bill has been spoken of as nationalisation. It is not nationalisation; it is neither one thing nor the other. If I might coin a phrase, I should say that it is nationalisation without the courage of its convictions. It has, on the other hand, most of the evils of nationalisation, without its form, and that is the danger of it. I will point out what I believe to be the chief evils of nationalisation from the financial point of view. The first evil is that it gives the financial control of industry to a body of persons who have not direct financial responsibility to those who provide the funds. It is essential for all sound business that those who manage the business should be directly responsible to those who provide the money for carrying it on. That is simply business horse sense. In this case, funds are provided by the guarantee of the taxpayer, and the only remedy that the taxpayer has is the scalp of the Minister of Transport, if anything goes wrong. I should be extraordinarily sorry in the case of the present Minister of Transport, or of any future Minister, to put that remedy into operation.
    A further evil of nationalisation is that you nationalise the savings of the people. I will explain what I mean by that. A Goverment have no right, and a muni-

    1333
    cipality has no right, in my opinion, to take money from the taxpayers' pocket or from the ratepayers' pocket and to say: "We are, according to our judgment, going to invest this money, which we have taken from your pocket, in such industries as we think fit." It is a right of the taxpayer to invest his money as he thinks fit, advised by those who are competent to advise him on those matters, who are the bankers and other people in the City of London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I wonder whether hon. Members opposite who belong to trade unions know how their funds are invested. I may inform them that I am not a banker. When the Prime Minister commended this Bill to the country, in a speech he made at Birmingham, he compared the Board they were going to set up to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and the Port of London Authority. He then used these words:
    "This new Board will raise its own capital and will work on ordinary commercial lines."
    I had the honour of knowing the Prime Minister many years ago in the City of London, before ever I thought of coming into this House, and before he ever thought that he would reach his present exalted position, and I am perfectly certain that both of us would have had a far less rough passage in the business world if our business, run on "ordinary commercial lines," had included a Government guarantee for the capital employed therein. The Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have no guarantee whatever. They raise their loans, the stock, on the dues which they take from the public. If those bodies made a mistake in policy and incurred a capital expenditure which was not remunerative, what would happen? They would have to put up their dues and tolls so much that they would drive shipping from their ports. If they did that, the service of their stock would be in jeopardy. The stockholders would come along and say, "What is happening?" and the members of the authority would be held responsible.
    What would happen in the case of the new Board to be set up under this Bill? Supposing this Board were in the same position as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Port of London Authority,
    1334
    and had not the Government guarantee? They are traders in electricity. If their capital expenditure was not justified, and it might not be justified, by lessening the cost to the consumer, and so increasing their revenue, they would be unable to sell their electricity, and thus discredit would be brought upon those responsible. The credit of the Board would go, and they would not be able to raise any more money. That is what would happen if this Board were run on ordinary commercial lines. Look what may happen under the guarantee, assuming that we pass the guarantee. They have the guarantee. All these things may happen—the price of electricity may go up; they may be quite wrong in their calculations—I do not say that they are, but they may be—supposing they are wrong, and supposing they cannot find the revenue for the service of their debt! What happens? The people who have found the money will not be one penny the worse. They will say, "We do not mind, because we have the Government guarantee. The Government will have to pay." The Board will say, "We are very sorry we have made a mistake, but, thank God, we have the Government guarantee." The only person who is left in the lurch is the wretched consumer, and he is left to meditate on the advantages of State control in industry. That is the difference between the circumstances of a body which has a Government guarantee, and the circumstances of a body which has not.
    I maintain that we are embarking here upon a principle which is capable of infinite expansion, and that is why I am so keen on the question of precedent, and that the House shall think well before it passes this Clause. Hon. Members opposite are very much in favour of the Bill, and I do not wonder at it. Their leader has said: "When I see a Tory voting for this Bill, I laugh and laugh and laugh." I am not surprised at the merriment of hon. Members opposite. There is not one single industry in the country that could not be nationalised on such lines. What is more, you could turn round and say that this is not nationalisation. The party to which I belong ought to think very carefully before it passes a Clause which sets so dangerous a precedent as this.
    There is the other point, on which I do not want to go into detail—the question

    1335
    of the undue inflation of Government credit. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) has referred to this, and I entirely agree with what he has said. The country, as a result of the last six months' trouble, is in a far more difficult financial position now than if was when this Bill was first introduced. I do not think many hon. Members on all sides of the House, and this is truer still of the country outside, realise what the repercussions of this industrial dispute are going to be on the financial position of the nation, and this is not a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to inflate Government credit by the issue of £33,500,000 of Government guaranteed stock. I was interested in an answer given by the Minister of Agriculture to-day when he said that he was finding considerable, difficulty in providing agricultural credits because the condition, the financial condition, of the country, owing to the industrial dispute was making it difficult to get money. I consider that agriculture is entitled to some consideration, and if the Government can guarantee £33,500,000, quite unnecessarily I maintain, they ought to be prepared to face the question of guaranteeing credits for agriculture. I only make that point in order to show that the Government are themselves feeling the difficulty of the financial position, and this is not a moment when these difficulties should be increased by a policy of this kind. I apologise to the House for having spoken so long but this is a matter on which I feel very strongly. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ilford intends to divide the House on the Amendment, but if he does I shall feel it my duty to follow him into the Lobby, and I shall do so reflecting that while no doubt the Government will be supported by hon. Members opposite, I shall have the support of those who do believe in the principles of the Conservative party; principles on which, I believe, I was returned to this House.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Every time I hear a banker speak in this House I am appalled.
    Major KINDERSLEY: I am not a banker.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Member defended bankers and asked Members on
    1336
    this side of the House whether they were aware how the savings of trade unions had been utilised.
    Major KINDERSLEY: I said nothing of the kind. All I asked was, that when they came to invest their savings, of whom did they take advice?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That will suit me just as well. When I hear speeches in favour of leaving the control of the savings of the people in the hands of a small class I am appalled. We have had the spectacle of £200,000,000 and £300,000,000 of the savings of the people being offered for investment abroad. If it is to stabilise the new Belgian franc, if it is to get 12 per cent. in Germany or 10 per cent. in Czecho-Slovakia, if it is to get 9 per cent. in Hungary or 9½ per cent. in Roumania, there is no trouble. All parties seem united when the savings of the people are to be profitably invested, but when the Government of the day, through the Electricity Commissioners, say that a part of the savings of the people shall be directed towards cheapening a great national service, which it is said will also facilitate the development of industry, we have the extraordinary spectacle of hon. Members opposite defending a high rate of interest. They have done so in specific terms to-night. While the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) did not specifically defend a 7 per cent, rate of interest, the seconder of the Amendment did so.
    Mr. RADFORD: All I said was that I would assume it might cost as much as 7 per cent. without the Government guarantee.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will read what he did say in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. The impression on these benches was that he was prepared to defend a 7 per cent. rate of interest on the necessary credits to be raised by the Electricity Commissioners in pursuance of the objects of this Bill, and he actually specified what this would mean in an increased charge on electricity users. He put it at £670,000 a year, which would be added to the charges which electricity users in this country would have to meet; and hon. Members opposite are prepared to place this charge on the shoulders of the consumers of this country in the interests of the money

    1337
    market and the financier class. You cannot raise the rate of interest to 7 per cent. without it having some effect on other public loans which are issued. It will have an effect on all rates of interest, and therefore hon. Members, when they defend a policy which means a 7 per cent. rate of interest on a loan, are not only defending that policy but are also defending a policy which is going to raise the cost of electricity in this country and increase the cost of money raised for all public services in the interests of the financier class, from whom we have suffered enough in the past years.
    If I understood the hon. Member for Ilford, he said that we should not lose all of this 7 per cent., but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get back some of it in the way of Income Tax. That is on the principle that the more a moneylender gets the more the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets. On that basis why stop at 7 per cent.? Why not go to 700 per cent. and wipe out the National Debt as a result of the amount of Income Tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get? There is no end to a policy of that kind. The hon. Member for Ilford also intimated that there would have to be an embargo on loans, a limit set. I go further, and say that there should not only be a limit to the amount of public credit but that there should also be a guidance as to the direction in which public credit is given. It is far more important that the Government should have the right to lay an embargo upon loans which are not in the public interest. Why should a group of individuals in the City of London be able to control £30,000,000 and £40,000,000? I read in one financial paper that one individual had actually offered £30,000,000 towards the new Belgian loan. It was not his money, it was the savings of other people which he was controlling.
    The savings of our people have been invested in anti-Socialist schemes, in military adventures abroad. We remember the 8 per cent. loan for military operations in China, for the aeroplanes for China, and we know what has been the results of those operations in China to-day. I know they will not get their capital back; and I am glad of it. But that is an additional argument why a few
    1338
    private capitalists and financiers should not have the right to divert the savings of our people into anti-Socialist and anti-national policies. Here the Government is proposing to guarantee a loan which is presumably for a national purpose, that is to supply electricity, power and light, and for the first time the bankers and financiers are outside. They want to control the direction in which our national savings should go, and we have the spectacle of hon. Members opposite defending a 7 per cent. rate of interest and an extra charge of £670,000 on the electricity users of the country. If this goes to the vote I shall be delighted to support the Government.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I rise to support the Government. I cannot pretend to speak with the great financial ability possessed by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) or the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford); I can only speak as a business man. I have listened to the speeches which have been made from this side of the House to-night, and to me all of them are contradictory in terms. On the one hand, we have been told that this security is absolutely safe, practically a gilt-edged security, and that this money will be obtained without the Government guarantee. If that is so, the Government will never be called upon to pay the guarantee, and, therefore, their credit will not be pledged. It may be asked, if it is a safe security, why should the Government give a guarantee? In an undertaking like this it may be three or four years before the company will be able to make any return on the money invested, and it is only reasonable that the people of this country, who do not all understand financial questions should require some guarantee of this kind before they will invest their money. They require some guarantee that their capital and interest are safe. If this loan is guaranteed by the Government it will mean that the money will be subscribed at 5 per cent. If it is not, it is obvious that you will not get the money at 5 per cent. It may be 6 per cent, or 7 per cent. If you put it at 6 per cent. it means that you are increasing the cost of the supply of electrical current to the manufacturers of this country, and from that point of view alone I hope the Attorney-General will not give way on this Amendment. We

    1339
    know that our great manufacturers have not been able to get a supply of electricity under existing conditions. In my own area there are 70 works which cannot get electricity. If we could get it we could cheapen our costs enormously. To carry out this Bill we must have the money. For that reason and that reason alone, and because I am confident from the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, that the State will never be called upon to honour this guarantee, I shall vote against the deletion of the Clause.
    Mr. HARDIE: When this question was raised upstairs in Committee the discussion took quite a different turn. I would draw the attention of the House to the considerable accession to the ranks of London Members since this Clause was reached; Members representing the financial interests of the City of London have come in since the Debate on this Clause began. The national interest in the production of cheaper electricity did not seem to be of sufficient importance to bring them here for consideration of the other Clauses of the Bill. Their interest seems to be confined, judging from the speeches just delivered, to self-interest in relation to finance. No one can listen to the Mover of the Amendment at any time without feeling great interest, because he always speaks with great sincerity; but I am surprised at some remarks he has made in relation to finance. I do not claim to be a financial expert at all, but I am able to think and to make comparisons. The hon. Member made a very strong point about the drain upon national credit. He referred to the horror of damaging this credit, and said that we ought to conserve it and to see that this reservoir was as little tapped as possible. But he did not see the folly of his own argument. He was not annoyed about the credit being used for the purpose of carrying through this Bill, but he was annoyed because it was not coming from the men in the City. They want to get the contract, to get the power to increase the interest, and always to have these things in order to carry on their propaganda. We have heard much about the City and the City and the City. It was the same when the Bill was in Committee, until I was driven to quote the Bible. The Bible says:
    "Woe to the bloody city! it is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not."
    1340
    Stockbrokers and bankers are all mixed up together for one definite purpose, and that is to take advantage of the nation's interest. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ilford, for whom I have great respect, should so far forget his relation to the nation that to-night he should make a speech which indicates that his only interest is an interest in one section and not interest in the Bill which is supposed to apply to all sections of the community. Then we had the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley). I do not know where he was brought up, as we say in Scotland, or where he was raised, as they say in England; but I was surprised to hear him talk about the municipalities having no assets. I do not know where he has been, because the municipalities of which I know have tangible assets, in fine gasworks which produce gas, in fine electric power stations, in fine tram systems and other services which I need not mention. The position is always, when you come to the point of discussing finance in this House, that you get a financier who forgets that he is representing a constituency and the nation, forgets that he should be fighting for the nation first, but proves that he is a pawnbroker first. He has not three halls displayed to show that he is a pawnbroker, but the whole spirit shown is that of the pawnbroker from beginning to end.
    We have been told by the financial experts that there is no real guarantee in this. Where are the stockbrokers and the bankers going to get their guarantee? Can they get it outside the national reservoir of credit? No. Whenever they see this kind of thing taking place they know there is another pipe laid to the reservoir, but it is not going to their offices and thereby enabling them to make an extra charge. Their opposition is not opposition to principle at all. It is simply a question of fighting for their own selfish ends as stockbrokers and hankers. The hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin spoke about, taking money from the rates and that money being invested without consultation of the ratepayers. For what do we vote at municipal elections? Do we not vote for the man who will spend the public money in order to get good public services in a city? To say that there are municipalities which do this sort of thing in spite of the ratepayers is to talk without know-

    1341
    ledge, or something worse, which I do not want to mention. No argument has been used as to the possible saving on the carrying out of the Bill. No speaker has dealt with the question of the price of current. The whole basis of the Bill and its success or non-success depend on whether it will cheapen the price of electricity. Why then should those who have not taken an interest in the Bill come in now and with a selfish individualism seek to waste the time of the House?
    Colonel BURTON: It would be rather refreshing to get away from the sanguinary city and the kind of argument which the last speaker has used and to turn back to the agricultural areas. The Prime Minister spoke at Birmingham, and notwithstanding the unceremonious manner in which part of his utterance has been thrown over by his colleagues on the Front Bench, I trust that we may still regard what he said as roughly an outline of the Government's electricity policy. The Prime Minister said that as a result of the six years' labour which the Electricity Commissioners had put in, the plans which had been produced would give to "every business and household the opportunity of enjoying the electricity it requires." I have been at great pains to secure a copy of these plans, and I hope that every Member, who represents an agricultural constituency will take an opportunity of examining these plans, because he will have to answer to his constituency for having voted for this guarantee. After a great deal of trouble I was able to get a plan showing the way in which the country had been mapped out according to the Prime Minister's statement, and I was also able to get the details of the particular part of the country which have the honour to represent. It is a very involved and intricate document. It looks like a game of snakes and ladders with this dice hopelessly loaded against the agricultural areas of Fast Anglia. I have not been able to gather from any Member of the Government that the agricultural interests are to get what we were told that we should have when this Bill was introduced. We were told that the Bill was to be a Bill to restore the amenities of the countryside. The very brilliance of the villages was to lure back
    1342
    to the land the men who had gone to the towns. They were to listen-in at night in their homes, comfortably lighted by electricity and heated by the same power. I hold in my hand the map which should contain the details for the eastern areas of Great Britain.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That would he a speech more suitable for to-morrow, on the whole policy of the Bill. I do not think that the application to particular areas comes in on this Clause.
    Colonel BURTON: I apologise if I have transgressed. I was about to show that we were not to get what we were supposed to get under the guarantees. But in deference to your ruling I will defer my speech, in the hope that I may be able to make a few remarks on the Third Reading of the Bill to-morrow. I shall now content myself with protesting against the impoverished and unsheltered agricultural interests being compelled to contribute their quota to the guarantees, in favour of opulent companies, boards, and other people who will draw benefits from these guarantees.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We have heard a series of speeches from different points of view upon this Amendment. The Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), and he claimed that while he did not pose as an expert on electricity, he was an authority on finance. I do not in the least dispute that fact, but I could not help thinking, as I listened to his speech, that the financier had somewhat lost sight of the claims of industry. The hon. Member told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose money on this proposal, and he gave what to my mind was a remarkable illustration to prove his point. He said if there was no guarantee then the money could be raised at a higher rate of interest, and he said if a higher rate of interest had to be paid then there would be more Income Tax, and so the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be better off. I do not think I misrepresent the hon. Member's point. Would he like to see a 10 per cent. Bank Rate? Because, of course, if there was a 10 per cent. rate instead of a 5 per cent. rate, it would mean that everybody would be paying twice as much interest, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be twice as well off.
    Sir F. WISE: It depends on profit.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We are dealing here with interest and with interest only. There is no question of profit in this matter. We are dealing purely with the amount of interest that is to be paid and my hon. Friend has told us that the higher the rate of interest, the better off the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be true that from a financial point of view it is a profitable thing to have a high Bank Rate, but I doubt very much whether the industries of the country would be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it or, indeed, whether it would not be found that there was such a thing as killing the goose which laid the golden eggs. My hon. Friend actually went on to challenge me as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer approved of these proposals. I am glad to have that question asked because it enables me to give the answer, and the answer is that not only has the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to these proposals from the very first moment when the Bill was planned and discussed, but we have had his cordial approval and support because he is satisfied that the financial provision which we are making is right and proper, and is in the interest of the country. I hope that it is a sufficiently specific and definite answer to the question.
    Let me go over one or two of the objections which have been raised. The Mover of the Amendment began by referring to the Weir Report, and said that this guarantee would not be necessary under the Weir Report. The House no doubt has looked at the Weir Report, and hon. Members will recollect that instead of a guarantee of £33,500,000, which is the proposal we put before the House, the Weir Report suggested that there should be a gift out-and-out from the Treasury of £8,500,000 and then a guarantee as to the amount which had to be raised in addition. Instead of a mere guarantee, the Weir Report provided for a gift by the Treasury to the industry of over £8,000,000 sterling. That we could not see our way to adopt, because we regarded it as being in fact a subsidy. Then it is said, "There can be no difficulty about raising this money. You may have to pay a little more interest, but what is £33,500,000; you have only to ask for it
    1344
    and you will get it at once, you have such ample security." I waited to hear what the security was. It is admitted, of course, that when the Board comes to raise money it will have no actual assets but it is said, "While it has not assets, it has a monopoly."
    I think the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) took the analogy of a great municipal corporation raising money on the rates. He said, in effect, "A corporation can borrow on the rates; why cannot this Board borrow on the security of its monopoly"? There is no sort of analogy between the two. One has only to remember what a corporation has to offer and what this Board has to offer. A corporation has to offer a charge on rates which are leviable by law from every citizen resident within its area, and it is known with certainty how much money can safely be raised on a security of that kind. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin argues that it is the same sort of thing in this case, because the Board, under this Bill, is given the power to buy current and then, at whatever price, to force that current on the consumer. I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend has forgotten to read the Bill. If he studies the Bill more carefully, or perhaps I should say a little more sympathetically, he will ascertain that instead of the Board having the right to force this current at any price upon the consumer, there is no obligation on the various undertakers to take their current from the Board; the only inducement is that the Board can supply more cheaply than the undertakers can produce it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"] If hon. Members look at the Bill they will see that the provision is that the Board having got the current, supplies it back to the owners of selected stations at prices which cannot, by the Bill, be higher than the price at which those owners might have produce d it for themselves, without the Bill. They cannot compel any owner of a non-selected station to take it at all, unless they are able to supply at a price which is cheaper than the price at which it could be generated by the owner himself.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Under State aid for seven years.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not understand the interruption. It is quite true that not only have we provided that they must be able to supply more cheaply than the current could be produced otherwise, but they must prove that they can continue to supply for no less a period than seven years at a lower price. Accordingly, the one inducement is the cheapness and the monopoly of which my hon. Friend speaks is not as he said, a monopoly to force current on the consumer at any price, but it is taking the right to claim that if consumers cannot produce as cheaply as the Board themselves then they shall conic to the Board for it, so that the ultimate consumer may get the benefit. That involves of course that the essence of the scheme is that the Board shall be able to sell more cheaply than the price at which current would otherwise be produced.
    I am satisfied, and the very eminent experts who have advised me are satisfied that they must be able to fulfil that condition, and that the Board is assured therefore of an almost limitless market. But if we went to the public and had some of the statements published which we have heard in the House during the last two days, how many investors—who after all are not experts in electricity—would lend money on the security of a corporation which was bound to say, "We have no assets, but we have the prospect of securing a monopoly if we can sell cheaper than the present price, although a great many people have been saying that we shall never have a chance of doing so." It is true that when we get the guarantee, and get our money, and set up our scheme, then it will very soon be proved that our figures are accurate and that we have been able to get the monopoly because we can produce so much more cheaply. But we have to establish our scheme, and prove our figures before we are able to inspire the confidence of investors in that being the case. Therefore, if ever it was necessary to have a guarantee in the first instance, it has become more necessary now, not because the scheme has deteriorated, but because of the attacks made upon it by people like the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin. Those attacks are calculated and are, indeed, liable to have a prejudicial effect upon the confidence felt in its success.
    1346
    Then it is said that the country cannot afford it. The hon. Member for Ilford said the money would have to come from the savings of the people. True enough, but it has to come just as much from the savings of the people whether it is borrowed by this guarantee or borrowed n other ways. The only difference is that in one case you may be less likely to get it, and you may have to pay more for it. It is important in the national interest that, as far as possible, our credit should be conserved. Nobody can challenge the truth of that statement. But to wrap up your credit and leave it aside is not the most useful way of putting it to a profitable use, and in my submission there is no more useful way in which to use credit than in enabling this Board to raise the sum of money required to start its operations, when the result of so doing will not be to impose any charge on the revenues of the country because, as hon. Members have said, the security is ample—fully sufficient to ensure that the guarantee will never be called up.
    The security is, in truth, sufficient to ensure that, but no investor is ready to believe it until he has seen it actually proved, after the sort of statements we have heard. It is true we shall not have to call on the taxpayer. It is equally true that unless we had the taxpayer behind us we should never be able to raise the money in the first instance. The hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) gave us some figures in which he established, I presume to his own satisfaction, that we were going to spend £8,000,000 in order to save £600,000. Figures can prove anything so long as you start with the right assumption. If you begin by assuming that the effect of a guarantee of this issue is going to be to increase the cost of conversion of £3,000,000,000 by a ¼ per cent., then, of course, your mathematical results are unimpeachable. But the assumption is wholly unfounded according to competent authorities. I am advised by people whose lives are spent in studying problems of this kind, and who are responsible for the national finances, that the effect of raising this sum of money over this considerable period of years will not be to increase the cost of conversion by a ¼ per cent. or anything else. It will not affect the cost of conversion at all. The amount to be raised

    1347
    is so infinitesimal, and the amount to be converted is so enormous, that it is ridiculous—according to such advice as I am able to get—to suppose that any effect will be produced by the guarantee.
    Something has been said as to whether or not we are supporting one interest rather than another. Let me say at once that the object of the guarantee is to ensure the success of the scheme, which, if carried out, is going to benefit not one class of the community but the whole community. It is going to benefit not urban against rural or rural against urban but both urban and rural, industrial consumer, and domestic consumer alike. The result of using our credit wisely in this way will be in the long run not to diminish but to increase the stock of national wealth, to increase the income from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer draws his resources and to add to the prosperity of our country, the success of our industry and the welfare of our people.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) when he has spoken on financial matters, and I have heard him express in very well-chosen language what I thought at the time were opinions of sound sense. On this occasion he has rather shaken my confidence. I am surprised to see him come down in the unequivocal way in which he has, on the side of finance as against industry. I do not pretend for a moment that I like this Bill and its structure, neither do I pretend that the Government like the Bill. I said the other day that it was circumstances which compelled the Government to bring in this Bill; and that there was the question of trade. We still have 1,500,000 unemployed, according to the Government. I am told by all the trading interests that our export trades are in a bad way, that trade generally is not good, that prospects for the future are not bright, and I am convinced it was considerations of that description which urged the Government to bring in the Bill for assisting industry by the supply of electricity.
    It has become necessary that there should be cheap power. We are in the midst of the greatest industrial dispute.
    1348
    All reasonable men hope it will speedily end. All sensible men must know it will leave reverberations and have serious effects. It becomes increasingly imperative that the State, or some authority, should do something to assist us so far as these questions are concerned. May I suggest that if the granting of this money or the guaranteeing of this money for the purpose of supplying cheap electricity has the effect of stimulating industry and assisting us to restore our trade by absorbing our unemployed, that is bound to have a more beneficial effect on our credit than anything else. I cannot believe the trade of the country can be considered vitally good while our trade is in the condition we are told it is by experts at the present time. I think in this case the Government are quite right. While I would vote against the whole Bill, yet, if there is going to be a Division upon this issue, I shall certainly support the Government, because I believe this is the right line which should be taken.
    I want to say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley). I hear his diatribes about Socialism with great interest. The more speeches he makes the more I am impressed with the profundity of his ignorance. I heard him speak about the way in which municipalities raise loans and the assets municipalities possess. The other day we had great towns in the North celebrating civic weeks. They published their newspapers, and the speeches made were of a very laudatory character. We were told in regard to Manchester that they had £19,000,000 worth of assets over liabilities. Here is a city with a population of less than 1,000,000, and every man, woman and child in Manchester is worth £21 in civic property. It cannot be said for any other town in the country. What is the use of saying cities have no assets? They have more assets than the State itself. They have tangible assets of a formidable value. I am astonished that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should make the speeches he does. If he would indulge in a little introspection in regard to questions of valuations of municipalities in the North, and shift his mind out of its somewhat paralytic condition, and observe what some of the hard-headed business men of the North have done with regard to the

    1349
    management of their towns, he would not indulge in the same foolish talk in regard to municipal Socialism. I will support the Government in this matter.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 33.

    Division No. 454.]

    AYES.

    [7.7 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dunnico, H.

    Kenyon, Barnet

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Albery, Irving James

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Ellis, R. G.

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

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

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Lansbury, George

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer-)

    Lawrence, Susan

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lawson, John James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lee, F.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Baker, Walter

    Fenby, T. D.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Finburgh, S.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Barnes, A.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Barnett Major Sir Richard

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Lowth, T.

    Barr, J.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lunn, William

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Gates, Percy

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Gillett, George M.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Bethel, A

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gosling, Harry

    Macmillan Captain H.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Grace, John

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Bromfield, William

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Bromley, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    March, S.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Maxton, James

    Buchanan, G.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morris, R. H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hanbury, C.

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Murnin, H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hardie, George D.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Neville, R. J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Clowes, S.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Paling, W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome.

    Compton, Joseph

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Potts, John S.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Remer, J. R.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Richardson, R. (Ho'ghton-le-Spring)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Ritson, J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Jephcott, A. R,

    Rose, Frank H.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Dennison, R.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Drewe, C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Duncan, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Sandon, Lord

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Westwood, J.

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Scurr, John

    Sutton, J. E.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-

    Sexton, James

    Taylor, R. A.

    Whiteley, W.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Townend, A. E.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Smillie, Robert

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Withers, John James

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Viant, S. P.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Stamford, T. W.

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

    Wright, W.

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Stephen, Campbell

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    NOES.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Harlington, Marquess of

    Remnant, Sir James

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Waddington, R.

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Sir Fredric Wise and Mr. Radford.

    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Relation of charges to dividends.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 24, line 31, after the word "undertakings," to insert the words "one or more of which receive a supply from the Board."
    This is purely a drafting improvement, which I promised in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 24, line 33, after the first word "of," insert the word "the undertaking or."
    In page 24, line 33, after the word "undertakings," insert the words "receiving such a supply.—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 24, line 34, to leave out the words "employed on," and to insert instead thereof the words "attributable to."
    This is a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I have an Amendment on the Paper in nearly similar terms, which I should like to move.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better first agree to leave out the words "employed on."
    Question, "That the words 'employed on' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, before the word "attributable," to insert the word "properly."
    It is difficult to find an exact phrase here, but what we really wish to ensure is that it shall refer to capital properly attributable to the undertaking.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the suggested Amendment of the hon. Member is quite unnecessary.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 24, line 39, at the end, to insert the words

    1353
    "or to any company which may be formed under the agreement set out in the Fourth Schedule to the London Electricity (No. 1) Act, 1925."
    This Amendment is to extend the terms of Sub-section (2) to make it quite clear that any company, the form of which is contemplated in the Fourth Schedule to the London Electricity (No. 1) Act, 1925, can have the advantage of this Clause. It is only to round off what is intended by the Bill.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): There is no objection to this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 31.— (Adoption of Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 25, line 5, at the end, to insert the words
    "and upon that Act being so adopted by the Board or a joint electricity authority the Act shall apply as if the Board or the authority, as the case may be, were of such a local authority as aforesaid."
    This is a drafting Amendment, to make the meaning of the Clause more clear.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Amendment of schemes.)
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 27, line 32, at the end, to insert the words
    "or of any advisory board, advisory committee, or other body for the district constituted by the original Order."
    We have already pointed out the undesirability of disturbing what has already been done after lengthy and extensive inquiries, and it may well be that, as time goes on, some changes may be made where authorities have already been set up. There is one Joint Electricity Authority already constituted which might quite possibly at a later date be better replaced by a Joint. Advisory Board, owing to the fact that the Joint Authority has handed over all its functions, and in the same way, where Advisory Committees or something, other than either a Joint Authority or a Joint Board have been set up, if this Clause is to be used at all, it may be necessary to use it in
    1354
    that way. I should have preferred to leave this question of changes out of the Bill altogether, but as the Government propose to put it in, and in some cases to disturb what has been done or what may be done in the near future, it seems desirable to add these words so that the Clause can be made use of.
    Sir J. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot accept the Amendment, for the simple reason that it practically negatives the whole Clause. In fact, there is only one Order in the whole Kingdom which does not provide for the constitution of either a Joint Electricity Authority or one of these bodies which are referred to in the Amendment, and that is the electrical district of Edinburgh, so that the effect of the Amendment would be to negative the Clause altogether, except in Edinburgh. That is not what we desire, and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 27, line 32, at the end, to insert the words
    "Where any such amending order constitutes a joint electricity authority in lieu of an advisory committee or other body constituted under the original order, the amending order shall provide for the application to officers and servants of the advisory committee or other body of the provisions of Section sixteen of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as amended by any subsequent enactment, subject to the necessary modifications."
    This Amendment seeks to apply the provisions as to compensation for being deprived of employment to the officers and servants of any Advisory Board which may afterwards be turned into a Joint Authority. As far as we can see, they are not covered at present, as Advisory Boards have not got the status of authorised undertakers. I promised in Committee to consider the point, which was then raised by an hon. Member, and this is the result.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 36.—(Provisions as to companies with large area of supply.)
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 27, to leave out from the word

    1355
    "supply" in line 35 to the word "the" in line 37, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "is, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent."
    This was discussed in Committee, and there was, I think, some tendency on the part of the Attorney-General to reconsider the point, which was presented to him there, that is to say, that it might be possible, instead of having two or more local authorities for the purposes of this Clause, to have one. You might have an area which in itself would be greater than that of two authorities combined, and it was felt that it would be more in accord with the intention of the Bill if the Amendment which I now propose were inserted. It certainly would not injure the Bill, and I think it would substantially improve it. After all, the Electricity Commissioners exercise the final judgment, under my Amendment, in the determination of the area, and I am certain that the authority for the administration of the Act would be perfectly willing to leave them to determine this question.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the House will see, I have down, as the next Amendment, one very similar to that which has been moved by my hon. Friend. The difference between the two is this, that he proposes that the only condition shall be that the area, of supply shall be, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent. We propose that there shall be two conditions, namely, the condition already stipulated, that the area of supply shall include the whole district of two or more local authorities, and also the condition that it is, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent. The reason why we desire to keep in the words that my hon. Friend wishes to exclude is that we are anxious to make it appear that we do not intend to deal with comparatively small areas, and that we do not think an area which does not include at least two local authorities is sufficiently important from the electrical point of view to justify the provisions of this Clause, which is intended to be confined to companies with a really large area of supply. We have given consideration
    1356
    to the point, which was urged in Committee, that the mere fact that there were two local authorities' districts might not in itself be sufficient, and we are covering that by adding the very words which my hon. Friend suggests, and we do not see our way to omit the other condition.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 27, line 37, after the word "authorities," insert the words
    "and is, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 29, line 12, at the end, to insert the words
    "in respect of the capital employed by the company on the undertaking authorised by the Special Order."
    This was discussed in Committee, but I think it was rather misunderstood, and was not adopted. The object is quite simple. The undertaking concerned may be operated in an area, the whole of which might not be affected by the Order, and the intention is that the capital employed in respect of the area affected shall be the capital referred to in this Sub-section. The Orders I have in mind are applied for by companies who carry on other undertakings or businesses. The sliding scale which it is sought to apply should, I think, only apply to the capital employed for the purposes of the undertaking authorised by the particular Order, and not the whole of the capital of that company, which might apply to a much wider field of activity. That is the intention of the Amendment, and I think it is a reasonable one.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment in this form, and I am afraid the only form in which I. could accept it is in an earlier part of the Bill. But I would like to give this assurance to my hon. Friend. If he can arrange to have an Amendment moved in another place to reproduce the words which appear in Clause 30 (2) where we dealt with a similar difficulty, the Government will be prepared to accept it.
    Sir J. NALL: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and will be glad to consider it. Therefore, on that ground, I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 37.—(Terms of purchase of a company taking a bulk supply.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 29, line 21, to leave out the words "similar to," and to insert instead thereof the words "based on the same principle as."
    This is, I think, a drafting Amendment, carrying out a promise we made in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 41.—(Supply of electricity by railways, etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 31, line 23, leave out "1921," and insert instead thereof "1925."—[The Attorney-General.]

    CLAUSE 44.—(Interpretation.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 32, line 8, at the end, to insert the words
    "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, and, when used with reference to a line which is not such a main transmission line, shall include any works necessary to and used for the control of the transmission line and the transmission of electricity thereby and the buildings or such part thereof as may be required to accommodate those works."
    This is really a drafting Amendment. It brings to their proper place some words which appear in the Third Schedule, which I am going to move later to leave out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 32, to leave out lines 14 to 28, inclusive.
    This Amendment requires a little more explanation, although I think it is merely of a drafting character. There is in this Clause an elaborate definition of what is meant by "capital charges." At the time the Bill was drafted, and those words were in, there were, I think, in two of the Schedules provisions including capital charges, and it became necessary to have
    1358
    a definition of "capital charges" to make sure what was included. As things went on, the words disappeared as a term of inclusion, and the only two places in which the words "capital charges" now occur are Clauses 10 and 14. In Clause 10, Sub-section (3, a) there is a reference that
    "no account shall be taken of capital charges in respect of capital expended on the station,"
    and in Clause 14, Sub-section (3), again are the words
    "No account shall be taken of capital charges in respect of capital expended on the generating station."
    As we are now merely using the expression "capital charges" when we are referring to things which are to be taken into account, then whatever is a capital charge is not to be taken into account, and there is no need to have a definition to say what is a capital charge, because whatever are capital charges are to be left out altogether. On these grounds, it is unnecessary to have a definition of a term when anything of a capital charge is automatically excluded by virtue of the definition in the two Clauses, and, therefore, the definition becomes redundant.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that if lines 14 to 28 be left out, the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) will not want to move this Amendment?—[In page 32, line 24, to leave out the words "less than five nor," and to leave out the words "six and a half," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."]
    Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to raise a point on this Amendment. This definition of capital charges was not originally in the Bill, but was inserted in Committee, after we made changes in the Bill, and I understood it was to cover the specific cases in Clause 10 and Clause 14. I realise that this question is one of exclusion—that we are saying no account shall be taken of capital charges. The question is, if it was necessary to define in Committee what should be capital charges, I cannot quite see why it is not necessary to define it now. I cannot remember the words "capital charges" having been struck out in the earlier Clauses.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it was inserted because the expression was intended to cover the Second and

    1359
    Third Schedules, which contained cases of inclusion. It turned out to be impossible to do that, because there was considerable difficulty as to what should come in, and we did not use therefore the phrase "capital charges." The result is that these words become redundant.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 17, leave out from the word "shall" to the word "be," in line 20.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 33, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
    "() Where for the purposes of this Act it is necessary to calculate what the cost of taking a supply of electricity from the Board over a number of years will be, then in making the calculation it shall be assumed that the price of fuel and the rates of wages remain constant."
    The object of this Amendment is that, when a long-term contract for the supply of electricity is made, it shall be assumed that the price of fuel and rates of wages will be constant, so that if there be a decrease or increase, there shall be either a corresponding decrease or increase in the cost of electricity. This is the usual clause of long-term contracts in electricity. We had them many years ago in railway contracts in this country and abroad, and they have resulted in getting far cheaper agreements for the supply of electricity than would otherwise be possible.
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid the intention of my hon. Friend would not be carried out by this Amendment, and that if adopted in its present form it would be disastrous. I assume he means to make the contract take a standard price of coal and a standard rate of wages, and so fix the price; but, necessarily, a provision would then be required for a rise or fall. If the price of fuel fell, of course the price would have to be varied, and there is no provision for that as the Amendment stands, and I am afraid there would be confusion. Although I am in agreement with the intention of my hon. Friend, I do not think this Amendment would carry it out.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think we must all be agreed as to the purpose of the Amendment, and at present I do not think the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) are really justified. The necessity of these words arises, from the fact that in the various Clauses in the Bill—Clause 10 is the obvious one which at once comes into our minds—there are provisions that the Board may impose conditions as to taking the whole of the supply from the Board, and one of the provisos is that the Board is not to impose such a condition
    "unless satisfied that the cost per unit to the undertakers of taking the whole of their supply directly or indirectly from the Board (including any expenditure necessarily incurred by the undertakers in the provision of any plant or apparatus to enable them to use the supply) will for a period of not less than seven years be less than the cost per unit at which electricity is then being produced at the generating station of the undertakers,"
    If there were not some such words as are now proposed to be inserted, the Board could never be satisfied on that. One of the things with which the comparison has to be made is the cost per unit at which electricity is then being produced at the generating station. The other is the cost per unit over a period of not less than seven years of taking the supply from the Board. The Board cannot tell seven years ahead what the cost per unit of taking the supply will be, for it mainly depends on the cost of fuel and wages, which are the two big items. Therefore, for the purpose of making the comparison, you have to assume that during the seven years the wages and price of fuel remain constant.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I quite agree as to the necessity of having standard prices on which to fix calculation, but there may be difficulties in actual practice if no other words are inserted to give effect to the argument the right hon. Gentleman is advancing.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In as much as fuel and wages vary, obviously, in a period of seven years, you have got either to assume that the cost of the Board's supply is based on a fixed fuel and wages expense, or else you have to put in something that you are not to take as the cost of electricity which is then being produced, but the cost of the

    1361
    electricity which is then being produced if the cost of wages and fuel turn out, as they do ultimately turn out, to vary. It is stating the same thing more clearly. I think the words suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) do meet the difficulty and do insure what I am certain was the intention of everybody should be done.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I quite appreciate the necessity for something of this sort in making the calculation, but I should prefer it to be assumed that the price of fuel and the rates of wages would remain the same for the two parties in the comparison. The real point is that if those two factors vary in the case of both the bulk supply super station and the local generating station the conditions would equally affect both parties.
    Sir J. NALL: I think it is obvious that the competing calculations should be on the same basis.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will answer, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again. If my two hon. and gallant Friends will be good enough to look at page 13 of the Bill, which I was using in my illustration, they will see that the comparison is not between the cost to the Board over the next seven years and the cost to the undertakers over the same period, but that the comparison is between the cost to the Board over the next seven years and the actual cost to the undertakers at the moment. One is a fixed and definite sum—there is no necessity to take into account the varying costs of fuel or wages as far as the undertakers are concerned, because their price is the price fixed at the moment. It is the other figure that has to be guessed over a period of seven years in advance and in regard to which you have to estimate, for the purpose of making a comparison, that there is not going to be a change in the cost of fuel or wages; if there were to be such a change, it would be impossible to state that the cost to the Board in seven years would be the same as at the beginning.
    Mr. HERBERT: This is a difficult question and I quite understand the Attorney-General's last explanation, but I am not at all sure that the words as they stand would provide that the particular
    1362
    figure we are talking about would be the same for the two cases which are to be compared. I can only say that I hope the matter will receive further consideration.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will certainly give it consideration, but I think it is right.
    Colonel GRETTON: I think there is another point with reference to this question. Is this not really a limiting Clause, making a fair comparison of the two calculations? There may conic the case—it may easily occur—of an undertaking with a progressively improving production and a falling scale of costs. Is it to be assumed that the undertaking which is to he taken over or is to supply the Board is not going to show any further improvement? If so, it is going to be a false calculation. Account should be taken of what has been going on and whether the process is likely to continue, and I suggest that it would be dangerous to insert these words. There is an attempt here to bind the calculation to a particular form. It has not been represented that any one wishes to go outside the regular forms and methods of making these calculations, and assuming there is good will and honest intention on all sides this Clause is not necessary, and it would be dangerous to insert it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to the acquisition of generating stations and main transmission lines.)
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 34, line 10, at the end, to insert the words
    "together with such to ether sum as will reimburse the company or person for any loss sustained by reason of the acquisition of such station or line."
    I think my right hon. Friend the Minister is a little unfair to the companies or persons whose property is to be acquired in giving them only the
    "expenses properly incurred and incidental to the provision of the generating station or main transmission line, less depreciation on a scale fixed by special order."
    It can easily be imagined that in acquiring property of this character very substantial losses may be inflicted on the persons from whom the property is acquired and we feel strongly that as an act of justice to the undertakers some

    1363
    provision should be made for such loss as may be sustained when their property is acquired.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Apart from being a little bit frightened of accepting Amendments from my hon. Friend, which we have once or twice gat into serious trouble for doing, I think he is opening his mouth rather too wide. To ask that we should add
    "such further sum as will reimburse the company or person for any loss sustained by reason of the acquisition of such station or line"
    is really unreasonable. What we have in the Schedule is quite fair, it seems to me. We say that the price of the generating station or main transmission line shall be
    "such sum as may he certified by an auditor "—
    an impartial person—
    "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."
    After mature consideration that seems to us to be a fair basis on which to estimate the loss, and we really cannot go further.
    Amendment negatived.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Rules for determining cost of production of electricity at selected stations.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 34, line 34, at the end, to insert the words
    "(d) any other expenses on revenue account attributable to the station."
    This Amendment is another to give effect to a promise made in Committee. It was suggested then that there might be certain charges for which no express provision had been made, and we promised to look into the matter, and we have now put down this paragraph to make sure of covering any other expenses on revenue account which can properly be attributable to the station.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 35, line 4, to leave out the words
    1364
    "suitable to and," and to insert the words "capable of being."
    I hope the learned Attorney-General may be able to accept this Amendment. There may be, probably there are, in many cases, undertakings with new machinery which has been recently purchased and is capable of being used and intended to be used, but is not at the present time actually being used. The fact that it has not been used may be the outcome of some direction received from the Electricity Commissioners. In such circumstances it would be a mistake to shut such machinery out of consideration, and, therefore, I hope the Government will accept these words, which defines the machinery as machinery which is capable of being used for instead of which is "suitable to and used for."
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The words in the Bill are words which have been hallowed by usage in previous Acts. They are the words which are found, for instance, in Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, and which have persisted and are to be found in the Acts of 1925, and in so far as my information goes they have not been found to work injustice. I think it is better to stick to language which has been used during a long series of years and has been found to work satisfactorily.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think the advantage will lie in inserting these words. If undertakers have to comply with this Section they will often get machinery in use at an earlier date simply because of possible benefits under this Schedule. I think if machinery is there, capable of being used, if it has not been dealt with under other headings it will be a right and proper charge.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The real danger is that if we have these words claims will be made for a whole lot of old junk which possibly could be used but which has been superseded. I have seen attempts of that kind made in other connections.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out from the word "interest," to the end of paragraph (ii), and to insert instead thereof the words

    1365
    "on their share and loan capital in respect of the preceding year such average rate being ascertained by taking—

    (i) in respect of any loan capital the rate of interest to which such loan capital is entitled;

    (ii) in respect of any share capital entitled to a fixed maximum rate of interest that fixed rate; and

    (iii) in respect of all other capital the rate of eight per centum."

    The object of this Amendment is slightly to alter the provisions of the Schedule as regards calculating the rate of interest on capital expended on the generating station. The Bill as it stands contains a provision for a minimum of 5 per cent, and a maximum of 6½ per cent. My Amendment adopts the actual interest paid on the loan and on any capital entitled to a fixed maximum rate of interest, and in respect of other capital fixes a rate of 8 per cent., which is the rate usually allowed by Parliament on ordinary capital in undertakings of this kind. I do not think it will make a vast amount of difference either way, though frankly I do not know which way it will work out, but I am quite sure that my Amendment covers loan capital, the interest on which would be less than the minimum of 5 per cent. which is now in the Bill. This Amendment is, I claim, fairer and generally more suitable than the proposals in the Schedule.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    8.0 P.M.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A similar Amendment was moved and rejected in Committee. I venture to think the House will say that the return we are here allowing is not an unreasonable one. We are proposing that the average rate of dividend and interest shall be given, but we are conscious that there may be cases in which dividends are too high, and others where capital has not been remunerative, and the average would come out too low. The House will realise that the average 6½ per cent., which we think is a not unreasonable return to propose, is a just one, and I ask them to accept it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Within very recent years municipal authorities, with all their credit behind them, have had to raise their money at a higher rate than the average of 6½ per cent. We shall have to deal with a long period of years if
    1366
    this Bill becomes an Act, and there ought to be some machinery for giving some flexibility. I am sure the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is aware that undertakings, with the finest credit of any in the world, only three or four years ago paid on a first mortgage charge as high a rate as 7 per cent. and 7½ per cent. interest for debt of comparatively short terms. The best that can be done in the market implies a very high rate. It was impossible, in the cases to which I have referred, to find money at a lower rate on a first charge. It seems to me absurd to put in a Bill rates which are to have the money applied to an actual 6½ per cent. There ought to be a provision to cover abnormal conditions. Obviously some allowance should be made for people who have to pay such high rates on first security. There should be some machinery in this Bill to make it practicable in abnormal times. I am sure the hon. Member for Limehouse must know of municipal authorities who have had to raise money in conditions totally different from those of to-day. If those conditions were prevailing to-day, we should not be inserting such figures as these in the Schedule. If this Bill operates as an Act over a long period of years, then some allowance should be made for abnormal times. If in another place the Government would put in some provision, I think that will go a long way to removing the difficulties as far as this Schedule is concerned.
    Mr. ATTLEE: It is very difficult to get a clear view of the money market from the speeches which have been made on this Bill. We have just heard of extreme financial stringency, while before that we have heard of everything being rosy. I think personally that, if anything these rates are too high. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has said, quite rightly, that you have got to take into account different periods. There was a time of financial stringency in the case of our own municipal undertaking. We had to be under very heavy expenditure, but our capital costs are only 4·6d. I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 35, line 20, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that in the case of any corn-pony which is a London company within the

    1367
    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, 1923, together with a proper proportion of any co-partnership benefit payable in such year under the said Acts or either of them."
    I move this Amendment as a proviso to the paragraphs dealing with the interest for the purposes of the Schedule. It has been put down in order to safeguard the, rights of the London companies. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) always smiles when I mention London companies. The rights and privileges of the London companies are protected by two Acts of Parliament which in spite of his genial and kindly opposition, were passed through this House last year. I think the undertakers operating tinder their protection are entitled to have their rights safeguarded under the present Bill. In this Schedule it is laid down on page 35 what the rate of interest is to be for the purposes of the first paragraph in the Schedule. For undertakings that will be affected by the Bill there is a great deal to be said, but apparently the Government will not listen to that. But surely the Government will at least listen to existing rights. Therefore I am quite confident that the Minister of Transport will, with open arms, accept an Amendment to the Bill which will be in entire conformity with the principles for which he has stood so long in this House.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I do not think the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) can accuse us of being unfriendly towards the London companies. We have, as far as possible, allowed the position to stand as made by the authority of London. I think the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has seen the justice many times and has agreed to it, although he has always disapproved of the setting up of the terms of the No. 1 and No. 2 Acts. I cannot help thinking that there is a certain misapprehension in this case. Clause 30 of this Bill clearly puts the questions of sliding scale and dividend apart. In
    1368
    this particular case no question of dividend comes in. All we are doing here is to determine what are the capital charges on selected stations, and really that does not bear any relation to the dividend which shall be paid by the company. We want throughout the country to find the average rate of dividend and to find on what scale charges can be made. It is for that reason that the variation of 6½ per cent. is inserted here, and it bears no relation to the London companies. I do not want to upset the position throughout the country by doing anything to disturb that.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 35, line 39, to leave out the word "fund" and to insert instead thereof the word "funds."
    I think this is only a matter of use and correct wording.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am quite prepared to accept this. It is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Authorised charges and allowances in respect of transmission lines used for giving bulk supply to authorised undertakers.)
    Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 36, line 12, after the word "profits" to insert the words "and for insurance."
    I think this is only a drafting Amendment. It is intended to make the words in this Clause correspond with those on page 34, line 32.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Amendment we propose to accept. Those who were present in the Committee stage will remember that a similar Amendment was moved in Committee, and I was then rather doubtful, on my instructions, whether there were any insurances that would properly come in. We have since Made inquiries and proposed to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 36, line 14, at the end, to insert the words
    "including renewals thereof not chargeable to capital account."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is a point upon which the Minister of Transport made a promise during the Committee stage, and as it seems a desirable Amendment, the Government accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 36, line 14, at the end, to insert the words
    "(4) Any other expenses on revenue account attributable to the transmission line."
    These are merely words put in to cover, in general terms, the general expenses not specifically stated.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 36, line 20, after the word "line" to insert the words
    "and on such working capital as is properly attributable to the transmission line."
    These words are also introduced in accordance with a promise given during the Committee stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: In page 36, line 29, to leave out from the word "interest" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "on their share and loan capital in respect of the preceding years, such average rate being ascertained by taking—

    (i) in respect of any loan capital the rate of interest to which such loan capital is entitled;

    (ii) in respect of any share capital entitled to a fixed maximum rate of interest that fixed rate; and

    (iii) in respect of all other capital the rate of eight per centurn."—[Sir J. Nall.]

    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Government, for the same reasons which I have given in regard to a previous Amendment, are unable to accept this proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 37, line 11, to leave out the word "fund" and to insert the word "funds."
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 17, leave out from the word "aforesaid" to the end of the Schedule.—[The Attorney-General.]

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptation of Section 16 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as amended by Section 21 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 38, line 27, to leave out from the word "shall" to the word "be" in line 28.
    This is an Amendment to which we on the Labour benches attach very considerable importance. This is a Schedule which makes provision for compensation to both the officers and servants of existing undertakings in certain eventualities. By leaving out the words
    "in the case of an officer employed on an annual salary,"
    we ensure to both officers and servants compensation upon the same principle. I think everybody will agree that capital interests have been well protected, and we should all agree that in the case of the officers of existing undertakings losing their posts because of their positions being abolished that they should be fairly treated. At present those who may be displaced do not receive the same treatment. It is very difficult to understand why that should be the case, because in earlier legislation of a somewhat analagous kind, although there are obvious differences, the same principle has been applied both to officers and servants, where for some reason or other their posts were abolished. Even so long ago as 1902 in the Metropolis Water Act, which established the Metropolitan Water Board, under which the existing Boards were abolished, the workers, servants or officers displaced were compensated on the same principle, and that principle has been followed in subsequent legislation in which it has been laid down that if an existing officer or servant has his office abolished he shall be entitled to compensation. The Act lays down that
    "Subject to the provisions of this Section the provisions contained in Section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, relating

    1371
    to compensation to existing officers shall apply to any claim for compensation by an existing officer or an existing servant"
    with the substitution of references to the Water Board and the Water Fund for references to the county council. That meant that such compensation as they received was founded upon the same principle, and in the Port of London Act of 1908 those identical words are used to ensure that existing officers and servants are subject to compensation according to the provisions laid down in the Local Government Act, 1888.
    Here were two Acts of Parliament, passed before the War, both of which recognised the principle of a common basis for compensation; and, since the War, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, superseded officers or servants were to be given compensation in accordance with the principles laid down in the Acts of 1902 and 1908; while in the case of the Railways Act, 1921, which brought the amalgamation and grouping of railways into being, the Third Schedule relates entirely to the provision that is to be made for existing officers and servants. There, again, virtually the same words which were used in the three previous Acts to which I have referred are used once more. Under the railway amalgamation scheme the principle of compensation is the same for the higher officers of the railway companies and for the wage-earners. That principle, also, has been adopted in more than one private Act. I will mention only one. In the case of the Act which brought into existence the amalgamated Five Towns, now the County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent, the same principle was applied. We have had, during the past 20 years or more, definite legislation bringing into existence a large composite body like the Metropolitan Water Board, where old servants might be displaced the Port of London Act, which brought into existence, out of the welter of authorities, a new authority; the Ministry of Transport Act, and the Railways Act—all visualising the possibility of posts being abolished, and making provision for compensation on the lines laid down in the Local Government Act, 1888.
    It may be said, and, no doubt, it will be said, that the circumstances are not quite parallel; but I suggest to the Government
    1372
    that a principle of compensation which can be applied to the Metropolitan Water Board, to the Port of London Authority, to such undertakings as were dealt with in the Ministry of Transport Act, and to the railways, clearly is a principle that can be applied to workers who may suffer the loss of their jobs under the present Electricity Bill. I cannot understand why, after more than 20 years of quite successful legislation on these lines, well established precedents have not been followed in the Electricity Bill. On many occasions during the earlier stages of the Bill, and during the Report stage, the argument that has been used from the Government Bench for a particular form of words has been that it was in accordance with the words used in some previous legislation. I am not myself a traditionalist; I am not necessarily a lover of tradition; but a well-established precedent in four of the most important Acts of Parliament of the 20th century establishing new authorities, seems to me to have provided a sufficient basis of experience to enable us to apply it in the Electricity Bill. I know that there are certain real difficulties, and I am prepared to accept those difficulties. It may be that the mere omission of the words suggested in the Amendment will not precisely meet the point but I think that on all sides of the House there will be general agreement that a common form of justice and a common standard of justice ought to be applied to officers and servants alike, and that is what we are asking. I should hope that the Government will find it in their heart to accept the principle of compensation laid down in those Acts of Parliament, where the difficulties were quite as great as those which are likely to arise under the present Bill. I hope that, in drawing to the end of the Report stage of this important Measure, the Government will see that we are not claiming anything that is outrageous or extravagant, and that they will find it possible to accept the principle of the Amendment.
    Mr. TOWNEND: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In doing so, I feel rather more hopeful than we did upstairs in Committee. I am convinced that at that time, when this proposed Amendment was submitted, the Government had not really looked all round this question. They were rather

    1373
    hurried, and as a result a decision was given from their side which they have had ample time to review; and because of that, and because of the inherent justice of our claim, I feel fairly confident that to-night they are going to meet us, and to apply to one section of those who will be concerned with the application of this electricity scheme what they are guaranteeing to other sections under the Bill. It was objected in Committee that there was no reason why the Government should hold themselves responsible for introducing a precedent in the electricity industry. They implied that to do as we requested in our Amendment would be to introduce something that had not been in existence before and was particularly concerned with the electricity industry. That may be so, but it does not do away with the responsibility which the Government themselves will have in regard to development in the industry. That responsibility rests upon their shoulders, and we suggest that they should not leave the matter in this unsatisfactory position.
    Claims were put forward on behalf of those who were concerned with capital in the suggested development, and were met by the Government to a very large extent—not quite as fully as those who submitted them desired, but none the less in a very generous spirit indeed. When we came to the question of another section of those concerned, namely, the managerial staffs, the administrative staffs and the professional and technical men who, by virtue of these amalgamations, might be displaced, the Government were equally or even more ready to meet that position than they had been to meet that of other sections. We say that, strong as the claim of these administrative sections may be, an equally strong claim can be put forward on behalf of the operative sections of the electrical industry, and it is because we desire an exercise of the simple element of equity all round that we submit this Amendment. I am sure that the implication in the Bill by the Government that this House should discriminate as between one section of the staff and another, is one which, fully understood by the House, would not be accepted by it.
    It was suggested in Committee that, after all, others do not get it, that what
    1374
    we are asking is something that does not apply to other operative sections, who, in cases of amalgamation, do nut enjoy equal treatment with the administrative staffs. But the Government will remember that in more than one Bill they have imposed upon private corporations that which we are now asking them to apply in a Government Department such as is being created by this Bill. To bring out the inconsistency of the Government, the principle that they are endeavouring to apply was pretty well enunciated by the chairman of one of the largest groups of railways in 1909, when the question of the amalgamation of railways was under discussion. He then said that if by virtue of amalgamation he was able to displace certain of the railway staffs, he was entitled, in just the same way as any other private enterprise, to discard them without recognising any claim in the shape of compensation. That was the principle that he endeavoured to suggest was quite reasonable then. It is applied in many private concerns to-day.
    But what was the Government's answer to that when the Railways Act of 1921 was introduced? They were responsible then for the amalgamation of railways but when it came to a question of compensation for the interests who might be displaced both administratives and operatives were treated in exactly the same way and a compensation Clause was introduced far superior to that which the Government are now suggesting should apply to the operative section of the electricity industry who might be displaced by the passing of this Bill. We suggest that they should take a leaf out of their book in 1921 and apply it to the Electricity Bill. It is suggested that perhaps they cannot afford it and that it is rather a large number, but it is conceivable that it may not be as big as perhaps they are assuming. They are spending money on 15 additional selected new stations and it is quite possible that arrangements may be made to absorb many of those who might be displaced by giving effect to this Bill who to-day are employed by the different undertakings. Surely there could be no more appropriate day than to-day for demonstrating in our legislation the principle that we have been giving voice to on the occasion of the Armistice. At that time

    1375
    there was no question of distinction as between administrative and operative. Every man stood on equal terms. They have been equal in our hearts to-day and they should be equal in the legislation we are now passing so that there should be no continuance of a discrimination which is surely unjust. I think we really have just ground for being hopeful on this occasion and I feel, after the full opportunity for reviewing this question since the matter was discussed upstairs, that they have decided to change their mind and be generous, and I am confident there will be no occasion to regret it.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am sure the hon. Members who support this Amendment must appreciate that it is very much easier for a Minister to say "yes" to a demand such as this than to say "no." It is quite an easy path to follow to dispose of public funds in a generous way, and to allow your heart to get the better of your head. I quite understand the position of hon. Members opposite, and probably if I were sitting on those benches I should move that Amendment, because after all they can always say a hard-hearted Government has refused a reasonable demand. But I ask them to consider the position I have to face. By the Acts of 1919 and 1922 the provisions for compensation are as in the Bill, and therefore as far as my department is concerned I am strictly following precedent.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the Ministry of Transport. He will find the principle of the earlier Act is contained there.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will take the hon. Gentleman's statement as accurate, as lie has looked it up and I have not. I am instancing the two Acts of 1919 and 1922. But have hon. Members opposite quite realised what their Amendment means? It means that they place all weekly wage earners on the same basis as established servants who are pensioned on the basis of having a yearly salary. They are aware, of course, that the vast majority of civil servants who are not established have not their compensation, if compensation is necessary, granted on the scale of established servants. So what they are asking is that all employés in the electricity service, weekly wage earners, shall be put in a far better position than
    1376
    the vast majority of unestablished civil servants in Departments of the Government. There may be justice in what hon. Members have put forward, but passing their Amendment might make the position of civil servants on a weekly basis appear inferior and would lead at once to a demand for similar concessions all down the line which would involve enormous sums of money. For that reason alone we cannot accept it. It must not be imagined that a weekly wage earner under this Schedule, if he loses his employment, is going to be badly treated. After all there is an impartial and able arbitrator who will assess, to the best of his ability, the damage that can legitimately be claimed by the wage earner if he loses his employment. I am informed that the compensation granted lately by an arbitrator has not been un-generous.
    Mr. KELLY: It has not been generous.
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is a matter of opinion. It is more than it used to be. That is the proper way, I submit, to arrive at the compensation for the weekly wage earners. For the two reasons I have given the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. KELLY: I am surprised to hear the Minister's reply. I should quite understand his method of dealing with the question if he said they found themselves in a position where they could not afford to pay any compensation to anyone. He finds he has no difficulty when it comes to a question of compensating officials who have been fairly well paid during the time they have held office in an electricity undertaking. In fact, there has been no difference of opinion, so far as his side of the House is concerned, with regard to finding compensation for those people, but when it comes to the weekly wage earner, those who are the lowest paid in the industry, the Government says, "We cannot afford and we are not prepared to pay compensation to you for the loss of your employment." Once again, we have an illustration that those who are the lowest paid must be the worst treated whenever any changes take place. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the large majority of civil servants are unestablished. I am wondering where he obtained his figures, and whether he is dealing with the

    1377
    clerical occupations or with the industrial occupations as far as the Government employés are concerned. I hope he will tell us who has furnished him with these figures, that the vast majority of Government servants in the Civil Service are not entitled to pensions, and are not entitled to compensation for loss of employment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I was referring to unestablished servants.
    Mr. KELLY: If they were established they would be entitled to compensation, so that my term will apply equally as well whether it is a question of being established or a hired servant of the Government. I cannot understand the position taken up. We know that as far as established employés of the Government are concerned, they are entitled to compensation as well as to pensions for service. With regard to hired people, they are entitled to a certain sum of money as gratuity in the event of losing their employment. No one has ever suggested that that method of dealing with Government employés in the form of gratuity has been satisfactory. The Government has never been a good employer at any time. I am not permitted to-night to go into that matter, but certainly the Government has never been a good employer to those who have engaged in its service. At any rate, in the form of the remuneration and the conditions which it hands out to them.
    We were told that the people who lose their situations would be entitled to appear before a referee or umpire, who would decide the point. We were reminded that, under the Acts of 1919 and 1922, compensation could be paid. I wish the Minister had gone further with that explanation and had reminded the House of the enormous difficulty which the weekly wage earners experience in order to obtain any compensation under that particular Act. Not only have they to go before an umpire, but we have been compelled to expend a considerable sum of money by having resort to the Law Courts in order to prove that we were servants and had lost our positions by reason of these particular Acts. Surely the Government do not desire to continue that method of dealing with the lower-paid people who are displaced by reason of the action taken in this Bill.
    1378
    I hope the Government will realise the unfairness and the injustice of what it is doing to the lower-paid workers who will be displaced. I hope that the appeal made will have some strength, and that the Government will still consider this matter from the point of view of equity.
    If it is good to find compensation for those who are the best paid in the industry, if it is good to find compensation for those who have invested their money in the undertakings that are to be closed, if the Government are to make an allowance to those who are represented by hon. Members opposite, who have taken up so much of the discussion to-day and during the Committee stage, if they can find compensation for their friends, surely they ought to be able to find compensation for the weekly wage earners who may be displaced. Those who have been taking up a great deal of the time of the House and have used their voices on behalf of the capital invested in electricity undertakings are very quiet, in fact they are dumb, whenever we are dealing with questions affecting the lower-paid worker. In the Committee not one of them raised his voice to say a word with regard to this particular point although they have taken up days in dealing with other matters affecting their friends who have capital invested in the undertaking. I hope that, even now, the position of those people who may lose their situations in the joining up which will take place under this Bill will be considered, that the justice of their claim will appeal to the Government and that we shall be able to do something for the lower-paid workers.
    Sir J. NALL: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and his friends need not be under any misapprehension on the point that he has raised. If I thought that any number of weekly wage earners were going to be displaced and put into the unfortunate position of being unemployed as a result of the operations of this Bill, I should agree with him that some adequate provision should be made for them. The Schedule we are now discussing relates to a very limited number of salaried officials who may possibly be displaced. I do not think it can be shown that a very large number of salaried officials will be displaced, and I do not think it can be shown that any weekly wage earners will be displaced, and for

    1379
    this very simple reason, that if all that is claimed for the Bill does take place, not fewer but many more workers will be required. If the Bill does not succeed, it will not lead to a diminution of the number employed—it simply will not affect the number. If we are to graft on to this Bill a provision in the terms suggested by the hon. Member and his friends, putting a premium upon the possibility of anyone contriving to lose his situation in the changes which are proposed to take place, we may be setting up the possibility of a great deal of trouble in the operation of the Act.
    Mr. KELLY: May I remind the hon. Member that each case would have to be considered by a referee, such as was mentioned by the Minister, and the referee would be able to take into account the point as to whether the person had thrown himself out of a situation.
    Sir J. NALL: Exactly. The mention of a referee reminds me that those who are not salaried officials and would come under this provision are insured persons under Act of Parliament, or, at any rate, many of them are. The hon. Member is asking that these people should be covered in two directions; that they should be specially provided for in the Bill, along with the salaried officials who are not insured, and that they should also be insured and get whatever benefit they can get out of that provision. I do not believe for a moment that any number of people in either category will be displaced, but if it can be shown that they will be displaced, then some provision should be made to cover their case.
    Mr. CLYNES: If what has been said by the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) can be taken as correct, and in large measure I accept it, it shatters completely the argument of the Minister of Transport. The argument of the Minister of Transport was that it was impossible to meet the immense cost that would be involved in the expense of this Amendment. Whichever be the fact, our view is that it is a matter of fairness and common equity of treatment of the different and separate classes who may be displaced as a result of the operations of this law. All we ask is that the weekly wage-earner who has, generally speaking, no opportunity whatever of
    1380
    building up reserves, who cannot, like the salaried man, prepare for the gaps in his life, shall be treated justly and equitably. Our view is that, if there is to be any preference shown in the matter of compensation for displacement, it ought to be shown in favour of that indispensable type of weekly wage-earner whose wages afford him no opportunity of saving. I denounce the opposition of the Minister of Transport as supporting class legislation, and I suggest that the hon. Member should carry his Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. GARDNER: I am amazed at the attitude adopted by the Minister of Transport. The Mover of the Amendment showed that there were ample precedents to justify its adoption, but even if there were not, surely, in modern times, a Government that was fully alive to its responsibilities would be glad to create a precedent. In theory every citizen in the land is equal in the eyes of the law, but the attitude of the Government on this matter sets that theory aside and it is a position which cannot be defended any longer. So far as the workers engaged in electricity are concerned, they are going to be thrown on the scrap-heap, with the added possibility that they might go before a referee on the question of compensation. The position taken up by an hon. Member opposite with regard to unemployment insurance shows that his knowledge cannot be very great on that point, otherwise he would not have said what he did. Are we to understand that what is commonly called "the dole" is ample compensation for a man whose work has been taken from him, while at the same time good compensation is given to other classes. I know cases in which amalgamation promoters create difficulties, and there have been cases in connection with railways in which a manager has been given six years' salary in order to get rid of him because of his inefficiency. There is a very great danger on this point having regard to the attitude of the Minister of Transport. He suggests that workmen can make an adequate claim and that they would get justice; that compensation has been generous in the past. Surely it is obvious that if a company is likely to be out of business its managers may take up the attitude of earmarking a number of their employés as being inefficient, and their chance of

    1381
    getting compensation would be very remote. I think the Government should face the issue. This Bill, if it is carried, will be the subject of many grandiloquent paragraphs in their next election addresses, showing how they have made a great step forward. If they want to take a good step forward then the least they can do is to accept the Amendment.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. GOSLING: A reference has been made during the Debate to a Section in the Port of London Act, and I should like to say just one word on what has been done. I speak with an experience of the Port of London for many years. I am surprised to hear that there has been any complaint with regard to the working of that particular Section, for I can fairly say that it has been of great advantage to the Port Authority. In a great organisation like the Port of London Authority, and also in the authority which is to be set up by this Bill, if it is to be successful, a fairly free hand must be given to those who have to superintend the organisation, to move about and displace members of the great staff they have to deal with. It is a difficult thing for a man who is trying to act conscientiously to do something he wishes to do, when at the same time he knows that if he displaces a man it would mean that the employé is thrown on the scrap heap. The Section in the Port of London Authority Act, under which there has been no complaints so far as I know at all, enables those in charge to do the very best they can for the organisation without thinking they are doing any harm to the workmen who have to he displaced in the building up of the organisation. Seeing how this has worked, and remembering that it was the action of this House that enabled it to be done, I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport says that if he was on this side of the House he would be in favour of the Amendment, but because he is on the other side of the House he is not. He says that if he was on this side he would then have the advantage of saving that it was a hard-hearted Government.
    The Government are hard-hearted. The working of this particular Section for the past 17 years has shown that there are no difficulties in the way; it has been very successful, and if there is a change in the
    1382
    view of the Government, then the Government is hard-hearted, and what is more, unfair. The Port of London Section has been repeated in other Acts of Parliament, and with equal success. A reference was made by the Minister of Transport to the Civil Service. I do not know why, because the Civil Service is not a good model. Here you are dealing with very much the same kind of people, the same kind of workmen, you have in the Port of London Authority. I want to support the Amendment, and if the Minister of Transport has any doubts about what I am saying, he has only to refer to his Parliamentary Secretary who had an opportunity of studying the Port of London Authority for a little while. It is an excellent body from many points of view, a good organisation, and an organisation which has been built up largely because it has had the power, instead of having to put round men into square holes, in effect throwing them on the scrap-heap, to give them good compensation if they were not in a position to provide them with suitable employment.
    Mr. VIANT: In supporting the Amendment I want to express my disappointment at the reply of the Minister of Transport. I had hoped, after our experience in Committee, and after the time which has passed since then, that our appeals on that occasion would have received the same treatment as the appeals that were made by those who are interested in the company undertakings represented on the other side. Compensation has been given for capital; it has been given all along the line. I had hoped that the Minister, if unwilling to grant this concession, would at least have been able to give us a logical reason for not granting it. His only reply is to shelter himself and the Department behind something that has happened in some other Department. We have quoted ample precedents to show that the principle which we advocate has been adopted generally in recent legislation. The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) in supporting the Minister, referred to the remote possibility of the manual workers losing their employment. If the, contingency is so remote, what reason is there for the Minister refusing to give us the concession? I think it was rather unfair for the hon. Member for Hulme to

    1383
    refer to a concession of this kind as tending to cause the operatives in the industry to run the risk of losing their employment in order to get compensation. That kind of psychology might be found in some places, but my experience convinces me that it does not obtain generally amongst the working classes. It was unfair to make a charge of that kind against working men. But, even if the risk were possible, it is no reason why the concession should not be made.
    We are merely asking that ordinary common justice shall be done to the workmen as it is being done to the salaried class. It appears to me that all the appeals on the other side for a cessation of class hatred are not sincere, because here hon. Members are passing legislation which will tend to increase class hatred. The action of the Government convinces me that the working people generally can expect nothing in the form of justice from this House until they have a representation here sufficiently strong to force justice from the other side. This is not good legislation. It is not likely to conduce to peace and order. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will be prepared to reconsider his decision. It is admitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme that the contingency is very remote, that the demands are likely to be very small, and in view of those facts, if not from the point of view of justice, I suggest that we might have this concession made now.
    Mr. HANNON: We have had a very delightful example of what might be called the gentle art of political advertisement. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think quite properly, have taken the opportunity of giving a clearly defined specification of their views on the rights of the wage earners. Of course they are not to be blamed for taking that opportunity; but if this Bill is to realise all that is anticipated for it, where does the question arise of displacing anyone?
    Mr. GOSLING: Through reorganisation.
    Mr. HANNON: My hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport says "through reorganisation," but he must agree that the rapid expansion of the industry would be such as to absorb almost everyone who would be displaced
    1384
    in any other branch of enterprise. In this Amendment you have a very important principle involved. If carried out in the schemes of nationalisation to which hon. Members opposite are so strongly attached, it would impose an intolerable burden on the future finances of this country. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were resposible for our public finance would they accept an Amendment of the kind? We had examples of suggestions of the kind when they were in office, and they took very good care on every occasion to safeguard the interests of the Treasury. It would be a violation of a very old-established principle in our public finance if the Minister agreed to the Amendment. At all events, the real answer to the argument is that if the electrical industry under this Bill realises all its possibilities, it will be able to absorb from day to day almost everyone who is displaced in other branches of industry. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be satisfied with the very generous concession made by the Government and not press the Amendment
    Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to press the Minister or his assistant to give an answer to the case made by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. Why is it that the Government should deal differently with workmen under the Bill? Why should they give them treatment different from that which is given to workmen under the Port of London Authority, the Metropolitan Water Board, the railway authorities and others? No answer has so far been given. In a great, new, reorganised industry the temptation will be to take the youngest men and to displace the older men. I speak in the presence of Conservatives who are Poor Law guardians. They know that there is no more pathetic spectacle than the man who has worked for 20 or 30 years in one job and then, because of reorganisation, is squeezed out. It is no good the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) using the argument that there will be so much work that everybody will be retained. Every man who has had anything to do with the reorganisation of businesses knows that there are always in such cases men pushed out, and others brought in. In order to safeguard the workman who is efficient even though middle-aged we ought to make provision

    1385
    for him so that the employer will think twice before getting rid of him because of the compensation which will become payable.
    We on this side are often charged with stirring up class hatred. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite understand that the workmen will see quite clearly here that a deep class distinction is being made between one set of people and another. It has been apparent all through these Debates, and people do read the Debates which take place here. The OFFICIAL REPORT goes to the public libraries and workmen and their wives will be able to read for themselves that for three solid days this House has discussed the necessity for safeguarding the rights of money and of property, and that now, when we make this simple request that the workmen who may be displaced after 20, 30 or 40 years' service should he safeguarded, we are told it cannot he done because of the expense. We can afford money to compensate people for old machinery, and to compensate people whose money is involved, and the House ought to have a better feeling when it comes to a matter of flesh and blood. We know that these men will he pushed out, not for ally fault of their own, but because the nation demands a better and more efficient supply of electricity. If this concession is not made, the Government will be giving the workmen of the country the very very clearest instance of how class antagonism works. They will show that they have not learned anything at all from the years that are past. They will show that they still hold the idea that a Cabinet Minister or Lord Chancellor or a person of that kind who is squeezed out of a job for one reason or another may be compensated, but that the workman, on whom we all depend, cannot be compensated.
    I speak from experience in two fields. I can speak with regard to the men and women who will be driven on to the Poor Law, and also from the point of view of a member of a borough council, which, under the London Government Act, had to deal with a whole shoal of officials who were displaced. We were not permitted in those days, 20 or 25 years ago, to deal with a displaced workman, but we were compelled to deal with town clerks, vestry clerks and scores of
    1386
    different officials of that kind. There is left on my mind, and on the minds of thousands of others, the feeling that Parliament should long ago have got away from the idea that only those who are well paid and who are able to make provision for themselves should have further provision made for them. At this time of day the Government should, at least, see that common justice is done. I do not suppose it is much use appealing to the Minister. He treated the matter casually and almost contemptuously.
    Colonel ASHLEY Colonel ASHLEY indicated dissent.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I say what I think, The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to meet a single argument put forward from this side. Before the Division is taken someone from the Government Front Bench ought to answer the case which has been put forward; otherwise you will allow it to go out once more that you think so little of the workmen that, even though they may be driven out of their positions through no fault of their own, this country cannot afford to save them from the Poor Law. I think that would be a disgrace to the House of Commons.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The Government have produced a great national scheme, and one might reasonably expect them to be magnanimous in regard to the interests of labour. We can quite understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) judging from the line of action with which he has been identified with those on the other side who are antagonistic to the scheme. In regard to references which he has made, think they were intended to bring out an idea which has been expressed to me by one of my own constituents who holds the same political views as hon. Members opposite. That constituent is antagonistic to this Measure, and thinks it is all nonsense to contemplate the cheapness anticipated by the Government. Nevertheless the majority of the Rouse on both sides support the scheme, and we have now reached the stage of considering, what should be recognised as a reasonable and strong claim upon the scheme. To emphasise the old time conception that only those who hold salaried positions are to be recognised in this matter and to set aside the general worker—to whom such ready

    1387
    tributes are paid on other occasions—will be to mark unmistakably that class conflict which hon. Members opposite so often tell us ought to be obliterated. That is a very important, point in the present condition of our country. By refusing this request you make it plain in your own Bill that the man who has only an ordinary wage is to be treated with scant courtesy, and that is not creditable to those who were long since described by one of their own great leaders as the party of gentlemen.
    Even the arguments from the other side suggest that this scheme is not likely to affect many workers, but is not that clear evidence to show that there is no occasion to reject an Amendment which simply asks that the same treatment be applied to all cases? Those who have been identified with municipal undertakings were gratified by the statement of the ex-Minister of Transport that in some of the leading London authorities the old procedure is being altered for the better. In the provinces we have become familiarised with representatives such as those on the other side of the House deliberately voting down the wages of the ordinary workers by 25 per cent, and, on the other hand, repeatedly voting support of the same salaries for those who hold more important positions. That is deepening the antagonism of those so unfortunately inclined to extreme measures. You are just simply making more and more determined those antagonistic to constitutional operation. Here we are making a. reasonable appeal. Attempts are made to obviate the trouble so as not to come to grips with the actual question. No one having knowledge of this discussion can fail to see the clear mark of distinction and contrast, between those who are determined to stand by selfish class interests as against those who are doing honourable business for the country, engaged in a great industry which the Government has taken up on a national scale to advance the interests of the country. How does it come about that they occupy such a miserably pathetic position. It is a deplorable, state of affairs and we hope there will be full support for the Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The last part of the speech of the hon. Member for
    1388
    Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) illustrates the burden of the complaints of many Members opposite. He says, if I quote him correctly, that the Government are casting aside people as of no consequence. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) gave the House to understand that men were being cast out of their employment without compensation, only fit to take refuge in the Poor Law, and that he as a guardian would have to look after them. May I bring the House back to an appreciation of the position. The real position is that there are two classes dealt with under this Bill. The first class approximates to the established civil servant class, who have a scale of compensation laid down for them. The other class are those who are unestablished wage-earners and have to go to an arbitrator. No one will say the arbitrators are not able and impartial men. The arbitrators take all the circumstances into consideration, the age, what the wages are, what the employment is, whether the man is likely to get any other employment and then compensate him for the loss of his employment. I apologise to the House for having intervened, but I had really to bring sonic stream of facts to bear on the statement.
    Mr. KELLY: Is not the scale poor?
    Mr. DENNISON: I want to submit two points. This matter was very fully discussed in the Committee upstairs. It has been said that there is no analogy between the illustration given by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and that of civil servants. The Minister says there is a tribunal to which a non-established member of the Civil Service, namely, the workman, can apply. What about the position of the established workmen who have been working for the company or municipality for 25 or 30 years, and who, because of this scheme and the Government's Bill, are going to be put on the scrap heap? Are they not going to be regarded as established within the meaning of the Civil Service? I say it is grossly unfair. An official may have been in the service of a private company or municipality for five years and a workman in the service for 25 years. In the case of the official he is going to get compensated for the loss of his job, and the workman, because

    1389
    he is regarded under the Bill as non-established, is to get no compensation.
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, no, no!
    Mr. DENNISON: That is the statement of the Minister. It is the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in the Committee. Upstairs it was said that the giving of compensation to the discharged workmen was tantamount to an advance in wages. If that be so, is it not equally an advance of salary to the official Where is the equity? Talk about class legislation! I am sure there never was anything more obviously class legislation than this. We have had observations made to-night by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who, after making them, ran away. He stated that the workpeople who will be discharged by reason of the economies, of the abolition of the overlapping under the new scheme, will be absorbed. I say that is not a fair proposition. There is no equity in this Schedule as between the workman and what is known as the official. It only emphasises once again that the Government benches in this Bill are carrying out class legislation, giving preferential treatment to one section of the community against the other. Where is the compensation for the official to come from? It can only come from one or two places, namely, from the consumers, from the producers, or from a subsidy that may be given by the Government. In each of those cases the taxpayer has to pay for that compensation. You will have the anomaly of the workpeople, who are taxpayers as well as consumers, having to pay for compensation for the officials. If this Government can pursue this and face the issues which will certainly be exposed to the public in pressing it to a Division, then they will go clown to history as doubly-dyed die-hard Tories, as they have always been described.
    Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who has just gone out, seemed to feel ashamed. All day he has been fighting for the protection of London companies and their financial interests. It has been the same all through in this Debate, even in Committee. The moment you come to the human element then you find yourself up against a heartless machine. Here we are now nearing the end of what is called a great
    1390
    scheme. Arguments have been made repeatedly about the great advantages to the nation, but can a nation achieve an advantage in one hand while it creates misery for disabled workmen with the other? You cannot take any other view of the national scheme but a true conspectus of the whole. What is the use of the Government saying they are capable of dealing with a national scheme when they leave out that which would give a complete circle to the operations of the Bill? It is all very well to say you have got the poor-house for anyone displaced, but that is the most emphatic type of class legislation. If we had been asking for something more for those for whom we are pleading, we could have understood the opposition coming from the other side, but we are not asking for more. We are asking for equal treatment.
    It does not follow, because the man who is called the ordinary working man has been born into those circumstances that deny him the education that makes the higher paid official possible, he should not have equal treatment. It was only the accident of birth that gave the higher official his chance of education that made him an official. It was the accident of poverty, to which the other was born, that established him as an ordinary working man. The Government all claim to be Christian gentlemen, but no matter how often they make that claim, we on this side do not heed the statement. We cannot judge by words, we judge by actions, and when you get in a situation like this, after all that some of us have suffered during the passage of this Bill, and after all the vested interests have been met, after the hon. Member for Moseley has fought all the time for his British Federation of Industries—[An HON. MEMBER: "The forty thieves!"] The forty thieves were decent men in comparison—when it comes to the working man, then is the time for everyone on the other side to have a kick, and a drop kick at that.
    What is the use of talking about a sense of justice? We have been dealing with this Bill longer than the Government expected, because they have spent most of the time in trying to adjust the various claims, not of the human element, but of vested interests. That is what has delayed the Measure. That is why the Attorney-General to-night has taken his whip and lashed some of his own Mem-

    1391
    bers into a sense of logic, and he did it well, but why should be not now make a complete job of it and get a sense of justice running through it? Reference has been made to the displaced man having 20 or more years' service. There is nothing more heart-breaking, and that is becoming the permanent problem of unemployment in this country. Whether the Government can see it or not, if they do not make provision in this Bill for those whom they are displacing, they will have to meet the same expenditure in another Department in keeping these men from dying of starvation. Why should this continue? If every reorganisation of industry means the displacement of men, why should not the Bill dealing with that displacement carry in it everything that the Bill encounters? Why cannot we have complete legislation? Why cannot we have something logical running right through, even to the lowest and the highest of all the human element concerned in the operation of the scheme?
    I am surprised indeed that the Attorney-General has not seen fit to add a little grace to all that has happened. If I cannot appeal to him on any other ground, I am surprised he cannot add that which would take away this bad taste that is going to be left. Let him not forget that every working man is watching what is taking place here, and that this decision will have more interest to the working man than every other decision that has been taken on this Bill. The present circumstances through which the country is passing are deepening the bitterness of the working people, and instead of trying to do something to improve matters, the Government come along in this Bill with another pin prick and say: "We want to stamp upon you the fact that you are something inferior." That is a most unfortunate situation to be attached to any big scheme such as this claims to be. We have been told that this is one of the greatest attempts, so far as the Government are concerned, at the development of British industry. But what is the use of talking about the development of British industry if, at the same time, you are creating misery to the human element? No matter how efficient you may make things, if by that efficiency you are going to increase misery and suffering to others, you are not approaching
    1392
    anything outside what is called the benefit of material gains to a few. Material gains to a few may mean a few more motor-cars, a few more diamonds, and some other things like that—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is going a long way from the Amendment. The question before the House is whether, in the case of workpeople, the matter should be left to the discretion of the referee, or whether the referee should be bound to apply Civil Service terms. That is the point we are discussing.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am pleading for the equal treatment of the men, and I was pointing out that, if they are treated as the Bill proposes, they will not be able to buy these things of which I am talking, and the less people are able to buy, the worse are conditions for trade. After what has taken place, we had hoped that this demand would have been met, and am I not justified in asking the Government to use the same consideration as they did in other cases to-day, where they gave a promise to carry forward and see what could be done, if not here, then in another place? Is there no chance at all of getting the worker brought in with a sense of justice? Are we to go out and say: "Here is a supposedly great scheme, but at the bottom of it we leave a sediment of misery for a certain few"?
    Mr. BROMLEY: I had no intention of rising to speak on this Amendment, but to-night, as has happened on one or two previous occasions, I have been stung to rise by the very plainly exhibited hilarity and impatience on the part of hon. Members opposite. I must say that during the last few days this House has listened with very great patience to very long arguments put forward from the Government side of the House in the interests of invested capital, although the exponents have not had the courage, which I hope will come from this side to-night, to force their opinions to a Division of the House. They have at least been listened to with respect, and they have put pretty cogently all the arguments they possibly could on behalf of vested interests. But when we come to consider what has been termed the human element, that is, the workman, who has no other protection, in many cases, than what may be given to him

    1393
    by legislative enactment, they have, I regret to say—and I rise more to point that out than with the hope of moving the Government to do justice in this case—exhibited such impatience, laughter and joviality, implying that it does not matter about these working people, that we are stung to protest.
    I would point out that in the Railways Act, 1921—I am quoting from memory—the Section there providing for compensation makes no discrimination whatever between officers or officials and the ordinary workmen. Whether it was that the railway financial interest were not as vigilant, or the strength of the railway workmen had something to do with it, I cannot say, but if the House wants some precedent for at least attempting to do the fair thing, we have it in that Railway Act of quite a recent date. I would ask if it is quite fair to refer cases of ordinary weekly wage-earners to a referee, who
    will not, by the widest stretch of imagination, be quite of their class, or in strong sympathy with them as weekly wage-earners? Why should not all the cases of permanent officials also be referred to a referee? Why this distinction? It is a class distinction. When we give the slightest semblance of creating class distinction, we are met with howls, and often abuse, and yet it is held in this clam, cold manner that there must be a distinction between those on salaries and those on wages. I want to add these few words, not only as a protest against the unfairness, but also against the tone in which appeals on behalf of the working people are received in this House.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 455.]

    AYES.

    [9.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Albery, Irving James

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lougher, L.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Lynn, Sir Robert J.

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Finburgh, S.

    McNeill Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Balniel, Lord

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Foxcroft Captain C. T.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Gates, Percy

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Bethel, A.

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

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Goff, Sir Park

    Murchison, C. K.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Grace, John

    Neville, R. J.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Perring, Sir William George

    Burman, J. B.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pliditch, Sir Philip

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Preston, William

    Cassels, J. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Price, Major C. W. M

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

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Remer, J. R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cope, Major William

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Rye, F. G.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sandon, Lord

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

    Drewe, C.

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

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Fredrick H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Withers, John James

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Waddington, R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wells, S. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Bowyer.

    NOES.

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Purcell, A. A.

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Baker, Walter

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Barnes, A.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barr, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Scurr, John

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sexton, James

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromfield, William

    Hayes, John Henry

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bromley, J.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smillie, Robert

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cape, Thomas

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clowes, S.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Townend, A. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Viant, S. P.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Watson, W, M. (Dunfermline)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lowth, T.

    Westwood, J.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Dennison, R.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Dunnico, H.

    Maxton, James

    Wright, W.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Gardner, J. P.

    Murnin H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gosling, Harry

    Naylor, T. E.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Oliver, George Harold

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

    Potts, John S.

    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 38, line 35, to leave out the words
    "that he suffers such loss or diminution as is mentioned in this Schedule,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "when the loss or relinquishment of employment occurs."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. It is necessary to make this alteration because, in line 26, the words used are
    "where loss or relinquishment of employment is involved."
    Mr. TOWNEND: I would like to ask whether this Amendment rules out a claim for compensation on the ground that a man has suffered an alteration of duty and has been given a position of less importance than that which he enjoyed before the amalgamation took place?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Amendment does not alter the position
    1396
    in any respect. It is purely a drafting Amendment. If the hon. Member will look at the Schedule, he will see the words
    "such service shall be reckoned as service under the authorised undertakers in whose employment he was."
    These have to be read in conjunction with the words
    "suffers such loss or diminution as is mentioned in the Schedule."
    What we want to put in is when the loss or relinquishment of employment occurs. It merely makes more clear what is the date at which it occurs. This Amendment does not put anybody in or take anybody out.
    Mr. TOWNEND: Is it quite clear from what the Attorney-General has said that if a man is given a position of less responsibility he can be compensated? Could the right hon. Gentleman give me a direct answer?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This proviso relates only to the loss or relinquishment of employment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.)
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 39, to leave out lines 12 to 39, inclusive.
    The object of the Amendment is to leave unimpaired the existing statutory Regulations With reference to the application of the revenue arising from electricity supply undertakings owned by municipal authorities. Under the Act at present in force, the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, provision was made for certain divisions of revenue as follow:—(a) In payment of working and establishment expenses and maintenance costs; (b) In payment of the interest or dividend on any mortgages, stock, etc.; (c) In providing any instalments or sinking fund required for repayment of burrowed money; (d) In payment of other expenses. Then it provided for the creation of a reserve fund, if those operating a particular municipal undertaking thought fit to accumulate it, at compound interest, until the fund amounted to one-tenth of the aggregate capital expenditure on the undertaking, and any net surplus in any year was to be carried to the relief of local rates, or, at the option of the undertakers applied for the improvement of the district or in reduction of the capital money borrowed for electricity purposes. It was provided, also, that if the surplus in any year exceeded 5 per cent. per annum on the aggregate capital expenditure the undertakers should make such a rateable reduction in the charge for the supply of energy as in their judgment would reduce the surplus to that maximum rate of profit. Certain municipal authorities contend that those provisions were quite enough to safeguard the interests of all concerned. The present Bill seeks to alter that, first by limiting the amount which may be applied in aid of the local rates in any year to a maximum of 1½ per cent. of the aggregate capital expenditure on the undertaking, and, after the 31st of March, 1930, by prohibiting any payment in aid of the local rates
    1398
    unless the reserve fund amounts to more than one-twentieth of such aggregate capital expenditure.
    As one who has had considerable experience in the working of municipal electrical undertakings, I submit that the old provisions were ample protection both for the ratepayers and the consumers, and I would ask the Minister of Transport whether his Department has received any complaints as to the manner in which these provisions have been carried out in the past. In point of fact, ratepayers have complained that in the case of certain authorities, where the engineer in charge has had more control than the committee themselves, no relief has been given to the rates at all, and in this connection it ought to be remembered that in many cases losses were incurred in the early stages of municipal undertakings and had to be borne out of the rates. Further, even where there were no losses, the credit of the ratepayers was pledged to raise the capital necessary to carry on the station, and surely the ratepayers have some right to relief in cases where, according to the provisions as laid down in the Act, there was ample with which to give relief. It is contended that this prohibition against passing any profits to the relief of rates is one that is not equitable as between the ratepayer who is not a consumer of electricity and is therefore, in no sense a partner in the concern, and those who are consumers. I hope the Attorney-General will say whether he has received any complaints as to the working of the system and tell us why this change is proposed. Many of us think that it is something that ought not to be included in the Bill
    Mr. PRESTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The question the House has to decide is what is going to be done with the net surplus remaining in one of these undertakings during the year. At present the position is that the surplus may be placed to the credit of the local rates, then to the improvement of the district or in reduction of capital moneys borrowed for electricity purposes, then after that a small sum may be allocated to reduction of charges for electricity in the district. We propose to reverse the position, and instead of making a reduction of the local rates the first charge,

    1399
    we want to make the first charge a reduction of charges for the supply of energy. I think the House will agree that that is fair and right. We are dealing now with an Electricity Bill, the object of which is to cheapen electricity. We say that the first charge on the benefits which are received from this Bill, on the net surplus, should go to the consumers who provide the profits, and not to the local rates as heretofore. We have taken steps in the Bill to restrict the profits of the company so that the consumer may be protected, and the House will think it only fair and right that the consumers should get the benefit of the Bill and not the ratepayers as a whole.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I am glad the Government are resisting this Amendment. It has been put forward as a special desire of municipalities in general. There is, however, a division of opinion, and I think the better point has been put by the Minister. It is rather a pernicious form of indirect taxation. It is favouring those other forms of power at the expense of the electricity users. I think that is thoroughly unsound. It is capable of all sorts of manipulation. In London, where, we have triennial elections, it has happened that the party in power, just at the end of their term, in order to make a good impression, have raided the electricity undertaking and claimed credit for a reduction of rates. That is a most, undesirable thing. I hold that the principle pot here is perfectly correct, that the sound thing is to apply it to reduction of prices, to an extension of the undertakings and only then, and then to a limited extent, to aid the local rates. The losses are extraordinarily few, taking the country as a whole, and have mostly been made up long ago. The sound municipal principle is embodied in the proposals set out here.
    Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I am not prepared to say whether or not, on the whole, throughout the whole country, this may be wise or otherwise, but I am perfectly certain, speaking for the city I represent, that it would be a very great mistake. We have in the last two or three years given to our ratepayers £120,000 a year back in connection with the electricity undertaking. It has been a very valuable thing to the ratepayers
    1400
    generally. We have supplied the poorer houses in the community with an electricity supply. We feel it is not right to lay down a hard and fast rule. Progressive municipalities should be able to exercise their own judgment. I do not ask for the elimination of the whole Clause, but the matter might well be considered before the Bill goes forward, and I hope it will be realised that it interferes materially with the very careful foresight of certain municipalities concerned in these matters. I would also point out the argument that the whole undertaking has been rendered possible and carried out owing to the credit of the whole of the ratepayers in the city, and they are surely entitled to reap some reward for their energy and foresight. It seems to me that this Bill in certain cases is going to make general ratepayers suffer in a way that is hardly fair.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move in page 39, line 32, to leave out the words "aggregate capital expenditure on," and to insert instead thereof the words "outstanding debt of."
    This Amendment is intended to put back the position to what it was before this Bill was introduced. In Committee upstairs the words "aggregate capital expenditure" were substituted for "the outstanding debt." The effect is to give power to a municipality to add a larger amount in relief of the rates. Those who represent the Incorporated Municipal Electrical association are of opinion that it would be wiser to take the outstanding debt. In one case aggregate capital expenditure was £1,500,000 and the outstanding debt was £900,000. This seems to be opening the door too widely for making an electricity undertaking the milch cow of the municipality.
    Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I agree that second thoughts are best, and the Government are able to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 39, line 38, to leave out the words "such aggregate" and to insert instead thereof the words "aggregate expenditure on the undertaking."
    Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: In page 39, to leave out line 40.—[Mr. Viant.]
    Mr. ATTLEE: This really is an invasion of the right of municipalities to deal with their own highways. It is not very germane to the Bill, but there is a strong feeling that this particular part of the Schedule should come out.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Government think that this is not quite so reasonable an Amendment as it might have been, but on the whole there is a, considerable body of opinion in favour of it, and we are prepared to accept it. On the whole I think it is best to trust the local authorities as much as possible.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. FIELDEN: I beg to move, in page 39, line 40, at the end, to insert the words
    "s. 20. After the words 'electric signalling communication,' wherever they occur, there shall be inserted the words 'or electrical control of railways.'"
    In the Act of 1889, protection was given with regard to signalling on railways. Since that date very material improvements have taken place in the system of signalling, and it is considered by those who have to deal with this matter that in the new Bill these words would not cover the same protection that they did in the Act of 1899. An Amendment was moved in Committee with the object of bringing about this desirable result, but the words of the Amendment were objected to by the Government as being too wide. This Amendment is drawn up with the object of meeting, as far as we can, the views of the Government. I do not think it is necessary for me to enlarge upon the question beyond that.
    Major GLYN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is quite true, as my lion. Friend says, that an Amendment was brought forward in Committee and was withdrawn until we had further considered the position. We have now given further consideration to it, and find that the protection outlined in this Amendment is justified. Accordingly, we are prepared to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments of Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882–1922.)
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 40; to leave out lines 27 to 46, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "(cc) No Order authorising the abstraction of water from any reservoir or other works used by any statutory water undertaker for the purposes of the undertaking shall be made without the consent of such undertaker (which consent shall not be unreasonably refused) and if any question arises as to the reasonableness of any refusal or of the terms sought to be imposed as a condition of giving consent, the question shall be referred to a single arbitrator nominated by the Lord Chief Justice, or in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and in any such Order there shall be inserted such provisions as the Minister of Health (or in the case of Scotland the Scottish Board of Health) may consider proper for safeguarding the interests a the water consumers."
    This is merely a drafting Amendment, turning the words of the paragraph round, and placing first the provision which requires the consent of the water undertaker to the making of any Order. This is considered to be a better safeguard than the paragraph as it stands in the Bill, where the words are the other way round.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move, in page 41, line 6, to leave out the word "wherever," and to insert instead thereof the word "where."
    This is the first of a series of three Amendments which are consequential one, upon the other. I should like to refer the House to Section 21 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, which provides that:
    "Where the consent of the Board of Trade is obtained to the placing of any electric line above ground in any case, the consent of the local authority shall not be required. … but the Board of Trade before giving their consent shall give the local authority an opportunity of being heard."
    At present the Electricity Commissioners are in the place of the Board of Trade. That provision does not give a county council an opportunity of being similarly heard, and the object of these three Amendments is to give the county council the same right of being heard when overhead lines are carried over roads and bridges for which they are responsible.
    Mr. LOOKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Government accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 41, line 7, after the word "they," insert the word "first."
    In line 9, at the end, insert the words
    "and after the second 'local authority' there shall be inserted the words 'and (where it is proposed to place the line along or across any county bridge or any main road vested in a county council) the county council.'"—[Sir D. Newton.]
    Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 41, line 9, after the words last inserted, to insert the words
    "s. 22. At the end of Sub-section (1) there shall be inserted:
    The Minister of Transport., in deciding whether to give or withhold his consent, may award such costs as he thinks just to the owners and occupiers, or to the authorised undertakers concerned."
    This is an Amendment which I am sure will commend itself to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, as he has been so generously making concessions during the last five minutes. This Amendment seeks to provide, in relation to Section 22 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1919, where the Minister may give or withhold his consent in relation to way leaves, that he should have the power, in giving his decision, to award to owners or occupiers costs which he thinks may have been legitimately incurred. In dealing with questions affecting way-leaves under the Electric Lighting Act considerable expense is frequently involved in the case of companies and promoters of schemes, and if there is a reasonable case for securing payment of these expenses, this Amendment seeks to empower the Minister to do so. It will really be strengthening the Bill if a concession of this kind is embodied in it whereby promoters of electricity schemes seeking to secure the necessary way-leaves for the prosecution of their undertaking can be secured in their costs at the instance of the Minister.
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Although my hon. Friend appealed to the Minister to continue in the pleasant path of making concessions I am afraid my hon.
    1404
    Friend has had his share earlier in the day. The fact is that this provision in the view of the Ministry goes too far. The position at present is that, under the Regulations made by the Minister, provision has been made under which the Minister may, in any case as regard wayleaves under this Section, decide which party is to bear the cost of expenses incurred by the Ministry, so that there is already provision that anyone who is unreasonable may have the whole of the costs of the Minister holding the inquiry thrown upon him. My hon. Friend's proposal would go further and allow the Minister to award the costs of the successful party to be paid by the unsuccessful party. The Government have the fear that if that were done it would encourage litigation being carried on on rather a more expensive scale, with leading counsel, experts and so on. However desirable that might be from some personal points of view, we do not think it is in the public interest. The Government feel, therefore, that the provision which has already been made under the statutory rules and orders is as far as we can properly go, and we cannot ask the House to accept this Amendment.
    Sir J. NALL: I observe that the Amendment proposes that the Minister may award costs to owners or occupiers where he thinks it just that he should do so. I am sure the House will hear with regret that the Attorney-General thinks the Minister is not competent to exercise that discretion and award costs if he thinks they are just.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am interested to hear what my right hon. Friend says, that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has already had his share. I am quite certain that that was a true explanation. My right hon. and learned Friend has consistently endeavoured to detach various interests which are represented here—if that is the proper term to use—to buy off certain interests so as to detach the real volume of opinion in the Conservative ranks in opposition to this Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend gave true expression to his feelings when he said that my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) had had his share. An hon. Member below me who moved an Amendment a few minutes ago had a concession readily granted, because I

    1405
    think in that particular case the hon. Member represented railway interests, and it was necessary to secure— [interruption]. Let me make it quite clear that the hon. Member represents in this House, and very properly, claims which the railway companies wish to advance. My point has no reference whatever to any suggestion that any hon. Member unworthily represents any particular point of view; my suggestion is that it was necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend to secure that to various views which were to be represented From various industries of importance, which had been represented to him in this House, there should be granted concession, so that there should not be a large volume of opinion expressing the true feeling of the party against this Bill. It was vitally necessary in Committee upstairs and down here to see that these opinions were detached, so that he might only have to deal with the disinterested representation of a view which is very strong on these benches against this Bill.
    Mr. HANNON: May I be permitted to make one word of personal explanation? I should like to say at once that I dissociate myself entirely from the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour). I say, without a moment's hesitation, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the House will accept what say in all sincerity, that there has been no understanding, no bargain, no compromise, no arrangement of interests of any sort, kind or description between my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and myself.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) seems to be of the same opinion as the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in his less degenerate days, described the Conservative party as a conspiracy of interests.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 41, line 29, at the end, to insert the words
    "s. 24. The following proviso shall be inserted:
    Provided that such supply shall be used in such manner as not to cause or be likely to cause any interference (whether by induction or otherwise) with any telegraphic line belonging
    1406
    to or used by the Postmaster-General or with telegraphic communication by means of such line. This provision shall not apply to any company or authority authorised to use electricity by Act of Parliament or by an Order confirmed by or having the effect of an Act of Parliament containing provisions for the protection of the telegraphic lines of the Postmaster-General in respect of the use of electricity. In this Section 'telegraphic line' has the same meaning as in the Telegraph Act. 1878."
    I move this Amendment in order to prevent the unqualified and unrestricted rise of electricity by railways. I understand that it is agreed to.
    Amendment agreed to.

    SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Rules for determining the fixed kilowatt charges component and the running charges component.)
    Amendments made: In page 41, line 39, leave out the words "number of kilowatts of maximum demand" and insert instead thereof the words "maximum demand in respect of any month";
    In page 42, line 2, leave out the words "each month of the year of account" and insert instead thereof the words "that month";
    In line 8, leave out the words "number of kilowatts of."—[Colonel Ashley.]
    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

    PROHIBITED MEETINGS.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: As arranged at Question Time to-day, I desire to raise the subject of a meeting which was arranged to take place in a welfare hall at Clown, Derbyshire, on Sunday last, but which was banned by the Chief Constable. I put a question to the Home Secretary

    1407
    to-day, and his answer was so unsatisfactory that I decided to raise it on the Adjournment to-night. Whether his absence at the moment is a studied insult to myself personally or an insult to the House I will leave entirely with the House to decide. I gave him due warning, and he should be here, because I have serious allegations to make against the Secretary of State for the Home Department for Great Britain.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): May I interrupt the hon. Member? Will he tell me what warning he gave the Home Secretary?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I gave him public warning to-day, and Mr. Speaker will bear me out that I am acting within my jurisdiction at the present moment. If the Home Secretary has not paid any attention to it it will strengthen my case, because it will prove that he is not fit for the high and honourable position he occupies in the State. This is a very serious matter. Here is a meeting of miners in a part of Great Britain which is off the beaten track, where only men who are free and like myself happen to be on holiday are able to go. These people have been misinformed. It is reported in the capitalist Press that the miners are rushing back to work by tens of thousands, and it was our duty, we who were free to go, to tell them the facts of the case, to tell them that the miners are not rushing back; that it is absolutely false. When we go to Clown, to a place in this land of the free, this land of free speech, the present Home Secretary has so organised those in authority locally that we are deprived of what is the inherent right of every British subject—the right, of free speech. Everyone who boasts about, being a Briton should safeguard this right as he would his very life.
    Our forefathers sacrificed their lives for free speech. Here we are to-day, in 1926, the heirs of all that glorious heritage of the past, and we have a Home Secretary who has the brass face to stand at his place and simply tell us, the Members of the House of Commons, that our heritage is gone. Whether the other side agrees with us or not, the fact remains that we on these benches represent a considerable paint of view
    1408
    in the country at the moment. We have been sent here time after time by tens of thousands of majority, and the Home Secretary has the hardihood to say that he has handed away the right of free citizens. He is going to bar people from hearing individuals speak to them. There has been no trouble. There is no excuse under the sun. I was there at this place. Again, I do not know whether it is a personal feud beween the Home Secretary and myself, but when I went there and had finished speaking, the superintendent of police intimated to me that he had taken notes of my speech both there and at Creswell, but that he did not like to take the responsibility of arresting me, and that he had sent on my speech to his chief to be dealt with.
    On Monday night, when I was leaving my home, I was handed a handful of summonses. Here they are, a handful of summonses in the land of the brave and the free, summoning me to appear at the Court at a place called Renishaw. It must be remembered, to begin with, that I am a Scotsman and not an Englishman. -The summonses simply state that I have been summoned because I delivered a speech which was calculated to put a stop to the production of fuel. As a result of that, I sent on to the Superintendent of Police, the only name on my summonses, a letter requesting him to send to me the words of the part of my speech which had been value for my being summoned, in order that I might get my witnesses and my defence ready, as I am going to defend myself against the Home Secretary or any other Secretary that this rotten Government cares to produce. What did I get for my courteous letter? [Laughter]. He who laughs last will laugh longest, and the fool always laughs at his own folly. I sent the following letter to Mr. Willis Clarke, the Superintendent of Police at Renishaw—that is the "chiel" who told me he did not care about arresting me himself:
    "DEAR SIR,—I would be glad if you would send to me, by return, copies of the statements contained in my speeches at Clown and Cresswell respectively, complained of by you under the Emergency Regulations, 1926, as referred to in the summonses delivered to me at Glasgow."
    What do you think I got back?
    "DEAR SIR,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 9th inst. concerning

    1409
    the summonses received by you, and to say that I have forwarded same to my chief constable to be dealt with.
    Yours faithfully,
    W. CLARKE."
    That is how an English superintendent of police acts—not towards Davey Kirkwood, but to a Member of this high and dignified institution of the British Empire, the House of Commons. A Member of the House asks that what is going to be brought against him should be submitted to him in order that he might be able to prepare his case—which comes on next Monday—and this is what he is told. I have been pushed off and I have no evidence of what they are going to put against me. I am to be rushed into it and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I give all my time to my Parliamentary duties. I was sent here by my constituents to give my time to Parliament and I do so and I have not had time—[An HON. MEMBER: "What did you say?"] I will say here what I said.
    Mr. SPEAKER: These remarks must not be made across the Floor of the House.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I leave it to any fair-minded man to judge between the Home Secretary and myself. He is a Secretary of State and is quite capable of defending himself against me, but he has gone one worse than merely attacking David Kirkwood. He is attacking the inherent right of every British subject, that is the right of free speech, and every right-thinking man whether he be Tory, Liberal or Labour, must defend the right of free speech and must therefore support me in my claim. Last Tuesday in speaking here on the Emergency Regulations I pointed out to the Home Secretary where he would land himself by handing out this power to big, dirty, stupid, chief constables. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: An expression of that kind is a matter of taste. I cannot call upon the hon. Member to withdraw, but I do not myself think he improves his case.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope I have the right to put my point of view here. The individuals who are shouting at me—what have they said about Cook and about every trade union leader? But they say
    1410
    these things where they are safe. They have not the courage to stand in this House and make those statements. That is the only difference. We are prepared to take the responsibility and to take whatever punishment is put on us for the statements we make. We will not apologise. As a result of making that speech here in the House, the Home Secretary has evidently sent out word to Chief Constables to suppress certain meetings in certain districts. If he considered that the speech I made was a wild speech, and that the names I have called him were not true, it was the easiest thing in the world for him to go into the country and make a speech and refute those statements. What does he do? He goes to garden parties and makes an attack on me and a colleague of mine. He dare not go out to a public meeting. When his colleagues asked him to go to a public meeting and address it, he has always too much to do He is afraid to face the music.
    This is the only opportunity that we have. This we hold to be a free institution where we have the right to give expression to our opinions. I hold that you, Mr. Speaker, have a right to protect me in the country from legislation that has been handed over to individuals who are too small, not big enough, to handle a situation such as may have arisen in Derbyshire. They have no right to think that any little insignificant superintendent of police, though he may be six feet high, can come forward and insult a member of the British House of Commons, and tell him that he has taken a report of his speech. Why should I be insulted in that fashion? Why should you allow me to be insulted in that fashion? I make a speech as a Member of Parliament; I was advertised as a Member of Parliament—and I can make a speech when I am on the platform, not requiring anybody to prompt me, because what I say I believe. It is the truth, and I believe that truth shall ultimately prevail. Remember, at the same time, that I have raised this question more in sorrow than in anger, because I have been twitted by comrades of mine about how I have boasted of the liberties of my native land in every country on the continent. And here I am myself being made the victim. Believe me that the Home Secretary is more exacting, plays littler games at the moment in this strike than

    1411
    did the Home Secretary during the War. When we went to visit our comrades the Communists who were in gaol at Wands-worth, he asked us to give him a promise that we would say nothing of what we saw inside. Fancy standing at that box and asking us to give him such a pledge that we would not say anything! We know what it is to be in gaol; we know what it is to receive one who is a friend coming to see us, and if we were prepared never to pledge anything, would it be, a big man who would ask us to give a pledge like that? And he asked everyone to give a pledge. When I was lying, my country's prisoner, locked up in solitary confinement in Edinburgh Castle during the Great War, Colonel Levita, the Chief of the Scottish Command at that time, did not ask of my people who came to see me one thing. They were at liberty to come, and that was during the War. Here we have produced a man at the moment, a Home Secretary who is prepared to go worse than the greatest tyrants that we had during the War, when you had the blood lust on. You have a, Home Secretary now who is prepared to suppress free speech and anything in order that he may get his little, mean, paltry, point of view. I am sorry he is not here.
    "But man, proud man!
    Dress'd in a little brief authority;
    Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd,
    His glassy essence,—like an angry ape,
    Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
    As make the angels weep."
    Captain HACKING: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House said he had given the Home Secretary due warning that he was going to raise this matter this evening. I was in the House when he gave that so-called warning, and I think I am right in saying that he announced that as he had not received a satisfactory reply to his question, he would move the Adjournment of the House. That is a very different matter from saying that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Did you not think, Mr. Speaker, that I said I would raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House? You have to judge between us.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member certainly did use the words "move the Adjournment of the House." I was,
    1412
    perhaps, more accustomed to him than the Home Secretary, and I understood that he was not using the correct technical phrase. The Home Secretary does not know the hon. Member so well as I do.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That will mean that you have difficulty in understanding my accent, and that will mean that the superintendent of police in Derbyshire would also have a difficulty.
    Captain HACKING: As you, Sir, have no doubt satisfied the House that we on this side did not understand the accent of the hon. Member so well as you did, at any rate, I think no blame can be attached to the Home Secretary for not being in his place to-night. I think the most bitter enemy of the Home Secretary would never accuse him of shirking responsibility. The hon. Member has stated that this is a personal feud between himself and my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: But not on my part.
    11.0 P.M.
    Captain HACKING: There, again, if I might defend my right hon. Friend, he holds no animosity to anybody. In fact, he has a very great affection, I know, for my hon. Friend. The last thing that he would desire to see would be my hon. Friend in trouble of any kind. This particular matter to which the hon. Member desires to call the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend is in connection with a speech which he made at Clown, in Derbyshire, and he complained that, first of all, the superintendent of the police did not give him a definite reply to his letter, but preferred to send his letter on to the chief of police under whom he was serving. As far as I am aware, that is quite in order. He was quite right in sending his letter on to the chief, in order that the chief should give it a considered reply. My hon. Friend said he has received a batch of summonses. I am not aware of the number of those summonses, but I am quite sure that he will answer the summons. I am also certain that he is quite capable of putting up a very good defence, and I am quite sure he will receive a fair trial. I wish him the very best of luck, and I sincerely hope the result will be entirely satisfactory from his point of view.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Why did not you withdraw the summonses? [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) just now was championing the cause of free speech. Let us have it in this House, at any rate.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Was the interruption or interjection I made just now not a perfectly legitimate one to make?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was referring to the fact that sometimes there is a reluctance to listen to the other side of the case. I was not referring to the hon. Member.
    Captain HACKING: The hon. Member was saying that he considered it an insult that a report should be taken of the speech he made on this particular occasion. I should have thought he would rather have taken it as a compliment that a report should be taken of the speech he made.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Not by the police.
    Captain HACKING: There was one thing which I did like about the hon. Member's speech, and that was the part in which he said he was speaking more in sorrow than in anger. This is a purely personal matter between himself and my right hon. Friend. I am sure my right hon. Friend regrets very much he is not in his place to answer the questions which have been put to him. I am quite certain it is not any matter of discourtesy. The last thing he would desire would be to be discourteous to my hon. Friend. I cannot very well reply for my right hon. Friend when this is a personal matter. All I can do is to congratulate my hon. Friend on the absence of anger in his speech and to regret most sincerely his sorrow.
    Mr. CLYNES: I think that in the statement the hon. Gentleman has made he has passed over too lightly what I feel is the central ground of complaint in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). It is that he has tried to secure for himself, through the proper channels, the terms of the charge that will be preferred against him and not-withstanding what he has said as to the procedure of passing on that letter, I
    1414
    do ask my hon. Friend whether a Member of this House is not entitled to be in possession, before he enters the Court on Monday, of the terms of the charge to be preferred against him. I ask him whether he will immediately represent to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the desirability of putting those terms in the hands of my hon. Friend.
    Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend has made a perfectly reasonable request and, had notice been given to the Home Secretary, I am certain he would have been in his place to answer the points that have been raised. I will certainly represent to my right hon. Friend what the Leader of the Opposition has said, and I am quite certain that he will do his best to let the hon. Member have the nature of the charge, if it is within his power to do so.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is within my experience that the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, in his enthusiasm, is exceeding even the wide and elastic powers given to him under the Emergency Powers Regulations. Last week two meetings at which I was to speak in Derbyshire were advertised to take place on Saturday afternoon, one at 5.30 and another at 7.30. The meetings were not organised by the Communist party, but by the local miners' officers. One was to be in the Miners' Welfare Centre and the other in the Cooperative Hall. Hints were given to my friends on the spot that if I personally did not speak, or the chairman was somehow or other able to prevent me from speaking, the Chief Constable would allow the meetings to go on, but that if I should be on the spot he would put down the meetings. I would like to know whether the Emergency Powers Regulations were framed to pursue individuals for whom the Home Secretary has got a dislike for and who, rightly or wrongly, are supposed to be trying to overthrow the tyranny of the political party to which the Home Secretary belongs. Are we to use those Regulations to safeguard the position of the Conservative party and to pursue speakers who are able to expose the Conservative party's polities and the Government's tactics? I submit the the local Chief Constable, the

    1415
    same one who is now responsible for this muddle, has been going beyond his powers in sending such private hints. A Chief Constable who acts in that way is not fit to hold his position, and the sooner he is got rid of the better. At any rate, he is the last person in the world who can be trusted to act fairly in this particular case.
    Of course, no man with any self respect would pay the slightest regard to such messages, even though coming from a Chief Constable, and on Saturday morning I went to Alfreton, which is very near the place of meeting. The streets were full of police inspectors actually watching and scanning my face. I reached Alfreton at half-past eleven and at a quarter to twelve the man in charge of the Welfare. Hall was given a notice to say that the meeting was banned. Another notice was given to the secretary of the Co-operative Hall saying the meeting was banned, and within a few minutes after serving that notice a man from the police comes up and says "We have seen Saklatvala in Alfreton this morning and that is why the meeting is banned." That is a gross abuse of the powers of the Chief Constable, even under the Emergency Regulations. It is the action of a cad and a coward.
    I have submitted to this House on a previous occasion the manner in which a meeting was banned against me by the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire. He put up the proper notices in the proper places, but the Chief Constable of Derbyshire did not put up proper notices, even in the wording of the notice which banns the meeting:
    "The meeting to take place at the Co-operative Hall, speaker Mr. Saklatvala, is banned."
    That is not banning the meeting. As far as we understand the Emergency Powers, a meeting can be banned only if the Chief Constable has reason to fear that excitement will be caused by the meeting, and that power is not intended to be used as a weapon against certain persons. Not a single notice was given to the public notifying them that the meeting was to be banned and that they were not to go. The public were kept in the dark. A Turkish sultan might be ashamed of adopting such tactics. Another meeting was advertised at
    1416
    Market Hall in East Consett. There was the same position there. I would not have resented it if the Chief Constable of Nottingham had followed the general principle of banning a meeting because he thought the population would become excited. But the tactics adopted were first of all to see if I could be personally stopped from going to that meeting. Individuals were sought by the superintendents of police to see if I could be personally stopped from speaking, and as that was not done the meeting was banned under the Clause that the Chief Constable apprehended that the miners would go wrong after hearing me. He knew perfectly well that the miners would go right after hearing me. The meeting to be addressed by Saklatvala in the Market Hall was banned, but we were ready to hold an open air meeting in a place where such meetings' have been invariably held on Sunday mornings. No notice was put up to the public, but in lieu of notice, even this outdoor meeting was stopped with the distinct information that if I went out of the district the meeting could go on. Not only that, but I think word was sent to the Secretary of the Labour Club in Mansfield, and also a list containing is names. This is the black list of those whom the Chief Constable does not like. If this is the way that the Emergency Powers Act is to operate then I am very much surprised, because it seems to me that that Act was never intended to keep order but was intended to be used as a weapon by the Tory party to suppress their opponents.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am interested in this subject because I raised at Question Time yesterday a matter concerning my own constituency, and I asked the Home Secretary whether or not certain meetings which had been banned in my constituency were banned because they were held under the auspices of a particular political party. This is a subject of great interest to everyone who likes freedom of expression of political opinions. When we had those discussions two months ago I remember the Home Secretary gave an explicit pledge that the Regulations would be used only for the specific purpose of dealing with cases that had a bearing on the industrial situation, and he assured us that these Regulations would not be used in any vexatious way.

    1417
    What happened last week-end? I may say at once that, politically, I have no sympathy with the Communist party, and when I was returned to this House I was opposed by them at the Election. During last week-end a young lady who was employed in the office of the Communist party came to my constituency, and on her arrival in the district she was confronted with a notice from the Chief Constable which conveyed two intimations. One could only bear the interpretation that for the future all meetings held under the auspices of the Communist party in the county of Glamorgan in certain areas were to be banned. That is an extremely important principle, because we have an extraordinary situation developing there. My own Parliamentary agent was going to undertake a public debate first with a Communist and then with a Tory speaker. Will the House believe it, that on the day on which the debate with the Communist was to take place he was sent for by the police inspector and told that the debate with the Tory speaker was to be disallowed but the debate with the Communist was to be allowed? I never heard of anything so stupid.
    It is obvious that these Regulations are being used for purposes having no relation whatever to the original purposes of the Emergency Powers Act. I think we are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary to tell us if we are to understand that these Regulations are to be used for the precise purpose of suppressing discussion of political questions because they happen to relate to the Communist party. I say that the Communist party have every right to place its point of view before the public, and if they run counter to the law, of course, they must take the consequences. No police officer, unless he abuses the powers of the Emergency Powers Act, has a right to suppress any political party in this most unfortunate way. What is the consequence of all this? In the name of safeguarding British institutions it is sought to suppress an unpopular party, and as a consequence these people became martyrs before the public. We make them popular by suppression. I dare say they will be glad of it, but I assert that this is a piece of utter folly entirely unwarranted by the Emergency
    1418
    Powers Regulations. I, therefore, ask the Under-Secretary to give us an explicit answer as to whether these Regulations are being used for the purpose of suppressing the discussion of public questions by the Communist party, because it is the Communist party; and, further, if he has the right to suppress the Communist party, why is the Home Secretary himself going to Newport next Monday and running the same risk of creating disorder? Just as there are opponents of the Communist party in my constituency, so there are opponents of the Tory party in Newport. If we are to assume that one set of opponents will create disorder in one place, what right have we to assume that there will be peace in Newport next Monday? If the Home Secretary is to go down there and be protected, why are not Communists equally entitled to be protected?
    Captain HACKING: A specific question has been asked of me by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in connection with the banning of certain meetings. At Question Time yesterday I thought I made it clear to the hon. Member when I told him that the responsibility was given to the Chief Constable in any district to ban meetings if in his opinion to hold them would be likely to create a breach of the peace. When the hon. Member suggests that these meetings are banned in order to suppress certain political thought, he is quite wrong. It is only if the Chief Constable believes that the meetings would lead to a breach of the peace that he has the authority to stop these meetings.
    Mr. JONES: The public notice does not state it in general terms in that way, but says that meetings held under the auspices of the Communist party are to be suppressed.
    Captain HACKING: I have not seen the particular notice, but that is probably because, in the opinion of the Chief Constable, if a meeting is held under the auspices of the Communist party, it would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Whatever party was taking part in the meeting, if, in his opinion, it would be likely to lead to such a breach of the peace, he would be authorised to prevent the meeting.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is that a legitimate interpretation, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, of the Emergency Powers Regulation?
    Captain HACKING: Certainly; the Home Secretary is responsible for keeping the peace, and has authorised the Chief Constables—who are primarily responsible for this duty—that if in their opinion they consider there is likely to be a breach of the peace they must ban the meeting.
    Mr. MAXTON: They may ban a meeting, but to lay down a general policy over an area—is that a legitimate interpretation for a Chief Constable to put on the Regulation?
    Captain HACKING: A general ban has not been placed upon Communist meetings. I am getting tired of repeating that it is only when Communist meetings are likely to lead to breaches of the peace that they will be banned.
    Mr. PALING: These are not the only cases. Does the Under-Secretary say that the meetings that were stopped in the neighbourhood of Doncaster a fortnight ago, were stopped because they were likely to lead to a breach of the peace? It is sheer bunkum. The hon. Gentleman knows that they were stopped because the people belonged to this particular party. I am not a member of it and have no intention of becoming one, but they have as much right to hold meetings as anyone else, and to say that there is any fear of a row is talking utter nonsense. The trouble was that the Home Secretary was probably afraid that a bigger advertisement was being given to the case of a certain woman who was sent to prison with a nursing child. I suppose he was ashamed of the advertisement being given to that case, and tried his best to stop it and gave the Chief Constable power to stop all meetings. To say they were afraid of trouble arising is utter nonsense. I should like to ask another question. I wonder if the Home Secretary is as keen in following up people who are likely to cause trouble from the other point of view. For instance, a case was brought here a week or two ago in relation to a Judge in the Doncaster area. Here is a statement he made a few weeks back:
    1420
    "You really must not joke with these people, as afterwards the statement is taken as serious."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow an attack on Judges in the House. That can only be done on a tabled Motion.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Does that apply to expressions of opinions of a political character by Judges apart from their conduct in a legal sense in a particular case or cases?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It applies to any act of a Judge in Court.
    Mr. TAYLOR: May I take it that Members of this House have no right or opportunity of bringing before the House expressions of opinions of a political character made by a Judge in Court which are not connected with the administration of justice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is a procedure by which it can be done. It cannot be done without proper notice. That is a safeguard which the House itself has imposed over a long series of years.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is a man not entitled to read out in the House a statement made by a Judge without criticising or commenting upon it in any way—not attacking the Judge, but merely quoting the statement made by him? Surely that is so.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that could be done without notice. I must uphold the Rules of the House. It is essential that we should not have political interference with the administration of justice. There is a remedy provided by our Rules, and it must be observed.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Under-Secretary if he will tell us whether the Home Secretary has given instructions that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) shall be forbidden to speak anywhere in the country.
    Captain HACKING: As far as I know, he has not. I think I should have known it if he had done so.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Then I ask the hon. and gallant Member how he accounts for it that the hon. Member is banned?
    Mr. PALING: I do not intend to disobey any ruling of yours, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to ask, in relation to

    1421
    these cases which have been brought up during this lock-out and in relation to the lock-out, and which are causing ill-feeling and have been published in the papers, if I am not within my rights in referring to them in this House when they have been published in this way.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not in a Debate like this. It can only be done on a proper Motion properly tabled.
    Mr. PALING: I will leave it at that. I would like the Home Secretary to turn his attention to the cases on the other side. The Emergency Powers Act seems to have been used merely for the suppression of people on our side of the dispute. I would like him to turn his attention to
    1422
    the other side. I am referring not only to Judges now but to people connected with coal-owning and with the management side of the industry, who seem to be able to do almost anything they like and to say anything they like. Provided it is on their side and against the miners and the working classes generally, the Home Secretary is not interested in it and is not prepared to use the Emergency Powers Act for the prosecution of those people.
    It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 27th September.

  SUICIDE (CASES IN TWELVE MONTHS).
  SUICIDE (CASES IN TWELVE MONTHS).
  STREET BETTING (PROSECUTION).
  STREET BETTING (PROSECUTION).
  PRISON OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).
  PRISON OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).
  CORONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL (FIRES).
  CORONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL (FIRES).
  DOLGARROG DAM DISASTER.
  DOLGARROG DAM DISASTER.
EDUCATION.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
  EXPENDITURE, WELWYN GARDEN CITY.
  EXPENDITURE, WELWYN GARDEN CITY.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
COAL TRADE DISPUTE.
  POOR-LAW RELIEF.
  POOR-LAW RELIEF.
  INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, LANCASHIRE.
  INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, LANCASHIRE.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (COST).
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (COST).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  DUNDEE.
  DUNDEE.
  RELIEF WORKS.
  RELIEF WORKS.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR CONDITIONS.
  INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR CONDITIONS.
POST OFFICE.
  QUEEN VICTORIA STAMPS.
  QUEEN VICTORIA STAMPS.
  WIRELESS AND CABLE SERVICES (RECRUITMENT).
  WIRELESS AND CABLE SERVICES (RECRUITMENT).
  PENTLAND FIRTH (MAIL SERVICE).
  PENTLAND FIRTH (MAIL SERVICE).
  BRITISH ARMY (GROOMING HORSES).
  BRITISH ARMY (GROOMING HORSES).
  ROYAL NAVY (DOMINION PREMIERS' VISIT).
  ROYAL NAVY (DOMINION PREMIERS' VISIT).
SCOTLAND.
  ERIBOLL FARM.
  ERIBOLL FARM.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, WATERNISH.
  SMALL HOLDINGS, WATERNISH.
CHINA.
  CANTON (LOCAL TAXES).
  CANTON (LOCAL TAXES).
  MR. MILES LAMPSON.
  MR. MILES LAMPSON.
  WANHSIEN INCIDENT.
  WANHSIEN INCIDENT.
  BUDAPEST (PRE-WAR OBLIGATIONS).
  BUDAPEST (PRE-WAR OBLIGATIONS).
  MEXICO (BRITISH CREDITORS).
  MEXICO (BRITISH CREDITORS).
INDIA.
  BOMBAY CITY POLICE.
  BOMBAY CITY POLICE.
  COMMUNAL TROUBLES (PEACE EFFORTS).
  COMMUNAL TROUBLES (PEACE EFFORTS).
  ROAD VEHICLES BILL.
  ROAD VEHICLES BILL.
AGRICULTURE.
  SUGAR BEET SUBSIDY.
  SUGAR BEET SUBSIDY.
  TUBERCULOSIS ORDER.
  TUBERCULOSIS ORDER.
HOUSING.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  RENTS.
  RENTS.
  HOUSES COMPLETED SINCE THE WAR.
  HOUSES COMPLETED SINCE THE WAR.
POOR LAW.
  RELIEF.
  RELIEF.
  ABNORMAL EXPENDITURE.
  ABNORMAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD (MEAT PURCHASES).
  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD (MEAT PURCHASES).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  CLERICAL CLASS (RECRUITMENT).
  CLERICAL CLASS (RECRUITMENT).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (TAILORING WORK).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (TAILORING WORK).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, it is not usual to make the proceedings on the Second Reading of this Bill of any considerable length in your Lordship's House. It is customary, I think, to raise matters of detail on the Committee stage, when noble Lords answering for the various Departments are present to deal with any questions as to particular Bills which concern their Departments. I have only one or two remarks to make. Last year's Bill carried out the recommendation of the first periodical Select Committee which was set up to review the whole of this subject. It made certain laws permanent, and it continued other laws temporarily as usual. These other laws are continued again in the present Bill, with one exception. Section 3 of the National Health Insurance (Cost of Medical Benefit) Act, 1924, is no longer continued in force, since it is rendered unnecessary by certain provisions in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
Three items in the Schedule of the present Bill are bound up with legislation which is at present before Parliament. The Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1917, and the Juries Act, 1918, will be repealed by the Coroners (Amendment) Bill; and the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920, as to Part I only, will not be required should the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill pass this year. If the two Bills in question become law before the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it will be necessary to delete the items mentioned. It is, therefore, the intention of the Government to put off the Committee stage of this Bill to such a time as it is possible to foretell with greater certainty whether these two Bills in question are likely to become law before December 31. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have no comment to make on a Bill which seems to me, in its substance, right. Between now and the Committee stage we shall have opportunities of seeing whether any of these things are open to question. The Committee which revised the whole of the Schedules was a valuable Committee. It struck out things, if my memory serves me rightly, like the Militia Act, which had appeared from generation to generation and there may be more Acts which should be taken out of this annual Bill and put into substantive enactments. However, that can be considered before the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it falls to my duty to move the Second Reading of the Police Pensions Bill. It is a small Bill and consists of two very short clauses, one of which has been the subject of deliberation by a Committee. With regard to Clause 1, the police at the present time make contributions of 2½ per cent. out of their salaries towards their pensions. Sir Auckland Geddes's Committee suggested that that should be increased by another 2½ per cent. and it also added certain deductions from the rent allowances of the police. This was the cause of a good deal of anxiety among the police and a Committee was appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the whole question. The Committee reported in the sense that the deduction with regard to rent allowances should be abolished, but that the contribution towards pension should be increased to five per cent. There were a great many meetings between the police—who, I may add, behaved all through with a great deal of restraint—and the police authorities and the Home Office and an arrangement was arrived at which is practically given effect to in Clause 1 of this Bill. If the Bill is passed the rateable deductions will be at the rate in

629
future of five per cent. of the pay of the policeman. That is a comparatively simple matter and I should think your Lordships would be quite ready to agree to it as it has already met with the assent of all the various parties concerned.
With regard to Clause 2 this arises from the lamentable police strike which occurred in July, 1919. As a consequence of that strike, as your Lordships may remember, a certain number of police were dismissed from the police forces. A great many attempts were made to get these policemen restored to the forces and a Committee was appointed under Sir William Mackenzie which went very carefully into the whole matter. That Committee was appointed by Mr. Henderson in 1924. In 1919 there existed the remains of a, Police Union and this union called out the police in July of that year. Prior to that a great many warnings were issued to the police as to what would be the effect if they did not report for duty when they were called upon to do so and the men were frequently warned on parade. What happened on July 31, 1919, was that some 2,400 police absented themselves from duty without notice. This is not a very large proportion of the 60,000 who are members of our police forces. They were dismissed in accordance with the notices which had been very frequently issued to them, and there was a good deal of agitation in the House of Commons and elsewhere for their restoration.
Accordingly, the Committee to which I have referred was appointed, under the presidency of Sir William Mackenzie, and this Committee gave a very detailed account of the whole occurrence. In the special circumstances of the case and as an act of grace they made a recommendation. I think everyone was fully determined that these men should not be restored to the duty, their duty to the State, which they had deserted in contravention of the contract they had made with the State, but as far as financial considerations were concerned there, was a strong disposition to give them all the assistance possible. A great many of these men had done very good service in times past and no doubt a good many of them were misled. The
630
Committee reported in this sense: that they thought that the deductions towards pensions which had been made from their pay should, if the local police authorities after due consideration desired, be restored to them; that is to say, that the Police Pensions Act of 1921, the principal Act, should be made retrospective so as to include the time covered by the police strike. Accordingly, tinder Clause 2, if a man left the force on retiring (whether voluntarily or as an alternative to dismissal), the police authority may either pay to him the whole or any part of any rateable deductions which had been made from his pay or apply the same in such manner as they think fit for the benefit of his wife or widow or children, if any; or, in the case of men who are dismissed (and this more particularly refers to the strikers), they may in such manner as they think fit apply the whole or any part of such rateable deductions for the benefit of the wife or widow or children.
This clause does not apply to Scotland for two reasons—first, because there was no strike in Scotland, and secondly, because in Scotland there were Acts which already governed the procedure in that period, that is, between 1919 and the passing of the principal Act in 1921. I may add that the local authorities have all been approached and with only two dissentients they are quite willing to agree to the provision suggested by Clause 2. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LEAD PAINT (PROTECTION AGAINST POISONING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, this Bill, as your Lordships are well aware, is a matter which has long exercised those interested in the welfare of persons who are engaged in this industry. Owing to the poisonous effect of the lead paint, there is no doubt that it has to a certain extent damaged those who have had to use it. It is not denied for one moment

631
that there is a very large number of cases which require amelioration, and that makes the Government all the more determined, if possible, to pass this Bill into law as soon as they can. There is no doubt that the opposition to this Bill, if any, or the Amendments proposed, would be in view of the criticism that the Convention of Geneva has not been ratified. I should like to point out that in any case, even if the Geneva Convention, which in certain circumstances does not exclude the use of lead paint for interiors, were ratified, there would have to be Regulations, because the prohibition provision in this Convention of Geneva does not touch any outside painting at all, and the men engaged in the industry would certainly require the measure of protection which we hope will be afforded by Regulations under this Bill. I think it might also be stated that when a Bill was introduced in 1924 to ratify the Convention, Mr. Henderson said that in any case he would proceed with it even if the prohibition clause were struck out, as it was absolutely necessary to have Regulations.
The Government do not intend to advocate an indefinite postponement of the other and bigger question; but they say that there must be Regulations and they hope the Bill will be able to be passed before Christmas as they are absolutely necessary for the protection of those engaged in this somewhat dangerous business. In their view it would be absolutely impossible, owing to the state of public business and to the very large opposition there is in many quarters, to pass a Prohibition Bill. Therefore they would urge the House to pass this Bill which, anyhow, will make the position of the operative a great deal safer than it is at present. The workman now is not protected at all and it is high time that some measure of protection, the largest measure of protection possible in the circumstances, should be given to him. There is also this to be said, that since the discussions took place at Geneva methods such as the use of waterproof sandpapers have been devised which enable wet rubbing to be done instead of dry rubbing and that certainly would make the industry a great deal safer than it is at present. The danger arises from the dust which comes from the paint, which is chiefly caused by the
632
present practice of dry rubbing. I hope that your Lordships' House will give a Second Reading to the Bill which has passed through another place, in view of the necessity of something being done without further delay for the protection of the men engaged in this, from some points of view, deleterious industry.
I do not think I need go into all the arguments which were brought forward at Geneva. This is the position of the Government at the present time. If this Bill is not passed enabling Regulations to be made there will be nothing done to protect the workmen until some future time—I do not know how far distant it may be—when the Convention of Geneva might perhaps be ratified. I have given, I think, the principal arguments in favour of giving this Bill a Second Reading, and I hope it will be passed before Christmas. I do not think it will in any way prejudice the passing of the bigger measure later on if such is the desire of Parliament; but it is very essential that these Regulations should be brought into force if possible without delay. I do not know that it is necessary to go through the Bill: but Clause 1 provides for Regulations as to the use of lead paint and Clause 2 prohibits the employment of women and young persons in painting buildings with lead paint. Then there are clauses providing for the application of certain provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, the keeping of registers, returns, etc., the power to take samples, and so on. A great many of these clauses will no doubt be discussed in Committee. I venture to hope that your Lordships' House will now give a Second Reading to the Bill in all the circumstances of the case, and I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Lord in presenting this measure to your Lordships for Second Reading has, I hold, made out a case for what the Government is doing which is far too favourable. I think this measure ought to be scrutinised with the greatest care. The Government itself admits—the noble Lord did two or three times inferentially in his remarks—that the Bill is in the nature of a compromise. I think it was claimed in another place that it was half

633
a loaf and that it was better to have half a loaf than no bread. That is putting the case far too high, as I hope to prove to your Lordships. When the Labour Government were in office they introduced a Bill to deal with this matter which was on very different lines from this one. It is the view of the Labour Party that the use of lead paint for internal work should be prohibited altogether, and at the Convention at Geneva in 1921 this country and a great many other countries as well agreed to that—all, I think with the exception of one country. The delegate of this country was Sir Montagu Barlow, who agreed to that course being followed.
I am quite aware that the Government, in defending themselves against the charge of breaking this agreement, fell back upon the view that the vote given by Sir Montagu Barlow was a qualified vote. In fact, they rely upon this statement of Sir Montagu Barlow when he came back to this country. He did vote at this Convention in 1921 for the prohibition of lead paint in interior work, but when he came back to the House of Commons he said:—
"I felt, at the time, doubt whether, in view of the speed at which the compromise had been inevitably worked out and voted, difficulties might not arise in the future. With a caution which subsequent events have certainly justified. I explained that that vote was given solely on the basis of the compromise being a satisfactory one acceptable to all."
I am bound to say that I think it is a very strange proceeding to hold that you are not bound by a vote owing to a subsequent statement of that sort.
As I understand it, when the Convention met at Geneva there was in effect agreement by all parties concerned, substantial agreement, and it was only subsequent to the vote given by Sir Montagu Barlow that certain persons began to try to alter what had been arranged. It is noteworthy that before this vote was given and before Sir Montagu Barlow made that qualification after his return to this country, he went this far at Geneva. He said:—
"It redounds to the credit of this great Conference that we have now come to an agreement, which I understand is satisfactory to all parties, not only employers and workers, but also to the Governments concerned. Under those circumstances it would be ten thousand pities—it would be more than that; it would be a calamity—if through any technical reasons relating to
634
the quorum this Convention was not filially and legally adopted. Under these circumstances, and on the basis of this compromise, agreed to by all concerned, and in order to avoid difficulty with regard to the machinery, the British Government's vote will be passed in favour of the Convention."
Really, it seems to me that matters at Geneva would get into hopeless confusion if a delegate could go there and give the vote of his country on a very important matter, with some sort of qualification that: "I give this Note, but on the understanding that there is to be no difficulty afterwards." That neutralises the whole thing.
This brings me to the point which I am sorry to make but it is one that was made frequently in another place. The noble Lord naturally did not refer to it here, but we do regard this abrogation—that is what it comes to—of the agreement of that Convention as a serious thing, going back really as it does on our undertaking at Geneva. At any rate, that is our view of it. We say that it is not sufficient to do as this Bill does. It is not sufficient to say: "We will not prohibit the use of load paint but we propose, so far as interior work is concerned, and, to some extent" (as the noble Lord indicated), "as far as exterior works are concerned, to regulate those matters" That does really break the agreement which was come to. I think it is a very serious matter that that should be done by Great Britain, because this is the country which has often taken the lead at Geneva in matters for the improvement of industrial conditions. Therefore I cannot agree with the view put by the noble Lord that this is a sort of temporary measure and, if it does not succeed, then it will be, perfectly easy, apparently, to go and pass the Bill for total prohibition. If that could be done then it could be done now.
It is really not correct for the noble Lord to say that this Government cannot pass it. The Government has a majority of 200 in another place and of about 70 to one in your Lordships' House, and the Opposition in another place would support them in a Bill and therefore it would be an easy thing to pass it. It cannot be argued that that cannot be done. The other countries who were at Geneva in 1921 and signed this Convention were under the impression that Great Britain also had signed it and

635
when they find that, as a matter of fact, we are not carrying it out that will produce a state of things which may lead to considerable difficulty and will, I am afraid, make it, not easy later on perhaps to pass the Bill; because other countries may, after what we are doing here, perhaps themselves go back upon what was arranged at Geneva.
The noble Lord has spoken about this work which involves lead paint as deleterious and I do not think, if I may be allowed to say so, that he put the case quite as strongly as it should be put, because this lead paint poisoning is a very terrible thing. I will not go into great detail, but the statistics for some years show that there have been some hundreds of cases of lead poisoning in this country and, probably, each year perhaps forty to fifty deaths, apart from those who suffer and do not die. That, in my view, is a serious matter. I do not think the Government will deny those figures, but what they say is that these Regulations will be sufficient to stop the injury that has been done by this lead paint.
Take the pottery industry. There has been regulation with regard to the use of white lead in the pottery industry for many years—for thirteen years, I think—and yet, despite that fact, in 1923 in that industry there were forty-four cases of this lead poisoning called plumbism and eleven deaths. In 1924 there were forty-seven cases and eighteen deaths; in 1925, forty-seven cases, but I have not the number of deaths for that year. I believe, however, that this year in one works alone there were three cases of lead-poisoning and that one has been fatal. Therefore, it does appear that the Regulations are not sufficient and these facts very much enforce the case for total prohibition for which we in the Labour Party stand. I know it may be suggested that where white lead is actually manufactured lead-poisoning does not occur. I believe that is so, but I understand that the conditions are different when you are producing this lead in masses and where many scores of workmen are engaged. In those cases the Regulations, I believe, can to a large extent be made effective, but it is a very different thing when you are dealing with scattered workers, with two or three working in one place. Therefore,
636
I am afraid that this Bill will not prove effective and, although I quite admit that the total number of persons who may get lead-poisoning in relation to the total population is small, yet it is a very terrible thing for those who do suffer and a very sad thing that there are those deaths, the figures of which I have given.
I do feel that it is a great pity the Government have not stood firm by the Convention of 1921. They would not, as I have already stated, have the smallest difficulty in getting that Bill through the House. I will not go into the technical questions involved, even if I were competent to do so, such as whether the process of wet-rubbing is as satisfactory as the noble Lord says. I am informed it is not and that probably it would do little or nothing to mitigate the evil. However, in Committee, we may have an opportunity of discussing those points in detail. I have ventured, I hope not at too great length, to put the point of view of the Labour Party and I repeat my regret that the measure has come before us in this very minor form and that it does not give full confirmation to what we agreed to in 1921.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, there is only one point on which I wish to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Arnold has said. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, did so in a very conciliatory speech ant said that the Government had not lost sight of the larger question, by which I assume he meant prohibition in accordance with the Geneva Resolution. That is quite right. The Bill, as far as it goes, will make things better, and I assume that it represents what the Government consider to be the minimum required for safety. It is upon that that the question which is in my mind arises.
Women are not to be allowed to work at the industry, even on the new footing on which this Bill proposes to put it. I have some reason to suppose that a noble Lord on the other side of the House may draw attention to this when we come to the Committee stage and, in anticipation of his doing so, I shall be glad if the Government would give us a little more information than they have given us at the present time on the question why women are supposed to be more susceptible to plumbism than men.

637
I have read, of course, the statements made in the House of Commons by the chief medical officer and others who took part in the discussion but those were very general statements and very vague. Nothing has impressed me more for a long time than the danger of accepting perfectly general medical statements of this kind without reasons being given and without reasons which have been investigated being given, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that before this Bill comes into Committee he should be prepared to give us in some detail the reasons for which it is said that plumbism is a greater danger to women than it is to men.
What I want to get at is the general thesis that women are more susceptible to this than are men. I confess that I am sceptical on the subject and I would like to know the scientific grounds by which the statements to that effect have been supported. I assume that the Government have made some inquiry into this. It may be that they cannot give us the information within the time that will elapse before the Committee stage is reached, but I think they really ought to refer a question of this kind to the body that is there to undertake such investigation, I mean the Committee of Civil Research. It is a crying question on the part of women why they should be treated differentially on any occasion and you have to justify it on every occasion that you do it. It has not been justified on this occasion except by vague statements, I know not on what foundation, and I therefore would be glad if the noble Lord would do two things—(1), give us such scientific information as the Government possess in favour of the exclusion of women from this industry; and (2), consider the question of referring what doubtless is a very obscure scientific matter to the Committee of Civil Research or some other body, in order that we may get definite knowledge on the subject. I think that by doing so not only would he help us but relieve himself from a series of attacks which are not likely to cease for some time to come.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I was glad to hear what fell from the noble and learned Viscount opposite because I was going to state my intention of moving an Amendment when we get to
638
the Committee stage that that part of Clause 2, which prohibits the employment of women in painting, should be dropped and that that exclusion should be omitted from the Bill. I know there are certain medical reasons, which really have become almost a dogma in the medical profession, that women are more susceptible than men, and I would like to reinforce what the noble and learned Viscount said and to ask that we should be told quite definitely what inquiry has been made into that particular subject and on what authority the statement is made, for unless it can be really substantiated very definitely I hope your Lordships will insist that this prohibition be taken out of the Bill. I am quite aware that the prohibition is put in with the very best intention of protecting the women who are engaged in this dangerous trade, but that sort of protective legislation in my opinion nearly always does a great deal more harm than good because it only means that women are prevented from profitable occupation. It means that women's labour is forced to remain unorganised, and it prevents women attaining in industry a position which I think, both from the point of view of men and women, it would be much better they should occupy. The Committee stage is perhaps a better moment for developing the argument, and therefore I content myself by saying that I wish to put down an Amendment.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMPERIAL FAST SHIP SCHEME.
LORD MORRIS LORD MORRIS had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the Imperial fast ship scheme, consisting of seven new large 22-knot ships of a type which does not now exist, for a new service between Britain and Australia, via India and Ceylon, for the carriage of mails, passengers, refrigerated and general cargo; whether in view of the important advantages which are claimed that the new service could offer for inter-Imperial trade not only between Britain and Australia but between Britain and India, and between Australia and India, careful attention will be given (or has been

639
given) to the project by the Imperial Government; whether he has seen the public announcement by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Stanley Bruce, that "the success of the new scheme would depend upon the co-operation of the Imperial and other Dominion and Colonial Governments concerned," he can assure the House of the Imperial Governments co-operation.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morris I beg to ask the Question which stands on the Paper in his name.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, my noble friend the Secretary of State for India has asked me to apologise for his absence this afternoon which is caused by an important Cabinet Committee which he had to attend. He asked me to explain that he is not in a position to add anything to the statement made two days ago by the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs in another place in reply to a rather similar question. That
640
reply was to the effect that this question is under consideration by a Committee of the Imperial Conference and therefore His Majesty's Government, while following the course of the discussion with the closest attention, is not in a position to make any statement at present.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, before we adjourn I would like to suggest, if your Lordships will allow me, that we might have a sitting on Tuesday. I understand there is a little formal business to be put down and also the Government hope it may be possible to take the first Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill that day. That will be, I imagine, a formal stage, as it usually is in your Lordships' House, but it will enable us to get on with the Bill.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.