Sitting of 30 November 1926

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

  FOUNDLING HOSPITAL SITE (COVENT GARDEN MARKET)
  Miss WILKINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received applications for the removal of the Covent Garden market to the site of the Foundling Hospital; and whether, in view of the fact that there is no adequate open space in this crowded neighbourhood and that this land has been dedicated to the use of children for over 200 years, he will withhold his consent?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has not received any application in this matter, but he observes that notice has now been given for a Private Bill, and the matter will therefore come before Parliament.
  Mr. SMITH ERS: Will the hon. Member or the Government use any influence or powers which they may possess, to see that the University of London have the option of purchasing this site?
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that the University of London considered this site for some time, and declined it?
  Miss WILKINSON: Will the hon. Member's Department give full consideration to the fact that this is a very crowded area, and that there are no playgrounds for children within acres of this particular place?
  Sir K. WOOD: No doubt my right hon. Friend will have regard to that and other relevant facts.
  Commander BELLARS: Will the Minister of Health consider, with the Minister of Transport, when the time comes, the alternative of allowing railway companies to own the fruit markets?
  Sir K. WOOD: That is rather wide of the question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TOBACCO, CIGARETTES AND MATCIIES (PRICES).
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that since the inquiry under the Profiteering Acts in 1919–20 into the prices and profits from tobacco, cigarettes, and matches, the wages and salaries of consumers have been reduced by several hundred million pounds per annum; that the profits from the manufacture of these articles are very high; that the cost of production has been considerably reduced; and will he say what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to see that the prices of these articles are reduced, at least in accordance with the decrease in the official cost-of-living figures since 1919–20?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on the 10th November last. I know no means of securing that the prices of individual commodities shall vary in accordance with either the collective incomes of consumers or with the general cost-of-living figure. I do not think that either of those standards could reasonably be used to determine the proper price of individual commodities without regard to the particular conditions of production and distribution and, I may add, taxation in each case.
    Mr. LUNN: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer which I received a week or two ago, which related to an inquiry which had taken place in 1920? Does he agree that the conditions of the consumers to-day are similar, financially, to what they were in 1920?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have looked very carefully at the answer given

    987
    to the hon. Member, which addressed itself, not to the financial position of the consumer but to the rate of taxation charged in that particular industry. As the hon. Member knows, the great bulk of the cost of tobacco, unfortunately, goes into taxation, and that has not been reduced.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that last week one of the leading tobaccos was raised in price?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. Perhaps the hon. Member will find an Empire tobacco, and support it.

    FOOD COUNCIL.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce legislation giving further powers to the Food Council?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

    SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES (GUARANTEED CREDITS).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for guaranteed credits for the building of additional beet-sugar factories have been received this year; and whether, in view of the fact that the full sugar subsidy is now drawing to a close, it is proposed to grant under the Trade Facilities Act any such further guarantees?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Three applications have been received other than those referred to in my answer to the hon. Member on the 9th November. The answer to the second part of the question is that the point is, I understand, under consideration by the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee.

    BLAST FURNACES (OUTPUT).
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will obtain figures from His Majesty's representatives abroad showing the output of blast furnaces in America, France, Belgium, Germany, and this country during 1925?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information desired by the hon. Member
    988
    will be found in the current issue of the Board of Trade Journal at page 555.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPS (CONVERSION TO OIL-BURNING).
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships which have changed from burning coal to oil since the War, together with the tonnage of such vessels; if he can give the number and tonnage of ships built since 1918, together with the number and tonnage, respectively, of those built to burn coal and oil; and can he give the same particulars for ships now under construction?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a rather long one, and the hon. Member will perhaps agree to its circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of men displaced by the turnover from coal to oil?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question. I do not know, off-hand, whether there is any formula which can be applied. I very much doubt whether I can give him even an approximate figure. If he kill put down a question, I will see whether there are any figures.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the figures those vessels which have been reconverted to coal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that. I am not sure whether the figures are available perhaps the hon. Member will look at the answer when it is circulated. There are a great many figures in the answer. If he wants any supplementary figures, I will see if I can get them.
    Following is the answer to the first Question:
    I find from the Annual Report for 1925–26 issued by Lloyd's Register of Shipping that, in July, 1919, the gross tonnage of steamers of 100 tons and over fitted for burning oil fuel was 5,336,678, and that the corresponding figure for July, 1926, was 18,243,539. The latter figure represents the tonnage of 3,576 vessels, including a number in which the

    989
    oil-burning equipment can be readily replaced on occasion by coal-burning fittings. I am unable to give the corresponding number for July, 1919, or the number and tonnage of the vessels in which a change of fittings may have been made during the period between the dates specified. The number of motor ships, including auxiliary screw vessels, which was 912 of 752,606 gross tons in July, 1919, rose to 2,343 of 3,493,284 gross tons in July, 1926, the increase being mainly due to new construction.
    The Report in question also shows that the vessels built to Lloyd's class during the seven years included 6,487,412 gross tons built to be propelled by the medium of coal only, and 8,567,512 gross tons for oil fuel, including 1,642,442 gross tons of motor ships. The figures available relating to the totals of vessels constructed during the earlier years of the period are not exhaustive, but not less than 7,000 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of somewhat over 22,500,000 gross tons were built. Of 477 vessels of 1,850,697 gross tons reported as under construction on 30th September, 171 vessels of 869,509 gross tons were motor-ships. I am, however, unable to state either the number or the tonnage of the steam vessels which are intended for propulsion by means of oil fuel.

    AUSTRALIAN CARGO TRADE.
    Colonel PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade if the attention of his Department has been called to the difficulties in connection with the chartering of ships for the Australian cargo trade; and whether, in that case, he can take any action to adjust matters with the object of avoiding loss of tonnage to British shipping?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the differences which have arisen between shippers and shipowners in this trade. I understand that one matter, relating to the appointment of shipping agents, remains in dispute. I share the hon. Member's hope that this dispute may be speedily settled by mutual agreement; but I do not think the Board of Trade could usefully intervene.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statistics show that foreign ships are getting into the Australian trade more than they did in the past?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That does not arise out of the question, but if notice is given, I will see what statistics there are.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PENSION'S DISALLOWED.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for War why pension has been refused in the case of Gertrude Phyllis Harrison, widow of the late John Percival Andrew Harrison, Sergeant, No. 1020803, Royal Tank Corps, and her three children under six years of age; whether he is aware that the late Sergeant Harrison enlisted as a boy on 3rd January, 1912, and died in the Military Hospital, Shorncliffe Camp, on 30th January, 1925, the cause of death being pneumonia; that Dr. John J. Proctor, late medical officer in charge of troops, Lydd Camp, certified that in his physical condition Harrison had no chance of recovery from the onset of the pneumonia and that his previous state was entirely due to his service and serious wounds incurred in the Great War; that Lieut.-Colonel W. Shannon, commanding officer, 3rd Battalion Royal Tank Corps, submitted to the court of inquiry a statement detailing the service of Sergeant Harrison overseas, noting that he had been wounded three times, once severely, and added that prior to his decease he was employed on company training at Lydd, during which period the weather was very cold, and it is possible that he contracted a chill, leading to pneumonia, through sudden exposure to the cold air whilst proceeding from one tank to another tank, the temperature in the tanks being very heated; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, he will reconsider the decision to refuse pension?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The facts of this case have already been fully considered not only by the War Office, but also by the Ministry of Pensions and the Appeal Tribunal, and I regret that there are no grounds for reconsidering the decision that the grant of a pension is not admissible.
    Mr. GARDNER: Is it not now the policy of the War Office to refuse to acknowledge any pensions in all cases of chest troubles?
    Captain KING: No. Each case is considered on its merits.

    INVALIDING BOARDS (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued to invaliding medical boards with regard to accepting tuberculosis of the lungs, pneumonia, and other chest complaints as due to service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Instructions as to the circumstances in which disabilities will be regarded as attributable to military service, are contained in paragraph 220 of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Army, 1923, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War if a man in receipt of pension for a post-War disability receives treatment allowances for himself and family when admitted into hospital for treatment of his disability; and, if not, whether any provision is made for the maintenance of the family while the man is undergoing treatment?
    Captain KING: Treatment allowances are not paid when a post-War disability pensioner is admitted to hospital. But he continues to draw his pension during his treatment, and it is the custom of the Department to waive any claim against that pension in respect of the cost of his maintenance while in hospital.

    UNDERGROUND SHELTERS (VENTILATION EXPERIMENT).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he can make a statement as to the object of the recent action of his Department in sending a company of soldiers into the London postal tube and keeping them there for a number of hours?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The experiment was designed to furnish data regarding the ventilation required under certain conditions in underground shelters, such as dug-outs.
    Mr. THURTLE: Was it undertaken with a view to finding out information for the provision of shelter for the civilian population in the event of air-raids?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not exclusively. Both the military and the civil population will be subject to somewhat the same conditions. The experiments were intended to provide some information with respect to ventilation.

    RECRUITS (BOYS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of lads under 18 recruited for the Army during the six months ended 31st October last?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: 962 were recruited as boys.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these lads fully understand the nature of the calling?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes; the bulk of them were being trained at Chepstow for the tradesmen classes in the Army. Some were drummer boys, and I think every drummer boy knows what his calling is.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITS).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Secretary of State for War the number of recruits who have enlisted in the Territorial Army during November and December, 1925, and each month during 1926?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    Number of recruits who have enlisted in the Territorial Army during November and December, 1925, and during the months January to October, 1926:

    November, 1925

    …

    …

    1,846

    December, 1925

    …

    …

    1,632

    January, 1926

    …

    …

    1,883

    February, 1926

    …

    …

    3,476

    March, 1926

    …

    …

    4,507

    April, 1926

    …

    …

    4,005

    May, 1926

    …

    …

    3,146

    June, 1926

    …

    …

    3,955

    July, 1926

    …

    …

    2,872

    August, 1926

    …

    …

    930

    September, 1926

    …

    …

    1,263

    October, 1926

    …

    …

    1,167

  SCOTLAND.

    FARM WORK(CHILD EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has given his approval to a by-law of the Kincardine-shire Education Authority permitting children of 10 years of age to be employed in farm work?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The answer is in the negative. The position is that the Kincardineshire Education Authority applied to my right hon. Friend for sanction to the deletion from their by-laws for the employment of children of the minimum age at present laid down therein for seasonal employment, namely, 12 years. Aster correspondence with the authority, he intimated that he would, in view of the considerations which they urged, be prepared, with reluctance, to sanction a by-law prescribing a minimum age of 10 years for seasonal employment subject to review in the event of advertisement of the proposed by-law revealing a. serious body of objection to it. The proposed amendment of the by-laws will now require to be advertised with an intimation that objections may be addressed to my right hon. Friend within 30 days by any person affected.
    Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand that the reply is not in the negative, but in the affirmative, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to sanction the employment of children of 10 years of age, provided there is no local objection raised?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think there is any quibble in it. The question is, whether he has given his authority, and the answer is that he has not given his authority. It is conditional on there being no objection to the proposed alteration.
    Mr. MAXTON: If there is no objection raised locally, he will give it?
    Mr. R. MORRISON: With respect to the last words in the answer, which say that objection will only be considered from people whose interests will be affected, will the Lord Advocate say exactly how far that limits the class of persons who may object?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: It is clear that any person affected may object.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the Lord Advocate say whether the Government are agreeable that the same principle that is now laid down may be applied to the Government's signature to the Washington Convention?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter.

    ERIBOLL ESTATE (SALE).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the Report of the arbiter for the sheep-stock valuations at Eriboll, and whether he will place in the Library, for the information of hon. Members interested, copies of the missives of sale under which the Board of Agriculture purchased the estate and farm of Eriboll and copies of the missives of sale under which the Board sold the estate and farm of Eriboll?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend does not consider it necessary to take the course suggested. He has already undertaken to give the hon. and gallant Member the result of the arbiter's award when it has been made.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely, if this House is responsible for the administration of this estate, we have a right to know the terms upon which the transaction has been concluded? Further, why has the arbiter not reported before now in view of the fact that he made his valuation on 14th October—more than six weeks ago? Why is there all this concealment and delay?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I am net aware that there has been any concealment at all. Of course my right hon. Friend would he answerable to this House for sanctioning the sale, and he has already stated that as soon as the transaction was completed, he would be prepared to answer any questions upon it. That was his answer to a supplementary question on 16th November last.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman said he would answer any questions, but cannot we have the actual terms of the transaction upon which we can put questions? There is no use putting questions if nobody has the facts.

    HOUSING SCHEME, GLASGOW (WAGES).
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON (for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the present wages rate per hour of the labourers employed on the Sandy Hills housing scheme, Toll-cross, Glasgow, is the rate paid in the building trade or civil engineering; if the latter, which class or grade are they classified in; and whether he can state the classification or grade and rate of pay per hour for similar work in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The rate paid for unskilled surface work is 1s. 1d. per hour. Labourers engaged on the more skilled work of laying and jointing pipes are paid an additional 2½d. per hour. The civil engineering rate for Glasgow is 1s. ld. per hour, and for Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, ls. 3½ per hour.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are three firms operating on this particular scheme, and that one firm alone—Messrs. Weir's firm—is paying ls. ld. per hour, while the other two firms, namely, the Atholl firm and the Cowieson firm, are paying Is. 3½d. an hour for the same labour; and will he undertake to look into this question and see that the Fair Wages Clause is observed?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer is that I Personally am not aware of it, but I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the question.
    Mr. KELLY: From what source has the Lord Advocate obtained his information that the civil engineering rate for Glasgow is the figure stated by him?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I got that information where I get all such information—from the Office. If the hon. Member desires any more details I shall ask him to give notice of a further question.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that no rates have been fixed by the civil engineering industry for any part of Scotland?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir, I am not Personally aware of it.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAMWAYS AND OMNIBUSES (PASSENGERS' FACILITIES).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consult the Traffic Advisory Committee with a view to arranging for the tramway and omnibus authorities in London adopting the Parisian system, which enables passengers in the order of their arrival at busy stopping places to hoard tramcars and omnibuses by the use of numbered tickets affixed to lamp standards?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Consideration has been given to the suggestion that the system in vogue in Paris whereby passengers boarding omnibuses and tramcars do so in the order of numbered tickets obtained from lamp standards at the various stopping places, but I am inclined to the conclusion that this system will not suit London conditions. As a practical objection, it would have the effect of slowing down both omnibuses and tramcars very considerably.
    Mr. GARDNER: Surely the right hon. Gentleman and his Department have not made many observations in regard to this system. Is he aware that there is no slowing down where it is in operation, and that under the present system with the great congestion of passengers, the aged and the infirm have to go to the wall. What objection can there be, in view of the fact that the police will not permit queuing up at busy tram stopping places?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The conditions in London are not the same as the conditions in Paris. The lay-out of Paris is very different from that of London. In the case of London, generally, there are many instances IA here omnibuses and tramways of several routes have common stopping places, and there would be very considerable confusion and certainly delay.
    Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an experiment in some busy place?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that suggestion.
    Colonel DAY: Several routes have a common stopping place in Paris.
    Colonel ASHLEY: My answer is that the lay-out in London is very different from that of Paris.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the traffic in Paris moves considerably quicker than the traffic in London?
    Mr. GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an experiment at Hammersmith Broadway, where people have to tight for omnibuses and trams on cold and wet nights?

    BISHOP'S CASTLE RAILWAY.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the permanent way, bridges and rolling stock of the Bishop's Castle (Salop) Railway; when this line was last examined; and is he satisfied that adequate public safety is assured to passengers travelling on this line?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been informed by the manager of this railway that fresh passenger and goods vehicles have recently been purchased; that a considerable section of the line has recently been inlaid, and that, in his opinion, the line is at present in a better condition than it has been for many years. I have no reason to suppose that public safety is not adequately secured.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the metalling of the line has worn away to half the normal gauge, and will he ask the manager to look into the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The manager informs me that he considers the public safety is adequately safeguarded, but if the lion. Member desires it, I will draw his attention to the specific question he has raised.

    NEW ROAD SCHEMES.
    Captain STREATFIELDasked the Minister of Transport how many new road construction schemes have been authorised by his Department during the current financial year, and, of these, how many involve grants of over £250,000 and £500,000, respectively?
    Colonel ASHLEY: 59 new road and bridge construction schemes (mainly diversions of existing roads) have been authorised by this Department during the current financial year. None if these involves a grant of over £250,000.

    TOLL BRIDGES.
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELERasked the Minister of Transport how many bridges there are connecting up first or second class roads in England on which tolls are charged, and what are the maximum tolls charged on such bridges on motor cars and other classes of traffic?
    Colonel ASHLEY: According to returns made by highway authorities two years ago, there were then in England 24 toil bridges on Class I roads and 20 on Class II roads. The highest toll for private motor cars was 2s. 6d. and the lowest 2d. Owing to the complete want of uniformity in the classification of vehicles and traffic adopted on different toll bridges, it is not practicable to state the maximum tolls for every category of traffic. Some of the schedules include calashes, barouches and other unfamiliar forms of transport. The complete tabular returns, which are somewhat Voluminous, are deposited in my Department, and I will gladly give every facility to my hon. and gallant Friend to consult them.
    Sir G. WHELER: If the local authority which has charge of these bridges puts forward a reasonable scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making a contribution from the Road Fund so that the bridge may be made free for vehicular and other traffic?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, that is one of the powers given me by the Act of 1925, but as far as I can remember no definite proposal has been put to me by a local authority. If they do, I will certainly consider them, and also the particular instance which the hon. and gallant Member has, I think, in mind.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that in fixing the price at which these toll bridges are to be acquired he will see that the purchase price is not fixed on unreasonable tolls, wherever they are charged, that they will not be used in such a way as to extort an unreasonable price for purchase from public funds?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I never give Parliamentary pledges; they are most undesirable things. But I will scrutinise any agreement arrived at between a local authority and the owners before I give a grant.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one case a local authority submitted proposals for a bridge built 125 years ago at a cost of £12,000, which was to he acquired for £130,000?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; the proposal has not yet come officially before me.

    ARTERIAL ROAD, CHERTSEY.
    Sir W. de FRECE (for Sir NEWTON MOORE)asked the Minister of Transport the present position of the scheme for the arterial road to Chertsey; and whether he is now able to justify the hope expressed to a delegation of local authorities which he received on 25th May, namely, that work on the road would probably he commenced by October. 1027?
    Colonel ASHLEY: A section of he new Chertsey Road in Chiswick is already completed, including the bridge over the railway—to all of which works assistance has been given from the Road Fund. Elsewhere land acquisition is in progress, but as far as actual works are concerned, I can take no decision until the Report of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London has been presented and considered.

  POST OFFICE.

    IMPERIAL PENNY POST.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to re-introduce penny postage in this country and throughout the Empire?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I regret that I am not in a position to make any forecast on the subject.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the Postmaster-General say whether this question was considered at the Imperial Conference?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I must have notice of that.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman throughout his speech was very ambiguous, because he said that. it was relegated to the dim background of the future.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to saying whether this matter was the subject of discussion at the imperial Conference?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: None whatever, but I must have notice.

    PRINTED PAPER: (BULK RATES).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received representations regarding the weight of parcels containing printed papers which are sent overseas; and whether he proposes to increase the maximum weight from 5 lbs. to 1bs?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The 5 lb. limit of weight fixed for packets of printed papers sent to other parts of the Empire is already greater than the limit of 2 kilogrammes prescribed for the International Service generally by the Postal Union Convention; and there are serious difficulties in any general extension of the limit. Arrangements are, however, in existence whereby newsagents can, under certain conditions, send bags of printed matter paid at bulk rates of postage direct from their premises to their agents in various parts of the Empire, and I have had these facilities brought to the notice of the firms possibly concerned in the representations to which my hon. Friend refers.

    PARCEL POST.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Postmaster-General the number of foreign countries which only accept parcels weighing a maximum of 11 lbs., and the names of the Dominions, Crown Colonies, and Protectorates a hick limit them to the same weight?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The limit of weight is still 17 lb. for postal parcels sent from Great Britain to 10 foreign countries and their colonies, and to certain colonial possessions and two other countries. The same limit is in force in the case of Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia and eleven other British possessions.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Would my right hon. Friend say whether efforts are being made to induce these countries to accept. parcels up to 22 lbs. weight?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The difficulty arises from the fact that certain of these countries are not able to deal with parcels of this size.

    CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Post-master-General the number of parcels

    1001
    carried to date under the cash-on-delivery system, and the number refused for nonpayment?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of inland cash-on-delivery parcels posted up to the 20th November is approximately 632,000. No later figures are available. About 14,000 have been undeliverable for various reasons, including that of non-payment. It is not possible to say how many were undeliverable for this reason alone.

    BETTING DUTY (TELEGRAMS AND TELEPHONES).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Postmaster-General if there is any diminution in the Volume of telegraphic and telephonic business dealing with betting matters since the introduction of the Betting Tax; arid, if so, whether he will state to what extent?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no data upon which to form any precise estimate as to the effect of the Betting Duty upon the Volume of telegraph or telephone traffic. There has been no noticeable effect upon the telegraph or telephone revenue.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one firm alone has discontinued over 80 telephones, and whether he will ascertain the loss of revenue and the increase of lawlessness and confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member did not catch the last sentence of my reply, which was "there has been no noticeable effect upon the telegraph or telephone revenue."
    Sir C. RAWSON: If I bring some evidence to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he consider it?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, but I must remind the hon. Member That this is only an infinitesimal fraction of the whole.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions how many meetings of the
    1002
    Special Grants Committee have been held since 1st April. 1926; what was the time spent on the work of the Committee by the permanent civil servants who are members of the Committee; and what arrangements are made to carry on their work in their respective departments?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The Special Grants Committee and its sub-committees have met on 42 occasions since 1st April last. I am unable to state the amount of time spent on the work by the two permanent civil servants who are members of the Committee, but it has nut necessitated any arrangements of a different kind from those which are usually made when civil servants are called upon to serve on Committees.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT, WEST RIDING,
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Pensions if he has been informed that the West Riding County Council is prepared to reduce the charges made in respect of sanatorium treatment of children of War widows and disabled men if the Ministry of Pensons will re duce the deduction of 50 per cent. taken from the pensions of the children while under treatment in a sanatorium; and whether he will consider the desirability of entering into an arrangement with the local authorities, so that in every case the parent shall receive not less than 3s. a week of the child's allowance or pension, after the Ministry deduction and the contribution to local charges is paid, for the purchase of boots, clothing, etc., and the payment of fares and incidental expenses when visiting a child in a sanatorium?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am aware that the suggestion referred to in the first part of the question has been made. The reduction by one-half of the child's allowance in such cases is, however, imposed under the terms of the Royal Warrant because more than one-half of the cost of the child's maintenance in the sanatorium is provided from State funds other than those administered by the Ministry of Pensions. I should have no authority to make such arrangements as are suggested by the hon. Member in the last part of the question.

  CLAIMS (CULTIVATION IN BRITISH WATERS).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department could afford advice as to any sections of the British coast being found suitable for the introduction on commercial lines of the trans-Atlantic shellfish known as the clam?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Ministry has no practical experience of the cultivation of clams. The American clam does exist in British waters, and I shall be glad to arrange an interview between my hon. Friend and our shell fishery experts, who will give him what information they have on the subject.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: If that is the fact, with tens of thousands of Americans Colning here during the season would it not be worth while to develop this delicacy on a commercial basis?
  Mr. GUINNESS: We have no information as to the commercial possibilities. Our information is only from a biological point of view. If the hon. Member would like to visit a district where they are available, he could no doubt sample them.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I remind my right hon. Friend that I have learnt from Washington that it is perfectly possible to grow this delightful bivalve here, and may I bring him information on the subject?
  Mr. SEXTON: Can the right bon. Gentleman inform us, in case he establishes these clams, that they will not be subjected to the Merchandise Marks Act?
  Mr. GUINNESS: It is proposed that they shall be established in British waters, and there is no question of the compulsory marking of home products.
  Commander WILLIAMS: Is it not better to let the Americans know the very much higher quality and value of British shell fish?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: They are not in season in the summer.

  TAXI-CABS (WEATHER SCREENS).
  Mr. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  1004
  whether, in view of the danger to health from cold and wet due to the insufficient protection afforded to taxicab drivers by the present inefficient glass screens, he will consider amending the Regulations so as to allow glass screens to extend from the floor to the roof in front of taxi-cab drivers, provided a mechanical squeegee cleaner is fixed to the glass in front of the taxi-cab drivers using such extended screen?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): My right hon. Friend sympathises with this suggestion, but is advised that the risks involved to the public would be too great.

  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS (PASSENGER STATISTICS).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air how many persons have been carried by Imperial Airways during the past 14 months and the approximate number carried by the civil plane services of Germany during the same period?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The number of passengers carried by Imperial Airways, Limited, during the year ended 31st October, 1926, was 16,635. I regret that no information is available in regard to the numbers of passengers carried by German civil air services during the corresponding period.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Ls it not a fact that the number carried by the Germans is far in excess of ours?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I have not the information.

  STATE-AIDED SCHOOLS (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the President of the Board of Education whether opportunities are given to children in the State-aided schools for acquiring a knowledge of foreign languages; and which languages are they enabled to learn?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Yes, Sir, French is taught in a number of central schools, and, in a few such schools, German and Spanish are taught. In secondary schools French has a regular place in the curriculum, and some secondary schools provide for the study of German, and, to a lesser extent, of Spanish, Italian and Russian. The importance of a knowledge of the spoken, as well as of the written, language is not overlooked, and a pass in at least one foreign language is required for a pass in the first schools examination. Further, in evening classes, in commercial schools and in the commercial and language departments of polytechnics and technical schools, young persons who have left School have opportunities for studying languages, those principally taught in these schools being French, German, Spanish and Italian. For fuller details I would refer my hon. Friend to Table 98 of the Board's Statistics of Public Education, 1920–21, and to Table 103 of the corresponding Volume for 1924–25.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  Sir G. WHELERasked the Attorney-General the number of advisory committees where the members are not subject to election or re-election for six years; and why it is not possible to apply the principle of election to all advisory committees at once?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The members of 253 advisory committees in England and Wales, excluding Lancashire, and in Scotland are not yet subject to reappointment by the Lord Chancellor at a fixed date, but it is his intention to apply the system to those committees as and when an opportunity is afforded by the occurrence of vacancies or in some other way. If the system were applied to all the committees at once, it would be necessary to dissolve the existing committees and to make exhaustive inquiries as to the persons to be appointed in their place, and the Lord Chancellor does not consider that this course is necessary or desirable.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the right
  1006
  hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) is eligible for re-election to any of these committees?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot say, as I do not know.
  Sir G. WHELERasked the Attorney-General with whom rests the power of election or re-election of members of county and borough advisory committees for the recommending of persons suitable to become Justices of the Peace?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The power of appointing or reappointing members of county and borough justices' advisory committees rests solely with the Lord Chancellor, and in Lancashire with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been informed of the result of the most recent of all elections at Hull?
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Lord Chancellor receives nominations from individuals, from individual Justices of the Peace or Benches of Magistrates, or from organisations for these appointments?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must have notice of that question. I am only answering for the Home Office.

  ARBITRATION (GREAT BRITAIN AND HOLLAND).
  Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer has been given to the proposal for all in arbitration recently received from Holland?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): At the time when the proposal was received for an extension of the arbitration arrangements the Netherlands Minister was informed that His Majesty's Government would prefer to renew the existing Convention for a period of five years, but with the substitution of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague for the Permanent Court of Arbitration as the tribunal to which disputes were to be referred.
  Mr. SMITH: Do I understand that there was a definite offer made by the Government of Holland for arbitration?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I practically said so in my answer.

  CHINA (RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR).
  Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the ambassador appointed by the Soviet Government to succeed M. Karakhan in China has been prevented from proceeding beyond Harbin; and whether His Majesty's Government has made any protest against his being refused admission to China?
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is this question in order? It concerns two foreign Powers, and does not concern us at all.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The last part, which asks "whether His Majesty's Government has made any protest," brings it into order.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no official information confirming the alleged incident, which would in any case constitute no occasion for intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government.

  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (UNIFORMS).
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health what action has been taken by his Department with a view to abolishing uniform for inmates of Poor Law institutions in favour of ordinary clothing?
  Sir K. WOOD: There is no law or rule requiring the clothing supplied by guardians to inmates of Poor Law institutions to be uniform, and the attention of the guardians has, from time to time, been drawn to the absence of need for uniformity, either in colour or material, in the clothing provided for the inmates of the institutions. They have been advised that clothing of inmates absent on leave from the workhouse should not he in any way distinctive or conspicuous in character.
  Colonel DAY: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether any of the Poor Law institutions have allowed the inmates to wear their own dress?
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.
  Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that Luton has already allowed the inmates to wear their own suits or dresses?
  Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman says so, I am prepared to accept the statement.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other institutions which are maintained by public subscription, such as the Quarriews Homes in Scotland, provide ordinary clothing?
  Sir K. WOOD: I cannot answer any question relating to Scotland.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    LEGISLATION.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Prime Minister if he will state his intentions regarding any further legislation in connection with the dispute in the coal industry?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to a Private Notice Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Lewes Division.
    Mr. PALING: Mar I ask whether any decision not to proceed with other legislation with regard to mining, has been reached because the legislation already passed this year has been of such a calamitous character?

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. (ARREARS OF CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. LUNN(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the long continued stoppage in the mining industry and the general state of trade, he will extend the period for the payment of arrears of contributions under the National Health Insurance Act from 30th November to 31st December or some later date?
    Sir K. WOOD: In view of the coal dispute and consequent unemployment in various trades, my right hon. Friend has already decided that arrears may be accepted up to 31st January, 1927, in cases where a society is satisfied that the delay in discharging arrears is due to

    1009
    financial difficulty arising out of the industrial situation. This decision is being conveyed to all approved societies.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (NAVAL EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister, if, in taking note of the warning of the Admiralty that considerable increases in naval expenditure would be necessary in the future, the Imperial Conference considered ways and means of raising the finance necessary for such increases?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is, no doubt, referring to the last sentence of the third of the Conclusions on Defence, in which it is stated that the Imperial Conference noted the statements set forth by the Admiralty as to the formidable expenditure required within coming years for the replacement of warships, as they become obsolete, by up-to-date ships. The question which he asks as to the ways and means of raising the finance necessary to meet this expenditure relates to a matter which was not one for the Conference, but is one for each of the Governments concerned.
  Mr. THURTLE: Does the Prime Minister not think that if the Imperial Conference is to be accepted as an authority as to the amount of armaments required, it ought also to accept obligations in regard to finance.
  The PRIME MINISTER: How could it?

  INCOME TAX (MARRIED WOMEN).
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider legislation having as its object the protection of male persons whose wives' earnings are such as to make them responsible at law for Income Tax in respect of the woman's earnings?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have not vet had occasion to consider this question, but shall be ready to look into it.
  Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two weeks ago a man
  1010
  summoned at the Willesden County Court informed the Court that he had no knowledge at all of his wile's earnings, because she would not disclose them to him?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There are some anomalies in this matter, and, as I have said, I shall be ready to look into them.

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  Sir W. de FRECEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts from the Entertainments Duty at racecourse meetings in each week since the Betting Duty came into operation, together with the receipts for the same period last year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton on 29th June last, particulars of the yield of the Entertainments Duty paid in respect of different kinds of entertainments are not available.
  Sir W. de FRECE: Is it, not possible to get this information?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am advised that it is not possible to get it without an expenditure of money which I do not think is justified in the circumstances.
  Mr. D. GREENALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Excise and Customs officer at Cardiff has refused to grant exemption from Entertainments Duty upon the proceeds of concerts run on behalf of distress funds at Barry, because a number of miners' families were included among the persons to be assisted; and whether he will instruct local officers that such discrimination should not be. exercised?
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLI am not aware of any case in which exemption from Entertainment Duty has been refused by the Customs and Excise authorities at Cardiff in respect of entertainments promoted in aid of the funds mentioned by the hon. Member. If he knows of any case in which exemption has been refused, and will furnish full particulars, I will have inquiry made.

  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  Mr. SHORTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total losses sustained under the Trade Facilities Act?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a question by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 11th November.

  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION GUARANTORS (INCOME TAX).
  Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with regard to the fact that guarantors to the British Empire Exhibition, who were also exhibitors, are permitted to make a deduction of the loss caused in respect of their guarantee from their respective returns for Income Tax purposes, whereas guarantors who were not exhibitors are not permitted to adopt this procedure, he will state why distinction is drawn between the two types of guarantors, and on what ground it is based?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Income Tax Acts provide that in the computation of a trader's liability a deduction may be allowed in respect of expenditure which, not being of a capital nature. is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade. With regard to expenditure incurred under the guarantee to the British Empire Exhibition, to which my hon. Friend refers, the Inland Revenue authorities have acquiesced in the view that in the case of guarantors who were also exhibitors. such expenditure, as and when incurred, may be regarded as part of the current expenses of their business and treated on the same lines as the cost of advertising generally. In such cases, therefore, the expenditure would normally be admitted as a deduction for Income Tax purposes, but in the case of guarantors who were not exhibitors, the connection between their businesses and the exhibition is too remote, having regard to decided cases in the Courts, to enable Payments made under the guarantee to be treated as a business expense.
  Mr. MITCHELL: Would my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of
  1012
  placing all the guarantors on the same footing, in view of the fact that the guarantee was made in order to encourage British industry and not for charitable purposes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I cannot undertake to amend the Income Tax law to meet these particular cases. No doubt there appears to be some hardship, but it would be a difficult matter to alter the law to meet every hard case which from time to time might arise.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    STAFFS.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how the total number of persons now employed in Government Departments compares with the corresponding figure in November last year?
    Mr. McNElLL: Particulars of the staffs of Government Departments are now published quarterly. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of Command Papers 2579 and 2759 containing the returns for the 1st October, 1925, and the 1st October, 1926, which will give him the latest comparison available.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the reference to the October circular, will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, having regard to the increases which have taken place in the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, he is making efforts to get corresponding decreases in the other Ministries; and if not whether be is satisfied with the present position of affairs.
    Mr. McNEILL: It does not follow that, because the work has increased in one Department it has correspondingly decreased in another.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is making efforts to reduce the staffs. I am not referring to the work.
    Mr. McNEILL: We always endeavour to reduce the staffs to the minimum.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. PIELOUasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the state of the labour market at

    1013
    the present time, he is prepared to defer until after Christmas all notices of discharge on account of redundancy now being issued to ex-service temporary clerks in the Civil Service?
    Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 25th November to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith).

  HOUSING.

    SUBSIDIES (CAPITALISED VALUE).
    Mr. BOOTHBY (for Viscountess ASTOR)asked the Minister of Health the capitalised value of all the subsidies payable by the Exchequer on houses completed, under construction, or authorised under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923, and 1924?
    Sir K. WOOD: The Exchequer subsidy payable in respect of schemes under the Housing Act of 1919 depends on the rate of interest payable in future by local authorities in respect of their loans, and on other variable factors, and it is not, therefore, possible to state the capitalised value of the subsidies which will be payable. The amount paid by way of lump sum grants to private builders

    Site.

    Number of Houses.

    Super Area.

    Accommodation.

    Contract Price.

    Sq. ft.

    £

    Bracewell Farm

    …

    90

    620

    Living room, scullery, bathroom, 3 bedrooms.

    362*

    Do.

    …

    66

    620

    Living room, scullery, bathroom, 2 bedrooms.

    362*

    Nursery Lane

    …

    62

    From 620 to 722

    Living room, scullery, bathroom, 2 bedrooms.

    From 352* to 373.

    Do.

    …

    54

    Living room, scullery, bathroom, 3 bedrooms.

    *Road and sewers are estimated to cost an additional £30 per house.

    LOCAL RATES (LIABILITY).
    Mr. BOOTHBY (for Viscountess ASTOR)asked the Minister of Health whether he can estimate the liability upon local rates for all houses built or authorised under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923, and 1924, respectively?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant
    under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, was £9,493,155. The capitalised value of the Exchequer subsidies which will be payable on houses completed, under construction, or authorised under the Housing Act of 1923 is £25,052,250 and under the Housing Act of 1924 is £25,773,750 for England and Wales.

    MUNICIPAL HOUSES, HALIFAX.
    Mr. BOOTHBY (for Viscountess ASTOR)asked the Minister of Health what is the accommodation and contract price of the municipal houses which he has approved to be built at Halifax that it is hoped to let at 5s. a week, exclusive of rates?
    Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a tabular statement, T will, with my Noble Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table gives particulars of the 272 houses which the town council of Halifax have been authorised to erect with Exchequer assistance under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924. My right hon. Friend understands that the rents which the town council propose to charge range from 5s. to 6s. a week, exclusive of rates:
    Member for Gloucester (Lieut.-Colonel Horlick) on 31st March last.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: How much have the local authorities been receiving in rates for the houses?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.
    Major Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: Is there any truth in the statement that

    1015
    45,000 more houses have been built under the Wheatley Act than under the Chamberlain Acts?
    Sir K. WOOD: The statement is entirely new to me, and there is no foundation for it as far as I know.
    Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that it is in the Labour candidate's election address at Chelmsford?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, that would not surprise me.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider of all Consolidation Bills in the present Session do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room To-morrow, at half-past Eleven o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Lords Message considered:
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.— [Colonel Gibbs.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

FERTTLISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL [Lords]:
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member
  1016
  from Standing Committee B: Mr. Jenkins; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Major Elliot, Mr. Guinness, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Atkinson, Sir Geoffrey Butler, and Sir Charles Oman.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Minister on complaint to enforce exercise of powers.)
    (1) Where a complaint is made to the Minister (by any person or persons in respect of whom a county council have failed to provide a small holding) that the county council in question have failed to exercise their powers under the provisions of this part of this Act (in a case or cases where those powers ought to have been exercised) the Minister may cause a public local inquiry to be held.
    (2) If after holding such an inquiry the Minister is satisfied that there has been such a failure on the part of the county council, the Minister may declare the council to be in default and may make an Order directing the council to do such things as may be mentioned in the Order for the purpose of remedying the default.
    (3) An Order made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
    (4) An Order made by the Minister under this Section shall be enforced by mandamus.—[Mr. Buxton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House will remember that the former small holdings system, established under the Act of 1908, provided, as its main method, investigation by Small Holdings Commissioners, and not only investigation coupled with surveys, but action by the Commissioners, as a normal method of establishing small holdings. Now we have arrived at a further stage, when civilian holdings are to be set going again, and the Minister is proposing the very radical operation of abolishing the Small Holdings Commissioners altogether. I think he has spoken of divesting the Government of power in this connection, and the reason he gave for bidding goodbye to the Commissioners was that the situation had changed, that 20 years ago people were doubtful whether the county councils would show much concern about small
    1028
    holdings, and that in subsequent years they had proved themselves willing to act, and, therefore, that experience showed we could do without the Commissioners. I submit that experience, though in many ways in that direction, has not been adequate to allow us to come to that decision, and I think we can test it in this way: If we ask ourselves what would have happened had there been no Commissioners in existence, it is very clear that the history of small holdings, meagre as it is, would have been very much more meagre still, and it seems to me that the proposal of the Minister is really dangerous. You do not know what might follow if any power of ginger were removed from the Ministry. The Minister himself might find, after a further term of office, that this Bill produced stagnation. Is not that really, from a perfectly non-party point of view, what is, if not likely to happen, what may possibly happen, and might not the House be filled with regret that unnecessarily all machinery had been removed which would supply the stimulus required?
    It is not that county councils would resent coercion. It is not coercion; it is much more of the nature of machinery for bringing publicity to bear upon what is done in the counties. Without reflecting on the action of any backward counties, we all know that enthusiasm is apt to be very moderate indeed for the cause of small holdings in a great many meritorious counties, and surely everyone must see that this is a danger to be guarded against. Some machinery, whatever it is, is needed, and the machinery that I submit is a machinery adapted to the new situation. You might propose simply to leave the Act of 1908 in force, in so far as it supplies a system of Small Holdings Commissioners, but that would be, in phraseology at all events, rather contradictory to the spirit of the Bill, which rightly, in one respect, establishes now greater local option for the county councils. Cannot the Minister give us some plan fitted to the new situation which will guard against this danger, and, without a derogatory attitude to county councils, make it sure that publicity is secured and that there is not a bad breakdown of the new system? What I suggest is that we should have a system where the

    1029
    Minister comes in as the responsible person, the Commissioners disappear, and you have a plan by which, in a flagrant case, the Minister might allow a public inquiry to be granted to local complainants, and that, following that, it should be possible for the Minister to take action and charge the county councils.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): In proposing this new method of compulsion, the right hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) suggests that it is not really very drastic, but more in the nature of persuasion. Seeing that it includes the very extreme methods of mandamus, I really cannot agree. I am surprised that anyone with the right hon. Gentleman's experience of the happy relations which generally exist between Government Departments and local authorities could imagine that we should really get any advantage by such a method as he proposes. The Bill is framed with the object of working by a democratic method. We rely for the provision of these small holdings on the local authorities carrying out the wishes of the areas which they represent. It is quite true that, in the Act of 1908, Small Holdings Commissioners were set up, with very drastic powers, but in only one case were those powers used. In those days, the financial position of the local authority in providing small holdings was very different, and the whole scheme was largely experimental, but now, when 18 years' experience of the scheme has been gained, we believe that, with the generous terms which we are now offering to the local authorities, it will be wiser to rely on working the schemes by Parliament and local authorities both being responsible to their constituents, and both contributing their due share freely towards the provision of small holdings. I cannot, therefore, accept this proposed new Clause.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: It seems to me that the Minister has given no reason at all why there should be a distinction here between what the county councils are to do and what is already permitted to any six ratepayers in a local area—namely, to petition the Ministry in case a council has not provided the allotments that they think ought to be provided. There is no question here, I think, of any
    1030
    mandamus. The Clause does not suggest that the Minister should necessarily agree to the inquiry. It says "the Minister may cause."
    Mr. GUINNESS: Look at Sub-section (4):—
    "An Order made by the Minister under this Section shall be enforced by mandamus."
    Mr. WILSON: Yes, but do not let us get on quite so fast. In the first place, there is an appeal to the Minister, and then, if, on the grounds of that appeal, the Minister be satisfied that an inquiry ought to take place, he may cause that inquiry to be held. But no Minister, I take it, would ever for one moment suggest or agree to the holding of an inquiry, unless he was perfectly satisfied that there were good grounds, and that the council acted in a reactionary manner. This is an entirely permissive Clause, and we are asking for the protection of the Minister against a reactionary county council. May I further point out, that it is not only in connection with allotments, but there have been repeated cases, as I pointed out in Committee, where the President of the Board of Education has been obliged to take action against education authorities who were not complying with what he regarded as the educational requirements for that particular district, and here we are only asking that there should be an appeal from the locality where people think allotments should be provided, and the county council have not acceded to that wish. We are only asking that some kind of appeal should be allowed, as in other cases.
    Mr. FENBY: I am very much surprised that the Minister is not prepared to accede to this proposal, and is departing from a step which, I understand, ho has taken in regard to sheep scab, where an appeal is allowed. The Minister in opposing this new Clause said the small holdings would be worked in future by county councils and Parliament. What I would like to know is, what Parliament has got to do with the provision of small holdings, except to provide money when it is asked for by a county council? As far as any urge upon the county authority by a Government Department is concerned, there is going to be none whatever. I am never one to advocate unnecessary interference with an up-to-date local authority by a Government Depart-

    1031
    ment, but there are certain authorities who may be regarded as backward in the small-holding movement, and the very class for whom small holdings are intended, that section of the community for which the Acts of 1908 and 1919 were put on the Statute Book, and the class which desires small holdings, is very sparsely represented upon county authorities, which will have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is very well known that membership of a county council is so expensive that a man without any financial backing of a union, or a man who has not considerable private means, finds it absolutely impossible to spare the time or loss of wage to attend county meetings, and to bear the cost of railway travel.
    The Minister may say, "Well, but the Department appoints certain representatives upon the Small Holdings Committee." That may be true, but I am not particularly keen about the initiative taken by co-opted members on county authorities. Elected representatives are needed to push small holdings on local authorities. I can quite understand that with some county authorities a man does not stand much chance of getting a small holding, if he happens to be handling a snickle, that is not altogether a first-class testimonial for him to become the occupant of a small holding. As far as the administration of the Acts of 1908 and 1919 are concerned, my experience is that the powers in those Acts have never been fully exercised, but there has always been this urge behind the local authorities, that if there were a demand in an area, and the authority was not doing something reasonable to meet it, there was some pressure which could he put by the Government Department to see that the applicants received fair
    treatment and consideration. In this Bill the small holding movement has been handed over completely and entirely to county councils. I have no objection, as long as they are of a first-class character, but some are very backward in regard to the provision of small holdings, and the very class for whom it is intended has the least representation on the county authority.
    I think the Government are doing a very ill-service to people who desire small holdings in washing their hands altogether of any compulsory powers. In fact, if I may say so with all respect, the Government seem to be encouraging in county authorities a timidity which, unfortunately, the Government are exhibiting with regard to everything concerning a forward and constructive movement in the great agricultural industry of this country. I am very sorry the Government have run away from a position which was absolutely satisfactory under the Acts of 1908 and 1919.
    Mr. KELLY: I think it is not only timidity on the part of the Government, but even a sign of bad faith as far as small holdings are concerned in the action which they are taking on this proposed new Clause. Surely the opportunity provided by this Clause should be in the hands of the Government where a county council refuses to do its best for those who are demanding small holdings. It will be for the country to recognise that the Government, while they are bringing forward such a Measure, are leaving out of it the opportunity to enforce the demand that is being made in all parts of the country at the present time.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 178.

    Division No. 510.]

    AYES.

    [3.51 p.m.

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Barnes, A.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hirst, G. H.

    Barr, I.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Batty, Joseph

    Fenny, T. D.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Binn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Gardner, J. P.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Briant. Frank

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

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Bromfield, William

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

    Groves, T.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Grundy, T. W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Charleton. H. C.

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

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Clowes, S.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Kirkwood. D.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hardie, George D.

    Lawson, John James

    Connolly, M.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Lee, F.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hay day, Arthur

    Lindley, F. W.

    Cowan, D, M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Lowth, T.

    Lunn, William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Varley, Frank B.

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

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Viant, S. P.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sexton, James

    Wallhead. Richard c.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

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

    March, S.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe

    westwood, J.

    Maxton, James

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Montague, Frederick

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Whiteley, W.

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

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Murnin, H.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)

    Paling, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Potts, John S.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Ritson, J.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)

    Wright, W.

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Robinson, W. C. (York, W.R.,Eltand)

    Townend, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Saklatvala, Shapurjl

    Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.Charles Edwards.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyto, Lieut.-Colonel

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Agg-Gardner,'Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Alexander, E. E, (Leyton)

    Gates, Percy

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

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

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Goff. Sir Park

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Grace, John

    Murchison, C. K.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Penny, Frederick George

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pielou, D. P

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hanbury, C.

    Preston, William

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Bowyer, Capt, G. E. W.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Raine, W.

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rawson, sir Cooper

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Brocklebank, C. E. R,

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'thTd., Hexham)

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Savery, S. S.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng: Universities)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hopkinson, A. [Lancaster, Mossley)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Campbell, E. T.

    Huntingfield, Lord

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl't)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

    lliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Daikeith, Earl of

    Lougher, L.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)1

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Drewe, C.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

    Elveden, Viscount

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
    14;

    Finburgh, S.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Major Cope and Captain Lord

    Foxcroft. Captain C. T.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Stanley.

    Fraser, Captain lan

    Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to a county council to resume possession of a small holding without payment of compensation for disturbance in certain cases.)
    "Where a county council is the owner of land let as an existing small holding and the tenant thereof is the occupier of other land which makes his total holding greater in area or value than a small holding as defined by this Act, and the land owned by the county council and leased from it by the tenant is required for the provision of a small holding, then the county council may resume possession of the land without incurring liability for compensation for disturbance under Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.—[Mr. Basil Peto.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. B. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is designed to remove what has been proved to be a difficulty in working the existing Small Holdings Acts. Certain circumstances were brought to my knowledge by the surveyor of a small holdings committee in a northern part of Devonshire. It is to people who have come into contact with the practical administration of small holdings legislation that we should look for guidance in our difficulties when we are passing an amending Bill. I am informed that instances have arisen in that part of Devonshire in which tenants of small holdings under the council have purchased or become tenants of other land, and that the aggregate of their land, that is, the land held as a small holding and the other land, is larger than the statutory definition of a small holding. I would remind the House that the size of small holdings is increased by this Bill, is, in fact, doubled; the maximum of £50 is increased to £100, which would make a similar addition in the acreage. In spite of that, however, the difficulties will continue to exist, and I will give the House one practical instance of a case to-day which illustrates exactly what I want to do by this Clause. The surveyor writes to me:
    "I have a case in mind at present where a tenant has 19 acres of ours and is, in addition to our land, farming 100 acres. Our only method of obtaining possession of the 19 acres is to serve notice, and pay compensation for disturbance, under Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, of a sum approximately £40, a thing we cannot afford to do."
    1036
    4.0 P.M.
    That means, of course, the county council. The object of the Bill is to provide small holdings and not to provide increased holdings for people who are farmers and not in any sense of the word any longer smallholders. It appears quite clear that it would facilitate the progress of the movement if difficulties were not put in the way of the county council resuming possession of small holdings which are required by other bona fide smallholders by the provision of Section 12 of the Act of 1923, which, of course, provides for compensation for disturbance. I do not wish to deal at any length with that part of the question, but there is no question of doing away with any of the compensation to which the tenant may be entitled for improvements on the holdings. It applies only to compensation for disturbance provided by Section 12 of the Act of 1923. The House will notice that I have very strictly limited this New Clause to the specific case I have detailed to the House. I am not opening the door to the possibility of turning out people without compensation for disturbance. I am only giving power in certain specific cases under certain specific circumstances to a county council who are providing land for small holdings to be able to resume possession of land already let to tenants without paying, under the Act of 1923, compensation for disturbance.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Motion.
    I need not add anything to what my hon. Friend has said, beyond emphasising the point that compensation for improvements is not in any way touched by this Clause. It is simply compensation for disturbance, when the farmer is using the land for purposes not provided for, such as using it as part of a large farm instead of a small holding.
    Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. Friends are proposing to make a very serious discrimination in the law against the statutory small holder. At present the statutory smallholders number about 30,000, and there are probably somewhere near 240,000 other holdings up to 50 acres. Under private landlords, if smallholders receive notice to quit for any reason except bad farming or a

    1037
    breach of covenant, they are entitled to compensation for disturbance. The reason for that compensation is obvious. They are inevitably put to expense. The expenses are defined in Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, as being those
    "in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim."
    Why on earth should we withdraw that right from the statutory smallholder? If the tenant who rents 18 acres—to take the figures given by my hon. Friend—from a private owner, gets notice to quit just because he has other land bringing him above the small holding limit, nobody would dream of taking him out of the general law of compensation, and it does seem to me that the proposal of my hon. Friend would be a cruel penalty on just that class of successful smallholder whom we all want to encourage. He begins in a small way. He could not have got the small holding if he had had other land of that kind. Surely we do not want to punish him for taking that other land and making a success of his holding. I know there has been a good deal of feeling among officials of local authorities in connection with this matter, but I think they cannot have considered the result of the Amendment which they suggest. It was brought to my notice some time ago by a local authority, and I arranged for it to be considered by the County Councils' Association. I think we really ought to be guided by them in this matter. After a careful examination of the case, they did not see their way to endorse it, and I think my hon. Friend will be well advised to adopt the same view.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Duties and power of providing smallholdings.)
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "buy or."
    This Amendment raises a point of view which we on these benches feel most strongly of all in regard to this Bill. We are not against small holdings; indeed, some of us pride ourselves that in days of Tory lethargy we tried to
    1038
    rouse that public opinion which helped to bring about the Act of 1908. Far be it from any of us to hamper a genuine small holdings movement. I object to this Bill, because it is markedly a Measure for establishing owners. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear"!] I am very glad that is generally admitted. We need not waste time over that. I should be the last to attribute any unworthy motive, but it certainly appears to me that there is a marked bias, evident on every page of the Bill, in favour of creating owners, which does not seem to me to harmonise exactly with the pure desire to encourage small holdings. The bias is too evident. I shall have something to say on that side of the matter when we come to the Third Reading, but for the present I want to confine myself to the merits of the thing, and the desirability of devoting most of the machinery of the Act to encouraging owners. The State is to devote a very large sum to creating private owners, and the loss which is anticipated, and which probably will be something like three-quarters of a million will be borne by the taxpayer. Is it really fair that the taxpayer should subsidise a new class of private owners to this extent? We shall come shortly to the question of the basis of acquisition, the value to be given to the preceding owner, but it seems to me that at this moment we should rightly leave out this proposal to buy because it is wrong in principle. The freehold of the land, if we could get rid of prejudice and think only of the interests of agriculture, would he the property of the State. National land, whatever other objection you may have to it, is the obvious way to an efficient control of agriculture. I will not stop to argue that in extenso, but my experience leads me to believe it.
    There is a more cogent and immediate reason why you should not encourage individuals to put their money into the purchase of land. In England you have a tradition of tenancy, and in that respect we have an agricultural asset of high value. In other countries you have a certain attachment to ownership. People cannot he led to keep their savings in order to put them into the capital required by the farm. Whatever they have is devoted to the freehold of the land as well as to the running of the farm. Surely it is a great advantage that we

    1039
    have available as farmers men who have not capital enough to buy the land, but who can afford to stock it. Your object is to turn that man with small savings not only into a small cultivator but also into an owner. If you do, you diminish the number of men who are available for farming as tenants, and you artificially encourage those men to put their savings into a smaller total farming outlay than they would if they were to proceed as tenants in the normal English way.
    There is another point. If these men have money enough to invest in land, are they not able to get land in the open market? Must you bring in the taxpayers, and say that this, unfortunate class is to make a dofe to help these men who might by common admission get land in the open market, and induce them to become buyers from a public authority at great public expense? Everyone anticipates that in the course of time there will be a rise in the value of land. There are many reasons for anticipating that. One is the belief, on the high authority of Sir Daniel Hall and many other world's agricultural experts, that the orld's provision of corn will become less and less proportionate to its needs. You are probably in any case, for a dozen different reasons, going to get an increase in values, and von will have people come forward more and more for land, because of this prospective rise. Are you, instead of making land public, going artificially to arrange that this increment shall accrue to a large number of private individuals? My main feeling, and surely it is universal, is that you have certain customs in this country as the result of long experience. You have the English method of tenancy farming, and I do not like the idea of doctoring that English tradition in order by main force to create a class of small owners. Why not leave the normal English plan as it is and make the best of it? The fact that a desire for ownership is not felt has been overwhelmingly proved by experience in the past in regard to small holdings. It is hardly credible to the public that, out of the 30,000 statutory smallholders, not mare than 500 have become owners of the land. They do not want to be owners. I believe there are 20,000 outstanding applications for land at the present time. Under the old Act there was a provision which might have
    1040
    been used for this purpose, but there has not been a great demand for purchase. If there had been such a demand, the counties were in a position to meet it. I should like to know how many out of these 20,000 applicants have asked to become purchasers. I am told that in Scotland there are something like 10,000 applicants.
    There is another strong argument arising out of the action of Conservative Governments in the past. Mr. Bonar Law appointed a Tribunal of Investigation, and the result was that it came down very strongly on the side of tenants, and surely the present 'Government cannot throw over the result arrived at by its own Tribunal. In short, you have a valuable asset in the rational qualities of the British cultivator, because he wants to save his capital for working the land, and he prefers to hire it. In these circumstances why do an un-English thing and throw away that valuable asset?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman has recommended this Amendment on the ground that the Government proposals show a bias towards ownership. I do not agree with that argument. The Government proposals have, for the first time, offered equal facilities for renting or buying holdings. The principle of purchase in small holdings has been recognised in our legislation ever since the original Act, introduced by Mr. Chaplin, was passed in 1892. Each time this matter has been dealt with, more and more favourable terms have been given for renting, with the result that it had become practically impossible for the smallholder to face the unfavourable conditions which have been attached to purchase. The right, hon. Gentleman has told us that very little advantage has been taken of the opportunity of buying holdings under the previous Acts. Is that surprising, seeing that the smallholder had to buy, not at the written-down value which was the basis of the rent under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, but at the full market value, and seeing that in addition, under the 1908 Act, he had to pay a large sum of money down?
    Mr. BUXTON: Will the Minister tell us what occurred under the previous Act, before the War?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The difference was in regard to the basis of valuation, but there was the obligation to pay down a very large instalment of 20 per cent., and that naturally would cripple a man starting for the first time on a small holding, because he needs all his capital for his farming activities. This Bill avoids the necessity of paying that instalment. We are hoping by this Bill to abolish this inequality, and make things equal between the tenant and the purchasing freeholder. We are not proposing to do this by imposing harsh terms on the renter, but we have brought forward a scheme based on what is called the full fair rent, and we have based on that the purchase instalments. The purchaser of these holdings will be able to obtain a freehold on the basis of 60 years' full fair rent, plus the addition of responsibility for keeping up the structure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) suggested that this arrangement would be very unfair to the taxpayer, but I do not think there is anything in that argument, seeing that it is going to cost the taxpayer exactly the same, no more and no less, than if the whole thing were dealt with on a rental basis. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that this is a Bill that will establish owners. We do that deliberately, because we see the value to the State of peasant proprietors who know that their industry, the improvements which they make on their holdings, and the work which they put into their land are assured to themselves and to their children, and for these reasons we attach great importance to readjusting the scale on a fair basis as between the owner occupier and the tenant of the small holding.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I support this Amendment. The Minister of Agriculture has followed the line which he took when this Amendment was before the Standing Committee, where, either purposely or otherwise, he refused to face the main argument for this Amendment, and simply told us that so far as the State and the ratepayers are concerned there is no difference, financially or otherwise, whether we settle an occupying owner or whether we provide an extra tenant. That argument does not touch our case at all. Here we are, under the terms of this Bill, contemplat-
    1042
    ing the provision of something in the region of 8,000 small holdings during the next four years, and the State will be called upon, according to the financial statement issued by the Minister, to meet an annual deficit of about £150,000. This land is to be purchased and used for the production of food. The Minister told us that as far as the State is concerned, there is no material difference between occupying owners and ordinary tenants. In my opinion, there is a very great difference. In the first place, it is an anti-social principle to provide Exchequer Grants or grants to be drawn from the ratepayers to establish absolute owners of land in this or any other country. To that extent the principle adopted by the Government is bad, and ought not to be adopted by this or any other Government. When an ex-Conservative Prime Minister sets up a Special Committee to deal with this and other agricultural problems, and their Report is published, I should like to ask the Minister what reply he has got to this recommendation made by the Agricultural Tribunal, dealing with small holdings, which says:
    "The system of purchase and ownership by the county council of the land and the leasing of it to smallholders seems to combine largely the advantages of ownership without its disadvantages, and the gradual extension of this experiment in public ownership of land is in itself desirable. At the same time attention should be directed to the alternative method of the public authority renting land by agreement, or if necessary by arbitration for the purpose of small holdings. If it is considered desirable to avoid the investment of public money in the purchase of land, this method might be adopted. We consider, however, that the system of public ownership is preferable."
    Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his reply to that recommendation? Here we have a body of experts charged with the duty of examining the whole of this problem, and they issue a Report, and I have just quoted an extract from their Report. This Bill flies absolutely in the face of the Report of that Committee of experts. Therefore, if for no other reason than that, I am opposed to the principle put forward in this Bill. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that between 1908 and 1926, 30,000 small holdings have been provided, of which less than 500 have been purchased by the present tenants. The Minister of Agriculture says the explanation of that

    1043
    is that under the 1908 Act one-fifth of the money had to be put down as a first instalment, and that proved an almost insurmountable barrier to the prospective smallholder. May I draw attention to the fact that the Minister in his explanatory Memorandum tells us that in effect they are refusing to grant loans to smallholders for farm purposes. OrigiNally one-fifth of the total value had to be put down before one could purchase. Now that he has no instalment to put down as was provided under the Act of 1908, he has to have a certain amount of capital for the purpose of working the farm, providing necessary implements and so forth. I think that disposes of the argument used by the Minister of Agriculture, and rather equalises the position as between this Bill and the Act of 1908.
    I want to draw attention to another reason why I want this Amendment to be carried. The Minister of Agriculture has told us that the peasant proprietor is going to be a most valuable asset to the State. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have said that every person we can plant on the land will become a little Tory. That may or may not be the case, but what I want to suggest is that on the back page of the explanatory Memorandum occurs a passage in regard to which if I put upon it a wrong interpretation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.
    Here is the passage referred to:
    "Another reason for the repeal of the Section referred to "—
    that is the refusal in future to grant loans—
    "is that all the information received by the Ministry indicates that there is at present a demand from suitable applicants possessed of both agricultural knowledge and adequate capital, sufficient to occupy all the small holdings which it will be practicable to create under the Bill for many years to come."
    If it be the fact that the present applicants possess both agricultural knowledge and adequate capital, why do they not of their own free will enter the ordinary market and secure land for themselves, without coming to the Government and asking for a subsidy which, according to the financial statement—
    Mr. GUINNESS: I was referring to the farming capital, not to the fixed capital.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Farming capital is not mentioned in this explanatory Memorandum.
    Mr. GUINNESS: This loan will be entirely for farming capital; it is not for the purchase of land at all.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman cannot dispose of the actual wording of this Memorandum, where it states that there are sufficient applicants at the moment with agricultural knowledge and adequate capital to occupy all the holdings that are likely to be created under this Bill for many years to come. What does that imply? How many agricultural workers shall we have who, while they possess the agricultural knowledge, have also got adequate capital to enter on one of these small holdings? Does not that rather lead us to this point, that when the county councils are going to determine which one of two or many applicants is going to secure a holding, it is always going to be the person with the adequate capital, who can purchase, while the rural worker is not going to get a ghost of a chance under the terms of the Bill? The very idea of providing £25 per annum—according to the financial statement, £100 for each holding for the first four years—to make the holding the absolute property of an individual, is anti-social at its base, ought not to be done by any Minister of State, and ought not to be supported by any Parliament in any part of the world. Tenancies we might very well create with advantage to the State, but to create ownership, losing any sort of social control over the financial grants that the nation is about to make, and the grants that are to be drawn from rates, is totally wrong. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think about the mentality of the future smallholder, he has failed to submit one solitary argument in favour of his policy that the State shall buy small holdings and hand them over to individuals. The purpose of a Small Holdings Bill of this description, if it has a purpose at all, ought not to be to insist upon county councils developing into all sorts of buying and selling agencies, involving them in all kinds of intricate financial problems. Their duty should be to provide land for agricultural labourers who have the requisite knowledge and who can use it to the fullest advantage for the increased production of food in this country, and generally to make us more

    1045
    self-sufficient than we have been up to this moment. For these reasons I would ask the House to accept this Amendment, to eliminate the possibility of State money going to make absolute owners of land, and to allow the Bill to go forward to create as many tenancies as they like.
    Mr. FENBY: I should like to support this Amendment, for, perhaps, different reasons from those put forward by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I am not convinced that it is an evil thing for the worker to own his holding, but the position in the country at the moment is based upon the theory, and this has evidently been the reason for putting in this purchase Clause, that peasant proprietorship would be a very good thing for the country. My objection to the Clause, however, and the reason why I am supporting this Amendment, is that the experience of the legislation introduced in 1908 by the Government, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was a member, has proved that it is not purchase that is required, but security of tenure so long as you pay your rent and farm your land as provided under the Act of 1908. It will take more than one person to say that this Clause shall he operated. The Minister and his Department will have nothing whatever to do with it. They have, shall I say, beaten a retreat, and are not going to have anything whatever to do with small holdings in their present form. I do not know whether they are ashamed of the movement to which they are rendering lip service. I will not call this Clause eyewash, because that is a term which I do not like, but it does seem to be painting the scenery in rather a glowing fashion so that people may fasten their eyes upon it rather than upon the performance on the stage.
    If the Minister would take as much notice of the opinion of the County Councils' Association on this Clause as he professed to take in regard to the previous Amendment moved by one of his supporters, I am certain he would not put forward the Clause. No county council will push the purchase Clauses of this Bill. They have had experience of that matter, and anyone who knows anything about agriculture and wants to become a real smallholder will not apply
    1046
    to have the purchase Clauses put into. operation, because he knows that if he is an ambitious man—and it is the ambitious man who wants to be a smallholder—he does not want to stay on 50 acres, but wants to go further, and to let his holding be a stepping stone to larger things. It was pointed out in Committee that there are large areas of agricultural land in this country that cannot be farmed on a. 50-acre basis as small holdings, but can only be farmed successfully, from the point of view of the country and of the tenant, in large farms, where you can have a fallowing system and all that kind of thing. There is also a large amount of land which is suitable for small holdings, and we want those small holdings to be on the Liberal principle of security of tenure so long as you pay your rent and farm your land properly, and not to tie people down and let them fasten their money in the land by purchasing it, but to let them use it to produce as much food as possible out of the land.
    I wonder what my hon. and learned' Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) thinks about the operation of these purchase Clauses. I venture to suggest that by his own Amendments he is indicating that, while the Minister renders lip service to the purchase Clauses, he is hedging and fencing them round with such prohibitive restrictions that they will be absolutely unworkable and ineffective, and that it will be impossible for any county authority to put them into operation. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider what is the real object and motive for providing small holdings. It is not to get a man to put his entire capital into the purchase of his holding, so that he has no money for the cultivation of the land. So far as my experience is concerned, ownership does not produce a single stone more of food than occupancy under proper terms of tenancy, and if the right hon. Gentleman will inquire of his own advisers, he will find that the experience of the War executive committees during the War was that the man who had to be prodded, the man who had to farm under the instructions of the War executive committee, the man who had to have his farm farmed by the War executive committee, was not the man who was a tenant, but the man who was an owner. When you come down to scene-painting and scene-shift-

    1047
    ing from a political point of view, and the timid attempts of the Government to deal with the real land problem as we know it on this side of the House, if it is not known on the other side, we beg the right hon. Gentleman not to go on playing about with things that he knows very well will never be operative, but to do something that will make a success of the small holdings movement, that will put men on the land who are anxious to cultivate 50 acres, and, when they have made a little money by good cultivation, to move off and cultivate 150 acres, which is the real object of the small holdings movement.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I am amazed at the deductions from his own experience which have been drawn by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby). The House is probably well aware that, living as he did in the East Riding of Yorkshire, the hon. Member has had an experience of the working of small holdings that is probably equal to none in this House. Those small holdings have been very successful for three reasons. In the first place, the best land was taken; secondly, only men with capital —men of experience—among the rural workers were selected; and, thirdly, the farms were properly arranged as economic units and were well supervised. The deduction which the hon. Member draws is that the success of those small holdings is a support for tenancy, and that is the reason why he advocates tenancy, and tenancy only. He does not tell the House, however, that every one of those tenants not only paid, in his yearly contributions, the rent of the holding, but also that a proportion of the amount paid went to form a sinking fund to repay the capital cost of the holding. The sums so paid did not go to the benefit of the tenant himself, but to the benefit of the county council. I appeal to anyone here whether these small holders paid that money willingly, or whether every one of them would not rather have paid his contribution for the purchase of his own land, so that, if he were successful, he should have the value of the money in his holding to leave behind him for the benefit of his children or his family, or, in the case suggested by the hon. Member, if he wanted to go on to a larger holding, he should be able to
    1048
    dispose of his existing holding and then take a larger one.
    I submit to the House that the whole of the hon. Member's experience is an argument for the provisions of this Bill. I would ask any other hon. Member who has been about in agricultural districts whether the one complaint of smallholders against our small holdings legislation has not been that they were compelled to buy the land for the county council instead of for themselves. I myself have had a good deal of experience among landowners and farmers, and I am convinced of this, not only from what I have heard them say, but from experience in other countries. Experience in France, which is full of peasant proprietors—owners of their own land, every particle of which is cultivated in the highest degree—and every experience we have had, shows that the fact that a man owns his own land, and that every bit of labour that he puts into it inures to his own benefit and that of his wife and family, is a very big incentive to him to make that land as well cultivated and as productive as ever it can be. The attraction of this Bill is that it is providing for the first time an opportunity to the poor man to become the owner of his own land instead of merely an occupier. The hon. Member opposite says it is quite wrong in principle to use State money to enable an individual to own land. Why should it be right for the townsman to be able to acquire his house with the benefit of public money and not for the rural occupier to become the owner of his land with public money? I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) opposite. Has there ever been a word urged by him in the many years that he has been in the House that under the land purchase scheme for Ireland that it was wrong for the Irish tenant to become the owner of his land on principle? The one thing the Irish tenants wanted—and they were all agriculturists—was to satisfy their land hunger and become the owners of their farms. The one reason small holdings can be justified in this country is to gratify that access to the land which unfortunately has been denied so long.
    Is anyone here hardy enough to suggest that small holdings are an economic proposition? Where you have farms picked out, where you have the best land

    1049
    in the district, where you have markets handy, where you have that careful selection of men, of capital and knowledge and skill, selected as they were in the East Riding—go to Evesham, where you have the best root producing land in the country, where you have special qualities in the soil and special markets —they may be successful, but the figures that have been spoken to to-day prove that small holdings are uneconomic. After 30 or 40 years of this legislation, the pushing of it and the gingering up of Parliament not only from one side but both sides of the House, when all these efforts have been bestowed on the creation of small holdings, if you leave out the special efforts made by the Land Settlement Act, 1919, the number of small holdings to-day is no larger than it was 25 years ago. I except the men who were settled on the land after the War, because we are all agreed that was special legislation. It has not been successful but it got an artificial number of men on the land as a recompense to our soldiers for their services. If I am right in these figures it shows that the tenancy system of our present Small Holdings Acts is not all that we want. They are not achieving their object and we ought to look further. The late Minister of Agriculture said purchase has not been wanted. We have had it for a number of years and the reason it has been a failure is that the man of small means could not afford it. How could they pay the large deposit that was required? They could not do it. That killed the purchase system. They did not have to pay anything like that in Ireland. Under the 1919 Act it was only 10 per cent. This Bill takes what is a fair rent and allows the man to become the holder, dependent on the instalments being paid off, on the security of the land itself and for the first time there is being given this further driving power, to satisfy the desire of the man to become the owner of his holding at a reasonable cost.
    Mr. WA LLHEAD: This sudden conversion to the principle of ownership by cultivators is an entirely new thing as far as the Conservative party is concerned. They only discovered the value of ownership on the part of the cultivator when they discovered that more money could be made by investing their money in
    1050
    industry than in agriculture. The Conservative party in the past has always been based upon the ownership of large estates by the aristocracy, who violently objected to the breaking up of the larger estates until economic conditions compelled them. I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend that there is some political fear behind the present movement for the creation of ownership. I object to this because the whole thing is anti-social in its tendencies. The hon. Member who has just spoken has told us of the obstacles in the way of working men investing money in land. The figures are eloquent from that point of view. Generally speaking, there is not among men who are expert agriculturists sufficient money to put down for purchase and at the same time to stock their farms. The Bill affords no means whatever of providing loans to men who want land. It is simply to advance money for the purchase of the land, and there is. nothing for them to start their holdings with. I agree that it is an attempt on the part of the Conservatives to buttress up the principle of ownership in order to provide a bulwark against what they call the coming of Socialism.
    It is not much use introducing legislation to prevent economic changes, which I am sure these things cannot possibly prevent, and which is going to cast, in the meantime, a burden on the State and on the men who are induced to put their money into this occupying ownership. It is bound to fail until provision is made for the effective marketing of goods. Men not only want some assistance in the growing of commodities, but they want to send them to market. They want protection from the people who control the markets. Evesham has been mentioned. A short time ago I saw a letter from a fruit grower at Evesham. He said, "I recently sent a pot of William pears to market weighing 72 pounds, and they realised 2s." I quoted that letter in the House, and on that very day William pears were selling outside at 3d. and 4d. each. He could neither pay wages to the men who worked for him nor get a living for himself after paying his land charges. The men want protection. They do not want tying down, to ownership. If they are going to be assisted to get on to the land they can do so equally well under a guaranteed

    1051
    tenancy under the public authority, but they want protecting so far as marketing and transport are concerned, and if Parliament is really going to help agriculturists to get on to the land they would do better to bring in a comprehensive scheme which will cover them all the way round than this mere tinkering, which does no real good at all.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) says the result of the 1908 Act proves that there is no desire on the part of cultivators to become the owners of their small holdings. Before that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) had quoted the Report of the Tribunal set up by Mr. Bonar Law, and I should like to refer him to page 200 of that Report. I will quote a very short extract:
    "In addition to these temporary measures it is desirable that the terms of purchase under the Act of 1908 should be reconsidered.… Foreign schemes give easier terms in the first years of occupation, the proportion of purchase money paid being in some cases only a half of what is required in England. The purchasing Clauses were regarded as an important feature of the Act when it was passed, and their failure, taken in conjunction with other facts, shows that their demands are too severe."
    I agree with this extract from that Report, that the lesson of the failure of the Act of 1908 was not that there is no desire or demand for ownership. It is that the demands made were too severe, and this Bill for the first time makes it possible for a man to become the owner of a small plot of land without putting down a large sum of capital to start with. Hon. Members opposite, I think, are quite right in saying there are many cases where farmers who have become the owners of their farms—many compelled to do so against their own desire—have suffered because they have had to sink capital in purchase which otherwise would have been available for the cultivation of the farm.
    The position under the Bill is different from that. The position of the prospective purchaser of a small holding is different from the position of a tenant under the 1908 Act only in so far that under that Act he paid a Sinking Fund plus the rental value, bought the small holding, and at the end of that time it
    1052
    became the property of the County Council. The only additional amount the prospective purchaser as opposed to the tenant has to put down is what is commonly known as the landlord's outlay. That does not represent an amount of capital year by year, which would be very great if it was to be used for the purpose of the cultivation of that small holding.
    Another point emphasised by hon. Members opposite is that we do not require men to own the land so long as they are given complete security of tenure as tenants. When I examine the Labour report on their policy, issued a short time ago, I am rather doubtful as to the value of that complete security to the tenant, if by chance we should ever live to see the day when the Labour party are in office again, because it contains these words:
    "Present agreements, customs and conditions of tenancy will continue under public ownership so long as may be thought desirable."
    5.0 P.M.
    To my mind that makes the security of tenure of the tenant a much more doubtful proposition than the security of tenure of the man who actually owns his own land. We on this side of the House believe that there is a very great deal of truth in the words which were written about the end of the 18th Century by a prominent writer on agriculture, when he said: "The magic of property turns sand to gold. Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden." [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may jeer at that, but there is a great deal of truth in it. Other countries on the Continent have proved it to be a fact. Hon. Members opposite state that there are certain countries, and they mentioned Denmark, which found ownership undesirable and have given men possession as small tenants rather than as owners. I do not think, however, that the facts are as hon. Members opposite have stated them. Two Acts were passed in Denmark in 1919, which created tenants of small holdings; but the land which was so dealt with was either parochial land or glebe land and the areas affected were only something like 10,000 acres altogether.
    After four years' experience of that, Denmark is reverting again to the system of providing land for smallholders who are to be the owners of the land they till

    1053
    and not the tenants. When we look at the actual number of smallholders who own their land in these countries, we can only draw the conclusion that they have found ownership to be the right and successful system. In Denmark, 95 per cent. of the small holdings are owned by the men who farm them. In Holland, over 56 per cent. of the holdings are farmed by the owners, and in Germany the proportion of occupying owners is over 86 per cent. We on this side welcome the Bill as providing for the first time means whereby the small man can become the owner of a small holding without being compelled to sink the money which will be useful to him in cultivating the land. We do not believe the result of it will be, as an hon. Member opposite said, the creation of a great number of pestiferous little landowners, but that it will have an important and valuable effect, a stabilising and steadying influence throughout the whole country.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The importance of this Debate has been due not so much to the actual fact of the introduction of these words into this Bill, but rather because a very large issue has been raised by the Minister of Agriculture and by hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the other side, that is, the question whether we are to institute peasant proprietorship in this country or not. I do not believe this Bill will have very much effect in the establishment of small holdings, and the percentage of peasant proprietors which it creates will therefore be a small one. But the principle is a very important one. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) challenged me because of the action I took with regard to Irish land. I may say that I was very doubtful about the Irish Land Purchase Act, and I took no active part in it one way or the other, either in criticising or in supporting it. But may I point out to him the difference that exists. In the Irish Land Purchase Act there was provision made for the purchase of land in Ireland by the tenants, as far as I can recollect, at 12½ years' purchase.
    Sir ROBERT LYNN: Oh no, more than that. It ranged from 12 years to 27 years, practically.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was about to say that there was some land that ran to
    1054
    a higher figure. But what land would you get anywhere in this country at 12½ years' purchase? I say that a very considerable quantity of the land in Ireland was at a very low number of years' purchase.
    Sir R, LYNN: I think the average was about 23 years' purchase.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman knows that country, and if he says the average was 23 years' purchase, I quite accept it; but the basis of it was a very considerable reduction of the rents in Ireland, a reduction which had gone on for a very considerable number of years, from 1881 onwards. There were wholesale reductions of rent all over Ireland, some of them very arbitrary, and the money was advanced, as far as I can recollect, at a very low rate of interest.
    Sir R. LYNN: 2¼ per cent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And, in addition to that, the State gave a bonus of a considerable sum.
    Sir R. LYNN: £12,500,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the facts. He is a Daniel come to judgment. But is it conceivable to have a transaction of that kind in this country?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why not?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman were speaking on behalf of his party, I would close with him. In. Ireland you had a Court set up to revise the whole rents of the country; you had arbitrary reductions in many cases, you had purchase money advanced at the rate of 2¼ per cent, and there is £12,500,000 advanced straight out of the Treasury without any return at all. It is no use taking the case of Ireland unless you have a similar arrangement with regard to this country.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I only referred to Ireland as justifying the principle of using State money to purchase land for the holders.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But the principle depends entirely upon the application. If the hon. and learned Member claims that it has been quite a success in Ireland, which I doubt, I do not think that he has established his case.
    Sir R. LYNN: It has been a success absolutely.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will not be drawn into that matter, but I want to put it to the hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Lynn) that, if it has been a success in Ireland, that is because it has been completed under conditions in Ireland which no one would propose to apply to this country. No one is going to propose to cut down rents as arbitarily as you have cut them down in Ireland. Whether it has been a success or not in Ireland, it has been a success because you have been able to establish it at very low rents, at basic rates in regard to the rents; and very low rates of interest for the borrowed money. It is no use taking the case of Ireland unless you propose a similar transaction here, and you cannot do it. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Sir R. Lynn) that the average is 23 years' purchase in Ireland. I doubt if you could get land in this country under 25 years' purchase.
    Mr. GUINNESS: 22½ years' purchase is the average.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Taking it at that, you multiply £100 rent by 22½ years' purchase.
    Mr. GUINNESS: It is 22½ years net.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman does not know the elements of the problem. When you speak about a number of years' purchase of land, it means upon the gross. That has been the whole trouble between the other side of the House and ours. Our point of view is that you ought to proceed upon the net, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that that is a right thing to do, then I claim him as a brother and a friend.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am not dealing with what is right or otherwise; I am dealing with the facts.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman clearly is under the impression that at the present moment you deduct the whole of the outgoings when you come to years' purchase. There is management, which is 5 per cent.; there is, in addition, repairs, which are about 20 per cent. since the War; that is 25 per cent.; there is, in addition to that, the taxes and the tithe rents. He will find
    1056
    that there is only £05 left out of every £100, and that is putting it very high. Does he say that he can sell a farm when all you have got is 22½ years' purchase upon £65?
    Mr. GUINNESS: That is what the local authority has been paying on the-average for this land. That is my information.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I am speaking as a Solicitor who had considerable practice at one time in the, country, and I know that the years of purchase were upon the basis of the gross rental and that when you come to the net rental it runs to over 30 and sometimes 35 years' purchase. If you take the net rent—I believe that is the fair thing to do, but you do not do it, and that is one of the difficulties—the tenant would have to pay £2,250 upon the basis of 22½ years' purchase. At 5 per cent. that comes to £112. In addition to that, he has to pay the whole of the repairs. That is the difficulty which has arisen up to the present whenever a tenant farmer begins to buy his land. You met it in Ireland by the low rate of interest, and by the enormous reductions in rent from year to year, which took into account the fact of the tenant making the repairs. Therefore, you had the true basis in Ireland before you began to compute the years' purchase; but here yon have not the true basis. That is why you will find it an expensive transaction, and, when tenants of small holdings do not buy, they know that fact, and they know that it does not pay them. I will give another reason. In Scotland you have had the same system substantially as in Ireland of fixing rents and gibing statutory security of tenure. There is no demand for purchase there among the tenants who have all those conditions. In Ireland, you had a demand because you had a continuous conflict between landlords and tenants, partly racial, partly traditional, very largely religious. There, it was found necessary for the peace of Ireland to bring the whole system to an end. In the case of Scotland, where you have none of these conflicts, so long as you give the tenant farmer security of tenure and give him a fair rent, I found that there was a strong opposition to any policy of land purchase in Scotland at all. They may or may not have pre-

    1057
    ferred the county council as the landlord, or the State as landlord, but that is not what they were concerned about chiefly. What they were concerned about was that all the money they had to spare should go into working capital en their farms, and that they should not have to sink it in the purchase of the freehold.
    Take the proposal of the Government. You will find that with £100 rent, even with an advance of nine-tenths, the tenant farmer has to find £120 or £130. He has to pay the lawyer. You cannot get rid of the lawyer in these matters. The moment you do that, you have to pay for stamps, and you have to borrow from the bank. There is anything from £100 to £150 for the smallholder to find. It is as much as he can do to find working capital for running his farm. There is no doubt about it, that where you have a good estate, where the rental is a fair one, where men can remain there generation after generation upon the farms without ever being turned out, where they know from experience that they will get fair terms, and where they know that if they cultivate the land well, nobody will raise the rent against them—any man would prefer that to owning the land himself. That is the case with the county councils. The county councils do not interfere with their tenants. I do not know a case of an unfair eviction on a county council farm.
    It is all very well for my hon. Friend to talk about what may happen when the Labour party are in power. I do not believe that any Labour party or any other party dare incur the obliquy of turning out a good tenant from his farm for political reasons. If I were a candidate on the other side, there is nothing better that I would like than to see the other party committing that gross electoral blunder. He ought to encourage it now if he wants to have an electoral advantage. But it is not done. A Tory county council, or a Liberal county council, or a Socialist county council may come to the conclusion that a man more or less of their way of thinking is necessarily a more intelligent man, and, therefore, a better farmer. I have seen that with Tory landlords, and Tory agents. That is only human nature. But I do not believe that you will find that any party would commit the first-class error of turning men out of their
    1058
    farms, when they are farming well and decently and paying their rent, merely for political reasons. The result is, that once you become tenant of a county council your security is absolute.
    The hon. Member has quoted the case of Denmark. He says that they have gone back upon the Act of 1910. If he says so, seeing that I have not verified the facts, I accept the statement which he makes; but it is no use quoting the case of Denmark and imagining that it is comparable to this country. It is no use even quoting the case of Ireland and imagining that it is comparable to this country. Denmark and Ireland are purely agricultural communities; this country is not. Even if we revive agriculture in this country, as some of us hope to see it revive, we shall never quite make this country an agricultural country in the sense that Denmark and Ireland are agricultural countries. The mere fact that we have coal in such prodigious quantities in this country will always make this an industrial country, and the fact that we have such gigantic seaports here will make this an industrial country in the main. There is a great difference between handing over the land of a country in a purely agricultural community to people who have been there and who constitute practically the whole industry of the country, and doing it in a country like ours, where industry is constantly encroaching upon the land, and where, whenever it does encroach upon the land, you will be creating fresh difficulties in the way of the acquisition of land by multiplying smallholders all over the community.
    There is another reason why you cannot do it in this country. If you go to Denmark, you will find that, in the main, it is a country of small farmers. I should say, quoting from memory, that certainly 75 per cent. of the land of Denmark is owned by farmers who cultivate less than 100 acres. I should be very much surprised if it is not cultivated by farmers who cultivate 50 acres and less. I am not sure about Ireland, but I think to a very large extent that state of things is true of Ireland. Therefore, when you are creating freeholds there, you are creating a large number of small freeholds. What would you be doing here? I should say that one-fourth of the cultivated land of

    1059
    England is cultivated by a few thousands of tenant farmers. You would simply be handing over one-fourth of the cultivated land of England to 7,000 or 8,000 freeholders. At any rate, it is not a very large figure. If the Minister of Agriculture will look at the figures he will be amazed to find how few are the farmers who between them cultivate about one-fourth of the land of this country. To do that, is to perpetuate an inequality which would make the creation of small holdings almost impossible. It is very difficult to get small holdings now, when the land is only owned by, it may be, 20 or 30 owners in a particular community. If you multiply these freeholders, you will find that to get a small holding scheme through a county council would be next to impossible. Therefore, it would he a very great mistake.
    Something has been said about France. I should like to know whether the hon. Member who mentioned France has really gone carefully into what is happening in France. Ownership in Denmark is new. It is a matter of the last 50 years. It has not been really tried and established. It gives complete security of tenure to a generation; but what has happened in France? What has happened in France is that, you are practically basing the land of France upon money-lending. You find that. a. tenant farmer has to make provision for one son, or it may he a daughter who is married to a farmer, and he has also to make provision for another, and sometimes a third. The farm is charged in order to raise money. The result is that very often on these small farms in France people are living under conditions which nobody in this country would ever tolerate. The land of France, in spite of the fact that there is a very industrious peasantry, is not producing anything comparable to its fertility—nothing like it.
    The fact of the matter is, that up to the present you have only had a conflict of two systems. One is ownership and the other is tenancy under conditions that do not give security of tenure. The third system has not had a fair trial. It did not have a fair trial in Ireland because of long historical reasons which have nothing whatever to do with the industrial or economic question. There is no other country where the system of
    1060
    security of tenure has had a sufficiently prolonged experience in order to demonstrate its superiority over the system of land owned by the cultivator, or the other system. Wherever it has been tried upon good estates it has been successful. The difficulty with regard to ownership is that you cannot enforce good cultivation. It is essential in this country that we should increase the production of food. We must do that by giving security to the man that whatever money and effort he spends upon the land, he and his children will get the full benefit. We must also give him security that all the capital which he has, he puts into working the land and not into dead capital, such as the purchase of the freehold. We must also have the condition that the occupation of land should be subject to the legal obligation to cultivate. If we do not do that, we shall never raise cultivation in this country.
    We are buying food in increasing quantities every year. I have called attention in this House, repeatedly, to the returns of the Smithfield Market. I wish the Clerk of the Corporation had sent a copy of that document to every Member of Parliament. Although hon. Members might not come to the conclusion that the schemes which my hon. Friends of the Labour party advance, or the schemes which I propose are good schemes for dealing with the problem, the document might rouse them to an appreciation of the importance of the urgency of the problem. There is not a week which does not show that we are buying four-fifths of our meat from abroad to feed the population of this great Metropolis. We are buying that meat not from the Empire but from abroad. Last year, we bought, I think, thousands of tons more than we did the preceding year in spite of the fact that trade was worse. What is wanted in this country is some scheme that will increase production. You will not increase production by forcing a man to divert his capital so that he has not capital for properly working his farm, and he has to borrow it from the bank. You start him on the money lending business, and then give him land without any condition at all with regard to cultivation.
    The scheme of smallholdings has, on the whole, been a success where it has

    1061
    been tried under conditions of tenancy. The hon. Member said, "Ah! but you have picked tenants. You have picked land." These men, picked tenants and skilled tenants, according to the hon. Member, have been there for years upon the land and have never thought it worth while to buy their land up to the present. They are just the men, who, according to his own description, would do it if they thought it was to their advantage. They found it to their advantage to put the whole of their money into working capital, instead of buying the land. The right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong track because he has got wrong facts. I ask him to consider very carefully whether it is not better for him to encourage cultivation, with good sound security of tenure, rather than enter into this new venture which will never be successful in England whatever it has done elsewhere.
    Sir R. LYNN: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, my knowledge of agriculture is of the practical kind, whereas his is simply that of a politician. As he has said, quite fairly in his speech, I do not think we can compare the question of agriculture in a country like Ireland, where there is a large number of small holdings, to the position of agriculture in England, where there are many large holdings. The only point I want to make is that so far as agriculture in Ireland is concerned, nothing has done so much good for the country as the making of peasant proprietors, and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the fact that he is trying to make peasant proprietors in England. Wherever it has been tried, in the north, south, east and west of Ireland, it has been a huge success. I know of what I am speaking. I know everything about agriculture from A to Z, having been brought up on a farm; I know all the difficulties of landlords and tenants. It is one of the things that the Socialist party do not know anything about. They are always talking about agriculture, but if you were to present them with a farm they could not cultivate it. I hope the Minister, with the experience of Denmark and every other country, and especially of Ireland, will go ahead, and make us many peasant proprietors as he can.
    1062
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, and quite rightly, that as long as a. man does not own his farm, there is always a trouble that he will not cultivate it to the fullest extent. We have had that experience for 150 years in Ireland. Somebody, like some of the multi-millionaires who are now leading Socialists, would go out to Monte Carlo and lose a pile of money, and, then send a letter home to his agent telling him he must increase the rent of the farmer. The right hon. Gentleman says that the man who cultivates his farm best is the man who has the heaviest penalty imposed upon him, and for that reason I want to see every farmer made the owner of his farm. I do not see how a county council can carry out farming operations better than the average farmer, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself could carry out farming operations better than the experienced farmer. I think he is modest enough to admit that. The one thing for the farming industry in this country is to make as many peasant proprietors as you can. You will then find that farming will develop; farmers will take a greater interest in their work; and, after the experience of Ireland, if you make a man an owner of something, no matter what it is, it will certainly be an advantage.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: There have been one or two allusions from the other side to the poor man. The lion. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said that this Bill was going to be a real benefit to the poor man. I do not know quite what kind of poor man the hon. and learned Member had in view, but it would have been an advantage if, in addition to the one side of the cost which is shown in the Financial Resolution, we had had a memorandum showing the income of a poor man and what he would have to be able to pay in order to become an owner. I should like to refer to some figures given during the Debate when the Agricultural Wages Bill was introduced in 1924. Certain particulars as to the budget of a farm labourer were given and it was shown that out of a communal wage of 24s. a week, after the various expenses had been met, there was only ¾d. per meal left over for each member of a family consisting of the husband and wife and five children, aged

    1063
    from two years to eleven. I am sure that no Member of this House would desire to perpetuate a state of affairs where there is only ¾d. per meal left over. Wages have increased since then, but *she figures will still be altogether too low.
    In the course of the same Debate Mr. George Edwards, who was then the Member for South Norfolk, gave details of the family budget for the week preceding that in which the Debate took place. He gave the whole of the items of the budget of a farm labourer, whose total income was 23s. 7d. per week. He showed that during that particular week coal cost 5s., bread 4s., beef 3s. 6d., milk is. 8d., butter 1s. 6d., and sugar 1s. 2¼d., for a man and wife and three children, and that after these expenses and others had been incurred there was 2s. 1½d. left to enable the man to meet rent, boots and clothing, for a family of five. As I have said, wages have increased since then, but there is no hon. Member who would suggest for a moment that this is anything like sufficient to maintain a proper standard of life for a farm labourer or anybody else. And even if wages have increased, they have not increased to such an extent as will allow for anything in the way of an increase in rent, or enable the farm labourer to provide the 10 per cent. towards the cost of his holding, and subsequently to contribute towards the rent, plus Sinking Fund for 60 years. These figures, which have never been contradicted, do show the utter impossibility of a poor man ever being able to provide funds in order to buy his small holding.
    Mr. SHEPPERSON: We have heard this evening of the experience of small holdings in Denmark and Ireland, and, if I may, I should like to speak from my experience of small holdings in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said that what we want in this country is production. I absolutely agree with him in that, and I submit that this Bill, in so far as it. encourages ownership by the smallholder, will increase production upon small holdings. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, that there was no material difference between a
    1064
    small owner and a smallholder who was an occupier. He disagreed with the Minister, and I agree with him in disagreeing with the Minister, because there is a difference, a great difference, between a smallholder who is an owner, and a smallholder who is an occupier. If he went into the part of the country that I come from, which has a greater number of smallholders in proportion to its size than any other county in England—Ely—he would find the difference between a smallholder who is an owner and the smallholder who is a tenant.
    The smallholder who is merely a tenant naturally, during the term of his tenancy, endeavours to get as much as he can out of his holding, but the smallholder who is an owner, or likely to become an owner, has a different outlook upon his small holding. It is in his interests to maintain the fertility of the holding, and he will put into it artificial fertilisers for the one purpose of improving the fertility of the soil, because he himself will be the gainer. He will constantly work to improve the small holding, and therefore produce the greater quantity of foodstuffs. As far as my experience goes, I am perfectly convinced that a small holder who is likely to become an owner is more efficient, more energetic in his holding than a man who is merely a tenant.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Since the beginning of this discussion there has been a constant evasion on the other side of the House of the direct question which was put to them during the more exciting days of 1909 and 1911, and I want the Minister of Agriculture, therefore, later on, if he will, to endeavour to reply to the question. Is it a fact that land will produce food best while it is rented by the tenant, or when the person who is cultivating it has to drive himself to the Bankruptcy Court in order to try and buy it? Grass will grow on the land quite irrespective of the conditions of tenancy or ownership of the soil. The argument put forward all through this Debate is that there is something magic about ownership which makes a man put more into the land than he otherwise would do. Let us look at the contention for a moment or two. I wonder if hon. Members opposite fully appreciate the argument that lies behind that statement.

    1065
    Why is it that in the past men have been diffident in extracting out of the soil every ounce of its fertility when the land did not belong to them; diffident of exerting every ounce of strength when it was not their own property? The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to Ireland, and said that it was the insecurity of the tenant and the enormous powers of the superior landlord that made him unwilling to put all he might into the land. That is unchallengable. Hon. Members opposite seem to dissent, but in Ireland the more an Irish farmer or agricultural labourer put into his land the higher his rent became in consequence, until you brought about the condition of things in Ireland in which the landowner became the lifelong enemy of the man on the soil. It was because of tyranny and the exactions of superior landlords that the tenants refused to put their best work into the land. It was in proportion to the amount of ownership established that they certainly became more interested in the soil, in using it. But hon. Gentleman opposite should be the last to cheer such a statement. It was only a desire to escape from the tyranny of the old landowner that made many small land users wish to become owners in Ireland. It is now unchallengeable that, given security of tenure—this has not been met—with no fear of a superior landowner making exactions on the user of the soil, a man will take as much, if not more, out of the land than he would by running himself into the Bankruptcy Court and in expending money to secure a piece of land—money that might be used to develop the land.
    There is another argument which is insisted upon here, as it was insisted upon upstairs. It is with regard to Denmark. I want to take this Denmark business in hand for a moment, because there is a lot of slack talk about it. You cannot compare Denmark with this country in, this matter. In Denmark users of land for more than two centuries have been subject to a certain form of tax, and that tax has had a strange economic influence upon the owners of the laud of Denmark. Until you appreciate that fact, it is hopeless to drag into this House any comparison between Denmark and this country. Every user of land in Denmark was subject to what was called a hard corn tax. It was imposed
    1066
    after scientific analysis in a very crude manner years ago. It was imposed upon the land in this way. An examination of the soil was made, and it was computed how much hard corn could be produced from the soil, and the owner or user of the land was subject to the tax whether he produced that amount of produce or not.
    The net result of a century or more of the influence of that tax was to compel the tenant to take the best he could out of the soil, because he was subject to the tax annually. In later years they changed this crude form of hard corn tax into a tax which would compare with what is known in this country as a site value tax. In this House and in Committee upstairs we have been treated to the argument that in Denmark there are so many more smallholders than in England. Of course there are. But I would remind the Minister that Denmark has this year and last year been busily promoting two Bills to transform the hard corn tax into a site values tax, and that every user of land in Denmark at the end of this year, whether owner or tenant, will be subject to a land values tax, whereas smallholders in this country wish to enjoy that immunity from land values taxation which has been enjoyed by their superiors in the past.
    Let us come to the Minister. I know that he is new to a job which involves a great number of complications, and that a new man takes some time to grasp them. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling us to-day why it was necessary to have small owners in this Bill, and he used this argument—that in the past tenants had such an advantage over the small owner that in this Bill the best thing to do was to make more small owners. His argument was that in the past the tenant enjoyed the use of land at an annual rent which bore no relation to the capital value of the land, whereas the tenant who was anxious to become an owner had to advance a large sum of money in the. first instance and had to carry on his hack the cost of repairs, and so on in other words, that the hardships of those who were endeavouring to become small owners were so great and the advantages were so much in favour of tenants, that he thought it better to advance in the Bill a scheme for more small owners. It is a new form of logic.

    1067
    It is true that as one reads the Bin one finds in it a very careful device. I do not know who has been the architect of the Bill, but he certainly is a most commendable servant to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They are going to play upon the psychology which, as it were, befogs the mind of the agricultural labourer into the belief that he is becoming something, that he is becoming an owner. They are to play upon that state of mind. They are telling this man, "Support this Bill and the party that has introduced it, and in 60 years you will be the owner of a piece of land in England." They tell him, "You can support the Bill full of optimism." The man is led to believe that he has a great outlook. Yes, he has great hopes that if at the age of 20 he takes advantage of the Bill, when he reaches the age of 80, God willing, he will be the owner of a hit of land in England.
    Mr. J. JONES: Yes, 6 feet by 3 feet.
    Mr. MacLAREN: He is to be the owner after 60 years.
    Brigadier-General WARNER: No; directly he pays the rent.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I wish hon. Gentlemen who interrupt would relieve me of their support at the moment. If a man fails to pay a fair interest the local authorities can displace him, so that for the duration of 60 years he is more or less a tenant, subject to the local authority and he does not become the owner until he has finally passed through 60 years' ordeal. During those 60 years the man will be rooted to the soil, still believing that the day will come when he will become an owner free from the exactions of the county councils or the superior landowners, trudging along with hopes for the future, subject to all sorts of adversities, putting all his capital into the undertaking. A ghastly prospect for a labourer with the fine idea of becoming an owner in 60 years! Superimposed upon that the Minister knows perfectly well that Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill are nothing more nor less than long-drawn-out legal clauses, which are essential in a Bill of this kind in which you establish ownership. All these complications and legal enactments to safeguard the local authorities against the recalcitrant small-
    1068
    owner will, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, lead to a great deal of litigation on both sides. All of this money is being spent, not to advance agriculture in this country, not to increase the production of food, but because the Government are persistent in advocating peasant proprietorship against the security of tenure which could be easily established.
    I do not think that the Amendment before the House will meet with any success, because the Government from the outset when they gave a hint of their policy—despite the. Minister's statement to-day that it was no part of the Government's policy to support the owner against the tenant or vice versa—have said that they were going to establish peasant proprietors. I say here, as I said in Committee, that the whole scheme is intended first of all to impose on the simple-minded agricultural labourer the idea that he is to get something. He is to be made to believe that finally he will become an owner of land in this country, as peasants are owners of land in France —France, the nursery ground of revolutions, the birthplace of so many advanced movements in the past. When the French in the agricultural areas were converted into smallowners they became naturally the reactionary element upon which the Conservative parties of France could depend. That is the spirit behind this Bill.
    Our Amendment will meet with no success in the Division Lobby, but I tell Members opposite that I, for one, will be in many of their constituencies pointing out the facts. It will be our business to point out also that this proposal of the Government is significant of the times in which we are living, because the owners of land. in England know that the day is coming when they will be uprooted and dispossessed of a monopoly which they have held for centuries, and they are hoping to get out of that difficulty by parcelling out great areas of land to the local authorities, if the local authorities are simple enough to entertain the scheme. We will do nothing to help peasant proprietorship, but we will certainly do all that we can to get control of land, to give security of tenure to men who want some alternative to walking the streets and receiving the dofe. This Bill is the

    1069
    wonderful present which the Conservative party is offering to a destitute agricultural population in the hope that they will still continue to dominate that population as they have done in the past, but we on this side of the House are optimistic enough to believe that even in the brains of the agricultural labourer there is already a flickering of intelligence.
    Mr. GRACE: It is very difficult to follow the objections of some hon. Members opposite to peasant ownership. There was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead). Is he aware that in Russia the whole of the agricultural system is based upon peasant ownership? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is. It is the peasant of Russia who is saving Russia from complete ruin to-day. If Russia ever comes back to a state of sanity and civilisation it will be due to the peasant owners of Russia. The crux of the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was that he objected to peasant ownership because the moment a man owned land you were no longer able to control him and to force him to carry on his farming on certain defined lines. It seems to me grossly unfair that the industry of farming should be subject to any kind of control by State Departments or county councils or any other body.
    6.0 P.M.
    Other business people have not to submit to control of this kind. Why should farmers be compelled to do so? Under-lying the right hon. Gentleman's remarks there seems to he the idea that the farmers of this country are not able to do their job properly. The Liberal party are always ready to point to the farmers of Denmark or Norway and to say how splendidly those farmers do their work— just as hon. Members of the Labour party like to refer to Russia. They never see the skill and genius of their own people at home. I am one of those who believe that farming in England to-day is carried on in a highly efficient way and it is not right that farming alone should have to submit to this kind of control. If you try to control people by public authorities in this way, you do more harm than good. We had some experience during the War When we had the county agricultural authorities, and we know that, if they were asked to submit.
    1070
    to that kind of control again, the farmers of this country would one and all object.
    The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the county agricultural authorities should be able to come down upon the farmers if the farmers did not cultivate the land in the way which these particular authorities regarded as the proper way, and that the authorities should have power to turn the farmers out of their farms. Would that be security of tenure? The right hon. Gentleman referred to France. I happen to know something of France, because I lived on a farm in Touraine for some years, and I know that every year France grows more wheat than is grown in Canada. I am not prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the condition of farming in France where peasant ownership largely prevails. The right hon. Gentleman said that to-day, in England, farming is largely carried on under landlords who let their land to tenants, and who are unable to control the method of farming. He argued that therefore, less food is produced than would be produced if the land were under the control of county councils. The right hon. Gentleman says he has had experience as a country Solicitor. I do not think he can ever have read a farm agreement. Had he done so he would have known that it contains all kinds of restrictions and conditions to enforce good husbandry. I would remind hon. Members opposite that Rome, in the clays of its prosperity, had a great system of peasant ownership and when that system began to fall into decay, so also did Rome. This part of the Bill which makes peasant proprietorship possible is the best and most essential part of the Measure, and I shall therefore support it.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: In extending any scheme of small holdings, we ought to take into consideration the type of individual who will make the best smallholder. I submit that the hest type of smallholder is the worker who is already engaged in agriculture. There is a demand for that type of worker in our Colonies, and the only way we can help to retain that type of worker—who is so much required in this country—is to give him the chance of getting a small holding. Under the scheme before us, the very type of individual who would make best use of the small holding will be excluded from getting it, because he is

    1071
    among the poorest of those on the land at the present time. He is to be asked to buy his small holding, and he will be in perpetual servitude to the moneylenders if this scheme goes through.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: He can rent it if ho likes.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Yes, but there is to be included in the cost of rental, what would actually be the charges made by the moneylender.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY Sir H. CAUTLEY indicated dissent.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am prepared to admit as an individual that I have not yet learned everything in connection with small holdings. I have not yet learned everything in connection with agriculture, despite the fact that for several years I have been convener of an agricultural committee in a county which is one of the finest agricultural areas in Great. Britain. I am sure that the Minister, like every agriculturist, has been interested in this discussion, and more than interested in the statements made by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Sir R. Lynn). I am prepared to admit that what I have learned in connection with this subject has been learned since I left School, but we have the claim made by the hon. Member for West Belfast that he had learned everything about agriculture before he left School. That is what his statement amounts to, unless Dod's Parliamentary Companion is incorrect; because I find from that work that the hon. Member started journalism when he was 17 years of age, and has been editor of a newspaper since 1903. Yet we have the claim that he knows everything about agriculture seriously made here by this Member of the Tory party, the very party that did its utmost to keep back peasant proprietorship in Ireland and to maintain those millionaires to whom the hon. Member made such nice references.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Member recollect that the scheme for land purchase was carried through by George -Wyndham, and was initiated under Conservative auspices?
    Mr. J. JONES: And your party turned Wyndham down, and killed the man.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: It is equally true that every one of the big landowners who
    1072
    had to be fought in Ireland belonged to the Conservative party and those who still remain are staunch supporters of the Conservative party. However, I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take into consideration the statement of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Agriculture in this country is in a bad way. We want to give the best of education to all connected with agriculture, whether farmers or smallholders, and now we know that we have in our midst a man who knows everything about agriculture—one who has nothing to learn on the subject. I feel sure we have the wrong person as Minister of Agriculture. The present Minister would be the last individual in the House to claim that he knows everything about the subject. Even the experts in his Department would admit that it is a case of "the more they know the less they know" in connection with agriculture. Now that we have this claim by the hon. Member for West Belfast, I sincerely trust that the Amendment will be carried, and, that, even should it be lost, the Minister will have the hon. Member for West Belfast as one of his colleagues in the near future—the man who knows all about agriculture.
    Mr. D. REID: I do not wish to intervene in the Debate for any length of time, and I would rot have risen at all had not the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), in the course of his speech, drawn certain inferences from the state of land owning in Ireland. There seems to be a gap in the hon. Member's information on this subject. It is quite true that there was a time in Ireland when farming suffers owning to the fact that rents could be raised arbitrarily. But the hon. Member proceeded to draw a certain inference front that fact in which I submit he was wrong. He must remember that in 1881, what was known as the Irish land Art was passed. That gave security of tenure gave the tenant certain rights and fixed the rent which was to be imposed upon the tenant. Yet that Measure did not bring satisfaction to anybody and, after 20 years of that system, it was necessary for George Wyndham to eVolve a scheme of land purchase. The system which the hon. Member advocates has been tried and has failed. The root fallacy is that the valuation is precise. It is not. Once you have people going into the Courts

    1073
    to have their rents fixed, you have different valuers taking up different views, and you have the good farmer treated on a different footing from the bad farmer. You have different Courts having different ideas as to the proper methods of valuation.
    What the farmer wants is something to fix the matter definitely. When he is the owner he knows where he is and that if he puts work into the land the advantage comes to himself. If he even had a rent charge fixed on the land which would not vary, his position would be better than if he had a rent liable to change. I think that consideration should be brought to the notice of the hon. Member opposite who must see that the deductions which he drew by no means follow from the state of affairs which formerly prevailed in Ireland. I do not wish to go into the controversial position taken up by the last speaker, I only point to the facts of land tenure in Ireland and the results of experience there, and ask the hon, Member if he draws again upon Irish experience to use the whole of the material and not only a part of it.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Will the hon. Member allow me to point out that when referring to Ireland I was referring to the time when there was no restriction on the action of the superior landlord in regard to increasing rents. I used the argument that the precarious condition of the tenants in those circumstances, made many of them look to peasant proprietorship as a means of escape.
    Mr. J. JONES: I think it is time that those of us who represent industrial constituencies should have some say on matters affecting the land. I happen to be an Irishman by birth and I spent a considerable portion of my early days in Ireland. I know something about landlordism in its various phases—some of them I would like to forget and a good deal of them I hope to remember. But I rise now to ask where do we come in— those who represent the industrial worker? In these discussions upon land we are always left out; we are nobody's children. These discussions always centre round the farmer, the labourer, and the landowner. The only time we are called upon is when "your King and country need you." Our rights in the soil and our claim to the land in which we were
    1074
    born sink into insignificance beside the vested interests which various people hold in the land of Great Britain. I live in a borough which, 40 years ago, was practically a village. It has grown to be one of the largest towns in Great Britain. We are paying in ground rents every year £2,000,000 to absentee landlords for the right to live in our own borough which has been built up by the industry of our people. The River Thames happens to flow past us and great clocks and factories have been put up along the riverside. When we come to this House we are told about security of tenure and good husbandry. What about the good husbandry of the people in the factories and workshops who are producing wealth? After all, the agriculturist lives upon the town worker and the town worker lives upon the agriculturist. One is essential to the other. Why this differentiation? The soil of England belongs to the people of England and not to a section of them.
    Any advantage that can be gained from the soil should be the common property of all the people of Great Britain. We are told my Lord Tom Noddy and my Lord Somebody McGregor must have all the rights, and the Government say: "In order to maintain our position, in order that we may be able to keep the present opportunity, we are going to give a little bit of sugar to the bird." The bird is the agricultural labourer, and he always sings the song von want him to:
    "God bless the squire and his rotations,
    And keep us in our proper stations."
    So you say you will give him a hit of land for himself, and the end of it all will be that, when he has reached a certain period of his life, he will have six feet by three of land. That will be his share of the soil. France has been referred to, but 60 per cent. of the soil of France belongs to the bankers now, 20 per cent. belongs to big proprietors, and there are only 20 per cent. of the peasant proprietors of France who can claim their souls as their own. That has been proved by official figures demonstrated before the Chamber of Deputies, and yet we are asked to walk into this parlour. The policy of the Conservative party is, of course: "We have to hang on a little bit longer, and if we do not hang on now, we shall hang later on," and we are hanging them, at Hull and other places. Ire-

    1075
    land has been referred to, but I do not want to talk about Ireland, because I would like to forget the times I spent in it as a boy, in the workhouse.
    I would like to remind some of our hon. Friends opposite that, as far as land is concerned, what they want to do with the labourers is to put them in pawn. That is the proposal in this Bill. The man who wants a bit of land is to be the owner. I have been an owner, not of land, but of something else, and I wish to Heaven I could get rid of the ownership. Ownership is not everything. You can be an owner and be in debt. We want ownership with security, but there is only one kind of ownership with security, and that is communal ownership—the people owning their own country in the interests of all the people. That is the only kind of ownership that matters. The only thing we own now, of course, is the National Debt, and we can all hang on to that. The only people who want us not to get rid of it are the bankers and the financiers. The National Debt is ours all the time. They never object to that being made common property, but when we ask for the common ownership of the soil, they say: "It cannot be done! Private ownership is the thing, and you have to encourage a man to put his best into the soil," but
    what does the owner put into the soil? What do the present owners put into the soil? They put the worker into it, and that is where they want to keep him, down with his nose to the ground all the time, and when he has done 60 years of it:
    "Rattle his bones over the stones!
    He's only a pauper whom nobody owns!"
    That is the position the worker is going to be in. So far as some of us are concerned, all that we say is that the only solution of this problem is public ownership of the soil, the nation to be the owner of the soil and those who work for the nation to get their proper return from the soil. That can only be done when we have the land made what it ought to be, not a land to fight for when you make wars, but a land to work for when we have peace. That will be the time when we shall have a real nation, but now you are only playing about with it and trying to obscure the issue, one party proposing one thing and another party proposing another. There is only one real solution of all these problems, and that is that the land shall belong to the people, and the people shall belong to the land.
    Question put, "That the words buy or 'stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 119.

    Division No. 511.]

    AYES

    [6.20 p.m.

    Acland.Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

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

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Elliot, Major Waiter E.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Ellis, R. G.

    Albery, Irving James

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Elvedon, Viscount

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Astbury, Lieut., Commander F. W.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Christie, J. A.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Balniel, Lord

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Finburgh. S.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Forestier Walker, Sir L.

    Barnett, Major sir Richard

    Clayton, G. C.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Foxcroft Captain C. T.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir G. K.

    Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cope. Major William

    Gates, Percy

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Grace, John

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Graham. Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir K.

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Brass, Captain W.

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

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Dawson, sir Philip

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

    Drewe, C.

    Hanbury, C.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Welden)

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

    Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

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

    Murchison, C. K.

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

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

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

    Holt. Capt. H. P.

    Neville, R. J.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Hopkinson, A, (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Waddington, R.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Hurst Gerald B.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Wells, S. R.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Preston, William

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Raine, W.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Lougher, L.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Withers, John James

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Womersley, W. J.

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

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Savery, S. S.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Slaney, Major p. Kenyon

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Major Hennessy and Captain

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Margesson.

    NOES

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Ritson, J.

    Attlee. Clement Richard

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

    Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

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

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barr. J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Batey, Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    John, William (Rhondda. West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Briant, Frank

    Johnston. Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

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

    Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Ponty pridd)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Kennedy. T.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E. V

    Clynes, Rt. Hon John R.

    Lansbury. George

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee. F.

    Townend, A. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lowth, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Duncan, C.

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

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dunnico, H.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wostwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

    Fenby, T. D.

    MacNeill-Weir, L,

    Whiteley, W

    Gardner, J. P.

    March, S.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Georne, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Maxton, James

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Montague, Frederick

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenall, T.

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)

    Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murnin, H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Nayler, T. E.

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Paling, W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

    Hardie, George D.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to sell to co-operative societies, etc.)
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, after the word "council," to insert the words:
    "persons willing to work on a cooperative system shall have power to appeal within one month to the Minister against the refusal of the county council to approve their system."
    I should like to commend this Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), to the Minister, because we feel that if these small holdings are to be successful, they must be allied with the marketing system, and it is impossible for the small grower or cultivator by himself to market his produce effectively. Even the large grower has difficulty in that direction, and wherever small holdings have been developed success fully, it has been on a co-operative basis. Therefore, we feel that if the Minister intends to develop small holdings effectively side by side, he should endeavour to develop the co-operative system. Not only that, but, as a matter of fact, the Minister knows we have a consumers' co-operative movement in this country which could be very well linked up so as to take the produce from co-operative small holdings. If the hon. Member for Burslem had moved this Amendment, provided the Minister could have seen his way to accept it, I should have liked later on to have moved a further Amendment, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of indicating the line of the further Amendment.
    In the first place, this Amendment draws attention to the necessity of sympathetic consideration for the development of co-operation in agriculture, but I desire to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that when we have developed a co-operative system of farming, we do not appear to obtain very favourable treatment from county councils. The further Amendment is intended to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, while we are passing legislation of this sort, co-operative farming and co-operative organisation may be seriously injured if the county council is not sympathetic. In the Wholesale Co-operative Society we have had experience of what one might term biased county council authorities against the co-operation system. I think
    1080
    the Minister and hon. Members opposite will realise that in the development of agriculture in this country there are two opposing views. Already, on a previous Amendment, opinion has been voiced on this side to the effect that we feel that ownership of land primarily belongs to the community, and any system of cultivation should be on the basis of tenancy rather than on the basis of ownership. The reason we wish to further the development of co-operative farming is that we believe it is a step in the direction of co-operative ownership of the land, either on the part of the State, the county council, the local authority or co-operative organisations as such. It embodies, of course, the collectivist principle of farming and the cultivation of land, and, in view of the Volume of opinion which has developed in this country, which we on this side of the House represent in principle, I think it is a desirable thing that this should be eneouraged in every direction.
    I do not think, as a matter of fact, that agricultural interests in this country will lose by working-class organisations gaining experience in the cultivation of land. It brings co-operative organisations, who speak for what we might describe as industrial opinion, to represent the views and interests of the consumers in our large industrial towns, which react considerably on the development of agriculture in this country. I think it is a practical gain to agriculture that bodies representing that point of view should gain first-hand experience of the farming and agricultural conditions of this country. Let roe draw the attention of the Minister to one or two experiences which, in our view, show that a good deal of bias inn prejudice can be levelled against the development of co-operation, and this Bill and this particular Clause at present do not meet this difficulty. I think the Minister is aware of some of the facts which I am going to mention. The Co-operative Wholesale Society has an estate at Coldham, in Cambridgeshire, of 3,000 acres. It is very well cultivated; it is intensively cultivated. It has been used for fruit and vegetable produce, and it was the intention of that organisation eventually to establish jam works right in the heart of the country in order to deal with the produce from the estate in its most fresh condition for the purpose of producing

    1081
    jam, and I submit that the linking-up of rural industries of manufacture in the centre of our agricultural communities represents a distinct advantage.
    What has been our experience? We find that the county council is strongly prejudiced against the system of co-operative marketing. A question was put to the Minister some time ago, and from the information given to the House it was apparent that this particular county council had not obtained land from any other owner or occupier within its area. The only estate which was encroached upon was a co-operative estate, and all our experience goes to prove that was directed by prejudice. As a matter of fact, one of the county councillors, who had a good deal to do with the influence used on that occasion, actually made a public statement that he did not approve of the Co-operative Wholesale Society owning land at Cold-ham. While individuals are entitled to their views in matters of this sort, I think in matters of public policy, at least, we want some safeguard in legislation of this description, that if we cannot get local equity, the Minister of Agriculture should hold the scales fairly evenly balanced, to see that prejudice does not work Acts of Parliament.
    In view of the fact that during 1923 and 1924, 260,000 acres of land in this country, previously arable, were put back to grass, 200,000 acres to ordinary pasture, and 60,000 acres to rough grazing, we feel that the policy of the Minister of Agriculture should be directed to seeing that land of that description is utilised for the purpose, provided, of course, it is suitable land. I would be the last person to advocate that the smallholder should be put on a type of land which prevents his success at the very commencement. But the land to which I am referring—at least a good portion of it— had been used for arable cultivation previously, and it was considered of fair standard. Those on this side who desire to see a greater number of people in this country really engaged in land cultivation, brought into open spaces, away from the crowded areas of our industrial system, at the same time desire to see that this new development should take Place in harmony with the genera] interests of the consumers, because, rightly or wrongly, we claim that if the
    1082
    interests of the countryside become antagonistic to the general interests of the country, the weight of the industrial interests of Great Britain is bound in the long run to be asserted to the detriment of agriculture.
    That is why we are urging this Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it. He should make it clear that part of the policy of this Bill is not only to establish small holdings, but to encourage smallholders immediately to start on a firm foundation of co-operative organisation, so that their purchase requirements of seeds and instruments, and the use of machinery, can be obtained on the most economic footing, and that in marketing their produce, they will not be at the mercy of the middleman, the speculator and the market proprietor, but will be linked up with the consumers' co-operative movement, and thereby get full value for their produce. This Amendment, as I have said, does not go as far as I would like it to go, and if the Minister be willing to accept it, I should like to move later on that, after the word "system," to insert the words
    "or against any action of a county council tending to injure the development of cooperative farming."
    This additional Amendment is submitted to give co-operative undertakings in farming some guarantee that they will not beat the mercy of prejudiced and biased county councils.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Before calling on the Seconder, I must point out that the Mover covered a larger field than this Amendment really justifies. This Amendment proposes an appeal to the Minister against the refusal of the county council to approve their system. The hon. Member must keep to that point.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    As has been pointed out by the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment in my name, this is to safeguard any co-operative endeavour against any prejudicial judgment on the part of a county council. I do not think this is at all contentious, and I think the Minister might concede the point that it is possible in some parts of the country—in fact, I am sorry to say, it is true—that some county councils do not care about having co-operative movements in their

    1083
    areas at all. I think the Minister, if I may take his statements in Committee, would be the last person to stop any genuine co-operative effort in small holdings. This is merely to give such a movement the right of appeal against a biased judgment on the part of a county council. As the Bill stands, a county councils have the last word as to whether there should be co-operative allotments in their area. This is purely a safeguarding Amendment, and I do not think there is anything to be said against it, and I ask that it may be added to the Bill.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Quite different points affecting the co-operative movement have been raised in connection with this Amendment. The Amendment itself deals with the power of local authorities to provide small holdings for co-operative societies, and asks that in the case of unreasonable refusal there should be an appeal to the Minister. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) raised a further point, which it would not be in order for me to go into now.
    Mr. BARNESI was not expecting to have to move the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member mentioned a further and quite separate Amendment providing that land farmed by co-operative societies—great organisations like the Co-operative Wholesale Society, whose ease he mentioned—should be exempt from compulsory purchase in cases where the Minister thinks it unreasonable. I am afraid we could not put these big co-operative associations in a privileged position. In all cases of compulsory purchase we have to consider the merits of the case. The Ministry decides whether compulsory purchase is to take place, before the compensation is assessed, but we cannot give exemption to one class of freeholders as against another class.
    Mr. BARNES: We do not want that, but we do not want victimisation.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Many other people would allege victimisation. Many people are afraid of what will happen under the compulsory powers of this Bill. We believe the existing machinery works justly and enables the Ministry to say whether a
    1084
    compulsory order should be made, and, where an order is made, it ensures that adequate compensation is given; and we believe that the Co-operative Wholesale Society is just as certain of receiving fair treatment under that method as any other owners of land. But the Amendment deals with quite a different point. It asks that where local authorities have been asked to sell or lease land to smallholders who are on a co-operative basis, and they refuse, there shall be an appeal to the Ministry. We are quite in agreement with the mover of the Amendment as to the necessity of giving adequate facilities to smallholders to acquire land for cooperative cultivation, but we believe the provisions of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, are satisfactory in this respect, and we are therefore re-enacting Section 9, Sub-section (2) of that Act.
    As far as can be traced in the Ministry, there has never been any case under that Act in which unreasonable treatment of co-operative, or intending co-operative, smallholders by a local authority has been alleged, and, in the absence of a very strong case, it really would not be wise for the House of Commons to interfere with the free choice of tenants by the county councils. After all, the local authority are responsible for the whole loss over and above 75 per cent. of the loss, the approved estimate which they put forward to the Ministry before embarking on the scheme. Not all tenants, not even all co-operative tenants, are necessarily successful, and the Ministry and the Exchequer would be in an impossible position if, after having limited their contribution to a scheme, they then forced upon the local authority tenants against the will of that body. It is not from any lack of sympathy with the co-operative movement as applied to smallholders that I feel bound to resist the Amendment, but because I believe it trenches on an invariable principle of our administration in this matter, that local authorities must be free to choose their own tenants.
    Mr. BUXTON: The Minister has used arguments against granting immunity to any particular class of holders, but surely that is irrelevant to this particular Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham South

    1085
    (Mr. Barnes), which introduced quite a different point, and I have been answering that.
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps he was irrelevant too: but the Amendment deals solely with the proposal for an appeal, and when the Minister realises that that is all that is contained in it, can he not look favourably on this proposal, which may he very valuable, and is not at all offensive to a county council I know the Minister has no general objection to
    appeals, because I have found fault with him on other Bills for an excessive devotion to appeals. I am thinking at the moment of the Drainage Bill. Can he not took on this as a very innocent proposal which might very well be granted?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 210.

    Division No. 512.]

    AYES

    [6.54 p.m.

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barr, J.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Briant, Frank

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

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

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton. J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawrence, Susan

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Connolly, M.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Townend, A. E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lowth, T.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Varley, Frank B.

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dunnico, H.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Fenby, T. D.

    March, S.

    Westwood, J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Maxton, James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon J.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Whiteley, W

    Gosling, Harry

    Montague, Frederick

    Wiggins, William Martin

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

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Greenall, T.

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, David (Swansea. E.)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Groves, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hardle, George D.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Hayday, Arthur

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

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Albery, Irving James

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Astbury, Lieut.Commander F. W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Braithwaite, A. N.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Balniel, Lord

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Christie, J. A.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Cockerill, Brig. General Sir G. K.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cope, Major William

    Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Preston, William

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Price, Major c. W. M.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Raine, W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rentoul, G. S.

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

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Drewe, C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Sianey, Major P. Kenyon

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Hiffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Ellis, R. G.

    Knox, sir Alfred

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stanley. Lord (Fylde)

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

    Lougher, L.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Everard, W, Lindsay

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

    Fansnawe, Commander G. D.

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

    Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

    Fermoy, Lord

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Fielden, E. B.

    McLean, Major A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Finburgh, S.

    Macnag Men, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Forrest, W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Waddington, R.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Warner. BriGadier-General W. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Manningham-Buller. Sir Mervyn

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Ganzoni, Sir John.

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Gates, Percy

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wells, S. R.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)

    Goff, Sir Park

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

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

    Grace, John

    Moore, Lieut. -Colonel T. c. H. (Ayr)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Withers. John James

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Neville, R. J.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon, Walter E.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Hanbury, C.

    Ormsby-Core, Hon. William

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Young. Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.

    Thomson

    CLAUSE 4.—(Power to acquire land for small holdings.)
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
    "but so that in such purchase or lease the basis of compensation shall be the net annual value of the land."
    This Amendment was moved in Committee, and the main theme of the Minister s reply was that, while it might be that certain alterations are desired, at least by members of my party, this is not the moment when by piecemeal methods we should be altering the normal methods of purchasing land. I submit that is no reply whatever. Here we are engaged providing land for public and social purposes; purposes which the Com-
    1088
    mittee and, perhaps, a large proportion of the people beyond these walls are agreed is of first importance from the national point of view. That being the case, it seems to me that the basis of compensation ought to be as suggested in this Amendment, the net annual value of the land. In the past, one has found that wherever the Government in any of their schemes have entered a market, the price of land has quickly begun to increase. Between 1908 and 1919 the price paid for land for the settlement of people on small holdings averaged £32 per acre. When we were showing our patriotism and were settling ex-service men, following 1919, then the Government or the county councils had to pay an average price of £42 per acre, or an increase of 25 per

    1089
    cent., to ex-service men who were going to be settled, as some small remuneration for the services they rendered the State.
    In this financial Memorandum some reference is made to the possibilities of the price of land interest, land charges, and so forth. I do not know whether it is a question of coming events casting their shadows before or not. "If a council buys land at £50 an acre," and so forth. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that figure was used merely as a means of illustrating a point, or whether it is going to act in the country, particularly where arbitrators are called in, as a guiding influence. Land is to be purchased for small holdings under this scheme. No social or amenity value or any other value than the value at present obtained from the land should be paid to any landlord who is going to be compensated because of his land being taken over for general public purposes and the establishment of small holdings. The hon. Member for Maldon (Major RugglesBrise), replying to the Mover of this Amendment in Committee, said:
    "The whole purpose of this Bill is that the State should assist in order to get the right class of men settled on the land."
    The State is assisting financially to the extent of 75 per cent. of the loans. He proceeded:
    "This is adequately provided for in the terms of the Bill, and there is no need, in addition to that State assistance, also to give further assistance by robbing a man of his possessions, as would be the case if this Amendment were accepted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 16th November, 1926; col. 34.]
    If there has been any robbery in the past certainly the landowners have not been robbed. On every occasion when the nation, through its officials, has entered into the market, there has been an increase of price. It is the nation that has been robbed from time to time. I hope that if the promoter of this Bill desires to obtain the maximum value out of it he is going to limit to the least possible price the land on which small holdings are going to he settled. I think that the net annual value of the land is a fair and reasonable price. That should be an instruction to the county councils and arbitrators where they are called in. Then we may reach that stage when the price of land will no longer be a, barrier,
    1090
    and we will be able to settle a larger number of people on the land than hitherto.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend. The moment the Government appears on the scene as a land purchaser prices are inflated at once. When we were discussing the Agricultural Credits Bill it was openly admitted from the Government Front Bench that the land became higher in price the moment the Government appeared on the sence as a purchaser. It was true, and it will be true again. I cannot help recording what Lord Bledisloe said in another place in dealing with this question:
    "The great difficulty which arises in the case of allotment gardens outside a great urban area is that of acquiring land at any= thing like an economic value, bearing in mind that the rents charged to the allotment-holders are bound to be based upon the price paid on the acquisition of the land."
    That is a point which the Minister should keep in mind in discussing this Amendment. Lord Bledisloe proceeds:
    "When there comes an urgent demand for allotments, the land has suddenly to be acquired. Land of high capital value, based upon its value for industrial purposes, has to be let or sub-let to the allotment-holders at rates which they find difficult to pay."
    He goes on to give illustrations. In Committee we pointed out, and I think it is worth while pointing out again, that land which is to be any use for small holdings must be contiguous to towns or markets or some centre of activity and that is bound to he reflected in the enhanced site value. Therefore, if this Bill is going to be carried out and create smallowners and proprietors, surely the first precaution the Government should take is against any attempt on the part of the landowners to take advantage of site values in handing the land over, and thereby create an enormous demand, increase prices, and hinder development. If it were left to me, I would have another device for dealing with that Seeing we are trying to inject Amendments into a very reactionary form of legislation, on the face of it this seems to be the only step if the Government are going to carry this through. Inflation is bound to take

    1091
    place where the Government or local authorities are likely to appear as buyers, and this will tend to hinder that desire which every man in this House has, to open up natural opportunities for men who are unemployed. It is to facilitate that that we hope the Government will clip the wings of the speculators, and give opportunities for land to be obtained at lower prices.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Amendment raises issues which go far beyond the scope of this Bill. The conditions under which land is compulsorily acquired for public purposes are laid down in the Acquisition of Land Act of 1919, which, as the House will remember, was carefully considered, and endorsed prices less favourable to the landlord than those which had previously been in force. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has told us that whenever the Government appears in any land transaction up goes the price. That is not applicable to transactions under this Bill where the price is fixed by arbitration. He quoted, as an example of the high price of land obtained for small holdings, not land obtained in agricultural districts for allotments, but, as I understood him, the case of allotments on the outskirts of the towns where there was a substantial building value. Naturally, the price of such land is necessarily higher than we expect local authorities to have to find under this Bill. Under the provisions of the Act of 1919 as applied to the purchase of small holdings by the Land Settlement Act of the same year, the average number of years' purchase of the net rent, not the gross rent, was about half what the hon. Member said. It was 22½ years' purchase of the net rental value.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman might inform the House what he means by net rent. For instance, does he deduct the cost of management and repairs?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Anyhow, I do not mean gross rent, which the right hon. Gentleman Stated was the practice. Any valuer would arrive at his figure on the sum which the landlord would expect to receive, net, into his pocket. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is here, because he made the same statement on the earlier occasion when we discussed this Bill, and he could not have been in the
    1092
    House when I gave the facts. These facts have been looked into, and it is no answer to me to say that I do not know the elements of the case. I have been given these facts by the Department who have the figures, and, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept my word for it, I shall be delighted, if he challenges it, to submit, the facts to the President of the Surveyors' Institution for him to certify that the land bought under the 1919 Land Settlement Act was bought at an annual value not exceeding 22 years' purchase of the net rent. This is a little aside from the point, but I could not resist replying to the argument.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is very much to the point.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Amendment raises only one of the points relating to the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, which applies to an owner expropriated against his will from his land who is really not concerned as to the purpose to which his land is going to be put. It is no comfort to the owner to be told that his land, being wanted for small holdings, is to be bought at a lower price than he would have received for some other public purpose, such as municipal waterworks. I do not think those who propose the amendment of the present law which governs the compulsory acquisition of land can argue in favour of applying a new alternative system to one type of transaction in land, and to exact much more severe treatment when the land is required for some other public purpose. Even if hon. Members were of the opinion that this was a just principle to apply in a just way all round it would be limited by this Bill to one type of transaction. I do not argue that it would be just, but even if it were, it would be most unjust to apply it in a piecemeal fashion, which is the only possible way under this Bill. For these reasons I am bound to resist this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Minister of Agriculture has made a very important statement. If what he says is correct, I cannot see why he should resist this Amendment, which simply pins him to the declaration he has made, and which he says he is willing to submit to the Surveyors' Institute. I would like to know has he submitted that proposal to the House of Commons?
    Mr. GUINNESS: have submitted it to the House of Commons, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated what I said.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman misses my point. May I suggest that before he interrupts me he should first understand the argument which he is interrupting. The argument I am putting is this: The Minister of Agriculture says that the purchase at the present time by county authorities for allotments or small holdings is on the basis of the net, and he says that he is prepared to submit that point to the Surveyors' Institute. If that is the case, why does he not accept this Amendment, which simply says that the practice which he says obtains shall have statutory recognition? The Amendment says:
    "but so that in such purchase or lease the basis of compensation shall be the net annual value of the land."
    If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is the practice at the present moment, why does he not show his faith in the Surveyors' Institution by accepting the Amendment? The advisers of the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that is not the case, and I accept his challenge. "Net value" means what remains to the landlord, that is, what he puts into his pocket after he has paid for management, tithe, repairs and there may be other things, but in the main those are the chief items of deduction. The net is what he pockets and can use for his own domestic purposes. If the Minister of Agriculture says that that is the basis of compensation at the present moment why on earth does he not accept this Amendment. In order to make an argument for rejecting this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman proves that the Amendment is right. Does he mean to say that no change of the law is required and that this is the law at the present time?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentelman has put a question to me which cannot be answered "Yes," or "No," but I shall be quite willing to give him a complete answer.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope it will be more intelligible than the last. I accept the challenge, and I say that at the present moment when you have arrived at the number of years purchase for county councils, you do not make these deductions, and if you do there is no
    1094
    reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. This Amendment says that what the Minister of Agriculture has stated is the practice at the present moment should be recognised as the law of the land, and the only objection which he seems to put forward is that that is the practice now. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to making it perfectly clear in an Act of Parliament? There are county councils who are under quite a different impression and are paying on what is, in substance, the gross rent before you deduct the cost of repairs, and therefore it should be made clear to the county councils. As a matter of fact, this is vital to the whole settlement of the agricultural question in this country, whether you have a peasant proprietary or county council ownership, and you will never be able to settle the land question satisfactorily until the land is purchased upon the basis of the net rent. That is the amount which the landlord gets at the present moment and the money that comes into his pocket. When I made the proposal that the net rent should be the basis of compensation, my proposal was met with the criticism that it was confiscation. And now the Minister of Agriculture vindicates me, and says not only was that right, but the Surveyors' Institution says it is right. What better defence could you have than that for the proposition which I have made? I shall gladly accept the challenge which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I can only reply to the right hon. Gentleman by the consent of the House. Let me first say that if he will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I did not say what was the present basis upon which allotments, etc., were bought but that land bought under the 1919 Land Settlement (Facilities) Act would work out at not more than 22½ years' purchase on the average of the net rental value of the land. Now the right hon. Gentleman argues from that that I should accept this Amendment, and he apparently thinks that rental is the same as net annual value. Surely net annual value is a very well established principle, and an easily defined basis of valuation in our rating lists. That, however, is not the net annual value mentioned in this Amendment, and it is quite different to the rental which the right hon. Gentleman is taking here. My issue with the right hon. Gentleman is that it

    1095
    has nothing to do with the annual value in the rating lists and it is not the fact that in the last seven or eight years in these land transactions 40 or 50 times the net annual value has been paid but something under 22½ times.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not say that.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman did say that, and if he looks in Column 806 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he said:
    "When you talk about 25 years' purchase it is really 40 or 50 years' purchase upon the net rent."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 16th July, 1926; col. 802, Vol. 198.]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said 25 years meant that, but that does not mean that 22 years' purchase means that.
    Mr. GUINNESS: These public transactions he says took place at 40 to 50 years' purchase upon the net rent. The facts and figures we will put before the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that for the Land and Nation League, and tell them it is not 40 or 50 years' purchase but 22½ years as the maximum.
    Mr. BUXTON: I should like to advance a point of view which in the interesting discussion we have just heard has not been touched upon, and that is justice to the community. Whenever you undertake to establish a smallholder you pass on to the taxpayer the market value so far as it includes luxury value, monopoly value, and excessive sporting values, where sport has been carried on to the detriment of the party. It seems to me to amount to a kind of immorality to saddle your own scheme with a burden of that magnitude. No doubt there would he difficulties in the differentiation which would arise. It is the business of the Government to deal with anomalies, but it is the business of those who support the principle to press it when the occasion arises. The Government could, a course, adopt such a proposal in regard to net annual value, if it is desirable to do so.
    You happen to have a valuation—the Income Tax valuation, or, if you like, the rating valuation—which does arrive at the net annual value by subtracting from the gross value the items which
    1096
    have been mentioned. I think one was forgotten, namely, renewals, which are also deducted before the official net annual value is put down. The Government recognise that the agricultural industry cannot afford to bear the burden of the full capital value, by their proposal to make a very large contribution. Is it really fair that, if you want to promote small holdings on a large scale, you should begin by saddling the whole scheme with a burden of great magnitude? Is it in any case efficient to place on the county councils the part of the burden which they have to bear? If the councils had the opportunity of acquiring land on a basis which, however debateable, is to my mind a perfectly sound and fair basis—the basis of real net value—what else would they have to bear? The whole scheme would become a paying proposition, it would be economical, and, therefore, it would be capable of great extension.
    The Minister, by his own calculations, is estimating for a small result from his Bill. Why is that? It is because of this peculiar artificial financial burden which is placed by the conditions of the Bill on the action of the county councils. Why should we be talking about a miserable limit of, I think he said, 2,000 holdings in a year, if the whole affair were placed on a really economic basis? I was brought up at Cambridge on sound economics, and I have been encouraged by hon. Members opposite to stick to sound economics, and to avoid the attractions of the fancy economics which sonic attribute to certain advanced politicians. If you really are proceeding on sound economics, and you assume that nothing but agricultural considerations are brought to bear on this question, the development of small holdings ought not to cost public money at all. To my mind there is no case for small holdings unless they pay better than larger holdings. It is really very interesting that the councils actually found, after the War, that the thing was a paying proposition, and I am Personally dead against the artificial creation of luxury small holdings. I should hope we are all agreed that that is not sound. The country cannot afford to spend money on holstering up small holdings, any more than it can afford to bolster up any other form of trade.

    1097
    The only reason why money has to be spent is that other values are paid for which are artificial and are not properly claimable when the State sets itself to put the land to its best use. The extra amenity value which a great deal of our land possesses in the ordinary market is not a value which ought to be compensated for when the State is spending the taxpayers' money for the purpose of putting the land to its best use. What actually happens You have county councils naturally limited in the amount they wish to spend—limited in regard to capital, limited in regard to the burden they are prepared to put on the rates, but inclined to prefer buying land to leasing land. The Minister knows what a natural bias there is on the part of
    councils concerned with small holdings towards buying land, and also against the use of compulsory powers; and what a bias there also is in favour of equipping their land as a council, and not letting the bare land. This all adds a little to the expense, and limits the total result of the operation. If the Government were willing to apply sound economic principles to this Bill, a vastly different result might be hoped for from it. It is the artificially high price of the land which will produce stagnation and limit the value of the Minister's scheme. I support the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 196.

    Division No. 513.]

    AYES.

    [7.36 p.m.

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

    Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Slesser, Sir Henry H

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    8romfield, William

    Hirst, W. (Bradford South)

    Smith. Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Hudson, J H. (Huddersfield)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda. West)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Buchanan. G.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stamford. T. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, Morgen (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Therne. W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G,

    Lee. F.

    Tinker. John Joseph

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Townend, A E.

    Daiton, Hugh

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Trovelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lowth, T.

    Varley, Frank S.

    Day. Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Viant. S. P.

    Dennison, R.

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

    Wall head, Richard C.

    Duncan, C.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen

    Dunnico. H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Edwards, J. Hush (Accrington)

    March, S.

    Westwood, J.

    England, Colonel A.

    Maxton, James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fenby, T, D.

    Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Whiteley, W.

    Forrest, W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gardner, J. P.

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

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pureed, A. A.

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ritson, J.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Charles Edwards.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Albery, Irving James

    Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Astfaury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Birchall, Major J. Doorman

    Brocklebank, C, E. R.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Blundell, F. N.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hanbury, c

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Preston, William

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Casseis, J. D.

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

    Raine, W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V, L. (Bootie)

    Rentoul, G. S.

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rye, F. G.

    Christie, J. A.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Clayton, G. C.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K,

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hiffe, Sir Edward M.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Curzon. Captain Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lougher, L.

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

    Stanley, Lord (Fytde)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Steel. Major Samuel Strang

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Streatfield. Captain S. R.

    Drewe, C.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Elveden, Viscount

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Titchfield Major the Marquess of

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Waddington, R.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Finburgh, S.

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Manningham-Buller, Mr Mervyn

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Margesson, Captain L.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Merriman F. B.

    Wells, S. R.

    Frece. Sir Walter de

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Grace, John

    Murchison, C. K.

    Withers, John James

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Neville, R. J.

    Womersley, w. J.

    Gant, Sir J. A.

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

    Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Ormsoy-Gore, Hon. William

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Major Hennessy and Major Cope.

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

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    CLAUSE 6.—(Conditions affecting small holdings.)
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out from the word "be" to the word "and" in line 11.
    Clause 6 deals entirely with land that is purchased and has nothing to do with land let on tenancy. The conditions on which the purchaser holds the land after he has agreed to buy are set out. My Amendment is to strike out one of the conditions, that he shall farm it
    "in accordance with the rules of good husbandry as defined by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923."
    The Bill as origiNally proposed did not include the words I want to leave out. They were accepted by the Minister, with undue haste, on an Amendment proposed
    1100
    by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley). The grounds on which I am moving to strike out these words are that in my opinion they would reduce purchase to an impossibility and practically make the whole of the Bill useless. The House has already, after a full discussion and by a large majority, approved the prin. ciple of purchase, therefore we stand committed to it that State money is to be used to enable small men to purchase small holdings. I regard that as the real live feature of the Bill. The purchaser who is only going to pay one instalment down, and complete the purchase money by subsequent instalments, naturally must he subject to some condition. I agree with all the other conditions, some eight, which are set out in the Clause.

    1101
    May I point out what would happen if any of the conditions were broken. Under Clause 7, the County Council is to decide when there has been a breach of the conditions and then they can take possession and the estate revests in it. It is true there is to be a valuation and the purchaser is to be charged with all the costs and expenses. Under Clause 8, if the County Council prefer it, they may proceed by sale of the smallholding. The land is then to be sold and again from the purchase money is to be deducted the value of all the outstanding instalments together with all the costs and expenses of valuation. What in fact happens, apart from the Bill, is that as soon as the land is purchased the purchaser becomes the owner. He may not have the money and he raises a mortgage on it. He very often gets two-thirds or three-fourths of the money lent and he holds it on that condition. No one ever heard of such a condition in a mortgage that the owner is to farm according to the rules of good husbandry. No lawyer would ever advise a man to purchase land under these conditions at all. He would say, "Here is a flaw in the title—one of the worst flaws possible. You are to he held responsible for all the money you have paid, you are to he subject to having your holding investigated by the agricultural committee of the County Council, which may be set in motion by someone who has some personal feeling against you, and they are to come then and decide that there has been a breach of the conditions, and these penalties are to come into operation."
    May I read some of these conditions which have to be observed under the rules of good husbandry. They include the maintenance of the land in a clean and in a good state of cultivation and fertility and in good condition, the maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments and ditches, the maintenance and proper repair of fences, stone walls, gates and hedges. I agree with them all where the tenant can rightly be required to farm according to these conditions, because he can then be dispossessed of his holding without cost to himslf, and can take another farm. The only reason they were put into the Agricultural Holdings Act was that the landlord up to that time could make such conditions as he pleased in his lease, and could give his tenants a
    1102
    year's notice to quit without paying him any compensation. These words were put into the Act so that a landlord could not at his own will give notice without paying a year's rent, provided the tenant was complying with the strict rules of good farming as laid down in this Act, and as it now stands, a landlord cannot get rid of his tenant at a year's notice to quit without paying him a year's rent provided the tenant complies with that. The landlord has to prove that the tenant has not been farming according to the rules of husbandry before he can be turned out without a year's compensation. None of these conditions have ever been applied to an owner, even if he has the whole of the money on mortgage. A good many people borrow money on mortgage but these are not put in as terms and conditions, and I ask the Minister not to insist on putting in this Clause.
    I gather from the proposals made both by the Liberal and the Labour parties that an effort is now being made to say that landowners shall own their land subject to farming it under certain conditions. This is an entire new view. The view hitherto always held, rightly in my opinion, is that the owner of land farms it in such way as he thinks best and shall not be subject to having to farm at the direction of any other body, such as the committee of a county council. There will be no answer if either of these two parties comes into office and tries to insist on this condition for all the freehold land in the country. It will be said to anyone who protests, as I am protesting, that "We have insisted on this condition in respect of smallholders. How can you object to it in respect of large farmers and landowners." It is an impossible condition for any man who has any wisdom at all to purchase land under this Bill so long as this is made a condition under which he is to hold it. He is to be subs jest to the decision of a body over which he has no control and is liable to forfeit nearly all the money he has spent, and he would infinitely prefer tenancy. The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) said, as soon as it was proposed, "This is a case where those who oppose the purchase Clauses in this Bill are coming into their own." He will agree with every word I have said. I beg of the Minister to reconsider his decision.
    Mr. GUINNESS: This Amendment would put the Bill back into its original form. It is true I accepted it at the instance of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley). It seemed to me reasonable that, where public money had been provided for the creation of these small holdings, anyhow during the period of the repayment of the loan, ownership should be subject to the same obligations as to good husbandry as tenancy. Tenancy holdings have to be subject to this obligation under the existing Acts, and I do not think the hon. Baronet need really fear that this is the thin end of the wedge of the control of freehold land, seeing that it is not a permanent restriction on the use of the land, and that it is only to apply for the period when really the freehold is not fully vested in the purchaser.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Surely in the case of an agreement under Clause 5 to pay off the whole of the purchase money after a term of years, after he has the property entirely in his own possession and is paying rent to no one, he will still adhere to this restriction.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Except in rare cases where the purchasing smallholders are in a position to pay off before 40 years, they would be under several obligations for 40 years, and we feel that that is right, because the smallholders are there by the investment of a large sum of public money, and we feel that it is not unreasonable that in return they should be under the obligation for this period to keep the land in a fit state of cultivation. I think the case which has been raised will not happen very often. The great justification of this change from the Bill as origiNally brought in is that it will enable local authorities to maintain their securities. If they do not get this provision, it may be that sometimes they will be very badly let down. If there is any breach of covenant, and the local authority have to come in and dispose of the land or sell it, a heavy loss may be made by them. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) attaches more importance to this than it really deserves.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: In the case of a further amending Bill to the Dairies
    1104
    Act, it is quite possible that, within the next 40 years, one may have to supply extra cubic feet for every cow. How is the smallholder to face that problem? He has no capital, he is just carrying on, and he finds he has to enlarge his buildings to this extent. If he does not enlarge them, he will find that under the good husbandry clause he will be liable for not keeping his buildings in a state necessary for the proper cultivation of the land. The county council could come in and, notwithstanding the fact that the man had paid everything off, they would take the holding back because he was not complying with these conditions.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I must make a mild protest against the suggestion that the county councils are likely to deal unfairly with the smallholder. The county councils have the welfare of smallholders very much at heart. At the same time, it is only right that the county councils should be secured in regard to the property which public money has acquired. Many of us on this side feel that throughout the length and breadth of the country land should be farmed according to the rules of good husbandry, but, if that is not possible, every acre of the land which has been obtained by public funds must be farmed in accordance with that rule.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move: In page 8, line 12, at the end, to insert the words
    "the amount of snob deficiency to be settled, in default agreement, by an arbitrator to be appointed under the Agricultural Holdings Act. 1923."
    This is an Amendment to clear up what appears to be a slight defect in the Bill. Clause 7 enables county councils to recover possession of and hold a small holding, and this appears to be a very drastic condition, as it involves that any deficiency on the small holding is to be a. debt upon the smallholder to the county council. Clause 8 deals with county councils, without recovering possession, putting small holdings up to auction. It lays down, also, that the deficiency shall be recovered as a civil debt from the late occupier. What it does not do is to deal with the case where the reserve price has got to be ascertained in order to recover the amount that is due to the county council. This

    1105
    Amendment has been put down to suggest that, where a holding is to be put up for action and is not sold, the same method of ascertaining the value shall be followed as in the case where a county council retains a small holding in their own hands.
    Major McLEAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. and gallant Friend has raised the point as to what happens in cases where it proves impossible to sell a holding under the powers of Clause 8. It is provided that if the county council are unable to sell the holding, they may take possession of the holding in the manner provided by the last foregoing Section. There will be a simple mathematical problem of what is due to the outgoing smallholder under the provisions of Sub-section (2) (b) of Clause 7. It is laid down quite clearly how the calculations are to be arrived it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Provision of cottage holdings.)
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): In regard to the next Amendment, in the names of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), Mr. Speaker has suggested that there might be a general discussion on this Amendment covering the Clause, but without prejudice to any subsequent Division.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out the word "industry" and to insert instead thereof the word "area."
    I move this for the obvious reason that the word "industry" limits the application of this portion of the Bill to persons who happen for the moment to be working in the agricultural industry or in certain certified industries. As the funds will be forthcoming from the Exchequer, and presumably from the rates, it seems to me that if this proposal is a good one for certain sections of the workers, it must he good for any other sections who care to take advantage of the facilities. I know the Minister has stated that this is merely an experimental stage. When the Bill was in Committee, an hon. Member sitting behind the Minister
    1106
    suggested that to permit a miner to have a house built under the scheme partly at the expense of the ratepayers would relieve the mineowners of a responsibility they ought to accept. Whether that be so or not, it seems to me that people who are not at the moment inside the agricultural industry should be brought in by some means in order that the extension of practical agricultural education may take place. I know the circumstances of the moment are very exceptional but, if the experiment is to be successful from the point of view of the agricultural labourer, at, least in some counties some formidable obstacle will have to be removed from its path. My experience of county councils, particularly where farmers dominate them, leads me to believe that, if a farmer member of a county council whose workers live in his own houses were to see an application from one of his own employés for a house, I cannot conceive him forwarding it. It is very doubtful if the present wages of the agricultural worker and his hopes for the future would encourage him to undertake new houses that could he provided under the terms of this Clause. Therefore, if the Clause is to become operative at all, there must be some extension. We are providing public funds for a special purpose, whether it be experimental or not, and if the belief of the Minister and those who advise him is that this is going to be a success, and is worth risking so much money upon it, then it is worth the risk of trying to experiment upon much a broader scale. For that reason, I think we ought to remove the limitation. I think that a cottage holding ought to be available for any person resident near an agricultural area or within a rural area, should he feel disposed to make application to the county council for one of the holdings.
    Mr. TOWNEND: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In doing so, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the words he used in introducing the Bill, when he said that the Government desired to make the opportunities more widely available. This point was raised in Committee, and the desire was there expressed to extend the somewhat narrow limitations in the direction indicated by the Mover of the Amendment. The answer given by the Minister was two-fold, first, that the

    1107
    extension desired was to a section of the community who were much better remunerated as compared with the agricultural labourer, and, secondly, that it would render invidious the duty of the county council in its selection amongst the applicants who might take advantage of the Act, if the opportunity of application were extended in the way we desire. I suggest that in regard to one section of the community who live in villages, and who may be living side by side with those for whom the Act does cater, namely, the mining section of the community, there will be very little difference in months to come between the wages they receive, and the wages of the agricultural labourers, bearing in mind all the circumstances surrounding their rates of pay.
    Apart from that, I suggest that if the Government have a real desire that these opportunities should be more widely available, bearing in mind that the source of the assistance rendered is derivable from public funds, and that the opportunity should be offered to people such as quarrymen, railwaymen and postmen, I can see a development that will be absolutely illogical when a certain stage is reached, in the event of this 13111 becoming operative. Take the ease of the son of a person who takes advantage of the cottage holding arrangement. An agricultural labourer makes his payments for a certain number of years and then dies, and leaves whatever he is entitled to in the holding to his son, who may be employed on the railway. In these circumstances, the position would not be interfered with. Under the Act the son would continue to take advantage of the facilities laid down in the Act, so that 15 years hence, we may find two railwaymen, one taking advantage of this Act, by virtue of succeeding his father, and the other because he happens to be employed upon the railway, being denied facilities, the motive for which is the provision of wider opportunities for the cultivation of land than are offered under present circumstances. That is an illogical position. I think that both the points submitted by the Minister in Committee have been adequately met. He said that the position would be difficult for the county councils. Surely, if the object for which
    1108
    the Bill has been drafted is justifiable in the case of an agricultural labourer, and we desire to increase home produce by means of this Act, so that the home consumer can he better provided for in that respect, the scope of the Act should be widened in the way we suggest in the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) seems to think that there was something inconsistent in my attitude upstairs, in view of what I said on Second Reading. I said that many men had got an initial start in life by taking advantage of such an opportunity. If he will look at the previous sentence he will see that I was talking of the demand of the agricultural worker. I think hon. Members have forgotten that the object of this Clause is to provide special facilities for agricultural workers and workers in other industries allied thereto. We never set out to provide a new and more generous form of housing subsidy. We cannot entertain the proposal to throw open these new opportunities to anybody in a rural area who has
    "the intention, knowledge, and capital to cultivate satisfactorily the land forming part of the cottage holding."
    It would mean that there would be practically no restriction at all. It would mean that the agricultural worker would find in competition with him people in a much better position to find the capital necessary for the holdings; men who might be tempting as tenants to the local authority from their other occupation in life, perhaps paid much more highly than agricultural occupations, and thereby being in a better position to pay the rent. We do not propose to deal with that type of applicant at all. There are provisions whereby he can get an allotment or a small holding.
    Mr. PALING: He does not get many small holdings.
    Mr. TOWNEND: And purchase them on these terms?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Yes. The purchase terms are the same in the Bill. Any applicant can get an allotment, or he can get a, bare small holding of one acre and upwards, or a small holding with house, from three acres. The only type of accommodation from which he is shut

    1109
    out in this Bill is the new experimental type of cottage holding. We have had many housing Bills in the last few years, and certainly none has ever had such generous or elastic terms as are provided in this Clause. That is, no doubt, why hon. Members opposite are anxious to extend the provisions to cover many other deserving people besides agriculturists. It is impossible for the Government to transform a provision which was intended to help the agricultural worker into a wide measure of general housing, under which the local authority would find 25 per cent. and we should find 75 per cent, of the cost. The probability is that with this new provision in the Bill local authorities would go slow, and it is important that the people who need these cottage holdings most and in whose interest they are being initiated, the people who are engaged in agriculture and industries ancillary thereto, should get them.
    The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) told us that local authorities who may be friendly to the labour point of view would be very unwilling to accept agricultural workers as tenants.
    Surely that is a tremendous argument against the Amendment. He has suggested that we should open the door to these other dwellers in agricultural areas; none of them would be shut out under this Amendment. The better-paid workers have many opportunities which are outside the reach of the agricultural worker and therefore this Clause must be limited to the class it is is intended to benefit. The hon. Member for Devizes, in Committee, pointed out that the second subsection is perhaps rather ambiguous because it mentions certain, industries which are ancillary to agriculture, and this might be held by inference to exclude others. That is certainly not our intention, and as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, wish to have one general discussion on this Amendment, I might perhaps explain that if the House rejects the Amendment now under consideration I shall move an Amendment in Subsection (2) which will define a rural industry as-
    "an industry carried on in or adjacent to a village being an industry ancillary to the industry of agriculture or horticulture for the time being approved by the Minister."
    On the whole we think it best to leave out the particular trades mentioned in
    1110
    the Sub-section, and by that means widen and make more elastic the definition so that all those who really depend on an industry ancillary to agriculture shall have an opportunity of getting this new type of accommodation. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment as it would be quite out of the question to throw open the door to all industries in all rural areas, whether really in the country or more truly as part of a town. I hope the. House will agree to the proposed Amendment to Sub-section (2) when we reach that stage.
    Mr. FENBY: To me the mind of the Minister of Agriculture is absolutely beyond understanding. I wish he would remember that he is at the head of an important Department which has to deal with very big problems, problems that in some measure could do something to solve the unemployment and the housing problems. But here we are, a great Department of the State, fiddling about with little niggling things such as we have in regard to these cottage holdings. To-night the Minister says that he cannot open the door and encourage county authorities to build cottage holdings for all kinds of people living in rural areas. That is his attitude to-night. What did he say to the Committee upstairs? On another Amendment dealing with this Clause he put forward another objection. He said:
    "It is difficult to define the exact application of this proposal without letting in people from the towns."
    One has always understood that the task of everyone who knows anything about our rural and city life is how to stern back the tide from the country to the city and how to do something to open a stream which will flow from the city to the countryside. Here we have a Minister with a powerful majority behind, him and the finest opportunity that has come to a Government during the last 10 years to do something substantial in regard to the rural problem. In the matter of cottage holdings he says we cannot make them available for everyone in a rural area. Upstairs he said that we cannot have people coming in from the towns, but if we are going to restrict these cottage holdings to a section of the people who live in a rural area, if they are going to be provided by money loaned from the State, then why should the man in the town, who is not to have an opportunity of having one of these cottage holdings,

    1111
    be asked to pay towards a privilege which he has no opportunity of enjoying The Minister also seems to boggle at something else; he is hampering the county authority in regard to the people who make application. Surely the great mistake made by Governments during the last 15 years has been this, that the county authority has never been allowed to be the housing authority. We should have had much more progress if the county authority had had an opportunity of being the housing authority, but it was left with the opportunity only of building houses for its own officials, such as School teachers, policemen, its employés, roadmen, and the like, and it was never allowed to enter upon a comprehensive scheme of housing in the rural districts. Here the Minister is putting a further break on county authorities doing something to establish cottage holdings.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows what a narrow squeak he had in regard to this Clause in the Committee stage, and how he was only saved by the Chairman of the Committee very generously extending to him the protection of the casting vote. Otherwise this Clause might have gone all together. I hope he will remember that he is at the head of a great Department which has to deal with problems which affect the life of the people both in towns and in the country, and that he has an opportunity of doing something now on a really big scale. I hope he will not neglect the opportunity; that he will not take the narrow view that only a limited number of people are to have an opportunity of enjoying these cottage holdings. Cottage holdings are on the right line, if in the right area and of the right type; and in the areas of Yorkshire he will find any number of people who are ready if the rent is suitable, if the house is suitable and if the land is suitable, to take advantage of any scheme which deals with this problem in a big way and on a generous scale. I hope the Minister will not shelter himself behind little bits of objections here and there, that he will not say, we cannot have the people from the towns coming in. Believe me, that is the very thing which some of us want to encourage—men getting into the country and getting back to nature by cultivating the soil. The hon. and gallant Member for South -Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) pointed
    1112
    out in Committee that the Minister on the Second reading went near to saying that the cottage holding might be a ladder which would acquaint a man with the rules of good husbandry and lead to something greater. I appeal to the Minister to do something generous now.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: I agree in theory with what the last speaker has said. I feel, too, that we do want big proposals. But big proposals cost big money, and in these times of financial stringency I can quite understand the Minister not being able to throw open this Clause so widely as he and many of us would wish if the money were available. I, therefore, with other hon. Members, have put on the Paper an Amendment not as broad m the Amendment which I moved in Committee, and I am hoping that it will commend itself to the favourable notice of the Minister. The Minister said that he had to stand by his original proposal. I wish that he would stand by his original proposal, as stated in the excellent explanatory memorandum on the Bill. That memorandum, on page 3, says:
    "One other main feature of the Bill must be referred to. It is proposed to make provision for the creation of holdings of a new class, called cottage holdings, intended to he occupied by and sold to farm workers and persons employed in rural industries, for cultivating in their spare time."
    How the Minister can say that my innocent Amendment, which lays it down that a rural industry shall mean any industry of a substantially rural character, does not come within that passage from the memorandum, it is rather difficult to see. One cannot fairly limit a rural industry to the agricultural industry. In Derbyshire, Leicestershire and many other counties there are large quarries. Surely quarrying is essentially a rural industry, and surely a quarryman, as a villager in every sense of the word, is the type of man that might legitimately come within the scope of the Bill? I think that a man who makes bricks might also come under it. I am not at all sure that he will not come in. There is the curious word "ancillary." I took the trouble to look up the word in Stroud's Legal Dictionary, and I found there that work is ancillary or incidental to trade or business when it is not necessary thereto or a primary part thereof. That work goes on to state that a builder

    1113
    and painter are ancillary to the trade of a railway company because they happen to repair or paint railway stations. If learned Judges are capable of holding opinions of that sort, I am sure that the Amendments which have been moved are unnecessary, because the Clause becomes so wide as to embrace all industries of every kind, as all industries are based to a certain extent on agriculture. I hope that the Minister is not hiding behind a reed already badly split. Having put that aspect of the case to him, I trust that he will get away from the word "ancillary" and accept my Amendment. If he will do so, I will move it when the time comes.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: I think we may congratulate ourselves to the extent that the Minister has receded a good deal from the position he took up in Committee. He has only a little further to go to satisfy us completely. It is somewhat unfortunate that the Standing Committee consisted so largely of Members representing rural constituencies in the south, instead of Members representing constituencies in the north, in which there is a considerable proportion of workers who are in no sense agricultural workers. I can speak for some parts of the South West Riding and Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire more particularly, in which are considerable numbers of persons who cannot be said to be in any sense ancillary to agriculture, but who are carrying on trades which are entirely necessary in that particular area. I am not sure what the particular definition of "ancillary" may be, or how it may be interpreted by the Minister, but we were told in Committee that whilst the driver of a motor lorry who was conveying produce from the village to the town would be considered as ancillary, the man who was mending the road over which the lorry had to travel would not be ancillary. In the same way there are numbers of other trades, such as those of the bricklayer or the joiner or the builder, all of whom construct or repair cottages or possibly actually build the cottages upon the cottage holdings. These people are not ancillary to anyone, yet without them we cannot have a cottage constructed.
    Let me put a. case which has not been mentioned before. It is that of a son who is living in a rural area and who goes to
    1114
    work in a town a few miles away. There is living with him his old father, who all his life has been an agricultural labourer and has got beyond the point when anyone will employ him, but who might perfectly well be occupied upon a cottage holding. The alternatives there are that such a man should be chargeable to the Poor Rate or cultivate a cottage holding assisted by his son. It is an illustration which suggests that a very slight removal of the restrictions in the Bill is very desirable. If we really desire to see an extension of cottage holdings we must remove restrictions which are excessively objectionable.
    Mr. PALING: The Minister seems afraid of this business altogether. He seems to want to put into operation a Bill which will provide his party with a good cry among the agricultural labourers, but to hedge the scheme around with so many restrictions, financial and otherwise, that it will be impossible to work it. The Minister has expressed great doubt as to whether, because of the financial conditions attached to the Bill, many of the agricultural labourers would ever get into cottage holdings. I am not sure that he is not right. I am not sure that that is not the intention beneath it all—to say, "We have done this for you," and to hedge the proposal around with restrictions so that it is impossible to work it. There seems to be a difficulty as to who should be allowed to go into these cottage holdings. The Minister said he did not want to encourage other workers who were getting much higher wages than the agricultural labourer, who would be better able to pay the rent and consequently would have a better chance of getting the holdings.
    I submit that a better test is to be found in the form of words which has been used in another Bill—the Bill to provide houses for rural workers. The test in that case is that the people shall be agriculturists or others whose incomes are substantially the same. If it is intended that cottage holdings are to be given to the agricultural labourer, because his wages do not guarantee him a decent livelihood—and that is what it amounts to—the same consideration applies to many other people. There are many others whose wages are so low that they cannot keep body and soul together. Indeed there are few industries to which

    1115
    this consideration would not apply, and I am sure that the colliers would come into this provision if we widened it to the extent that has been suggested. The right hon. Gentleman, doubtless, would be appalled if we applied the test I have indicated, but I am sure it would be a good test. I do not see why this benefit should be restricted to agricultural labourers. If there are others, such as colliers, who want to get back on the land, is that not a desirable thing? We are always talking about the drift from the countryside, and the necessity of getting people from the towns on to the land. Yet everything done by this Tory Government in that respect is done in a small, miserable and inadequate way. They are afraid of spending money on this doctrine, and yet they continue to preach it.
    I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get away from all these restrictions, and to tell his Cabinet that he is going to do the thing well or not do it at all. Let him tell his Cabinet that there are tens of thousands of people besides agricultural labourers earning insufficient wages. If it is necessary to provide cottage holdings for agricultural labourers, let them be provided for colliers and for everybody else whose wages are on the same level. Let him face his Cabinet as a man, and demand a good Bill or no Bill at all. In these agricultural Debates, I have heard the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who is a sort of superman among the agriculturists in this House, complain that all the legislation on the Statute Book dealing with small holdings has never succeeded in getting men back to the land. In fact, I believe, in some cases the number is actually going down. Here we are faced with another Bill which, on the Minister's own admission, only provides for a few people, and is limited to agricultural labourers. If the Conservative party are sincere in their desire to put people on the land, they will have to do something bigger and wider than this Bill. I admit that at this stage the Minister cannot bring in a new Bill, but he can give evidence of his good intentions by accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. KELLY: I had hoped that the Minister would have said something in response to the appeals made to him on
    1116
    this subject, and, even at this late stage, I look to him for some reasons why there should not be an opportunity for people other than agricultural labourers to secure cottage holdings. The Minister has come part of the way. He has spoken of those people who are engaged in "adjacent" industries. I wonder what he had in his mind when he agreed to that particular term. He must intend that those who work and live in rural areas should have the opportunity of getting cottage holdings. If that be so, I would like to know who are being excluded? We find in Derbyshire and other parts of the country a great many trades and industries situated in rural areas. In Derbyshire some of the processes connected with the great chemical combine are carried on in rural areas; and some of the hest work in the accumulator trades is done rural areas. By this Bill people engaged in such industries are excluded from cottage holdings. If it is a question of the wages received, then I join with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) in stating that there is no industry in this country, the workers in which could be debarred by reason of the wages they receive. In this year of grace 1926, there is no trade in this country paying its industrial workers an adequate wage, and in that statement I include every industrial employé in the service of His Majesty's Government. Yet all these people are to be debarred from cottage holdings. It has been of little avail for us to make appeals to the Government but, even if our appeals fail, I hope that regard for those engaged in the rural areas will prevail with the Minister.
    Mr. LEE: I join in protesting against the limitation of this Clause, and I would draw attention to the fact that in the mining industry it is not unusual at certain times for men to be engaged only two and a-half or three days of the week in the pits. They spend the rest of the time on holdings. These cottage holdings would be very useful to men who are working short time is the industry. I am reminded that they are to have an eight-hours day—which means that instead of working three days of the week at certain periods of the year, they may only work two days. Therefore, there is the more necessity for these cottage holdings to be open to them, and I want

    1117
    to join with my hon. Friends in asking for this limitation to be removed. If it is only for the purpose of keeping these people employed during that period of the year when they could be growing food both for themselves and for other people, it is right that this limitation should be withdrawn.
    Mr. TAYLOR: I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider the position he has taken up in relation to this Amendment. It may well be said that the only part of this Bill which is really likely to make any considerable contribution to the well-being of our rural population is this Clause, which will make it possible to begin, at any rate, with the building of cottage homes upon the countryside. I suppose that in the days after the War, when we were expecting a very great social progress as a result of the sacrifices which the people had made, many of us had visions of rural England beautified with large numbers of cottage holdings, and a considerable number of ex-service men and of the town population getting a livelihood under better conditions than those which they had formerly endured. I happen to represent a constituency which draws from the countryside a very considerable proportion of the labour for its industries, particularly the so-called unskilled labour, although in these days the lines of demarcation between a skilled and an unskilled occupation get thinner and thinner. Perhaps that is not quite the right term. What I mean is that a considerable number of country-bred young men constantly flow in from the villages to the industries in town. That may be all very well during a period of rising wages, but at the present time we are living in a state of society where a prolonged and permanent trade depression seems to be the normal feature of life, and as a consequence of that we have been living, during the last four or five very unfortunate years, under a system in which the Employment Exchange authorities, instead of being anxious to attract the rural population into the industrial towns, have been busily engaged in trying to force men who had become permanently employed in an industry and members of an urban population, so long as normal trade existed, out into the rural areas to work for the wages commonly paid to agricultural workers. Indeed.
    1118
    there have been quite a number of cases where men have lost their benefit at the Employment Exchanges because they have found it impossible to go out, of the town and work as rural labourers on a very low wage, and at the same time properly maintain their homes.
    9.0 p.m.
    I want the Minister to justify the proposition which he puts before us by considering for a moment the position of some of these men who are the victims of this period of trade depression. Hundreds of them in the constituency that I represent were brought up on our countryside. They are quite capable of doing the work of an agricultural worker, and they are not in a position at the present time to resist the pressure that is put upon them to go into the countryside. Those are exactly the type of men whom the Government ought to be doing its best to attract back to the countryside. We are over-populated in our industrial centres to-day, and these men, who are of country origin, ought to be encouraged to go back into our rural areas, and I can imagine no greater attraction for the man who has been thrifty enough to get a few pounds together than the possibility of getting his own little home, with a little bit of land, to give him a sense of independence, and to acquire that upon reasonable terms. I hope the Minister will realise that not only the quarrymen and other people engaged in the villages are entitled to consideration in this matter, hut that those thousands of people whom we have in all our great cities, who amount perhaps to hundreds of thousands if you take the whole of our country, but at any rate the tens of thousands who are country bred men, although now in the towns, should be got back into our villages. Such an achievement would be of great advantage from a national point of view. I hope the Minister will realise that the provision of homes in this Bill is perhaps the most important part of it, and that he will give us an opportunity of encouraging these men to go back into the rural areas by making the advantages of the Bill open to them on equal terms with other agricultural workers.
    Captain FOXCROFT: I should like to associate myself with the high ideals which have been moderately put by several hon. Members opposite. I know

    1119
    that we all desire, perhaps more than anything else, that the town population should get back to the country, and that we should ease the pressure on the towns by having a more populated countryside, and I am sure that what they suggest would be of very great help to us in England in general. But I gather from the Minister's speech that the whole difficulty is one of pounds, shillings, and pence. We are now in very straitened circumstances, owing to various recent causes, and we cannot afford to coo what we would like to do. Men with small holdings must know something about working them, and if you are to work a small holding, and you come straight
    from the town, you must be trained for the purpose. That means an extra expense, and every small holding that you hand over to smallholder is an expense to the country. Therefore, although I associate myself with the high ideals that have been voiced by hon. Members opposite, at the present moment I think it is not practical politics to carry them into effect, and I consider Personally that what the Minister is proposing to do will be of very great help to the agricultural industry in this country.
    Question put, "That the word industry 'stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 514.]

    AYES.

    [9.2 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Forrest, W.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Albery, Irving James

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Neville, R. J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Bennett, A. J.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hanbury, C.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Harvey, G (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Preston. William

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Raine, W.

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rice. Sir Frederick

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rye, F. G.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sheppersan, E. W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cope, Major William

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

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

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

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Locker, Herbert William

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

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

    Lougher, L.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Drewe, C.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)

    Waddington, R.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    England, Colonel A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wells, S. R.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Finburgh, S.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Withers, John James

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

    Womersley, W. J.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Lord Stanley.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    NOES.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sexton, James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Batcy, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Bromfield, William

    Hudson, J. H. (Kuddersfield)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Henry Heydn (Merioneth)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kirkwood, D

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Lee, F.

    Townend, A. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lowth, T.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lunn, William

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

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

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duckworth John

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Westwood, J.

    Dunnico, H.

    March, S.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

    Maxton, James

    Whiteley, W.

    Fenny, T. D.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gardner, J. P.

    Montague, Frederick

    Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gosling, Harry

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

    Murnin, H.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenall, T.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colns)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Paling, W.

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Purcell, A. A.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Allen

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

    Parkinson.

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words
    "(e) nothing in this Section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purpose of providing cottage holdings of any parcel of land of three acres or less in extent on which there is in existence a dwelling-house occupied by a bona fide agricultural labour or a person employed in a rural industry on any part of such land"—
    is out of place. It should come upon the Schedule. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), to leave out Subsection (2), appears to me to cover the ground of the last Amendment discussed, and the Debate has been general upon that; hut, of course, if any hon. Member would like a Division on it, it would not be out of Older to put it. The same applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse)—in page 9, line 32, to leave out from the word "industry," to the word "as," in
    1122
    line 36, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "shall mean any industry of a substantially rural character carried on in or adjacent to a village."
    Amendments made:
    In page 9, line 33, leave out from the word "village" to the word "industry" in line 31, and insert instead thereof the words "being an."
    In line 36, leave out the weds "as may from time to time be," and insert instead thereof the words "for the time heing."—[Mr. Guinness.]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment—to leave out Clause 19—has been covered by a previous discussion.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Repeals.)
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr. Fealty) I understand from Mr. Speaker that part of the matter involved has already been discussed, and, therefore, there can be no long debate upon it.
    Mr. FENBY: I beg to move, in page 14, line 27, to leave out the words
    "(including those relating to the Small Holdings Commissioners)."
    This Amendment raises a very vital issue. Up to the time when this Bill appeared, the question of the provision of small holdings have been regarded from two points of view, first from the national point of view and, second, from the local point of view. Without this Amendment the Schedule would do away with the Small Holdings Commissioners, which would mean taking away a measure of support from a man who wants a small holding when no attempt to provide one is made by the local authority. When the Act of 1908 was drawn up it was realised that it would not be always possible to obtain land for small holdings, even though the authority were desirous of meeting the demand, because it would not always be possible to obtain the land by Voluntary means, and it was then thought wise that the Ministry should have representatives in particular areas to assist county authorities faced with this difficulty in obtaining land. Between 1908 and 1914 a very large number of compulsory orders were obtained, but, at the same time, a large number of compulsory orders were avoided, becauses in cases where local authorities had failed to obtain land by Voluntary arrangements the Commissioners came in, and as they had behind them the authority and the pressure of a Government Department they were able more speedily and more amicably to obtain land.
    If we study the figures showing how many acres have been provided since the 1908 Act and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, and study also the figures giving the number of smallholders, it will be found that they vary considerably among the authorities charged with administering the Act. Some county authorities are absolutely behind the times, whereas other authorities have made very considerable progress, and if the backward ones had done anything
    like as much as the others we should have had a very much larger number of smallholders, cultivating a good many more acres, with a much greater supply of food from the land. It is this urge of the Commissioners that it is the object of my Amendment to secure.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: As you pointed out in calling this Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it really covers substantially the same point as the first New Clause which was rejected this afternoon. It is one of a series of Amendments to give the Small Holdings Commissioners the powers which they exercised under the Act of 1908. We wish to work in partnership with the local authorities, and we believe that the financial inducements which we offer in this Bill to help them to provide small holdings will be adequate to secure their ready co-operation in the work. We have had experience of how much can be done by the method of financial persuasion. There have never been any Commissioners to drive the local authorities in connection with agricultural education, and yet, by means of a carefully administered system of grants, astonishing progress in agricultural education has been made in the last 20 years, at considerable expense to the local authorities. The attitude of the county councils towards small holdings has changed very much since 1908. All have now small holdings estates, and all have zealous and experienced staffs, and, Personally, I have no doubt we shall get better results from their willing co-operation than by reinstating this obsolete system of Small Holdings Commissioners and attempting to force the authorities to provide small holdings.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 515.]

    AYES.

    [9.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Blundell, F. N.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Albery, Irving James

    Harnett, Major Sir Richard

    Bourne. Captain Robert Croft

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Perring, Sir William George

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

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Preston, William

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Raine, W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Christie, J. A.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cope, Major William

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Savery, S. S.

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lougher, L.

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

    Drewe, C.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    MacIntyre, Ian

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Elveden, Viscount

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Waddington, R.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

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

    Finburgh, S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Wells, S. R.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Merrlman, F. B.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Neville, R. I.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Hanbury, C.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

    Haslam, Henry C.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Lord Stanley.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    NOES.

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

    Greenall, T.

    March, S.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Maxton, James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Baker, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Barnes, A.

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

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murnin, H.

    Bromfield, William

    Hardie, George D.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bromley, J.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Oliver, George Harold

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Paling, W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Potts, John S.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hudson, J. H. (Hudderaneld)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

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

    Dalton, Hugh

    Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sexton, James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Dennison, R.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Duckworth, John

    Kennedy, T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Duncan, c.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lawson, John James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, F.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    England, Colonel A.

    Lowth, T.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Forrest, W.

    Lunn, William

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

    Gardner, J. P.

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Gosling, Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    1126

    1127

    Trevslyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Wright, W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Williams, David (Swansea, East]

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Mr. Fenby and Mr. Percy Harris.

    Westwood, J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    FIRST SCFIEDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 15, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
    Section 41—
    In Sub-section (2) the words "and also avoid taking any land the taking of which will render the remainder of the land untaken not reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate holding or will adversely affect production, and for these purposes," shall be substituted for the words "and for that purpose."
    This Amendment raises raises a question which has often been discussed in this House. I do not say that the person whose farm is taken is not compensated, or not compensated quite reasonably for the inconvenience to which he is put, but you may take out of the estate the good land which enables the bad land to contribute its share towards producing the food supplies of the nation. You take the good land and the other land is left stranded. I do hope the Minister will consider the point, because I feel what is really desired is that you should take the whole estate, if possible, for small holdings, and that you should put your small holdings on the good land where they are together and where they will be easily managed and easily supervised by the county council. We should not pick several good fields out of A's farm or out of B's farm, making it very expensive to administer, and create a great deal of damage.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. and gallant Friend is proposing an Amendment to a very carefully drafted Section of the Small Holdings Act, 1918, in which certain desiderations are enjoined upon a council which makes and the Board of Agriculture which confirms a compulsory Order. I will not read the Section, but it has very full instructions as to considering the convenience of other preperty and so forth. I do not think that we should add very much to this carefully balanced Section by accepting the further words which are proposed. My hon. and gallant Friend has told us
    1128
    that he does not complain of the general administration of compensation. In the Amendment the hon. and gallant Member draws attention to the fact that severance in the acquisition of land will render the remainder of the land untaken not reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate holding, or will adversely affect production. I would like to point out that there are special safeguards dealing with severance in the Acquisition of Land Act and the Small Holdings Act, and its view of these safeguards I do not think we need to strengthen up what is already the practice in deciding these cases.
    There is a new element introduced into these considerations by the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member that we should consider whether any Order will adversely affect production. I do not see how we could decide such a point. If the land of a man growing potatoes were to be taken and devoted to small holdings for stock raising, it very difficult to get any proper comparison of productivity. Even if we inserted the provision which is contained in this Amendment, I do not think the county council or the. Ministry of Agriculture would know how to apply it, and in these circumstances I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the action of the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Oxford (Captain Bourne) in putting down this Amendment. I would remind hon. Members that he moved the same Amendment during the Committee stage and after obtaining the reply of the Minister he withdrew it. Therefore, I fail to see why the hon. and gallant Member, who had not the courage during the Committee stage to press his Amendment, should now waste time by pressing it at this stage.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move in page 15, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
    Section 41—
    At the end of Sub-section (2) insert the words "and where a cottage is to

    1129
    be taken for the purpose of a cottage holding shall have regard as to whether such cottage is reasonably required for the maintenance and upkeep of the estate of the owner of such cottage, or for the proper cultivation of any farm in the occupation of ouch owner or of any of his tenants,"
    This is an Amendment which I withdrew in Committee because the Minister promised to consider my suggestion, and that is why I take the liberty of moving it again. The whole point is that where a cottage is taken the point must be considered whether such cottage is reasonably required for the maintenance and upkeep of the estate of the owner. Although the Minister of Agriculture has stated that Section 41 was carefully thought out at the time of the 1908 Act, I submit to him that the cottage holdings in this Measure were not contemplated when the 1908 Act was introduced. There is no doubt that there is a good deal of apprehension in the country about the effect of Clause 12 of this Bill, and I attempt in this Amendment to put in what I believe to be the ordinary practice of the Ministry when they receive an application to hold an inquiry for the granting of a compulsory order. To take cottages away from a farm which may be absolutely essential to the proper working of the farm is not likely to benefit agriculture. It is absolutely necessary that you must have accommodation for those labourers who look after livestock, and they must have accommodation within a reasonable distance of where the livestock is kept. Often these men have to be up all night, and it is impossible to carry on their work if they are obliged to live several miles from the farm. Therefore there is nothing more important than that these men should be housed within a reasonable distance of their work. It is for these reasons that I am anxious that the owners should be protected against the compulsory acquisition of cottages under these circumstances. These men are entitled to be provided with cottages to live in within a reasonable distance of their work. For these reasons I hope the Minister will accept my proposal.
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid my answer to this Amendment must be the same as it was to the last, namely, that
    1130
    I am not prepared to reopen the carefully drafted arrangements contained in Section 41 of the Act of 1908. As a matter of fact, Sub-section (2) of that Section does enjoin the council, when making or applying for an Order, as far as practicable to avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers employed on or about the farm. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the considerations which he has urged are exactly such considerations as would be borne in mind by any council or by the Minister. In addition to that, if an Order is made, the arbitrator fixes the price which secures, to the owner the replacement value of the cottages which may be removed. I know these grievances are present in certain people's minds as to the effect of this Act, but I believe these Amendments are founded on bogeys, and it is impossible to lay bogeys by legislation.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the action of the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Oxford (Captain Bourne) in putting down this Amendment. He moved the same Amendment during the Committee stage and then withdrew it, and he failed to show that he had sufficient courage to induce him to press it. The hon. and gallant Member is an expert on agriculture, and that is why he has been returned by the burgesses of Oxford, which is a great agricultural centre in this country. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the City of Oxford has the reputation of -being the home of lost causes. It is certainly very difficult to understand why an hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the City of Oxford, and who takes such a keen personal interest in agriculture, should put down Amendments in this way, causing considerable expense, to which I as a taxpayer object.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: With reference to the two speeches which have just been delivered by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), may I say how entirely the. House agrees with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) in the action he has taken? I think it is much wiser for him to have placed these Amendments before the whole House, because he is very likely to meet with a larger and broader treat-

    1131
    ment here than he received from the inferior intelligence in the Committee.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. and, especially, for a learned Member of this House, to point to another hon. Member?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have known it done.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 184.

    Division No. 516.]

    AYES.

    [9.46 p.m.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Mayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

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

    Clowes, S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lawson, John James

    Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lowth, T.

    Greenall, T.

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Captain Bourne and Sir George

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

    March, S.

    Courthope.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Potts, John S.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Finburgh, S.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Foresner-Walker, Sir L.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Albery, Irving James

    Forrest, W.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Goff, Sir Park

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Salfour, George (Hampstead)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Murchison, C. K.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Neville, R. J.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Bennett, A. J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hanbury, C.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Harris, Percy A.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Preston, William

    Brass, Captain W.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Raine, W.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bromfield, William

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Bromley, J.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hilis, Major John Walter

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rye, F. G.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cope, Major William

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

    Stamford, T. W.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stanley. Col. Hon. G.F.(W1ll'sden, E.)

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

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lee, F.

    Streatfield, Captain S. R.

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

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lougher, L.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Thomas. Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Drewe, C.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Duckworth, John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McLean, Major A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Townend, A. E.

    Elveden, Viscount

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Varley, Frank B.

    England, Colonel A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Waddington, R.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mac Robert Alexander M.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Flalden, E. B.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Wells, S. R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Womersley, W. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Viscount Curzon.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time.'
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I am surprised at the Socialist party taking the line they did about county councils. It is even more astonishing that the Liberal party, who were once in favour of democracy, have joined the Socialists in their distrust of county councils. After all, in any democratically constituted body even, if you have nationalisation you have to use the county councils as your agents. It is quite unfair to saddle them with suspicion, because everyone who has been on agricultural county committees or has discussed this question of smallholders, ex-service men or whatever it is, will agree that the interest of this appeals to men of all parties alike and politics does not come into it. The councils also have had a very great deal more experience in these last five or six years than they ever had before and whether small holdings are to be a success or a failure depends ninety-nine times out of a hundred on whether they are run by men of experience or not. It is impossible to lay down rules as to the rent or anything else of a small holding. It must be left to those on the spot, who are the best judges. The difficulty we have, both in farmers and in smallholders, is the difficulty you always have in agricultural enterprises, the difference between first, second and third class land. Farms, allotments and small holdings will always be successful on good land. The difficulty before all of us lies in making them successful on second and third class land, of which so much of our country consists.
    10.0 P.M.
    People who are suspicious of county agricultural committees might also remember the agricultural system of the country. We have, after all, the Agricultural Council of England, who are the advisers of the Minister and who include representatives not only of the farmers but of smallholders, allotment holders and women, and any grievances that arise from time to time can be, and are, represented there. Not only the
    1134
    Minister of Agriculture is always present, but also the late Minister in the Labour party, and I am certain the advice they get from the Agricultural Council of England is more representative of agricultural England than any other body we have. I am glad to see that the Government is putting into practice what this Council recommended in their agricultural policy two years ago, especially in the matter of these cottage holdings. The Agricultural Council recommended them very strongly, and I think all sides of the House will agree that that is perhaps the best part of the Bill. I am interested in small holdings in more ways than one, as I am a. member of the Small Holdings County Committee. The crux of the problem is not private ownership or State ownership. It is simply a matter of cost and price, and the policy of the Government in this Hill comes nearer to solving that problem than that of any other party. I should like to ask the Minister if he could find sonic means of consolidating into one set of Regulations all these various Acts—1908, 1919, and so forth—affecting small holdings, allotments and cottage holdings. It is impossible even for hon. and learned Gentlemen really to get at. the truth of what many of these items mean and it would he for the good of the whole country if we could get them clarified and have the Regulations altogether in one Act.
    Mr. BUXTON: My friends and I, who are keenly desirous of seeing an extension of small holdings, are bitterly disappointed that the Bill is not one which is likely to make rapid progress or to be a thoroughly efficient instrument for the purpose. Indeed when you consider that the, perhaps, 200,000 smallholders in the country are a diminishing quantity in spite of what has been done by statutory machinery, in spite of the 30,000 smallholders the Minister has told us of, you have to stem the leakage that is going on and it is a very small contribution, with all the expense involved, that the Bill will contribute. Indeed if you

    1135
    regard the fall in small holdings and the failure to make progress in that respect as amounting to a very serious trouble, and almost a conflagration which has to be put out, the Bill is not doing much more than trying to put out a fire with a syringe. We really want to see a fair and economic opportunity for small holdings, and if we had the opportunity we should enable the councils, or whatever land authority was in control of the land, without extra expense to the taxpayer to re-distribute land in small holdings exactly as a great landowner or as the Crown does at present. There are two main blemishes, it seems to me, on this Bill. There is the question of efficiency and there is the rather unpleasant complexion which it wears to me of excessive partisanship. I hope a great many hon. Members opposite can put their hands on their hearts and declare that they see no attraction in the Bill beyond pure public interest and the promotion of successful agriculture. It is only human nature if certain other attractions are seen in a great increase in the number of smallholders of land, and if no one is very conscious of excessive partisan motive in a Bill of this kind, motives in this world are inextricably mixed and their position reminds me of those lines of Matthew Arnold about those who, with half-open eyes, tread the borderland betwixt vice and virtue.
    It is a sound psychofogical calculation that the possession of land and property has a certain effect upon the political views of a great many men. It is a probability that the economic position afforded to a large new set of men by the artificial and extensive action of the State will modify the views of those men. There is a curious parallel between such a psychofogical effect and the doctrines of Karl Marx. I do not know whether the Minister is much of a student of Karl Marx, but it is clearly set out in his economic interpretation of history that a man's character and views are found to be due to the economic surroundings in which he finds himself. The bias which is shown in this Bill appears in one respect which has not been very fully cleared up. It appears in the somewhat peculiar method by which a man becomes an owner through the continuance of
    1136
    payment of rent for a certain period and taking over the cost of arrears. I have never heard an adequate explanation from the Minister on the grounds on which this peculiar method is based. I suppose the calculation is that the present value of the rent after 60 years is equivalent to the present value of saving the expenses of repairs for that period. But is that not an extraordinarily rough and ready way of arriving at it? The cost of repairs is such a varying percentage on different kinds of land. I remember a property, with which I had something to do, where the cost. of repairs was cut down to 4 per cent. If an owner of that property had been asked to part with the holding on the basis proposed by the Bill, he would have jibbed; he would not have been receiving, in the saving of such a small cost of repairs, anything equivalent to the loss of the rent at the end of 60 years. I do hope the Minister will, as a matter of information, tell the House a little more of the way in which this method has been arrived at. It is not an obvious one which would have appeared to anyone to arrive at in calculating of the value.
    The practical objection to the Bill is that it is cumbrous and that it is not efficient. You weight it with this tremendous cost, so great that. the Minister estimates it will cost £250 for every holding. There is mention in the financial Memorandum of;£25 a year, and perhaps the Minister will make it a little clearer what is the term over which that loss is expected to continue. If you were to sell the land on the basis we have indicated this evening, which is in point of fairness one of high public integrity, you would not incur this loss at all, and you would be able to pursue your policy on a vaster scale. As to the machinery of the Bill, if you had the land in the position in which Crown lands are now, you would not be wanting any Small Holdings Bill at all. It does not require a Bill to produce small holdings on Crown lands. The House cannot be too familiar with the extraordinary development which has taken place on Crown lands since 1907, without any increase Of subsidy whatsoever. A report which has been issued shows the great increase which has taken place, and that there has been a minimum amount of friction with tenants. The land has been taken by arrangement with tenants who have almost invariably

    1137
    been ready to meet the reasonable demand to give up a portion of their holding. This is a very interesting report. You ought not to require special machinery to take land for the particular purpose of creating small holdings, which adds enormously to the cost of the proceeding. What is the moral that occurs to us? The moral is that we should extend the land which is in the possession of the Crown to the widest possible degree. It seems to me to be a great pity that an opportunity of creating small holdings on a rapid scale and on a great scale is not being taken. It is half a loaf, and half a loaf is always better than no bread. I hope in this Bill that you are not setting back the clock, but it looks to me as if there might be a great slump as a result of removing these stimulating elements which have existed in the Act of 1908. Though we trust there will result a great increase of small holdings, a great opportunity has been lost for a really effective Bill.
    Mr. HASLAM:The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has again raised the question which we have debated at considerable length to-day, that of ownership versus tenancy. He seemed to impute to us on this side of the House some kind of unworthy motive behind what we say in favour of ownership. We believe in ownership, and I fail to see what there is unworthy about it. Why should it be unworthy to believe in ownership, and only worthy to believe in tenancy. Surely hon. Members of the Opposition are a little unreasonable in this matter. Member after Member on the other side stated this afternoon that small cultivators do not desire ownership. But the Bill does not compel small cultivators to be owners; it gives them the opportunity of being so. If there is no desire on their part to be owners the Bill in that respect will be of no effect.
    There has also been another criticism put forward, but not so much this afternoon, and that is that small holdings are not economic. That is a very much harder criticism to meet, and it is a criticism which seems to be much more in line with the general principles of hon. Members opposite than the previous one in favour of tenancy. If there were no other considerations, perhaps it would be very difficult to meet that criticism, but there are other con-
    1138
    siderations. The land is the nursery of the race, and we who represent county districts believe that unless we can maintain a healthy and hardy population on the land of this country we shall be unable to maintain the great position which we have won. That is the justification for the expenditure of public money with the object of attaching men to the land.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Somebody else's land.
    Mr. HASLAM:Their own land. There have been other criticisms, although I am glad to think there has been no real opposition. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seemed to desire that the Bill should create smallholders on a very much larger scale. In that he seemed to agree with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who, I believe, on other occasions has pointed to the hundreds of thousands of agricultural labourers who are pining to become independent cultivators, and who under this particular Bill may not attain that opportunity. In that regard, perhaps both right hon. Gentlemen do not pay sufficient regard to the facilities under which men can now get allotments. The fact that this Bill proceeds in a slow and steady manner is one that particularly recommends it to my mind. He is no true friend of small holdings who wishes to introduce indiscriminately large numbers of small cultivators, many of whom would be untried and unsuitable, to the land. Surely, our experience in 1919 showed us that.
    I believe that under this Bill, under the county councils, we can see that a suitable type of man is put upon the land and that, therefore, we are building on a sound foundation. The present land system of this country offers no inconsiderable opportunities for men to rise. A very large proportion of the present farmers have risen from the ranks. Opportunities differ in different districts, but in very many districts there is no difficulty whatever in acquiring land in large or small lots, and men are doing it and rising every day. It is in the belief that this Bill will facilitate that process, that it will create openings in those districts where openings, perhaps, are not so plentiful as they might be, and that it will in that way tend to keep alive interest in agriculture and keep men on the land, that I support the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. FENBY: I had hoped to be able heartily to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture in the interval between his Second Reading speech and the speech he made on the Third Reading of the Bill, on the fact that the puny infant which he introduced on Second Reading would have grown into something strong and healthy. But persuasion, persistence and argument have been absolutely wasted upon the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of doing anything to stimulate the growth of his young child, he seems to have taken every opportunity to dwarf it so that it might be less healthy on the Third Reading than it was on the Second Reading. An hon. and gallant Member opposite said that the Liberal party in this House had been very critical of the county councils. He should particularise that criticism. What the Liberal party have said, and they have been joined in this by the Labour party, is that there are some county authorities which have done their level best to carry out the terms of the Acts of 1908 and 1919, but that there arc certain backward authorities which need a spur. No hon. Member opposite dare say that there does not exist backward county authorities in regard to the provision of small holdings. If any evidence of that is required may I refresh the memory of the Minister of Agriculture. In July last he said that there were nearly 15,000 unsatisfied applicants for small holdings.
    That is not the whole story. If you had 15.000 persons who have applied, and are still unsatisfied, how many applicants are there who have been so disgusted with the lack of success of people who have applied that their demand is not vocal at the present? They need a more sympathetic Government and a more progressive Minister. They need a Minister who takes a larger view of his duties, and the magnitude of the problem with which be is faced. The hon. Member who spoke last said something about the facilities that people had for obtaining allotments, but will he believe me that according to the Minister of Agriculture there are still 13,500 unsatisfied applicants for allotments? It is evident, therefore, that the Minister has neglected a great opportunity, and also a very real duty, in leaving this Bill in the very feeble condition it is at the moment. What I complain of is this, that knowing, as he does, the unsatisfied demand of 15,000 applicants for small holdings, and be-
    1140
    tween 13,000 and 14,000 unsatisfied applicants for allotments, he is saying to the county authorities: "We will leave this problem to you: we have done what we can. We will give you a piece of machinery, and you must do the best you can." Everybody, even a county council, and very often a Cabinet Minister himself, is much. better for being looked after and spurred on.
    This Bill marks downward step in the ease of those men who are desirous of earning their living upon the land. For the first time since 1908 there will be an absence of machinery, after this Bill is passed, for ascertaining what is the real demand for small holdings in this country. The Government in this Bill hand it over completely to the county councils, and there will not remain any urge on the part of the Department on county councils. There will be no machinery by which to find out what demand does exist for small holdings; and it is a demand which is growing. An hon. Member opposite said something about our criticising county councils in this democratic age; that we on this side of the House wanted to interfere with local authorities. That observation comes rather peculiarly from a supporter of a Government that took so many millions from the Road Fund; it does not come particularly well from the supporter of a Government which, by a special Act, interferes with the jurisdiction of boards of guardians. A very long catalogue could be compiled—
    Captain P. MACDONALD: On a point of Order. What has the Road Fund to do with the Bill under discussion?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was dealing with the question of over-riding the local authorities.
    Mr. FENBY: I want to impress upon the Minister the magnitude of the opportunity that he is allowing to go by. Someone has said that small holdings are not an economic proposition, and if that criticism be true, which I do not admit, the Minister has dune nothing whatever to meet it by this Bill. I appealed to him in Committee, after seeing that he had proposed, under the head of a definition of a small holding, to increase the amount for the calculation for Income Tax purposes from £50 to £100—I appealed to him to go a little further for a special reason. There are certain sparsely

    1141
    populated areas in the rural parts of the country where 50 acres are of no use at all. You want to get nearer 75 acres. The Minister refused to put in a definition so far as acreage is concerned. He said "We have gone as far as we can by increasing the annual value which is calculated for Income Tax purposes from £50 to £100." What does that mean? How much is it extending a small holding in area? An increase from £50 to £100 might be all right if you were dealing with pre-War figures and values, but everybody knows that the difficulty of the authority that wants to set up small holdings to-day is the cost of buildings and equipment. That is the bugbear. The increase from £50 to 1100 will not increase the acreage by more than 10 acres, which is the only contribution which the Minister has made to the extension of small holdings, as far as acreage is concerned. Any county authority could get over that problem if the right hon. Gentleman had left the provisions in the Bill as it was. You may let 50 acres to a man. There is nothing in the Acts to say that you shall not let any land to a woman. There may be nothing to say that you shall do so, but if the man has 50 acres there is no objection whatever, and the Minister could not raise objection to a woman having 10 acres. There has been a great opportunity of rendering a service to the small holdings movement in this country, and the Minister has let it go by absolutely.
    We have had a good deal of lip service and White Paper service rendered to the great industry of agriculture I have read again and again that an important member of the Government is to make an important pronouncement on agriculture on a certain date at a certain place. I have waited breathlessly to know what the gigantic programme of the Government was to be for this ancient and important industry. Then I got a White Paper, and I did not know what we were to have. Then the Minister conies down with the puny attempt of this Bill to deal with the pressing problem of helping those who have the least chance of helping themselves. He says, "You must be satisfied with this." An hon. and gallant Member opposite referred to the best part of the Bill as that which deals with cottage holdings. Had he been in his place I could have given him the cheering information that
    1142
    what he calls the best part of the Bill will never become operative in any sensible area in this country. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), while very anxious about the principle of occupying ownership or peasant proprietorship, put down an Amendment because he was convinced, as I am convinced, that the Minister has so hedged round the purchase Clauses of this Bill as to prevent them from being made operative by the county authorities. While he renders lip service to these provisions, he does everything by letter and spirit to prevent them operating, and there is going to be very little encouragement or practical help for the people who want cottage holdings.
    The greatest count against the Minister is this. Everyone who studies the rural problem and the position in the densely-populated areas is anxious to keep people in the country, to give them some method of earning a decent livelihood in the country and to give them decent houses so that they may not continue to move info the cities and become competitors with the town dwellers for both employment and housing. We also want the man in the city to have the opportunity to go to the country if he so desires. Yet the Minister declares that he cannot give awry terms more generous than these in relation to cottage holdings. He says, in effect, "We cannot do with people coming out of the towns and cities into the country to take advantage of a scheme of this kind." Did anybody ever hear such a complete nullification of a Government's intention? I can only describe the Government's intentions in this matter as merely pious intentions. They are not endeavouring to deal with the rural problem as it ought to be dealt with by a Government which has a very heavy responsibility placed upon it in that connection. They have the power behind them. Surely, they have sufficient acumen and initiative to produce a scheme which is worthy of a Government in their position instead of this small contribution towards the solution of a pressing problem. What I have to say further is not so contentious. As a member of a county authority, disappointed as I am with the Minister and with this Bill—his child—yet in any small point where this Bill will improve

    1143
    the lot of any man or further the small holdings movement, I am prepared to do what I can in a sincere endeavour to get what little good there is out of it. I am afraid I shall be disappointed, but if there is any merit in the Bill, I as a member of a county authority, will do my best to see that it is applied.
    Mr. SHEPPERSON: I desire to express my whole-hearted support of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to give an opportunity to the agricultural worker to attain what has always been his ambition, that is to acquire a small holding and to become, himself, a farmer. The Bill is to be administered by the county councils and I admit that a great responsibility is being placed on the county councils. On one side of the House it is feared that the county councils will fail to administer the Bill satisfactorily. On the other hand, it is feared by some that the county councils, in administering the Bill, will disturb the sitting tenants of land to their prejudice. I want to submit that if the applicant for a small holding will use patience, and if the county council will use discretion, both these fears are groundless. In the county from which I come there are the largest number of smallholders in proportion to area of any county in the country. These small holdings have been obtained without the representation on the county council of any agricultural worker, and without the inVoluntary disturbance of any single occupier of land in that area, and how has that been done? In the natural course of events land becomes vacant in every county, and in practically every parish, owing to death or to other disturbance of a tenant, and when this land becomes vacant, there is the opportunity for a county council to acquire that vacant land and, having acquired it, to satisfy the demand for small holdings in that area.
    As I said before, this Bill makes it possible for the agricultural worker to realise his ambition. It is a reward that we can give to the agricultural worker throughout the country districts for the exercise of diligence, ability, and energy in his work, and, as far as I am concerned, I will welcome any Measure of whatever kind that helps to promote the attainment of a reward for the exercise
    1144
    by any man of energy and ability; whether that man be a representative of the Capitalist class or of the Labour party. This Bill has been brought forward in the interests of the agricultural worker by a Conservative Government. It is assumed by a great many that we, on this side, are the representatives of the Capitalist class, and that as such we have no desire to bring forward any legislation whatever to help the other classes in the community. I submit that that opinion of us is absolutely wrong. We, on this side, recognise no class representation whatever, and we have no intention at any time of bringing forward any class legislation. This Bill is brought forward in the interests of the working men of the country, and not for other classes, and I want to submit to the House that the agricultural workers throughout the country, when this Bill becomes law, as it will, will realise that a Conservative Government is not only desirous but capable of bringing forward a. Bill in their interests, as well as in the interests of every and any other class of the community. For these reasons, I whole-heartedly support this Bill.
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have had a long debate, and I think the House will only want to hear a very little from me in answer to the points that have been raised on Third healing. The right hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) asked how we arrived at our basis of annual payments for the man who would take a small holding on ownership terms. The obligation to do, not only tenant's repairs hut also landlord's repairs, was considered a fair equivalent for the remission of any Sinking Fund, and we believe that under that system a fair bargain will be made between the local authority and the owner of the freehold of the small holding. The advantage of a uniform system of this kind is that the smallholder will know what arrangements he can rely upon. There wilt not be a great variety between one county and another in bargains which they strike on the public funds which have been supplied to them, and we also believe that the smallholder will do the repairs more cheaply, and get a better value, than if they were left to the county council, and if the smallholder had to pay the equivalent in cash by means of a sinking fund

    1145
    The right hon. Gentleman asked how long the loss of £25 which is estimated on each small holding will continue. This loss, this subvention, will run as long as the loans are outstanding, and the right hon. 'Member will remember that loans for small holdings run for different periods, up to 60 years for buildings, and up to 80 years for land. It is only possible to form rather a rough estimate, but we believe, at any rate, that during the first years until the shortest terms run off, £25 is a fair figure. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this Bill was an attempt to put out a fire with a syringe. I think he must recognise that we cannot set up small holdings on a whofsale scale without very serious and disastrous disturbance to the existing cultivators of land. The best land, which is the kind of land the smallholder must have, is very generally occupied at the present time, and unless we are to inflict hardship and decrease our agricultural production, we must go gradually in this matter of the provision of further small holdings.
    The number of those who need State help is a little exaggerated. The small holdings which have been set up by the State are only a very small fraction of the total number of small holdings, and there is no need for us to spoon-feed those of the small-holding class who are able to make their way without State help. Besides that, there is a very definite limit to the number of workers who are either desirous or qualified to take small holdings. There could be nothing more disastrous to the industry than to put people on small holdings unless they have the capacity to make them a success. We have based our financial estimates on the average number settled on small holdings in the years between the passage of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, and the outbreak of the War. In those days, the task was comparatively easy, because the provision of these small holdings cost nothing to the State. Now, however, the position is very different, and it involves a heavy charge.
    I think it comes with peculiar ill-grace from the Liberal party to say that our Bill will achieve nothing say the creation of small holdings threw no burden on the State, When they were in a position to go on at whatever pace they chose, they were content with the same
    1146
    rate of provision we are aiming at under this Bill. The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) told us the cottage holdings part of the Bill was going to be quite inoperative, that, with his experience of local government, he was sure no cottage holdings would be provided. Then he went on to criticise us for having limited those who are to be eligible for these cottage holdings to agricultural workers. He said we ought to throw them open to the people in the towns. He accused me of being a reactionary because I wanted to keep the people in the country and did not want to bring hack from the towns the large population who could live on these cottage holdings. Really, I did not understand that point, seeing he had already told us these cottage holdings would not he provided. I am not ashamed of saying that I think the first problem to be solved is that of keeping people in the country who are skilled in agriculture, and who sometimes find it difficult to get openings. I put in the second place, though also an important place, the getting of people back from the towns when we can provide them with an opportunity of finding a livelihood on the land.
    Mr. FENBY: Not under this Bill.
    Mr. GUINNESS: We are providing for them under this Bill by the creation of further small holdings. I would remind the hon. Member that besides these proposals for cottage holdings, for which he has no use, we are providing for all alike, town population as well as country population, the opportunity of taking allotments up to five acres and small holdings, either bare—without buildings—from 1 to 50 acres in the normal case or, with buildings, from 3 acres to 50. So we are not shutting out the town worker so very much. In our desire to encourage the smallholder, we certainly have no wish to suggest that that system should be applied universally. We have no possible antagonism to farming on a large scale. We believe that, with our variations in climate and the conditions of agriculture, both small holdings and large farms can with advantage exist side by side. Agriculture is not an industry which can he built up on uniform standards; in it the mass production of the modern factory finds no place. I believe it to be to the benefit of British

    1147
    agriculture that we should have a variation in the size and character of holdings, and, therefore, without lessening our desire to help the ordinary farmer, we are justified in promoting the extension of small holdings, both on grounds of social justice and as a contribution to the welfare of the community.
    Sir D. NEWTON: Reference has been made to the part that local authorities are to play in the administration of this Bill. A doubt has been expressed as to what the attitude of the county councils may be. This Bill has received the anxious and careful consideration of the County Councils' Association, who feel that in it they are provided with an instrument which should make for the satisfactory solution of this difficult problem. I believe that under Clause 2 of the Bill, with the generous provision which this House is making to assist the small holdings movement, we shall find that real and substantial progress will be made. It must always be borne in mind that in settling men on the land certain conditions must be carefully observed. In the first place, the land must be suitable, and, in the second place, men must be chosen who understand agriculture and the industry of working the land. There are too many people about who believe that one has only to tickle the face of the soil to make it smile pleasantly, while in sober fact it is a hard and difficult occupation. I hope that, in putting this Bill into operation, care will be taken not to dispossess and evict men who may be cultivating the land satisfactorily, but rather that land may be chosen which comes into the market every year in most counties in large quantities and which could be acquired without eviction and disturbance and all the difficulties which arise out of eviction and disturbance. I join in wishing this Bill well, and I believe that with the hearty co-operation of the county councils it can be made a successful Measure.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have been very interested to listen to the Debate on this Bill. I do not think Members on the other side will go into the Lobby against it. They and the Liberal party, who have now disappeared in fact, are afraid to strike. One of the things that struck
    1148
    me is the extraordinary demand there is for small holdings among working men in the country districts, and even in the towns. The reason for that is the very reason for which a Clause of purchase has been put into this Bill. The purchase Clause is bitterly opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They want them all to be leaseholders, and in leading strings, the subject of control, and perhaps, of despotism, on the part of a Labour county council. The reason why so many men want small holdings is that so many want to get away from the industrial tyranny to which they are subjected. Men and women have many a time said to me could they not get away to some more independent atmosphere? Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not sympathise with the smallholders because, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, "Six o'clock in the morning! It is a horrible idea that any man should get up and work so hard." That is why there is this position to-day, and this desire to prevent a man becoming an owner. The old Elizabethan theory was sound that you should have as many owners of property as possible. I would go as far as the Irish Land Act went, because I believe the soundest view is that a man should own the land he cultivates. With as many independent citizens working for themselves and as few for employers as possible is the soundest possible foundation. That does not recommend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that came about they would he the only people leg on the Unemployment Bureau.
    Bill react the Third time, and passed.

  HORTICULTRAL PRODUCE (SALES ON COMMISSION) BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  EPISCOPAL PENSIONS, 1926.
  Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Episcopal Pensions Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  This Measure is practically non-controversial, or at any rate I have not heard of any opposition, and therefore it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few moments. The reason for the introduction of this Measure is that the present law under which Bishops receive their pensions has been a distinct hardship, and creates a distinct burden. The present law is that of 1869, under which the Archbishop and Bishops are entitled to- a pension of £2,000 a year or one-third of the official income of I he Bishopric, whichever is the greater. It is payable on incapacitation, and the money is taken from the income of the successor in the Bishopric. That has become increasingly a burden, as the income of the new Bishops is not more than half of what it was in the old days. Therefore the burden has become intolerable.
  11.0 P.M.
  There is also the difficulty that some Bishops refuse or are unwilling to resign owing to the fear of crippling their successors. Hon. Members may know many cases in which it is desirable that a Bishop should retire, but where it is impossible for him to do so on financial grounds. I would not give the impression that the Bishops who are on the retired list are drawing their full pensions, because it would be unfair to do so. They have Voluntarily resigned a considerable amount of their pensions; but even as it is, the pension drawn by the seven Bishops on the retired list varies from £500 to £1,500 a year. It is proposed, under the Measure, to sweep away this old system altogether, and to set up a new system of pensions based upon a contribution from every bishop—a contributory system—and the balance re-
  1150
  quired will be found by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I would say at once that, under Clause 5 of the Measure, the amount to be found by the Commissioners will only be realised when the Commissioners consider that the finding of that sum will not cripple or endanger in any way the work which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to-day are doing for the poorer clergy of the country. Therefore, if this Measure passes, there is no fear that any assistance that may be given to the bishops will be at the expense of the poorer clergy; that is made perfectly clear by Clause 5 of the Measure.
  The amount of the pension is to be normally 1800 a year, with three exceptions, in the case of which it will be £1,000, and, in the case of the Archbishops, £1,500. The age of retirement will be 70, or earlier in case of incapacitation. In conclusion, I would remind the House that every bishop of the 38 or 30 who at present hold office has agreed to this Measure, and has Voluntarily foregone all claim that he might have under the old Measure. They have foregone their claims to higher pensions, in the interests of the more efficient working of the whole system and in the interests of their successors in their own sees. That is a generosity which I think deserves to be publicly made known. The Measure has been carefully considered by the Joint Committee of the two Houses, who have reported in these terms:
  "The Ecclesiastical Committee are of opinion that it is desirable that the Measure should become law. They consider that it does not affect prejudicially the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects."
  Mr. CADOGAN: I beg to second the Motion.
  The remaining Government orders were read, and postponed.

  FARM WORK, SCOTLAND.

    CHILD EMPLOYMENT.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. MAXTON:There is a point that I am very anxious to raise to-night. At Question Time I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland a question asking if he had given his approval to a by-law of the Kincardineshire Education Authority permitting children 10 years of age to be employed on farm work. The answer I received was a somewhat involved one, and I did not appreciate its full significance at Question Time. I am, therefore, taking this, the earliest opportunity of getting a full explanation from some representative of the Scottish Office as to what exactly they are proposing to do in Kincardineshire. The answer I received started with a sentence which seemed very satisfactory, namely:
    "The answer is in the negative."
    The rest of the answer, however, went on to prove that the reply was not in the negative, but that the intention of the Kincardineshire authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, was, once the necessary formalities had been gone through, to permit children of the age of 10 years to be employed in agricultural work in Kincardineshire. We shall be prepared to. excuse the lateness of the Under-Secretary, who I sec has just arrived, if he comes forward with an adequate defence of this horrible action that his Office appears to be taking in this matter, or with a statement that they are not going to proceed any further with it. I should have thought it was impossible at this time, when there are a million and a-half adults going about unemployed, a proportion of them even in agricultural districts, that any Government would have been prepared to assent to dragging children of 10 years of age out of the schools to do hard manual labour in the fields; but as I read this answer, that is the exact thing that the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to permit. I regret very much that this should have taken place in Scotland. I do not think there can be any place in England where a similar thing is done, and I am sure this is the first step in this direction under this Tory Government in Scotland. I want to see, if I possibly can, by directing public attention and the. attention of the Scottish Office to the serious nature of the step they are taking that, if it is not stopped in this instance, the spread
    1152
    of it to other parts of the country will not be permitted.
    The by-law previously was that under certain conditions children of 12 years of age were permitted for certain periods to take part in seasonal agricultural work. I think even that was quite wrong. The School life of the average child of the working class from five to 14 years of age is too short already without it being eaten into by arrangements of this description.
    I know education authorities in Scotland have power to grant such exemptions, but I know in Glasgow under the education authority no permission would be given for children to engage in employment under the age of 14 during hours when the schools were actually open. Permission under these by-laws is given in Glasgow for children to do spare time tasks, such as delivering newspapers or milk before or after School hours, but even when that limited permission is given the education authority insist that every child who is going to do that must have a permit from them, he must have a certificate from his Schoolmaster to show that his educational attainments are of an advancement suitable to his age, the School medical officer conducts an examination to see that he is physically fit, and then the educational authority insists that the person who employs him shall provide him with suitable covering, waterproof or something of that kind, as a protection against the weather. Here we have in Kincardineshire the suggestion made by the Scottish Secretary, as this answer states, provided the ordinary procedure is complied with relating to a few advertisements in the local papers, that he should allow children of 10 year, of age—imagine the shame of it—to go into the fields to do hard agricultural work. If it was in their leisure time it would be a shame to cat into their play hours, but this proposal permits farmers to take the children from School and turn them out into the fields to do potato lifting and jobs of that description.
    I am not going to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give me his personal opinion on this. It would finish his career on the Front Bench if he gave his view on the course of conduct the Government are permitting. I am asking him to give me some official justification for this at a time when children leaving

    1153
    School have to go for months and sometimes years without being able to get into a job. What possible justification is there for driving out the kiddies at 10 and making them wealth producers? It is shocking and disgraceful. I do not know any defence, but I should like to hear what the hon. and gallant Gentlenman has to say. I want to say that I invited the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a statement upon another matter, upon which I am sure he would have made a reasonable speech, but, ha view of the lateness of the hour, I did not consider that I was justified in raising it.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): acknowledge gratefully that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his intention to raise this matter, and I apologise to him for the unintentional discourtesy of being a moment or two late in entering the House. I am not going to engage in a discussion on the general principle which this matter raises. The Scottish Office to-day, in the answer given by the Lord Advocate, pointed out that in this matter they are merely allowing a case to be stated for subsequent decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland. All that the present position amounts to is that the statutory education authority, which is specifically responsible for education in Scotland and not as in England, a committee of the county council; an authority who are elected with no other aim and object than that of the education of the children of the county, put up a case to my right hon. Friend for allowing certain seasonal work being Voluntarily engaged in by a certain section of the School population. My right hon. Friend, in correspondence, pointed out the objections to the course which it was intended to pursue, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, after pointing out this objection, has allowed the matter, so to speak, to go for proof.
    Mr. MAXTON:I do not want to proceed if I have been misinformed by this answer. It says that the Secretary for Scotland is prepared to sanction that by-law prescribing the minimum age of 10 years for seasonal employment, subject to review in the event of an advertisement in the Press revealing a serious body of objection to it. It is
    1154
    not a question of stating a case; it is a statement that he is prepared to sanction the employment of the children.
    Major ELLIOT: I think my hon. Friend and myself are laying emphasis on two, separate parts of the sentence. My hon. Friend lays emphasis on the first part, that the Secretary of State for Scotland would be prepared to sanction a by-law prescribing a minimum age of 10 years, whereas I lay emphasis on the second part, "subject to review in the event of advertisement of the proposed by-law revealing a, serious body of objection to it." I say that the case has been put up to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the body who are responsible for education in the county, and my right hon. Friend says he will allow the matter to. be canvassed in the columns of the Press. of the district. If this canvass reveals a serious body of objection to it, he will not be prepared to sanction the proposed by-law.
    I do think that on that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a perfect right to say that he has allowed the matter to go to proof, that he has allowed the matter to be considered in public and that he has intimated that if no serious body of objection is revealed by public advertisement and discussion in the public Press to the proposed by-laws, then, with the combined sanction of the statutory authority and with the additional sanction of no body of objection having been revealed it would be very difficult for him, not merely as Secretary of State for Scotland but as the authority responsible for agriculture and responsible for the carrying out of the will of the people, democratically expressed, to put up an objection to such a proposal merely from the official point of view.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: What about the parents?
    Major ELLIOT: The parents elect the education authority for the specific purpose of looking after the interests of the children. Suppose for some reason the attention of the parents of the children has not been drawn to this proposal. The advertisements of it in the public Press, and the discussion which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has drawn to it by discussion in this House will surely ensure the full can-

    1155
    vassing of this proposal before the responsible people, the statutory authorities, and, what is still more important, the parents who are responsible for the upbringing and education of these children.
    As to the general question whether any of these young persons should be allowed or should not be allowed to take part in seasonal employment in agriculture, that would lead us into a very wide Debate, upon which it would be wrong of me to embark at this time. The hon. Member raised instances such as the delivery of milk and the delivery of newspapers They are not exactly germane to the present discussion. These merely mechanical occupations, as the hon. Member himself would be the first to admit, are not in any way comparable to certain seasonal agricultural occupations. One of the great criticisms which is brought against the present education system is that by carrying it out as a mechanical system alike for country and town it gives but little opportunity for seasonal occupations in agriculture which afford to the country dweller opportunities for employment which are not in any way comparable—[Interruption]. Hon. Members interrupt, but this is not a mere quibble. The delivery of newspapers in the morning and the delivery of milk in the morning are occupations which are not in any way comparable to that of the country population taking part in the seasonal flush of labour which does occur during the Harvest period in the countryside. I am not willing to debate that between 11.20 and 11.30 at night in this House. Let us take it that the general question of agriculture and the seasonal occupation of the countryside child at certain times in the occupations of the countryside are held over for discussion at another time. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has frequently held up to our admiration the agricultural system of the State of Denmark, and he has commended it to the attention of the authorities, both agricultural and educational, in this country. I think he will he willing to admit that in the State of Denmark—
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: There is something rotten now in the State of Denmark!
    Major ELLIOT: It may be that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark. Even so, the State of Denmark, rottenness and all, has been commended to our attention by the hon. Member for Dundee.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Have I ever said that in Denmark there were children taken from School at the age of 10?
    Major ELLIOT: Let me point out to the hon. Member for Dundee and also the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), win) represent two great agricultural centres, that Mr. Duncan, of the Farm Servants' Union, has pointed out repeatedly in the columns of his own newspaper that one of the things in the State of Denmark is that children are allowed at an earlier age and for a longer period to be away for seasonal occupations than would be permitted in this country. I point that out as an indication of the fact that there are questions involved which cannot be discussed in a matter of ten minutes, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. MacLAREN: You should not be so provocative.
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) would say that anything I have said is provocative.
    Mr. STEPHEN: You are only playing into his hands by interrupting him, and allowing him to get off the point.
    Major ELLIOT: We all know the strong concentration which is the peculiar prerogative of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). The extreme concentration and the unique perception of the point, which is the prerogative of the hon. Member, is not the privilege of all of us. Let us say this about the education authority of Kincardineshire. It put forward a case to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State said: "Although this case has been put forward on the full responsibility of your statutory position, I do not agree with it." The statutory authority then returned to the discussion, and said it wished to press the point, whereupon the Secretary of State said, "I will consider your case after it has been discussed in the columns of the public Press." It was then up to the opponents of the proposal to bring forward their criticisms. The

    1157
    whole question of seasonal occupation in agricultural areas is a matter which education authorities of great eminence have put forward, but I am not going "to discuss that now. The case now remains for discussion in the public Press, and it is as reasonable and as unprejudiced a forum as you can find anywhere, not excluding the House of Commons. The Secretary of State points out that any decision he may come to will remain for criticism in the House of Commons, it may be for reconsideration, and he will be prepared to defend any decision to which lie may ultimately come in the House of Commons.
    Mr. MACLEAN: You have five minutes yet.
    Major ELLIOT: I am prepared to sit down here and now if there are any criticisms which the hon. Member would like to make. I should like to hear them. I think I have stated a case to which no hon. Member can take exception. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) represents another agricultural centre.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Hon. Members on the other side of the House show their ignorance of the industrial position of Govan by forgetting that half of it is agricultural. I have at least five farms in my constituency, and the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) has not even a dairy in his.
    Major ELLIOT: I was giving credit to the constituency of Govan for being an agricultural constituency, and the hon. Member himself reinforces my argument. The procedure outlined by the Secretary of State for Scotland is a public and democratic procedure to which no one can take exception. The decision, when it is come to, may be a matter for further review, but the procedure suggested is one to which right hon. Gentlemen or hon. Gentlemen in any part of the House cannot possibly take exception.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I think the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has made a most sorrowful exhibition of himself. As one of his colleagues who has some respect for him, I am very sorry indeed that he has been put into the position of defending the action of the Secretary of
    1158
    State for Scotland. What is revealed in the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland is not any consideration for the statutory authority of an education authority in any part of Scotland, but the abject and cowardly position that has been taken up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and which has been defended by the hon. and gallant Member to-night. If there could be anything more cowardly than the answer that has been given I would like to see it. The Secretary of State for Scotland has not the courage to stand up to the people in Kincardineshire who have asked to be allowed to employ children of 10 for work in their fields, and because he has not had that courage, he states that he will be willing to listen to any objections that may be put forward. Anxious to find a way out, he has not the courage to tell this education authority that he is not going to allow. this slavery to be imposed upon these children.
    The hon. and gallant Member made play with the fact that I had, possibly, a little wider education than he has had. He has done that on previous occasions, but at least that wider education would make me always protest against children of 10 years of age being sent to work in the fields, and it would certainly prohibit me from standing anywhere to defend such an action. I am ashamed to-night of the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in defending the action of his chief and his Government in this matter, and the action of this education authority. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may have been impressed by my concentration in a way different. from other Members of the House but, at least, the people of Kelvin-grove will know the kind of Member they have and the people of Scotland will know the kind of Government they have. That Government, having imposed eight hours on the miners are now going to put children of 10 years of age into this most hard employment. This is to be done by hon. and gallant Gentlemen who themselves would not allow their own children at the age of 18 to undergo what they are ready to impose on the working class children of Scotland. I welcome the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to answer for this matter in Kelvingrove. I am sure at no distant date, when a General

    1159
    Election does come, it will make that Division a certainty for the Socialist party in Glasgow. It will also mean the sweeping out of the country districts in Scotland of people like the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is signalising his
    1160
    accession to that office in this most miserable way.
    It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, ME. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution, of the House of 27th September.

COAL TRADE DISPUTE.
  PRICES.
  PRICES.
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  EMERGENCY RECTIONS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EXPENSES).
  EMERGENCY RECTIONS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EXPENSES).
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS, SOUTHWARK.
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS, SOUTHWARK.
  BROADCA STING (PROSECUTIONS).
  BROADCA STING (PROSECUTIONS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  RESPIRATORY DISEASES.
  RESPIRATORY DISEASES.
  CASUAL VAGRANTS, POOLE UNION.
  CASUAL VAGRANTS, POOLE UNION.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  TAX OFFICE, GRIMSBY.
  TAX OFFICE, GRIMSBY.
  WILD BIRDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  WILD BIRDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (SMOKE).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (SMOKE).
  BETTING DUTY.
  BETTING DUTY.
  MR. AND MISS DIXON (UNSUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION).
  MR. AND MISS DIXON (UNSUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION).
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON TRAFFIC COMMITTEE (REPORTS).
  LONDON TRAFFIC COMMITTEE (REPORTS).
  UNCLASSIFIED ROADS (GRANTS).
  UNCLASSIFIED ROADS (GRANTS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND SPAIN (COMMERCIAL RELATIONS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND SPAIN (COMMERCIAL RELATIONS).
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS (ACCIDENTS).
  LEVEL CROSSINGS (ACCIDENTS).
  TRADE ASSOCIATIONS (PRICES).
  TRADE ASSOCIATIONS (PRICES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl whether he can inform us as to the course of business and the arrangements for this afternoon's meeting.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, as your Lordships are probably aware, the business for the rest of the Session is likely to occupy a good deal of your Lordships' time. Several important Bills are either already in this House or are about to come up to it. I take it that it will be convenient if I tell your Lordships that in addition to the Electricity (Supply) Bill, the Committee stage of which we take to-night, and on which I shall have a word to say in a moment, there are four other important Bills which the Government are most desirous of passing and hope to pass before the end of the Session. They are the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill, the Rating (Scotland) Bill, the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill and the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill. In addition to these there are several Bills of smaller importance which it is also desirable in the public interest to pass, if possible, in the course of the present year. It is hoped that the House may be able to rise in the week before Christmas, but obviously this will not be possible unless the House is prepared to sit on Mondays and Fridays, and to sit after dinner when the occasion necessitates it. I am sure your Lordships will feel that that forecast is not inaccurate, and that the demands on your Lordships' time, though they may be somewhat inconvenient, are not unnecessary.
That brings me to the second Question of the noble and learned Viscount opposite—the question of the Electricity (Supply) Bill, which stands as the first Order to-day. Looking at the many

857
pages of Amendments I cannot suppose for a moment that we shall be so fortunate as to get through this stage of the Bill before dinner. If I am right in that, and I fear that I am, I think the most convenient course for your Lordships will be to adjourn at eight o'clock till nine-thirty, and resume the sitting at half-past nine and go on with those parts of the Committee stage which are still un-finished. I do not think it is necessary to say anything further about the business of this week at present, but it is clear that we shall have to sit both on Mondays and on Fridays for the rest of the Session until our business is completed. I do not know whether there is any other question that noble Lords would like to ask me, but, broadly speaking, I hope I have given a clear indication of the immediate hopes and future prospects of the legislative work which lies before us.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think that the programme which has been adumbrated by the noble Earl is at all unreasonable. We ought all of us to be ready now to sit every evening, if desirable, and also to sit on Mondays and Fridays. It is the usual custom for noble Lords towards the end of the Session to sacrifice their convenience to the exigences of public business and I am quite sure that your Lordships will wish to do it this year as usual. I hope that the customary course of procedure will be followed and that the House will meet as usual on Monday and also as usual on Friday, that is to say, in the morning of Friday. That, for a very great many years has been a custom in this House and I hope that it may be adhered to. Those of us who are concerned in county work, although we may be expecting at this time of year to be busy here in the mornings, are apt to make arrangements for the afternoons and evenings of Fridays in the counties. Therefore, any alteration from the usual course of procedure in that direction would be very inconvenient to a great many of your Lordships. But, subject to that and to any minor alterations that may be necessary, I can assure the noble Earl, so far as my noble friends and myself are concerned, that we are only too ready to sit on the occasions to which he has referred.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should like to know from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack how that fits in with the judicial business. That is very pressing. There is a great deal of it just now, and if the House sits in the mornings of Fridays I do not see how the judicial business is to be properly attended to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for mentioning that point. I have not seen my noble friend on this matter, but my hope and expectation was that if the House sat on Friday it would sit at some early hour in the afternoon so that the great volume of important judicial work might continue during the morning. That is for my noble friend to say.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is a total alteration of the usual procedure of your Lordships' House, because when we have met on Fridays it has been on Friday morning. And if I may say so, however important may be the business of the Judicial Committee, they are a minority as compared with the number of members of your Lordships' House whose convenience is affected. What I might venture to suggest is that your Lordships' House should meet at the earlier hour and that the members of the Judicial Committee, who are fewer in numbers, rather than the members of your Lordships' House, should sacrifice their week-ends.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I point out that it is not a Committee that sits in this House for judicial work, but it is the House itself. I am quite sure that members who are accustomed to take part in that work would be extremely willing to continue to sit in the afternoon.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I am not very learned in the precedents to which the noble Earl opposite referred and I should hesitate to offer an opinion upon the best course to pursue without consultation with noble Lords from various parts of the House. But, as between Friday morning and Friday afternoon, I will make a statement later, when I have had an opportunity of consulting with my noble friends and with other noble Lords.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (JUVENILE SOCIETIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY BOROUGHS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN IRELAND BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Constitution of Central Electricity Board.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be established as soon as may be after the passing of this Act a body to be called the Central Electricity Board (in this Act referred to as the Board), consisting of a chairman and seven other members appointed by the Minister of Transport after consultation with such representatives or bodies representative of the following interests as the Minister thinks fit, that is to say, local government, electricity, commerce, industry, transport, and labour.
(2) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being chairman or a member of the Board so long as he is a Member of the Commons House of Parliament.
(3) The chairman of the Board and any member of the Board who is, by the terms
860
of his appointment, required to devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this Act shall, within three months after his appointment, sell any securities which he may hold for his own benefit in any company carrying on the business of supplying electricity or the manufacture or sale of machinery or plant for the generation or transmission of electricity; and it shall not be lawful for the chairman or any such member of the Board whilst he holds office to purchase for his own benefit any securities in any such company, and if the chairman or any such member of the Board under any will or succession becomes entitled for his own benefit to any securities in any such company, he shall sell them within three months after he has so become entitled thereto.
(6) The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number.
(7) A person appointed to be the chairman or to be a member of the Board shall hold office for such term not less than five years nor more than ten years as may be determined by the Minister before his appointment.
(8) The Board shall appoint a secretary and such other officers and servants as the Board may determine, and there shall be paid out of the fund hereinafter established to the members of the Board, or any of them, such salaries or fees and allowances for expenses as the Minister of Transport may determine, and to the secretary, officers, and servants of the Board such salaries and remuneration, and, on retirement or death, such pensions and gratuities, as the Board may determine; and any expenses incurred by the Board in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this Act shall be defrayed out of the said fund.
(10) Every document purporting to be an Order or other instrument issued by the Board and to be sealed with the seal of the Board authenticated in manner provided by this section, or to be signed by the secretary or any person authorised to act in that behalf, shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be such order or instrument without further proof unless the contrary is shown.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "eight" for "seven." The noble Lord said: I have a consequential Amendment lower down on the Paper and perhaps the Committee will allow me to take the two together. I am now moving that the Electricity Board should consist of eight, not of seven, members and by my subsequent Amendment I propose that there be added to the Board a representative of agriculture. As we all know, agriculture is the largest single trade in

861
this country. We have heard from various statesmen within the last few months that this Bill is to benefit the countryside, especially agriculture and industry, and therefore I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask that on the Central Electricity Board there should be a representative of agriculture besides a representative of industry. The word "industry" is generally taken to mean great trades, like the engineering trade or the cotton trade. If the development of the countryside, as the Government hope, is to take place, it seems to me that it is all-important that we should have a representative of agriculture on this Board, especially as we all know that agriculture is not nowadays represented in either House of Parliament in the same way that it used to be.
If my present Amendment is made it will carry with it—unless the Lord Chairman directs me that it should be otherwise—that the eighth member will represent agriculture on the Board. I appeal to members of the House with a knowledge of agriculture and who represent agricultural associations and members in all parts of the House to support this. It is an entirely non-political Amendment, which is merely intended to give agriculture a voice in the distribution and generation of electricity. It seems to me fair that agriculture should have fair representation and not be dependent on those who have nothing whatever to do with the agricultural industry.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("seven") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My noble friend has not quite appreciated the principle on which this Board is to be composed and I think he made that clear when he said that if this Amendment were carried his second Amendment followed consequentially; because the two proposals are quite different. The idea behind the creation of this Board—and I stated this emphatically on the Second Beading—is this. It is not that it should be composed of the representatives of different industries and occupations; it is that it should be composed of
862
seven members and a Chairman of wide experience in affairs and business who, if possible, should not be directly representative of any industry, but should very impartially consider the interests of all.
The other proposition is really quite a different one because, if my noble friend reads the words, he will see that these members are to be appointed by the Minister of Transport after consultation, if he thinks fit, with representatives of local government, electricity, commerce, and industry. It does not in the least follow because he consults with these particular industries, commerce and electricity, that he will select one of them to represent that industry. On the contrary, I rather hope that the noble Lord will co-operate with me and your Lordships also in keeping this Board independent and impartial and not representative of any industry, but separated, as far as they can be, from any particular industry. Therefore I strongly deprecate putting into the Bill that the representative of a particular industry shall be upon the Board. It is obvious that if a statutory right is given for a representative of agriculture to go upon the Board all the other industries and interests will require the same treatment. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount said about not putting in here a representative of agriculture. But if your Lordships will look at, line 14 it seems to me that that is the place in which it ought to appear, because it is quite clear that the Minister will consult the representatives of different industries and he ought, obviously, to consult the representatives of the agricultural industry. I hope that the noble Viscount will give me an assurance on that point when that Amendment is reached. I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment with that in view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Minister of Transport" and insert "the Commissioners of His Majesty's

863
Treasury." The noble Lord said: I understand that the Minister or Ministry of Transport is very anxious to retain full control over everything in this Bill; but as no less than £33,000,000 of public money is going to be advanced, it seems to me that the Treasury should have the right of nominating the members of this Board and not the Minister of Transport. The Ministry of Transport is a very busy Department with many functions and I do not think it should nominate the jury, the judge and the counsel for the prosecution as well in connection with this Bill. It would be much better if the Treasury nominated the Electricity Board. That seems even more necessary when one considers that the Ministry of Transport is to be a sort of court of appeal, and it ought not to be both judge and jury at the same time. I think that possibly my noble friend may not accept this Amendment, but I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("Minister of Transport") and insert ("the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think my noble friend said that he did not expect me to accept this Amendment and therefore put it forward rather tentatively. There are one or two reasons why I do not want specially to associate the Treasury with the appointment of these members of the Board. The Treasury, as is well known, is really the central Department of the Government and we want to keep the Board as far as possible independent and free from Government control. If the Board is to be appointed by the Treasury you will really lay stress upon the fact that there was this Government connection or control.
LORD CARSON: Why?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Because, as I have said, the Treasury is the central organ of Government controlling other Departments very largely. My noble friend says that the Ministry of Transport has so much to do that it would not be able really to find time to select these men. That is an argument obviously which would apply far more to the Treasury. But, after all, the Ministry of Transport is the Department which is responsible for electricity
864
and so on, and whose statutory business it is to deal with these matters. Therefore, it seems to be obviously the Department selected for choosing the members of the Board.
I really did not follow what my noble friend said about the judge and jury coming from the same place. These men appointed to the Board are not in any sense members of the Department of the Ministry of Transport; they are independent people of distinction chosen from outside for their business experience. All that the Minister of Transport has to do is to nominate them; when they are nominated they are completely independent. In those circumstances I think that the Minister, who is likely to have most knowledge on this subject and who deals with these matters constantly from day to day, is really the person who ought to have the right and on whom, shall I say, the duty ought to be cast to nominate these persons, and not the Treasury which is not in very close relation with it. The only other point that I think my noble friend made was that the Treasury was going to advance a sum of something like £33,000,000. May I remind my noble friend that the word is "may" and not "must"? and I think he may trust the Treasury, of which I have had a good deal of experience myself, to look after their own interests in that matter. The Treasury are quite capable, as I know very well, of making very strict and stiff bargains, and I do not think we ought to be asked to put them in the position of directly appointing the members of this Board.
LORD OLIVIER: I do not quite understand and I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the Treasury is to have no financial control at all over these things.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Treasury will make what conditions it likes if, of course, it chooses to guarantee the money.
LORD CARSON: This seems to me to be an important Amendment; at least, it is important as to who should appoint the members of this Board. The Board has vast powers; it can create any staff it likes; it can vote itself any payment it likes; it can set up consultative and technical committees and employ a

865
number of people in that way. Altogether the Board can establish a very large department. It is plain that the question of those who are appointed is one of great importance. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill says that the Minister of Transport is dealing with these matters every day. I do not know exactly what that means, nor how the Minister is brought into contact with this question of electricity supply at all. I do not know why he should be the person selected, not could I understand the argument of the noble Viscount that the Board would be less connected with the Government if the appointments were made by the Ministry of Transport than if they were made by the Treasury. I suppose the Ministry of Transport is as much a Department of the Government as the Treasury is. I do not think You can draw distinctions of that kind.
What the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had in mind was this, as I understand the Bill. There is to be an immediate advance from the Treasury of £33,000,000, or a guarantee by the Treasury to enable that sum to be raised. It is the boast of the Government that this Board is quite independent, and will not have to account to the Government or to Parliament in any way, or be responsible to anybody, and if the country is going to advance it £33,000,000 one would think some protection would be given by the Treasury haying the power to nominate the members of the Board to whom they are to advance that sum.
I know that £33,000,000 is a trifling sum in the eyes of a Conservative Government, but it is worth thinking about. If they do not have any voice in the appointment of the Board the Treasury, practically, will have no control of any kind or description, but will simply be compelled, after the Board is appointed, to sign the guarantee enabling these gentlemen to get possession of the £33,000,000 and then, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, set to work to carry out the various exploits which, it is said, will make a revolution in the supply of electricity. I do not think that is a good way of doing business from the point of view of the country and I think the Amendment is worthy of consideration.
EARL BUXTON: I am in favour of the Amendment and hope the noble Lord will press it to a Division. I would point out that these vital and extensive powers go to a Board which is for five years practically to be independent of control by the Government. In those circumstances I contend that it ought to be nominated by a very powerful Department. The Ministry of Transport is one of our smallest and least important Departments and the nomination of a Board of this description ought not to be in the hands of a Department of that character. When I had the honour of being at the Board of Trade, transport and all those questions, now under the Minister of Transport, constituted only one of the many functions of the Board of Trade and I will undertake to say that it was done better then than it is now.
In regard to the question of economy, your Lordships will recall that the Geddes Committee recommended that the Ministry of Transport should be sent back to the Board of Trade with a much reduced staff. I never understood why that recommendation was not carried out. Undoubtedly it would have led to great, economy and, equally, I have, no doubt, it would have led to efficiency. The Board of Trade would have been a suitable Department to nominate the members of this Board. I think there is great force in what has been said as to the financial position. After all, if you are going to lend the Board £33,500,000, it will be the taxpayers' credit that is being lent and the taxpayer is going to run some risk; therefore, it is a Board over which the Treasury ought to have control. I think a Board of this importance ought to be appointed by a strong Department in order that suitable persons shall be put upon it and ought not to be under the control, as it is now proposed, of a Department such as the Ministry of Transport, which, as I have said, is one of the very small Departments and has not the opportunity or the knowledge or power required for appointing a strong Board.
LORD DANESFORT: What appears to me to be of more importance than that the Ministry of Transport should nominate the Board is that the Treasury should have some control over it.

867
As my noble friend Lord Carson has pointed out, the Board would have to expend an enormous sum of money not merely in the staffing of a department and so on, but would be spending large sums in the standardisation of currents and the laying down of transmission lines. Surely it ought not to be left in such a state that there is no check upon a Board which is going to spend public money in this way. It is one of our constitutional principles that every Department in this country is subject to some control by the Treasury. The Army, the Navy, and all the great spending Departments cannot spend money without the authority of the Treasury. I would like to suggest to my noble friend that something should be put in the Bill, either in Committee stage or, if there is not time to think out a scheme for Committee, then on the Report stage, which would give the Treasury some control over the Board which has the expenditure of this vast sum of money. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us whether he will consider that point either at this stage or before the Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the speech which has just been made by my noble friend shows that there is some misapprehension. This Board is not a financial board, not a board to expend public money at all. No penny of public money can be expended by the Board or be entrusted to it except with the consent of the Treasury. It seems to me that for the purpose of checking the expenditure of public money the Treasury will be in all the stronger position if it does not itself appoint this particular Board. The Board is formed to deal with the provision of electric power for public purposes and such control as there is of electricity is now with the Minister of Transport. The Commissioners are responsible to the Ministry of Transport and that, therefore, is the proper administrative Department for choosing the members of this proposed Board. I suggest to the House that to put the Treasury in would be going wholly outside the ordinary course of business in this country. As to what was said by the noble Earl opposite. Lord Buxton, his argument was in favour of merging the
868
Ministry of Transport in the Board of Trade. That is, of course, a wholly different matter from any argument for putting the Commissioners of the Treasury in this part of the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope the House will accept the Amendment. It is quite true that the Board will not spend public money, but they will obtain from the public a loan of £33,500,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not necessarily.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend says "not necessarily." Does he mean it will probably be £100,000,000 instead of £33,500,000? If so, I agree with him.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is limited. That is the utmost limit.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have never yet known an estimate which was not exceeded, and certainly not an engineer's estimate, nor an estimate of a member of a Government. Their estimates always are exceeded. I could give any number of instances of that, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. There is another and very strong reason why this Amendment should be accepted. Those of us who were in favour of economy always understood that there would be an abolition of a certain number of the new Ministries which were, unfortunately, created during the War and that one of the Ministries to be abolished was the Ministry of Transport. That Ministry was described by a Committee of the House of Commons over which I had the honour to preside as being a grandiose Department. We do not want to add to the powers of that Ministry. What we want to do is to curtail its powers and to abolish it altogether. I cannot help thinking that the reason the Ministry of Transport has been chosen is that the Government want an excuse to keep it in existence; otherwise it is not necessary to keep a Ministry with a Minister and officials merely to say that you are to go round Trafalgar Square instead of across it. In these circumstances I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD GAINFORD: There is another point which has not been mentioned and it is one which is important. All of us who have been associated with electrical undertakings believe that the operations of this Bill and the setting up of a new Board, instead of cheapening electricity in the country, will do exactly the reverse, and in the event of a new Board being established, as is proposed by this Bill, the effect must inevitably be that you will have a new spending Department. We all, I think, recognise that the Ministry of Transport has been a spending Department, and some people think on rather a lavish scale in certain directions. Be that as it may, we are quite certain that the Treasury is always looked upon as guarding the finance of this country, even when it has an extravagant political head, but the Treasury attitude of mind will be really to see that the individuals who may be appointed upon a Commission of this kind are men who are going to do what they can to restrain expenditure on a large scale by a new bureaucratic body which is going to be set up. It is for that reason, as well as in the interests of the loans which will have to be secured by this new body, that I think it is far more important that the Treasury should be represented rather than the Ministry of Transport in connection with the nomination of persons to serve on the Board.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The speech of my noble friend opposite is one which, if taken seriously, would strike at the very foundation of this Bill. It resembles his Amendment to send the Bill to a Select Committee which was discussed in your Lordships' House after the Second Reading. The purpose of this Bill is to set up a great plan of dealing with electricity and producing it. For that purpose people who are acquainted with the subject, and intimately acquainted with it, are wanted. The Electricity Board will consist of people selected by the Minister who has, after all, had to do with this scheme from the very beginning, who knows the very complicated details of it, and who has been in contact with those concerned. He will, of course, consult the interests concerned. That is the way you will get your Electricity Board. If you send it to the Treasury, what do the Treasury know of the
870
foundation and nature of the scheme with which we are dealing? They have had no experience. They are admirable people at their own business, but not admirable at a business of this kind, which is technical in the last degree. For that reason I very much prefer to see the thing in the hands of the Minister of Transport, who has had to do with it, rather than see the appointment taken out of his hands and put in the hands of the Treasury, who have no experience. This has been talked of as if it were intended to enable the Electricity Board to borrow the enormous sum of £33,000,000. Nothing of the kind. Loans, generally of small amount, will be wanted as things go on, and very soon the return from the reduced cost of current will enable the interest and sinking fund of these loans to be paid. It is only at the very beginning that money will be wanted and, for myself, I should be surprised if more than a million will ever have to be guaranteed at all. It will be borrowed with the guarantee of the Treasury to enable it to be obtained at the lowest rate, and Clause 27 gives ample power to the Treasury to deal with the matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If I may say one word, I think there is some misapprehension in the minds of noble Lords on this subject. May I say, as regards the speech of my noble friend Lord Banbury, that this sum of £33,000,000 is not an estimate in the ordinary sense of the word. It is an upper limit beyond which the Treasury has no right to guarantee money. But there seems to be an idea in the minds of some noble Lords that by giving the Treasury the power to nominate the members of this Board they will be able in some quite unexplained way to exercise control over the finance of the Board. That is a complete and absolute mistake. The only question here is not who controls the Board, not who manages the finances of the Board, not who criticises the figures of the Board, but who appoints these people. Let us assume that they were appointed by the Treasury. When once they were appointed the Treasury would have no authority over them whatever. Let there he no mistake. If you substitute the Treasury for the Ministry of Transport

871
you will not confer any control whatever on the part of the Treasury over the finance of the scheme.
If any noble Lord thinks that the Treasury is not capable of taking care of itself when it guarantees any money borrowed by the Board, let him put down an Amendment, and I certainly would consider it on Clause 27 when we come to deal with the financial side of the matter. If noble Lords really think so I would like them to back their opinion by telling the Treasury what they ought to do. But do not let there be any misapprehension. The Treasury will get no control by this Amendment and I think it much better to leave the matter to the Minister who is dealing with the scheme. My noble friend Lord Carson asked what on earth the Minister of Transport had got to do with electricity. The answer is—everything. He is the one Minister who deals with it. The Electricity Commissioners are responsible to the Ministry of Transport and there is no other Ministry to deal with the matter. It is rather absurd to say that the one Department which shall not nominate these men who are going to control and manage this scheme is the Department which knows most about it. I really think your Lordships will not get any Treasury control over finance if
you substitute the Treasury for the Ministry of Transport.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not think that what has been said alters the basic facts of the case. What a great many noble Lords and myself desire is that this Board should be nominated absolutely independently of the Ministry of Transport. Speaking for myself, I should have far more confidence in seven men selected by the Treasury than seven men selected by the Ministry of Transport. The Minister of Transport is directly interested in pushing this scheme forward. The Treasury, on the other hand, would see that the greatest possible economy was exercised. Therefore, when it comes to the nomination of people of this kind the Treasury is quite as capable of finding expert, reliable persons to nominate as the Minister of Transport. Of course they would confer with the Minister of Transport. I do think that nomination by the Treasury will carry a far larger measure of public confidence than if the persons were nominated by the Minister of Transport.
On Question, Whether the words "Minister of Transport" shall stand part of the Clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Churchill, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Haldane, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Sutherland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Invernairn, L.

Wellington, D.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Peel, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Bath, M.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Camden, M.

Ampthill, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Queensberry, M.

Arnold, L.

Kylsant, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airlie, E.

Atkinson, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Clarendon, E.

Biddulph, L.

Merrivale, L.

Drogheda, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Meston, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Charnwood, L.

Monteagle, L.(M. Sligo.)

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Grey, E.

Newton, L.

Howe, E.

Cottesloe, L.

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

Leven and Melville, E.

Danesfort, L.

Lovelace, E.

Darling, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Parmoor, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Saltoun, L.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Onslow, E.

Ernle, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Erskine, L.

Russell, E.

Faringdon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Spencer, E.

Forres, L.

Suffield, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Templemore, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomson, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hampton, L.

Warrington of Clyffe, L.

Chaplin, V.

Harris, L.

Wargrave, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Askwith, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Winchester, M.

Avebury, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Morris, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Carson, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Buxton, E.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Glanely, L.

Shandon, L.

Hemphill, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Midleton, E.

Illingworth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Strafford, E.

Lamington, L.

Stanmore, L.

Allendale, V.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Treowen, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monson, L.

Wavertree, L.

Wittenham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "local government" and insert "the County Councils Association." The noble Lord said: With regard to this Amendment, I suggest to the Government that, since they claim that local government should be represented on the Board, the County Councils Association, which is representative of all the counties in this country, should be selected. I understand that the expression "local government" does not necessarily mean county councils alone, and may include other authorities, but the county councils have in many cases control of tramway lines—as in Middlesex, for instance—and I think that they ought to be represented. I would remind the noble Viscount that in the other House it was stated that this Bill would be of benefit to the counties, but nobody is at present to have representation on the Board who is specially representative of the interests of country districts as distinct from those of the town. I think it would only be fair that the County Councils Association should be selected as being the most representative body.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("local government") and insert ("the County Councils Association").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not really think that this Amendment is necessary and for the very good reason that under the term "local government" the county councils are, of course, already included. What my noble friend wishes to do is to substitute for all the great local government interests a particular one, the county councils, to the exclusion of the others.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I said not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is no good my noble friend saying "not." I am dealing with the words he wants to put in. He wants to leave out "local government" and insert "the County Councils Association." The obvious inference is that they are to be consulted and the others are not. What about the county boroughs? Have not they some interest? What about the other local bodies? It is rather curious that the particular bodies selected for consultation on local government by my noble friend have rather less to do with electricity than other local bodies. It is rather a paradox to select them and say that only they will be consulted. I have not the slightest doubt they will be consulted among other local government interests, and therefore I ask the noble Lord not to limit the choice of the Minister by saying that he shall only get advice on local government matters from the County Councils Association.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I rise to ask what is the general intention with regard to this list of consultees that has been put into the Bill. Does it exclude the Minister from consulting any other persons or interests he may wish to consult? Are these the only ones to be consulted, or is it only a list interalia of those he may consult? Surely a Minister in the exercise of his office is free to consult with any one from whom he may get valuable information or advice. I hardly see the necessity of enumerating the list of certain persons whom he may consult, presumably to the exclusion of others. It seems to me to be limiting the scope of the Minister and I think the list might be well left out.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is of the nature of a general direction to the

875
Minister, an indication that these are the great interests connected with this matter which he should consult. I think it is no more than that. Obviously it does not prevent him from consulting others, because the Minister may always consult any one he likes.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Viscount has said I shall withdraw the Amendment and put down a more specific Amendment on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved before "and labour," at the end of subsection (1), to insert "agriculture." The noble Lord said: I told the House before what I thought should be done with regard to agriculture, and the noble Viscount said that the place suggested was the wrong place, but it is curious that in these consultees there is no reference to agriculture. Surely he might allow the word "agriculture" to go in and make it quite clear that some representatives of agriculture might be consulted as well as representatives of the factories in town? It is important that this should go in, otherwise agriculture will be left entirely out.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("transport") insert ("agriculture").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have the greatest regard for the interests of agriculture, especially in connection with the supply of electricity, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has the same. I would suggest to the noble Lord that agriculture is not excluded. We are always talking, especially in this House, about agriculture being our greatest industry. Surely you do not exclude agriculture by saying you will consult industry. It is the biggest industry and you must consult it.
EARL BUXTON: On every occasion the Government have referred to the question of agriculture they have said that this Bill will help to a substantial extent our oldest native industry, which is agriculture. My noble friend in his speech also referred to the same matter. It seems to me that as it is one of the great industries of the country and as they have specially picked it out to benefit from this
876
Bill, it is essential that it should be mentioned among the others. As my noble friend behind me has said, if you are going to have a list that is an exclusive list then if you do not mention agriculture you exclude it from being consulted. It seems to me that in the circumstances, and in view of the way the Government have pledged themselves to agriculture, it is important that it should be mentioned.
Incidentally, may I say that I have studied the proposals made in the Bill and I cannot conceive how in any possible way the Bill, as it stands, will help agriculture? It is purely a Bill for generating electricity and only incidentally in this way can it possibly help agriculture, and that is by these transmission cables going through rural districts near the farms, and over places of that sort. Anybody who knows anything about the Bill knows that you cannot tap these lines without enormous expense, as much expense as would result from putting up a small generating station. It is not the cost of generating or the cost of current that prevents electricity being extended to rural districts: it is the cost of distribution and wiring and fitments. I think it is most unfortunate that the spokesmen of the Government have given the impression to the country generally that, to use the words of the Minister of Transport, by lighting up the poultry houses they will get an additional number of eggs and by using the electric milker they will induce the cows to give more milk. There is no truth in that as far as this Bill is concerned. It is about time the Government made some qualification in what they have stated. It seems to me entirely contrary to their policy to leave out the word "agriculture."
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If the noble Viscount had only put in that the consultees represented industry generally it would be a different matter, but if you look at the words of the clause you see that it says "electricity, commerce, industry, transport, and labour." The general use of the word "industry" in our common parlance relates to the industry of the industrial towns. All I can say it that I have seen representatives of agriculture since last Thursday and they have been profoundly dissatisfied at the absence of any

877
reference to agriculture. If the noble Lord will put in the word "agriculture" it cannot possibly do any harm and it will be a great benefit to those in the country who are looking, I think vainly, for benefits out of this Bill in regard to agriculture.
LORD WITTENHAM: I cannot understand why the Minister does not accept the Amendment at once. It cannot do any harm. I doubt whether it is even redundant. Industry includes agriculture, according to him, but why then do you specify electricity and commerce from all other industries? Your fatal fault is having specified at all. Having once specified you cannot get out of the Amendment to include agriculture by saying that it is included. If you specify electricity, commerce and transport, I cannot conceive why agriculture should not be specified, too.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I must make a protest against the speech of the noble Earl opposite who said that this Bill would do no good for agriculture and would not bring electrical power and light within the reach of agriculture. He rather indicated that the Government's statements on these matters were not closely connected with the truth.
EARL BUXTON: Exaggerated.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I say on the contrary, that it must be, and will be, of great advantage to agriculture. These transmission lines carrying electricity at high power will give an opportunity, without this colossal expense of which my noble friend speaks, to distribute electricity much more freely than is possible now. But there is, I think, some misunderstanding on this point of agriculture. My noble friend asks why we do not include agriculture. May I make this bargain? Supposing I accept my noble friend's Amendment with regard to agriculture, will he abstain from moving that any more bodies be introduced among those whom the Ministry is to consult?—because one does want to limit the persons or interests to be consulted. If my noble friend really thinks that agriculture is not included in the word industry, which I contend, I am quite content to put in the word "agriculture." I do not suppose that in another place they will have any objec-
878
tion and it would give my noble friend the satisfaction of knowing that he has obtained an Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I willingly accept that because all I want is to have the word "agriculture" included.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or a member of His Majesty's Civil Service." The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment in order to follow out a line of thought which was indicated in another place. It is very important that the Chairman or members of this Board should be absolutely independent, that they should have no pre-conceived notions and be under no tie whatever. I am prepared to put in that, the disqualification should also extend to a member of either House of Parliament. I do not think that a member of the Civil Service, who is pensionable and can be called to account by various Government authorities, should be qualified to be a member of this Board. I trust that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("Parliament") insert ("or a member of His Majesty's Civil Service").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think my noble friend ought to expect me to accept all of his Amendments. I have already accepted one, and I am going to make an appeal to him again. The general idea of the Board is that prominent people of great experience in business or in industry should be appointed as independent persons on this Board. I am bound to say that I do not think that that appointment naturally suggests one of His Majesty's civil servants, and I do not think it is in the least likely that a civil servant would be appointed. I hope we shall not have here again a list of all those persons who are to be excluded, otherwise we shall continue from now until Christmas. Even supposing that a civil servant were appointed, of course he would have to be seconded, and if he became detached from the Civil Service I suppose he would be as independent as anybody else.

879
Supposing that a civil servant was in that detached position would it be right to prohibit the Government in any circumstances from appointing such a person? He might be a man of outstanding position in this matter whom it was most desirable to appoint, and although I do not think it the least likely that a civil servant will be appointed, I ask my noble friend not to add to the list of exclusions by saying that civil servants shall not be appointed.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: When the Bill was introduced there was no disqualification whatever. It was obvious that this might become a very important political matter, and to prevent that the House of Commons voluntarily put in words to say that no member of the Commons House of Parliament might be a member of the Board. We have seen constantly, of late years, members of the Civil Service throwing up their jobs for the time being and going into highly paid jobs in industry, and elsewhere, and then possibly, after a time, reverting to the Civil Service. If these people are intending not to be officials, then it should not be possible for them to revert to the Civil Service.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Is it worth the while of the noble Viscount to insist upon resisting this Amendment? He has himself said that he does not think there is any question of appointing a civil servant. Would it not be wiser then to accept the Amendment?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I should have said that if the noble Viscount wishes me not to press my Amendment I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit from subsection (3) the words "who is by the terms of his appointment required to devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this Act." The noble Viscount said: I suppose the object of the subsection is to prevent people using their position for personal advantage, and I therefore propose to delete the words which limit the restriction to whole-time members of the Board.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("Board") to ("shall") in line 24—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUT PEEL: The distinction drawn in the Bill is a very simple one, and I think, possibly, it may commend itself to your Lordships. A distinction is drawn between the Chairman and whole-time members of the Board, and those who are part-time members. As regards whole-time members, they are obliged to sell out all their securities and to have no interest in any electrical company; but as regards part-time members, it is suggested that it would be enough in their case if they disclosed any interests which they may have in any electrical company. It is thought that if you are going to make all the members of the Board sell out any interests which they may have in any electrical company, you may prevent yourselves from appointing men of great knowledge of the subject as part-time members of the Board. If they make a clean breast of any interest which they may have, surely not much harm can be done by their retaining those particular shares. I almost think that to go as far as the noble Lord suggests would be too severe and harsh a suggestion.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In answer to the noble Viscount, I would draw his attention to page 2, where they are allowed to purchase, too.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They have got to disclose everything they do. Subsection (4) says:
"Any member of the Board shall, if he is interested in any company with which the Board has or proposes to make any contract, disclose to the Board the fact and nature of his interest, and shall take no part in any deliberation or decision of the Board relating to such contract…"
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "hold," to insert "or over which he has control through a nominee." The noble Viscount said: Things are not always what they seem. Sometimes people buy shares and have them put in the name of a nominee, for good, bad or indifferent reasons. I have simply put down this Amendment to try to make the subsection a little more watertight.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, after ("hold") insert ("or over which he has control through a nominee").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that in principle this represents the intention of the Government. I do not think, however, that the words are suitable, because a man might have control, not through a nominee, but in some other way. If the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment, we will endeavour to frame an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill which will meet his point.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3), after the first "own," to insert "or another's." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment comes under the same head as that of Lord Bertie, and if the Government will undertake to deal with the point on Report I shall be content. The Government are quite willing to make the clause watertight so that these members may not hold shares for their own benefit or for the benefit of others. It is very important that they should not. They might divest themselves of shares and put them into the name of a wife, or son, or partner. It is important that they should be absolutely independent of any financial influence.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, after ("own") insert ("or another's").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord is mistaken. The principle to which I assented is that anybody who has a beneficial interest in shares shall be affected by this clause. The present Amendment would make a man who is a trustee for others, with no benefit, obliged to sell out his shares, or be ineligible for the Chairmanship or for the position of whole-time member of the Board. That is a wholly different thing, and the promise I made would not cover this. Many of us are trustees, sometimes without knowing it, of all kinds of shares for other people.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It is perfectly open for a trustee to retire.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I want to make the clause watertight in the sense that no person shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in shares of this kind while he is a whole-time member of the Board. If the Government can achieve that shall be content.
LORD PHILLIMORE: How extraordinary it would be to carry this Amendment! What is a wretched trustee to do who is one of two trustees and holds shares? How is he to sell, and how is he not to sell?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "and while he holds any such securities he shall take no part in the proceedings of the Board, and shall not vote on any matter dealt with by the Board." The noble Lord said: This really carries the point we have been discussing a little further.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a very much stronger point, but I understand the noble Lord wants to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I may have spoken under a misapprehension. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: These words in the subsection apply to the whole-time members; that is to say, they have to sell out all their shares and interests in electricity companies, and to do so within three months of the time of appointment. Under my noble friend's Amendment during those three months they must sit down and do nothing at all. Surely this Board will take some time to set up, and they cannot do much harm in three months. I think the Amendment goes a great deal beyond the point which the Lord Chancellor made.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I put this case? Two of these Commissioners die or disappear, and two more are appointed. We will say that

883
they are selected from the electrical trades, because of their expert knowledge, but for three months they may act as Commissioners while they still hold shares in electrical businesses.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It is quite possible, with the best intentions, that they may not be able to get rid of their shares. There may be a limited market, or no market at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That really is the answer to this Amendment. The case with which we are dealing refers to people whose shares are left by will, and surely, if that happens, a new member of the Board should have a limited time in which to get rid of the shares.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Is not the case parallel to that which arises when a Government comes into office? In that case a Minister on appointment resigns his directorships, and if he is interested in a particular Department, he is not expected to concern himself with matters in which his own interests are affected. It is not suggested that the members are dishonest, but while they are interested they should not act. At the same time, after what has been said I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEhad on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (3) the words: "Any breach of the conditions contained in this subsection shall render him liable to dismissal or suspension from the Board by the Minister." The noble Viscount said: I think this must be an omission on the part of the Government, for they have not put in any penalty for infraction of this subsection. You will observe in subsection (7) that
"A person appointed to be the Chairman or to be a member of the Board shall hold office for such term not less than five years nor more than ten years. …"
You might thus have a person who, when he had been appointed, was either slack in attendance to business, or actually refused to act, and there is nothing to compel the Board to get rid of him.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the point is covered by the terms of the appointment, but, if not, I will look into the matter before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I would rather have it in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will look into it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert "but the quorum shall be six for the transaction of business." The noble Lord said: Unless I am wrong there is no quorum mentioned in the Bill. Anybody who has experience of boards of directors knows that you must fix a quorum. A Commissioner might be sent to inspect works in the United States, and another might go to Switzerland. There might be only two or three left, and you might come down to a Chairman and one other member. Surely it is advisable to define in the Bill the quorum that is necessary; it is an ordinary act of prudence.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, after ("number") insert ("but the quorum shall be six for the transaction of business").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend is going in some detail into the methods in which this Board should conduct its business. I suggest to him that this is rather a matter of domestic detail, concerning the regulations that the Board will make. It is a small matter to make statutory. You would say that if the number of members present at any time falls to five then no business can be transacted. I think it should be left to the Board.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment. Unless there is a quorum, what might happen? There are to be eight members. Two members might come down and they might call a meeting at such short notice that the other members could not get there. They might pass anything they like, imposing any charges upon the consumer, and indirectly upon the taxpayer. My noble friend has been with me on two boards and I do not think he will contradict me when I say that there is not a single board in this country which has

885
not a quorum. Whether six is the right number or not, I do not know; but that there must be a quorum is, I think, undoubted, and I shall have much pleasure in voting with my noble friend if he goes to a Division.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I hope the noble Viscount will not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon this Amendment. It is quite reasonable to ask that there should be a quorum on a matter which concerns millions of public money. And having regard to the fact that there is a considerable amount of uneasiness, which the noble Viscount does not seem to understand, on the part of members of this House with regard to the Bill, I hope he will accept the Amendment.
LORD WITTENHAM: It is quite usual in such businesses to have a quorum, and there ought to be a quorum in this case. Will the noble Viscount accept a lower number?
EARL BUXTON: Considering the nature of this Board and that after it is nominated there will be for five years no Parliamentary control over it, the least we can do is to show that a business of this description ought not to be conducted by one or two members of the Board. I think six, as proposed by the noble Lord, is too large a number, so why not say "four"? You might even put into the Bill that there shall be a quorum or something of the kind, if my noble friend thinks it will not add too much to the detail in the Bill. It seems to me that a quorum is absolutely essential in the circumstances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I remind your Lordships that the quorum of this House is three? I think that the last observation made by the noble Earl opens a door for a decision on this matter. The right thing might be to insert a provision in the Bill that the Board shall make regulations as to quorum and other matters. That, I think, is common form, and if it meets with acceptance we shall be glad to consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill. Certainly this Amendment proposing a quorum of six may make it unworkable, because trifling and informal business might have to be done and it would be impossible to do it unless six out of the eight were present.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The Lord Chancellor quoted an example, the quorum of your Lordships' House, and I should be quite content with three, though I should prefer four, as a quorum. Just think for a moment of the evil that would come about through not having a quorum. Gerard Lee Bevan had a company in which one person was a quorum and he transacted the business, with results that are well known to your Lordships. This Board ought not to be anything in the nature of a one-man show. Nobody puts trust in a one-man show, and I think the quorum should be the Chairman and three other members.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will accept the suggestion of three besides the Chairman. If it is important that the board of an ordinary commercial company should have a quorum and that such a provision should be put into every set of Articles of Association, surely in the case of such a Board as this, with its enormous powers and its control over a great number of undertakers throughout the country and the right to spend a great deal of money, we ought to have some quorum prescribed. It is all the more important because, as has already been pointed out in your Lordships' House this Board is responsible to no one and if it should do anything wrong the public, the consumers, and the undertakers will suffer without having any redress by going to a public Department or Parliament. I hope my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see the reason for this Amendment, and if he will accept three members in addition to the Chairman I will support it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: We could not possibly accept any Amendment with three or four and the Chairman, because if the Chairman is ill for two or three months the whole thing will be suspended. It is impossible. Will noble Lords allow me to consider it and bring up an Amendment on Report? It wants a little consideration and I will bring up a clause to deal with it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Surely it is much better to put the Amendment in now, and if on the Report stage the Government find that they wish to reverse it, let them bring forward a proposal for the purpose. If it is left

887
to the Report stage there may be a different House, and we may find we shall not be able to put it in.
THE LORD OHANOELLOR: I must say that this is quite impracticable. We cannot accept the Amendment as moved to insert six; but we have promised to bring up a quorum clause on Report, and I certainly think noble Lords ought to accept that.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I did not understand that my noble friend was going to bring up a quorum clause; I thought he said something rather different. If he will undertake to bring up a quorum clause on Report I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add the following to subsection (10):—
"every Order in regard to the closing down of any stations or the erection of any cables, or the purchase of any land, shall be printed and presented to both Houses of Parliament within seven days of such Order being made, if Parliament is sitting, and if Parliament is not sitting then such Order shall be published in at least one London newspaper within seven days in such a form to enable information to be given to the public."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that due notice shall be given to the public when Parliament is not sitting as well as when it is in Session. Time is wanted for the consideration of these matters from the point of view of the undertaker, the public, and any other party who is interested. I hope my noble friend will be able to accept the Amendment, and I shall be glad to hear what he has to say regarding it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, after ("shown") insert the said new words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think my noble friend has brought forward any really strong argument for the acceptance of this Amendment. As a matter of fact, if he looks through the Bill, he will see that all the essential matters are dealt with publicly and that most of them are brought before Parliament itself. For instance, land can only be acquired compulsorily by a Special Order which comes
888
before your Lordships' House, and notice has to be given under the existing law with regard to cables. I do not want to go through the whole of them, but my noble friend will find scattered through the Bill where these different points arise ample provision for publicity and for Parliament to express its views regarding them. I hope my noble friend will not insist upon putting into the clause a number of safeguards of this character.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I moved this Amendment because the Ministry of Transport are adepts at concealing what they are going to do and put notices down under the Publications Act. I may recall to the recollection of your Lordships the making of the Uxbridge Road Order, in regard to which notice was given under the Publications Act and urgency was alleged. All I wish to secure is that due and fair notice should be given of any changes which may be necessary.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That will be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
General powers and duties of Board.
2.—(1) The Board shall be charged with the duty of supplying electricity to authorised undertakers in accordance with the provisions of this Act, but shall not, save as hereinafter expressly provided, themselves generate electricity, and the Board shall have such further powers and duties as are provided by this Act.
(2) It shall be lawful for the Board to enter into arrangements with any authorised undertakers for the exercise by them on behalf of the Board of any of the powers of the Board under this Act which the Board think can more expediently be exercised locally:
Provided that the Board shall not delegate any of their powers with respect to selected stations without the consent of the owners of those stations.
LORD ASKWITHhad given Notice to move in subsection (2), to leave out "Provided that" and insert:
(3) The Board shall endeavour to arrange for the delegation to an association of owners of generating stations within any area for which a scheme has been adopted under this Act (being stations which by virtue of the scheme become selected stations) upon such conditions as they think fit of any of the powers or duties

889
of the Board within that area which they consider can be so delegated without prejudice to the efficient discharge of the general duties of the Board or to the efficient execution of the scheme within the area.
(4) …"
The noble Lord said: I would ask the leave of your Lordships to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice, in an amended form. The parties concerned in it and, as I understand, the Government also, would prefer that it should be turned about so that the Association shall approach the Board with a scheme instead of the Board approaching the Association; and that the powers of the Board should be defined a little more clearly. As redrafted my Amendment would read as follows:
"(3) Where proposals are made to the Board by any association of owners of generating stations which by virtue of this Act become selected stations within an area for which a scheme has been adopted under this Act for the delegation to the association of any powers and duties of the Board within that area, then, if the Board are satisfied that the association making the proposals is a fit and proper body to carry out those powers and duties, the Board shall comply with the proposals if and so far as they consider it practicable to do so without prejudice to the efficient discharge of the general duties of the Board or to the efficient execution of the scheme within the area, but subject to such conditions as the Board may think fit to impose."
This Amendment is very much pressed for by the Federation of British Industries and is supported by the Provincial Electric Supply Committee. The chief object of it is to make quite clear the intent and meaning of this Bill, that it is not to produce a State-managed supply system, but to obtain a more closely knit industry as between the existing undertakers. This is in the nature of a compromise and shows that it is not intended that the industry is to become a State-managed one, but that the real object of the Bill is to knit the existing systems together.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord still leave out the words "Provided that"?
LORD ASKWITH: Yes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put first the Amendment to read in this way: Page 3, line 20, leave out "Provided that."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("Provided that").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has so very clearly stated this Amendment and the reasons for it that I can really add nothing to what he said. I think it would be a useful Amendment and I am prepared to accept it. I may, however, remind the House that there are certain matters which later in the Bill cannot be delegated. Subject to that, I am willing to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I must draw the attention of the noble Viscount to the circumstance that the drafting will require considerable care because this new clause proposes to impose an obligation upon the Board to delegate. It may be very unsuitable that they should come under such an obligation, particularly as it is at the instance of the owners of generating stations. It might not fit the plan.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Has the noble Viscount got the Amendment?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is entirely within the power of the Board whether they should delegate or whether they should not.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, but not that they should be compelled.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They must not be compelled.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEhad an Amendment on the Paper to move, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "to," to insert "adopting schemes or."
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I state before the noble Lord moves this Amendment that I am quite prepared to accept it, but would he be good enough to move it as an Amendment to the next Amendment standing in my name? I am informed that it is better that it should be done in that way.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I should be pleased to comply with the noble Viscount's request, but there is one mistake in the wording of my Amendment which ought to read "adopting schemes or to." "I think the word" to "ought to be added. We must make separate the two points of adopting the scheme and the selecting of the stations.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that it would be more convenient if Lord Peel moved his Amendment first and Lord Oranmore and Browne moved his Amendment as an Amendment to Lord Peel's.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will move my Amendment in the new form, namely, page 3, line 22, after "stations" "insert" nor shall they delegate their power of adopting schemes or fixing a tariff under this Act."
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I quite agree that the Amendment would be preferable in that form.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the noble Viscount would move it in that form and we can dispose of it at once.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after ("stations") insert ("nor shall they delegate their power of adopting schemes or fixing a tariff under this Act").—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Appointment of consultative technical committees.
3.—(1) The Board may appoint one or more consultative technical committees consisting of engineers employed in connection with undertakings comprising generating stations which are by virtue of this Act for the time being selected stations.
(2) A consultative technical committee shall give advice and assistance on such matters as may be referred to the committee by the Board, and for that purpose the committee shall meet from time to time as the Board may determine.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "such matters as may be referred to the Committee by the Board" and insert "all matters in connection with generating stations." The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment in order that
892
the noble Viscount might give us some information upon the matter with which it deals. It is considered important amongst my electricity friends.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("on") to ("and") in line 30 and insert ("all matters in connection with generating stations").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understood this Amendment as being a limiting Amendment, so that all these personages should be consulted only on matters connected with generating stations. Of course, what we want is that the Board should have an opportunity not only of consulting them about generating stations but about other matters, such as transmission lines, potential loads and subjects of that kind. I hope my noble friend will not tie these learned men down to one subject. I think it is much better that their advice should be sought on other matters.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If the noble Viscount thinks that would be the effect I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Preparation and carrying out of scheme.
4.—(1) The Electricity Commissioners shall, as soon as practicable, prepare and transmit to the Board a scheme or schemes relating to the respective areas specified therein.
(b) providing for interconnection, by means of main transmission lines to be constructed or acquired by the Board, of selected stations with one another and with the systems of authorised undertakers:
(2) The Board shall cause every scheme to be published, and shall give public notice of the date (not being less than one month from the date of the notice) by which authorised undertakers and other persons interested may make representations thereon, and the Board, after considering the scheme and such representations, and after holding such inquiries (if any) as they think fit, may adopt the scheme either without modifications, or subject to such modifications as they think fit, and either generally or as respects any part of the area specified in the scheme, and shall publish the scheme as so adopted by them, and where the scheme has been adopted as respect part of the said area it may subsequently be adopted as respects other parts of the area.
(3) As soon as a scheme is so adopted and published either generally or as respects any part of the area specified therein, it shall be the duty of the Board to carry out and give effect to the scheme, or to carry out and give effect to the scheme within the said part of the area, us the case may be:
Provided that if any authorised undertakers on whom obligations are imposed by the scheme consider that the carrying out of those obligations would be prejudicial to them they may, within one month after the publication of the scheme as adopted, by notice in writing, specifying the nature of the complaint and of the relief sought by them, require the Board to refer the matter complained of to the arbitration of a barrister (or in Scotland an advocate) qualified for appointment to judicial office appointed by the Minister of Transport from panels to be set up by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session respectively for the purpose, and the Board shall refer the matter accordingly, unless they amend the scheme by relieving the complainants of such obligations as aforesaid, and shall not, pending the determination of the complaint, carry the scheme into effect so far as it affects the complainants.
(4) The arbitrator to whom any such mater is so referred may, in any case in which he thinks it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or niece qualified assessors and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors, and may, if satisfied as to the justice of the complaint, either order such pecuniary compensation to be made to the complainants as seems equitable in all the circumstances or order the scheme to be amended in such manner as he may direct:
Provided that the arbitrator shall not grant any relief other than pecuniary compensation in any case where the Board certify that the grant of such relief would conflict with the basic principles of the scheme or would prejudicially affect the efficiency of the scheme.
(5) A scheme may from time to time be altered or extended by a scheme made and adopted in like manner and subject to the like right of appeal as the original scheme:
Provided that a generating station included in a scheme as a selected station shall not cease to be a selected station without the consent of the owners thereof.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "lines," to insert "belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to limit or reduce as much as possible any unnecessary expenditure by the Board. As the Bill stands the scheme submitted has to provide interconnection by means of main transmission lines to be constructed or acquired
894
by the Board. It may well be that there are main and transmission lines already existing in the area and I do not see why those mains should not be used. Even if mains are not already existing, there may very likely be an authorised undertaker existing in the area who would be willing to put down mains in order to carry the current that the Board requires. In view of this fact they may be able to find someone else to do the work. I think the Amendment that I submit would considerably reduce the cost to which the Board would be put in carrying out this interconnection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, after ("lines") insert ("belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or")—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend wants either the owners of selected stations or some authorised undertaker, I presume, to build these great transmission lines, instead of the Board. I will deal first with the question of lines already existing. In that case no question would arise, because being already built they do not want to be constructed, and the Board has power to take them over if necessary, although I understand that it is not very likely that they will be taken over because there will be a very different kind of cable required. Putting that aside for the moment, I turn to the question of new lines for the transmission of high tension electricity. I do not think it is at all likely that any authorised undertaker would construct those lines. I do not quite see that it would be to his interest to do so. After all, these lines are for the purpose of conducting high tension electricity through areas of country far beyond the area in which a particular undertaker works and they are also for the purpose of interconnecting different areas. Therefore it is a thing really a good deal beyond the scope of an authorised undertaker and I do not see what interest he would have in doing it.
Nor do I understand quite what difference there would be. In the one case a contractor would be employed by the authorised undertaker and as soon as the line was constructed it would be let or handed over in some way to the Board, because the Board must control

895
the high tension mains, or it would be constructed by the Board itself; that is to say, the Board would be the contractor. I should have thought it much simpler, as the Board have to manage the mains, that they themselves should construct them instead of their being constructed by somebody who has no interest in them and, I may say, who would not be so interested in keeping down expenses. Therefore, on the score of economy and of direct rapid business, it is much better to leave the matter as it is.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: In view of what the noble Viscount has said I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the following addition to paragraph (b) of subsection (1): "and where the scheme relates to a specified area, for interconnection by means of such lines of the system of the Board in that area with the system of the Board in any other area with respect to which a scheme is then in force or may subsequently be made." The noble Viscount said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that the Board has power to interconnect areas by high tension electric cables.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after ("undertakers") insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) Providing for transforming stations and transformers on the main transmission lines at intervals of not more than ten miles apart in order to make a supply of electricity available at pressures suitable for use in agriculture and rural industries and for domestic purposes."
The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment and I hope the Government may see fit to accept it. It is very important, when these great high tension cables are laid possibly for a hundred or more miles in length, say from London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester and on to Leeds and so on, that the villages and smaller places en route should have the oppor-
896
tunity of getting a cheap supply of electricity. If you have to take electricity long distances you must do so at very high voltage. Speaking in general terms, 1,000 volts have to be added for every mile, because the loss from cables charged at high voltage is far greater than from those charged at low voltage. But you cannot use the current at that pressure without what is called the transformer, which transforms this high pressure current into current which can be used for domestic purposes, say 200 or 220 volts or whatever the voltage may be.
Unless we are to have these transformers along these big lines of cable the cables will be quite useless for the countryside. It has been said before in debate, and my noble friend Earl Buxton has pointed out, that a great point has been made by the Government—I hope it will come to pass although I am not very confident—that this scheme is going to do good to the countryside. It is no good running a cable from London to Birmingham, through the villages of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire and so on, unless there is some means of supplying electricity to the villages. It would be just the same as building a new railway line and having no intermediate stations. The line would be utterly useless to the countryside. It is quite different from the telephone system, and I only mention that because lately a friend of mine said: "Why cannot you be connected to a trunk line when your village happens to be near the trunk line?" That is quite a different matter. You cannot take electricity from these great main lines of transmission without a transformer. It should be the duty of the Board—I think the responsibility is on them as well as on the undertaker—to see that some opportunity of getting cheap electricity is given to the villages.
Take the example of France, where I have had a good deal of knowledge of a hydro-electric scheme. When the current is taken from the mountains to the plains in the case of the War river, which generates for Nice and other places on the Riviera, the intermediate villages have made it a condition that they should have transformers in their villages to supply them with electricity. It is very important that that should be done, and unless there is something in the Bill about

897
it my fear is that the general tendency will be to go only to the industrial centres and leave out the countryside. It is to make that point quite clear that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, at end insert the said new paragraph—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not quarrel in the least with what my noble friend has said. He has put very clearly the point about the methods of transforming electricity, and he showed up his friend who compared electricity to the telephone line in a most effective manner. This Bill, of course, is for the purpose of assisting rural areas as well as town areas. In his Amendment he wishes to lay something down about transformer stations. Under the Bill already the Board have power to put down these transformers, or sub-stations, as I think they are called sometimes. The Act of 1919 gives a definition of transmission lines including transformers. So that part is already provided for.
My noble friend must distinguish between main transmission lines and distribution. The object of this Bill is not so much to distribute as to provide for the possibility of distribution. If the Board is approached by a distributing authority, an authorised undertaker, to put a transformer station at a particular place, they would no doubt do it. Then the authorised undertaker would do the distribution, but you must not call upon the Board to do it, because that is not their business. Their general control is over generation, not over distribution, as I have explained in my speech in the Second Reading debate. Therefore, as they have got the power, I think there is no necessity to give the power twice over. It is obviously one of the objects for which they are constituted. I am sure the noble Lord would not press the Amendment in the form in which it is on the Paper, because it says "not more than ten miles apart". That would be restricting the Board in the details of their business, which I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to do. I quite appreciate his desire to meet the requirements of rural areas, but I submit that those requirements can be met fully by the Bill.
EARL BUXTON: I am afraid I do not understand just where these powers are given at the present moment. We have heard so much of the advantage that this Bill is going to confer on rural districts as well as industrial areas that surely it would be better to have it specifically mentioned in this Pill. As I pointed out a little while ago, the members of the Government and the supporters of the Bill have stressed very much the advantage it would be to the rural districts, and I ventured to point out that the cost of transformer stations is so high that if the rural districts have to meet the expense there would be no advantage to them from the Bill itself.
I hope that it is quite clear that they have this power. I gather that the noble Viscount does not desire to dissent from the view of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, but that he thinks that it is already provided for in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have just found the definition. The expression "main transmission lines"—and my noble friend will observe that this is the phrase used in this Bill—
"means all extra high-pressure cables and overhead lines …. transmitting electricity from a generation station to any other generating station, or to a substation, together with any step-up and step-down transformers—"
and so on; I need not read it all.
EARL BUXTON: Where does that come from?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am reading from the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. Quite clearly the definition includes these transformers.
EARL BUXTON: I wanted to know the noble Viscount's authority, and he has given it me, but I do not think that the matter is quite clear. Power is undoubtedly given to the Electricity Commissioners to deal with the question of transmission under certain circumstances, and I understand that my noble friend is anxious to make it clear that under this new measure rural districts are to have their share of the advantages of these transmission cables. Unless this is specifically stated, I do not think the Commissioners will find themselves bound in any particular case to provide for the cost—and it will be very considerable—

899
of these transmission stations. I agree with the noble Viscount that the words "ten miles" are unsuitable and limit the clause too much, and if the noble Lord used the words "suitable provision," or something of that sort, it might be better, but I should like to point out that, even if these transmission stations are provided in rural districts, as I hope they will 119, this is unfortunately only a small portion of the cost of bringing electricity to the doors of the farmers. This, however, is an advantage which ought to be given to rural districts, and is going to be given to other parts of the country. I think that the Government might accept this Amendment, or something like it, in order to make it clear on the face of the Bill that such is their intention.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Before the noble Viscount replies, may I put the point once more, perhaps in a different way? We all agree that it is the business of the authorised undertakers to do this, but it will only be human nature and in accordance with experience if they look for an immediate commercial return. A great deal of public money—perhaps over £30,000,000—is to be raised, and surely the country districts should have some of the benefit arising from it. It should not all go to providing electricity for the towns. I think there is a case for insisting that in suitable places—I gladly withdraw the words "ten miles"—it should be obligatory upon the undertakers to provide transformers for that purpose otherwise it is certain that the power will all go to large consumers and factories in the towns and that the country will be left out.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I remind my noble friends of the general lines of the Bill 7 Under Clause 2 the Board is charged with the duty of supplying electricity to authorised undertakers. Under the general terms of the Bill it can, except in certain cases, supply only to authorised undertakers. It cannot supply to individual persons, whether big consumers in the towns or others, except in certain cases where the ground is not covered and there are no authorised undertakers. The business of distribution is really outside the scope of this Bill. Possibly some noble Lords think that it would be an advantage if the Bill dealt with dis-
900
tribution as well. That is a possible point to make. But, the Bill does not do so.
I have been criticised because the Bill deals with too many things, and now my noble friend wants to extend it and include distribution as well as generation. I am merely pointing out that this is not really the business of the Bill. When the Board is approached by authorised undertakers, they are bound to supply electricity, it is their duty to do so and they will do so, but I think it is a very large change in this Bill to introduce distribution at this stage as well as generation—that is what I understand the noble Lord to desire—and I would ask him to consider that point. As regards the country districts, there is no earthly reason to suppose that the country will be less considered by the Board than the towns. It is their business to provide high tension electricity, and if they bring it through the country the opportunity is surely much greater than it was before, and it is for the authorised undertakers to bring it to the farms and elsewhere.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: This debate rather reminds me of the old debates on the Education Bill when we discussed the difference between "may" and "shall." I understand that this: is a case of "may." Under the definition of intercommunication cables the Board may, if they choose, set up transformers; but am I to understand that they are not obliged to do so unless they think fit? This Amendment, in effect, asks that if a district council or some other body undertakes to be an authorised distributor, these transforming stations should be provided by the Board so as to enable such a body to distribute the current to the farmers in its area.
I can assure my noble friend that the various chambers of agriculture, who meet monthly at the Central Chamber, have formed expectations—possibly false expectations—of the future of this Bill. They have got it into their heads, perhaps by wrongly reading the Bill or, more likely, the speeches in support of the Bill, that there is going to be a great extension of electricity to the farms for chaff-cutting and other purposes. Unless there is some instruction in this clause laying it down that it is

901
the duty of the Board to erect transforming stations for the benefit of rural district councils or other bodies undertaking to supply rural consumers, the Board by failing to erect such sub-stations may deprive rural consumers of the opportunity to obtain cheap current. It seems under the Bill that the Board is free to refuse such substations. I am not quite sure whether that is the case under the Bill as it stands. This Amendment, in effect, says that, where there is a demand for electricity from an authorised distributor, whether in existence or to be created—for clearly, if you are to have electricity distributed, you must create an authorised distributor through the district council or otherwise—where an authorised body is brought into existence, the Electricity Commissioners shall be under some obligation to prepare schemes for dealing with such demand as may arise. I understand that under the Bill as it stands they are to do so only if they think fit.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to the noble Lord is quite clear. The Board, when they have electricity to supply, are bound under Clause 10 of the Bill to supply electricity to authorised undertakers who require it. If for that purpose transforming stations are necessary, then they must provide transforming stations.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Does that apply only to existing authorised distributors, or also to those who propose to distribute when the current is available? Can a district council say that they will distribute if there is a transformer, and thereupon call for the erection of a transformer in view of their intention to distribute, even if they are not distributing at the moment?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The alternatives are quite simple. If there is an authorised distributor in an area, he has a right to call upon the Board to do it and the Board has to do it. If there is no authorised distributor in the area, then the Board has a right, if it chooses, to supply to individual consumers, but that is only in the last resort.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I do not think that this quite answers my question. Supposing distributors are
902
prepared to distribute if they can get cheap electricity, is the Board under an obligation to transform in order to enable them to distribute?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said so. If they call upon the Board to supply them with electricity the Board is bound to do so.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Even if they are not distributors at the moment when they call upon the Board?
VISCOUNT PEEL: They cannot call upon them, of course, unless they are authorised undertakers, but they can become authorised undertakers. Does the noble Lord suggest that there is a hiatus between the time when they ask to become authorised undertakers and the time when they become authorised undertakers?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Let me put a case. Suppose a district council should be prepared to distribute current to farmers but have no distributing mains or other electrical appliances at the moment, but propose if they are assured of cheap current to create a distributing system, can they rely on obtaining current?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Of course they can, but they have got to do the distributing part of it. They have got to put down the distributing cables and so on. All the Board would do would be to make it possible for them to get it. With these great mains running through the country they would, where these people ask them to do it, set up a transforming station so that, instead of getting current at 120,000 or 150,000 volts, they would get it at a voltage suitable for work in that particular area.
EARL BUXTON: The point is that, in certain districts, there are these undertakers that already provide the electricity. They can come upon the new Board to tap these transmission cables, instead of generating themselves and the Board will in ordinary circumstances supply them with electricity instead of their generating themselves. No doubt it will be a great advantage to those districts, but the districts my noble friend has in mind are those where at the present moment there are no under-

903
takers and no distributing stations. Suppose that some body, it may be a private or it may be a municipal body, desires to provide electricity in an area and is prepared to undertake the distribution, because I agree that this Bill does not allow the Board to deal with distribution—
VISCOUNT PEEL: It does not allow it where there is an authorised distributor; it cannot compete.
EARL BUXTON: This body, whether it be private or municipal, is anxious to supply electricity and is prepared to lay down the cables, wire the houses, and incur all the expenses of distribution. Can it, having made up its mind to do that and having anticipated this provision, which will of course be very costly, be certain then that the Board is bound to provide a supply of electricity for the amount of current they require?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can only read out Clause 10 which seems to me absolutely clear. As soon as the Board notifies that they are in a position to supply electricity, then
"the Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be under an obligation to supply either directly or indirectly to any authorised undertakers in that area or part thereof demanding such a supply such an amount of electricity as they require for their undertaking…"
Can anything be clearer than that?
EARL BUXTON: Take the very case I have mentioned, that of a municipality, or a district council, or a private individual, who had not yet provided cables and so on, because they cannot do it until they have got the guarantee from the Board: Would they be an authorised undertaking before they had actually carried out the provision of the cables and so on?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not quite sure of the exact point where the municipality or company become an authorised undertaking. There is no real difficulty: they can easily become it. What would happen would be that they would come to the Board and say: "We want to put down this system, but we must have this transformer, and you must supply us with electricity from this or that spot." The Board would say: "It is much
904
better to get it from that spot. "The thing would be arranged, they would be the authorised undertakers, and the Board, its business being to supply industry, would do all they could to help them.
LORD ASKWITH: This is an important Amendment, but as it is worded it is not quite clear what my noble friend Lord Montagu wants. As it is worded I do not blame the noble Viscount for opposing it because it gives the authority far more power for direct work than is the object of the Bill. I would suggest that he might bring up an amended form on Report stage instead of our talking at cross purposes now.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Perhaps I might reconsider this on Report if the noble Viscount will allow me. I might see his officials and himself before then. With regard to Clause 10, the Board are not obliged under Clause 10 to put down mains which would entail an unreasonable expense on the Board. The Board would say to people that they could not supply less than a hundred farms and their mains would pass on to the town beyond and these people would get nothing. That is what is behind my Amendment. I desire that that should be remedied: in other words, that the country should get cheaper electricity. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall withdraw my Amendment now and put down another on Report, possibly with his concurrence, and he may then accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to add to subsection (2):—
"as soon as practicable after a scheme has been so adopted and published, either generally or as respects any part of the area specified therein, the Minister of Transport shall embody the scheme in a Provisional Order, and submit the Order to Parliament for confirmation, and no such Order shall be of any force unless and until it is confirmed by Act of Parliament. Any two or more such Orders may be confirmed by the same Act of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: This is an important Amendment. It tries to enable a certain amount of control to be exercised over the Board. As the Bill stands, the Board have power to spend up to £33,000,000 without any supervision by anybody. If they were directors of a

905
company, they would have to face the shareholders, or if they were a local government body, they would have to face ratepayers. This Government Board has nobody to face whatever on this matter. I feel it is most important that a scheme submitted by the Board should be scrutinised by Parliament before it becomes law. There is nothing original in this proposal. Under the 1919 Act, when the joint electricity authorities were set up, those joint electricity authorities, before they can function, have to be sanctioned and confirmed by an Act of Parliament and a scheme put forward by this Board which, after all, will involve an immense amount of public money, should also have the advantage of being scrutinised by Parliament.
There is another point, that anybody who has a grievance or feels he has been unfairly treated, has a somewhat limited opportunity for appeal. As far as I can see from the Bill, the only people who are really taken into consideration are authorised undertakers. There are other bodies concerned as well as authorised undertakers. The consumer is a very important person and he appears to have no opportunity whatever of airing his grievance. I can well conceive that a scheme might be brought forward for a big area in which the consumers would be perfectly convinced that, if the scheme were brought into operation, it would mean not a reduction but an increase in the price of electricity, a thing that many people believe the Bill will mean as it stands to-day. Many consumers, for instance, in a non-standard area, on being told to convert into a standard area in a short time, would feel a serious grievance.
Those of your Lordships who realise the difficulty of changing over in a big workshop will realise the inconvenience it is. A good many of these industrial districts are on a non-standard frequency. In these areas you will find very large motors driving winding machines for collieries and so on. If you change these over it will be a great inconvenience indeed. Many consumers will wonder why it will not be possible, as this Bill is avowedly for interconnection, to interconnect by a machine called a frequency-changer and thus let the districts remain on a on-standard frequency at any rate for a period of years
906
until the change can take place with very little inconvenience to anybody. I hope your Lordships will support me in insisting that these schemes should be placed before Parliament and have the approval of Parliament. It will protect the consumer, and it will protect the public, and also enable Parliamentary institutions to function, which, to use an electrical term, have been rather short circuited by this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend complained that consumers would be short-circuited by this Bill, but if the Amendment is passed the Bill will certainly be long-circuited. In fact I do not think there would ever be an end to the Bill at all. Parliament has spent months in passing this Bill through, giving these people powers, and then when they have made a scheme the whole thing is to come up before Parliament and be discussed again. I am bound to say I think your Lordships would be very weary of anything of that kind. I must remind my noble friend, as I said in moving the Second Reading, that the time factor has to be considered as well as others. You passed the Bill on its Second Reading unanimously, and I urge your Lordships not to clog the measure with unworkable provisions when the really important thing is to set the business to work as soon as possible. My noble friend said there was no opportunity for consumers and others to express their views on the subject. My noble friend has not studied the Bill. If he will look at subsection (2) of Clause 4 he will see that when the scheme is published both authorised undertakers and other persons, which includes, of course, consumers, have ample opportunity of stating their whole case before the scheme is adopted.
Must these consumers come to Parliament and state at immense length their whole case again? It is an administrative question, and not one which should be dealt with in a legislative House. Of course at all these public inquiries, again and again, objections are to be heard after a scheme has been published, and then a right of appeal arises. I should have thought that really there was enough safeguard and delay in the Bill as it

907
stands already. Moreover, the really essential matters do come before Parliament under certain Orders, such as the acquisition of land, the power to build new stations, &c. All important matters already come before Parliament, and, as I have said, a full opportunity is given for publicity and discussion, and for consumers and others to make their voices heard. Really I think it is unnecessary to bring these schemes before Parliament and to go the weary round over again. At any rate, I hope that it will be the duty of some other Minister than myself to have the task of discussing them, should they come up again.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Not only has the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, said what is true, but the amount of legal costs entailed would be very oppressive, and I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My noble friend Lord Peel has said that there is an appeal. It may be that he knows the Bill better than I do, but I cannot see where there is an appeal except in the case of authorised undertakers. Authorised undertakers have an appeal to the arbitration of a barrister appointed by the Minister of Transport. That, as far as I can see, is the only appeal allowed under the Bill. The consumer has no appeal at all, because the consumer is not an authorised undertaker. It may be true that this particular Amendment might be modified, so as to provide that there shall be a Resolution in both Houses of Parliament, and in that way avoid the amount of time taken up by a Provisional Order. As far as I know the noble and learned Viscount opposite is wrong if he says that Provisional Orders are very expensive. I thought that they were instituted because they were cheap.
I would point out to my noble friend that he is setting up a Board which may be appointed for ten years, and which is to have enormous powers, and there is to be no appeal from the Board, except, so far as I can see, in the case of authorised undertakers. Surely it is not wise to give such powers to any body of men whose names we do not know—we have never been told who they are, although demands were made for their names in another place. It is a very unusual
908
thing, and I cannot call to mind any other case, where people were to be appointed, where their names have not been given before the Bill passes. In this case no names have been given, and we know from my noble friend that the Government are to have no power over those appointed. Therefore these eight men, for ten years, if the Minister of Transport chooses to appoint them, can do whatever they choose and may, in fact, cause great hardships and inconveniences to a great number of people in this country. In those circumstances my noble friend Lord Falmouth suggests that there should be some sort of appeal, or some sort of tribunal to whom the consumer and people interested might appeal. Whether this is the best form of tribunal I do not know, but that there will be some sort of tribunal I feel certain. Can the Government give any promise that they will consider an appeal tribunal on Report?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I make an appeal to the noble Viscount? I have much sympathy with the view put forward by the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, that Parliament should have as far as possible control over the many important matters which arise under this Bill, but I quite see that it would be impossible in every case to have an Act of Parliament to consider the scheme. But there is provision made for Parliament to have an opportunity of considering certain matters, and rejecting them if it sees fit. This does not even require an Affirmatory Motion on the part of either House. The proviso at the top of page 7 of the Bill, relating to subsection (2) of Clause 5, could also be inserted on the Report Stage instead of the Amendment which has been proposed by Viscount Falmouth. I do not know whether that would satisfy the noble Viscount, but it would certainly make me much more comfortable as to the possible results of the large powers which are given by this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it is possible to give the promise that has been asked for. The Bill provides for important schemes of the nature described—schemes for acquiring stations, for building new stations, for amendment of the tariff, and other

909
matters—to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but to provide that every scheme, small or great, should come before Parliament would really mean to introduce great obstruction and delay in the execution of the powers conferred by the Act.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit from the proviso in subsection (3) the words "Minister of Transport from panels to be set up by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session respectively for the purpose," and to insert "Lord Chancellor after consultation with the President of the Court of Session." The noble Lord said: I do not know that the Minister of Transport is so well qualified as the Lord Chancellor to appoint an arbitrator, because it is a legal matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 28, and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD DANESFORT: The position of an arbitrator under this clause is a very important one, and the question will arise in a later clause under which a barrister is to be selected, charged with most important duties involving questions that may be of very great moment to the authorised undertakers, and, incidentally, to the public. Therefore I think there is great force in what the noble Lord says. The Minister of Transport knows nothing about barristers. Perhaps he might consult some. I presume he would, but it is not his function to know about judicially-minded barristers; whereas the Lord Chancellor has every opportunity of knowing, and no doubt does know if I were an authorised undertaker I should have very much more confidence in an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, than in a barrister appointed by the Minister of Transport.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think my noble friend has quite read the Bill, because the arbitrators are to be qualified for judicial office and to be appointed by the Minister of Transport from panels to be set up by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session
910
respectively for this purpose. All that the Minister of Transport has to do, after the panels are so set up, is to say which of the barristers shall do the work. Surely that does away with the whole objection of my noble friend. And when Lord Montagu lays it down that the Lord Chancellor must consult the Lord President of the Court of Session on the appointment of an arbitrator in every English case, why, it would break up the Union between the two countries!
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Surely if the Lord Chancellor can select the panels he can select the barristers themselves. However, I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, near the end of the proviso in subsection (3), after "complaint", to insert "unless the complaint is one with respect to which no relief other than pecuniary compensation can be awarded." The noble Viscount said: This is not a very important Amendment. All that it means is that where the compensation to be awarded is only in money there is no reason why the scheme should be held up. The scheme shall go on, and the money will be paid. Of course, it might take some time to find out how much money would have to be paid, but it ought not to affect the scheme.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, after ("complaint") insert the said words—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Existing selected stations.
(2) If the owners of any, such station are unwilling to enter into or fail to carry out any such arrangements to the satisfaction of the Board, the Minister of Transport may by order empower any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board, or, failing such authorised undertakers company or person, the Board, to acquire the generating station at a price to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, but where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted that authority shall be given first opportunity to acquire the station, and on payment or tender of such price the Minister of Transport may make an order vesting the

911
generating station in the authorised undertakers, company or person, or the Board:
Provided that an order under this subsection authorising the acquisition of a generating station shall not come into force until it has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days on which that House has sat and if either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty no further proceedings shall be taken thereon.
(3) Where the Board acquire a generating station under this section, they may carry out such extensions or alterations thereof as are required by the scheme or as they think fit, and may either operate it themselves or make arrangements with any authorised undertakers or other company or person to operate it:
Provided that the Board shall not themselves operate such a generating station unless they satisfy the Electricity Commissioners that they are unable to enter into an arrangement with any authorised undertakers or other company or person to operate it on reasonable terms, and where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with that authority to operate the station.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the words: "but where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted that authority shall be given first opportunity to acquire the station." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to put other authorised undertakers on the same footing as a joint electricity authority. It is difficult to see why a joint electricity authority should have been specially selected in this instance to have the first opportunity of supplying an authorised undertaker in an area, which area might happen to be in the area of a power company.
The power companies have been given by Parliament certain rights, and from time to time these rights have been taken account of in different Acts passed since the power companies were set up. In the 1919 Act and in the 1922 Act the position of the power companies was fully appreciated and safeguarded. This Bill, on the other hand, appears rather to neglect what has already been done in connection with safeguarding the position of the power companies, and seeks to put the joint electricity authority in
912
the area of the power company above the position of the power company. A very large number of people have put their money into these concerns on the understanding that their rights would be maintained by Parliament, and I feel that this clause very injuriously affects those rights.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 43.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I have a similar Amendment on Clause 6, and it is evident that if the Amendment of the noble Viscount is not carried now it is unlikely that I shall succeed with mine, so it is better for me to say what I have to say on this Amendment. I confess that I am no friend of the joint electricity authorities. I have Amendments further down the Paper seeking to do away with them in the future as being unnecessary under the new scheme, but I should like to say two things without going into that point, which will be raised later on.
In the first place, those authorities have not been a success. There are only three in the whole country. In the 1919 Act the Commissioners were given power to form these joint authorities all over the country, but they have been singularly unsuccessful in persuading the local undertakers to agree with them. Consequently it does seem unreasonable that in the present Bill they should always have to be consulted before any other undertaker. After all, this must fetter very much the discretion of the Board. It is desirable to get the best men possible on that Board, and does my noble friend in charge of the Bill think it will be as easy to persuade men of that standing to become members of the Board if they find themselves hampered and fettered in this way, and obliged to turn to these joint authorities before going to other people who, in their opinion, may be more suitable for carrying out the work which they wish to be carried out?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have a later Amendment which is practically consequential on this, and therefore I think it would save time if we took the

913
discussion now and not on the other Amendment. May I point out to my noble friend Lord Peel that the result of this Amendment is to give increased powers to the Board—which is what I understand he desires—because subsection (2) of Clause 5 reads as follows:
"If the owners of any such station are unwilling to enter into or fail to carry out any such arrangements to the satisfaction of the Board, the Minister of Transport may by Order empower any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board, or, failing such authorised undertaker, company, or person, the Board …"
to do certain things. Therefore, complete freedom is left to the Board to do particular things under certain conditions. Then come words which limit the powers of the Board:
"… but where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted that authority shall"—
not "may"—
"be given first opportunity to acquire the station."
Why are those words put in? I have been unable to acquire any certain knowledge as to why those words were put in, but I have heard that they were put in by the Labour Party who were desirous of giving work to local authorities. I do not know whether that is true or not, but perhaps my noble friend knows. In any case I hope that he will accept this Amendment, which is on the lines that he desires and gives complete authority to the Board unhampered by anybody.
LORD DANESFORT: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to ask him why the joint electricity authority should be given a special privilege which is not given to any power company or any other company which supplies electricity? Is there any reason why they should be put in a specially privileged position by the words it is proposed to leave out and should be told that they are to be given the first opportunity of acquiring a station? Supposing the station is in the area of a power company, why should not that power company have the station? Why should the electricity board be given this privilege? There may be an explanation but it does not appear on the face or it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I gathered from the action of my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne that he was not a good friend of the joint electricity authorities and that in some way they had, unfortunately, sustained or incurred his displeasure; because I notice that later on he is moving a series of Amendments to leave out all the clauses dealing with those unfortunate authorities. I am interested in the appeal of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, because I have heard a great many complaints from him and some of his friends that here was a Board to which too much power and too much authority was to be given.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT PEEL: Now, by some change of front which my noble friend executes so very judiciously and ingeniously, he says: "Why fetter this Board? Why tie it down? Why prevent it from giving this opportunity to anybody it likes? And why tie it to giving the first option to the joint electricity board?"
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It might be because the noble Viscount has convinced me of the merits of the Board.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is incredible that I should have convinced my noble friend of that, and I think we will put aside fantastic hypotheses. I am asked by my noble friend Lord Danesfort why this should be done, and the answer, I think, is a simple one. As he says, under Clause 5, in connection with selected stations, when selected stations are to be acquired by the Board it has to see whether it can hand them over to anybody else at the prices arranged. The Bill says that it shall give the first option to the joint electricity authority, and I think the reason is pretty obvious. What are these joint electricity authorities? They are combinations in the particular districts of the power companies and the municipal authorities and, therefore, presumably represent the will of those authorities. Instead of picking out some power company or some of the municipalities and saying: "Will you take over this station?" I should have thought it was the most obvious and natural thing

915
in the world to say to the joint electricity authority: "Will you do it, because you represent all these people and you are the first persons who should say whether you want to do it or not." That is really the whole mischief of the business. My noble friend said, as if it was a sort of charge against the joint electricity authorities, that there are only three of them in the country. If there are only three of them I suppose the damage is less if they are given the option. That, as a matter of fact, is one of the arguments I used in introducing this Bill—that you wanted a Bill with more compulsory powers and not merely persuasion, because as the result of persuasion under the 1919 Act you had only been able to set up, for instance, three joint electricity authorities and four advisory boards. I think I have given a reason why the first option should be given to the joint electricity authority.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not sure that the noble Viscount has satisfied the question that was asked as to why discretion should not be left with this new body. They surely would be best able to say whether it should be offered to a particular authority or somebody else. What is the reason why they are obliged to offer it to this particular authority instead of exercising their descretion?
VISCOUNT PEEL: In answering that I might refer to the point made by my noble friend who laid this provision to the charge of the Labour Party. I am not quite sure who introduced it, but I was going to say—though I have not brought the charge myself and the noble and learned Viscount need not defend himself—that this was unanimously passed in another place, and, therefore, the damage, if damage there is, must be laid to the charge of all Parties and not of one. In answer to what my noble friend says, I think that if after considerable effort you have set up a joint electricity board, which is combined from the power and other companies, it is a fair thing when you are saying to the joint electricity authority: "Take over this station," that the Board should be told—in order, if you like, to keep up the status of a thing like a joint electricity authority—that the joint electricity authority should have, as of right, the first claim to be asked. Otherwise they
916
are in the position of being pushed aside for any one of these power companies or municipal authorities. In the interest of their dignity and representative status, I think it is right that there should be this power in the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Not only are the joint electricity authorities large bodies, but they are the only bodies which have a chance of undertaking the distributing for which the Bill does not provide. I think the policy of those who support the Bill must be to support the joint electricity authorities in every way and to hope for the creation of more of them.
EARL RUSSELL: I am still left with this difficulty which I really do not think the noble Viscount has answered. Assuming, as one does, that this Board you are setting up is a competent, wise and fair-minded one, if it is proper in the particular case that a station should be offered to the joint authority, cannot they be trusted to do that themselves? Might there not be circumstances in which it might be desirable that the station should be offered to someone else, and if such circumstances arose in the minds of these competent people that we are asked to trust why should they not exercise their discretion?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is the point I endeavoured to make. My noble friend, who was eulogising this Board and saying that it ought to be trusted with wonderful powers, comes now and says: "There are certain circumstances in which they are to be directed to do certain things." I cannot see why this Board, as the noble Earl opposite says, should not be allowed to exercise their discretion and if they think they should give an opportunity to the joint electricity authority then they can give it. But when they are not ordered to do anything else so far as I can see in the Bill and when everything else is to be left to their unfettered discretion, why should they, in these particular circumstances, be ordered to do a certain thing?
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My noble friend seemed to talk of the joint authorities as though they were unified bodies. I do not think that has always proved to be the case. On the

917
contrary, I think there are instances where there are power companies which form part of the joint authority but which do not see eye to eye with the majority of it. I think there have been instances (which I propose to deal with later on upon another Amendment) where active differences have occurred between them, and where Bills brought forward by the power companies have been opposed by the joint authority. Even when this joint authority does exist it only exists on the condition that the power companies remain absolute masters in their own house, that they may have what I may term Dominion status and, therefore, they cannot be taken really as viewing the matter in the same way as a joint authority as a whole, though for various reasons of their own they may be members of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It really is a matter of policy. This was accepted in another place without any opposition or any Division. I think the view was taken that where there was a joint authority having jurisdiction over a large area and representing or composed of all the power companies and the local authorities together, an authority of that importance was the best authority to be selected for this purpose. Therefore the first duty of the Board should be to see whether that authority would or would not take over the stations.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
New selected stations.
6.—(1) The Board may make arrangements with any authorised undertakers in whose area of supply, or in the neighbour hood of whose area of supply, any new generating station required by a scheme is to be situated, for the provision of such station, but where such area of supply is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with the authority for the provision of such station.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
Provided that where a new generating station is required in the area of supply of a company which is a London company within the meaning of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order,
918
1925, such company shall have the first option of providing such station.
The noble Lord said: This clause gives very wide powers indeed to the authority for the provision of a station, and it is necessary that something should be done to protect the existence of the present agreement which was entered into so recently as the year 1925. Under that agreement the London companies are under an obligation to carry out within their area the provisions of a technical scheme which the joint electricity authority has to submit and the Commissioners to approve. It would be against the spirit of the London settlement if the joint electricity authority were to have the first opportunity of putting a new station in an area of a London company, as the London companies are under obligations to carry out within their areas the provisions of the technical scheme which the joint electricity authority has to submit, and the Commissioners to approve.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, at end insert the said proviso—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Under this Amendment, I understand, my noble friend wishes to take away a certain right from the joint electricity authority and give it to one of the companies. In London there is a joint electricity authority and all the London companies are represented on this joint authority. These companies, under the provisions contained in the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order and other Orders, are under an obligation to carry out parts of a technical scheme for the whole district. The technical scheme is one which the joint authority has to submit to the Electricity Commissioners. Of course the companies have an opportunity of objecting it seems to be clear then that the joint authority is the proper body to have the first option of supplying a new station anywhere in that district. In my view the point seems to be very clear.
LORD GAINFORD: I hope the noble Viscount will reconsider his view. Under the 1925 arrangement it was made quite clear that each undertaker in London has the power over its own district. An arrangement was come to by which all the authorities in the London area had

919
special districts allotted to them and they have made definite provisions for meeting all their obligations. They have to submit their obligations to the Electricity Commissioners. Therefore, their obligations go through the sifting of an expert electrical body, and so long as they are prepared to do their work properly it seems to me quite unfair that when an arrangement has been made by all the electrical companies in London among themselves with respect to their particular specified areas they should be interfered with by a joint electricity authority, and that the joint electricity authority should come down and impose what it likes as against the interests of the particular company. Although this is a matter which concerns London exclusively, I think a gross injustice would be done if a joint electricity authority were placed in a super-position over the
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
heads of the independent companies which have particular powers and obligations to Parliament that have been given to them in specified areas.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is true that London has been dealt with somewhat specially. There are a number of London Acts which regulate the position of the companies, but it is very undesirable that they should be carried further than is necessary. You have the joint electricity authority for London, and if you are to keep anything like uniformity in the scheme of the Bill it is well that you should depart as little as possible from the arrangement you have made.
On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lamington, L.

Winchester, M.

Latymer, L.

Biddulph, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Erskine, L.

Newton, L.

Morton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

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

Gainford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Jessel, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wargrave, L.

Askwith, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chaplin, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Churchill, V.

Glentanar, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Haldane, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hood, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Sutherland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kinnaird, L.

Wellington, D.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Peel, V.

Merrivale, L.

Airlie, E.

Meston, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ampthill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Arnold, L.

Monson, L.

Buxton, E.

Ashfield, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Clarendon, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Avebury, L.

Olivier, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Bledisloe, L.

Phillimore, L.

Grey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Howe, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lovelace, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Onslow, E.

Desborough, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Russell, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Spencer, E.

Ernle, L.

Suffield, L.

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Templemore, L.

Stafford, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Teynham, L.

Forres, L.

Thomson, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wavertree, L.

Burnham, V.

Glanely, L.

Wolverton, L.

Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Obligations and rights of owners of selected stations.
7.—(1) As from such date as may be fixed by the Board, the owners of a selected station shall be under the obligation—

(a) to operate the station so as to generate such quantity of electricity, at such rates of output, and at such times as the Board may direct, and to conduct such operations with due regard to economy and efficiency;

(b) to sell to the Board all electricity generated at the station at such price as is hereinafter mentioned.

(5) The Board shall make to the owners of each selected station monthly payments on account of the net amounts due from the Board to those owners under this section in accordance with estimates made for the purpose, subject to adjustment as soon after the end of the year of account as the actual liability can be ascertained.
(6) If any question between the Board and the owners of a selected station arises under this section, then, if it relates to the cost of production, it shall be determined by an auditor appointed by the Minister of Transport, and in any other case it shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners:
Provided that, pending the determination of the question by the auditor or Commissioners, the owners of the station shall comply with any requirements which may be made by the Board, and the price at which electricity is to be supplied by or to the owners of the station shall be such as may have been determined by the Board, subject to such subsequent adjustment as may be necessary to give effect to the decision of the auditor.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "electricity", to insert "as may be required by the Board for the purposes of the scheme in addition to the electricity required by the owners for the purposes of their undertaking or business". The noble Lord said: If my Amendment is agreed to the clause will then read:
"As from such date as may be fixed by the Board, the owners of a selected station shall be under the obligation—
(a) to operate the station so as to generate such quantity of electricity as may be required by the Board for the purposes of the scheme in addition to the electricity required by the owners for the purposes of their undertaking or business …."
922
This is the first of a series of Amendments, and I shall make my noble friend Viscount Peel happy by saying that if he rejects this one I shall not move the other Amendments afterwards. The object of this Amendment is to allow a selected station to provide electricity for its own customers.
As the Bill stands now the owner of a selected station is entirely under the control of the Board as to the quantity of electricity to be generated, the rates and times of output, and he is required to sell the whole output to the Board and then buy back from the Board the electricity required for his own undertaking. Under the Bill the owner may not even be allowed to generate at his selected station all the electricity required for his own needs. I think it is clear that this is an extremely awkward business arrangement. It establishes a dual control and it might prevent selected stations which had entered into an agreement to supply electricity to certain people prior to the passing of this Bill from being able to do so because the Board might, under the powers given to them, restrict the quantity of electricity that the selected station could supply. The result of the Amendment would be to leave the selected station free from the control of the Board as regards its own consumers while giving the Board power to compel it to supply to the Board such amount of electricity as might be required for the Board's scheme. Accordingly the schemes which the Board are to undertake would not be interfered with, and all that the Amendment would do would be to abolish the dual control and to allow the selected station to be to a certain extent master in its own area.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, after ("electricity") insert ("as may be required by the Board for the purposes of the scheme in addition to the electricity required by the owners for the purposes of their undertaking or business").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Your Lordships are aware that the whole principle on which this Bill is founded is that of the control of generation by the Board and, with a view to controlling generation, one of its functions is to purchase the whole of the electricity supply at the selected stations. It also has the duty of deciding which selected station shall work on

923
three shifts, which on two, on one, with peak load, with base load and so on. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam traverses the whole basis on which the Bill is founded. It is, in fact, a Second Reading objection, and is just as effective a rejection of this Bill as if your Lordships had rejected it on the Second Reading.
I will not go through all the objections to the proposal of my noble friend, but I will take one to show that it is not practicable. He suggests that these selected stations, after supplying their own needs, should generate a certain amount of electricity which should be taken by the Board. That is impracticable and I do not think that my noble friend has envisaged what the production of electricity really is. He is really thinking of a brewery company—I take that just as an illustration. A brewery company can, of course, make so many barrels of beer and can stock them in a warehouse and, when it is asked for the beer by some superior authority, it can deliver these barrels. But it is not the same with the production of electricity, because production on this large scale means that the electricity must be taken at the time of its generation. The station has its base loads and its peak loads. Supposing the authority comes down upon a station and says that it must live up to its promises and supply them with electricity: the station will reply that this cannot be done because the demand comes at the very time when their peak load is on. They can do it when their base load is running but they cannot do it at that time. The whole scheme will fall to the ground. My noble friend will have observed that the electricity is to be supplied at such times as the Board may direct. That makes another difficulty.
Another point is that, while these different stations go on producing electricity, the necessary power of the Board is not only to tell one station to produce more electricity but to order another to produce less. Accordingly this proposal cuts through the whole scheme of the Bill, the object of which is that electricity shall be generated at the cheapest possible price and at the most efficient stations; and this will be made impossible by the suggestion of my noble friend. That is a great objection to the proposal, but there is a minor objection. By this Amendment
924
these stations would avoid the necessity of paying the expenses of the Board, because they would contribute only on the particular amount of electricity which they sold to the Board and not on their whole product, and they would get the whole benefit themselves, in dealing with their consumers, of the bigger load which would be due to the action of the Board. I think that I have said enough to show that the whole object of the Bill would be defeated by my noble friend's proposal. I am very glad that he intimated that if this Amendment is defeated he does not propose to move the other Amendments relating to this clause.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Perhaps I was foolish to say that I would not move the other Amendments. If I had not said so perhaps my noble friend would have accepted this one. He says that this would be an advantage to certain selected stations, because they would avoid paying the expenses of the Board and thus it would be a gain to the consumer. I thought that the whole object of the Bill was to allow the consumer to get something cheaply, but apparently that is not so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It would fall upon the other consumers.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That may be so. I cannot follow my noble friend in all his engineering statements because I am not an engineer and I do not profess to understand electricity, but this Amendment was given to me by electrical people who attach very great importance to it. I may add that I sincerely hope that my noble friend does not intend to bring in a Bill to deal with beer in the same way as this Bill deals with electricity.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the beginning of subsection (5), to insert:
"Where the price to be paid for electricity by or to the Board is to be calculated in accordance with this section, the amount to be paid by or to the Board for a supply in any year shall be ascertained as soon as practicable after the end of the year of account, but".
The noble Viscount said: This drafting Amendment is an addition to the present subsection (5) and makes it clear that the price is not to be ascertained until the end of the year of account.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 9, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in the proviso in subsection (6), after "be" ["may be made by the Board"] to insert "lawfully." The noble Lord said: I understand that my noble friend is going to accept this Amendment. If so, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, after ("be") insert ("lawfully").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has not advanced any very strong arguments in favour of this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is because I do not wish to waste time. I have always been brought up to understand that if the Government accepts an Amendment the best thing to do is to say nothing.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have very much pleasure in accepting the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I think it is a very sound and wise one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOTNT PEEL: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("Board")—to end of the subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Construction and acquisition of main transmission lines.
8.—(1) As soon as may be after a scheme under this Act has been adopted as respects any area or part of an area, the Board shall construct and lay down the main transmission lines required for the interconnection of selected stations with one another and with the systems of authorised undertakers in accordance with the scheme so far as it relates to that area or part of an area.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add to subsection (1):—
"and such transforming stations and transformers along the route of the main transmission lines at intervals not greater
926
than ten miles apart as may be required to provide a supply of electricity at pressures suitable for use in agriculture and rural industries and far domestic purposes."
The noble Lord said: This is really a repetition in this place of what I moved before, but in a more suitable place. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell me what is the bearing on the charge to these small centres of subsection (2) of Clause 10. Are we to understand that, if there is a loss on the supply, the undertakers will not supply at all, and the Board will not supply at all? That is a great injury to country districts.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: It seems to me that this Amendment does fall with the Amendment previously moved by my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 8:—
Scheme for supply of electricity to road vehicles.
".The Electricity Commissioners shall prepare a scheme or schemes in consultation with the Minister of Transport for the supply of electricity in each area in which the main transmission lines of the Board are situated at convenient roadside stations not more than ten miles apart for use in electrically propelled road vehicles, and shall transmit the scheme or schemes to the Board, and the provisions of Section four of this Act with respect to the adoption, publication and carrying out of a scheme by the Board shall apply to every scheme prepared under this section."
The noble Lord said: This is a different point. There is a difficulty about the supply of electricity for road vehicles. I know in America and in France of places where provision is now made for some distance outside towns for these vehicles. Batteries of certain types are kept already charged at the station and electrically propelled vehicles can pick them up on the way as they are going about their business. It ought to be possible to supply fully-charged batteries and accumulators to electrically-propelled vehicles in exactly the same way that petrol pumps provide petrol. For certain purposes the

927
electrically-propelled vehicle is the most efficient vehicle for distribution, and arrangements should be made for these vehicles to pick up their supplies in exactly the same way that petrol vehicles are filled up with petrol. There should be depots for the electrically-propelled vehicle. I shall not, however, say any more until after the noble Viscount has spoken.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Really this is another case of the same principle of distribution to which I referred before. It should be left to the distributors. It cannot be done by the Board. They are carrying this electricity at 150,000 volts pressure and to transform it down to the amounts to be used by these motors would be a very expensive task indeed, and could quite well be done by the authorized distributors whose business it is. My noble friend should make his very valuable suggestion to the authorised distributors.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Standardisation of frequency.
(3) The Board shall be entitled to be repaid by the Electricity Commissioners in each year the sums required to meet the interest and sinking fund charges in respect of money so borrowed, and the payment of such stuns shall be treated as part of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners, but shall be shown as a separate item in their accounts and in their demand notes for contributions towards their expenses:
Provided that the apportionment of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners under this subsection, instead of being made in accordance with section seven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, shall be made on the basis of the revenue received from the sale of electricity other than electricity sold in bulk to authorised undertakers.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (3), after "borrowed," to insert "and the sums (if any) applied out of revenue in paying any such expenses as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section." The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple Amendment. There appears to be no provision for the fact that some of the revenue might be thus
928
spent and so I propose to insert these words. I hope the noble Viscount will accept them.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, after ("borrowed") insert ("and the sums (if any) applied out of revenue in paying any such expenses as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am advised that no such Amendment is necessary, because no money should be or will be applied out of revenue for such purposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in the proviso in subsection (3), after "revenue," to insert "less operating expenses." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Askwith. It is an Amendment that is necessary on equitable grounds. It is necessary that the net revenue should be obtained annually. I understand that in another place it was rejected on Report stage because it was not possible to obtain figures of gross revenue for a calendar year. The Amendment now suggests that it should not be for gross revenue, but that it should be less operating costs. It is suggested that the objection, which was previously taken by the Government, that it was not possible to obtain the net revenue, because the general date on which the year ends is March 31 in the case of local authorities, and December 31 for most companies, has been met and that operating costs would prove equitable all round if it was added to the net revenue. Instead of urging that gross revenue should be taken, this Amendment would meet the justice of the case by excluding the operating costs, which accountants could easily take out, and which would be applicable for the calendar years.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, after ("revenue") insert ("less operating expenses").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD ASKWITH: I beg to thank my noble friend for having in my absence very clearly put the point I should have put. I understand that these operating costs could be got out very easily. It would meet the point that, if the net expenses had to be brought out, it would have to be at different times because of

929
the different dates involved, March 31 in some cases, December 31 in others and September 29 in others.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is rather a technical Amendment. I understand there are several objections to it. One is on the ground that the financial years of the different companies do not coincide and there would be great difficulty in making out net operating expenses in certain of the companies. Again, we have got to understand what the operating expenses are. They seem to differ in almost every company. The more serious objection is that the clause excludes revenue from supplies sold in bulk. If this Amendment was accepted you would require computation as to what part of the operating expenses attach to such supplies. I believe that is practically impossible to compute. Therefore, I can only refuse to accept the Amendment on the grounds of impracticability and impossibility, two rather strong grounds.
On Question, Amendment, negatived.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Before this clause passes I desire to say that I had intended to move an Amendment, but I was too late to hand it in before the Marshalled List of Amendments was printed. Considering the lateness of the hour, I think it would be more convenient if I brought it forward on the Report stage. As a matter of fact the Amendment deals with the financial inequalities which exist, or which apparently will exist among those authorised undertakings which have already applied for an Order from the Commissioners, as compared with those that may hereafter, after the passing of the Act, make alterations under an Order of the Board.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Tariff for electricity supplied directly by Board.
11.—
(2) The tariff shall unless otherwise determined by an Order of the Electricity Commissioners be so framed as to include as part of the charge and show separately—

(a) a fixed kilowatt charges component;

(b) a running charges component; and for this purpose the fixed kilowatt charges component and the running charges
930
component shall be ascertained on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act:

Provided that an Order of the Electricity Commissioners under this subsection shall not come into force until it has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days on which that House has sat, and if either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty no further proceedings shall be taken thereon.
(3) The tariff fixed under this section may, if the Board think fit, he different for different areas.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("unless otherwise determined by an order of the Electricity Commissioners").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES LORD FORBES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act" and insert "in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners." The noble Lord said: I find in this clause a rigidity with regard to the method of arriving at the tariff which is to be charged to various undertakers which was not, in the intention of the Weir Committee. Therefore, I have put down on the Paper an Amendment to omit the words "on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act, and to substitute the words "in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners." Your Lordships will observe that this does not refer to the tariff but to the running charges component. This running charges component is fixed in a very rigid manner in the schedules of the Bill, and while it is very right and proper that it should be rigidly fixed for the sale of electricity to the selected stations, it is a different thing when you are dealing with authorised undertakers and not with selected stations.
It is quite clear that the schedules are inappropriate in such cases, because there are various differences between the two. The Seventh Schedule lays down, for instance, that the "maximum demand in respect of any month" shall be deemed to be twice the largest number of units

931
of electricity supplied from the generating station during any consecutive thirty minutes in that month. In the case of the authorised undertakers there is no specified generating station. Again, the Seventh Schedule lays it down that the cost of production shall be ascertained in accordance with the Second Schedule, but it will be found that the Second Schedule refers to such things as the sums expended on fuel, oil, water and stores consumed at a given station, but there is no given station with regard to authorised undertakers. The schedule is inapplicable and therefore I much prefer that this rigidity be dispensed with and that the words which I suggest to your Lordships to replace those in the Bill should be adopted by the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("on the like principles as those set forth in the Seventh Schedule to this Act") and insert ("in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners").—(Lord Forres.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Limitation on price to be charged to owners of selected stations.
13. Where any authorised undertakers, being the owners of an existing generating station which by virtue of this Act becomes a selected station, who take a supply of electricity from the Board prove to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that the cost of taking that supply from the Board on the terms provided by this Act in any year exceeds the cost which they would have incurred bad this Act not been passed in themselves generating the like quantity of electricity, then the charges by the Board to those undertakers for the supplies of electricity furnished to them shall be so adjusted that the amount charged in that year does not exceed the cost which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, the undertakers would have incurred in themselves generating the electricity.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to omit all words after "Commissioners that" and insert:—
"the aggregate of (1) the cost of taking that supply from the Board on the terms provided by this Act, and (2) the cost properly incurred by those undertakers in
932
generating at any other generating station belonging to them and not being a selected station, any additional quantity of electricity required for the purposes of their undertaking exceeds in any year the cost which they would have incurred had this Act not been passed in themselves generating a total quantity of electricity equal to the sum of (a) the quantity so taken from the Board, and (b) the additional quantity of electricity so generated by them, then the charges by the Board to those undertakers for the electricity supplied by the Board in that year shall be so adjusted that the aggregate of (1) the amount so charged by the Board, and (2) the cost so incurred by the undertakers as aforesaid in generating the said additional quantity of electricity does not exceed the cost which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, the undertakers would have incurred in themselves generating the said total quantity of electricity."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is rather complicated and is intended to meet a particular case. Certain authorised undertakers and large municipalities have got a series of generating stations connecting their power system. It is quite conceivable that under the Bill certain of those stations only will be made selected stations. Those stations which are made selected stations will have to generate electricity according to the orders of the Board. The whole of the system of the several generating stations will be gradually put out of balance, and so one will not be able to assist another. If you are going to throw the whole system out of balance, as you will by making certain of the stations selected stations, you will probably put up the cost of electricity at the other stations. In order to protect the authorised undertakers from the increased cost of electricity which may arise owing to the Board insisting that only certain stations shall be selected stations, I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 10, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment refers to the limitation, in Clause 13, of the price to be charged to owners of selected stations. It is an advantage which is given to selected stations, and the effect of the Amendment is to apply this advantage, or guarantee as it is called, to other than selected stations. The Amendment gives to the owners of

933
selected stations a guarantee not only as regards the supplies which they manufacture themselves at their own selected stations, but also as regards supplies manufactured at their non-selected station. I can to see what reason there is for applying this guarantee to the generation of electricity which is not controlled by the Board. This guarantee applies solely to supplies controlled by the Board and not to supplies outside their control, and I cannot see any reason for giving these other stations such a guarantee.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, after the second "Commissioners," to insert "after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard." The noble Lord said: This is a question of adjustment on this clause. The Commissioners act judicially, and therefore it appears to be only fair that they should give the parties an opportunity of being heard.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 19, after ("Commissioners") insert ("after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD GAINFORD: Does the noble Viscount propose to accept this Amendment?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No.
LORD GAINFORD: Then I should like to press the reasonable character of it. All this Amendment suggests is that the parties, who have a knowledge of what the cost will be in connection with certain eventualities, should at any rate be heard by the Commissioners. It seems quite reasonable that when people who have no knowledge are given powers arbitrarily to decide, without any evidence, what shall occur, at least the parties who are interested should be allowed to put forward certain reasons why the cost would amount to a certain figure in a certain eventuality. The Amendment is a reasonable one. There is no suggestion that the Commissioners are not an impartial body, but it is only fair that they should give the parties an opportunity of being heard.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the only objection to this Amendment is
934
that it really is not needed, and might do harm in other cases. It appears to me that where the Commissioners have to decide a matter of this kind, and the parties desire to be heard, they must hear them, and if you say so in this case specifically it will be used as an argument in other cases that no such obligation exists in those cases. I am sure it is better to leave it to the general rule. They are bound to hear the parties.
LORD ASKWITH: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Power to close generating stations in, certain events]:
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(5) Where the cost to the undertakers of taking the whole of their supply directly or indirectly from the Board, as provided for in subclause (1) hereof, will be more than the then prevailing cost to those undertakers the Board may come to an arrangement with the undertakers whereby the undertakers agree to take the whole of their supply of electricity from the Board, directly or Indirectly, on condition that the Board agree to repay to the undertakers any expenditure necessarily incurred by them in carrying out a change of their system of supply from a direct current system to an alternating current system, such payment to be provided for by the Board in like manner to the payments made under Clause 9 (1) and (2) hereof."
The noble Lord said: This is to provide for cases where, on the assumption that the Commissioners did not extend or allow an extension of an existing station, or allow a new generating station, the undertakers were most anxious to increase the supply, and then were told that they might have to take current from the Commissioners, which would mean an alternating current, and they might at the very end of their tenure have to alter their lines so as to take alternating, instead of direct current. That would cause very large expense, without any possibility of recoupment. These words are designed with a view to giving some power of allowing payment for that change.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 31, end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think this may be a useful Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount will consider it. There are a certain number of non-selected stations which are generating direct current, and it is extremely desirable that they should be provided with the means of generating current which is in accordance with the general system, but the burden of that might be heavy. The purpose of the Amendment is to make that easier.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Viscount is perfectly right in saving that there are a number of stations generating direct current, with all their machinery attuned to it, which might have to change to alternating current if they were to take a supply from the Board. My only question is: Who is to pay for it? The two noble Lords who have spoken agree that it ought to be paid for by the Board. But why should the Board have to finance these changes, which, unlike the other changes which are financed by the Board, are mainly for the advantage of the consumers of the particular companies. I understand that as many as fifty of such changes have been made voluntarily in the last few years at the expense of the companies themselves, and, as it is to the advantage of the companies to make this change, it is rather hard to place the cost on the. Board, that is to say, to spread it over other bodies of consumers besides those who get their electricity from this particular company. I should prefer to leave it to the individual company to bear the expense.
LORD ASKWITH: It is very hard on the individual companies to bear the expense where many of these companies are coming to the end of their term. Without the consent of the Board under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, Section 11, no station can be extended or new station erected without the consent of the Commissioners; therefore they are entirely in the hands of the Commissioners, and the method of raising the money is suggested in the Amendment as being the same, that is, payment to be provided for by the Board in like manner to the payment made under Clause 9 (1) (2) of this Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment I will look
936
into the question of the particular case he has mentioned, the case of companies coming to an end.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: I think this is a most important Amendment, and I do not notice that spirit of compromise which was promised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead. I earnestly hope that some serious consideration will be given to this, because it is a very important point.
LORD ASKWITH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine o'clock.]
Powers of authorised undertakers.
16.—(1) Where under this Act the Board is authorised or required to enter into arrangements with authorised undertakers for any purpose, then, notwithstanding anything in any Special Act or Order, or any other instrument regulating the constitution or powers of the undertakers, it shall be lawful for the authorised undertakers, whether a joint electricity authority, a local authority, or a company, to enter into and carry out any such arrangements.
(2) The carrying out of any such arrangements shall be a purpose for which authorised undertakers, being a local authority or a joint electricity authority may borrow under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922.
(3) Where the carrying out of any such arrangement by authorised undertakers, being a company, involves capital expenditure, and owing to limitations on the powers of the company to raise capital the company cannot raise the necessary capital without the authority of an Act of Parliament, the company may submit to the High Court (or in Scotland the Court of Session), a scheme providing for increasing all or any of the existing classes of loan or share capital of the company, or creating new classes of loan or share capital, with such rights, priorities and conditions as may be specified in the scheme; and if the scheme is approved by the Court, then, notwithstanding anything in any special Act affecting the company or the holders of any class of loan or share capital in the company, the additional capital of each class shall form part and rank pari passu with the existing capital of that class, and any new class of capital may with the consent of the majority in value of the holders of any class of security affected rank before any existing class of capital.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This subsection provides that if a scheme is submitted to the High Court, and the High Court approves the scheme, for providing or increasing any existing charge or share or loan capital, then
"notwithstanding anything in any special Act affecting the company or the holders of any class of loan or share capital in the company, the additional capital of each class shall form part and rank pari passu with the existing capital of that class, and any new class of capital may with the consent of the majority in value of the holders of any class of security affected rank before any existing class of capital."
That, being interpreted, means that where the company has borrowed, say, a million of money as a first charge on certain securities or assets which belong to it, that company may borrow a further million of money on the same security, the security it has already pledged to the people who invested their money in the first £1,000,000, and that notwithstanding that an Act of Parliament has provided that this particular security shall be given to these people.
The effect of that is to create distrust in all the investing classes of the country at a time when it is necessary, if we are ever going to recover our prosperity, that more money should be invested in industry. The only possible object of this would be that the company should be able to borrow a little less cheaply than they would if they observed the bargain which they had entered into. That slight advantage would be more than lost by the insecurity which everybody will feel and which will prevent people investing in securities to which a special asset has been assigned and which has been confirmed by an Act of Parliament.
I have always understood that the best title that could be given was a Parliamentary title. Yet under this subsection we shall render nugatory a Parliamentary title. Many years ago, I remember late one night in another place, a somewhat similar clause to this was introduced in an Irish Railway Bill and, curiously enough, it was supported by the then Conservative Government. I objected and I was told that my objections were quite good but that this particular Irish
938
company could not get the money, or would have to pay a higher rate if they were not allowed to break their contract and to do what is proposed to be done under this clause. It was very late at night, and I divided and was hopelessly beaten. I came to this House, saw the late Lord Avebury and put the facts before him. Lord Avebury said, as I knew he would, that of course such a thing was impossible and he was quite certain that he could get it altered in the House of Lords. He did get it altered in the House of Lords and the Conservative Government of that day accepted the Amendment which your Lordships made. I hope that the same thing will happen again this evening.
I may point out to your Lordships that the acceptance of my Amendment does not in any way interfere with the Bill or with the principle of the Bill. It does not touch the powers of the Board or of the Electricity Commissioners. It does not touch in any kind of way any of the principles which are supposed to give cheap electricity to the country. All it does is to say that a contract entered into under an Act of Parliament remains a contract and is not broken because one of the parties to the bargain thinks he may get a little out of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, lines 15 to 35, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Lord opposite has been talking of things that belong to past history. He seems to forget, or not to realise, that in legislation which has been on the Statute Book for a long time joint stock companies are authorised to have their memorandum of association altered—even their memorandum of association. They cannot do it themselves, but they go to a Judge of the Chancery Division in England and to the Court of Sessions in Scotland and there the Judge has power to sanction an alteration of the memorandum. It may involve alterations in the priorities of the stocks. It may be that the undertakers in this case when they are a company cannot get on without that freedom. It is a freedom which, if not incorporated, they would have and it is the doctrine of ultra vires that puts a difficulty in their way. But all that is over. Parliament has determined since the days when the noble Lord recorded his triumph with the

939
assistance of the late Lord Avebury that a joint stock company should have power to alter even its memorandum provided a Judge of the High Court, who sees to these things and sees to justice, sanctions it. Without that power a great many companies to-day would be in great difficulty and it is highly inexpedient that we should refuse to act on the principle to-day.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is only one observation that I should like to make to my noble friend. From the way he spoke—I do not say he suggested it—one would almost draw the inference that this company was compelled to go before the Court to have a new scheme made. That is not so.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I did not mean that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I know the noble Lord did not mean it, but I think his words rather suggested it. May I just state in one word how this arises? This company has ex hypothesi accepted the obligation to enlarge its station, to put down more dynamos and plant, and consequently to produce more electricity. Moreover, when it has put down that plant, and when it has produced a greater amount of electricity and thereby increased its load and therefore produced the rest of the electricity at a less price, then all the electricity that it produces is to be bought by the Board. Therefore it has a certain market for all the electricity it produces. Owing to certain limitations it cannot raise the necessary capital without going to Parliament. Now it would in the ordinary course go to Parliament but for this Bill, but it is a very expensive thing to get a Bill through Parliament, so it is given an alternative. It need not take the alternative if it does not like it. It can go to Parliament if it chooses, but if it wants to limit its expenses then, according to this Bill, it submits a scheme to the High Court, providing for certain matters to which my noble friend has alluded, and if the scheme is approved by the Court then, and then only, does it form part of the law of the company. Therefore you have these safeguards. First of all, if it has to borrow any more money there is ample security for it, certain security for it; secondly, it need not take that course:
940
and, thirdly, if it does it is only to be approved by the High Court. In these circumstances I think it is very difficult to see that any harm can be done to anybody.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble and learned Viscount opposite said that already in certain circumstances a company may go to the High Court, or to another Court if it is a Scottish company, and get its articles of association altered.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Memorandum of association.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Its memorandum of association. I am not quite sure whether that would permit any security which had been pledged to certain creditors being also pledged to other creditors, but presuming it does, may I call his attention to a remark once made by the late Sir Charles Dilke: "Because you have done a wrong thing once don't do it a second time, and because there is a had precedent don't create another." My noble friend Viscount Peel says that there is nothing very much wrong in this because it cannot be done unless the High Court sanctions it, but what you are going to do is to allow the High Court to override an Act of Parliament. I am not a lawyer and I should not like to say that this is an entirely novel proposition, but I should have thought that if it ever had occurred before it must be a very rare thing indeed to allow a Court to override Parliament. I see the Lord Chancellor here and I should like him to inform me whether he can give me a single instance where a Bill has been brought in and passed into law which provides that the High Court can override an Act of Parliament. In my ignorance I have always thought that Parliament was supreme and that anything that it did could only be overridden by itself, and that if it was necessary to override an Act of Parliament then you must introduce another Bill for that purpose.
I really feel that this is much more serious than my noble friend thinks. I venture to say that I have had many years experience in the City. I am quite certain—as certain as I am that this is the House of Lords—that if you pass this clause you will be doing irreparable

941
injury to a class which you wish to encourage and increase, that is, the investing class. I do not want to repeat what I said just now, but I would implore your Lordships to remember that you cannot restore prosperity to this country without capital. Take the case of a trustee who says that he does not want to put his money into the shares of a power company, but into something that is quite safe. He is offered some debentures in an issue of £1,000,000 and that £1,000,000 is secured as a first charge on the assets of the company. He is only getting four per cent. for his money, but that is not what he is looking to; he is looking to the security. Now you are going to say that a Judge of the High Court may put another £1,000,000 in front of that and halve the security on the faith of which that money has been invested. I shall certainly divide the House if I can get a Teller, because I believe that this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and it is not a clause that will affect the operation of the Bill in the slightest degree.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has asked me whether a provision in an Act of Parliament—probably a Private Act in this case—can be overridden without a further Statute. Of course it cannot; but this is the Statute which, if it is passed, will authorise the Court to increase the capital of a company and to authorise the issue of further capital ranking, not in front of, but rateably with existing capital. It can only rank in front of existing capital—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Did I say in front? I think I said pari passu. That was what I meant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what this Act does. It authorises the Court to make the scheme sanctioning the issue of further capital and further capital, of course, for new work, and when the further capital is spent upon
the new work the capital assets will be increased and will bear an increased amount of the share capital. There is a very recent precedent for that. It is to be found in the Railways Act, 1921. I have no doubt that my noble friend is very familiar with that Act, which authorises the passing of a scheme of amalgamation under which any existing classes of loan or share capital of a railway company can be increased under such conditions as may be specified in its scheme. That scheme was sanctioned, not by a Court, but by a special tribunal created by the Act, which is much the same thing. That is a very recent and, I think, a very relevant precedent.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have not had an opportunity of looking up the point to which the Lord Chancellor refers, but I would point out that this was done by an Act of Parliament. I have never said that an Act of Parliament cannot do it. My second point is that it was done during the amalgamation. For instance, my old company the Great Northern had, I think, £10,000,000 of debentures. It was going to amalgamate with the North Eastern, which probably had something like £30,000,000 of debentures because it was a much larger company. You had to give to these different holders a new debenture and you had to give it to the holders of both the North Eastern and Great Northern. In those circumstances it was absolutely necessary that there should be an alteration in the capital, but that was quite a different thing from this. If I may venture to say so, I do not think that it is a very apt illustration. What is the position of the railways at the present time? As far as I know, they are—I admit partly owing to the coal dispute—in a very bad financial position, and I do not think it was a very good illustration that the Lord Chancellor gave.
On Question, Whether subsection (3) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 53; Not-contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bath, M.

Grey, E.

Leven and Melville, E.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Airlie, E.

Lovelace, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Sutherland, D.

Clarendon, E.

Onslow, E.

Wellington, D.

Gainsborough, E.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Spencer, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Kinnaird, L.

Allendale, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Merrivale, L.

Chaplin, V.

Desborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Haldane, V.

Dynevor, L.

Olivier, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

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

Erskine, L.

Peel, V.

Farington, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Arnold, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanmore, L.

Biddulph, L.

Glentanar, L.

Templemore, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Hampton, L.

Teynham, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Howard of Glossop, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Winchester, M.

Askwith, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Wavertree, L.

Falmouth, V. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ASKWITHhad given Notice to move to insert the following new subsection at the end of the clause:—
"(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 of 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 be binding upon the parties."
The noble Lord said: I propose that this subsection should be inserted at the end of the clause. The object is to provide that where a company are supplying electricity in the area of a local authority, and are approaching the time when the undertaking can be purchased by the authority, the two parties may agree for a modification of the terms of purchase. No objection is taken to this proposal, but precisely the same difficulty will be encountered where one local authority is supplying in the area of another local authority, and the subsection should therefore not be limited to companies. It has been pointed out to me that the words "being a company" in the sixth and seventh lines are superfluous, and I
944
therefore ask leave to omit them and to move the Amendment in that amended form. The Association of Municipal Corporations agree, and I understand that Lord Charnwood, if he had been here, would have signified that agreement.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 35, at end insert the following new subsection:—
("(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 is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority) the authorised undertakers may at any time within ten years before the date of purchase next occurring after the passing of this Act, or within ten years of any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local authority to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase on the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding, upon the parties.")—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: This Amendment, like other Amendments moved by the noble Lord, or some of them, is a well-intentioned proposal and there would be much to be said for it if we were living in an unoccupied atmosphere. The difficulty is that in the case particularly of the London companies the terms and period of purchase have been fixed by Statute. That was the result of long controversy over Mr. Chamberlain's original proposals of 1882 and it was arrived at after great discussion. I fear that if we were to accept the pro-

945
posal of the noble Lord we might get into much controversy and much strife with those who fought for the period of purchase of electrical undertakings for public authorities being a fixed one. Could the noble Lord have told us that he had come to some arrangement with these public authorities I should have said there was a good deal to be said for letting people bargain freely. Unfortunately, that is not so, and so far as I know the noble Viscount will get himself into much trouble if he accepts this Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This clause, as I think the noble Lord is aware, should come as a new clause after Clause 37. It ought to be moved then. Perhaps that would give me an opportunity of considering what the noble and learned Viscount said so that I may be able to come to a conclusion on the point when we reach that clause.
LORD ASKWITH: Do you mean that I should put it down and move it after Clause 37?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand the noble Lord can move it when we come to Clause 37
LORD ASKWITH: Then I will move it at that place.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment should be withdrawn for the present?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Saving for necessity of obtaining certain consents]:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the following new subsection:—
"(2) Where an application is made by any authorised undertakers to the Minister of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners for their consent or approval under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, in any case where such consent or approval is by those Acts required, the Minister or Commissioners, in determining whether to give or withhold the consent or approval, shall have regard to the provisions of this Act and the effect of any scheme or proposed scheme thereunder."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is a very simple one and is proposed in pursuance, I understand, of a promise made in another place. The effect of it is simply to prevent any conflict between the provisions of the scheme and any subsequent consent of the Minister; so that there might be no discrepancy between them if the Minister is asked to give his consent to a proposal which conflicts with the arrangements of the scheme.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Acquisition of Lind by the Board.
20.—(1) The Board may acquire land or any easements or servitudes or other rights in or over land by agreement, or may be authorised to acquire land or any such right compulsorily, for the purpose of any of their powers and duties under this Act (including the construction of main transmission lines) in like manner as a local authority being authorised undertakers may acquire or be authorised to acquire land under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, for the purpose of a generating station, and those Acts and the Acts incorporated therewith shall apply accordingly; and the Board shall be deemed to be a public authority for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition by the Board of land held by the owners or lessees of any railway canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour for the purposes of their undertaking or enable the Board to acquire compulsorily any easement, servitude, or other right in or over such land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out Clause 20. The noble Lord said: I fully explained my objection to this clause on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was chiefly because it gives power to the Board to purchase land compulsorily for the transmission cables. I pointed out then that full powers exist for crossing land for the purpose under Section 22 of the Electricity Act of 1919, which is not repealed by this

947
Bill. Under that Act there is no purchase of land for that purpose, only a licence, and, therefore, there is no severance of the land. There are many small owners of land who own, perhaps, one field. If the centre of the field is compulsorily purchased in a diagonal line the owner will be left with two isolated pieces of land and will not be able to cross the purchased land. I pointed out that these cables are going straight across country, up hill and down dale, and properties will be severed in all directions. The generating station may send out a dozen transmission lines in the form of a fan. Near the station, I imagine, a wide piece of land would be bought and then, as the fan becomes wider and wider and the cables further apart, isolated tracts would be bought, making terrible severances in all directions.
I have heard it said that, when the railway was projected from St. Petersburg to Moscow, the Tsar was asked where he would like the line to go. He called for a map, a ruler, and a pencil and he drew one straight line from St. Peters-burg to Moscow. That is the power you are giving to this Board. They may want to make a line of cables from Newcastle to Birmingham. They can draw a straight line across country and purchase the land, with the exception that they are not allowed to cross a piece of land where there is already a building, or a garden, or a pleasure ground which would affect the amenity of the house. These powers are too great. I do not want to stop cables from crossing the country, but I want it to be done by the present method of Clause 22 of the Electricity Act of 1919.
I may be told that in moving to leave out the whole of this clause I am also taking away other powers. This is not really so, for, although powers are also sought for the Board compulsorily to purchase land for generating stations, I would point out that that can already be done by the Electric Lighting Act of 1909, Section 1 subsection (1). That Act is incorporated in this Bill, as one may see from Clause 47, so I am not interfering with the purchase of land for generating stations. I also objected on the Second Reading of the Bill to the Board being given the
948
power of a local authority under the Land Acquisition Act of 1919. The Board is neither a local authority nor a Government Department. Viscount Peel laid great stress on the point that the Board is not a Government Department. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Board is not a Government Department, it should not be given these powers. If the Board is a Government Department then it can safely be said that this Bill is Socialism. If compulsory purchase is taken away out of the Bill then these powers under the Land Acquisition Act are unnecessary for there is no need for these words in the clause. I hope that the arguments which I used on the Second Reading and this evening will have convinced your Lordships that this clause is quite unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, leave out Clause 20.—(Lord Dynevor.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can assure my noble friend that this Board is not a Government Department, and it necessarily follows that it is not Socialism. My noble friend says there are certain powers which this clause takes that are not necessary because the Board already has them. I do not think he is quite accurate in that statement. He is quite correct in stating that the Board has power to acquire generating stations without this clause, but, according to the definition of generating stations given in a previous Act. I think the term "generating stations" does not include sub-stations and, therefore, without this clause, the Board would have no power to acquire land compulsorily for substations, and would be placed in a worse position than any other undertaker. That is the first observation I desire to make.
The second is this. Though I listened very carefully to the observations of the noble Lord made on Second Reading and also this evening, I do not think he attached sufficient weight to the numerous safeguards that there are in the clause against any harsh dealing. First of all, every Order for compulsory acquisition comes to the Minister of Transport for confirmation and then it comes to Parliament for confirmation by Resolution. There is complete power in

949
either House to object to the Order and there is a further safeguard in the case of this House. My noble friend will remember the proceedings in relation to Special Orders which were approved by this House this year, or last year, on the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. The Orders will further be considered under those proceedings before the Committee. Therefore you have really very great opportunities, especially in this House, of considering all the Special Orders that may be made and of throwing them out.
The third point on which the noble Lord dwelt was: Is it necessary for the purpose of these transmission lines to acquire land? Is it not sufficient to have the power to take compulsorily an easement over the land? I think that was the main point of my noble friend's speech. I was going to make this suggestion to him. If he would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment I would be very glad to consider before Report—he is entitled to put it again then if he chooses—whether it is not possible to attain everything that need be attained for the construction of the lines for the purposes of the scheme by acquiring easements compulsorily and not acquiring the land for those easements. If my noble friend is content with that offer I hope he will withdraw the Amendment and I will be glad to consider that point very carefully.
LORD GAINFORD: May I point out that the expense connected with laying cables is one of the features which have placed this country behind many other countries in the world. In America each State has the power of directing that cables may be laid from point to point irrespective of the particular wishes of the owners of property. In France very similar powers exist to enable cables to be laid. The reason this country is behind other countries in electrical enterprise is the great expense of laying the cables and distributing the power generated. In 1916 I introduced into another place a Bill to enable telephone wires to be erected direct from place to place. I think it was Lord Banbury, who was then also in another place, who objected to the provisions of that Bill
950
until I was able to point out to him that there were certain persons in this country who were absolutely unreasonable and, even in time of war, would not allow wires to pass over their property. The result was a great increase in expenditure to the country in connection with the detour which had to be taken in certain lines of telegraphy. Exactly the same thing has occurred in connection with private enterprise and municipal enterprise in this country in regard to the generation of electricity, and I hope the Government will be very careful not to allow the right of individuals to prevent cables being laid where they are required for the public service.
LORD DANESFORT: There is one point in connection with this Amendment which I think has escaped attention. In order that the Act shall be properly operated we must have not only generating station, but transformer stations, which transform the high voltage in the line by which electricity is conducted into a lower voltage, which is absolutely essential especially in rural areas. I take it he would be the last man to desire that rural areas should not be provided for in this Bill. If this clause, or something like it, is not in the Bill there is, as far as I know, no power for the Board to acquire land on which to put these, transformer stations. Therefore I think that in some form or other this clause is absolutely necessary and I trust my noble friend will consider this point before the Report stage.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I should like to ask for information. What is the position with regard to the main roads in the matter of these lines? Suppose, for instance, a transmission line is to pass alongside the Great North Road. Will it not sterilise the use of that land and the frontage of that road for all time? Does it not affect the value of the land? Does it not prevent development of the adjacent property? It seems to me that unless you have some power to divert this line, say, 100 yards back from the road you are going to spoil the frontages on the main roads. Perhaps the noble Viscount can give me some information.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was going to give the noble Lord some information on a subsequent Amendment raising this point, but I will give it now if he prefers it. I presume that he refers to new transmission lines. I may say, as regards taking a line along the frontage of a road and cutting off the frontages, that I should have thought the natural interest of the Board would prevent them doing that, because they would not want to pay more than they need for the rights of transmission and if a line goes along the frontage they will clearly have to pay a great deal. I cannot go through all the Acts of Parliament now, but road authorities, I understand, have ample powers to protect themselves already in the case of a line carried along their roads. I do not think that any additional powers need be sought by these authorities, because, as the noble Lord knows very well, undertakers are carrying lines over the country already and I do not think the position will be altered.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not think the noble Viscount quite understands my point. I am not talking about the verge of the road. I am talking of the case where the lines are being carried on poles or standards on private land just behind the verge of the road.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I dealt with both those points, first with the case of a line running along the frontage and then with the case of road authorities themselves.
LORD FORRES: This is a matter that came very prominently before both the Williamson Committee and the Weir Committee and it was found in every quarter that impediments to running lines freely over the country were very detrimental to the provision of cheap electricity. I sincerely hope that the Government will net give way in a matter that concerns the benefit of the community as a whole and will not be unduly influenced by the interests of private persons who stand in the way of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I did not wish to detract from anything that he has said. The only point that I thought worth considering was whether it was necessary to buy land in all cases, or
952
whether in some cases it would not be enough to take compulsory servitudes. That is the point that I promised to consider. After all, so long as the cables go over the land it does not much matter whether the land is bought or simply used for the purposes of the Act.
LORD DYNEVOR: I must say that I reall do not like leaving this clause in the Bill. I think it is a most dangerous one. But I have listened to my noble friend Lord Peel and I would ask him if he could give me an undertaking—I do not ask for a distinct promise—that if the land is actually purchased there will be no severance and that the owner will be able to pass and repass over the land that has been purchased. I under stand that my noble friend is willing to see me on this question before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That undertaking could not be given in the case of all the land. If an easement only is taken then my noble friend's object is secured, because there will be nothing but the easement belonging to the Board and the owner will retain the property in his land.
LORD DYNEVOR: If the noble Viscount will allow me to see him before the Report stage I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:—
Wayleaves.
".—(1) Where any ground below, across or above which any wayleave for an electric line has been granted under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, is required for some purpose other than that for which it was being used at the date of the grant, and the circumstances are such that owing to the wayleave it cannot be so used, then after the expiration of three calendar months' notice in writing given by the owner of the ground to the company or person using the same wayleave, the company or person shall remove the electric line so that the proposed use of the ground shall not be interfered with: provided always that the owner of the ground shall give facilities for the removal and re-erection of the electric line.
(2) Any payment to be made in respect of compensation for damage or the wayleave

953
rentals shall be fixed by an arbitrator agreed upon by the parties interested, and in default of agreement an arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the terms of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not actually consequential, but I had hoped that my first Amendment deleting Clause 20 would have been carried. Since my noble friend will be discussing the question before the Report stage, I think it would be well if I moved this Amendment in order to explain my meaning. This Amendment is moved in order to enable an alternative route to be made for transmission lines when the owner of the land wants to develop it for building or working minerals, or any other purpose than that for which it is used at the time when the grant was made, and is prevented from doing so because of the wayleave. I have already pointed out how a line of cables crossing a field diagonally would prevent it being laid out for building, and also how a line crossing slate, stone, gravel, sand or coal would prevent its being quarried or dug. It is essential that an alternative route should be available. I may mention that I have already made such an agreement with a company to cross my land with poles and cables. On the Second Reading I pointed out that the officials of the Ministry of Transport had already given me an assurance on the question, so that they are fully alive to the necessity for an alternative route for the cables. This is on the lines of the Amendment that I had hoped to get into the Act of 1922. If the transmission lines can never be altered in their position, then the land will be held up for building purposes and mineral development curtailed. It is most necessary to look forward. Hundreds of miles of cables may be put up along country roads, and it is most desirable that no hasty legislation should be passed which might do infinite harm in the future.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 43, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I do not know whether the noble Lord quite realises what he is proposing. It is to shift compulsorily overhead cables. An overhead cable may cost anything up to £4,000 a mile, sometimes £25,000 a mile. An under-
954
ground cable costs about £10,000 a mile, and this is to be moved for the convenience of the landowner—a convenience which may be exercised in a very disastrous way. It is therefore a very serious proposition and I should be very sorry if the Government did not resist it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understood that my noble friend only moved this Amendment for the purpose of stating the effect of it. He was going to discuss with me the whole question which is involved in this. Of course, it goes very far in the form in which it is moved.
LORD DYNEVOR: The noble and learned Viscount opposite evidently does not like the idea of an alternative route for the cables, but I would remind him again that the Minister of Transport had already given me an assurance before that they would put an alternative route into all agreements. Although it may be an expensive matter they themselves realised the necessity. I shall therefore bring the matter up again when I discuss it with my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 22:—
Main, transmission lines not to be laid under the carriage-way.
".Where any main transmission line constructed or acquired by the Board is intended to be laid across or along the route of any public road the Board or an authorised undertaker shall not be entitled to lay such transmission line under the metalled carriage-way of the road or to break up the surface thereof for the purpose of constructing or maintaining the transmission line, and the transmission line, so far as it is within the road fences, shall be carried overhead or laid under the grass verge or footpath in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922."
The noble Lord said: Anybody who is concerned with roads, either as a member of a county council or otherwise, knows that the greatest possible damage is always being done to roads and streets by the digging up of the surface for the laying under them of pipes of all descriptions. I can tell your Lordships as an engineer that the permanent effect of

955
this is to destroy the whole surface of the road. There may be an undertaking given to put the road back into the same condition, but very soon—sometimes within a month or two—after it is restored and a certificate of the county council given, the road is found to have become disintegrated by water leaking down. Surely the time has come when the rights of the road user and the principle of maintaining our main roads intact as far as possible should be recognised. A trench cut down the middle of a road not only causes very serious injury, but when you have to repair the cable later a further set of digging operations is started. Those, who live in London know that habitually in London in all our main streets the road is in a constant state of being dug up.
Is it not important in this new system that we should insist, as far as possible, on the cable running down the verge of the road, and not in the middle? The use of roads will probably increase for many years to come, and the course which I suggest is therefore highly desirable. I have the support in this matter of the most distinguished county surveyors and others concerned with our roads, who think that some stand should be made against regarding our highways as places for the putting down of all kinds of pipes. I do appeal to the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry of Transport to realise the great importance of keeping the surface of our roads intact. The road should be treated in these days as a sacred thing dedicated to the use of the citizens of the country and not to be used for all kinds of extraneous purposes.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend in an eloquent passage appealed to me, as representing the Ministry of Transport, to look after the roads of this country. Some noble Lords, I think, have suggested that the Ministry of Transport ought to be done away with altogether but whether that should be done or not no one has ever accused the Ministry of being indifferent to the roads, because after all that is one of the main subjects with which it deals. I have heard some people say that there are too many roads being made by the Ministry, and therefore I do not think the Ministry can be
956
accused of being indifferent to the roads. I think, however, I can relieve my noble friend's mind on one point. He is afraid the roads are to be picked up and these great cables are to be run beneath them. I am advised that that is not so—that these cables will be run overhead. As regards any other point, the road authorities are amply protected already. I do not want to go through the whole series of rights which they have under various Acts, but I do not think there exists the least danger, and I hope my noble friend will leave the road authorities, comfortably placed as they are.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: In this respect the Ministry of Transport is sometimes Dr. Jekyll and sometimes Mr. Hyde—sometimes, in its guise as interested in electricity, it says that the road is nothing and electricity is all, and the next day it says that the road is everything and electricity is nothing. Its two functions of preserving the roads and putting electricity in the most convenient place are two things which conflict. If the Ministry of Transport were only a Road Ministry I should have the greatest possible faith in it, but it has branched out into all kinds of new regions, and I do not trust it in this matter. The Ministry may incline to the electricity side and not the road side, and you may get the roads broken up, and there will be no court of appeal. The Acts mentioned by the noble Viscount are, in my opinion, quite insufficient to protect the roads against being broken up. Many of the roads out of London are at the present time more like graveyards than roads. Therefore I have put down this Amendment. I will not, however, press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Power to Treasury to guarantee loans to Board.
27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury may guarantee in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the interest and principal of any loan proposed to be raised by the Board, or of either the interest or the principal:
Provided that the aggregate amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be so guaranteed, shall not exceed thirty-three and a-half million pounds.
(2). Such sums as may from time to time be required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantees given under this section shall be charged on and issued out of the consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof.
(3) The repayment to the Treasury of any sums so issued out of the Consolidated Fund, together with interest thereon at such rate as the Treasury may fix, shall be a charge on the undertaking and all the revenues of the Board next after the principal and interest of the guaranteed loan, and any sinking fund payments for the repayment of the principal thereof, and in priority to any other charges not existing at the date on which the loan is raised.
(4) All sums paid from time to time in or towards the repayment of any sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section shall be paid into the Exchequer.
(5) The Treasury shall so long as any such guarantees are in force, lay before both Houses of Parliament in every year within one month after the thirty-first day of March a statement of the guarantees (if any) given during the year ended on that date, and an account up to that date of the total sums (if any) which have been either issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section or paid in or towards repayment of any money so issued.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 27. The noble Lord said: This is the clause which authorises the Government to guarantee a loan of £33,500,000 or to lend £33,500,000 of the taxpayers' money to a Board over which it has no control. There is no difference between guaranteeing money and lending money. So far as the credit of the country is concerned it is exactly the same thing. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has told us that this is not a Government Department. He has told us that more than once, and we know that this Board can be appointed for any period from five to ten years. During that time they will have control of £33,500,000 belonging to the taxpayers and nobody can say anything to them. Does anybody ever lend a large sum of money to someone else on no security and without retaining any control whatever over its expenditure? That is what will happen.
There is no security and no control over the expenditure of this money at a time when the Government ought to be economising in every possible direction and, instead of borrowing money or guaranteeing new loans, endeavouring to reduce loans already in existence, in view Of the fact that in three or four years—I have not the exact figure but I am
958
more or less correct—£300,000,000 in Government loans fall due for repayment. How are those loans to be repaid? They can only be repaid by fresh borrowing. In order to borrow anew you must satisfy investors that they will get good security. For that purpose you must try to induce them to lend at a lower rate, so that there may be a saving and the burden of the debt may be reduced. In order to do that the Government should be careful not to incur fresh obligations of any kind. Yet in five of that they propose to lend or to guarantee £33,500,000 to this Board while not retaining any control over it themselves, according to the Government and its supporters, among whom I presume I must include the noble and learned Viscount opposite, who seems to be ready to come to the rescue of my noble friend Lord Peel whenever he thinks there may be a little hitch in the proceedings.
The result of this will be that the Board will not only have entire control of this money, but when, as is possible, they have embarked on large schemes, what will happen? It is true that under the Bill no larger sum than £33,500,000 can be advanced, but when, as is more than probable, that sum has been practically lost, what will happen I know perfectly well what will happen. A Bill will be introduced in another place to provide another £33,500,000, and this will be the argument in support of it: We have already spent £33,500,000. It has not developed as we thought. It would; but we have only to spend another £33,500,000 and you will see what will happen. If the Bill comes to this House, as I presume it will, and we have any power to say anything, the noble and learned Viscount will point out that there was a precedent five or six years ago, when we advanced this money, and because we advanced it then we have to advance it now.
Then, if this is going to be such a successful scheme, why should the Government advance any money at all? If there are going to be eight able men, business men I presume, understanding finance, who will supply a great and needed want and put this country in the position of other countries to supply an enormous amount of electricity at very advantageous rates to themselves—if all that is going to take place why should the Government interfere at all? Why

959
not let them go to the investing public and point out that here is a great scheme which is going to be an enormous economy—I think my noble friend said it would save £44,000,000 a year—and that here is a fund for them to invest their money in. Why not leave it like that? Why should the Government come in? The only reason for the Government coming in has been already given in another place by the Attorney-General, that if they did not come in nobody else would be fools enough to lend the money. The Attorney-General did not use the word "fools," but that was the meaning of his statement, that if the Government did not get it they could not get the money anywhere else.
I believe my noble friend will not accept my. Amendment, because I believe the Attorney-General is right, that they could not get the money in any other way and that the unfortunate taxpayer will be the person who will lose it. I feel obliged to move the omission of this clause because I believe it is a step in the wrong direction altogether. We ought not to be subsidising industries, whether it be mines or anything else. I hope the Free Traders opposite will support me because this is nothing more or less than a bad form of Protection—namely, subsidy.
Amendment moved—
Pages 23 and 24, leave out Clause 27.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Lord opposite is really under great delusions. This is not a clause enabling the Treasury to advance £33,000,000. It is a clause of guarantee, and a clause of guarantee with a very definite security. The electricity that is produced at a high rate and sent into a continuous reservoir—namely, the transmission cables—is electricity which will yield a profit to the producer, who will produce it at a much less cost than at the present time and be paid for it enough to let the Board make some profit for themselves from the difference between the two costs. That is a fund on which the Board can build and does build. It will have to borrow a certain amount of money for making the works which will be required to earn these sums and that money it will borrow progressively, very small sums in the earlier days, but when it wants to
960
borrow for that purpose it is a great help for it to go to the public with a Treasury guarantee. It lowers the rate of interest and the Board will be in a position to borrow with this security and with a fund coming in which will pay not only the interest but the sinking fund, and very quickly, in course of time, get rid of the principal of what is borrowed. To say that this is a clause enabling the Treasury to advance £33,000,000 when it is really a clause enabling the Treasury to come to the back of the Board in a series of progressive operations, is to misrepresent totally the scheme of the Bill and I really do not know on what basis the noble Lord's Amendment proceeds.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord has raised the question of the guarantee. Obviously the money could only be raised at a higher rate of interest and that would have to be paid, either by the selected stations or by the business itself. The only result would be that the cost of electricity would be higher for distribution and higher for the consumer. As has been to some extent pointed out by the noble Lord opposite, at the commencement of their operations they will have, of course, very few assets on which to borrow money, for two reasons—first of all, because the operations of the Board as a commercial concern are to be as far as possible not to make money but only such margin of money as is necessary to secure them against loss. What have they to do with this money? First, they have to spend £8,500,000 on the standardisation of frequency. But that does not create a fresh asset for them. All that means is that they will be able, as it were, to ensure that more electricity shall be sold under the control of the Board to the authorised undertakers for the benefit of the distributors. What is the other work for which they require the money? The other £25,000,000, or presumably less than that, will be spent on these greatcable transmission lines. But before they are built they are not an asset. They are a prospective asset. They will be built gradually and the whole of the money cannot be borrowed at the same time. It will be borrowed as it is required for the development of this work, which may take a certain number of years. It is obvious that without this

961
guarantee they would have to pay more for their money.
My noble friend takes rather a melancholy view of this money because he seems to think the whole scheme is a failure. He voted for sending the Bill upstairs because, I think, he objected to the Bill. But, after all, the Bill was accepted by this House unanimously on Second Reading because it would produce cheaper electricity. In those circumstances his fear of losing this £33,000,000 of guarantee is to some extent groundless. The only other matter he regrets is that the guarantee should be given at all. I can only say that that is a much larger question of policy which I do not think I could discuss at the present moment. These terms of guarantee are what are known as "trade facilities terms." My noble friend says they ought not to be given. But it is the policy of this Government and of other Governments to give them. Trade facilities terms have been given in Great Britain in a great number of cases, with the result that the money has been borrowed more cheaply than otherwise would have been the case and a great many persons have in consequence been provided with employment.
I do hope the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment, because unless the State comes in with its guarantee the whole business will be very much hampered. My noble friend says the members of the Board are appointed for five years, and will spend this money. Of course they will not. They retire in rotation, and fresh persons are appointed. It is impossible that all this money could be spent in five years. I think he may trust the Treasury to make good arrangements for the guarantee.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble and learned Viscount, as I understood him, said this was not a loan but was a guarantee. They are exactly the same thing. Though I should never venture to lay down the law to the noble and learned Viscount on a legal question, do on a financial question claim to be nearly as good an authority as he is himself. If he goes to any banker in the City he will find every one agree that a loan and a guarantee are exactly the same thing. They touch the credit of the country. If this is guaranteed there is
962
more stock with the guarantee of the country in existence and the people who take this up will not take up other Government stocks because they will not have the money to do so. Therefore a guarantee and a loan are exactly the same thing so far as the credit of the country is concerned. My noble friend Lord Peel says they would have to pay a higher rate of interest otherwise. Why should they not? Is the taxpayer to advance money to every large undertaking in the country in order that those undertakings may make larger profits at his expense?
My noble friend says that already considerable sums of money have been advanced under the Trade Facilities Act. This Trade Facilities Act was introduced by Mr. Lloyd George, to whom we owe most of our evils, and when he brings forward anything that Mr. Lloyd George has introduced and says that it is a good thing, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I always protested, when I was a member of the House of Commons, against the Trade Facilities Act, because I always said that if a particular company was going to enter into a good thing it could borrow the money in the City or from private investors, and if it was not a good thing then it was not worth the Government's while to go into it. I am not quite certain—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—but I thought the Trade Facilities Act had come to an end. I understood the Government had made up their minds not to lend any more money under the Trade Facilities Act, and here they come and do practically the same thing with regard to this clause. I apologise if I am wrong—but I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say there was going to be some security. There is no security, none at all.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Treasury will get it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The clause says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section the Treasury may guarantee in such manner as they think fit the payment of the interest and principal of any loan proposed to be raised by the Board or of either the interest or the principal."
It does not say that one of the conditions is that there must be any security. It is quite true that the Treasury might make conditions, but there again I dislike

963
leaving all these things to a Department of the Government. Why on earth not put it in the Bill instead of leaving it to a Government Department? I should hi like, before I withdraw the Amendment, to know whether it is quite impossible for the Government to agree to some measure of control of the expenditure during the five or ten years, as the case may be. I am quite certain my noble friend would not lend any of his money, not one penny, to any person without security and not have any control over him. I do not see why the taxpayer should be in any different position.
LORD DANESFORT: May I make an appeal to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill on the last point, that the Treasury should be given some control over this expenditure before it is incurred? I think the noble Viscount has proved conclusively that the Board could not conduct its operations at all without getting this Treasury guarantee. That may be true—it is unfortunate, I think, but probably it is true. If it is true, and we have to give this guarantee for these many millions, it is only common sense that in the interests of the taxpayer the Treasury should be able to say: "We are going to guarantee £33,500,000 of the taxpayers' money. On what are you going to spend it?" As far as I understand the Bill, there is not one line in it which would enable the Treasury to ask: "What is the nature of the expenditure? Is it going to be fruitful, is it going to be remunerative, is it going to reduce the price of electricity?" Possibly—I think this point was mentioned earlier in the debate—my noble friend would consider the matter before the Report stage, and consider whether it would not be possible to introduce some element of Treasury control before they are called upon to guarantee these enormous sums of money of which they are the custodians and trustees.
LORD OLIVIER: Usually I am content to be governed by my noble friend behind me, but with regard to these provisions I feel some qualms as expressed by my noble friend Lord Banbury. This is a case in which money is put at the disposal of a public Department—the Ministry of Transport. We have had to guarantee loans before now to Colonies and so on, and in all these cases the Treasury retained a certain power of control on
964
behalf of Parliament. Perhaps that should be a matter for the other House rather than this, but it does appear to me that when you have immense sums placed in the hands of a Government Department there should be some kind Of Treasury control such as is suggested by noble Lords opposite. All this Bill provides is that the Treasury are to lay a statement of the advances authorised and of the expenditure, and in the next clause there is no provision for any accounting except an audit by an auditor provided by the Ministry of Transport. It is not proposed that this should be laid before the Public Accounts Committee or in any way controlled, and all that we can do is to challenge the Ministry of Transport if we are not satisfied.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think that the noble Lord opposite has carefully studied this Bill. He has restated the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and has asked why the Treasury should not make conditions and stipulations and know how the money is to be spent. Of course they can do so. There is no question about it. Clause 27 says:—
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury bay guarantee in such manner as they think fit, the payment of the interest and principal …"
and so on. If they can guarantee "in such manner as they think fit," is it not plain that it is not only their business but their duty to find out on what objects the money is to be expended and to lay down such conditions as they choose. In subsection (3) there is also a provision as to securing payments upon the assets of the Board. I do not think, therefore, that noble Lords ought to repeat that the Treasury is quite incapable of taking care of itself and making conditions as to the terms and arrangements under which the money is to be guaranteed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, after Clause 28, to insert the following new clause:—
Board not to exercise powers of Section 5 of Act of 1922.
" . Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board to exercise the powers conferred

965
on authorised undertakers by Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, of giving financial assistance to joint electricity authorities."
The noble Lord said: Unless this new clause is inserted the joint electricity authority will be in a more favoured position than other undertakers, for these reasons. By Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922—
"Any authorised undertakers whose area of supply is wholly or partly within the district of any joint electricity authority …"
and also county councils and other bodies may lend any money to the joint electricity authority, subscribe for securities, or guarantee payment of interest on money borrowed by the authority. By Clause 27 of the Bill the Treasury may guarantee sums up to £33,500,000 and by Clause 19 the Board are deemed to be authorised undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882–1922, and accordingly may give the financial assistance mentioned to joint electricity authorities. I think it can hardly be intended that the right to raise money on State guarantee should be used for the purpose of assisting the special class of undertakers who are competitive with other undertakers. I am sure that is not the intention of the scheme of the Bill, but it will be one of its results if this clause is not inserted. I hope my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 2, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really do not think the clause is necessary. It is almost inconceivable that the Board would desire to finance a joint electricity authority in this way, but, in fact, I do not think that under the Bill as it stands they would have the power to do so. Section 5, to which the noble Lord refers, only authorises undertakers whose area is situate wholly or partly within a joint authority district to give the financial help. Of course, the area of the Board would cover the whole country, and that surely would not come within the description of an undertaking within the district of any joint electricity authority. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not overload the Bill with quite unnecessary words.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNS: The words of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, to which the noble and learned Viscount refers, are as follows:
"( ) A scheme under the principal Act constituting a joint electricity authority or other body for the improvement of the organisation of the supply of electricity in any electricity district may include provisions authorising or requiring authorised undertakers, and authorising companies and other bodies represented, on the authority or body to contribute towards any administrative expenses of the authority or body."
Do I understand the noble and learned Viscount to say that under that section it would be impossible to act in the manner in which I have just suggested?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is my view.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Of course, after I have had the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount that my rendering of the Bill as it stands is incorrect, I can only bow to his superior knowledge and withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29:
Charges for electricity supplied by power companies.
29.—(1) On a power company commencing to receive a supply of electricity from the Board, the Minister of Transport may revise the maximum prices authorised under the special Act of the company to be charged by the company for supplies, other than supplies in bulk to authorised undertakers, and may revise the standard prices fixed by such Act and on such revision in determining the maximum and standard prices regard shall be had to any change in the cost of electricity to the company attributable to this Act.
(2) Where a special Act passed before the passing of this Act authorises such a power company to make good any deficiency in any previous dividends which have fallen below the prescribed standard rate of dividends, the Electricity Commissioners may, after such inquiry as they think fit, by special Order made under Section twenty—six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision for the repeal or limitation of any such authorisation, and where such an Order is made the special Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Order.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 29. The noble Lord said: This is another of those clauses which contravene Acts of Parlia-

967
ment by the authority of the Ministry of Transport in one place and by the Electricity Commissioners in another. Subsection (1) says:
"On a power company commencing to receive a supply of electricity from the Board, the Minister of Transport may revise the maximum prices authorised under the special Act of the company to be charged by the company for supplies, other than supplies in bulk to authorised undertakers. …"
That means that, although an Act of Parliament has given to the company power to make certain charges, the Minister of Transport may revise that Act and alter the maximum charges. I do not quite know why this was put in. I understood that the result of this Bill was to be to give consumers and the public generally cheap electricity. Is the Minister of Transport afraid that the present maximum charges will not be sufficient and that therefore he must have power to revise them in order to make good the expenditure? Or does it mean that, notwithstanding any Act of Parliament on the faith of which people have invested their money on the understanding that certain charges may be imposed, they are going to reduce the charges and break faith with the investor, and also break an Act of Parliament—not by another Act of Parliament, not by the High Court, but by the Minister of Transport who is not even a member of the Cabinet?
Then, subsection (2) says:—
"Where a special Act passed before the passing of this Act authorises such a power company to make good any deficiency in any previous dividends which have fallen below the prescribed standard rate of dividends, the Electricity Commissioners may, after such inquiry as they think fit, by special Order made under Section twenty-six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision for the repeal or limitation of any such authorisation, and where such an Order is made the special Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Order."
That is to say, that the Electricity Commissioners may again alter the terms on the faith of which people have invested their money.
The meaning is that people were told that if they put their money into one of these companies in all probability they would get a low rate of interest, if any interest at all, at first, but that there was a standard rate and if things improved then they might get a further amount by
968
the difference between the standard rate and previous dividends. I presume also it touches the sliding scale. As your Lordships are aware, under the Gas Companies Act if the rates charged to the public are reduced the dividends may be increased, and I believe the same procedure was applied to the electricity companies some three or four years ago. Now that is all going to be altered. In fact, this Bill alters an Act of Parliament whenever it suits to do so, sometimes by the High Court, sometimes by the Ministry of Transport and sometimes by the Electricity Commissioners. I really do think my noble friend cannot have understood this clause, or else association has altered him very much in the last few years, if he really is going to get up and say he defends this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, leave out Clause 29.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: After the comments which the noble Lord made on my character, I feel quite nervous of getting up and saying what I can on behalf of the clause. I am comforted, however, by the belief that the noble Lord has not completely appreciated the bearing of the clause. After all, what is the reason for this clause? It is this, that all the advantage which these power companies will get as a result of the new scheme for the generation of electricity should not be bottled up in the coffers of the power companies, but decanted, or some of it, for the benefit of the consumer. How is that being done? My noble friend seems to consider it shocking that the Minister of Transport should be able to revise these maxima and standards. They are already revised in some cases in three years and in other cases ten years, and all this Bill does is to give power to the Ministry of Transport to revise these prices after the Bill is in action, in order to secure that the advantages obtained by the Bill shall be passed on to the consumers. I cannot see anything very deadly in that.
Then, go to the second subsection, with regard to the making up of the back dividends by power companies. My noble friend will recollect that in Lord Weir's Report they recommended these powers, but the Government are more merciful (shall I say?) than the Weir Report, and

969
they think it will be sufficient to have some limitation. A Special Order may be made, and Special Orders, as the noble Lord knows, come before this House. I understand, as to the possibility of paying back dividends, that during the last ten years alone they might pay back something like £3,000,000 in back dividends Of course, if they were allowed to do that or, perhaps, to go back further than that ten years there would really be no advantage got from this Bill at all, because all the advantages which these power companies would get not by their own action but by the action of the Board would or might be absorbed in paying up the back dividends. It seems to me there is nothing against natural equity in limiting that power and in saying: "Those advantages which have come to you not by your own action but by the gift, shall I say, of somebody else shall not be entirely retained by you but passed on, in some measure at least, to the consumer."
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am astonished at my noble friend's remarks. He says, in effect: "Something has come to you by accident, and though that has been guaranteed to you by Act of Parliament, there is nothing wrong in taking it away from you. That is unearned increment." I am very much afraid that my noble friend, when he was a member of the Coalition Government, sat at the feet of Mr. Lloyd George and imbibed some of his doctrines; because that is land nationalisation again. It is saying, in effect: "The land is the property of everybody. You have no business to have it, and if you have it why should it not be taken away and given to someone else?"
Then my noble friend said that the maximum dividends shall be revised in order that some of the money which would have belonged to certain people and was secured to them by Statute may be given to somebody else—that is, the consumer. If you construe, that, you will find that it means that because there are more consumers than shareholders the latter are to be sacrificed because it is more popular to sacrifice the shareholders and give something to the consumers, and by that means probably get the Bill through. That is not my idea of Conservative principle. It would probably commend itself to the three noble Lords who sit on the Bench oppo-
970
site. But they have at any rate the courage of their opinions and say straight out that they are in favour of what is practically confiscation. But that a Conservative Government should introduce a clause of this sort and should recommend it on the ground that there are only a small number of people who have the money and a large number of people who will benefit if you take it away from them, is indeed surprising.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Relation of charges to dividends.
30.—(1) Where any company, being authorised undertakers and not being a power company, receive a supply of electricity either directly or indirectly from the Board, the Electricity Commissioners may by a special Order under Section twenty-six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make provision as to the relation between the charges to be made for electricity and the dividends to be paid by the company, and the Order shall have effect as if the provisions contained therein were in substitution for the provisions (if any) contained in the Act or Order relating to the undertaking of the company as to the relation of charges to dividend:
Provided that where any such company carries on two or more separate undertakings one or more of which receive a supply from the Board, any such Order shall regulate the charges to be made for electricity in the case of the undertaking or each of the several undertakings receiving such a supply in relation to the divisible profits on the capital attributable to that undertaking.
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any company which is a London company within the meaning of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, 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.
LORD ASKWITHhad on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "section" and insert "twenty-two of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, regulating the charges to be made for electricity in respect to the undertaking or several undertakings for which the supply is received." The noble Lord said: There is a clerical error in the Amendment as printed; the word regulating should be "regulate" The clause as it stands provides for the operation of a sliding scale but under the Amendment the charges to be made to the undertakings in question would be

971
regulated by Section 22 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.
Power of revision in cases where the Commissioners think fit is allowed by Clause 29 and during the Report Stage in another place I find that the Attorney-General said on November 11 in dealing with Clause 36:
"I have arranged to have moved in another place an Amendment in regard to the Words which appear in Clause 30, where we dealt with a somewhat similar difficulty, namely, to leave out the words in relation to the divisible profits on the capital employed on that undertaking."
The words "the divisible profits on the capital employed on that undertaking" I occur only in the following proviso with reference to companies which have two or morn separate undertakings, and if that promise were carried out those companies would have revision, but the other companies would not. The suggestion of this Amendment is that these companies should all be put upon the same basis and, instead of this difficult question of the sliding scale, there should be revision.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 28, leave out from ("section") to the end of subsection (1), and insert ("twenty—two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, regulate the charges to be made for electricity in respect to the undertaking or several undertakings for which the supply is received").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid this promise of which my noble friend spoke is quite new to me. I have no knowledge of such a promise having been made, because the change that is going to be made is really a considerable one. I would like to have the opportunity of considering it very carefully and looking into the promise.
LORD ASKWITH: I will give my noble friend the reference, and I will withdraw the Amendment now and put it down on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to add to subsection (2) the words: "or to any company formed for the purpose of such an amalgamation of undertakings as is provided for by Section 8 of the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925." The noble Lord said:
972
This is a small Amendment which I hope the Government will be able to accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 9, after ("1925") insert the said words.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not think it is any use moving my Amendment to omit Clause 30. It deals with practically the same point. Could I make a bargain with my noble friend? If I withdraw my Amendment at once, will he consider on the Report stage the Amendments which I moved a few minutes ago
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The bargain which my noble friend proposes is too vague in its terms and too wide to be accepted. He proposes to withdraw an impossible Amendment on terms that we consider all the previous Amendments he has moved
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No, only the two dealing with this point.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31:
Adoption of Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922.
31. The Board and any joint electricity, authority respectively may (without prejudice in the case of any such authority to the provisions contained in subsection two of Section eight of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919) if they think fit, adopt the provisions of the Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, in the same manner as if the Board or such joint electricity authority, as the case may be, were a local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1922, 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 such a local authority as aforesaid.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved the addition of the following words:
"but any expenses incurred by any joint electricity authority under the provisions of this section, or under the said subsection (2) of the said Act of 1919, shall not be deemed to be administrative expenses of such authority to which authorised undertakers may be required to contribute under Section five of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the power which is given to the Board or to joint electricity authorities to set up superannuation schemes, and it is one of some importance. Section 5, subsection (4) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, authorised a joint electricity authority to levy money from other bodies represented on the authority. At the time that that section was moved in the House of Lords my noble friend Lord Peel was questioned on it by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, and he gave what was at that time supposed to be a satisfactory reply. Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to remind him of what he said:—
"… such provision is very useful and necessary, because these bodies, at first, will have no funds out of which to pay their small administrative expenses."
It was limited, but it has been taken now in a much wider sense.
They call upon those associated with them in the joint authority (even when they are opposed to them), when they are promoting Bills to which the joint authority is opposed, to contribute to their expenses. The expenses which are borne by the companies are 57 per cent. of the total. At present, the joint authority for London has an expenditure of £11,000 a year, half of which is paid by the companies. It is now taking new and larger offices and employing experts to advise it, and its expenses are rapidly increasing. If, in addition to this, it is allowed to form a superannuation fund and the expenses of that fund are to be put upon the companies, that will hardly be carrying out the undertaking or the explanation of my noble friend at the time the Bill of 1922 became law. I hope he will see that it is not reasonable to allow these superannuation charges to be counted as administrative expenses and will agree to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 22, after ("aforesaid") insert the said new words,—(Lord Oranmore and Browne).
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that by Section 5, subsection (4) of the Act of 1922, a scheme for the establishment of a joint authority may include provisions authorising or requiring various undertakers to contribute towards any
974
expenses of the authority. Apparently, therefore, it is optional and not compulsory. I was going to suggest to my noble friend that surely the place and the time for raising this question is when the local inquiry is held before the scheme is made. Surely the matter ought to be dealt with on its merits by the Commissioners, and ought not to be settled definitely in this way by a statutory provision. I suggest to my noble friend that that would be the best way to deal with the question.
LORD ORANMOBE AND BROWNE: I am afraid that hardly satisfies me. These persons are in a favoured position in a great many respects as compared to other authorities. In each of the schemes they have construed the words "contribute towards any administrative expenses of the authority" as meaning "to pay the whole of such administrative expenses," and, instead of making contributions to be contributions at first to small administrative expenses, they have used the section to enable them to make authorised undertakers repay the joint authority and give a perpetual subsidy quite unlimited in amount. They can pass on their charges to other people, which the companies have no power to do. It seems to me that Parliament ought to place some limit on the expenses they can put upon those who are associated with them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Power to lop trees and hedges obstructing electric lines]:
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subseetion:—
"( ) The authorised undertakers shall have regard to the antiquarian or artistic value of buildings, forests, woods, trees and lakes, and shall if required by any local authority place their cables underground so as not to obscure or interfere with the view of any such objects,. Any dispute under this clause shall be referred to the decision of the First commissioner of Works."
The noble Lord said: I think this is an Amendment to which the noble Viscount might agree. Last Session the noble Viscount, the First Commissioner of Works, allowed me to move an Amend-

975
ment which he accepted on these lines to the Roads Bill in order to preserve the picturesque aspect of the roads. Just think where these lines may run. A line from London may possibly go through Windsor Forest. A line from Lancashire to the north would go through the Lake country. A line to Brighton would pass through some of the most beautiful parts of Surrey and Sussex and over the Downs.
I think that regard ought to be had to the picturesque character of the villages, the woods and forests and so on, through which these lines might go. In the New Forest, of which I am a verderer, a line is already projected by a power company working under existing powers, to take an overhead line through some of the most beautiful old woods. I really think in these cases the cables ought to go underground. One of the great values of this country, and one of the reasons why foreigners come here and admire our countryside so much, is that we have preserved the picturesque character of the countryside. It differs in that respect from America, where you see everything of a utilitarian character and nothing really picturesque. Things exist here which do not exist abroad. I make a plea for the picturesque character of the country and I am sure that if the Earl of Crawford were here he would support me. I believe he does support me. I believe that if the noble Viscount were here in his proper guise of First Commissioner of Works instead of representing the Ministry of Transport, he would accept the Amendment. His Department is a very good judge of what is picturesque.
Amendment moved℄
Page 27, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I fully appreciate the appeal made by my noble friend for preserving the amenities of the country, and I might also say that in my humble way I have been doing what I can in the last two years to preserve them. But my noble friend is going to put rather a severe burden on me or on any First Commissioner of Works by his proposal. He says in his Amendment "shall if required by any local authority place their cables underground so as not to obscure or interfere with the view of any such objects." First of all, I think it is not possible, for technical reasons, to place
976
these high tension cables underground, and, secondly, it is a very difficult matter for a First Commissioner of Works to have to pronounce on whether a cable should be placed underground. I do not think, even if he could judge of the amenity, that he would have sufficient technical knowledge to decide finally where these cables should be placed. That is the difficulty of the Amendment.
Perhaps I may inform the noble Lord that already we have very close relations with the Ministry of Transport in the matter of laying down lines. We have an arrangement by which they always discuss with us cases where a line is likely to pass an ancient monument. I am bound to say I have always found them very ready to consider any representations that we may make. Further, the Ministry of Transport is very ready to preserve ancient bridges and so on within their own jurisdiction, and would do everything possible. I do not think it is possible to accept this Amendment, which places the First Commissioner of Works in the very difficult position of having to decide on a matter of which he really would not be fully advised. As regards amenities generally, these societies are very active and when the inquiry is being held they can make their representations very vigorously, so that public opinion can bring itself to bear very actively in these matters.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: No doubt we should be safe in the hands of the noble Viscount, but we see beautiful trees cut down along our main roads quite unnecessarily and to the great detriment of the countryside. If I added the words "when possible," would that meet the noble Viscount? I think there should be some reference to this point in the Bill. It has been conceded in Roads Bills and other measures, and surely it is a very small addition. Perhaps the noble Viscount would admit it in another form on Report. Supposing you work a line through South-Western London and straight across country—as is the intention—through Richmond Park, I am sure the Lord Chancellor, who knows Surrey very well, would not approve of that. As for the technical difficulties, let me tell the noble Viscount that they do not exist. The electric cables can be put underground.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not of that voltage.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: It is perfectly possible. They could be put in earthenware pipes and perfectly insulated. We should have some assurance on this point. When the noble Viscount talks of the technical ignorance of the First Commissioner of Works, he does not understand that I want him to be a judge of beauty, not of electricity. He does not need any technical knowledge of electricity.
LORD MONK BRETTON: When the noble Viscount is considering this matter, I hope he will bear in mind the question of our rural villages and the defacement of their beauty which may be produced. I tremble to think of some of the possible results of this Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am entirely in sympathy with these representations. I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will consider and discuss with the Minister of Transport whether anything can be done to make these representations effective.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That is all that I want—some opportunity. On that understanding I will put down a new clause on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MALVIESBURY THE EARL OF MALVIESBURY moved, the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 32:—
Protection of county bridges.
".—(1) Nothing in this Act shall in any way limit or affect the powers of any County Council (in this section referred to as "the County Council") to rebuild, alter, widen or repair the structure of any bridge upon which any work by this Act authorised shall be constructed, or impose upon the County Council any liability which was not by law imposed upon them prior to the commencement of this Act.
(2) If at any time the County Council require to carry out works for rebuilding, altering, widening or repairing any bridge which might involve interference with any portion of the undertaking by this Act authorised they shall prior to the commencement of such works give the Board one month's notice in writing of their intention to carry out such works and if in order to avoid interruption to the supply by the Board of electrical energy, it is in the opinion of the County Council necessary temporarily to remove the mains and other electrical appliances belonging to the Board
978
from such bridge, then the Board shall (and they are hereby authorised so to do) at their own expense temporarily carry their cables and wires across such bridge overhead or at the side thereon in such a manner as will not be a danger or inconvenience to the public, or unreasonably interfere with the works to be carried out by the County Council.
(3) When the rebuilding, altering, widening or repairing of such bridge shall have been completed the Board shall have the same rights and powers with regard to such bridge and its approaches as they had before the works were carried out.
(4) If any dispute arises between the County Council and the Board with regard to this section the same shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed on the application of either party by the Minister of Transport."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
VISCOUNT PEEL: To shorten proceedings, I am ready to admit the clause, subject to this, that I think it may have to be re-drawn in certain particulars on Report. If the noble Lord will agree to that I will accept it.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The Amendment, though very long, contains no new principle. The principle contained in it has been admitted in law for a long time, and it only seeks to secure that county councils shall be in no worse position than they are at the present time. As the law stands, the county councils have always had the power of obtaining protection from the Electricity Commissioners by the insertion of a model clause in these Orders. Under the Bill as it stands that protection would be taken away.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:—
Supply of electricity for lighting rood crossings.
".Where any main transmission line or other electric line owned or used by any authorised undertaker is laid at or near any crossing or bridge on a road to the maintenance of which the Minister of Transport contributes out of the Road Fund, the Minister of Transport may by Order made on the application of the Road Authority, or of any representative body of

979
road users, require a supply of electricity to be given from such lines for the purpose of lighting the crossing or bridge at such price and on such conditions as may be agreed between the parties giving and taking the supply, or in default of agreement as shall be decided by the Electricity Commissioners."
The noble Lord said: Looking to the future we must realise that cross roads are going to be increasingly dangerous. It is important that these points, and also bridges, should be lighted, if there is light available. My object is to have something in this Bill to authorise the Ministry of Transport to order the lighting of such dangerous places, which will very often be on the line of the main transmission cables. This is a reasonable Amendment, and I hope it may be accepted either in this or in some other form.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not disagree with the general propositions of the noble Lord, but it is really the business of the lighting authority and not of the Electricity Commissioners to make these Orders.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33:
Schemes for constitution of electricity districts, and the organisation of supply therein.
33. For section five of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as amended by section nineteen of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1922, the following section shall be substituted:—
"(1) Where it appears to the Electricity Commissioners that with respect to any areas the existing organisation for the supply of electricity therein should be improved, and that a joint electricity authority should be established therefor, the Commissioners shall give notice of their intention to constitute those areas a separate electricity district, and to formulate a scheme for effecting such improvement in the district, and for the establishment of a joint electricity authority for the district:
Provided that in considering what areas are to be included in a district, areas shall be grouped in such manner as may seem to the Commissioners most conducive to the efficiency and economy of the supply of electricity and the convenience of administration.
980
(2) After such a notice has been published, the Electricity Commissioners, after consultation with the authorised undertakers in the proposed district, shall formulate such a scheme as aforesaid, and publish the scheme in such manner as they think best adapted for insuring its publicity, and hold a local inquiry thereon, and shall give to authorised undertakers, county councils, local authorities, railway companies using or proposing to use electricity for traction purposes, large consumers of electricity, and other associations or bodies within the proposed district which appear to the Commissioners to be interested, an opportunity of making representations to the Commissioners on the proposed scheme, and with respect to the inclusion in or exclusion from the proposed district of any area."
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to leave out Clause 33. The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this Amendment will not meet with the approval of the Government. The object is to do away with the joint electricity authorities. This is not a question of principle, though it is an important detail of the Bill, and I think very possibly, if my noble friend would admit me into the secrets of the consultations which took place before this Bill was finally drafted, I should find that the very course which I now suggest was considered, though not finally adopted. What is the history of the setting up of joint authorities? The Commissioners were given power in 1919 to set up these authorities in any district delimited by the Commissioners, where the local authorities agreed to it. I believe they delimited no less than fourteen of these districts, but only in three of those was the authority finally set up, and sometimes, it appears, in rather peculiar circumstances.
For instance, in the case of London and the Home Counties, it was done because the companies knew that their life was drawing to a close, and under an arrangement made with the County Council it was possible by this means to prolong their lives until 1971. But the result of it has been friction of a very severe kind between the companies and the joint electricity authority. On many occasions they have found themselves in

981
conflict on Bills promoted by the companies and it seems to me that in the existing circumstances there is no particular object in continuing these authorities. They were set up in order that large districts should co-operate in the supply of electricity and by that co-operation secure that a greater amount of electricity should be used and the price cheapened.
Now we are to have a Board and the powers given to the Board are to be used for national purposes, on a much larger scale than the sectional way in which their power was used by the joint electricity authorities. At the present time you are going to have, in addition to the Electricity Commissioners, numerous other authorities, and it seems to me that to set up further authorities will only complicate matters. I therefore beg to move the omission of Clause 33.
Amendment moved—
Pages 27 and 28, leave out Clause 33.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The effect of this and certain other sectional Amendments moved by the noble Lord is really to wipe out the joint electricity authorities altogether from the arrangements in this country. Of course the noble Lord is well aware that under previous clauses of the Bill different sections deal with these joint electricity authorities, and therefore so far as the Bill is concerned the Amendment makes considerable change. I am going, very shortly, to put in a word in favour of these joint authorities. Three of them have been set up, and more may be set up, and I understand they fulfil a very useful purpose in connection with the work of the Board by supplying a great deal of local information and knowledge, which naturally cannot be at the disposal of the Central Board. Another thing is that they fit in a great deal with the arrangement for the secondary transmission of electricity in districts, and therefore play a useful part.
In the circumstances I think it would really be a mistake to cut them out of the Bill. It would leave a gap and their functions could hardly be performed by any other authority. They are combinations of power companies and local authorities, and as there is a good deal of, I will not say jealousy, but difference of opinion between the different authorities,
982
their working as a joint electricity authority is a great advantage really for the production and distribution of electricity. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will give them at least another five years in which to carry on their useful activities. After that he can re-consider the matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Amendment of Schemes]:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment to this clause which stands in my name is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("any subsequent enactment") and insert ("section twenty-one of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922").—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Provisions as to companies with large area of supply.
36.—(1) Where after the commencement of this Act a special order is made authorising a company to supply electricity, and the area of supply consists of or includes the whole of the districts of two or more local authorities, and is, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, adequate in extent, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the right of purchasing their undertaking:—
(2) The special order in any case to which subsection (1) of this section applies may make provision as to the relation between the price charged for electricity and the dividends paid by the company.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in that part of subsection (1) which precedes paragraph (a), to leave out "consists of or includes the whole of the districts of two or more local authorities." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment. The effect is to leave it to the opinion of the Commissioners whether any proposed area of supply is "adequate in extent," the intention of the clause being to give better tenure and purchase terms in Orders for large areas. The area has to be adequate in extent, but it also has to be the area of two or more authorities. It may, however, be fully adequate in extent and yet only within, say, one rural district, and it is sub-

983
mitted, therefore, that the words in question should be left out of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 14, leave out from ("supply") to ("and") in line 16.—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have no objection to this Amendment, though I am not quite certain whether it is really necessary. I would suggest to my noble friend that it involves certain consequential Amendments later on in the Bill, and that he might make himself responsible for them.
LORD ASKWITH: Very well.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add to subsection (2):
"or where the company to which any such special order is granted is a company carrying on one or more other undertakings, the relation between the price charged for electricity in the case of the undertaking authorised by the Special Order and the divisible profits on the capital attributable to that undertaking."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment reconciles this clause to the provisions in Clause 30, and makes them harmonious. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 35, after ("company") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 36:—
Advances to be made by intending purchasing authority.
".—(1) Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or 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 seven years before any date when such undertaking or part thereof may be purchased or when notice may be given by the local authority requiring the authorised undertakers to sell such undertaking or part thereof, require the local authority to declare whether they intend to exercise their right to purchase.
(2) If the local authority notify to the authorised undertakers their intention not to exercise their right it shall not be exercisable at such date.
(3) If the local authority within six months of such requisition do not notify to the authorised undertakers their intention with regard to the exercise of the right to purchase, or as a condition of not exercising their right, seek to impose terms which in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners are unreasonable, the Electricity Commissioners may suspend the right to purchase for such period and on such conditions as they think fit."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really entirely based upon the Weir Report, in which these words occur—
"It appears to us that the possibility of purchase at such short notice has the effect of sterilizing the activities of the undertaker during the latter years of his franchise owing to his reluctance to sink capital in an undertaking which may be compulsorily purchased."
And they make certain recommendations on which the proposed new clause is founded. An Amendment was submitted to another place on the Report stage, but the Speaker held it was out of order at that stage, owing to certain provisions for finance. Those provisions have been omitted from the clause I am submitting to your Lordships, which proposes that due notice shall be given when purchase is to take place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 35, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have not really had much opportunity of considering this clause. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be ready to defer it until the Report stage?
LORD ASKWITH: If the noble Viscount would prefer it, I will wait until then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Terms of purchase of a company taking a bulk supply]:
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, to add to Clause 37 the following new subsection:—
"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 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 at any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local autho-

985
rity to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase oil the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding upon the parties."
The noble Lord said: I am moving this at this place because it was suggested that it would come in properly under terms of purchase at the end of Clause 37 as a new subsection. The noble and learned Viscount criticised it previously on the ground of its effect on the position of local authorities and on the ground that it appeared to contradict Acts of Parliament. As far as local authorities are concerned, there has been no objection on the part of any single local authority, and I am informed by my noble friend Lord Charnwood that, provided the words "being a company" are omitted, the chief association representing municipalities would accept it. I cannot conceive a more harmless clause. An agreement would prevent having to go to Parliament with all the enormous cost that would involve.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD GAINFORD: I think the Attorney-General, in another place, did say the Government approved this and he gave an undertaking that it would be considered in another place. He did not actually pledge the Government to accept it, but said it had the approval of the Government and that it was only on account of the local authorities not having had the opportunity to consider it that it was deferred. The local authorities do not take any objection to it as it merely enables them by agreement to be hound, after the Electricity Commissioners have approved their agreement. It does save the local authorities from the expense of promoting an Act to confirm the agreement. I trust the Government will be reasonable at this late hour and accept it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Government is always reasonable and, as far as I am concerned, I do not offer any opposition to it and it may take its chance in another place.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 42 agreed to.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL VISCOUNT CHURCHILL moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new clause:—
".—Where any authorised undertakers may supply and are supplying within their district or area of supply electricity for haulage or traction to any company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway; tramway, dock, harbour or canal undertaking situate partly within and partly without that district or area, such authorised undertakers may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, so supply electricity to be used for any purposes of such undertaking, whether within or without such district or area of supply, and such company or authority may, subject to such limitations and conditions (if any) as the Minister of Transport may prescribe either generally or ill any particular case, use the electricity so supplied for any purposes of their undertaking for which they are entitled to use electricity."
The noble Viscount said: In asking your Lordships to consider this new clause I feel quite certain I shall have the support of all open-minded business men from the practical point of view. As your Lordships know, under an Order of 1909 the railway companies, when electrifying, have been given the power to obtain current from any electrical authority and to use that current for the purpose of haulage and traction through the areas of other electrical authorities, but for the purpose of operating cranes or lifts or for lighting purposes they have to get the current from the electric lighting authority in the district. This is very impracticable from a working point of view because it necessitates duplication of plant and multiplicity of accountancy, and many other things. This clause enables a company to use the power that it gets in bulk for the purposes I have named as well as for traction and haulage.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 16, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Churchill.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am quite ready to allow this clause to take its chance in another place, but I think very likely safeguards may have to be imposed in order to maintain the position of other various undertakers.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: May I point out that if this clause us carried, railway companies may be able to supply electric light? In the City of

987
London in the case of the lighting of Cannon Street Station Hotel the same question was raised. The Railway Company desired to light the hotel themselves. I do not think the undertakers should be deprived of any rights that they have at present.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: In answer to my noble friend I am bound to point out that in a case where a railway company generates its own current they can use the current for any purpose they like and in all probability in the case the noble Marquess referred to the company is making its own electricity.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: The Southern Railway tried to do it, but they were not allowed.
Clause 43:
Sale of fittings.
43.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section a joint electricity authority and any local authority authorised by special Act or by Order to supply electricity may sell electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances for lighting, heating, and motive power, and for all other purposes for which electricity can or may be used (in this section called "electric fittings"), and may instal, connect, repair, maintain, and remove the same, and with respect thereto may demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges, and may make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.
(2) The exercise of the powers of this section shall be subject to the following restrictions:—

(a) The joint electricity authority or local authority shall not manufacture electric fittings unless expressly authorised to do so by special Act or Order;

(b) The joint electricity authority or local authority shall not sell electric fittings except—

(i) to a consumer or a person who intends to be a consumer of electricity supplied by them; or

(ii) to a contractor who requires such fittings to enable him to supply them to a person who is, or intends to be, a consumer of electricity supplied by the joint electricity authority or local authority;

(3) The Electricity Commissioners shall appoint a committee comprising representatives of associations representing local authorities who are authorised undertakers, contractors, and persons engaged in the
988
business of making and persons engaged in the business of selling electric fittings, such committee to be appointed after consultation with those associations, and that committee shall determine any question which may be raised under this section as to the recognised retail or trade prices of any electric fittings and shall advise and assist the persons concerned as to the method of giving effect to the provisions of this section.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved in paragraph (b) (i) of subsection (2), after "them" to insert
"and they shall not for sale by direct labour execute any wiring of private property or undertake the supply direct to the consumer of the fittings or materials for such wiring except between the main of the authority and the consumer's meter. The joint electricity authority or local authority may, however, enter into contracts with an electrical contractor for the execution of such wiring of private property including the supply of the necessary fittings and materials provided the contractor acts independently of the authority in the execution of the contract."
The noble Duke said: the object of my Amendment is to remove an anomaly which seems to exist in Clause 43 as it stands. Under this clause the municipality, as an approved supplying authority, is authorised not only to bring the current to a consumer's meter, but to carry it beyond.
Under subsection (1) of this clause they are empowered to instal, collect, repair and maintain. That means that municipal authorities will establish installation departments, and those installation departments will be financed from the rates. The work of the installation departments financed from the rates is restricted in some degree by paragraph (a) of subsection (2). It says there that those municipalities shall not manufacture electrical fittings, that is to say, meters, cookers, lights, radiators and so on. By that subsection the right of manufacturers of fittings is specifically and adequately safeguarded, but the right of the installation contractors is not safeguarded. The installation contractor is open to the direct attack of rate-aided and direct labour. Now it seems to me that if we safeguard the privileges of one set of industrialists it is only right and just that we should safeguard the interests of another set of industrialists. If we safeguard the interests of the manufacturers

989
of fittings we should safeguard the interests of installation contractors.
If we leave the clause as it is every municipality, by applying rate-aided direct labour, will be able to sweep away the whole means of living of hundreds, I may say thousands of working contractors. They might just as well hand a dagger to the city engineer of every municipality and tell him to get busy and cut the throat of every contractor. It seems to me that we ought to try to remove this anomaly. I know that certain associations have given their approval to this clause as it stands, but the association representing the interests of Scottish contractors, I may say, strongly objects to it. The noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, said the other day there was not a scintilla of evidence that the rights of any private owner were injured by this Bill. I have shown that the rights of the owners of existing enterprises are injured by this Bill, and I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 38, after("them") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Montrose.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: This question has a long Parliamentary history. I heard the echo of some of the fights during the last twenty years in the speech which the noble Duke has just delivered. Briefly, until 1906 powers similar to those conferred in this clause were granted to about eighty municipalities, powers much wider than those actually contained in this clause. From 1906 onwards we had continual fights in the Committee rooms of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, and in both Houses the decisions were not always harmonious with each other. My attitude, I think, was consistent in the early days in being opposed to the full powers given in this clause. But in the last few years I have been converted, by the evidence given in your Lordships' Committee rooms, which I have read, and by new facts which have become patent to all.
I can mention those facts in two sentences. Firstly, we find that people who hire things from municipal electrical authorities are inclined, when they get satisfaction to say, "I don't want to go on hiring, I want to buy." Parliament has forbidden hitherto, except in certain
990
cases, to give that power to municipal authorities. Secondly, unless you give these powers to municipal authorities the poor man's house cannot be wired, because the cost is prohibitive, It was on these arguments that your Lordships, and I following your Lordships, changed your minds on this subject, and I need not remind your Lordships that on the Bath, Barrow and Burnley Bill the debate resulted in the passing of a clause by your Lordships' House backing up a decision of one of the Committees. Last year's debate had the effect of very powerful parties coming together, and I think there has been circulated to your Lordships, unofficially, a signed agreement by those parties.
It is quite true—I appreciate the point made by the noble Duke—that the Scottish organisation is not satisfied, but he must forgive me if I say that in this case the Scottish organisation is not as big a thing as the seven great authorities who have come together—the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association, incorporated; the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association of Great Britain, Ltd.; the Electric Light Fixtures Association; the Electrical Accessories Manufacturers' Association; the Electrical Contractors' Association, Incorporated; the Electrical Wholesalers' Federation, Ltd.; and the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association. These seven bodies claim to represent £250,000,000 of capital and 500,000 workmen.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I think these are all manufacturing associations, as distinct from contractors, who do not manufacture.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Electrical Contractors' Association have always claimed that they represent contractors, and I have not heard it contradicted. The evidence given upstairs has never hinted that they are not contractors. They have passed themselves off—I say it without offence—as electrical contractors, and I am sure the opposition would have contradicted that if it had not been true. It is a very remarkable fact that we have this agreement, the result of long discussions between all parties. Its effect in the saving of hours of Parliamentary time and thousands of

991
pounds to the taxpayer and the private interests concerned is enormous.
It is easy to suggest Amendments to the clause. There are twelve words that I do not very much like, but I refrain from calling your Lordships' attention to them because, for the first time for twenty years, we have this valuable agreement of the parties south of the Tweed, at any rate. This Amendment is not confined to Scotland. I do not differentiate between the Amendment of the noble Duke and that of Lord Banbury of Southam, who desires to omit the clause. I do most earnestly appeal to your Lordships not to interfere with this agreement, come to by all the parties, but to leave the clause as it stands.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I quite agree that all that the Lord Chairman has said is absolutely correct, but I would put the question from another point of view. Supposing you pass this clause as it stands, you will be creating a precedent. I can hear the noble and learned Viscount opposite coming down and saying: "You have sanctioned municipal trading with £250,000,000, the owners of this money having agreed; now you must agree to municipal trading in something else." You will go on until you find that the municipalities, with the ratepayers' money, are competing with private traders who have no ratepayers behind them. I strongly object to municipal trading, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I am not really very sanguine, because the Government have shown themselves hostile to nearly every Amendment. It is ten minutes past twelve now and there are very few noble lords here. I appeal to my noble friend Earl Balfour, who
will not want to oppose a Scottish Amendment—since we have been so kind and have done nothing to prevent the passage of 44 clauses of an iniquitous Bill—at any rate, to let us go to bed now and pass the remaining clauses on Thursday. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That is not the proper Motion.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg to move to report progress.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That is not the proper Motion.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I listened very carefully to what the noble Viscount said, but this is a principle, and the very important principle of bringing labour, financed from the public taxes, into direct competition with private enterprise. Certain associations, I admit, have approved of that principle in the past, and there is nothing in my Amendment to stop any association by special Act or Order getting the same privilege in the future. But it is too dangerous a principle to allow to pass without a challenge in a Public Act, because if we admit that principle in the case of a municipality employing labour financed by the public rates or taxes against private enterprise, how can we defend it in the case of a Government employing labour financed from the public taxes against private enterprise? I am afraid I must press this to a Division.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Lamington, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Malmesbury, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sutherland, D.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Wellington, D.

Spencer, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Bath, M.

Erskine, L.

Churchill, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Airlie, E.

Haldane, V.

Gainford, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Glenarthur, L.

Lovelace, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Peel V.

Hampton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Templemore, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Thomson, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wavertree, L.

Meston, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved in subsection (3), after "fittings," where that word first occurs, to insert "and consumers of electricity." The noble Duke said: The Amendment relates to Subsection (3) of the clause, the object of which is that the Electricity Commissioners shall appoint a Committee to discuss and consider the price at which electric fittings may be sold. The Committee may be composed of representatives of contractors and persons engaged in the manufacturing of fittings, and it seems to me that the consumer who uses the fittings ought also to be represented on the Committee, because, after all, they are the persons principally concerned in the prices.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 34, after ("fittings") insert ("and consumers of electricity").—(The Duke of Montrose.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would suggest to the noble Duke that if this is an agreed clause it is a pity to disturb the wording of the clause by an Amendment which really is hardly necessary; because the local authority who sells will consider the interests of the consumers whom it represents. It is therefore unnecessary to have the consumers specially represented.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, after Clause 44, to insert the following new clause—
".Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or Order, electricity supplied by any authorised undertaker to any company, body or person owning or working an undertaking being a port, clock or harbour may be used for all or any of the purposes of such undertaking or any part thereof."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 17, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am prepared to allow this Amendment to go to another place, because I understand that it removes certain disabilities from which the Port of London, I think, alone is suffering.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: At this stage I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved, That the House be resumed.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I venture to suggest to my noble friend that it would be for the general convenience if we were to finish the work which has been So prosperously begun.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I will not argue the question. My noble friend thinks it is late, and it is late, no doubt, from any point of view, especially from the point of view of the ordinary practice of this House. With his long familiarity with another place my noble friend must be well aware that the present hour would be regarded as early on some of the days when he and I have been engaged together in work there. I am sure it would not be convenient for your Lordships to accept this Motion, and I do not think that our constitutions are weaker than those of Members elsewhere.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: After what my noble friend has said I will not press my Motion. But I would like to say that there are, according to the Division which took place a few minutes ago, only 41 members at present in the House.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Forty-five.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Thirty-six and five make forty-one—I can still count. There are only 41 members in your Lordships' House. This is a most important Bill and we have given it due attention. Nobody can say that there have been any unnecessary speeches

995
and yet at twenty minutes past midnight, having got through 44 clauses, my noble friend desires that an important Bill of this sort should be pressed with only 41 members present. If he so desires I have nothing more to say.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Interpretation.
46.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "generating station" has the meaning given thereto by section thirty-six of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and not the meaning given thereto by section twenty-five of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909;
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;
The expression "owners" in relation to a generating station includes lessees or occupiers of the station operating the station:
The expression "authorised undertakers" includes a joint electricity authority.
LORD EMMOTThad given Notice to move to add to subsection (1),
"The expression absolute right of veto' means any unqualified right vested in an authorised undertaker in any Act or Order whereby a power company is restricted from supplying electricity (exclusive of any right of supply for the purposes of any railway, tramway, canal, navigation, dock or harbour, or of any water undertaking) without the consent of such authorised undertaker in any specified area."
LORD MONK BRETTON: I should like to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Emmott.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is merely definition, and I am ready to accept it.
LOAN MONK BRETTON: If the House is willing to accept it without explanation, I have no objection.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 5, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Provisions as to the Acquisition of Generating Stations and Main Transmission Lines.
The price of a generating station or main transmission line shall be such sum as may be certified by an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners to have been the amount of the expenses properly incurred on and incidental to the provision of the generating station or main transmission line, less depreciation on a scale fixed by special order:
Provided that if the owners of the generating station or main transmission line or the Board are dissatisfied with the sum so certified, the matter in dispute shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the arbitration of a barrister (or in Scotland an advocate) appointed by the Minister of Transport from the appropriate panel set up under section four of this Act, and the arbitrator may, if he thinks it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more qualified assessors and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, immediately before the proviso, to insert "and, in the case of a main transmission line, such additional suns as will compensate the owner for the severance of the line from the owner's undertaking." The noble Lord said: Under Clause 5 a generating station can only be compulsorily acquired when the owners have failed to carry out the directions of the Board in respect to extensions or alterations and after an Order has been math, by the Minister and laid before Parliament. The owners will, therefore, have chosen to take the risk of compulsory sale rather than carry out the directions of the Board, and will have had an opportunity of being heard on the proceedings for the making of the Order. But under Clause 8 a main transmission line can be compulsorily acquired by the Board if it is so provided by the scheme. The owners have no choice and have not

997
defaulted in carrying out the directions of the Board.
Further, the severance of a main transmissions line may seriously affect the general distribution system of the owners. They may have to provide a new line, or to make re-arrangements of their system at a higher cost than the price which they will receive under the Schedule. There should be a provision to protect the owners against loss from such consequences.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This deals, of course, with main transmission lines. My noble friend is afraid that a main transmission line may be taken from one of these undertakers and that there ought to be some damage for severance, as it may injure their business. But main transmission lines do not form part of the business of the authorised undertakers and, therefore, the case would not arise; so I do not think it is necessary to make any provision for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Rules for Determining Cost of Production of Electricity at Selected Stations.
The cost of production of electricity at any selected station, shall be ascertained by calculating the following costs, charges and allowances in respect of the year of account:
(b) sums paid as rents, rates and taxes (other than taxes on profits) and for insurance, in respect of the station;
(e) interest (exclusive of interest payable out of capital), on money properly expended for capital purposes (whether defrayed out of capital or revenue) and attributable to the generating station and the plant suitable to and used for the purpose of generating electricity therein, and interest on working capital properly attributable to the station and the production of electricity therein.
The rate of interest for the purposes of this paragraph shall be—

(i) where the owners of a selected station are a joint electricity authority or a local
998
authority, the average rate payable on the money raised by the authority for the purpose;

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

THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER moved to insert in paragraph (b), after the words "other than taxes on profits," the words "except irrecoverable Income Tax." The noble Marquess said: This is an accounting point arising when a company pays the Income Tax and it does not recover the same amount from the Income Tax authorities on the dividends it has paid. Therefore I move that this should form part of the working expenses.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line;32, after ("profit") insert ("except irrecoverable Income Tax.").—(The Marquess of Winchester.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I suppose the noble Marquess is referring to Income Tax on profits. I do not understand how the Income Tax on profits can be considered to be a part of working expenses. If they cannot recover it, surely that is a matter between them and the taxing authorities.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: It is the point that they do lose it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very sorry they lose it, I know one does lose in discussions with the taxing authorities. I only submit that it is not part of the operating expenses.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in paragraph (e) (ii), relating to the rate of interest, to leave out "average rate of dividends and interest paid by the company on their share and loan capital during the preceding year; so, however, that the rate shall in no case be less than five nor more than" and to insert "rateof."
The noble Lord said: The effect of the Amendment is that it gives a company, who are made compulsorily to sell electricity to the Board, slightly better

999
terms than are given by the Bill. By Clause 7 it is provided that the owners of selected stations shall be compelled to sell to the Board all electricity generated at their stations at a price equal to the cost of production. The Second Schedule defines what the cost of production is to be. In paragraph (e) you find that the company is to be allowed interest upon certain things which are specified. I do not question that those are properly allowed. It says that the rate of interest for the purposes of this paragraph shall be as set out in subsection (ii) of the paragraph, so that the difference between the Bill and my Amendment is this. The Bill prescribes a rate of interest at the minimum of 5 per cent. and a maximum of 6½ per cent., and I propose a uniform 6½. I hope my noble friend will agree that a uniform rate is a fair rate to the persons who subscribe or may hereafter subscribe—and that is the important point—capital for generating electricity.
The reasons I advocate this change are these. There are many cases where companies have been paying larger dividends than 6½ per cent. On the other hand, there are cases where, in the bad years, companies have been paying less than 6½ per cent. and in the opinion of competent authorities—Lord Weir is one—it would be fair to have an average of 6½ per cent. If your Lordships look at paragraph 47 (b) of the Weir Report you will find this in reference to interest:
"Cost will include interest on the capital properly attributable to the generating stations (the interest will be at a uniform rate of, say, 6½ per cent., whether the generating stations to be controlled are owned by public authorities or companies);"
A statement was made by the Attorney-General in another place on an Amendment moved by Mr. Dennis Herbert, on November 11, 1926. The Amendment that was moved was as to the rate of interest to be allowed, but was not quite in the same form as the one I am moving. The Amendment moved by Mr. Dennis Herbert was that the interest on capital, other than loan and share capital, was to be 8 per cent. The Attorney-General, resisting that, said:—
"We are proposing that the average rate, dividend and interest shall be given, but we are conscious that there may be cases in which dividends are too high and others
1000
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."
I do not desire to tie the Attorney-General down to a pledge that it should be 6½, but it shows that 6½ per cent. would be a good fair average rate as a whole.
May I recall to your Lordships the fact that in several of these earlier Power Companies Acts, notably three passed in 1900, 1901 and 1902, 8 per cent, was recognised by three Acts of Parliament as a fair rate of dividend to be allowed upon the capital of companies who generate electricity. It was only when the dividends exceeded 8 per cent. that any alteration or adjustment in the price of electricity had to be made. The cases I refer to were the North Metropolitan Electric Supply Act of 1900, the Yorkshire Electric Supply Act of 1901 and the Newcastle-on-Tyne Electric Supply Act of 1902. And this 8 per cent. on the capital was fixed at a time when money could be borrowed very much cheaper than it can now—namely, in 1900 and 1902. May I add this further consideration, that this rate of interest which is to be fixed upon the companies' capital, so far as capital for generating stations is concerned, applies not merely to existing capital but to capital which may have to be raised in future by the companies in order to carry out the orders of the Board for improving existing stations or building new ones. I venture to think it is most important that if the companies are to carry out these orders reasonable inducements should be given to investors as to the rate of interest that is to be allowed on the capital that is to be raised.
I have been furnished with instances of very serious hardship which would occur to companies if the rate of interest or of dividends is fixed as low as 5 per cent. I will only trouble your lordships with one, which refers to a case in which capital was raised before the War and raised at a very low rate, 4 per cent. for debentures, and 5 per cent. for preference shares, the ordinary shares earning 6 per cent. If the principle laid down in this Bill is to be applied, the average rate of interest of that company would be only 5 per cent. I ask your lordships to consider what that

1001
means and I will give the noble Viscount the arithmetic if he likes to work it out.
Suppose this company is ordered to build new generating stations or improve existing ones and has to raise new capital, say £900,000, in debentures and preference and ordinary shares, it could not raise the money now at the old rate of 4 per cent. for debentures. Probably it would be 5½ per cent. Instead of the old rate of 5 per cent. for preference shares there would be 6 per cent. If the proposals of this Bill are adopted they would not be able to pay a dividend of more than 4 per cent. on their ordinary capital, or, if they sold their electricity cheaply, of more than 4½ per cent. If the new capital is to bear the rate of interest prescribed in the Bill, which is 5 per cent., and they have to pay 5½ per cent. for debentures and 6 per cent. for preference shares, that leaves only 4½ per cent. for the ordinary stock. The calculation is here and I have many others of a similar character. When I am fortified, as I am, by the view of the Weir Committee and to a certain extent by the Attorney-General, I hope the Government will agree to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 18, leave out from ("the") to ("six") in line 21., and insert ("rate of")—(Lord Danesfort.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I would like to point out that 4½ per cent. on the ordinary stock is less than the interest on War Loan. Therefore the money would not be raised at all.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether noble Lords have looked at the exact terms of this provision of the schedule which, as my noble friend has rightly said, deals with the rate that should be allowed in interest on money for the purpose of calculating the cost of the production of electricity at these selected stations. It is, of course, an average. The words are:—
"The average rate of dividends and interest paid by the company on their share and loan capital during the preceding year."
If the average is less than 5 per cent. it is to be treated as 5 per cent.; it shall not fall below 5 per cent. or go above 6½ per cent. They get the actual ratio of the average that they pay for their money, with that proviso.
1002
My noble friend spoke of some difficulty about raising money. He said that you had to pay more for money than a few years ago. But, after all, what are you raising it for? You are raising it for an absolutely safe and secure undertaking for the purpose of developing an absolutely safe and sure market for any amount of electricity that you produce under orders. I do not want to be dogmatic, but you get 6½ per cent. on an investment as safe as Consols. I should be very glad to put my money into an undertaking on those terms. No doubt my noble friend likes something more speculative, but I am more cautious; I am an Englishman and he is an Irishman. It seems to me a pretty satisfactory average. He mentioned a statement made by the Attorney-General. I should like to look into that—he need not give it to me now for it is rather late, but at some more reasonable hour of the day. I hope he will not press the Amendment. I cannot make any promise on any question of increasing the rate, but I should like to look into the point.
LORD DANESFORT: My noble friend charges me with an unreasonableness which I do not think that I possess. Like him, I should be only too happy, being cautious, to get 6½ per cent. in a safe security. That is exactly what I propose in my Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If they earn it.
LORD DANESFORT: But the Point is this: Supposing that in the last year they earned only 3 or 4 per cent. on their ordinary capital, while in the normal year they earned 6 or 7 per cent.—still we are told that they must not get more than 5 per cent. when they sell electricity. Surely that is not fair. They may claim, for instance, that last year they had a bad year, owing to the cast of coal and so on, while on the average of five years they have been earning 6 or 7 per cent. on their ordinary capital. That would be reasonable enough. But here you are forced to take what you earn on your capital during the last year, and this is fixed for ever.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, it is not at all fixed for ever. My noble friend has not looked at the words:
"the average rate of dividends and interest paid by the company on the share capital during the preceding year."

1003
Therefore, the question is, what is the cost of production of the electricity? It will be based on the average in the preceding year. It will change from year to year.
LORD DANESFORT: If that is the real meaning of it it is rather different. But I understood that it meant that when electricity is sold by the undertaker to the Board they got only the rate which they earned in the preceding year.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, but then that preceding year is constantly changing.
LORD DANESFORT: So the rate changes every year?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, I understand it so. It is like Income Tax, which is not the same every year. Your income varies from year to year, and therefore your charge varies from year to year. If five years hence I sell electricity, the price is based on the cost of production in the preceding year, and in that cost of production one of the elements is the average rate of dividend on capital in the preceding year.
LORD DANESFORT: That throws a new light upon it. I will withdraw the Amendment and consider the matter before Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to add to the paragraphs relating to interest the following proviso:—
"Provided that in the case of any company which is a London company within the meaning of the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, such average rate aforesaid shall be taken to be the average rate of the interest payable by the company and of the dividends which such company is entitled to retain or distribute in the year of account under the provisions of the London Electricity (Nos. 1 and 2) Acts, 1925, together with a proper proportion of any co-partnership benefit payable in such year under the said Acts or either of them."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to put the generating stations of London on the same basis as what was arranged for the whole undertaking under the London settlement of 1925. Under the London settlement of 1925 interest of 10 per cent. was payable up to 1931 and 7 per cent. after that date.
1004
It is surely better that within such a short time there should not be an axe coming down, altering the rate of interest and impinging upon the co-partnership schemes. I should be quite ready to suggest that the 10 per cent. rate should be maintained, at least until 1931, but after that period it might be possible for the companies, fully warned, to come within the general scheme of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 22, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that the noble Lord wishes to make some differentiation in the case of the London companies.
LORD ASKWITH: No, they have it already. The point is that the companies are authorised at present to pay dividends on a sliding scale and to set up co-partnership schemes for the distribution of benefits to the employees.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that what the noble Lord wishes to do is to link up provisions in the London Acts with regard to the sliding scale with the provisions of this schedule, which deal with cost of production, which are two different things. I think as regards this scale that London companies ought to be treated in the same way as other companies and you have no business to import provisions from one scale into another. I will, however, if the noble Lord wishes, examine the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:

FIFTH SCHEDULE.
Amendments of Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.
S. 20. … After the words "electric signalling communication," wherever they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or electrical control of railways."
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, before the reference to Section 20, to insert "Section 13. In subsection (1) the proviso shall be omitted." The noble Lord

1005
said: That provision to omit the proviso was in the original draft of the Bill as introduced in another place, and it was only on the Report stage that it was said certain municipal authorities objected. The words are:
"Provided that where the local authority are not themselves the undertakers, no such box or apparatus shall be placed above ground, except with the consent of the authority, body, or person, by whom the street is repairable."
The effect is that in every case where local authorities have been themselves the undertakers they have made extensive use of these boxes above ground.
The electric tramway companies have that power and exercise it, and no trouble has followed, but there have been a great many cases all over the country—not so much in London—where in the most arbitrary manner refusals have been returned to applications for leave to place these boxes above ground. Having regard to the unreasonable exercise of the veto it is time it was removed altogether and all these different companies put upon the same footing.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 39, at end insert ("S.13. In subsection (1) the proviso shall be omitted")— (Lord Askwith.)
LORD JESSEL: I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment because it is true that in certain cases local authorities have abused their powers, but taking the country throughout the local authorities are not the undertakers, and as custodians of the highways it is better for them to have power to refuse boxes, especially in places like London, than for them to be deprived of this power. I understand the local authorities have had this power to refuse unsightly boxes since 1889, and it will be most inconvenient and lead to a lot of delay if questions of this sort have to be referred to the Electricity Commissioners. As I have said, it is only in a few places that municipal authorities have abused their authority, and throughout most of the country they are not doing it. They have the right of doing what is fair and proper and of preventing obstructions from the setting up of these things in the streets.
I hope the Government will not accept my noble friend's Amendment. I have been asked by the Metropolitan Boroughs
1006
Standing Joint Committee, which represents all parties and all the boroughs in London, to oppose this Amendment, because they are very jealous of the powers of controlling the highway being taken away from them, and because I believe it will cause a great deal of delay and trouble.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I suggest to my noble friend that it would be unwise to prevent the local authorities exercising their veto or giving leave regarding these boxes. I should have thought it was a matter well within the province of the local authorities and one they might well be trusted to exercise with discretion. I hope my noble friend will leave the matter as it is.
LORD GAINFORD: Might I point out that these local authorities put their boxes up where they like for similar purposes and that tramway companies who have nothing to do with local authorities also put them up where they like? But there is this safeguard to the local authorities—that they can appeal to two authorities: either to the Electricity Commissioners or to the Minister and can secure redress if anything unreasonable is done in connection with those boxes. No evils have occurred and no difficulties have been created for the local authorities in the case of the tramways and we press this Amendment merely to prevent the local authorities taking an arbitrary right to prevent the interest of other people having a reasonable opportunity. I hope that the noble Viscount will again consider the point before the Report stage if he cannot accept the Amendment to-night.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend appeals to me. I really cannot make any promise regarding the Report stage, but I certainly will enquire into the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, before the reference to Section 20, to insert "S. 14. In paragraph (1) (a) after the words 'one month' there shall be inserted 'or in the case of service lines, seven days.'" The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to correct a difference in the periods of notice. The section of the Clauses Act referred to provides that one month's notice has to be given to road authorities for all "works" in any roads. Certain local authorities have

1007
recently insisted upon a month's notice for service lines, but most have always accepted either three or seven days' notice. Section 25 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amended Section 26 of the 1882 Act in respect to notices to the Postmaster-General to seven days for service lines, but strangely did not amend Section 14 of the Clauses Acts which makes the month's notice necessary for the Postmaster-General as well as for the local authorities. My Amendment would make the term the same in all cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 39, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am informed that the notice to break up roads is a month under the existing Acts, though some local authorities are ready to waive that length of time in certain cases. The Postmaster-General also has to have a month's notice, and I understand that he objects very strongly to any alteration in the notice. I do not think I can assent to such a considerable reduction of the notice as it is opposed by many of these authorities.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not know whether the noble Viscount is aware that under one Act the Postmaster-General must have a month's notice and under another Act seven days' notice.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of the Schedule, to insert "otherwise than by track circuits." The noble Lord said: I am told that this is a very important matter and that as worded the proposed provision goes too far. Unless these words are inserted existing lines might be easily interfered with by the very delicate and sensitive effects upon track circuits. They might have to be protected in a manner which is most unreasonable because the effect of these currents upon them is very difficult to detect.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 43, at end insert ("otherwise than by track circuits").—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that railway companies do in fact use track
1008
circuits for signalling purposes, and that the effect of this Amendment would be to take away the protection which the railways already have. I hope my noble friend will not press it.
LORD ASKWITH: I really must ask the noble Viscount to reconsider it before Report, as it is rather late now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Sixth Schedule:

SIXTH SCHEDULE.
Minor Amendments of Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882–1922.

Enactment to be amended.

Nature of Amendment.

LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in the reference to the Electricity Supply Act, 1922, to insert

"S.5 …

At the end of subsection (4) there shall be added the words 'but nothing in any 'such scheme shall be deemed 'to impose on any such 'authorised undertakers any 'liability to make any such 'contribution after the 'expiration of a period of 'not exceeding three years 'from the date of the 'constitution of the autho-'or body."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to remedy a difficulty in the Act of 1922. Section 5, subsection (4), of that Act enables the Electricity Commissioners, when a new joint electricity authority is set up, to require the existing authorised undertakers in the area to contribute to the administration expenses of the joint authority.
At the time the 1922 Act was before this House the dangerous possibilities of this provision were foreseen and some objection was offered to the clause as it then stood. The noble Viscount defended the provision on the ground that, when a new joint electricity authority was set up, it would at first have certain small administrative expenses and it was only reasonable that the existing authorities in the area, the authorised undertakers, should help to meet those expenses. It was on that understanding—I do not put it any higher; it was a reasonable undertanding—that the opposition to

1009
the clause was withdrawn. Experience however, has shown that the actual practice has gone very far beyond what was then regarded as the intentions of the Act. Authorised undertakers in several parts of the country—I speak more particularly for the London supply companies which have not been absorbed in the joint electricity authority for the London area—are being forced by orders of the Electricity Commissioners to pay shares of expenses which are by no means initial and by no means inconsiderable, but, on the contrary, are both unlimited in time and in amount. A reference was made at an earlier stage of the evening to a case in which the joint electricity authority had opposed certain Bills promoted by the London supply companies. The London supply companies lost their Bills but they had to pay a share of the expenses of the joint electricity authority in offering their opposition.
When a joint electricity authority is first set up and has no factory of its own, when it does not make or sell current, it must have its preliminary expenses met in some way or other, and it is arguable that the undertakers already existing in the area should contribute to those expenses, but when once the joint authority is on its own legs, when it sells its own current and collects its own revenues, it seems only fair and reasonable that it should meet its own administrative expenses. It seems, on the contrary, extremely unfair and unreasonable that it should be able to pass on those expenses, or even a share of them, to supply companies in the area which are quite independent of it. That unfairness becomes still clearer when the joint electricity authority in question is in active competition with the independent companies which it is asking to contribute to its expenses. The position may actually arise of the joint electricity authority fighting the companies and at the same time feeding on them, forcing them to raise their charges to their own consumers in order that the charges of the joint electricity authority's consumers may be lightened.
That seems clearly unfair and opposed to the purpose of the section in the Act of 1922. What this Amendment proposes to do is to limit the liability which we always understood was to be limited but which the Electricity Commissioners are now in
1010
some respects making unlimited. We propose to limit it by a somewhat rule of-thumb suggestion that the liability should not extend beyond the first three years of the existence of the joint authority concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Meston.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that the noble Lord thinks that these joint electricity authorities ought not to raise money to meet these particular charges for a longer period than three years. He quoted some statement of mine made, I think, four years ago. I cannot tell without looking at it whether I may have slightly understated the particular expenses which would fall upon the joint electricity authorities and which they might have to charge upon their constituent bodies. I am not sure what is going to happen when this arbitrary three years is fixed. They have certain expenses and after the three years they are no longer able to raise them from the people from whom they did raise them.
I do not quite understand what is to happen. Are they going bankrupt? Surely they must raise them in some fashion or other, and though the noble Lord says they ought to be able to raise them because they are going concerns with incomes of their own, if they have not in fact incomes of their own the money has to be raised in some fashion. Surely it is not wise to say that after three years the contributors shall no longer be liable. You would get into almost an impracticable impasse. It may be that at some time these charges should cease to be made, but is not that the actual thing that would happen as soon as they have an income of their own? As soon as they have an income of their own they would deal with these charges themselves. What is going to happen at the end of three years if they have no income of their own?
LORD MESTON: The difficulty is that there is no compulsion on the part of the joint electricity authority even if it has reserves of its own to release the undertakings from the liability which the orders under the Act impose. Although the three years is an arbitrary suggestion, I am quite prepared to agree

1011
to any reasonable term longer than three years or any reasonable method of limiting liability. But I do feel that the liability in its present unlimited form goes far beyond the original intention and ought to be in some way restricted. If the noble Viscount is prepared to consider the matter from this point of view I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was only wondering while the noble Lord was speaking whether it would not be possible to make some arrangement that when they receive an income it would be their duty to relieve the contributors of charges. I will consider the point if the noble Lord wishes, but I think you cannot lay down an arbitrary period of three years.
LORD MESTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount and I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MESTON: I beg formally to move the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Oranmore and Browne to insert a new paragraph in the references to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 22, at end insert—

("S. 5. …

After the first proviso to subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words Provided also that no council of a county or borough or county district shall under the provisions of this section lend any sum or sums exceeding one million pounds or subscribe for any securities or join in guaranteeing the interest on any securities the nominal value whereof exceeds one million pounds unless authorised so to do by an Order of the Electricity Commissioners confirmed by the Minister and such Order shall be provisional only and shall not come into force unless confirmed by Parliament.").—(Lord Meston.)

VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment has not been presented in any way and has only been formally moved. I understand it may be out of order because it is an attempt to place statutory restrictions on third parties who are not concerned with the measure. It is an attempt to amend Section 5 of the Act of 1922 and the real effect is to bar the
1012
L.C.C. from action under Section 5 of that Act where the amount exceeds one million pounds. I confess that as no justification has been placed before me for this Amendment I am bound to resist it.
LORD MESTON: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My concluding Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 45, line 36, after ("to") insert ("an undertaking or part thereof in respect of which").
Page 45, Line 37, after ("authority") insert ("is").—(Viscount Peel.)
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH: May I ask when the Report stage will be taken?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Probably next week.

NAVAL RESERVE (OFFICERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, this is a short Bill of two operative clauses which I hope I can explain in very few words. It deals solely with officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. Under the Act of 1863, pensions were limited to disablement caused by wounds. There was no provision for disablement from disease attributed to service. Similarly, the old Act limited pensions to widows. There was no provision for children. Officers of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve have had these limitations withdrawn and a new scheme for payment of pensions for disablement or death on service has come into force, but until the Act of 1863 is amended an improved scheme cannot be applied to officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. That is what Clause 1 seeks to effect.
Clause 2 is for a different purpose. Again under the Act of 1863, the

1013
Admiralty had to obtain an Order in Council for any change, however small, in the Regulations affecting the service of Royal Naval Reserve officers. It is now proposed that, unless questions of pay or allowances are affected, an Order in Council shall not be necessary. This Bill does not in any way encroach on existing rights and privileges of Royal Naval Reserve officers. It extends to them benefits already enjoyed by other officers, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (No 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Desborough, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is entirely uncontroversial, and has been approved by the National Federation of Employers' Organisations and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BURGH REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
SMALL HOLDINGS ANT ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª;to be printed and to be read 2ª on Monday next.

STORNOWAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been
1014
read 2ª, and reported from the Committee.

BRIDGWATER GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Bridgwater Gas Light Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TORQUAY GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Torquay and Paignton Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LLANFRECHFA UPPER ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Llanfrechfa Upper, in the County of Monmouth:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TRURO ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the City of Truro, in the County of Cornwall:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TYNEDALE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Prudhoe and part of the rural district of Hexham, in the County of Northumberland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

FIFE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, &c.) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been pre-

1015
sented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MERSTHAM ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House, and that they have considered certain proposals for the modification of the
1016
Order and recommend their adoption to the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in the Chairman of Committees Committee room, to-morrow, at half-past eleven o'clock.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past One o'clock a.m.