Sitting of 23 February 1927

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
STREET TRADING IN LONDON.
Mr. HARRIS: I beg to present a Petition on the subject of street trading in London, which is signed by 64,250 persons. It is the petition of the Federation of Costermongers and Street Traders' Unions. The London County Council (General Powers) Bill, introduced into the House of Commons, proposes to prohibit street trading except under licence regulations; and the petitioners pray that this Honourable House will give instructions that such proposal shall not be put into force, or shall be delayed until after consultation with the London County Council and the Federation of Costermongers' and Street Traders' Unions.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bradford Corporation Bill (by Order),
Buxton Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Leeds Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 9th March, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Smethwick Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
West Bromwich Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY COMMISSION.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what was the cost involved in the re-issue of Card. Paper 2774?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): After the presentation to Parliament of the Report of the Commission on Extra-Territoriality in China, Command Paper 2774, information was received from the Secretaries-General of the Commission that the copy of the British text supplied to the Foreign Office was not complete. In these circumstances it was deemed advisable to reissue the Command Paper in a complete form. The added passages will be found on pages 7 and 128 of the re-issued Command Paper. The cost involved in the re-issue of the Paper amounts to £18 1s. 6d.
    Viscount SANDON: Could not this information have been given on a single sheet of paper?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: With a document of some consequence like this, I thought it would be for the convenience of everybody concerned to have all the information correct and complete.

    FRENCH TROOPS AND SHIPS.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have recently moved any troops or ships to China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

    SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British and Indian troops have been landed in Shanghai luring the last two months, and on which part of the International Concession the troops are housed; and has any protest been received from the Chinese Governments against the landing of these troops?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Before my right hon. Friend answers this question, I would like to ask whether it is in the public interest that information of this kind should be given to persons who opposed giving protection to British citizens abroad?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the number of troops, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Prime Minister on the 10th instant. Such troops as have been landed are all accommodated in various British properties in the International Settlement. In my reply on the 21st February to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff East, I read the text of Mr. Chen's protest against the despatch of British troops to Shanghai. A protest has also been made by the Peking Government.
    Mr. BECKETT: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about the rumours of a mutiny among a battalion of Punjabis?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no foundation whatever for them.

    WANHSIEN INCIDENT.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has received any complaint or other communication from the Chinese Government relating to the bombardment of the city of Wanhsien in September last, a bombardment which resulted in the loss of many lives and the destruction of much property, including damage to the Roman Catholic cathedral; if any Report has been received from the British officers who ordered and carried out this bombardment or from the admiral in command in Chinese waters; and will he lay upon the Table of the House copies of any correspondence which has passed between the F reign Office and the Chinese Government in connection with this incident and any Reports that have been received from the officers in charge of the ship or ships which carried out the bombardment?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first and second parts of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the replies given to the hon. Members
    1734
    for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson) and for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) on the 1st December last. The third part of his question is covered by the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Trevelyan) on the 21st instant.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers it conducive to friendly feelings towards British people that the House of Commons should not have any particulars of these incidents after six months?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I think the course I have ventured to advise the House to take is more conducive to friendly relations with the Chinese people than that which is being taken by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the bombardment of a city of a friendly Power is conducive to friendly relations with the Government that allows such a thing to be done, without giving its Parliament any information?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman's description of the event bears no relation to the facts of the case.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House and the country the true particulars from the officers on the spot?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said I do not think it serves the interests of peace or good relations between ourselves and the Chinese people to stir this matter up.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his refusal to publish these papers is giving rise to the impression that this country has a great deal to hide in this matter?
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIIN: That would not be the case if it were not for the kind of questions put in this House.

    SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES, MAY, 1925.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to publish in this country the Report of the Consular Com-

    1735
    mittee which inquired into the disturbances which occurred in Shanghai during the month of May, 1925; whether any protest in connection with this incident has been received by the Foreign Office from the Chinese Government, of has any correspondence taken place between the Chinese authorities in Shanghai and His Majesty's Government, and, if so, will he lay copies of all correspondence which has take place between Chinese authorities and the British Government upon the Table of this House?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Report of the Commission sent by the Diplomatic Body to Shanghai in June, 1925. This Report was published, together with summaries of the reports of the International Commission of Judges, in December of that year. The hon. Member will find it on page 938 of the China Year Book for 1926. Two notes of protest were addressed by the Chinese Government to the Diplomatic Body on the 1st June and the 4th June respectively, to which a reply was returned This correspondence has also been published, and will be found in the China Year Book, page 930. There has been no correspondence on this subject between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government, apart from that conducted jointly with other governments concerned through the Diplomatic Body. As these documents have been published and are available, it appears unnecessary to lay them.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House any information regarding the bombardment of Shanghai?

    "PEOPLE'S TRIBUNE."
    Mr. VIANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a British-owned newspaper, the "Peoples Tribune," published daily in Peking in the English language, has been ordered to stop printing in Peking; and whether he can make any statement as to the reasons given for this action on the part of the authorities in Peking?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am making inquiries, but have not yet received any information.

    HANKOW (EX-RUSSIAN CONCESSION).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the nature of the administration of the ex-Russian concession at Hankow dining the last few years; whether it is similar to the administration proposed regarding the British concession there; and whether it has worked to the satisfaction of the foreign interests concerned?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The regulations for the ex-Russian concession at Hankow provide for a municipal council consisting of a chairman nominated by the Civil Governor, three elected foreign, and three elected Chinese members. They also provide for the discussion of the annual balance sheet and budget by the general meeting of ratepayers, and for the submission of new by-laws to the general meeting of ratepayers for approval. In its general character this administration is similar to that agreed upon for the British Concession.
    In his despatch forwarding the Report of the working of this administration for the year 1925, His Majesty's Minister says that it "has proved highly satisfactory," and His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow remarks in the same connection that "the future can be looked forward to with confidence."

    HANKOW AGREEMENT.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the agreement which has been signed regarding Hankow will be made available for public information; and whether it contains provisions for compensation for losses suffered by British subjects, for the recognition of the rights of private property, and for the continuation in employment of the staff of the British Municipal Council there?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already given to the House the text of all the documents that have reached me relating to the agreement regarding the British Concession at Hankow. As only insignificant damage was done to property, the question of compensation for damage does not arise. I am not yet in a position to deal with the other points of detail raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. LOOKER: May I ask if we have had the full text of the Chinese agreement entered into at Hankow?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I have not myself got the full text of the agreement, but I shall be glad to communicate it to the House when I receive it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the women and children turned out of Hankow, and who received accommodation at Shanghai have been put to considerable expense; and are we to understand that no compensation is to (be made to them for that expense?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, when families are displaced in that way, they are put to great expense, and it is a great hardship to the people concerned. That, however, is not a matter upon which I feel that I can make a claim for compensation, and no claim was made in the negotiations.

    SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to negotiations for Chinese representation on the Shanghai Municipal Council?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 11th of January His Majesty's Minister reported that the Diplomatic Body had authorised the Consular Body in Shanghai to endeavour to reach an immediate temporary arrangement with the local Chinese authorities for the addition of three Chinese representatives to the Municipal Council, in anticipation of the formal steps which must be taken in order to introduce the necessary alterations in the Land Regulations.
    Mr. SMITH: Have there been any further developments in those negotiations with regard to the proportion of representation on the Shanghai Municipal Council?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that there is a majority of British representatives on the council, would the Foreign Secretary be prepared to suggest that one or two of the British Chinese representatives should stand down in favour of Chinese, in order to make negotiations more possible in the circumstances?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question on the Paper.

    ARMS EMBARGO AGREEMENT.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which European countries are parties to the China Arms Embargo Agreement of May, 1919; and with which country or countries have there arisen differences in the interpretation of the agreement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The following countries are parties to the Agreement; Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, United States of America, Brazil, France, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. The object of the Agreement was to restrain the nationals of the Powers concerned from importing into China arms and munitions of war and material destined exclusively for their manufacture. Differences of opinion have arisen as to the degree of strictness with which these terms should be interpreted. The French and Italian Governments have asserted their freedom to export aircraft to China, and Denmark has exported machinery to be used for arsenal equipment.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether any country has exported aeroplanes or aeroplane armaments to the Cantonese forces?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, Sir. I think Russia undoubtedly has.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that aeroplanes have actually been sent by France and Italy to the Cantonese forces?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say whether, up to the present time, anything is being supplied. But to distinguish between civil and military aircraft is a very difficult thing, as those who have given attention to the subject know; and some difference of opinion arose between us and other Powers as to what were to be considered military aircraft, and what were not. I believe that aircraft have been supplied to the Peking Government by some of the Powers concerned.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether the French and Italian Governments are asserting their freedom to export aeroplanes to China, including

    1739
    freedom to export aeroplanes to the Cantonese forces?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of exporting to this force or to that, but of exporting to China.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the complaint against Russia that she is arming the Cantonese?

    NAVAL SHORE LEAVE.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the disciplinary Navy regulations on H.M.S. "Vindictive," and other naval vessels in Chinese waters, require officers and other ranks to return to their ships before midnight, or before any earlier or later hour?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The hours at which shore leave expire must necessarily be left to the discretion of the senior naval officer.

    DOMINION TROOPS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether invitations have been sent to the Governments of His Majesty's self-governing Dominions to send troops to China to co-operate with the British troops; what replies have been received; and whether it is intended to lay the correspondence upon the Table?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and, accordingly, the remainder of the question does not arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Reports of the Debates in the Canadian Parliament, in which it is stated that there have been communications?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen them myself, but I was told that no statement of any kind was made. In any case, there has been no correspondence at all.

  LITHUANIA AND PORTUGAL.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of reports spread about Europe that His Majesty's Govern-
  1740
  meat were supporting, or viewed benevolently, the establishment of a dictatorship in Lithuania and the maintenance of the dictatorship in Portugal; and whether he can take any action in countering such suggestions
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of these reports, but I scarcely think that they are worth noticing. It is not the practice of His Majesty's Government to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, or to foment or encourage revolutions in them; but it is our concern to maintain friendly relations with these countries, and, therefore, with whatever Governments are established in them.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Could my right hon. Friend say who originated these false reports?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, Sir, they come from a source which is fertile in false reports.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ELECTION OF COUNCIL.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that at its meeting on 25th September, 1926, the Assembly of the League of Nations unanimously adopted a resolution requesting the Council of the League to instruct the secretariat to study a system of the single transferable vote and the principle of proportional representation in general in connection with the problem of the election of the non-permanent members of the Council, in order that this question may be laid before the next ordinary session of the Assembly, he will say what action the Council took at the last meeting in the matter; what was the attitude of the representative of His Majesty's Government; and what were the grounds on which that action was founded?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Council considered this question at their last meeting, and decided to adjourn consideration until the next session of the Council. I expressed the opinion that a Memorandum prepared by the Norwegian Government gave all the necessary information, and that the expenditure of 2,500 Swiss franca on the employment of experts, if such existed, would be a waste of money.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (CIVIL AVIATION).
    Sir G. WHELER (for Commander BELLAIRS)asked the Secretary of State for Air what were the views put forward by the British delegates on civil aviation in the committee appointed by the League Preparatory Commission for the disarmament conference?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It would be inadvisable to make any statement on this subject at the present time, when the Report of the Commitee in question has not yet been considered by the League of Nations.

  M. SABLIN.
  Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether diplomatic recognition is afforded to M. Sablin by the Foreign Office; and, if so, in what capacity?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  Mr. MOSLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any interviews to M. Sablin since assuming office?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I have not.
  Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any propaganda undertaken in this country by M. Sablin?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH SEAMAN'S DETENTION.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will have inquiries made into the case of David Scott, a British mercantile marine fireman, who was imprisoned in Novorrossisk, Russia, for 12 months, without trial, from December, 1925, to December, 1926, by the Russian authorities, and then deported from the country?
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply was given by the Soviet Government to the protest of His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow concerning the detention in prison without trial of Mr. David Scott; whether any complaint was laid against Mr. Scott by the Soviet
    1742
    authorities; and, if not, will any reparation be made to him for wrongful imprisonment?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair, whether any reply has yet been received to the protest made by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow to the Soviet Government regarding the prolonged detention in gaol without trial and ultimate deportation of Mr. David Scott; and, if no reply has been received, what steps he proposes to take to obtain compensation?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention was called to this case some little time ago, and His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow has protested to the Soviet Government against Mr. Scott's prolonged detention without trial. The charge against Mr. Scott was that of agitation against the Soviet Government, and he was deported from Russia as an undesirable alien. The Soviet Government, in their reply to Sir R. Hodgson's protest, stated that Mr. Scott had been accused of actions contrary to the laws of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and that every step was taken to ensure a speedy investigation of his case.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the practice in Soviet Russia for a prisoner to be detained for a long time without trial?
    Miss LAWRENCEHas the attention of the Foreign Secretary been drawn to the fact that Mr. Scott in his printed statement says that he deserted his ship, and entered Soviet Russia by that means, and can the Foreign Secretary tell us what would be the proceedings of the Home Secretary in regard to a similar incident in England?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly could not answer those questions without the notice which they deserve. I am afraid it is the case that the process of bringing people to trial is not so rapid in all other countries as it is habitually in our own country.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has taken any steps whatever to obtain compensation for Mr. Scott?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not think this is a case in which I could claim compensation.
    Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether any tangible evidence was adduced by the Soviet Government to substantiate their charges against Mr. Scott?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice ought to be given of that question.

    ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House of the date when he last protested to the Russian Soviet authorities with regard to breaches by them of the terms of the trade agreement; what was the nature of the protest; and what result was obtained?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 11th October last, in a conversation with the late M. Krassin, I protested against the Soviet propaganda throughout the British Empire, and during an interview with the present Russian Chargé d'Affaires, on the 14th instant, I again referred, with some emphasis, to the same subject. I regret to say that I have not noticed, as a result of these protests, any diminution in the hostility openly shown to the British Empire by the Soviet authorities.
    Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the recent very serious events in China, is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious loss of prestige which Great Britain has suffered in having an agreement specially dealing with this matter, the terms of which are not enforced?
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a great deal of feeling in the whole country on this matter, and on the general matter of the trade agreement?

  HUNGARY (DISARMAMENT).
  Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Hungary has yet carried out the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Trianon; and whether a date has yet been fixed for the transfer of control over Hungarian armaments to the League of Nations?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Hungarian Government have recently undertaken to fulfil the few remaining obligations arising out of the military
  1744
  clauses of the Treaty of Trianon, and latest reports indicate that this undertaking is being satisfactorily implemented. No definite date has yet been fixed for the transfer of control to the League of Nations, but I understand that it should be possible for the Inter-Allied Military Control Commission to complete its work in the near future.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RECRUITING STATIONS.
    Major GLYNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many recruiting depots are maintained by the Admiralty; and at what annual cost?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): There are seven Headquarter Recruiting Stations and 29 Recruiting Out-stations. The estimated annual cost, including the salaries of the Director of Naval Recruiting and Headquarters Staff, is shown under Vote 1.D. of the Navy Estimates, and amounts to £26,000. In addition, a sum of £3,000 is provided under Vote 11.Q. for advertising purposes.
    Colonel DAY: Is it intended to increase these recruiting depots?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, not so far as I am aware.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the naval recruiting service is under the control of the Royal Marines, and that 10 district staff officers, officers, and medical officers, in addition to 55 at Whitehall, are maintained, he will consider whether chief petty officers with the rank of acting warrant- officer could efficiently perform these duties at a saving of public funds?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Naval Recruiting Service is under the control of the Board of Admiralty, and is administered by a Royal Marine officer as Director of Naval Recruiting, assisted by an Assistant-Director, seven naval and Royal Marines recruiting staff officers, and seven naval medical officers. It is not considered that chief petty officers with acting warrant rank could carry out the work of recruiting staff officers.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of maintaining medical officers at naval recruiting centres; and will he consider whether a saving could be effected by arranging for medical officers from naval depots to visit these centres once or twice weekly for the purpose of medically examining candidates for entry into His Majesty's Navy?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is a retired naval medical officer in receipt of a salary of £300 per annum at each of the six provincial headquarter recruiting stations. At the London headquarter recruiting station an active service surgeon-commander is employed, and receives the pay of his rank. The travelling expenses, including subsistence, of medical officers travelling from the home ports twice weekly to Newcastle, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester and Southampton, would be far greater than the salares paid. Moreover, the attendance of a medical officer only twice a week at a headquarter station would not meet requirements, as intending recruits must be examined when putting in an appearance, and this necessitates the attendance of a medical officer the whole of each working day.

    CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS, DEVONPORT (HOUSING).
    Major GLYNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements have been made at Devonport, with the assistance of the Admiralty and the local authority, to provide houses for those civilian employés who, having been employed on naval dockyard work at Rosyth, were transferred to Devonport when the northern dockyard was closed down; how many men are affected; and what is the financial aid that is being given by the Admiralty in kind or cash, and how much money is being provided by the local authority?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A scheme has been drawn up for the erection of some 174 houses by a public utility society which I understand is now in process of formation by the dockyard employés, and the Admiralty have expressed their willingness to convey the necessary land for the erection of the houses. The Corporation of Plymouth are, I understand, prepared to accept the proposed houses
    1746
    as eligible for subsidy, and to advance money to the society under Section 92 of the Housing Act, 1925. The value of the land is equivalent to about £25 per house.
    Major GLYN: Did the Treasury offer any objection to that arrangement?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; this was done after consultation with the Treasury. I dare say there may possibly have been differences of opinion at one time, but it is done by agreement with them.

    LEADING SEAMEN AND STOKERS (PROMOTION).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether leading ratings of the seamen and stoker branches are placed on the roster for promotion to petty officer from the date of being rated leading rates or from the date of finally passing for petty officer?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Leading seamen are placed on the advancement roster according to the date of passing for petty officer. Leading stokers are placed on the advancement roster according to seniority as acting leading stoker. If passed afloat for stoker petty officer after failure at the mechanical training establishment course, seniority as acting leading stoker is retarded by the period which has elapsed between such failure and the date of passing afloat.

    ARTIFICER APPRENTICES, CHATHAM.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the present facilities for training and messing artificer apprentices at Chatham are adequate for the 600 apprentices to be transferred; whether any further extension of workshops and messes is contemplated; and, if so, what is to be the approximate cost?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It is under consideration to transfer the entire training of artificer apprentices to Chatham, which will involve increased workshop and living accommodation for them at that port. The proposal has not yet proceeded far enough for an estimate of cost to be stated.

  CRUISER CONSTRUCTION (GREAT BRITAIN, JAPAN, AND UNITED STATES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, how many cruisers are actually under construction at the present time for the navies of Great Britain, including His Majesty's Dominions, Japan, and the United States of America, respectively?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The numbers actually under construction are:

  British Empire

  …

  11

  Japan

  …

  6

  United States of America

  …

  2

  Full information on the Navies of the world is published annually in the Command Paper, the new edition of which will be issued very shortly.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT PAYMENTS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour how many of those drawing unemployment benefit have received 13 weeks' benefit in the last 26 weeks?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I regret that there are no statistics available giving the information desired.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases in the Middlesbrough area in which he was unable to accept the decision of the rota committee as regards applications for extended benefit during the past three months?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the three months ended 14th February, 1927, out of 14,074 applications for extended benefit considered by local committees in the Middlesbrough area, the recommendations of the committees were not accepted in 61 cases.
    Colonel Day (for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN)asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that R. Thomson, 319, Main Street, Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, has been refused benefit under Clauses 1 and 4 of Form U.I. 503; that this man was employed as caretaker of the Quarter Mines Welfare Society from
    1748
    24th January, 1924, until 21st March, 1924, when he had to resign owing to ill-health, for which he has a medical certificate; that he started work on 27th March, 1926, as green-keeper with the East Kilbride Bowling Club and worked until 25th September, 1926, when he was dismissed at the end of the season; that he attended two committee meetings and has been informed that on both occasions benefit was recommended; and that the words, the committee consider, have been scored out in Clauses 1 and 4 and the words, it is considered, written in in both clauses; and whether he can state what the recommendations of the committee were, who altered the wording of the clauses, and by whose authority?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is that benefit should be allowed and to the second that the decision by which the recommendation was not accepted was communicated to the applicant by a letter from the local office, which enclosed a printed form, suitably amended, to indicate the grounds upon which the claim was disallowed and tie fact that the disallowance had not been recommended by the Committee.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether this letter was delivered or returned?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The letter was delivered, but perhaps I should caution the hon. Member, who is asking the question on behalf of the hon. Member who is absent, that the facts do not entirely correspond with those stated in the question on the Paper.
    Colonel DAY (for Mr. N. MACLEAN)asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of five men who were fined at Greenock Sheriff Court on 8th February, 1927, for alleged fraud on the Labour Exchange arising out of their employment as enumerators at the counting of the votes at the municipal election in November, 1926; whether he is aware that these men were sent to the corporation for this work by the Exchange officials and that no intimation that acceptance of the work, which was for one evening only, would disqualify them from receiving benefit; whether he is aware that one of the men charged had done similar work

    1749
    in 1925, and on that occasion had been informed by the Exchange officials that it would not affect his benefit; whether any new Regulation has been issued on this matter since 1925; and, if so, why the men were not informed that acceptance of evening work for one night only would disqualify them from receiving benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am making inquiries into the circumstances, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Sir FRANK NELSON (for Dr. VERNON DAVIES)asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. M. Bagshaw, 396, Market Street, Shawforth, Lancashire, a cotton spinner, on short time owing to the depressed state of trade in the cotton industry, was refused extended benefit by the Rochdale employment insurance officer on the ground that he had not fulfilled the statutory condition that he was genuinely seeking work, although he produced two certificates from quarry owners stating that he had applied to them for work, which is much more laborious than work in a cotton mill, and that as he was not a member of a trade union or similar society he had no right of appeal from this decision; and will he take the necessary steps to see that right of appeal shall be given to non-trade unionists to put them on an equality with trade unionists in application for extended benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards the individual case, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the letter sent on my behalf to my hon. Friend on 11th December last. As regards the right to appeal, Lord Blanesburgh's Committee have made a recommendation on this point which I am considering.

    BLANESBURGH COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he proposes to publish, in addition to the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Committee and the memorandum submitted to the Committee, the full oral evidence and examination of witnesses?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Volume II of the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Committee, containing the oral
    1750
    and written evidence furnished to the Committee, was issued on Friday last.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a supply of copies to be placed at the disposal of Members in the Vote Office?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will inquire into that, and see if I can meet the convenience of anybody.

    DAYS LOST BY INSURED PERSONS.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the figures showing the aggregate number of days lost for which benefit was claimed by insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in the calendar years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924,, 1925 and 1926, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The information desired, as far as the years 1919 to 1925 inclusive, are concerned, is contained in the reply which I gave on the 24th November, 1926, to a similar question by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The total number of days of unemployment in 1926 for which unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts was paid was approximately 303,000,000. As explained in the previous reply, the above figure does not include days of unemployment for which benefit was not paid.

    PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that professional footballers can draw unemployment pay during the summer when they receive no retaining fee between the seasons or happen to be temporarily unengaged, on the ground that their occupation has ceased during that period, without being under an obligation to seek for work; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit that the applicant must show that he is genuinely seeking work. This condition is statutory, and it is not waived, nor, in fact, is there any power to waive it in any circumstances whatever. My hon. Friend has furnished me with particulars of an individual case which he has in mind, and I will communicate with him regarding it.
    Mr. LOOKER: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend that the principle that professional players of games are entitled to unemployment benefit in the off-season is recognised by his Department?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not make any such assumption whatsoever.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any definition at all of what "genuinely seeking work" really means?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will consult the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, he will see that the question is there gone into at some considerable length.

    GOVAN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
    Colonel DAY (for Mr. N. MACLEAN)asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that young men who are summoned to appear before committees at the Govan Employment Exchange, after exhaustive inquiries are made as to where they have been looking for employment, are then asked by an inspector whether or not they have tried the Army; if Exchange officials are being instructed to ask this question; and, where the claimants' answer is in the negative, what effect such a reply will have upon the granting of benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of what is suggested. No instructions to ask such a question have been issued, and I am informed that there is no knowledge of such a question ever having been asked. If the hon. Member will supply me with detailed particulars of the eases to which he refers, I shall be happy to look into them.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SUGAR BEET FACTORIES (FOREIGN EMPLOYÉS).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Minister of Labour the approximate percentage of foreigners employed in the various sugar-beet factories?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to reply. The percentage of foreigners employed in the 14 beet sugar factories during the past manufacturing season was 2·3 per cent.
    Lieut.-Colonel McINNES SHAW: Is the proportion lower than it was the year before?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I could not say without notice.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make inquiries as to the number of small holdings in the West Riding of Yorkshire; whether any applications for small holdings have been refused; and if there is a waiting list of persons desirous of obtaining small holdings in the county?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The number of agricultural holdings above one acre, and not exceeding 50 acres, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, as recorded in the Agricultural Returns for 1926, was 15,388. The number of small holdings provided by the County Council since 1st January, 1908, is 503. The latest available figures show that up to the 31st March, 1926, 31 applicants had been rejected as unsuitable, while on the same date there were 377 approved applicants who had not been provided with holdings.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that a number of these 377 are ex-service men who were approved as being fit for small holdings, and have been waiting from about 1920?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot give any details about the West Riding of Yorkshire without notice.

    BEET-SUGAR FACTORY, CUPAR (WAGES AND HOURS).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give the rates of wages and hours of labour worked in the State-subsidised beet-sugar factory at Cupar, Fife, in December last, for crane men, locomotive men, engineers, and labourers, respectively?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have been asked to reply. I cannot at present give the information requested in the question, but I am making inquiry on the subject.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when making his investigation, that the British State-subsidised works in Po and are getting labour at under 1s. a day?

  MEAT-PACKING INDUSTRY, AUSTRALIA AND ARGENTINA.
  Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Labour the rates of wages paid and hours of labour worked by the peons and labourers engaged in the meat-packing industry in the Argentine Republic; and by the cattlemen and meat packers in Australia?
  Sir A. STEEL MAITLAND: As the reply involves a number of figures, I pro-

  MINIMUM WEEKLY RATES of WAGE and Ordinary Hours of Labour for ADULT MALE WORKERS in the MEAT-PACKING INDUSTRY in SYDNEY and MELBOURNE at 30th June, 1926.*

  Occupation

  Sydney.

  Melbourne.

  Rate of wages per week.

  Hours of labour per week.

  Rate of wages per week.

  Hours of labour per week.

  s.

  d.

  Cappers

  …

  94

  0

  44

  87s. 6d. & 95s. 6d.

  48

  Guillotine hands

  …

  88

  0

  87s. 6d.

  48

  Jokermen

  …

  94

  0

  87s.6d.& 95s.6d.

  48

  Packers

  …

  84

  0

  87s. 0d.

  46

  Seamers

  …

  94

  0

  87s. 6d.& 95s. 6d.

  48

  * The rates of wages are stated to be quoted from the latest Award, Determination or Agreement in force at 30th June, 1926.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    FLYING ACCIDENTS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of Air Force personnel killed and injured in flying accidents since the 1st January last to the last convenient date, together with the figures for the corresponding period of last year?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The casualties to Royal Air Force personnel during the period 1st January to 20th February, 1927, were eight killed and 14 injured; further, one naval officer and one naval rating were killed during this period. The figures for the corresponding period of 1926 were five killed and 15 injured. I should add that four of the deaths in 1927 were the result of a single accident.

    AIRSHIPS (GAS CONTAINERS).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the
    pose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I have no information regarding the wages and hours of labour of persons employed in the meat-packing industry in the Argentine Republic or of cattlemen in Australia. As regards meat packers in Australia, the following rates of wages, with hours of labour, are quoted from a statement recently supplied by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, Melbourne:
    gas containers for the two new airships will be made in England instead of Germany, and what is the cost, if any, of cancelling the German order?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The gas containers of the Government airship R.101 are being made at the Royal Airship Works, Cardington. Those for the R.100 are being made in Germany, as stated in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, Central, on 17th February, and I have no information in regard to the cost which would be involved to the Airship Guarantee Company, Limited, if they cancelled the order.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: If the Airship Guarantee Company cancelled the order for their gas containers, cannot the Government cancel the order for theirs? I understood the hon. Baronet to say that the Airship Guarantee Company cancelled the order.
    Sir P. SASSOON: No; I did not say that.

    RECRUITING DEPOT.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for Air how many recruiting depots are maintained by the Air Ministry and at what annual cost?
    Sir P. SASSOON: One recruiting depot is maintained by the Air Ministry and information in regard to the annual cost of the recruiting service will be found under Vote 1, subhead G, of the Air Estimates.

  NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister when this House will have an opportunity to discuss President Coolidge's proposals for a naval shipbuilding conference; and whether this discussion will take place before or after the British Government's reply?
  Mr. STAMFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he will submit to this House copies of the correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments relative to the naval proposals of Mr. Coolidge; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the proposals before His Majesty's Government communicates its reply to the Coolidge invitation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on Monday last, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Hackney, South (Captain Garro-Jones). Until the correspondence referred to by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Stamford) is complete, consideration of the question of its publication must be postponed.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why, in the case of the much more serious matter of Locarno, we entered into a very far-reaching agreement without consulting the Dominions, but in this very simple matter we have, apparently, taken shelter behind the Dominions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question arises as a supplementary question, but it does occur to me that the very
  1756
  fact that we entered into Locarno in that way may be a reason why in future we should consult the Dominions.
  Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is not the question of naval armaments one in which the Dominions are vitally interested?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is true.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When we entered into the Washington Convention of 1921 with regard to battleships and other large vessels, were the Dominions consulted before we ratified?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which notice should be given.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

    JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN STATUE.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has considered making any alteration in the elevation or site of the statue of the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain recently erected in the Members' Lobby?
    Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The answer is in the negative. The statue was designed for the plinth on which it stands, and it does not seem practicable to alter the plinth for this particular statue.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Did the artist have an opportunity of seeing the statue in position before it was unveiled?
    Captain HACKING: Perhaps it is fair to the sculptor to say he had not the opportunity, through indisposition, of seeing the statue in its present position before it was unveiled. He only saw it two days ago, and, at his request, the statue has been darkened this morning. It will be again darkened in a day or two, and I would ask hon. Members to reserve any further criticism until they see the effect.

    ST. STEPHEN'S HALL (PANEL PAINTINGS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state what progress is being made in the paintings for

    1757
    the eight panels to be placed in St. Stephen's Hall; and whether he can give an approximate date as to when they will be ready?
    Captain HACKING: All the paintings are in hand, and it is hoped that they will be completed during the coming summer.

  NEW FOREST (TREE FELLING).
  Col. Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether, in view of protests made by residents of the New Forest against the felling of a large number of oak and beech trees in Burley Old Wood, it is the intention of the Forestry Commissioners to proceed with the further destruction of the woodland, bearing in mind the requirements of The New Forest Act, 1877, that the ancient ornamental woods and trees in the forest shall be preserved; whether the Commissioners will first ascertain the views of the Court of Verderers of the New Forest before any further trees are destroyed; and whether it is intended to convert any part of the ancient woodland into a larch plantation or to replant it entirely with oak and beech?
  Sir LEOLIN FORIESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): In cutting timber or trees in the New Forest the Forestry Commissioners have two duties imposed on them by the Statute referred to, namely, (a) to maintain the picturesque character of the ground, and (b) to keep the woods replenished. These duties will be complied with in Burley Old Wood. A meeting was recently held between representatives of the Commission and local residents; a further meeting is to be held shortly at which the whole question of management in this wood will be explained and discussed. In the meantime all felling operations have been suspended.

  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  Mr. HURDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department why Canada is not officially represented in the display of the Empire Marketing Board at the British Industries Fair, as are the other Dominions?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Participation in a display of this kind is, of course, a matter for the Dominion Government concerned, and I understand that temporary conditions made it impossible for Canada to be officially represented this year in the display in question.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Prime Minister the approximate amount spent per head of the population on defence in Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa in the year ending December, 1926?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for Bristol East. The year 1924–25, to which that reply relates, is the latest year for which figures of actual expenditure are available.

  KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that, owing to the winter assizes, 11 of the Common Law Judges will be away from the Law Courts for varying periods; whether he is aware that some of the Judges are on the sick list and that the lists show an increase in the number of appeals and causes set down as compared with the last Hilary sittings; and what steps will be taken to minimise delay in hearing the causes which have been set down?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The number of King's Bench Judges on Circuit during the present Sittings has not at any time exceeded 10. I see no reason to anticipate that this number will be exceeded during the Sittings. One Judge of that Division has been on the sick list, but has returned to work. The number of causes set down in the King s Bench Division at the beginning of the Sittings shows a decrease of 70 as compared with last Hilary Sittings, and the number of cases heard in that Division since the beginning of the Sittings is greater than that heard in the similar period last year. I see no reason to anticipate any delay in hearing the cases which have been set down.

  POOR LAW.

    CASUAL WARDS, KINGSBRIDGE AND DULVERTON.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Health if the Kingsbridge casual ward had been properly and satisfactorily conducted and maintained before it was closed; whether his Department has received an application for the reopening of the Kingsbridge casual ward; whether he will inform the House the grounds upon which such application is made; and whether he proposes to grant such application?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): These wards were not satisfactory when, with the concurrence of the Devonshire Vagrancy Committee, they were temporarily closed. My right hon. Friend has received an application for the wards to be re-opened on the ground that the number of persons making application for admission to the wards has increased, and he is in communication with the Devonshire Vagrancy Committee and the Kingsbridge Guardians on this subject.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the published statements of those responsible for the conduct of the Dulverton Council ward that they were accommodating twice the average number of tramps, and that it was ridiculous to suppose that their accommodation could provide for such a number; and whether he will inform the House of the date when an inspector of the Ministry last visited the Dulverton casual ward, and will cause representations to be made to the guardians concerned to provide alternative accommodation?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has seen the statements to which the hon. Member refers. The general inspector for this district visited Dulverton last month and indicated to the guardians how they could, without incurring any considerable expenditure, make further provision for dealing with the increased number of casuals who are making use of these casual wards, and my right hon. Friend understands that the guardians now have the inspector's suggestions under their consideration.

    RELIEF, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that from February, 1925, to January, 1927, the Sheffield Board of Guardians have been compelled to expend £241,500 on Poor Law relief to men who were on the local unemployment exchange register but have been placed out of benefit; and, in view of this burden on the rates, and consequently upon the productive costs of Sheffield industry, what steps the Government propose to take to bring some relief to Sheffield in the matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received representations from this board of guardians complaining of the amount expended in outdoor relief to persons no longer receiving benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend has made, and is continuing to make, very considerable advances on the recommendations of the Goschen Committee for the assistance of the guardians.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Now that the Government are giving a grant to Scotland, will they make a direct grant to English Poor Law guardians?

    WOODSTOCK GUARDIANS (MEAL TICKETS).
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Woodstock guardians sent casual vagrants three miles to exchange bread tickets for bread, although there are bakers' shops within a quarter of a mile; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this practice?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that the hon. Member is referring to the tickets given to casuals entitling them to a mid-day meal on presentation at a bread station on their way from one casual ward to another. Such a station would naturally be at least three miles from a casual ward.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (PROCEDURE).
  Mr. DIXEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the severity of the conditions enacted by the White Paper before applications can be made by any industry for safe-

  1761
  guarding is resulting in discontent in many trades; and, if so, is he prepared to reconsider the conditions?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have received representations to the effect suggested by my hon. Friend. As he is aware, the procedure laid down by the White Paper was adopted by the Government and recommended by them to Parliament, after very careful consideration, as embodying their interpretation of election pledges.
  Colonel GRETTON: Is it not possible to reconsider these conditions?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: I am not in a position to give my right hon. Friend any encouragement to hope for an alteration in the terms of the White Paper at the present time.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of the claims made by residents in Great Britain in respect of damage by enemy action in the late War; what amount was actually paid in compensation; and what profit, if any, was made or the Government Air Raid Insurance Fund?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: It is not possible to state the totals asked for in the first two parts of the question. The profit on the aircraft insurance scheme was £10,898,205.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: I think I have answered it. I stated the profit that was made by the Government out of the Air Raid Insurance Fund.

  DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL.
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council intend to erect buildings on that part of the Duke of York's School which fronts Cheltenham Terrace?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): No
  1762
  decision has as yet been reached whether or not additional buildings are required at the Duke of York's headquarters.

  BETTING DUTY.
  Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the results of the working of the Betting Duty, and whether any detailed changes are contemplated in this regard?
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The Debates on the Finance Bill would appear to afford the appropriate opportunities for discussing and re-discussing this subject. My right hon. Friend will then be prepared to enter fully into the questions raised by the hon. Member, and he does not consider that advantage would result from anticipatory discussion.
  Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been asked to receive deputation of the parties interested in this question before the Finance Bill?
  Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say. The question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

  MOTOR VEHICLES DUTIES.
  Mr. DIXEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the feeling in this country in favour of a substitution of the present Motor Duties by a duty on petrol; if he is considering the matter; and if he has yet come to any conclusion?
  Mr. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend is unable to add anything to what he said on this subject in the Budget statement last year.
  Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this feeling is mainly confined to occasional week-end motorists and is not shared by the many drivers who are about every day of the year, many earning their livings in this way?
  Mr. B. SMITH: Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to consider it?
  Mr. McNEILL: I do not think I can' make any comment upon it.

  INCOME TAX.
  Colonel DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what action has been taken by the Income Tax Commissioners with a view to Income Tax being paid by persons working coal outputs during the recent mining lock-out?
  Mr. McNEILL: The Inland Revenue authorities endeavour to prevent any income properly assessable to Income Tax from escaping taxation, and they are aware of the activities referred to in the question. But it would be impossible in reply to a question to explain the methods adopted to assess and collect the tax where payable.

  TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL LEVY BALLOTS).
  Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of trade unions which have had a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913; the total number of members of such unions; the numbers voting for or against the political levy; and the number of exemptions claimed?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. Details of the voting on ballots taken by trade unions under the Trade Union Act., 1913, are contained in the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for 1924, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. It is not possible to state the total number of members of such unions, nor the total number of exemptions claimed, as no return of these particulars is made to the Chief Registrar in the case of unregistered trade unions.

  UGANDA (BLANKET PURCHASES).
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Uganda have recently purchased a quantity of blankets from Germany; and whether, in view of the necessity for fostering British trade, he will recommend that in the future British-made goods are bought?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information as to this purchase.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: Will the hon. Member obtain information on the subject?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We have made inquiries from the Crown Agents, who purchase practically everything bought outside Uganda, and they can trace no evidence of this transaction.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: Will the hon. Member ask in the Colony itself whether this purchase has been made?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We will ascertain, but I would point out that the amount that the local Government may buy inside its own borders is very small.

  FIJI (BACTERIOLOGICAL RESEARCH).
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is a lack of facilities for bacteriological and scientific work in the Colony of Fiji; and whether, in view of the numerous tropical diseases that are prevalent and require treatment, he will make arrangements for such facilities to be provided?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is unfortunately the case that laboratory facilities in Suva have been limited, and that work has been restricted by a shortage of apparatus. Fresh equipment has, however, been approved, and the facilities are now more adequate.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (CHIPLEY TIMBER CONCESSION).
  Sir BASIL PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a concession for 30 years from 1930 has been granted for the main area of Chipley Timber Concession in British Honduras to a foreign corporation; and whether any applications have been made from British subjects with a view to keeping the development of these great reserves of soft timber in British hands and available for the British Empire?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In August, 1924, the Government of British Honduras publicly invited offers for a concession to be granted at the expiration of the Chipley Concession, in 1930. In April, 1926, with my approval, an agree-

  1765
  ment was signed with the Tidewater Lumber Company, providing for the revision of the concession on terms satisfactory to Government. No other proposals had then been made of a type complying with the conditions laid down, and I had the less hesitation in approving the grant in that the Tidewater Company, though controlled from abroad, was already firmly established in the Colony and was managed by a British subject.
  Sir B. PETO: Can the hon. Member say what is the nationality of the Tidewater Company, and where the profits from this company go?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I gather that the bulk of the shares are held in the United States of America.
  Sir B. PETO: Does that mean that this British timber is now definitely allocated to the United States of America from 1924, for over 20 years?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not allocated, but, as a matter of fact, a very considerable proportion of the exports of British Honduras naturally go to the United States of America, because of shipping facilities and geographical position.
  Sir B. PETO: Is not there plenty of demand for British timber somewhere in the British Empire?

  KENYA (LAND GRANTS).
  Mr. BROADasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an arithmetical mistake on page 3 of the Return showing Crown grants of land of over 5,000 acres in extent in Kenya, published in October last, where the average rent payable in respect of leasehold grants is given as Sh 0·82½ cents instead of Sh 0·08½ cents per acre per annum, and whether he will take steps to correct this error?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret the error, which occurred in preparing the return for print. The necessary correction will be made in all copies not yet issued.

  COLONIAL AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENTS (OFFICERS).
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any action has been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Lovat Committee with regard to the training of officers for agricultural departments throughout the Empire?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I presume that my hon. Friend's question refers to the recommendation of the Committee of which Lord Lovat is now chairman concerning the annual award of scholarships to selected candidates who intend to take up appointments in the Agricultural Departments of the non-self-governing Dependencies.
  The answer which I gave to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Dartford on the 21st of December, 1925, described the arrangements made to carry out this recommendation, which enable from 16 to 18 scholarships in agriculture and agricultural science to be offered annually. Last year 17 two-year scholarships were awarded, 13 being in general agriculture, two in plant pathology and two in plant-breeding. Sufficient time has not elapsed since the inception of the scheme to test any of the scholars in actual work in a Colony, but the reports which I have received concerning the men under training have been satisfactory. A larger number of candidates of first-rate calibre who have taken honours in the natural sciences is needed for the complete success of the scheme, and it is to be hoped that these will be forthcoming from the universities as the scholarships become more widely known.

  JAPAN (NAVAL PROGRAMME).
  Sir G. WHELER (for Commander BELLAIRS)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been any increase in the Japanese naval programme over and above the one sanctioned at the time our own long-term programme was decided on in July, 1925; and, if so, what is the increase?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: With the exception of four additional destroyers sanctioned in the 1926–27 Estimates, no increase in the Japanese naval pro-

  1767
  gramme, which extends to the year 1928–29, has pet been authorised by the Diet. But a replacement programme, which has been approved by the Cabinet, and is to be brought before the Diet for consideration almost immediately, projects the construction between 1927–28 and 1931–32 of the following vessels additional to those of the programme already approved, namely:

  4 cruisers.

  15 destroyers.

  4 submarines.

  3 river gunboats.

  1 aircraft carrier.

  1 minelayer.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.
    STATE AFFAIRS (INTERFERENCE BY FOREIGN NATIONALS).
    Commander FANSHAWE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the interference in the affairs of the State by the nationals of other States, and move a Resolution.
    INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONDITIONS.
    Major ROPNER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain O'Connor) will call attention to Industrial and Commercial Conditions, and move a Resolution.
    WAGE DISCREPANCIES IN SHELTERED AND UNSHELTERED INDUSTRIES.
    Captain A. HOPE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the Discrepancies between Wages in sheltered and unsheltered industries, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL,
  "to appoint additional commissioners for executing the Acts granting a land tax and other rates and taxes, presented by Mr. McNEILL; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

  POLICE (APPEALS) BILL,
  "to provide for a right of appeal by members of police forces who are dis-
  1768
  missed or required to resign," presented by Sir WILLIAM JO YNSON-HICKS; supported by Captain Hacking; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES (PRESERVATION).
Mr. SCURR: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to prohibit the erection of buildings and structures on certain lands in the administrative county of London and for other purposes."
For some time now, those of us who are responsible for the administration of certain areas in the county of London have been concerned by the fact that a large number of the squares which exist in many parts of this great city, and which may be described as oases in a Sahara of bricks, are being built over, not always for housing purposes but in some cases for manufacturing purposes. Recently in St. Pancras a beautiful square which used to be in the Euston Road, Endsleigh Gardens, has been built over by the admirable Society of Friends, and more recently Mornington Crescent has been taken over by a firm for the manufacture of cigarettes. This process is going on. In my own constituency the London County Council has been maintaining a square for a few years past, and renting it from the landlord at the nominal rent of 5s. a year. On the death of the landlord they have now been compelled in order to retain this square on behalf of the public, to pay a rental of £52 a year and the new landlord will not give them a lease of more than 14 years. Recently there was before Parliament a Bill, which has fortunately been withdrawn, in which an attempt was made to deal with two squares in the metropolis. Many of these squares, although they are not used by the general public, are very beneficial to everyone, and I contend that they ought to be maintained.
In the Bill I am now asking leave to introduce I am not interfering or proposing to interfere with any existing rights. All that is laid down in the Bill is that the square shall not be built over, and if at any time the London County Council or a borough council consider that a

1769
square should be acquired for the public then an inquiry shall be held, and if as a result of that inquiry it is agreed that a square shall become public property compensation will be paid under the Town Planning Act. The Bill interferes with no existing rights, and I feel sure it will commend itself to all parts of the House. After the sympathetic reply of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir James Remnant) the other day, I hope that the Patronage Secretary will be able to give facilities for the passage of the Measure.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Scurr, Sir James Remnant, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Percy Harris, Mr. Naylor, Mr. Gillett and Mr. Dalton.

LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES (PRESERVATION).
  LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES (PRESERVATION) BILL,
  "to prohibit the erection of buildings and structures on certain lands in the administrative county of London; and for other purposes," presented accordingly, and rend the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Major OWEN: I beg to move: "That Lave ho given to introduce a Bill to amend the Law governing the relations between landlords and tenants."
Briefly, the Bill deals with leasehold reform, and it embodies the proposals of the party to which I have the honour to belong for dealing with the injustice and the unfairness of the existing leasehold system. There is no more pressing problem than that of the injustices under which large numbers of leaseholders suffer at the present time. In London and most of our large towns there are innumerable cases of tenants who have been penalised and fined, and in many instances ruined, by the operation of the present system. Not only is this true of our large towns, but it is equally true of our smaller towns and many of our villages. Time will not permit me to give more than one or two illustrations which have recently been called to my personal notice in my own constituency.
1770
In a village in my own constituency a bank had a subsidiary office in a building for which it was paying a ground rent of £4 a year. The lease has now expired, and the conditions under which they are allowed to have a new lease is that they pay not £4 a year, but £80 a year in ground rent, and they are compelled to put up a building which must cost at least £800. In the same village a widow inherited five cottages from her father, but she had to surrender these cottages 18 months before the expiration of the lease merely because the bill presented by the landlord for dilapidations was so terrible that she could not face the payment.
In another village quite near a man got a house from his father, built on a 60 years' lease, and at the time he took possession there was a mortgage of £150. This he had to clear, and he spent another £100 on the house. Then when the time for renewal of the lease came he was told that he would not get a renewal of any kind. He has had to purchase the house at an exorbitant price. The Government recognises the urgency of this problem, and a Bill dealing with certain aspects of it was foreshadowed in the King's Speech. The Government Bill, however, appears to be confined to business premises and short leases, and we as a party feel that legislation on this matter should not be confined within these limits, and that the time has come not for dealing with some of the problems, but with the whole problem arising from the present leasehold system. It frequently happens in this House that when hon. Members on this side criticise and attack the policy or lack of policy on the part of the Government that hon. Members opposite rise and plaintively and pathetically, I will not say rudely, demand, "What is your policy? What would you do?" Here is a Bill ready made for them, dealing with one of the most important questions raised in the King's Speech. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister who is to be in charge of the proposed Bill of the Government, to persuade his numerous army of followers to vote for this Bill this afternoon, and to give it a First Reading in order that he and they may have an opportunity of reading it and digesting it and learning therefrom.

1771
In the short time at my disposal, I regret that I can give only a very brief outline of its proposals. The Bill applies to every lease or tenancy of whatever length, and to every kind of property except holdings which are held under the Agricultural Holdings Act. It is, therefore, practically universal in its application. The Bill does not propose to set up a new tribunal, but rather to give additional powers to the expert tribunal already constituted under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. The idea is to give further power to that body to determine all disputes between landlords and tenants as to the terms of tenancy, and in addition to give to it certain other powers, for example, the power to order a sale by the landlord to the tenant or by the tenant to the landlord of their respective interests in the property; and, secondly, to extend the tenancy, the financial and other considerations being taken into account as this authority deems fit.
The Bill proposes to repeal Subsection (12) of Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, and to re-enact it so as to extend the power to vary covenants which have became either out of date or unfair. The Bill provides also for vesting in the tenant the property in future buildings erected or improvements executed by him. He is to be compensated if the lease is not renewed, and if the lease is renewed his own improvements are not to be assessable in the rent. The landlord's claim for dilapidations is to be restricted to the actual loss to the landlord, while, on the other hand, the tenant will be able to set off against the claim for dilapidations, improvements carried out by him which he is not compelled to carry out before this Act came into operation. Another serious injustice which the Bill proposes to remove is the type of clause common in many leases, whereby the tenant is compelled to employ persons nominated by the landlord and to submit questions in dispute to them. One of the things the Bill does is to restrict the fees which the landlord's agents may charge. From what I have been able to say very briefly of the, nature of the proposals of the Bill, the House will realise that, though they are very drastic and far-reaching in their character, we do not propose to abolish the leasehold system,
1772
but rather to remedy its defects, and to make it fair and equitable to all. I, therefore, confidently appeal to the House to give this Bill a First Reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Owen, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Haydn Jones, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr. Percy Harris, Mr. Fenby, and Mr. C. P. Williams.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL,
  "to amend the Law governing the relations between landlords and tenants," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session Do make provision as to poor relief to dependants of persons involved in a trade dispute in Scotland, to enable relief to be given by way of loan, and to extend further the duration of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1021, as amended by subsequent Acts; it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of sums not exceeding forty per centum of the amounts expended by parish councils in Scotland between the thirtieth day of April and the sixth day of December, 1926, on the provision of relief to the destitute dependants of destitute able-bodied persons out of employment owing to being directly involved in a trade dispute, in so far as such amounts shall be approved by the Scottish Board of Health."—[King's Recommendation signified.]
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in explanation of this Resolution. We had yesterday a fairly exhaustive Debate upon this problem, and Members who have had in their hands the White Paper will realise the amount of money with which we are dealing. The total amount expended on the relief of dependants, with which we are dealing, is as nearly as we can estimate £650,000. Forty per cent. of that, which is the amount that the Government propose to give, will amount to £260,000. The Committee will remember, particularly those who have been intimately concerned with this problem in Scotland, that a considerable proportion of this money, apart from what was advanced to the parish councils by banks, was advanced through the Scottish Board of Health by the Goschen Committee, and the amount advanced from the Goschen Committee is, in round figures, £500,000. The estimated amount of grant which will be applied in reduction of such loans from that source will be £200,000. I shall, of course, be ready to answer, to the best
  1786
  of my ability, any questions which may be raised on this Resolution, and I would now only repeat that the Government, in giving this grant, are doing so in recognition of such moral obligations as may lie upon them, part of this expenditure having been declared by the Courts to be illegal. The proposal must not be taken in any quarter of the Committee as in any way an attempt to deal with the relief of necessitous areas.
  4.0 p.m.
  That this 40 per cent. will afford considerable relief to some of the parish councils concerned is quite clear. Yesterday I gave a certain number of figures dealing with the particular cases of such parishes as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen mentioned in the Debate Perhaps I might be permitted to give one car two further instances dealing with that side of the question. If you take the county of Fife, in addition to those parishes which I mentioned yesterday in Debate, Auchterderran and Ballingry, in the parish of Beath, which I think was mentioned, the expenditure amounted to £27,900, and under this scheme they will be relieved to the amount of £11,100. If you go to the county of Lanark, you find Bothwell, spending £73,000, will be relieved to the amount of £29,200, and Hamilton, spending £55,900, will be relieved to the extent of £22,300. I only cite these figures as showing that this contribution by the Government not only meets the moral obligation, but meets in a reasonable and fair manner the burden which has fallen upon the parishes. There are upon the paper certain Amendments to be moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, when we reach them, I shall, of course, deal with them, but I would like to say, in conclusion, that I hope the Committee will realise that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting this very difficult problem, and, indeed, have done so in a generous manner.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: As the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated, we had a prolonged Debate in the House yesterday on this matter, which is of undeniable importance to the Scottish Poor Law system, and also to the treatment of the problem of distress arising from the industrial dislocation of last year. But, if you approve, I

  1787
  do not propose at the moment formally to move the first Amendment standing in my name and in the names of other hon. Members on this side of the Committee, because I think it is of some importance to have a further discussion on the general financial Resolution, particularly in the light of certain of the statements which were made in yesterday's Debate. As the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated, this is a comparatively new point. We had for many years the Act of 1845, under which it was impossible to assist able-bodied applicants for Poor Law relief in Scotland. Then we had the Emergency Provisions Act of 1921, recognising the industrial distress of recent years, and introducing a modification of that rule. Finally, we had this very difficult situation in 1926, under which relief was given to the dependants of men who were engaged in the industrial dispute in the coalfields, hut which relief, of course, was denied to the men immediately concerned in the dispute; and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the figures are quite clear and simple. The aggregate cost of meeting that narrow problem has been £650,000, towards which the Government propose to give a 40 per cent. contribution, at all events that is their maximum under this Resolution.
  The argument of my hon. Friends on this side of the House yesterday was designed to establish a case for the payment in full of that liability of £650,000, under this specific, and narrow problem lying between May and December, 1926. Both the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland were eloquent—in one case almost strenuous in language—in denunciation of this suggestion, I think the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was humbug on our part to make a plea of that kind. Accordingly, my duty this afternoon on the narrow financial question is to show that there is a very sound case for such an application. Before we come to the broader question, which is before us in this proposal, may I make another appeal to the Government not to embark upon an important alteration of the Scottish Poor Law system in this measure. I refer to the introduction of the device of loan That is one of the Clauses—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is outside the scope of this Resolution.
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; it is specified in the Resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN: If so, I beg the right hon. Member's pardon.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I was just about to add that "by way of loan" is a particular part of this Resolution, and I have no doubt that the Chairman of the Committee will observe—
  The CHAIRMAN: To what words does the right hon. Member refer?
  Mr. GRAHAM: "Relief to be given by way of loan."
  The CHAIRMAN: That is mere recital of the title of the Bill. Those words have no binding force and no effect whatever.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I at once bow to that ruling. If you regard a discussion of the question of the loan as being outside the scope of the Resolution—
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it clearly is. It would have been in order yesterday, and it will be in order in Committee on the Bill, but it is not in order on the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. GRAHAM: In that case, I will proceed at once to our plea for not merely 40 per cent. but for something more; indeed, for the whole charge in this connection. As the Committee recognises, we are obliged, of course, to put down a technical Amendment which stipulates for the 40 per cent. of the Resolution rather than to regard that as a maximum; but, frankly, what we mean, and certainly what will be involved in our voting against the Resolution this afternoon, is an application for the whole of the amount. On that point, may I recall, first of all, that this was a very special case? Here you were dealing with the destitute dependants of people who themselves had to be destitute, and engaged in an industrial dispute; in other words, something altogether exceptional in Scottish Poor Law experience. In Scotland a great deal of argument has been employed to the effect that, under this Bill, and, of course, under the Resolution you are, in fact, making the ratepayers a party to

  1789
  all industrial disputes, and that by the relief of their dependants you are bringing in other masses of people, and, so to speak, subsidising the continuation of the conflict itself. Let me say at once that that particular phase of the problem does not make a very strong appeal on this side of the House. The reply was afforded by the Lord Advocate himself, because he indicated that, quite apart from this altogether, if you had had distress, due, it might be, to an industrial dispute, you would have been obliged to make provision under some head or other for people in that position, and I think he rather indicated that you might have had to do so under your ordinary public health or other administration, in which case, of course, you would at least have got 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure from Government funds.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): In one case, but not the other.
  Mr. GRAHAM: It so far meets the controversy of assisting these people if we take the view that under any conditions something from public funds would have been required. I do not think we need worry very much about the argument as to the ratepayers having been called in to subsidise an industrial dispute, because, in any case, this part of it appears to be confined within the limits of the Emergency Provisions Act of 1921 which the Government propose to continue for a period of three years, during which there are, unfortunately, very few of us who believe that there will be such an industrial recovery as will make it unnecessary to give relief to able-bodied people in this position. But may I mention, in passing, that, if in point of fact you had to give assistance, the local authorities would be entitled to 50 per cent. out of the Government funds, and you are not giving to that extent under this Financial Resolution, because you are offering only 40 per cent. of the outlay of these parish councils. While I do not want to make too much of a comparatively small point, 10 per cent. even in Scotland is not an unimportant consideration.
  What is the other part of the case for asking for the whole of this contribution? I said, first of all, that it was a very special case; secondly, that beyond all
  1790
  doubt it rested upon the specific direction or, at all events, memorandum of the Scottish Board of Health to the Scottish parish councils; and, thirdly, that the Government themselves recognised that because of that direction they were under some kind of obligation to the local authorities. If that be the case, I do not know how on earth they draw the line at 40 per cent., and say that is a kind of contribution in respect of what we may call their misdirection, although I am making no complaint of the results because, in any event, these people had to be assisted. If there was a misdirection under the law as it stood, and if an amendment of the law was necessary, then it is a very fair thing on that narrow point, to put it no higher at the moment, to say that the Government should stand in, especially when the aggregate sum does not amount to more than £650,000. But I should like to rest it very much more upon the position of 'the local authorities themselves. Nobody, in the whole course of yesterday's Debate, doubted for a moment that this was a great national problem. The collieries in their ownership were often common to the two countries, and in reality, if anything was to be done, it should be done on a national scale and from national funds. What actually happens in this case is that you have a set of local authorities in Scotland which, before this problem arose at all, had very heavy liabilities because of industrial and other disputes, and, even if we give the whole £650,000 this afternoon, these authorities will continue to carry a burden of debt for many years.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland makes it perfectly plain that it is no part of his business in this Financial Resolution to do anything to affect or mitigate the difficulties of the necessitous areas. I entirely agree that if they are to be assisted at all we cannot deal with them in a narrow Measure of this description, but what I am going to suggest is that, quite apart from this consideration, you will have a most acute problem in the necessitous areas in Scotland. Moreover, we may anticipate that even if the Government assistance were far more generous than anyone for a moment imagines it will be, it will touch only a corner of the needs and difficulties of the areas we have in mind. So, the

  1791
  specific, narrow, and special burden remains and I suggest that, on those grounds, there is a very strong case for the payment of the whole sum.
  There is another consideration. If that is the state of affairs regarding these areas, what we have to consider, even in a Bill of this kind, is how to apportion the burden in such a way as to minister most effectively to industrial recovery. I believe if the calculation were worked out we should find that it would almost pay the Government to respond to the appeal which we are now making. All the facts from those areas show, firstly, that there are undoubted difficulties in the way an which poor rates in Scotland fall upon certain classes of ratepayers and, secondly, that with this burden thrown in, even though it is mitigated to the extent which this Bill proposes, you have a situation which will make it almost impossible for many of the industries and employments in those districts to recover, certainly in the near future. It comes to this, that because of the financial step which you are taking and which does not meet the whole burden, you are simply exposing yourself to liabilities in other directions. On all those grounds and many others which could be stated, if they were strictly relevant to the Debate, I think there is a case for the payment of the full £650,000, and I hope, even yet, the Government will be disposed to reconsider their decision.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to support the appeal which has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I think it is well to rid our minds at once of the prejudice that we are dealing now with the general question of necessitous areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday accused us of merely humbugging the public in our appeal. I am sure he knows Scottish opinion well enough to know that we are doing nothing of the kind. There is at the moment in Scotland very strong indignation, firstly, as expressed in yesterday's Debate, against the manner in which the Government are dealing with this matter, and, secondly, because the Government have not come up to scratch and offered to pay the whole amount. We are dealing here to-day with a specific question, and the Lord Advocate put that
  1792
  question very clearly and correctly. The problem is a national one and in the course of an attempt at solving that problem in Scotland, specific directions were given by the Scottish Board of Health—in other words the Government—to certain local authorities to do certain acts which turned out to be, in the eyes of the Courts, illegal. Surely the cost of carrying out those directions which the Government through the Board of Health compelled the local authorities to carry out, must fall upon the Government as a matter of duty. All we ask the Government to do is to fulfil a moral obligation.
  Let me take the other point which was adumbrated in yesterday's Debate. Not only is this a specific obligation on the part of the Government because of the specific instruction which they gave through the Board of Health, but other obligations had already been imposed upon the local authorities. Their liabilities, long before this specific instruction was issued to them by the Board of Health, were enormous. You are asking them now to shoulder the whole of this national responsibility in addition to their other liabilities. In view of the heavy rates which have to be paid in these poor localities I think my right hon. Friend should once again consider the problem. It is not yet too late and I think we have the support of all local authorities in Scotland and of all ratepayers and indeed of taxpayers in our appeal. I ask my right hon. Friend therefore to accept the Amendment which is on the Paper. I assure him that, by so doing, he will be meeting the just wishes of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. WRIGHT: I wish to add my appeal to those which have already been made to the Government to reconsider their decision and to undertake the whole burden of this cost. After all, it is not a very large amount when we consider that it is really a national burden. This cost was imposed on these suffering areas owing to matters which were beyond individual control and were due entirely to the existence of a national crisis. I put in a special plea for the industrial districts of Lanarkshire, and particularly two parishes in my own division, namely, Cambuslang and Blantyre. So far as one can see, there is no prospect of a revival of trade

  1793
  in the mining areas, and in some parts of these two parishes the mining industry is a declining industry. Many of these mines have been worked for a long time; in some eases they are well-nigh exhausted and in some cases mines have been closed quite recently. This cost involves a heavy burden on those particular parish councils. The parish councils in the industrial areas of the West of Scotland have considered this question over and over again, and some of my hon. Friends and myself have attended at least four special conferences on these problems. All the authorities are looking for substantially larger relief than is being conceded by this proposal.
  May I put a special point which ought to appeal to the Government. In days gale by workmen have often been urged to build their own houses and to carry out the principles of thrift by doing the best possible thing for themselves and for their families. What is the position of a man in a mining area who has built his own house and who has been suffering during the last six or seven years from the most prolonged period of trade depression which this country has known in modern times? He is not merely the tenant but the owner of the property. Be has had very little employment. He has a burden placed upon him which it is almost impossible for him to bear. From that point of view I think the Government ought to consider whether a further concession could not be made in this matter. In the very severe industrial depression which has lasted so long, the workmen themselves have done everything they could to overcome those difficulties. Efforts were made, however, to discourage the giving of relief even to people who were in absolute distress, and some of us know that in certain cases people would have been actually starving but for the relief which was forthcoming. While there were efforts to discourage relief, steps were taken to help these people in Scotland, just as was being done in other parts, but it seems to me unless the Government undertake a larger proportion of the burden, grave disappointment will be caused to every parish council in an industrial area in Scotland. I trust the Secretary of State will not regard this appeal as in any sense mere by-play on our part. We received long
  1794
  and numerous telegrams yesterday from various bodies in Scotland urging delay, and we are very much disappointed that the question is being rushed through in this manner. I hope, even now, we are not appealing in vain. I am sure the parish councils, with which I have been in close contact for four years, would have made strong representation had the opportunity occurred, and I trust the Government will yet listen favourably to their claim.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said the parish councils were to get 40 per cent. of the cost under the proposal of the Government. The Resolution on the Paper does not show that to be, the case. The 40, per cent. is there shown only as a maximum. The parish councils of Scotland who imagine that the worst that is going to happen to them is that they are only going to get 40 per cent., may be seriously disillusioned before they are finished with this matter. The proportion is to be at the discretion of a Board which has "diddled" them already—a Board which sent out recommendations to them to go ahead and spend money on the implicit understanding that the money would be refunded. Now that same Board is to have the right to say whether the proportion to be refunded is to be 40 per cent., 35 per cent., 30 per cent., 20 per cent., 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. It may be anything. I suppose they must get something. They may get a composition of about 6d. in the pound, but as this Resolution is now framed it is not 40 per cent., and I would like Conservative Members from Scotland to observe that fact.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: What is going to become of the money?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: We will deal with that afterwards. The money has been spent, and the point is that these parish councils are not, by this Resolution, to get 40 per cent. back, but only up to a maximum of 40 per cent. at the discretion of the Scottish Board of Health. The words are:
  "In so far as such amounts shall be approved by the Scottish Board of Health."
  The Board have to fix the Regulations. Certain hon. Members opposite yesterday; expressed themselves jocularly to the

  1795
  effect that Scotland was "getting away-with it" again. But when appeals were heard in this House and decisions were made to relieve distress in parochial areas in England; when it was decided to forgive part of their burden to West Ham, Poplar, Bedwellty or any of the other districts in England and Wales, there never was any complaint by a Scottish Member as to differential treatment.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Congratulations!
  Mr. JOHNSTON: You must do more than congratulate. As we shouldered our share of the burden of these distressed areas and offered no objection to particular districts in England having part of their debt forgiven them, I think it is rather bad taste on the part of any English representative to taunt us on a matter of this kind, particularly when our parish councils have undertaken this obligation on the direct advice and recommendation of the strongest Government of modern times—numerically. I think we ought to have from the Secretary of State for Scotland some indication of what are the sort of Regulations under which he is going to issue the money, what are the statements he is going to put before these parish councils, and under what conditions he is going to cut the 40 per cent, to 35 per cent., and the 35 per cent. to 20 per cent., 15 per cent., or 10 per cent. We are buying a pig in a poke here, and I do not think hon. Members opposite ought to allow this sort of thing to go through, party politics apart, without a clear, explicit understanding of what exactly is meant by this Resolution. We have had too many vague statements on this matter already. The parish councils of Scotland in the industrial areas have already suffered enough, and I do not think the representatives of Scotland in this House should allow this Resolution to go through without a clear, definite, and detailed statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland as to what exactly is meant by the statement that 'she amount to be repaid is a maximum of 40 per cent. Does it mean that three-quarters of the parish councils are to get 20 per cent? I trust that, unless we get an explanation, many of this Committee will divide against the Resolution.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Lord Advocate yesterday stressed the point that he was anxious to make the Scottish practice and the English practice the same in this matter of relief, but I should like to know whether they are really going to give England the same amount as Scotland.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Government could not answer that on this Vote. The hon. Member may abject to Scotland having too much, but he cannot ask for England to get more.
  Mr. THOMSON: I do not object to Scotland getting 40 per cent., but I want to suggest that English constituencies should be served the same.
  The CHAIRMAN: I know by experience that the hon. Member has found many opportunities of making that point, but this is not one of them.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. The principle of this Bill was discussed yesterday on Second Reading, and while I recognise that our fate is in your hands as Chairman of Ways and Means to-day, yesterday Mr. Speaker ruled that when money was being voted in this way for Scotland, we might discuss the reasons why money should be voted for England also.
  The CHAIRMAN: What is in order on the Second Reading of a Bill is not necessarily in order on the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is founded.
  Mr. THOMSON: May I point out the differentiation that will occur if this Resolution goes through, if we have steelworks in Scotland get ting relief on their rates and English steelworks, competing with the Scottish steelworks, getting no relief on their rates? We are in this way merely penalising the English steelworks by—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is entirely a Scottish matter. The hon. Member may argue that the money should not go to Scotland, but he cannot argue that similar money should go to England.
  Mr. HARDIE: This really comes to the question of the rating or unrating of industry. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who has been ruled out of Order, is seeing just exactly what this question leads to.

  1797
  I would like to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the relation of this national responsibility to the locality. In alt financial matters, especially where it is looked upon as being a sum in assistance, we ought to know the real relation between national responsibility and the local position, but the local financial position has not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman at all. He might be able to tell us in his reply whether there is to be discrimination between areas. Suppose, for instance, we take a big industrial area in Scotland covered by one parish council, and in that area there has been an extraordinary amount of distress, and suppose we take another area in Scotland where you have got about the same population bat the greater part of it is residential rather than industrial. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell us what is to be the determining factor as to whether an area will get 5 per cent. or 40 per cent.? Is there to be any sliding scale in relation to the local financial position? That seems to be a most important point. If you take the returns of parish councils in Scotland and the question of relief due to purely temporary distress such as that caused by a stoppage, you get at once the real relation of what this would be if worked on a percentage basis.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: May I intervene at once to say that this 40 per cent. will be given to each parish council on proved and vouched expenditure. That is what is the intention of the Government, and there is no question of a sliding scale or of any other scale. It is essential that the accounts of these parish councils should be audited and submitted to the Board of Health, and that the Board of Health should be satisfied that there has been proper expenditure, but, when that has been ascertained, the 40 per cent. will be paid in each and every case.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question which may shorten the discussion? On that basis, the 40 per cent. is to be in effect a flat rate contribution, and if that is the state of affairs, I think I am entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why he does not accept our Amendment.
  Mr. HARDIE: We want to be quite clear, and, of course, Scotsmen are always clear unless they get mixed up with
  1798
  Englishmen in legislative business. I think the wording of this Resolution, if it had been left to the Scotsmen on the Front Bench alone, would have been quite clear, because in money matters a Scotsman is always definite and clear. After the statement just made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I would ask him to take out these words that cause the difference of opinion between us. If it is going to be a Hat rate of 40 per cent., why not let it appear in the Resolution? We in Scotland know a little about finance, and we always try to prevent a needless expenditure of it, and in order to prevent any law cases arising, in which money will be spent uselessly—for money in such cases is always uselessly spent—I think we ought to have an alteration of this wording, so that it will read that a flat rate will be given. It is no use coming along with the phrase "not exceeding," and then having people in the Courts trying to determine that "not exceeding" may nit be 5 per cent., and so on. It is strange that Labour men have been getting telegrams from property owners and other people who generally, in their own politics, belong to the other side of the House, but if we are going to have this Resolution as it ought to be, I think the right hon. Gentleman might now accept the Amendment or give us another form of words showing quite definitely that it is to be a flat rate.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman opposite will move it.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in line 6, to leave out the words "not exceeding," and to insert instead thereof the words "equal to."
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to support the Amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Before that Amendment it put, I want to point out to the Committee that this is raising a matter of very great interest in principle. We are now to have, what. I am very pleased to see we are going to have, a precedent set up for making a flat-rate grant-in-aid of the charge upon local rates for the relief of the dependants of those who were engaged in an industrial dispute. It does not matter about the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The White Paper issued by the Treasury or

  1799
  by the Scottish Office in explanation of this Vote is perfectly clear that that is the object for which the Committee is asked to pass this Money Resolution. I am sorry to say it is the first time that the Committee has actually voted money for this purpose, and it is apposite, in spite of what the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) so jocularly said to me this afternoon, to point out that this relief is being given to a section of the taxpayers, and that it is not a question of confining the discussion to the position of Scotland. It is a question of debating the principle that, for the first time, we are making a grant direct from the Exchequer to the local rates in aid of the relief of the dependants of those engaged in a trade dispute, and that when that is being done for the first time, it is being done for a section of the taxpayers and not for the whole.
  That is the point we want to make, as English Members. We welcome with all the warmth that we can the decision of the Government to make this grant to this section, but we do protest that the relief is not at the same time given to all the other taxpayers who are concerned with areas in which the same relief has had to be given to the dependants of those engaged in an industrial dispute. Therefore, I think it is right for us to point out to the Government that, whether or not they are speaking purely for Scotland to-day, they cannot he immune, as a Government, as a result of the precedent which is now set—which I welcome and which I would even like to see enlarged—from continued pressure now to extend the principle to all the other areas that have suffered similarly.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I think the intervention of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and the attempted intervention of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) may perhaps justify an English Member, who otherwise perhaps would have been reluctant to do so, to intervene for one moment in this Debate. I was, unfortunately, not in the House when the matter was debated yesterday, but I have heard sufficient of the Debate on the Financial Resolution to make it clear to me, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made it abundantly clear, that the matter raises issues which
  1800
  go very much beyond the issue now before the Committee. Of course, I should not be in order in discussing these larger issues, but I must express my astonishment—
  The CHAIRMAN: The only question really before the Committee is whether the Scottish Board of Health should be kept down to the 40 per cent, grant, or must pay the whole of it. That is really the only question. The last hon. Member based his argument on the question of the flat rate, and he had developed his argument by the time it came to the exact moment at which he ought to be stopped.
  Sir J. MARRIOTT: I quite realise the superior adroitness of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I shall certainly not attempt to transgress your ruling. The point before the Committee has been narrowed down to a very small one. As I understand, the Secretary of State for Scotland has virtually accepted the Amendment which has been moved from the benches opposite. I think he has accepted in terms that Amendment. In other words, it is to be a flat rate, and not a maximum rate. My ingenuity does not extend as far as that of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and, therefore, I cannot pursue the point any further now, but I do desire to say that I think very large issues have been raised by this Resolution.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to support the Amendment, which I am pleased to know has been accepted by the Front Bench opposite. My only reason for rising is to seek to justify the acceptance of the maximum amount which is mentioned in the Resolution. I seek to justify it for this reason, that many English Members in this House, including even one of our own Labour party on the Front Bench, do not seem to realise the burdens which Scotland has compared with those of England. I hope I shall not be out of order in attempting to justify our case for getting the best conditions possible. The authorities in Scotland have had to bear enormous costs, particularly in Fife-shire, in dealing with the great industrial dispute involved in 1926. In England you get the payment for the cost of feeding children in proportion to your total expenditure for feeding children, but the big industrial areas in

  1801
  Scotland do not get paid in the same way, and, as a matter of fact, the parish councils, being compelled to accept that responsibility as far as children were concerned, I submit that we are justified in claiming the maximum we can possibly get out of the Government for the purpose of meeting the claims met by these parish councils. I sincerely trust that even Front Bench Members of the Labour party will understand that we in Scotland will he delighted to accept the same principle in connection with the feeding of children in England. I have already had telegrams this morning asking me to press that particular point on this House, so that when we get the 40 per cent. —
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member is now asking for 100 per cent.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I was just coming to that. I was about to say that, as far as my own county authority is concerned, £70,000 has been spent in feeding children, and I hope the Government will also give us another 40 per cent. of that £70,000.
  Mr. BARR: I want to say a few words in connection with what has fallen in this Debate, and I am at this moment in the position of not criticising the Government, but of supporting their granting the full 40 per cent, as a flat rate. I do not agree with what fell from one of our speakers on the Front Bench, that this is an entirely new precedent, because in the decision that was given by Lord Moncrieff as Lord Ordinary, he referred to the fact that precedents have been given, and we had it from the Minister, and particularly the Lord Advocate, yesterday, that this was an effort so far to bring us into line with the more liberal regime that had prevailed in England. Therefore, if there be any grievance at all, it is that we have had a much larger expenditure in the past, and by bringing this up to 40 per cent. we are so far bringing ourselves into line in that regard. I would point out, also, in regard to Scottish finance, in regard to education, and, I think, other services, there is a division made, and 11–80ths is given to Scotland. If we were to begin analysing in the way that has been done, we should have objected all along, on a hundred occasions, in discussions of a
  1802
  similar kind in regard to England. I would commend to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and to others, that the only reasonable solution of the difficulties he has put forward is to give an enthusiastic support to the Bill for the better Government of Scotland which I have introduced.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am very glad several protests have been made against the remarks of the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench. I only hope the hon. Gentleman will support the Bill for Home Rule for Scotland.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows well that to discuss that would be out of Order.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is in a comparative sense gratifying so far to know that the Government has accepted an Amendment, seeing that last night we divided on the issue of seeking to obtain the full 100 per cent. Now we know where we are, and it is a credit to those who have spoken, and helped to bring this about. Therefore we are, in a comparative sense, able to congratulate the Government on making some recognition of the efforts on this side.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Would it not be possible for the Government to make a further extension, and give something between 40 and 100 per cent.?
  The CHAIRMAN: That would require a new Resolution altogether.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I wanted to know that. I am sorry.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment—in line 10, to leave out from the word "dispute" to the end of the Question—is without the King's Recommendation.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to poor relief to dependants of persons involved in a trade dispute in Scotland, to enable relief to be given by way of loan, and to extend further the duration of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, as amended by subsequent Acts, it is expedient to authorise the payment, oat of moneys to be provided by Parlia-

  1803
  ment, of sums equal to forty per centum of the amounts expended by parish councils in Scotland between the thirtieth day of April and the sixth day of December, 1926, on the provision of relief to the destitute dependants of destitute able-bodied persons out of employment owing to being directly involved in a trade dispute, in so far as such amounts shall be approved by the Scottish Board of Health."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY.
REPORT [17TH FEBRUARY].
Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

  CLASS II.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport., under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund, Advances to Caledonian end Crinan Canals, and for Expenditure in connection with the Technical Survey for a Genera' Scheme of Generation and Transmission of Electricity in Great Britain, and with the Severn Barrage Investigation."
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,150, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
  4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,924, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."

  CLASS III.
  5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
  1804
  course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."

  CLASS V.
  6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £142,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement, including certain Grants-in-Aid, and Expenses arising out of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, and the Free Passage Scheme for Ex-Service Men and Women."
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,537, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, to make good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1925."

  CLASS VI.
  8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £418,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions, under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, as a Grant-in-Aid of the mission of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to Australia and New Zealand."
  First Seven Resolutions agreed to.
  Eighth Resolution re ad a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I do not want to detain the House at any length on this point, but there was one point that was mentioned to the Financial Secretary in the Committee stage yesterday, and that was that many of us are receiving a good many inquiries from applicants, especially old age pension applicants, in consequence of the serious delay which arises in the examination of claims at the Head Office. I myself, in the last fortnight, a period covering our discussions on the Supplementary Estimate, have had a case which was for over six

  1805
  months under examination. The applicant for the pension was found to be in extreme poverty and although I am glad now to say that the matter has been cleared up and the pension granted, he had to draw arrears of £6 or £7 and in the meantime he was in very severe financial straits. We are very desirous of not opposing for the sake of opposing, but we are also very anxious that in the reply we should get the statutory view of the matter. I hope we may have some assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the many delays in dealing with these claims will not be repeated in future.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): All I can say in reply is that I think these delays are rare, and I have every hope that they will become very much rarer. But they are likely to occur if we get a new block of applicants, and it is quite impossible to be certain that there never will be a rather long delay, because cases will arise in regard to which it is extremely difficult to get all the necessary evidence that the applicant is eligible. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do all in my power to minimise the delays. I have had some cases brought to my personal notice, and I hope I have been able to facilitate matters somewhat. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that everything we possibly can do to eliminate delays of this sort will be done, because we realise that often such delays entail great hardship.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Resolution agreed to.
  REPORT (21sT FEBRUARY).
  Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.
  CLASS VI.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £420,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1027, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services."

  CLASS VII.
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £322,295, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, &c., Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Grants-in-Aid."
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £220,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing. Grants to Local Authorities, &c., in connection with Public Health Services, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the 'Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."
  Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BILL.
Order for Second Reading react.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is one with which the House is quite familiar in its general principle. It is an annual Bill, and the House is aware that it is part of the machinery by which a very large amount of the local finance of the country is carried on. There are from time to time some particular features occasioned by the particular circumstances of the moment. The amount authorised to be lent varies, and there are sometimes other exceptional features. The amount which has been put into the Public Works Loans Bill, as the House is probably aware, is very much larger in these days than it used to be in pre-War days, and the main reason why a very much larger sum has been necessary has been the very large commitment on behalf of housing. Last year, the figure that appeared in this Bill was £35,000,000. The sum which is being asked for for the same purpose to-day is £40,000,000, and I think it is right that I should explain the difference between

1807
those two figures. The fact is that that £35,000,000 was, owing to the exigencies of the time, barely sufficient to carry us through until the end of the present financial year. It was found that during the first eight or nine months of the year the amount required was so high that, without conserving our resources to a certain extent, it would run out before the end of the year. Therefore, there has been since December a certain amount of slowing down which in some quarters has, I think, caused some dissatisfaction. But that could not be helped. The money available up to the end of this year had to be reserved for the more urgent calls and some of the smaller authorities. As a matter of fact, up to the end of January we bad got to within a very near margin of the amount authorised by Parliament, and the result of that is that something like £4,500,000, which otherwise would have been advanced during the current year, will be thrown over into the next year, making a larger sum to be provided for than would otherwise have been necessary. Therefore, the sum now being asked for is not £35,000,000, as it was last year, but is now a sum of £40,000,000. That is not an unprecedented sum. We have had that sum before, but at all events that is the reason why it is necessary to ask for a larger sum this year than last year.
Sir FREDRIC WISE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the sum is gradually increasing in amount?
Mr. McNEILL: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman means, "Is the amount a progressive increase?" We have had the same sum in former years, but the amount is certainly increasing enormously, as compared with pre-War figures.
Sir F. WISE: I did not know that we had had £40,000,000 before.
Mr. McNEILL: It is due to the demands made by the various housing and other schemes, which are well known. But there are two rather exceptional features in this Bill which I ought to explain. Clauses 2 and 3 are necessary in the present Bill on account of a loan to. Eye-mouth Harbour of £10,000, which was made in the year 1892 under rather peculiar conditions. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into that in
1808
any great detail. It is enough for me to say that the only security under Statute for this loan a fund called the "Surplus Herring Brand Fees." Under the Statute, when those fees are insufficient to cover the instalment and interest for any year, then that instalment has to be remitted altogether under Statute. Last year there was, fortunately, a surplus of these herring brand fees, but this year there is a deficit, and, therefore, it is necessary under the National Debt and Local Loam Act, 1887, to write off the sum of £200, which is the instalment of the loan which is due. The interest, amounting to £71 17s., is irrecoverable, and therefore written off under the Statute. That is the reason for Clauses 2 and 3.
But another quite exceptional feature appears in Clause 4, and I think I ought to explain how that comes here. Before the establishment of the Irish Free State, loans, of course, were made in Ireland, just as they were made in Great Britain. They were made in Ireland through the Irish Public Works Board and the Irish Land Commission. A very large number of those loans were in existence when the Free State was set up in 1922. It has become necessary, of course, to make some, arrangement with regard to the service of those loans and a provisional arrangement was made in 1922 that the sums due under the various loans should be paid in to the Government of the Irish Free State, and they should deduct the cost of collection and the estimated sum due for bad debts, and, having made those allowances, that they should then pay over the balance to the Government here. That system went on up to last year. Obviously it was open to many objections. Some of these were long-term loans, some of them were for upwards of 70 years, and it was obviously an unsatisfactory arrangement that two separate Governments should be dealing with there long-term loans, when the one which was mainly interested, ourselves, had no machinery for collection, had no administrative staff in Ireland, had no means financially of checking the cost of collection and had debts. We had, necessarily, to take the matter on trust. Therefore, by mutual agreement between the two Governments, an arrangement was come to last year which was really an arrange-

1809
ment for commuting the liability in this respect. The outstanding amount of the loans in Ireland at present market value is just about six and a half million pounds—to be exact £6,570,000, and the arrangement that has been made between the Free State Government and ourselves is that instead of them collecting and deducting as I have described over the whole period of these loans, some of them running for 70 or 80 years, they should pay us a definite annuity of £600,000 for 20 years and that then their liability should be extinguished. In recent years the cost of collection has been about £20,000 a year, and the amount deducted for bad debts would represent as near as possible £27,000 a year. We get rid of all that; there are no deductions to be made: we get a clear fixed sum which does not vary through any contingencies of that sort; and at the same time minor claims which might he made on the fund by the Trish Free State are withdrawn. Therefore, our reckoning is that this arrangement gives us just about £650,000 a year for 20 years, and the capital value of that sum would he just over £8,250,000.
That arrangement is a favourable and perfectly sound financial transaction, and it is one which we should congratulate ourselves upon having been able to make. The amount is sufficient to pay the interest on the loans, and to redeem all the stock at the end of 20 years, allowing for a very considerable rise in the capital value of the stock as great a rise as is likely to occur. Therefore I think it is, I may say, really a very favourable arrangement from our point of view. It is a great benefit to get rid of overlapping functions between the two Governments and the various contingencies over which we have no control and no means even of testing, and the cost of collection being outside our own control might possibly have been extravagant; at all events, we should have had no sort of check upon it. There are no administrative costs in this country because the annuities are paid straight from one Government to another, and therefore we avoid overlapping, we avoid friction, and we have got what we believe to be a quite firm and safe solution of this particular liability. Therefore, I confidently recommend this to the
1810
House as a desirable arrangement, and it is for that reason that it appears in this Bill and forms a rather unusual feature of it. That is all that it is necessary for me to say about this Bill. The House knows that our commitments for housing, small holdings, agricultural credit and so forth mean lending a very large amount of money amongst local authorities throughout the country, and it is in order to enable that work to be carried on during the next financial year that the House must accept this Bill, as I hope it will, because the period during which we are authorised to advance this money lapses during March, and therefore we are anxious on behalf of the local authorities, to get this Bill through without unnecessary delay.
Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: As the Financial Secretary of the Treasury has indicated, this is a Bill which it is the duty of his Department to present every year. Consequently it is difficult to find any new material for argument in this connection. But to-night there are two features, one, which is not entirely new referring to Evemouth Harbour, and the other, which is certainly new, referring to the arrangement he has reached in the case of the Irish Free State. As regards Eyemouth Harbour, the subject has been under consideration from time to time by those who have held the office which my m right hon. Friend now occupies, and the peculiar arrangement which was entered into many years ago in associating the security with the herring branding fees practically regulates what we can do and must do in existing conditions. I think the House can have no quarrel whatever with the proposal made in the Bill. The Financial Secretary has also indicated that, in all the circumstances, this is probably the best arrangement we could make as regards loans under this scheme in the Irish Free State. I confess that when my right hon. Friend was speaking I did not recall whether this formed a part of the general settlement which was effected with the Irish Free State some time ago, and was discussed in the House at the time. Apparently it was not, and in order to leave the Irish Free State on its own legs, as regards public works loans, this annuity of £600,000 for 20 years has been accepted; and if the Treasury regard that as a satisfactory

1811
arrangement I have no doubt that, on all the facts, it is a position which the House would accept.
But when we come to the broad general purposes of this Bill, there are one or two arguments of importance which should be offered to-night. The Fnancial Secretary shows that £40,000,000 is necessary on this occasion, and reminds us of the demands of the local authorities for housing and other schemes. From time to time the financial facilities which are placed at the disposal of local authorities have been more or less sharply criticised. As the House is aware, the Public Works Loan Commissioners have to work under a form of extreme, or almost extreme, regulation, in which a certain basis of assessable value is laid down. We have argued on previous occasions that the broad result of this operation is to rule out the very small local authorities from assistance from the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and to make the position such that the large local authorities can do better on the open market. Therefore, the bodies which tend to come to the Public Works Loans Commissioners are the intermediate local authorities in Great Britain. Various replies have been offered to that criticism, but certainly most Members would agree that if we can handle our national resources in such a way as to place credit or funds at the disposal of small local authorities on the easiest possible terms it would be a development which is very desirable in existing conditions. I am not going to suggest that we should compel a local authority to go to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, if, in fact, it can do better in the open market; but it was pointed out recently by a distinguished banking authority that there is in this country a great mass of savings recruited through friendly societies and a large number of other organisations—an amount which he put in the aggregate as high as £4,000,000,000.
A Bill of this kind affords an opporunity of discussing whether we are doing everything to see that savings which are recruited on comparatively humble terms do get to the local authorities on the best possible terms. A large number of local authorities are at the present time borrowing at 5 per cent., or 5¼ per cent., and in one or two cases at a rather higher rate for urgently necessary public
1812
schemes. In view of the general tendency of the Government's legislation—I do not altogether blame the Financial Secretary, because the holder of that office has many unpleasant duties for which he has no immediate or primary responsibility—to pile up the burdens of the local authorities in the interests of reducing general taxation, as the Chancellor seems to think, there is no doubt many local authorities have come to the view that they are going to carry enormous burdens for a very long time. The necessities of the tasks immediately before them and past borrowings make it very difficult for them therefore to go to the market with the hope of anything like favourable terms as regards interest rates.
Some time ago a device was introduced under which a portion of the proceeds of the National Savings Certificates was set aside for the definite purpose of assisting housing schemes in the localities where those certificates were issued. I make allowance for the fact that those savings certificates were recruited at a comparatively high rate of interest, and that the holders enjoy the advantage of exemption from Income Tax in respect of them. That apart, the system encouraged people to save, and they could see the results of their savings in the houses which appeared, no doubt slowly, in their own districts. It was a kind of local or specific allocation. The Committee over which the late Mr. Montagu presided, and upon which some of us served, reached the conclusion that the time had come for the modification of that scheme, in order to give the Treasury the freest possible use of these resources, while also retaining some part of the device which had been in operation. That was not a trial of this system under the most favourable conditions; but my point is: Are there any means by which we can get the proceeds of the thrift which is encouraged by a large number of agencies, and particularly the Trustee Savings Banks, passed on more readily to the local authorities? Is there any contribution which the Government, through national legislation, can make towards that end? It is true that up to a point they do so reach local authorities at the moment, but I am inclined to think that the hour has struck when we might very well plead for some review of

1813
the whole policy of the Public Works Loans Commissioners in this country, mainly from the standpoint of the enormous burden which now rests upon the local authorities, and also from the point of view that in so far as these local authorities can engage in necessary and remunerative work they will be making a definite contribution to the reduction of employment. They will be entitled to any consideration we can give them if they reduce the enormous total of payments for what we all recognise to be no practical service at all, payments which are in the nature of temporary relief, though in some cases sinking into permanent, or almost permanent, relief. That is the kind of problem with which this Bill deals. I am bound to say that I have never heard on the other side of the House a very effective reply to the criticism that the very small local authorities do not really participate in this scheme and that we tend to confine ourselves to a middle group. These are only general observations, but it is in existing conditions a matter of great importance if we want a contribution from the locality of a substantial character, especially in regard to the reduction of this great problem of unemployment.
Mr. HILTON YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a most interesting contribution. One can follow his analysis with the greatest ease. I have some doubt as to the conclusion to be drawn from his analysis. If his argument was that it is a good thing to relieve national credit by bringing into the market as borrowers on their own credit municipalities and as many such auxiliary borrowers as possible, that proposition might have general assent. If we are to deduce from his analysis what I may call the principle of compartmenting or pigeonholing of funds borrowed by the Government for local purposes, in that proposition he would not command the same degree of assent. At one time it occurred to me that the right hon. Gentleman's discourse might be leading up to the question of municipal banks. It is a most interesting problem to thresh out on the Floor of this House on some other occasion, but it would I fear not be in order at present. There is an observation which ought to be made upon the Second Reading of the Public Works Loan Bill, even
1814
at the risk of repetition ad nauseam. I can make it as an expression of sympathy with the Financial Secretary rather than a criticism. The Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must pay attention to the maintenance of national credit. This great lump of borrowing for local loans that comes along every year in its relation to national credit should cause them sleepless nights. It is a leak in the dam which we are trying to build in order to fill the reservoir of national credit.
It is not a cheerful task to call attention to this relation between this borrowing and our sinking funds. It is admittedly no good paying back debt with one hand while you are borrowing with the other. Here we are borrowing £40,000,000 on the strength of national credit, and at the same time by the sinking fund we are paying off £50,000,000 to support national credit. That is not common sense. There is an excuse for it. The two sorts of debt stand on a different basis. Behind local loans there are assets. That distinguishes this debt from that which we redeem, it may be said. The Financial Secretary would assist us to a better understanding of this question if his reply he would give us some account of what are the assets which stand behind the local loans at the present time. What is the, basis on which it is legitimate to consider this class of debt as standing on a different footing to the debt we are paying off? During the last five years we have reduced our interest charges on debt by £20,000,000. That is no small achievement, but it should be much greater. The reduction of charges on debt is the best hope for the reduction of taxation in the future. To reduce debt charges we must improve national credit. This annual borrowing for local loans is at present the greatest new additional burden on national credit. If we could get rid of it, that would be the most effective thing we could do to put our credit hack to a 4½ or 4¼ per cent. basis. I do not think any apology is due to this House for laying emphasis on so vital an aspect of national finance.
Sir F. WISE: I should like to re-echo all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) in regard to the national debt and ournational credit.

1815
I do feel that is a most important point, but I do not propose dealing with it now. There are one or two other special questions which I should like to ask the Financial Secretary. I should like to know whether this £40,000,000 will be issued to the public and, if so, will it be on the statutory 3 per cent. interest basis. If that is so, then the stock will be issued at an enormous discount which at the present moment or at any time would not be to the advantage of the taxpayer I welcome the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) that there should be a review of all these accounts, not only the public works loans account, but also the local loans account. I notice in the local loans account which I conclude comes under this Bill, various accounts which appear to me quite unsatisfactory. There is one in particular in the local loans account. where I find the expenses of the management of the fund run up to £95,000 and part of that consists of the expenses of the Government of the Irish Free State, which amount to £47,000. I suppose that item will be got rid of when this particular transaction provided for in this Bill is agreed to. I also notice in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on page 11:
"Loans in Arrear.—The following statement shows the arrears due from Borrowers on 31st March, 1925, excluding the amounts written off the assets of the Fund, as compared with those on 31st March, 1924."
This shows a loss to the public, and ii is a very large sum amounting to about £600,000. I should like to know whether those arrears have been paid and what is the position, and I would also like to know whether they are really responsible people that this money has been lent to. I should like to ask with regard to the £600,000 to be paid by the Irish Free State, whether this amount will go in reduction of local loans stock. That is an important point, and if the Financial Secretary will reply to those one or two questions I should very much appreciate it.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to hear the reply of the Financial Secretary to the very important questions which have been put by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). I think these questions are of some im-
1816
portance, and should be answered before we pass the Second Reading of this Bill which is the more appropriate occasion than when are are dealing with the Financial Resolution. I would like to hear a statement from the Financial Secretary as to the general indebtedness of the Irish Free State. The whole question of the transfer of money from one nation to another is of peculiar importance and interest at the present time. I understand that the Irish Free State is about to have its awn currency. I do not know how that will affect matters, but last Autumn I was over in Ireland and from what I gathered then I concluded that the country is very prosperous and credit is very good, and some information on that point from the Financial Secretary would be very useful.
We used to have some very pessimistic prophecies with regard to the financial stability of the Irish Free State. Here I notice a very large sum of money is due to be paid for some time ahead, and I think some words of comfort would be very useful on this point from the Treasury. I may say that from what I have seen in Ireland the country seems very prosperous. I knew Ireland very well before the War when I was a naval officer, and at that time I saw more of the land than the sea, because I hardly ever went to sea at that time as I was moving about the country. The change is extraordinary, and whatever the paper position of the Irish Free State may be the fact that strikes every observer who returns from Ireland to this country after an absence of some time is the increased prosperity, particularly of the land workers and the agricultural population generally. We see much better gardens and new buildings on the land, and those are signs which are more valuable as showing the prosperity of the country than any paper figures. When you see so many new buildings on farms and on estates which used to be half-derelict in the old Mays, I think that is a sure sign of increased prosperity. The Irish Free State are much ahead of this country in carrying out a great unified system of electrification for the whole of the country. They have gone much further than this country in that respect and when the electrification works are completed on the Shannon, they will be able to extend the electric system all over the Irish Free State, and I believe all over Ulster as well if the

1817
Government of Northern Ireland desire it. They are far ahead of this country in regard to the supply of the electricity. That is a most remarkable thing in a purely agricultural country like Ireland. Of course, they have not the same vested interests to overcome, because, perhaps fortunately, Ireland has not been industrialised to the extent that this country has, and it is only here and there that there are any electrical undertakings at all.
I only mention this in passing, as showing that the Irish Free State is improving its financial position to a great extent, and that that is a justification for the policy which has been advocated by this party and by my friends below the Gangway—or, perhaps, I may say my late friends below the Gangway—for so many generations. I think that that policy has been justified by the result. I think the approval by this House of a scheme for financial payments from the Irish Free State to this country gives an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, of all people, to give us some account of the financial situation in Ireland. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that another colleague of his from Northern Ireland (Sir M. Macnaghten) is here as well. I notice that, whenever a payment falls due from Northern Ireland, very good reasons are put forward by the hon. and learned Member as to why a further postponement should be granted by this House, or else some further loan made. I was not, however, talking about Northern Ireland. The time for that will come, no doubt, later in the Session, because, every year that I can remember, there has always been some new financial proposal from the Northern Government for assistance with regard to police or some other Department. With regard, however, to the Irish Free State, I think that, before the House parts from this Bill, we should have a short sketch of the position as between this Government and the Irish Free State Government in regard to finances. There is, of course, the guaranteed land loan which was passed by this House, and I do not think there has been any sort of hitch with regard to the land annuities, but, of course, that affects the credit of the Irish Free State, and,
1818
therefore, the repayment of this local loan fund.
There is one other comment that I wish to make as between the Free State and this country. It is a very curious thing that this particular Bill should pass through this House, as I think the fifth Order to-day, with a very sparse attendance of Members, and with no sort of interest on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose benches behind the Government Bench are almost empty. I should have thought that this was an occasion when Members of all parties could have expressed their satisfaction that this large and substantial sum of money should he coming at regular intervals, as laid down in this Bill, from the Irish Free State into the British Exchequer. After all the Debates that I have heard in this House with reference to Ireland and England, after the Debates that you, Mr. Speaker, have heard and which I have not heard, because I was not here, but which I have read with great attention, and after the agreement that has come about between different quarters of the House on the Irish question, I think we should have had some expression of satisfaction that, only these few years after the signing of the Treaty, and in spite of the fact that Ireland was for the first two years disrupted by a devastating civil war, such is the natural strength of the Irish people when allowed to manage their own finances that they are able to make this very substantial payment to the Exchequer at the regular intervals laid down in the Bill; and, as an English Member, I feel that I cannot allow the Second Reading of this Bill to pass without expressing the satisfaction of my friends on these benches at the satisfactory state of affairs disclosed in the Bill.
Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I intervene only for a few moments on these two points. I appreciate very much that, although there is not a very large attendance in the House, one or two Members, at any rate, have indicated their desire that on such an occasion as this the House should assume as much control over finance as possible, and have made certain inquiries on the Second Reading of this Bill, the Debates on which have been rather restricted in previous years. I am sure that, on the whole, the Financial

1819
Secretary will not be averse to those inquiries, and will be glad to give as much information as possible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) said a word or two as to the connection of local finance with, and its effect upon, the national credit. I am not sure that he could not have pursued his point further, and discussed the alternative method of raising loans which has been suggested from time to time from these benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) did not, it is true, develop it to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to desire, but it is perfectly plain, I think, that the more one can provide by local effort the finance for local schemes which come within the purview of what we call local loans, the better the effect upon the national credit. May I say, in that connection, speaking from my own knowledge of the thrift of the people in the localities—not through the suggested municipal bank to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but through our own industrial and provident societies—that we have again and again been able td lend money without reference to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, but through the thrift of working-class people, direct to the municipal authorities who had to undertake capital works in their localities. That is a very great saving to the national credit, and, if the Government really wanted to effect a saving in that connection, they might, perhaps, do worse than encourage these alternative methods of local finance for public works which have to be undertaken from time to time.
I also welcome the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich to the Financial Secretary as to what assets can be shown as being behind these loans. When we put forward from this side our proposals with regard to public finance from time to time, the finger is continually pointed to this or that public undertaking which has been financed by public loans, and which, in the view of certain hon. Members, has not been successful, As a matter of fact, however, if we take the indebtedness of these localities, and consider not only the sinking fund provision but also the assets of these undertakings, they would not be described as failures,
1820
but as actual successes. If, as I believe to be the case, the Financial Secretary can assure the House as to the extent of the assets which are behind the local loans which have been issued in the past, it would not only assist those local authorities to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh referred as getting their finance through these loans, but would also assist the credit of authorities such as I have been connected with myself, which go straight on to the market for their requirements.
Perhaps, as I represent a Sheffield Division, I might be allowed to use the City of Sheffield as an illustration of my point. There we have municipal undertakings which are able, not only to produce completely adequate assets in respect of the loans which they have issued on the market, but also to show a very substantial profit in the revenue account for the relief of the local rates. I am quite certain that it would do the credit of the local authorities of the country, and, perhaps, the national credit, some good if the Financial Secretary could give a reassuring reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich on that point. I am certain that he could do so. He may, perhaps, say that he cannot give such particulars without notice, but I am sure that those Members of the House who want to see an increasing control of national finance by the House would desire that in the future, on occasions like this, such information should be forthcoming. Perhaps, if the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to have it in time for the Second Reading, he could give it to us in a subsequent discussion, either on the Money Resolution or during the Committee Stage of the Bill.
The other point that I want to mention is this: I was not at all clear, from the statement of the Financial Secretary, as to how we are going to come out of this new arrangement with Ireland. I can quite see the desirability of coming, if possible, to a flat-rate payment which is profitable to us. That would save a good deal of overlapping in respect of payment of expenses. I was not at all clear, however, from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that we are going to be very much better off. Some of us have been rather nervous during the last year or two as to the concessions which have been

1821
made at least to one part of Ireland, and I think that hon. Members on the other side have sometimes been nervous about concessions made to the other part. I think it would be interesting if the Financial Secretary would give us, in his reply, not merely a general statement such as he gave us before, to the effect that he thought the arrangement made would be favourable, but if he would tell us, as nearly as he can estimate, what the actual saving to us will be.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to support the request of the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) to the Financial Secretary for some information as to the method of raising these loans. We have had presented to the House, only within the last few hours, the Report of the Colwyn Committee, in which they express strong dissent from the method of converting loans whereby the lender receives a considerable premium when the loans are finally redeemed; and, although the principle is not precisely the same in the case of these local loans, I think the argument is one that ought to be fully taken into account. A further point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford was with regard to this sum of £600,000. Do I understand that it is all to be put to income, or will it be put, in some degree, at any rate, to sinking fund? If it is all put to income, we have the position that this money, which is partly capital and partly income, is not being credited in the way that it should be. In connection with both these matters we should have, in effect, what I would describe as a negative sinking fund, and I think it is a considerable danger if, while we nominally have a sinking fund of £50,000,000 a year on the National Debt, we fritter that away by various means which enable us to pay a lower annual sum to the bondholders through an increase of the capital amount of the Debt. I should be glad if the Financial Secretary could tell us, in the first place, what are the particular loans on which the money is supposed to be raised, and, secondly, in exactly what form the £600,000 is going to be credited. I should further like him to say a few words on the position with regard to Northern Ireland. We quite appreciate that it does not come into this Bill, but I think it would in order for the right hon. Gentleman to explain, when we are dealing with this sum, and are dealing, there-
1822
fore, only with Southern Ireland, exactly what is the form in which the local loans apply to Northern Ireland.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. PALING: I think the Financial Secretary said that £40,000,000 of these loans was for housing. That brought to my mind the difficulty that local authorities sometimes find in getting the money necessary for housing, and I wondered whether the increased figure meant that, those local authorities were finding it easier to-day to get the necessary money for building houses than they did when I happened to be a member of a local authority and to have to get this money. I remember the time when we used to go to the Public Works Loans Board to borrow money for housing. We were told on one occasion to see if we could not get if from other sources, and on several occasions our housing programmes were held up because we could not get the money. There was a scheme, I believe, some years ago that local authorities should be expected to raise so much within their own neighbourhood. We never quite got up to that. We found it a very difficult matter to raise money. It is a relatively poor neighbourhood, almost entirely working class, with no people of the character that invest large sums of money each year. We also found a difficulty very often in getting it in the open market as we were recommended to do. It is because our housing schemes were held up time after time that I am asking the Financial Secretary now if this larger sum indicates that the position has been eased and relieved so far as the smaller authorities are concerned. If it is, I shall be very glad to learn it. In my constituency the housing programmes have often suffered because of the difficulty we found in getting loans from the Public Works Loans Board.
Mr. McNEILL: Several hon. Members have asked about the assets on which these loans were based. The great majority of them are loans to local authorities and the security behind them, so far as the Loans Commissioners are concerned, is the local rates. The local rates, of course, depend on assets behind them, but the actual assets on which these loans are secured are the local rates. That, I think, suggests the answer to

1823
what the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) opposite said in regard to very small authorities. He said there were no loan facilities under this Act given either to the very large authorities or to the very small authorities, and it was only a sort of middle grade that got any advantage.
Mr. W. GRAHAM: I did not say there were no facilities. I said the policy worked out in such a way that the Public Works Loans Commissioners tended to cover only the middle grade. The others, to the best of my knowledge, are not excluded on paper, but in fact that is the tendency.
Mr. McNEILL: The larger authorities are excluded because they are in a stronger financial position, and can go to the open market and obtain an unlimited supply of money. It is quite right that this Government help should be to a large extent reserved for the smaller and weaker authorities. I think the actual figure is £200,000 annual value. The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke about the difficultly in one place or another of getting advances under the Bill. Obviously, the Commissioners who are managing these funds have to have some regard to the national credit and to the general conditions of the locality to which the advance is made. I have had examples brought to my knowledge where advances have been made, and the authorities have found themselves in difficulties. It is very often difficult for them to repay the advances. It is quite clear that the Commissioners must to a certain extent be hard-hearted and must put difficulties in the way of making advances unless they are satisfied that the rateable value and the rates levied upon the locality offer a reasonable security that the service of the debt can always be maintained.
I do not think I can follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) in his disquisition on Ireland. I presume, as you, Sir, allowed him to continue, that it was, strictly speaking, just in order. No doubt the fact that an annuity of £600,000 for 20 years is by arrangement paid to this country by the Government of the Irish Free State makes it just in order to discuss at large
1824
the financial past, present and future of that State. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us about his recent visit to Ireland and about the Shannon scheme. He spoke of it with such enthusiasm and optimism that I have no doubt he has given it large financial support. I should be very sorry indeed to say anything to detract from the very rosy picture of that country he has brought back with him. I hope it is all true, but it is the most optimistic account I have heard yet and it contradicts a great deal that I have heard from other sources. I earnestly hope it is authentic, but I do not think it has really a great deal to do with the Bill. The only matter with which we are really concerned is, whether or not this annuity is a good and sound bargain from our point of view for dealing with the account between the two nations arising out of local loans. I do not know that I can add very much to what I said in my opening observations on that point. One hon. Member asked whether it would include a sinking fund. I thought it unnecessary to say so, but of course it does, and it is calculated upon a basis which is favourable because it allows for a very considerable rise in the capital value of the stock and yet enables us to give a comparatively short period to liquidate the debt owing to us from the Free State.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was referring to me, but I wanted know whether the £600,000 would be treated as income, or part as income and part as capital, and allocated accordingly.
Mr. McNEILL: It is being treated to satisfy the annual debt interest on these loans and to provide a Sinking Fund for paying off the total. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) asked me whether there were arrears from the Irish Free State and how they were dealt with. The arrears have either 'been paid off altogether or taken into account in some cases in calculating the £600,000 annuity, and that, I think, is quite satisfactory.
Sir F. WISE: Is it going to be an issue to the public?
Mr. McNEILL: These loans have almost invariably been issued to the

1825
National Debt Commissioners. A question was put to me with regard to issues at a discount. I quite agree with the hon. Member's view, and I do not suppose there will be any two opinions about it. It is clearly undesirable, if you can avoid it, to issue loans at a great discount. The nearer you can get to a par issue undoubtedly the better, but it is not always possible to do it. There are considerations which you have to take into account in making these loans, especially perhaps to local authorities. All I can say is that the Treasury are very much alive to the desirability of getting as near to par as possible.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I wish to endorse every word that has been uttered by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), and to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do all he can to assist small local authorities. I have been a member of a local authority for many years and we have found great difficulty when the Commissioners have refused us a loan and we had to go to the market. You could say in your regulations to the local authorities, "If you can borrow at the same rate of interest charged by the Public Loans Board, go and get it," but to expect them to pay probably 1½ per cont. more is tying them up. Very large responsibilities fall on the local authorities, and they must be assisted as far as possible in their public work. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take into account the position of the small local authorities and aid them in every way he can.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. R. McNeill.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and question proposed,
"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public
1826
Works Loans Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour; and

(b) to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to accept the payment by the Government of the Irish Free State of an annuity of six hundred thousand pounds for twenty years in discharge of the liability of the said Government outstanding on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, in respect of the Local Loans Fund."—(King's Recommendation Signified) [Mr. McNeill.]

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before we part from this Resolution, I would like to make a few comments with respect to the Irish Free State which arise out of the explanation given to mo by the right hon. Gentleman on the previous Order—the Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I had barely kept in order in making certain observations and putting certain questions about the financial position a the Irish Free State. I should have thought that as this is a 20-years' arrangement, that I was pretty much in order. However, I made my remarks, I hope, in a good-humoured way, as I do now. I cannot refrain on the Committee stage of this Resolution from pointing out, as a lesson for all of us, that here we are in 1927 discussing in the calmest way and in a good-natured atmosphere, the payment of £600,000 a year for 20 years from the Irish Free State Government to the British Exchequer. Older Members of this House will remember some of the all-night sittings which we had, and some of the heated scenes, when the two benches below the Gangway on the Opposition side, now occupied with so much grace by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), were occupied by the serried hosts of the Irish Nationalists. The point to remember is, that the right hon. Gentleman and his party opposite always answered the pleas that financial arrangements such as this should be left to the Irish Free State Government, by saying, "If you allow these people to arrange their own finances, and so forth, there will be anarchy, misery, civil war and the breakup of the Empire." Now, we are arranging to receive £600,000 a year for 20 years from the Irish Free State, and nobody on the benches opposite thinks of questioning where the money comes from. It shows how extremely bad at

1827
prophecy the party opposite is when it comes to great affairs of the Empire.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ESTIMATES.
Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates, may be effected therein."
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members.
Mr. Ammon, Major Astor, Mr. Walter Baker, Mr. Bennett, Captain Bourne, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Charleton, Brigadier-General Charteris, Captain Craig, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ernest Evans, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, Mr. Hannon, Lieut.-Colonel Vivian Henderson, Captain Loder, Sir John Marriott, Mr. Geoffrey Pete, Sir Philip Pilditch, Mr. Potts, Mr. Ramsden, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, Mr. Townend, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Thomas Williams, Sir Fredric Wise, Commander Charles Williams, and Colonel Woodcock nominated Members of the Committee.
Ordered, That Seven be the quorum of the Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.
Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-Committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-Committees, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four be the quorum of any of the Sub-Committees.
Ordered, That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee or by any of the Sub-Committees to the House.—[Mr. F. C. Thomson.]
Mr. SPEAKER: As there is business appointed for 8.15, I shall suspend the sitting until that time.
Sitting suspended at Twenty-one minutes after Six o'Clock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. THURTLE: My name is on the Order Paper to move the rejection of this Bill, but as I am only desirous of raising the issue contained in the street trading Clause I do not propose to move that Amendment, but hope to have an opportunity to speak later in the Debate.
Mr. RHYS: This Bill contains, among other things, a provision for the possible abolition of the market in Whitechapel, and I think the occasion ought not to be allowed to pass without some comment. This market has occupied its present position for a great many centuries, and if the Bill obtains a Second Reading to-night the House be abolishing an historic London institution. I think it is a very good thing that this market should eventually be removed, because with the growth of London, the increase of its traffic and the development of the Essex side of London, this great artery through Whitechapel ought no longer to be choked with the great hay-carts and straw-carts which now stand there. I also observe that in the Bill the parish of Stepney is referred to under the title of the "Lord of the Manor of Stebun-heath." I sincerely hope the promoters of the Bill have got the name right, because I have consulted authorities on this name, and I find no fewer than six variations in its spelling, and not one of them is that which appears in the Bill. The Manor goes back as far as Domesday Book, in which it appears as Stibenhede; but no doubt that is a small point.
This market has a great history, and up to comparatively recent times had a great justification. In 1794 there were no fewer than 1,530 acres of agricultural land in the parish of Stepney. A little

1829
later than that the market became a very important institution, but it was not a very peaceful or salubrious spot. It was inhabited by a number of people who were known as "the Whitechapel birds." A Whitechapel bird was one who was very well versed in the accomplishments of bull-baiting, dog-fighting and dog-stealing. They were often assisted by a contingent of Spitalfields weavers, and their method of procedure was to look out for a drove of cattle coming along the road, to cut out the most likely looking bullock and hunt it through the streets. When the unfortunate animal had been sufficiently chivied, it was knocked on the head, and, as the historian has it, "was restored to its owner if they could find him." That procedure went on until the new police were instituted, when the sport of bull-hanking came to an end. I fear the only diversion which may be seen at Aldgate to-day is a procession such as I saw the other day headed by a band and followed by banners saying, "Hands off China." That is another form of amusement. I think the House will take a wise step in making provision for the removal of this market, because we must look a great many years ahead, and although I do not wish to indulge in prophecy I do not think I shall be overstating the case when I say that in 20 years from now there will be a population of nearly 200,000 people living between the East End of London and Southend, and it is of the utmost importance that the means of ingress to and egress from London should be kept as clear as possible of these out-of-date institutions.
Then I observe in the Bill a provision to give the London County Council power to flood any part of the open spaces under their control in frosty weather, for the purpose of skating, and they are to be allowed to charge admission to those flooded spaces. I am not an expert on the by-laws of the London County Council, but I hope that no public right of free access to open spaces is being infringed by this provision. No doubt if the Bill goes to Committee that point will be dealt with, but it is one that might possibly be overlooked, and I am very anxious that there should be no infringement of the rights of free access to land at present enjoyed by the people.
1830
Then I notice that there are provisions for reducing the number of pigeons. I would like to see a provision inserted for reducing the number of other birds, if that be necessary. Not very long ago there was a great invasion of St. Paul's Cathedral by starlings, whose noise bereft people living near by of their sleep. I believe it was only a passing invasion, but if powers are to be taken for pigeons, let us see that other common nuisances are reduced. At the same time, I hope there will be no drastic exercise of these powers, because the London pigeons are one of the sights of the Metropolis. When I was in New York and elsewhere in America people frequently said to me that when they went to St. Paul's Cathedral one of the things with which they were struck was the way in which the pigeons came down and fed out of the hands of the people, and they remarked that they were one of the sights of London. I hope that this feature of London life will not be entirely done away with. I know that the county council are going to take on a large task, but they must be satisfied that none of these pigeons have a private owner. I do not know what provision is made to compensate them should one pigeon be killed with a ring on it which can be proved to belong to a private owner. I know that is a small point.
Taking the Bill as a whole, I think it is a good one, and I agree that the vast interests of London must be brought under some sort of central control. I do not think this is the proper time to refer to London traffic, although I notice that Clause 15 of the Bill refers to the Metropolitan District Railway. If this means that it is going to be made easier to come to some arrangement with the railway companies which serve the east side of the Metropolis, that will indeed be a step in the right direction. It will be the first step towards implementing the recommendation of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which is advocating one combine for all London traffic. In a fortnight's time there will be a further opportunity for discussing this matter, and therefore I will not go into this subject very deeply at the present time except to say that I know the county council are only too anxious to do all they possibly can for the people whom they are placing on the outskirts of

1831
London. The London County Council have been compelled to place a vast population on the outskirts of the city, and up to now no provision has been made for transporting these people to and from their work. This is a, matter of deep concern to those who represent the constituencies of Greater London, and immediate steps should be taken to remedy the great scandal which exists at the present time. I do not mean to go into the question of street trading, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject. I thoroughly believe in the liberty of the subject, but there also arises in this connection the grave question of public health and of the streets not being allowed to be blocked. I understand that there is no question of doing away with the street trader at all; indeed many of them will be better protected under the provisions of this Bill. On this point I would rather hear further arguments on the subject before coming to a definite conclusion. I hope the Bill will obtain a Second Reading.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I desire to call the attention of the House to the very drastic provisions contained in Clause 56, which makes the owners of tenement property in the county of London liable to summary conviction and heavy penalty in the case of every staircase which in the opinion of the local authority or any officer of that authority is not sufficiently lighted.
Sir CYRIL COBB: On a point of Order. I wish to ask if this matter should not be raised on the Instruction and not on the Motion for the Second Reading.
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It is proposed that this matter should be dealt with on the Instruction, hut there is no reason why it should not be raised on the Second Reading.
Sir W. DAVISON: It is desirable that the attention of the House should be called to these very drastic provisions, especially having regard to the fact that they have been petitioned against by some 20 authorities which for many years past have been instrumental in providing sanitary dwellings for the working people of London. I am chairman of the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, and we provide accommodation
1832
for between 19,000 and 20,000 people in 5,500 tenements. We have petitioned against this Clause, which we think is detrimental, not only to the management of the company, but also to the interests of our own tenants. Other organisations which have petitioned against this Clause are the Peabody Donation Trust, the Guinness Trust, the Samuel Lewis Trust, the Metropolitan Industrial Dwellings Company, the Sutton Trust,, the Artisans, Labourers and General Dwellings Company, the National Model Dwellings Company, the Metropolitan Association, the Victoria Dwellings Association and many others. I think this shows that the opposition to this Bill is not merely the idea of a single Member of Parliament, but of many associations concerned in the past in providing efficient accommodation at very reasonable rentals for the working people of the Metropolis, and they are gravely concerned at their management of their own buildings being interfered with. In the ease of the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, we have had no complaint from our tenants that the lighting has not been carried out to their satisfaction, and I have no knowledge of any complaints from these tenants that the lighting is insufficient. We have the lamps lighted on all the staircases every evening up to 10.30 and after that hour the lights on the upper staircases are put out, but the lamps on the ground floor are kept lighted all night. I have made inquiries from the police and others as to the need for this Clause, and we have been unable to find out why these drastic provisions have been put in by the London County Council. I am informed that the Clause was inserted on account of some resolution passed by the Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Committee.
I was told by a member of the London County Council that my own borough of Kensington had expressed the opinion that something of the kind referred to in this Clause were needed. I immediately communicated with the Town Clerk of Kensington over the telephone and asked whether that was so, and he informed me that the borough of Kensington on inquiry were if the opinion that there was no evidence in their possession of any requirements of that kind and that they had received no complaints. The matter came before the Metropolitan Joint Committee I understand with re-

1833
Bard to the need of lighting staircases in old houses which had been converted into flats, and there may be some need for these provisions in that direction, but it was never intended that such Regulations should apply to buildings like those controlled by my company and the Peabody Trust. I am informed that the Metropolitan Joint Committee wrote to 28 Metropolitan boroughs asking for evidence showing that provisions like those contained in Clause 56 were required, and the result of this inquiry was that of the 28 Metropolitan boroughs four boroughs said they could supply evidence of the need of some such provision; 15 stated that they were unable to supply any evidence, and one borough replied that they had received no complaints. Another borough resolved to take no action, and seven did not reply. That is the result of an inquiry made from 28 Metropolitan boroughs. In the face of all this evidence, I do not think the House is entitled to insert any such drastic provisions as those contained in Clause 56, and I submit those facts to bon. Members for their consideration. I would only say that the Peabody Trust makes, I think, no profit, while, as regards my own company, Sir Sidney Waterlow used to say of it, many years ago, that it was a company which showed "philanthropy and 5 per cent," We have always paid a 5 per cent. dividend, but when I tell the House that the average rental of our rooms is 3s. 4d. a week, including rates, and that the average rental of a flat is 11s. 2d., including rates, I think it will be seen that the rentals are not exorbitant. The death-rate among our 19,000 or 20,000 people is eight per thousand, as against 11 per thousand in the Metropolitan area, so I do not think it can be said that the health of our people is not well looked after.
I give these figures to show that we are deeply conscious of our responsibility towards the people who occupy our tenements. If we thought that lighting was required for a longer period than at present, we should unquestionably keep the lights going longer. So far, however, from the amenities of our flats being improved by having the lights on all night, or after 10.30, we are advised, and a great many of our tenants are of
1834
the same opinion, that the effect would be exactly the opposite. Where you have lights on on the upper floors, it is a temptation to vagrant people, to people who play cards and commit nuisances of various kinds, which are a trouble to the residents in the dwellings, who, for the greater part, retire to rest at about 10.30 in the evening, when the lights on the upper floors are put out. The point I wish to make is that it is for the management of these flats to put in what lights they think are necessary. Some flats require lights on the upper floors, because there are certain classes of people occupying particular flats who come in late, and in these cases it is desirable that the lights should be kept on a little later; but the owners of those dwellings have a far better knowledge of the requirements of their tenants than an official of some local authority, who must look at these things from a fixed, stereotyped point of view.
I venture to say that this matter has not been sufficiently inquired into, have given the figures which I am told to-day were the result of inquiries of the boroughs, and I may add that, in the case of my own company, if the local authority required us to keep the lights on all night, as they would be entitled to do under this Clause, it would cost us another £5,000 a year. That figure has been most carefully checked by several people, and I am told it is absolutely correct. If we had £5,000 a year, I think we should do very much better to spend it, as we should, in increasing the accommodation afforded by working-class dwellings, rather than frittering it away in burning gas on staircases where neither our tenants nor we think it is necessary. I think that this is a retrograde step. There is no suggestion on the part of our tenants or anyone else that it is really needed. The more burdens you put upon property, the less inclined will either companies or individuals be to spend money in the erection of working-class property. It, is difficult enough to make working-class property pay as it is; in fact, it is very nearly impossible in London, where you have to buy sites, and all these unnecessary additional burdens only cut at the bottom of what we all have at heart, namely, the provision of additional houses in an efficient and satisfactory

1835
state. I hope very much that later on, when this Instruction is moved, the House will see fit, if it passes the Bill, at any rate to remove this Clause for further consideration.
Mr. HARRIS: I desire to ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have an Instruction which I should propose to move after the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill, and I desire to ask you whether you think it will be more convenient to have a discussion on that Instruction than a general discussion on the Second Reading. If it would be for the general convenience of the House, I would postpone what I have to say until after the Second Reading.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is hardly a point for me to decide. I cannot say whether the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
Mr. HARRIS: In those circumstances, I will say what I have to say on the Motion for Second Reading. I should first like to reply to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). For something like 20 years I have been a member of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, and, although I recognise the important position which the hon. Member holds, as chairman of a dwellings company which stands very high in regard to its administration and the character of its buildings, I can say, as an administrator of a great number of buildings through the Housing Committee, that we have found this lighting of staircases to be essential for the protection of the public and of the residents in those dwellings. The London, County Council has the same difficulty to make ends meet as the company which the hon. Member represents. In the early days, we did not light these staircases, but from our experience we find, from the point of view of the people who use the stairs, that lighting is essential. It is only because we have found from our experience that it is essential, and because of representations from the police and others, that we are promoting this particular power to require that in dwellings of this character the stairs should be lighted.
In reference to the other part of the Bill, I am afraid I cannot find myself in
1836
support of it. Squeezed into this Bill are some revolutionary proposals that are going to interfere with a very old-established industry in London; which has been the pride of the people of London, namely, that of the street traders. It is peculiar to London; in the Provinces there is nothing really of the same character. Provincial towns have retail markets. In almost every big provincial town there are large retail markets, supplied by the community, well lit, well built, well controlled, where the public can get the advantage of cheap supplies of produce. In Paris, also, dotted over the whole of the city, are large retail markets such as, except in one or two corners of London, do not exist at all here. There are, of course, the big wholesale markets like Covent Garden, but the only opportunity for poor people, who have very little larder space and cannot store food, to get cheap supplies, are these old-established street markets dating back very many years. I am afraid that that is inevitable. London is so large that it would be impossible to supply large retail markets except at great expense. If the whole of London were to have these it would mean the starting of 30 or 40 retail markets, often buying the sites at great expense, and the tolls would have to be so heavy as to be prohibitive. As a result the street trader has come into existence.
I have no doubt in the course of the Debate reference will be made to a small Committee on Street Trading which reported in 1922. They were not too friendly to the street traders, but they give them an excellent character. They say:
"It is our opinion that, generally speaking, the street trader is an industrious worker, and that it is only by means of hard work that he is able to earn a livelihood."
There is no more industrious and hard working person in the whole of London than the street traders and they have the confidence and respect of the people of London. I think it will be agreed that they fulfil a very useful purpose. They give the small buyer the advantage of getting cheap supplies. Our food supplies are a constant subject of articles in the Press. Vegetables, fruit, meat, fish, eggs and butter are on the whole more expensive in London than in any

1837
other part of the country. These small street markets scattered about help to bring prices down. That is also testified to by the Report of the Street Trading Committee. They say:
"We have received almost unanimous evidence to the effect that the street trader supplies a felt want to the public, especially to the inhabitants of poor neighbourhoods. The street trader is readily accessible to the local residents and the competition between traders helps to keep the prices of the goods sold to the lowest possible level. The costermonger is very frequently in a better position to take advantage of gluts of fruit, fish, etc., than is the shopkeeper."
In other words the street trader fulfils a useful purpose and we must be very careful that we do nothing to make it more impossible for him to carry on and ultimately drive him off the streets. We shall hear a lot about Bermondsey tonight but we have not had much experience of Bermondsey having powers of this kind. We have some experience of similar powers in the City of London, and they have been proved to be disastrous to the street trader, who is now conspicuous by his absence. There are very few street traders supplying the City of London. You have to hunt to find them. They have been driven off the streets. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right!"] Now we know where we are. I understood the hon. Member stood as the champion of the street, traders. Now we understand that he approves of the City of London driving these men off the streets. We thought there was something behind it and now he has let the cat out of the bag.
It may be argued that a supporter of the principle of local government would be naturally sympathetic to the idea that these are the kind of powers that ought to be in the hands of a borough council. I have a great respect for borough councils. Many of them are very efficient. They do their work very well and I have not a word to say against them, but in many cases a very large number of their members are shopkeepers. I have the greatest respect for shopkeepers. I believe if they were given these powers they would do their beet to discharge them impartially in the interests of all concerned, but is it fair, is it just, is it right, is it sound to put these powers in the bands of trade rivals? However anxious the shopkeepers might be to be impartial they will be under suspicion,
1838
in the mind of the street trader at any rate and in the mind of many of the public of being biased against the street trader. How would the shopkeeper like to have his right to carry on his business in the hands of trade rivals? In the desire for supervision and licensing von may put these powers into the hands of local bodies who may be composed of possible trade competitors. Many of the retail trade organisations are opposed to the street trader. There was an article the other day in the official newspaper that represents the grocers' trade welcoming these powers. They say:
"We are glad to see that the London County Council are proceeding on the lines set out in their General Powers Bill, and we hope that they will not be deterred from going forward by the opposition which seems to be foreshadowed."
They are welcoming these proposals, because I assume they want to sweep off the street these inconvenient trade rivals, who help to keep down prices.
From the administrative point of view there are very serious objections to these proposals. I recognise that the Committee in 1922 recommended some form of licensing, but they say if you are to have licensing it ought to be in the hands of a central authority, and the reasons for that are obvious. Most of these street markets only take place one or two days a week. In one borough it may be on Monday and Tuesday; in another Wednesday and Thursday; in another Friday and Saturday and some boroughs it may be a surprise to the House to know, have these street markets on Sunday. The street traders only make a living by going from market to market. Under this scheme, if a street trader trades two days in Shoreditch, two days in Bethnal Green and two days in Stepney he will have to have three licences. Is that a practicable proposal Imagine a scheme for licensing taxicabs under which the driver has to get a licence from each borough in London. I do not say the analogy is complete but in a place like London it does not seem a practical proposal that a street trader should have to get three or four licences in order to carry on his trade. If our experience is to count for anything there is really not the difficulty suggested by the London County Council in the circular it sent to Members. In the Report

1839
of 1922 it is pointed out that where they have the men organised as in Stepney and Bethnal Green no such machinery is necessary. The Council say:
"The Stepney and Bethnal Green Unions have made and enforced rules and regulate the general conduct of business by their members which appear to have given satisfaction to all concerned."
I should say a far simpler way of getting order in other parts of London is to follow the example of Bethnal Green and Stepney and encourage the street traders to organise themselves on their own account, form their unions and regulate their industry in the same way as other trades do for other purposes.
I see the County Council makes the point that it is necessary in the interests of health that stalls should be inspected. It is pointed out in the same Report of 1922:
"While strongly of opinion that all goods intended for human consumption should have adequate protection from dust and contamination when exposed for sale from stalls, we would point out that the same considerations also apply in the case of shops having open fronts."
If something of this kind is considered necessary, it should be generally applied; it should be applied not only to street traders but to shopkeepers. If a shopkeeper exposes meat, fruit, fish or vegetables without having a shop window, he should be subject to the same control and inspection as is now proposed for the street trader. It is a very curious thing that although these powers are sought by the County Council, nothing is to be done in regard to the itinerant street trader—the street trader who does not take up a permanent stand but moves his stall from place to place. In their Report, the Committee point out particularly that it is just as necessary to control the itinerant street trader as it is to control the man who takes up his stall in a well-established street market. If we are to have legislation of this character, it should apply not only to the street trader who goes to an established street market but also to the street trader who takes his barrow to different parts of London.
Street traders are not confined to the County of London; they are spread over the whole of the Metropolitan Police area, The Committee point out that
1840
legislation of this kind should apply to the whole of the Metropolitan police area; not simply to the County of London but to greater London. That seems reasonable and fair. Before we pass legislation of this kind there should be a complete and impartial inquiry into the whole question of street trading. The street traders would welcome an inquiry; they are not afraid of it. They would give evidence before any Committee, and they would like the evidence to be given in public. A Committee dealt with this matter in 1922, but owing to the death of a Member of this House who was connected with the Committee the Report of the Committee was only signed by four Members, three of whom represented the legal profession and the police, while the fourth represented the multiple shopkeepers.
The gentleman in question was a very distinguished Member of this House, and I have not a word to say against him. According to his lights, he did his best to be fair and to hold the balance evenly between the various interests; but the street traders, naturally, do not feel that it is just that the cot elusions of a. Committee of this kind should be taken when the shopkeeping interest was represented and the street trading interest was conspicuous by its absence. If we are to have a Committee to guide this House, let it be a Committee of the various interests concerned, or let it be quite impartial, otherwise it would be like having a Committee to inquire into trade union law, with a director of a railway company on it and no representative of the National Union of Railwaymen on it. No doubt the director of the railway company would try to be fair and impartial, but the conclusions of the Committee would, naturally, not be above suspicion in the eyes of the interests interfered with.
I am asking, and we have a right to ask, before such great changes are made in the street trading customs of London, that, in the interests of the street traders, we should have a full and complete inquiry, and a special Bill. This particular subject has been hidden amongst a great number of other proposals such as that referring to staircases in dwelling houses, and it has been hidden from the general public. It has escaped the vigilant eye of the street traders and, unfortunately,

1841
they have missed their opportunity of petitioning, so that they cannot be heard by the Local Legislation Committee. That Committee has the confidence of this House, but, unfortunately, owing to the fact that the street traders have not petitioned, they have no right to ask to be heard before that Committee. For these reasons, I appeal to the House to reject this Clause, and when I move my Instruction, I hope that it will be carried.
9.0 p.m.
Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I have listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) and I would like, while taking an entirely impartial attitude on this question to correct an impression which may have been derived from the speech of the hon. Member. There is no evidence in that part of London with which I am familiar that street traders are objected to by the retail trade. I do not regard this proposal as constituting an attack upon the street traders as a body, nor would such an attack be either supported or approved by the great body of London citizens. The street traders, as a representative community, serve the public in circumstances which are familiar to all of us. We know that they offer a convenient means, for the benefit of the poorer classes, of distributing food, and perishable articles in particular, in the event of a glut. That position is well known, and it has been particularly referred to in the Report of the Committee. They perform a service to the public and in return for that service they have been in the habit of exercising certain privileges. For example, the street markets are often held in busy thoroughfares, and there is risk of the convenience of the public being interfered with to a certain extent. Undoubtedly, rows of stalls down a busy thoroughfare interfere with the progress of traffic.
I think any impartial observer or student of this question will recognise the necessity for the observance, shall we say, of four stipulations—regulation, supervision, contribution and uniformity. Uniformity appears to be an essential. If each local authority in London were to be left to deal with this question according to its own lights or according to the particular circumstances of the locality,
1842
we should have a lack of uniformity in regulation towards an important body of traders. It will be admitted also that there is a strong case for a contribution on the part of street traders towards the clearing and cleansing of the streets which they occupy. At any rate, they occupy a portion of the streets. Regulation is surely to be desired in the interests of the rights to which an individual street trader, by the regular occupation of a stall in a certain district, might think himself entitled and to which he would be prepared to contend that he had greater justification than, possibly, a trade rival who had been less constant in his service to the public and had been a less regular attendant at a certain street market. There is, therefore, a case for regulation as well as contribution and uniformity. With respect to the question of supervision there, again, in the interests of public health and other considerations there must be a case for a certain measure of supervision and control. There must also be a case for supervision in regard to the space occupied by stalls and their possible encroachment on the minimum space necessary to allow for traffic.
Regulation, supervision, uniformity and control are generally admitted requirements; they are in themselves non-contentious. So far as I am personally concerned there is no attack on street traders, no desire to interfere with the carrying on of their business, which is admittedly a service to the public. But surely the time has come when in the interests of the traders themselves, as well as those of the public, some regulation and uniformity are desirable. When we consider the streets and areas and the great congestion of traffic the case becomes acute. Surely some other alternative method may be adopted? We can consider an alternative method, and we may if in the course of our researches we follow the line taken by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green. Looking at the circumstances in which street trading exists in London I am inclined to ascribe its existence to the practical absence of retail markets. There are some retail markets, but the circumstances in which the market control of London exists at the moment probably accounts for the fact that we have not a larger supply of local retail markets.

1843
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green seemed to think that the establishment of retail markets is out of the question. I disagree. I cannot see that the cost would be too great. I see no reason why there should be any necessity to charge an exorbitant or over whelming toll. In the part of London with which I am familiar I am afraid the street traders in the near future will have to find another site, as the traffic in the streets can only be carried on with great difficulty at certain busy times If the street traders are to remain there the street must be widened, at a very heavy cost, or else the market will have to be moved elsewhere. But why should it not be possible in the different boroughs of London to establish an open-air market where those who have been accustomed to use the streets might resort in order to carry on their trade? It would not involve any excessive expenditure, and it would relieve the streets. There surely lies a solution of the problem. So far as the cost is concerned the borough would gain an advantage from the less congested condition of the streets and may easily allow a purely nominal charge, or one which is not in excess of the charges at present made.
I do not agree that an objection to the proposal is that the tolls would be too heavy. The present circumstances are peculiar to London. A remedy is necessary. The question will have to be dealt with, and I offer this as a possible solution not to be readily condemned but one which is worthy of careful consideration. I am no enemy of the street trader, quite the contrary, but I think the House will agree that certain measures of regulation on a basis of uniformity are necessary in the interests of the public and the street traders themselves. It is with that object that the Clause in the Bill has been introduced, at the wish and at the suggestion of the borough councils of London. The London County Council are only acting in the interests of the London boroughs, and they do not much mind whether the Instruction which is proposed be adopted or not.
Dr. SALTER: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and propose to confine my remarks exclusively to the Clause which deals with the regularisation of street trading. I understand that
1844
the opposition to the Bill is almost exclusively due to the inclusion of this particular Clause, and the attendance this evening of a considerable number of London Members arises from the fact that there is among the street traders of London a grave fear that the operation of this Clause may deprive them of their livelihood. As a result, they have been putting no inconsiderable pressure on my hon. Friends during the last few weeks, and if they have not intimidated them, I will not say that—they have at any rate induced them in some cases to sacrifice their principles in order to oppose this particular Measure, happen to be the only Member of the House who has had practical experience of the administration of the powers which this Bill proposes to confer on the rest of London, and I desire to say a few words as to the operation of the Act which the Bermondsey Borough Council obtained last year, which is word for word with the Clause in the Bill now before the House. The experience we have gained in Bermondsey dispels completely the fears of the street traders and their friends, that this Bill will in any way destroy their living or unduly hamper them in their efforts to gain a livelihood. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If I can give the House a few facts—not mere theories or abstract dissertations on the subject, but a few concrete facts as to what has happened in one Metropolitan area—where this Clause has been in operation, then hon. Members will realise that the fears which are entertained are not really justified.
The Bermondsey Act has been working with the most complete satisfaction to everybody concerned since last year. There have been no complaints from any quarter. It has been received with general acclamation and given satisfaction to the street traders, to shopkeepers, the general public, the local authorities, and the police. As far as I can gather there has been neither individual nor collective remonstrance or complaint against the operation of the Act, and this extraordinary result has accrued. Prior to the passing of the Act there were in the Borough of Bermondsey from 340 to 350 known street traders, people who attended at their various pitches regularly on certain days of the week. At the present time the Borough of Ber-

1845
mondsey has issued 600 licences; the number of street traders has been nearly doubled. I have no complaint to make on that score, because we look on the street trader as a friend of the poor. We realise that he is providing a very necessary service. All we ask is that his operations shall be properly regularised.
That is all that this Bill proposes to do. In the first place, the street trader has not been turned out or deprived of his livelihood, because actually there are nearly twice as many in the area as there were before the Act came into force. In the second place, there is no doubt that the fact that any given trader has now a guaranteed pitch of which he cannot be deprived by anyone, has given almost capital value to his particular stand. This is illustrated very well by an incident which happened a few weeks ago. There died a street trader who had had control of two stalls, one of which he worked himself, the other being worked by his son. In his will, after leaving the rest of his property to his widow and daughters, he left the two stalls to his son. He estimated the capital value of those stalls at £150 each, and I understand that probate has actually been paid on that amount. Obviously, the man had no power to devise the right to trade in that particular spot, but the incident shows what value a guaranteed pitch now possesses to the street trader who is lucky enough to obtain one. I know that throughout the street trading fraternity generally a fixed pitch is now regarded as having a saleable value.
To show the support which the street traders who have had experience of the Act give to that Act now that they know how it safeguards their interests, I might mention that the opponents of this Bill have attempted to hold meetings amongst the traders in Bermondsey, and in every case they have had a very rough house and have been heckled severely, and the attempt to continue the meetings has had to be abandoned. Some rumour was spread among the street traders that this Bill would have the effect of removing their present guaranteed protection, and as a result petitions have been addressed to the borough council and to the local Members imploring them to do everything in their power to retain the present Bermondsey Act, and if possible to extend its beneficent effects over the rest of London to their brethren, Two other
1846
very valuable effects which the Act has had in my own area are, first, that the local ratepayer has been relieved of what was a very serious and very unjust impost. Members will understand that in street markets where mainly vegetables or fruit are sold, there must necessarily be a large amount of refuse. Prior to the operation of the Act the borough council was obliged to keep a special staff of street cleansers for the purpose of clearing up after and during the progress of the markets. A night staff and a Sunday staff had to be engaged and a market inspector had to be appointed, and in addition there was the cost of the removal of the refuse, together with its ultimate destruction. The total cost of all those operations was just over £2,000 a year, or practically a halfpenny rate.
It was always felt that persons who deposited trade refuse should themselves be responsible for the cost of removing it. Prior to the Act the borough had to bear the cost of these special markets and of clearing the refuse deposited by the trader. Now, under the Act, we are enabled legally to make a maximum charge of twos shillings a week for those who have a stand for more than one day a week, or of one shilling a week for those who take up their stand on only one day of the week, and the revenue so derived, which is paid willingly by all and even joyfully by many of the costermongers concerned, just covers the total cost of the special cleansing and the removal of the refuse. Moreover, the ratepayers have been relieved to the extent of a halfpenny rate, no one has been penalised, and everybody is satisfied. A secondary, but exceedingly beneficial result has been this: Prior to the Act, many costermongers, in order to get rid of their refuse, deposited it in side streets or under railway arches and so on, when they imagined that no one was looking, and a great deal of nuisance and trouble was caused thereby. Since the operation of the Act all those difficulties have ceased. The costermonger now hand's over his refuse to an accredited officer, who parades up and down the market with a specially constructed barrow, and the side streets are no longer encumbered with debris that has been deposited surreptitiously. Since the Act there has been no complaint of the unlawful deposit of refuse under arches or in side streets.

1847
With regard to the question of health and the objections which have been raised on the score that a local authority should have no right to interfere with the particular class of goods that the costermonger can sell, or decide whether he should sell them, I have to say that we have experienced great advantage from being able to segregate different classes and types of goods. It is, obviously, undesirable that next door, or in immediate proximity, to a stall upon which margarine and various comestibles are sold there should be a heap of filthy textile refuse, old clothes and similar insanitary material. What has happened has been that the borough council has been able to set aside certain areas for the sale of second-hand clothing and similar goods and another part of the market for the sale of such things as foodstuffs. I suggest that the circular—which I think all Members of the House have received from the Street Traders' Association—is incorrect in almost every one of its assertions. It suggests that the only scheme of licensing and registration so far tried is that of the City of London. That is obviously incorrect because it has been in operation in the borough of Bermondsey. Then it suggests that the scheme has resulted in the practical elimination of the street trader. That is obviously incorrect, because, as far as my own borough is concerned, the numbers have been nearly doubled. Then it suggests that only one or two borough councils have expressed any desire for the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill is brought in by the London County Council at the instance of the Standing Joint Committee of all the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and at least 18 of them—I have the names here—have expressed themselves in favour of the Bill.
Mr. TASKER: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what date that is?
Dr. SALTER: I do not think I have the date.
Mr. TASKER: Is it a year ago?
Dr. SALTER: It has been reiterated since. The names of the 18 borough councils are: Battersea, Camberwell, Deptford, Fulham, Hackney, Hammersmith, Holborn, Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, Poplar, Shoreditch, South-
1848
wark, St. Marylebone, Stoke Newington, Westminister, and Woolwich. That is the list of boroughs which I understand are supporting the Bill.
Another objection raised is that licensing and regulations tend to restrict the operations of the traders who operate in more than one market. That is obviously not the case, because I have ascertained that more than 50 per cent. of the traders, who are registered in the Metropolitan borough of Bermondsey, trade in at least one other borough, while 30 per cent. of them trade in at least two other boroughs, which are not controlled. As a matter of fact, they happen to trade in other boroughs where the licensing scheme is in operation which will be legalised if this Bill passes, and, therefore, their position is not in the least degree interfered with.
Then the next point they state is that licensing and Regulations do not as a matter of practice give the security and tenure which is claimed for them. That obviously is incorrect. The one thing the licensed street traders say is that they will at long last get the protection and security for which they have asked for many years. I take it that Members know that the ordinary street trader, in order to secure his pitch, except in licensed areas, has to take up his stand somewhere between 3 a.m. and and 5 a.m. winter and summer. Unless he is there to hold his pitch, it does not matter for how many years he may have been trading in that particular spot; if he happens to be ill or happens to meet with some accident, or his barrow is upset and he is a few minutes late, he may arrive to find the pitch on which he has sold his goods for so many years has been taken by someone else. Now at long last he is secured and guaranteed a pitch which no one can take away from him, and the street trader who has once experienced that will never desire to go back to the chaos and anarchy which existed prior to the passing of the Bill, as far as it affects my particular area. I am perfectly certain, when this Bill has been not merely read a Second time but has passed its Third Reading and when once we get it into operation, that the street traders will bless the County Council and all those who have supported it.
Mr. SPEAKER: I gather that what the House really wishes to discuss is the Instruction on the Paper. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has, I understand, a point on the Bill itself. I suggest that we should dispose of that, and then come to the Instruction, which, I gather, is the matter that the House really wishes to discuss.
Mr. NAYLOR: May I submit that, in spite of the length of the discussion so far, not a single Member on these Benches has had an opportunity of speaking against this Clause of the Bill on the Second Reading, and I think in justice that should be permitted on the Second Reading.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am only anxious to meet the views of the House. If the House does not grant the Second Reading, the Instruction will disappear, and the House will not get the Division which it appears to desire. I was proposing to call the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), who is seconding the Instruction. I think that is the best course.
Commander BELLAIRS: As I am not a London Member, I do not propose to stand in the way of the House discussing the Instructions more than one minute, but as an old Member of the House I do feel it desirable to draw attention to Clause 24, which seems to me to contain nearly all the evils of which we have complained in Committee upstairs. In the first place, it sanctions an extension of two tramway schemes which are not described at all except as 2a and 10a, and tramway No. 10D. They were first sanctioned 17 and 18 years ago and since then we have renewed them three times, so that the House is now being asked to renew these powers for the fourth time of asking. I do submit that these proposals ought to be brought forward as practical proposals. If we were in Committee upstairs and we were discussing a Private Bill, we most certainly should say, after they have been given 17 and 18 years to carry out their projects, that it is not the time to come and ask for an extension of time. There is also the evil of legislation by reference. I do not propose to argue it, but I did wish to direct the attention of the House to this particular Clause.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed.
Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move,
"That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 29 (Licensing of Street Traders)."
I have already expressed my views and my reasons for this action and I only intend to move formally.
Mr. THURTLE: I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) opened his speech with a rather scornful reference to certain of his fellow London Members because he said that they had yielded to political pressure from the street traders in this matter. He did not exactly say so, but left the. House to understand by implication that he was quite superior to any kind of political pressure whatsoever. When I was thinking over that and remembering the incident which took place in this House some months ago, I came to the conclusion that there was no righteousness save in the hon. Member for West Bermondsey. I come from a very poor area of London, where there are a very great number of costermongers, and also a great mass of poor people who find the costermongers of great service in providing them with cheap necessaries of life. For that reason I wish to do my utmost to prevent this particular Clause of the Bill from becoming law. I am going to oppose it on two grounds. I am going to assume, as I think I am entitled to, that whatever the promoters of the Clause may say this Bill is designed to do away in the end with the street traders An hon. Member who spoke from the opposite Benches professed sympathy for the street traders, but yet he said he wanted to see this Bill passed into law. When I heard him saying that, I was reminded of some lines which are familiar to most of us in this House:
"I weep for you, the Walrus said,
I deeply sympathise,
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size."
It seems to me that although Members, like the hon. Member for West Bermondsey and others who are supporting this Clause, profess their sympathy for the street traders and say they desire to see the street traders given a fair

1851
chance, yet what they are really doing by promoting this Clause is to do something which will bring the street traders existence to an end in a very short space of time. If one wanted some idea as to whether the street traders really wanted this or not surely the people one should go and ask are the street traders themselves. What do the street traders of London say? I except the street traders of Bermondsey, but taking the great mass of street traders in London, and the organisations representing them, they are opposed to this Bill. As I say, there are many street traders in my own constituency and I have not come across a single one who is in favour of this Bill.
It is said by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey and others that the Bill will confer considerable advantages on the street trader. They tell us, for instance, that it will obviate the necessity on the part of the street trader of getting up at half-past five or six o'clock in the morning in order to ensure his place in the street; that it will prevent fights as to where a particular stall should stand in street, and that it will give the street trader security of tenure. If there were any real soundness or validity in those arguments, I submit the street traders of London would support this Clause. If they were to have benefits conferred upon them, surely they would support the Clause, but, as a matter of fact, apart from Bermondsey, the great mass of these traders are opposed to the Clause and they ought to be the best judges of their own cause. That ought to be sufficient evidence to Members of this House who do not fully understand the issue, and it should help them to realise on which side they ought to vote.
I think it is admitted that the street trader is performing a service to the community by providing cheap food for the poor people. In my constituency there is one street which has a long row of these stalls, and every morning that street is packed with poor men and women who do their shopping there. Why do they shop there instead of at the ordinary shops? Because every penny is a matter of importance to them, and they know they can get better value for their money from the street traders than from the shopkeepers. There is, I know, an objection to street trading on
1852
the part of the shopkeepers, and there is a, certain amount of substance in it. They say that the street traders carry on their business without having to pay rent and rates, and that it is unfair that the shopkeepers should be subjected to competition of that kind. As I say, there is substance in that objection, but the House has to choose between two evils. We have to decide which is the more important—to relieve the shopkeepers of a certain amount of unfair competition, or to see that the poor people are allowed to purchase common necessaries at the lowest possible price We who represent poor constituencies and all Members who desire to stand up for the poor, ought to come down on the side of seeing that the poor people are still able to buy at the lowest possible price and let the unfair competition to the shopkeepers continue.
1 desire to deal with one or two Clauses in this Bill in order to show that it is more dangerous than some hon. Members have pointed out. Clause 30 deals with the right of the Secretary of State to consult with the borough council as to whether stalls are to be permitted or not in any given street. I regard this Clause as being most sinister. It says that the Secretary of State, after consultation with the borough council, may issue a ruling to the effect that no stall shall be permitted in a given street. It does not say how much consultation is to take place. It does not say that the Secretary of State is to get the agreement of the borough council. So far as I can see he may even act in opposition to the wishes of the borough council. It might easily happen under this Clause that the Secretary of State, on the pretext that the needs of traffic demanded it, would wipe out a whole streetful of these stalls where trading had been carried on for generations. I should like here to put in a little plea in this House for some consideration for the ordinary people, as against the rights of the developing motor traffic. Time after time in this House it is suggested that pedestrians and ordinary people ought to give up rights which they have long enjoyed in order to meet the necessities of traffic. There is another side to that question and even the needs of traffic should, if

1853
necessary, be curbed in order that the poor people may get their supplies at the cheapest rate.
Another Clause in the Bill provides that the costermonger who has enjoyed the use of a stall for a considerable time and has that stall taken away from him, may have a right of appeal, but the Clause goes on to say that the Court, in giving its decision, may award costs. That is an illusory protection to the street trader. If the judgment of the borough council is against him—and where there is a majority of shopkeepers and people of that sort, the judgment of the borough council is going to be against him—and if he takes an appeal in what a hopeless position he will be. The borough council will be able to obtain the roost costly legal assistance, whereas the poor costermonger will not be able to do anything of the kind. If he is so daring as to take the case to Court and if the decision of the Court is also against him, not only will he lose his licence, but he will probably have to pay a very heavy bill of legal charges. Most of the points which I intended to make have already been covered by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) and T have little to say in conclusion except to hope that hon. Members who do not know this issue very clearly will think carefully before recording a vote in favour of a proposal which, in its ultimate effect, is going to destroy the costermonger in London. The costermonger is a very worthy law-abiding citizen. He has existed in the life of London for something like four centuries and in all that time has been doing good service to the community as a whole. I hope that the House, before agreeing to this particular Clause, will consider those facts and will also consider what I regard as the fundamental point, namely, that the poor people, because they are poor, should be allowed to get their ordinary necessaries at the lowest price. If you take away the street trader and remove his competition from the shopkeeper the inevitable effect will be to raise the prices of common necessaries. On all these grounds I hope the House will support the Members representing the poorer
1854
districts of London and will reject this Clause.
Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: Last year, when there was before the House a Bill promoted by the Bermondsey Borough Council dealing with this question of street trading, I opposed that Bill, not because I thought there was anything wrong in regulating the street trader or because I thought that regulating the street trader would do any harm to him, but because I thought it was extremely inconvenient that there should be piecemeal legislation in a big area like London on a matter of this kind. I called the attention of the House on that occasion to the fact that on the motion of the borough, part of which I have the honour to represent, the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils had themselves suggested that there should be legislation by some authority on behalf of the whole area, so that there might be unformity throughout the area. For that reason, I am glad to find that there has been no great lapse of time between the passing of the Bermondsey Act and the bringing forward of a Bill which would bring about, if passed, uniformity throughout the whole of this area in connection with street trading.
I do not propose to repeat the various arguments which have been adduced in favour of Clauses which are now included in this Bill. They have been so admirably brought forward, particularly, if I may say so, by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), that it would be impertinent to attempt to repeat them, and I cannot help thinking that those who say there is anything in this Bill, except one portion of it, to which I will refer in a moment, which is likely to do the street trader any harm are undoubtedly proceeding on a wrong basis. At present the street trader is a person who has to fight for his pitch, who has to go through great difficulties to keep it, and who never knows when a stronger man than he is may supplant him in it. If this Bill is passed, the street trader, subject to one portion of a particular Clause, gets a vested right, which can only be taken from him upon cause being shown, and to go back into the history of this country and realise the position which existed not very long ago in connection with licensing, to realise what a long struggle there was to get rid of

1855
licences because of the fact that you could only get rid of them when cause was duly shown, is to realise what a vested interest is given to the costermonger who comes under the provisions of this Bill. Before his pitch can be taken from him, a, notice must be given to him by the borough council. People seem to think that the borough councils will act harshly and unjustly, but before they can act at all they must give the man the right to come before them, and a full opportunity of putting his case before them. It is only after a consideration of that case, and then only for cause, that they can act.
If the borough council take away the man's pitch, he has the right of appeal, and an absolutely unencumbered right of appeal, to the local justices. What an indictment of the local justices it is to suggest that they will be overwhelmed by the tremendous funds of the local council and, therefore, will not give the man who appears before them justice. I cannot help thinking that that is an indictment of the justices of this country which will not bear examination for one moment.
Mr. NAYLOR: No such indictment has been made this evening.
Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I do not think the hon. Member can have heard what the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) has just said. The hon. Member for Shoreditch pointed out that one of the difficulties the coster would be in would be that the borough council, with their enormous funds, would be able to bring down some member of the legal profession, who would overweight any argument that the poor coster, who was there without funds and utterly unable to protect himself, could bring forward.
Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that the legal luminaries would not overweight any argument the poor coster might bring forward?
Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I do suggest that the position of a man who is not represented against counsel is very often an advantage to the man who is not represented. [Laughter] The laugh may be on the other side when I have finished, because if there is one man who gets the sympathetic attention of a court,
1856
it is the man who happens to be unrepresented, and if any court does its duty, from the moment a man is unrepresented the practice is for the court to take up the cudgels on his behalf and to see that every possible point is put in his favour. The hon. Member for Shoreditch seems to think that the power to award costs would be a serious matter for the costermonger, but I think it is very much more likely to be a deterrent to the local council in taking action. If one looks back again into history, and realises haw local authorities have struggled in the past against the power of courts to award costs against them, because where costs are so awarded the local authority have to justify their action to the ratepayers, one realises that the local authority think that the power to award costs against them is a deterrent to act; and in fact it does prevent them from taking arbitrary action, because they know very well that they may go before a court and expend the ratepayers money, only to find that an impartial tribunal will not only quash the order that they have made, but will make an order for costs against them.
There is one aspect of this matter which I do not quite understand, and that is the general power, to which the hon. Member for Shoreditch referred—and, I think, quite rightly referred—which is given to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the borough council, to limit very closely indeed the power of the council to grant licences. I cannot help thinking that those who are keenly interested in this matter would be well advised, when it comes before Committee, to try to get inserted in the Bill something which would ensure that the Secretary of State should not act under this Clause without not only consulting the borough councils, but without some sort of public inquiry such as is necessary before certain other orders are made. It seems to me that by some suggestion of that kind you may very well safeguard the traders, and that you will do it very much better than by trying to put out all the other Clauses, which, in my opinion, would be of inestimable benefit to the costermongers themselves.
One other argument which is put forward is the suggestion that there is a great desire on the part of the retail shopkeeper to get rid of the street trader

1857
altogether. I think that argument is based upon a misapprehension. I have discussed this matter time after time with shopkeepers, and what I have found is this, that while they object to an unregulated condition of affairs, they agree that if you have a well-regulated system of street trading, so far from being a hindrance to shopkeepers, it is merely a means of bringing people to the street to shop, and then they can justify their own existence by attracting those people into the shops. So far from decreasing trade in the retail shops, to the retail shopkeeper who knows his business, and makes his shop attractive, it very often results in bringing customers to the shop. There was one other matter to which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) referred. He said, why not a central authority?
Mr. HARRIS: I did not say that. I said the Committee which reported recommended a central authority. I did not express any view.
Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I should have thought the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green would not have brought it forward unless he considered it might be an argument against borough councils individually granting the licences, and I was going to point out that surely the right authority to grant the licence and to charge the fee, which is a means of getting back payment for services which the council has to render, is the council which has to render those services. He said, why should a man, for example, have to pay a fee to two or three borough councils? In the first place, he does not pay a fee to three or four borough councils unless he has a separate pitch in each one of them, and I do not see why a man should not pay for each pitch in the same way as a shopkeeper has to pay for each shop. But when he says this does not propose to interfere with the hawker, he has entirely missed the point. He gave an illustration a few moments before this illustration, and said, "Why not license them exactly like taxi-drivers?" The true analogy would be between taxi-drivers and hawkers. The taxi-driver goes from one district to another, and the hawker in one day may go to half a dozen districts. It would be impossible for that man to be licensed in each of the districts through which he passed,
1858
and, therefore, he is licensed by the police through the central authority, and very largely for the purpose of ensuring that, going as he does from time to time to houses, and so forth, he shall be a person of reasonable respectability and honesty. On general grounds, I venture to think this Bill, with its Clauses, will be of very great advantage to the whole area in which it operates, and, in these circumstances, I hope the House, having passed the Second Reading, will delete this Instruction, and allow the Bill to go to a Committee without any Instruction.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. NAYLOR: I would like, first of all, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) on the admirable manner in which he discharged the functions of father to this Bermondsey baby of his. If I have any complaint to make at all, it is that he should so persistently have praised its virtues to the House. He not only said what a fine baby it is, but he tickled it under the chin, held it up for the admiration of the House, and asked us to believe there was no baby in the world like this big, fat, Bermondsey baby of his. May I remind him that his infant is only a few months old, and may very shortly develop some of those infantile complaints, in which all the skill of my hon. Friend will be required if he wants to save that baby's life. The useful functions of the street trader do not need to be stressed any further in this Debate: but there is one special point to which I would call the attention of the House, and it has relation to the question of whether or not this Bill is restrictive in character. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey assured us that the Bill had the support of a certain number of borough councils in London, and he gave us the names of 18 councils. What about the other 10? Let me point out just how this Bill is going to restrict the opportunities of the street trader. Clause 29, which is the main Clause of the Bill, says:
"It shall not he lawful for any person to sell or expose or offer for sale any article or thing from or upon any barrow, cart, stall, or other receptacle."
What is going to happen in the case of these borough councils which, apparently, are not in favour of this Bill? In these 10 boroughs there is a large num-

1859
ber of street traders earning their living to-day.
Dr. SALTER: May I submit that my hon. Friend has no right to suggest at all that these 10 boroughs are opposed to the Bill? There is no evidence. It is merely that they have not replied to the question.
Mr. NAYLOR: If they have not replied they cannot have any deep interest in the Bill.
Dr. SALTER: It does not follow that they are opposed.
Mr. NAYLOR: I think I am right in assuming that some at least of these 10 borough councils will not be in favour of operating this particular Clause. Supposing only one council is not prepared to operate this Clause, it means that not a single street trader can ply his calling in that locality. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Yes; it says in Clause 29 that no trading shall take place unless the trader has a licence. If the borough council has to issue the licence, and is not prepared to carry out this Clause—and there is nothing in the Bill to say that the borough councils shall operate the Clause —then the Clause operates against the trader, and not against the council. It says the trader shall not trade unless he has a licence, and if the borough council is not prepared to consider the question of administering this Clause, the street traders in that locality are at once doing an illegal act, because they are trading without a licence. I say that is clearly a case of restricting a street trader's opportunity of earning his living.
Then, again, one would suppose that the framers of this Bill would have made the issuing of licences a question not for the local borough council, but for the London County Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "What have they got to do with it?"] I am speaking on this matter from the point of view of effective administration. The Bill is permissive as far as the borough councils are concerned, but it is not permissive in regard to the street trader's right to carry on his calling—another instance of how those who draft Bills of this character have ignored the interest of the men who have not the opportunity of defending their own interests. I think it is fairly proved
1860
by that one fact alone that the opportunities of the street trader are to be restricted by the operation of this Bill. It is admitted that they can operate only by the use of licences. There is no doubt that, through freedom of trade in London, the prices on the stalls are kept below those in the shops. The secret of success in this matter is that the street trader can bring his produce from the market, keep it on the stalls and sell it in one day, and he sells it at a low price. But, human nature being what it is, give him a monopoly—and that is what the Bill seeks to do—and there will be no further reason why street traders should keep their prices low. I hope the House will bear that point in mind. The hon. and learned Member for Norbury (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has suggested that this Bill gives the trader a vested interest in his business; but that interest is only given at the whim of the borough council, who decide as to whether the licence is, in the first place granted, and in the second place renewed.
Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: May I call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the borough council can only, in toe first place, refuse to grant the licence for cause, and can only refuse to renew it for cause.
Mr. NAYLOR: I can quite understand the hon. Member approaching this question from the legal point of view. Here you have another opportunity for litigation. You will have learned counsel engaged by the local authority, but who is to say that the poor street trader will have an opportunity of briefing counsel in his own behalf? Members of this House know that that is a practical impossibility. The people who are to be injured by this Bill are the least fortunate of the street traders not the man with two or three stalls, but the street trader who is living from hand to mouth and living badly at that. Only yesterday, I was in my own Division trying to find out what my own constituents think about these provisions, and in every case they were angry at the thought of their liberty being interfered with in this way. I found one poor woman, who was a widow and she was packing up all her goods—I quote this case because it is typical of the poorer class of street trader who has to scratch

1861
a living from the pavement—and all her goods were being compressed into a railway travelling trunk. She was a street trader. She said she was trying to do her little best to keep off the Poor Law and that, if these licences were issued, she thought it would be extremely doubtful as to whether she, with her few old dresses and suits of clothes, would be able to get a licence for the purpose of selling these things. The hon. Member for Norwood seemed to justify the charge for a licence in the case of the street trader who travels from borough to borough. Surely he forgot that, when a street trader goes from one district to another, he is not trading in each of those districts for the full week. The nature of his commodity may be such that he cannot afford, from the trading point of view, to remain in one district more than one or two days. That means that he spends his time possibly in four or five or six separate districts every week, or otherwise he could not get a living.
Under the terms of this Bill, in all probability, he will be charged, first of all, a licence of certainly not less than have shillings a year in each of these districts. That arises out of the fact that the borough councils will administer this Bill and not the London County Council. The difficulty would not arise if the London County Council were the centre of administration. In addition to the charge for the licence, these poor people will have to pay for what is called clearance. The street trader will be charged clearance whether he makes a mess or whether he leaves the place where his goods were displayed as spick and span as when he started. Even if he is charged one shilling a week for clearance, that comes to £2 12s. per annum, and in every district he will have to pay a possible charge for clearance as well as other charges. How can the small street trader be expected to afford this money year after year 1 It is little short of blackmail for London borough councils to insist that these poor men and women should be made to pay these charges. These people are carrying on their calling under the supervision of the police, and there is no question of interference with the traffic, because the police have power to deal with that whenever they please. I think these facts should be
1862
borne in mind, and I ask the House not to desert the interests of these men because they have not been able to make their opposition felt. The trade organisations representing the men and women engaged in street trading are opposed to this Bill, and I ask you to pay the same respect to the organisations of the street traders as you would be inclined to pay to the larger unions of trading interests.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I did not intend to enter into the history of this subject, but I fear I must go back to the year 1921 for the purposes of my argument. In 1921, the then Home Secretary (Mr. Edward Shortt) set up a Committee to deal with this vexed problem. The Committee reported in 1922, and in the following year, 1923, the Government of the day introduced a Bill, which was known as Lord Onslow's Bill, and which was purely a means of getting the opinion of the various persons who were concerned. The Bill was eventually dropped. Then West Ham reopened this subject in 1925. The Home Office reported somewhat adversely about the West Ham Bill because, as explained by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) it was piecemeal legislation. The Private Bills Committee, however, declined to take the view which was expressed by the Home Office, and they allowed the Bill to go forward, subject to considerable modifications. On that occasion—and I wish to emphasise this point—there was no opposition from the street traders to that Bill; on the contrary, a number of local street traders appeared as witnesses in favour of the Bill, which they regarded as a measure of protection. The provisions of that Bill were practically the same, they are almost identical with the provisions of this Bill. In 1926, when Bermondsey promoted a Bill containing similar powers, the Home Office took no action in the matter. There was no petition against that Bill on behalf of the street traders, and local street traders came forward as witnesses for the promoters. Those two illustrations of the attitude taken up by the local street traders are worthy of the careful attention of this House. In April 1926 the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint-Committee expressed approval of the

1863
Bermondsey Act, and it was at their suggestion that the London County County Council decided to place Clause 29 and the following Clauses in this Bill.
The point I want to make is that the three most interested parties, namely, the street traders, the shopkeepers and the Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Standing Committee were all presumably in favour of those two Acts. The street traders made no opposition at all to the Acts when they were going through Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "They could not afford it!"] They had every opportunity of corning to the House, every opportunity of lobbying. [An HON. MEMBER: "They had not the money!"] I do not want to be drawn aside by arguments of that kind. There was no opposition from the local street, traders in connection with those Acts, and, as has already been pointed out by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr Salter), the number of licences in Bermondsey has been doubled and there axe now, I am told, 600. So far as I know, and I am certain hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, there was no opposition to this Bill or the two previous Acts by shopkeepers. An hon. and learned Member behind me has given a very valid reason why shopkeepers might well object if street traders were crippled. In fact, I could give an illustration of an instance when the street traders were taken away from a certain street and the shopkeepers demanded that they should be restored.
Mr. NAYLOR: What about the other streets?
Captain HACKING: The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee on its own initiative asked for these powers. Every Metropolitan borough except Poplar has representation on that Committee. Although it has been stated to-night that there are only 18 boroughs in favour of it, the other 10 had the same opportunity. It is a democratic body. So much for the views of the three most directly interested bodies.
What I am particularly interested in to-night is' the view of the Home Office. It is the view of the Home Office that some form of regulation of street markets is desirable, and the provisions of the West Ham Act, 1925, and the Bermond
1864
sey Act, 1926, appear to be a good solution of this vexed question. The principle of those Acts, which were based on the recommendations of the Street Trading Committee, is that the regulation of street markets must be primarily a matter for the local authority, which should be in a position to know the opinion of the area. Certainly, no proposal of this kind should be left in the hands of the police. There are many conflicting interests to consider. There are the interests of the shopkeepers. Sometimes we are told, at any rate from the other side of the House, that they conflict with the interests of the street traders.
Is it right that the police should decide an issue of that kind? The local need for street markets and the effect of markets on surrounding property is not a question which the police should be asked to decide. These are not police matters, nor are the police specially qualified to deal with them. The regulation of traffic is safeguarded under this Bill. As is invariably the custom on occasions of this kind the Whips will not be put on. I ask the House however to allow the Bill to go upstairs as it is at present, and I may say that the Minister of Transport agrees with tint suggestion. The Bill has received the unanimous support of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which is a very important body. The advice I am giving to the House is not based on any form of hostility to the street traders. I know very well that many ex-service men are amongst the street traders, and it is my great anxiety not to prevent those people from earning a living. The street traders are an important feature in the public life of the Metropolitan boroughs, and their trading has the effect of keeping the price of articles of food at a low level.
The reason why I am going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill is because I believe it will prove to be for the benefit of the street traders themselves, because it means that their pitches will be equitably allotted, and they will be a great deal more secure than in the past. This Bill will benefit street traders because they will not have to waste hours during the daytime by getting up very early in order to endeavour to secure their pitches. They will benefit in this way because there will not be those early

1865
morning scrambles for pitches which are still very frequent in many parts of London. I believe the genuine street trader will be encouraged and protected by this Bill as has proved to be the case in Bermondsey, where it has been shown that the small trader has every opportunity of stating his case and he invariably gets his pitch. This Bill will help the genuine street trader against the combined street traders, who are very often wealthy people, and are able to get pitches very easily. It is because I believe this Bill will benefit street traders that I ask hon. Members to allow it to go forward as it is.
With regard to the benefit to the general public so far as health services are concerned, it will be of great benefit to the country to have street trading regularised, and for that reason I hope I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. For all these reasons because the Bill is in the interests of street traders and uniformity of a principle already accepted by this House; because pubic opinion, as expressed through democratically elected public bodies, is in favour of it; because it is in the interests of transport and regulation of traffic as a whole; and because it is in the interests of the police who, but for this Measure, might be called upon to perform duties which they should not be asked to perform, I ask the House to send this Bill to a Committee upstairs.
Mr. SCURR: As the representative of a poor constituency in the East End of London, and as one who has for some time taken an interest in this matter, I think it would be cowardly on my part to give a silent vote. I hope I have as much sympathy with the poorer section of the people as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), who has attempted this evening to draw for us a convincing picture of people whom he saw in a street in Shoreditch down which he walked, and who were buying things from the street traders. The inference he would draw from that was that, if this Bill were passed, that would not occur in future. But, if this Bill passes, the people who go down that street will still be able to purchase as they have done in the past. Another point is that this matter has been going
1866
on in London for a good many years. The Under-Secretary has referred to the Departmental Committee of 1921. In that year, the Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Committee carefully considered this matter. On that occasion the borough of Poplar was a member of the Committee, and I had the honour of being Chairman of the Standing Committee, and on their behalf I appeared before that Committee to give evidence in favour of this Regulation.
The last point that I want to make is that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), in referring to Clause 29, put forward the idea that, according to Clause 29, on and after a certain day it would not be lawful for any person to sell, or expose for sale, and so on. The inference he drew from that was that, if any of the 10 borough councils who have not replied to the Circular of the Clerk to the Standing Joint Committee did not put this Act into force, the consequence would be that the whole of the street traders would he swept out of those 10 boroughs. My hon. Friend could not have read the following Clause, Clause 30, which, in Sub-section (1), says:
"A person requiring a licence or the renewal of a licence……shall make application in wriitng,"
It goes on, in Sub-section (2), to say that:
"The Borough Council shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the receipt of an application……grant or renew a licence."
That completely disposes, I think, of my hon. Friend's proposal. After all, a lot of false sentiment has been attempted to be raised in this House to-night. When we consider this question, we have to consider it from the point of view of the public interest, and I want to ask the House, who is to be the responsible authority that is to look after the streets on behalf of the public? I submit that it is the public authority who are elected by the ratepayers; they and they alone are the persons who should say who should be in control of their streets.
Under this proposal, there is absolutely no idea of getting rid, and I have not met any member of any borough council with whom I have discussed the terms of this Bill who has the slightest conception of getting rid, of street trading at all. I know there was a time when

1867
shopkeepers used to imagine that street traders were their enemies, but to-day the shopkeepers recognise that the stre traders are not their enemies. I know many streets where, by reason of the fact that the street traders are there, business has been attracted to those streets, and it has been very good business indeed for the shopkeepers. I should say that any borough council that attempted to get rid of the street traders in its district would find arrayed against it many of the shopkeepers themselves, as they find that these people bring trade to their district. From the point of view of the public interest it is right that the municipal authority should be able to regulate the conduct of its streets, and there is no desire in any circumstances to limit any of the privileges or rights of the poor. On the contrary, by giving security to the street trader we are doing the best for him and for the community. Therefore, I am opposed to the Instruction.
Mr. TASKER: I want to support the Instruction, and to lift the Debate out of the realm of unreality into which it has fallen. Those who are supporting the Bill are confessing that the Metropolitan Borough Councils have neglected their duty. They are alleging that no powers exist to control the streets and to clear away the rubbish. The Metropolitan Police Act gives the borough councils power to supervise the clearing away of rubbish. Prosecutions have taken place under the Act and fines have been inflicted and collected. There is, therefore, no reason why the London County Councils should seek powers except to satisfy the Standing Joint Committee of the borough councils of London. There are two other Acts under which men can be prosecuted if they put their rubbish in the street and do not remove it. The Metropolitan Borough Councils have not troubled to make themselves acquainted with the law, but have gone out of their way to encourage the London County Council to promote this legislation which I hold is entirely unnecessary. If the borough councils had chosen to adopt the same policy as that which obtains in Paddington, Bethnal Green, Camberwell, Poplar, Holborn, Stepney, Lambeth and Marylebone they could have come to an agreement with the street
1868
traders and there would be no trouble and no friction. It has been suggested that the street trader pays no rates. He does. He pays the rates on his house, but he pays something more than that. I have here a receipt not only for a pitch of 1s. a week, but for 1s. 8d. a week for clearing away rubbish. He, therefore, pays for clearing away the debris that is occasioned by the trade he follows.
Why did the County Council take this matter up? The Standing Joint Committee of the borough councils consists mainly of the town clerks of the various Metropolitan Borough Councils. They sent forward a recommendation. The London County Council did not take the trouble to make any investigation and they really did not realise that there was opposition. Their appropriate committee consented to receive a deputation of street traders a fortnight ago. They represented amongst other things that the licensing regulations would prevent them varying their goods without the specific approval of the various councils that licensed them. That must be true because certain articles are unobtainable at certain times of the year, and therefore a man must necessarily change the goods that he offers in the summer from those he offers in the winter. They alleged that the licensing regulations do not as a matter of practice give the they sought to prove that, and in support of their contention cited the City of London. In 1911 there were about 900 street traders in the City. There are about 80 to-day. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) quoted figures for last year in Bermondsey, and said that they were then 350 in number, and that they are 600 to-day. How are those figures arrived at? What is the process obtaining in Bermondsey? They license by the day. I can give cases where a man is licensed for one day, and his licence starts from the Monday. The House will recollect that Boxing Day last year fell on a Monday. The shilling was demanded from the man, and he had to pay, although he was not going to do any trade on Boxing Day, nor was the inspector going there to see whether any stalls were open on Boxing Day. Therefore, I submit that it is misleading to suggest that, because of the benevolent intentions of the Metropolitan borough

1869
of Bermondsey, these traders have doubled in number. As a matter of fact, if the hon. Member for West Bermondsey chooses to inquire, he will find that mere is very great discontent in Bermondsey.
Dr. SALTER: I have inquired from at least 100 traders, personally.
Mr. TASKER: I fully realise that, in the course of time, the hon. Member for West Bermondsey will be canonised. I would direct his attention to one butcher's shop, and ask him to ascertain whether that butcher has put a stall in the street in older to drive a Bermondsey borough council licence-holder from the pitch that the council gave.
Captain HACKING: The Bermondsey Act says, in Section 6, that every licence granted under the Act shall, unless revoked, be valid for a period of one year.
Mr. TASKER: I am perfectly familiar with the Act, but I am more concerned with how that Act is administered. I am informed that these men are licensed, not for one year, but by the week and the day.
Dr. SALTER: No.
Mr. TASKER: The traders allege, that they have never been consulted. That is true. They have not been consulted. Had the ordinary procedure been adopted, had they been called together in conference with the county council and the borough councils, an amicable arrangement would have been arrived at, just as has been the case in the Metropolitan boroughs which I have enumerated, where voluntary agreements have been reached. Since the London County Council Committee received the deputation, a fortnight ago, the street traders of London have been terrified and scared. In about ten days, 64,000 signatures had been obtained to a petition against the Bill, and there will be another 64,000 in a few more days. Not only the street traders, but the poor people, their customers, are concerned.
I would like to call attention to an observation which was made by the Under-Secretary. He informed the House that there had been no petitions against the Bermondsey Bill and the West Ham Bill. Of course, there were not. He knows, and we all know, that if you are going to petition in Committee upstairs you must employ a Parliamentary Agent,
1870
and you must also employ learned counsel. When the London County Council employ two learned gentlemen in silk, with their two juniors, and you are confronted with this array of counsel, where are street traders to find the money with which to fight the London County Council and the legal luminaries, when they do not know where to find five shillings with which to pay for their wares for a week I It is not quite fair to suggest that there has been no opposition to the Bill. There have been protests, but there is a far more effective way of opposing this Bill than protesting, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) will probably find out at the next General Election.
Sir C. COBB: There is very little more that can be said on either side of this question, but one of the most significant facts about the Debate on the Bermondsey Act last year was that this House was so determined in the view that street traders ought to be regulated that, although only one borough council in London applied for the right, yet by a large majority it passed that Bill. That is very significant. It shows that what was in the mind of this House was not any question as to whether this was the right thing to do or not. They were very clear about that. All that this House discussed during the whole of that Debate was whether or not one borough council only in London should get this privilege and the other borough councils given the option of applying for it year after year, as one after another came forward and asked for the privilege. It shows that this House thought it right that the borough councils should take up the question of regulating street trading. A somewhat curious point has been made in the Debate this evening. It has been alleged that there is some idea of getting rid of street traders altogether from London. What possible justification is there for that assertion?
No hon. Member who has made that assertion has brought forward evidence in support of it except this Bill, and the very object of this Bill is to help the street traders to have a much more comfortable time in their pitches than they had before. I cannot conceive why the borough councils, who are the prime movers in this matter, should desire to get rid of an extremely useful and worthy set of people, who do a great deal

1871
to keep down the prices of very necessary articles of food. The charge has been made that this matter has been hidden away in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, so that nobody should know anything about it. May I point out that as long ago as April last the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee was considering this matter, having in view the Bermondsey Act which this House had just passed. This matter had not been hidden. It was known to the County Councils, and to the street traders themselves, and they had an opportunity of appearing before the Committee of the London County County and making their case. They have had every opporunity of making any case they could against this particular Clause, and I maintain that so far from the London County Council having powers to lay down all these rules and Regulations they will have very little to say if it is decided, as the County Council desire, that all street traders should be licensed; secondly, that rules should he laid down for the granting or withholding of licences under this particular Bill, and that then the whole of the rest of the machinery, even the granting of the licences themselves or the by-laws regulating street trading, should be done by borough councils. I maintain that they will have ample opportunity, when these by-laws are drawn up by the respective borough councils, of making their wishes known to the various borough councils. Of course, there will be no objection to a petition against any of the by-laws.
A point raised by an hon. Member opposite was that a borough council might be so blind and foolish as not to grant a licence to one of these traders if he applied for it. It has been suggested that only those borough councils which actually signed a petition to the county council desiring a change of this character would be in a position to grant the licences, and that the others might decline to do so. I think it is clear from the wording of the Bill that that would not be the case.
"The Borough Council shall as soon as reasonably practicable after the receipt of an application under the provisions of this Section grant or renew a licence to the applicant under and for the purposes of this part of the Act."
1872
Nothing could be clearer than that. The licence can be refused under certain conditions, but the general Clause is that every borough council must grant a licence unless some cause can be shown against that licence being granted. I maintain then that all the objections that have been raised to this particular Clause of the Bill have been satisfactorily met, and met best by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), who gave us such an excellent account of the actual effect of the Bermondsey Act, which was the precursor of this particular Bill and which contains practically the same Clause. He showed how admirable has been the effect of the Bill in Bermondsey, how the numbers of street traders have increased from 300 to 600. There must have been some very obscure and unfortunate influence at work in Bermondsey when the number was confined to 300. That alone is sufficient answer to the charge that we wish to do anything to check this street trading. All we want to do is to regulate it, and in the best manner possible. Joined with that is the desire to improve the public health and to facilitate traffic. Those three reasons seem sufficient to give us our Bill without the instruction.
Captain FRASER: It is necessary at this hour to be very brief, and I shall not in any sense traverse the arguments that have been made so eloquently from all sides of the House against these Clauses. I hope earnestly that the views expressed by many Members in all parts of the House—that the Clauses seek to hamper street traders in their work—will be supported, so that the instruction before the House may go to the Committee and may prevent these Clauses being included in the Bill. As I see them, there are three principal arguments for these Clauses. One is that which the last speaker began by mentioning, namely, that this House, when it had the Bermondsey Bill before it, had made up its mind to regulate street trading, and that it ought not now to change its mind. I suggest that there is a difference. Many Members, I believe, voted for the Bermondsey Bill because Bermondsey asked for it, and there are many Members who take the view that when a municipality asks for something, Parliament should not lightly refuse it. A number of boroughs have not asked for it and do not want it. The

1873
other argument which I understand has been made for this Clause is that the street traders themselves will benefit. I hesitate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman who affirmed that so emphatically, but it is difficult to believe that they want it when they come and say they do not. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) drew a delightful picture of the coster who paid his shilling, not merely willingly but gladly and joyfully. I have the honour to know many costers, and have been present at their meetings when they deal with various business matters, and while their language is unparliamentary, their business acumen is extraordinarily sound. I am unwilling to believe that they joy-fuly pay a shilling to borough councils.
Dr. SALTER: For benefits received.
Captain FRASER: I am unable to visualise that picture and I am also unable to visualise the picture, also drawn by the same hon. Member, of the extremely successful way in which this Act is operating in Bermondsey. The House will remember that the Bermondsey Act only received the Royal Assent in December.
Dr. SALTER: No, in August.
Captain FRASERI beg the hon. Member's pardon. The period is longer, than I had thought, but I yet feel it is not a long enough period in which the views of the costers and the traders themselves could have been adequately formed as to the result of the Act, nor time—and I would urge this point of the House—for their views, if indeed the Act does benefit them, to have penetrated through London. I submit it is bad to regulate unless there is good cause for regulating. Regulating always costs money. There is enough regulation done in other spheres, without encroaching on this one in which, as far as my experience goes, the public and the traders themselves get on very well together and are entirely happy. As far as my constituency is concerned—and there are a good many traders there—I do not hear the dreadful stories of public inconvenience which have been told in this House. It may exist in other parts, but it does not exist there, so I am informed. I submit there is little excuse, if any, for imposing these regulations on loyal,
1874
sound and sensible people who serve the community very well in the poorer districts of London.
The last argument which was made for this Clause was that, far from getting rid of street traders, it would aid them to become more settled and more firmly established. That, perhaps, that was one reason why they themselves were alleged to want it. I frankly find myself unable to believe that. I find myself in the position of thinking that the ultimate effect of this type of regulation will be to remove street traders, or at any rate to restrict them. As I believe that they render a substantial service in the poorer districts—and one which is not understood by hon. Members who do not represent those districts—I plead for action, more especially on the part of those Members of the House who are not essentially, vitally and vocally interested and who want to do the right thing to the two parties. I plead with them to realise that though the great London County Council—for which there is no Member in this House has more respect than I—is the promoter of this Bill, it is not by its initiative that these Clauses appear in the Bill. It has been landed with an unpleasant task, with regard to which I sympathise with the County Council. I earnestly hope that Members will vote for this Instruction in the interests of a section of the community which has not the same advantages as the richer corporations and trade unions of employers have, of presenting their case and who cannot write to Members the same splendidly convincing letters that we all received this morning, who particularly ought to appeal to the House from the point of view of their peculiar difficulty in putting forward their case, who include a very large number of ex-service men, as the Under-Secretary testified. On these grounds I ask the House to support this Instruction and thereby delete the Clause from the Bill.
Mr. HARRIS rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. MARCH: Our experience in Poplar is vastly different from that which we have heard described to-night in con-

1875
nection with Shoreditch and other places. Some five years ago the street traders themselves sent a deputation to our council to ask us to put into operation the regulation of the stalls in our street markets. We had not only the stall holders, but the shopkeepers and the Chamber of Commerce, and the whole matter was gone into and we set up a voluntary street markets committee, which has been working admirably up to now. There are only 30 out of 500 who are registered on the books of the council who have not paid and submitted to the regulations. The inconvenience and trouble which these 30 cause is beyond description. For some years we had costermongers in the High Street of Poplar. They were asked by the shopkeepers to move, but they had not been
but of the place for more than a month before the shopkeepers were crying and asking them to come back and also offering money to them to come back. Now the consequence is that that street is thoroughly cleared of all traffic, with the exception of that which supplies the shops in that street, and therefore people are asking that it should he properly regulated by Act of Parliament.
Mr. HARRIS Mr. HARRIS rose in place, and, claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is prepared to come to a decision.
Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 29."
The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 154.

Division No. 20.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Gibbins, Joseph

Potts, John S.

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

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Gillett, George M.

Renter, J. R.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Gower, Sir Robert

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

Baker, Walter

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Rose, Frank H.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Sandeman, A, Stewart

Bantinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Bethel, A.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Scrymgeour, E.

Betterton, Henry B.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Briant, Frank

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Snell, Harry

Briscoe, Richard George

Hanbury, C.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Bromley, J.

Harland, A.

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Harris, Percy A.

Storry-Deans, R.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hayes, John Henry

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Styles, Captain H. W.

Cautley, sir Henry S.

Holder, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

Jacob, A. E.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Thurtle, Ernest

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Clayton, G. c.

Kelly, W. T.

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

Cluse, W. S.

Lansbury, George

Wedgwood Rt. Hon, Josiah

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Lawrence, Susan

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Compton, Joseph

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Lumley, L. R.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

Crawfurd, H. E.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Wilson, H. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Dennison, R.

Margesson, Captain D.

Windsor, Walter

Dunnico, H.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

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

Fenby, T. D.

Montague, Frederick

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Fermoy, Lord

Mosley, Oswald

Finburgh, S.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Forestier-Waiker, Sir L.

Oliver, George Harold

Mr. Naylor and Mr. Tasker.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Pennefather Sir John

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Philipson, Mabel

NOES.

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

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

Broad, F. A.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Buckingham, Sir H.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Barnes, A.

Bullock, Captain M

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

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Butt, Sir Alfred

Dawson, Sir Philip

Barnton, Major Sir Harry

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

Day, Colonel Harry

Barr, J.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Duncan, C.

Batey, Joseph

Dalton, Hugh

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Forrest, W.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

MacIntyre, Ian

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

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Mackinder, W.

Smithers, Waldron

Gates, Percy

McLean, Major A.

Stamford, T. W.

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

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

March, S.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H

Greenall, T.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Meller, R. J.

Sutton, J. E.

Greniell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Taylor, R. A.

Groves, T.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

Grundy, T. W.

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

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

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Nuttall, Ellis

Tinne, J. A.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Oakley, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Townend, A. E.

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

Palin, John Henry

Varley, Frank B.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Paling, W.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Viant, S. P.

Hirst, G. H.

Pennes Frederick George

Waddington, R.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Holland, Sir Arthur

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J, N.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Raine, W.

Watts, Dr. T.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Rentoul, G. S.

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

Hurst, Gerald B.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Westwood, J.

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

Riley, Ben

Whiteley, W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Kennedy, T.

Salmon, Major I.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Salter, Or, Alfred

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Lamb, J. Q.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Lawson, John James

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lee, F.

Scurr, John

Wise, Sir Fredric

Lindley, F. W.

Sexton, James

Withers, John James

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

Lougher, L.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Lowth, T.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Shiels, Or. Drummond

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Lunn, William

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

Sir Cyril Cobb and Mr. Ammon.

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Smillie, Robert

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (BIRMINGHAM SECTION).
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (BIRMINGHAM SECTION).
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS (YORK).
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS (YORK).
BRITISH ARMY.
  REGULAR AND TERRITORIAL INFANTRY BATTALIONS (COST).
  REGULAR AND TERRITORIAL INFANTRY BATTALIONS (COST).
  IMTARFA MILITARY HOSPITAL, MALTA.
  IMTARFA MILITARY HOSPITAL, MALTA.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS, HALTON AND ORAN WELL.
  TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS, HALTON AND ORAN WELL.
  OFFICERS' MESS EXPENSES.
  OFFICERS' MESS EXPENSES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  GENERAL STRIKE (CLAIM FOR SERVICES).
  GENERAL STRIKE (CLAIM FOR SERVICES).
  RECRUITS (ACCEPTENCES AND REJECTIONS).
  RECRUITS (ACCEPTENCES AND REJECTIONS).
  DOCKYARD DISCHARGES.
  DOCKYARD DISCHARGES.
  EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS.
  EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS.
  HOSPITAL, MALTA.
  HOSPITAL, MALTA.
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  UNIVERSITIES (STATE SCHOLARS).
  UNIVERSITIES (STATE SCHOLARS).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PUPILS),
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PUPILS),
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (EXPENDITURE).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (EXPENDITURE).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  SUVA HOSPITAL, FIJI.
  SUVA HOSPITAL, FIJI.
CHINA.
  BRITISH TROOPS.
  BRITISH TROOPS.
  BRITISH SUBJECTS KILLED.
  BRITISH SUBJECTS KILLED.
  ARMS TRAFFIC CONVENTION.
  ARMS TRAFFIC CONVENTION.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES ACT (PROSECUTIONS).
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES ACT (PROSECUTIONS).
  CRIMINAL LAW.
  CRIMINAL LAW.
  PRISONERS (GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN).
  PRISONERS (GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Eldon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

LEAD POISONING.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to call attention to the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge from the position of Senior Medical Inspector of Factories and to the Draft Regulations made under the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matters that I desire to bring before your Lordships to-day raise questions of high public importance, and I cannot but think that it will be agreed that the state of things that I have to present to the House is remarkable and very regrettable. The debates that took place on the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill last November will be fresh in the minds of your Lordships, and it will be remembered that the point at issue was whether the use of lead paint for work in the interior of buildings should in future be prohibited altogether or should be subject to Regulations. There is unfortunately no doubt that the use of lead paint has been the cause of serious injury to the health of many workers. The disease which is induced by lead paint is called plumbism, and without going into statistics in detail, I would point out that there have been for some years, speaking broadly, several hundreds of cases of plumbism annually, and probably about forty deaths per annum occur owing to lead poisoning. The consequences of the disease, which are always bad, are in some instances extremely grave, because, even when not fatal, some of the cases lead to paralysis and some to blindness.
It was with a view to stopping the suffering caused by this terrible disease that, under the auspices of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations, a Draft Convention was agreed
180
to at Geneva in 1921 by the representatives of thirty countries, including Great Britain, and under this Draft Convention the use of lead paint for interior work was to be prohibited after 1927. Your Lordships will mark that an interval of six years was given. Such being the case, it was, to use no stronger language, extremely regrettable that the Conservative Party, in the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act passed last year, went back upon this Draft Convention, went back upon that which had been agreed to at Geneva and, instead of prohibiting the use of lead paint for interior work, merely enacted in this Bill that its use should be regulated. It will be remembered that the measure was strongly opposed from this side of the House. I repeatedly stated that in the view of myself and my colleagues on this Bench the Bill was a breach of what was agreed to by this country at Geneva, in 1921. The Government endeavoured in the debates last year, though quite unsuccessfully, to controvert this charge, but since the Bill was passed the accusation has been enormously strengthened, owing to the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge, the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories at the Home Office.
Sir Thomas Legge has resigned solely on account of the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter of the Lead Paint Act, which he quite rightly regards as a breach of the Draft Convention at Geneva in 1921. I would explain that Sir Thomas Legge, as representing one of the Delegates of the British Government, voted for the Draft Convention in 1921, and he is not willing to be a party to going back upon what he then did. He looks upon what has been done by the Government as a breach of honour. As a man of honour he will have no lot or part in an act of dishonour, and therefore, in spite of the financial sacrifice involved, he has resigned his position as Senior Medical Inspector of Factories.
Your Lordships will be aware that it is a very unusual circumstance for a civil servant to resign on a point of disagreement with the Government, and the fact that Sir Thomas Legge has felt it his duty to do so emphasises clearly, in the strongest possible way, the Government's

181
breach of honour in this matter. Sir Thomas, as a civil servant, could, of course, have claimed that the responsibility was that of the Government, but so keenly does he feel that what has been done is wrong, and that it will mean suffering and death which would otherwise be avoided, to many men, that he is not willing any longer to remain in the service of the Home Office. This, as I need scarcely say, is a serious state of things, and in the circumstances I need make no apology for bringing the matter up for further discussion. In fact, it is a public duty to do so.
It will be remembered that during the debates in November, the Government sought to defend what they had done on the ground that the Draft Convention did not really bind the country, and that all the Government had to do was to bring the Draft Convention before Parliament. Although that contention may be technically true, as a defence of what has happened it is wholly untenable. It suggests that the decision of Parliament is a thing quite apart from the views of the Government of the day—that the Government do not give any lead. It is a flimsy and ridiculous plea to bring forward. The responsibility rests with the Government, and in the circumstances I think it is a pity that they should suggest the contrary. The true position is that when, after weeks of discussion at Geneva, a decision was reached to which Great Britain and twenty-nine other countries agreed, it was fully expected that the Convention would be ratified, and the only circumstance which would justify the Government in refusing to ratify would be some new fact which materially altered the situation as it was known at Geneva. Has any such new fact emerged? Not a bit of it. Nothing whatever has happened to warrant this country in going back upon what it agreed to at Geneva in 1921, and the position is rendered all the worse because the proposal at Geneva, which led to the Draft Convention being unanimously agreed to, was actually made by Great Britain. That is the proposal upon which the Government have gone back.
Let me deal with the so-called qualification made by Sir Montague Barlow, the senior Delegate of the Government at Geneva in 1921. He made a qualification, so the Government contend, at the time
182
when he voted for the Convention. Sir Montague Barlow told the House a Commons that although he voted for the Convention he stated at the time that he did so "on the basis of the compromise being a satisfactory one acceptable to all." Whatever he may have meant by this very general remark, to which he obviously, as I will show, did not attach any importance whatever, it is certain that these words about being acceptable to all cannot fairly be used by the Government as a defence of their action in yielding to the pressure of the white lead manufacturers, because that is what they did in the Act of last year when they proceeded by way of regulation instead of by way of the prohibition of the use of lead paint for interior work.
I should like to make clear that it is the white lead manufacturers of this country who hold that it is their industry which would be injured without the Act of last year. Their's is the vested interest which caused the Conservative Government to break faith and to pass that measure. It is really quite idle for any one to argue that the so-called qualifying words of Sir Montague Barlow meant that he agreed to the Convention on the understanding that it was wholly acceptable and satisfactory to the white lead manufacturers of this country. Of course it was not wholly acceptable to them, and Sir Montague Barlow knew that perfectly well when he voted for the Convention. Be knew that the Convention was a compromise—that was the word that was used—and nothing has happened since 1921 which makes the position of the white lead manufacturers in all these matters genuinely different from what it was in or before 1921.
There were two statements made by Sir Montague Barlow, one of which was made just before voting for the Convention and the other some time later, both of which are totally inconsistent with the Act of last year and either of which plainly demonstrates that Sir Montague Barlow did not attach any importance to this so-called qualification. The first statement was made by Sir Montague just before he voted for the Convention. This is what he said:—
"It redounds to the credit of this great Conference that we have now come to an agreement, which I understand is satisfactory to all parties, not only employers and workers but also to the Governments concerned.

183
Under those circumstances it would be ten thousand pities—it would be more than that; it would be a calamity—if through any technical reasons relating to the quorum this Convention was not finally and legally adopted. Under these circumstances and on the basis of this compromise, agreed to by all concerned, and in order to avoid difficulty with regard to the machinery, the British Government's vote will be passed in favour of the Convention."
There is no qualification in those words and it is abundantly evident that Sir Montague Barlow had no other idea than that the Convention was a good thing and that it would be ratified.
This fact is further emphasised by the second statement which I will read to your Lordships. This was made later, after Sir Montague had returned home and had had time to confer with his colleagues. But before I come to that let me also mention that later still a dinner was held at the Savoy Hotel to celebrate, so to speak, the achievement of the Draft Convention. Among others Sir Montague Barlow was present and, I think, one or two of the leading white lead manufacturers, and throughout the proceedings there was no suggestion of not ratifying the Convention. Now I return to the attitude of Sir Montague. On November 30, 1921, he contributed an article to The Times and the article was headed "Good Work at Geneva: Labour Parliament's Success." In the course of this article Sir Montague Barlow wrote:—
"The great achievement of the 1921 Conference was undoubtedly the settlement of the vexed question of the use of white lead in paint."
Your Lordships will notice that he speaks of the "settlement": there is no question there of going back, or anything of that sort. And indeed a little later on he says in the same article that the compromise in the form of an agreed Draft Convention was voted unanimously by the whole Conference. Again there is no qualification, and by way of further praise for what had been done, he went on to say that the humanitarian interests involved were obviously very serious. This was the position of Sir Montague Barlow and of the Coalition Government of 1921. And about that I should like to make one or two observations.
There are certain members of the present Conservative Government who have not a very high opinion of the
184
Coalition Government. They have often been very scornful about the Coalition Government. They take up a superior moral attitude with regard to that Government; they seem indeed to have regarded it, the Coalition Government, as the embodiment of iniquity: and for my part, speaking in general, I do not dissent from that view.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear.
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, but it is only right to point out that so far as this white lead issue was concerned the Coalition Government, despite its manifold sins, had more regard for humanitarian interests, more care for the welfare of the workers, than the present Conservative Government. So we see that those members of the present Government, despite their superior attitude, almost bordering at times upon spiritual pride, so far as this lead paint issue is concerned are on a lower moral plane than the Coalition Government which they despise.
The white lead manufacturers, not very long after the Convention of 1921, opened a campaign whereby they sought to break away from the Convention, but nothing had happened which would justify any change in the attitude of the Government. The white lead firms will, I know, maintain that they were justified because of two circumstances which I can put quite shortly: first, because of a speech made by M. Albert Thomas, the Director of the International Labour Office at Geneva. There has been a correspondence about that speech in the Nation, and the Chairman of the white lead makers' section of the London Chamber of Commerce wrote suggesting that certain words of M. Thomas in a speech which he made tore up the peace made at Geneva. In point of fact that is not the case at all. M. Thomas himself wrote to the Nation rebutting the contention and stating—I think these are his very words—that all his efforts have since 1921 been directed towards securing ratification of the Convention, which embodies the compromise agreed to at Geneva. Moreover, it is preposterous—and your Lordships must I think agree with this—for the white lead manufacturers, or anybody else, to contend that any speech made subsequently—and this was made eighteen months or two years after the

185
Convention—can tear up a Draft Convention made between thirty nations.
The second circumstance which the white lead manufacturers adduce in support of their action is the development, of the process of waterproof sandpaper; and the Government also brings this out, so I am now speaking not merely of the white lead manufacturers but also of the Government. I rather gather from the fact that the noble Lord opposite nods assent that he is going to bring it up again, so, with your Lord ships' permission, I will forestall him and tell you the facts about it. I have previously explained that the harm done by lead paint in interior work mainly arises from rubbing down the old paint, in order to prepare the surface for the new paint. In this rubbing down process particles of dust of the old paint and so forth are necessarily spread about. These get into the system, chiefly through the lungs, and cause the poisoning, with all its serious consequences. The same thing does not occur to anything like the same extent in external painting, because in that work very much less rubbing down has to be done, and also, the work being in the open air, the particles of dust, lead paint, and so forth are blown away. Waterproof sandpaper is supposed to meet the difficulty because the old paint is rubbed down wet, and therefore—so the case is put—the particles of dust, etc., are not scattered. This may sound all very well in theory, but in practice the case for waterproof sandpaper breaks down. The truth is that so many things have to be done when using waterproof sandpaper, if it is to be regarded as I preventative against lead poisoning, that in practice all these things will hardly ever be done. That is the position. I will not go through all the details though I am prepared to do so if anybody should ask. If I did I am quite sure that the list of things which is put down is sufficiently impressive to convert the most sceptical. As further proof of what I am saying I would add that the sale of waterproof sandpaper amongst housepaperers has so far made very little progress.
A vital point in all this matter and one which the Government, I am sorry to say, has hitherto entirely failed to apprehend, is the injurious effect which the action of Great Britain, in going back upon the Geneva Convention of 1921, is
186
bound to have upon future international meetings at Geneva held for the purpose of raising labour conditions. Just consider the position. This important Convention was held in 1921. It was unanimously agreed to by thirty nations and since then it has been ratified by nearly all the important industrial countries in the world. Is it not perfectly evident that owing to the action of the present Government confidence in the good faith of Great Britain at these Labour Conventions will be rudely shaken? I do not think I need labour that; it is so obvious. Thus Great Britain, which we have been prone to regard as in the forefront of civilised countries in efforts for raising labour conditions, bids fair to lose that position, to lose her influence abroad in these matters and to become an obstacle instead of a help to progress. That is what the present Government have reduced us to.
This is all the more true because, unfortunately, this Geneva Convention does not stand alone. To it must be added the failure of the Government to ratify the Washington Convention and the reactionary position taken up by the British official Delegates in regard to the regulation of the hours of seamen. But that is another story and I cannot go into those matters to-day. I will say this: that as regards the Washington Convention the record of the Government, if not so discreditable as in the case of the Geneva Convention, makes a good second. I am glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, here to-day, because he is a firm supporter of the League of Nations and of all its activities, including the International Labour Office, and it would be very interesting to know what his views really are in regard to these matters. I will undertake to say that if he were in Opposition sitting on this Bench his attitude would be widely different from his present one of silent and complaisant acquiescence.
I cannot help thinking that in his heart of hearts he agrees with every word of the letter in The Times to which I am about to refer. It appeared only last week and was condemnatory of the Government's action regarding the Geneva Convention. Ii is a letter published in The Times of Wednesday last and signed by Major John W. Hills, M.P., the Rt.

187
Hon. George Barnes and Mr. E. L. Poulton. Those signatures will command respect, I think, in any quarter in any assembly. I need not remind your Lordships that Major Hills is one of the most influential supporters of the Government in another place. Probably most of your Lordships have read this letter, which deserves the closest perusal, and I must not take up time by reading the whole of it. I may, however, be allowed to read one passage as follows:—
"Technically, no doubt, our Government was free to refuse ratification; morally, it was not. A compromise to which the different parties had sacrificed so much, obtaining unanimous agreement for reward, deserved to be honoured by those who set their hands to it, and most of all by Governments who accepted it through their representatives. It is a matter of serious concern that this consideration should have had no weight at all with the British Government. The Lead Paint Act, passed last year, throws the Convention over. Instead of forbidding the use of lead in internal painting it relies upon the unworkable method of regulation. Thereupon Sir Thomas Legge resigned his official position at the Home Office. A man of conviction, who had played so decisive a part in bringing about the decision of 1921, he refused to take refuge in the accepted plea that the civil servant is without responsibility for Ministerial acts. In his case, to attempt administration of Regulations which, in his opinion, offer no real protection to the 150,000 house-painters exposed to the danger of lead poisoning would have been to accept tacitly the position of complaisant expert adviser of a policy which he knew to be wrong. Of this suspicion he has cleared himself. At the same time he has made ninny of us profoundly uneasy. We can find no answer to several questions."
I think those words should give deep concern to all who value the honour of our country.
It is—I am sorry to say it, but I do say it—unfortunately true that owing to their part in the coal dispute last year and in other ways one does not expect to find much sense of honour in the present Government. But the breaches of honour last year were in regard to domestic matters. This is an international matter and that makes it very much more grave. Your Lordships may well ask: What is the explanation of all this? How is it the Government have done this thing? How is it the Government have gone back upon the Convention and refused to ratify it? I am afraid the explanation is to be found in this fact. What has occurred is only a
188
further proof, if any were needed—and I do not think it is—of how extraordinarily difficult it is for a Conservative Government to interfere with a vested interest. The truth is that this Conservative Government, like all Conservative Governments, is a Government of vested interests for vested interests. This white lead industry is only a small vested interest, but it is a powerful one, and is well organised and apparently can bring successful pressure to bear upon the Government. That I believe to be the real truth about what has happened.
I will now call attention to certain words that the Home Secretary used in another place, which should not, I think, have been used, because they give a wrong impression and they have the effect of concealing the gravity of Sir Thomas Legge's resignation. After Sir Thomas had resigned a Question was asked in another place about the matter, and the Home Secretary, in his reply, began by saying that Sir Thomas Legge, having reached the pensionable age, asked to be allowed to retire. As a matter of fact, the question of the pension age has really nothing to do with the matter. Even if Sir Thomas had reached the retiring age—he had not reached the retiring age—there was no reason to suppose, in view of his experience, that his term of service would not have been somewhat extended; indeed the Hone Secretary, when pressed in another place, admitted that that was so.
A further point is this. The Home Secretary concluded his reply by saying that Sir Thomas gave as the reason that he did not wish to be concerned in the administration of the Lead Paint Act. That statement is not really in accordance with what occurred. Sir Thomas did not put the matter in that way. The main reason he gave—and this was given also in a letter in Time Times which appeared two days before this reply was given—was that he could not recede from the position he had taken up as representing one of the Delegates of the British Government at Geneva. That was when Sir Thomas Legge voted for the Draft Convention. I will ask the noble Lord: Is it not also the case that Sir Thomas in his letter of resignation to the Home Office used words to

189
that effect? I leave your Lordships to judge whether that is not a very much more serious reason than the one which the Home Secretary gave. I do submit that we are entitled to some explanation of, and some apology for, this reply of the Home Secretary because it really had the effect of giving a wrong impression. It had the effect of misleading Parliament as to what had occurred.
In conclusion I come to the Draft Regulations and I can be fairly brief about these. I confine myself mainly to one point, though that is of great importance. In the letter which was sent out by the Home Office, dated 31st December last, explanatory of these Regulations, the statement is made that the terms of the Regulations had been discussed at a series of conferences held between the Home Office and various bodies, including, amongst others, the National Operative Painters' Society, and that complete agreement Was arrived at. That statement is grossly misleading, to use no stronger language, and it seems a very extraordinary thing that a letter like that should have been sent out by the Home Office. It is a very extraordinary thing, but perhaps after all it is not so extraordinary, perhaps after all it is not surprising, when von have a Government which obtained the greater part of its majority by fraud on the electorate, that there should from time to time be issued statements which are misleading.
I will tell your Lordships the facts and it will be seen how utterly different the position is from that which the letter suggests. The fact is that the Regulations referred to were nearly all drafted to apply to external painting. They were not drafted for interior painting, which is the question at issue, and they were drafted as long ago as 1922. They were agreed to then by the various bodies named in the letter, when it was understood that the Geneva Convention was going to be ratified and that so far as interior work was concerned the use of lead paint would be prohibited. Consider, then, how very different the position is from what the letter suggests. Would anybody reading the letter from the Home Office understand that to be the case? In the first place, anybody reading the letter would naturally; assume that the conferences referred
190
to were held quite recently—the conferences at which it says complete agreement was arrived at. That is not so. The Act did not receive the Royal Assent until December 15. This circular was sent out on December 31. No conferences were held between December 15 and December 31, so far as I know, and I think I do know. No conference had been held since 1922, nearly five years ago. In the second place, this Home Office letter does not in the least make it plain that the Regulations were nearly all drafted for external painting and were intended to carry out the Geneva Convention which involved the prohibition of the use of lead paint for interior work. That is not made clear at all. The Government speaks of complete agreement being arrived at. That, again, is not in accordance with the facts. Complete agreement was not arrived at on the basis of this letter. I say again that when this letter was issued no conference about these matters had been held, so far as I know—I ask the noble Lord whether that is not so—no conference had been held since 1922.
There is another point. Certain additional Regulations were issued about which, so far as I know, there had never been any discussion or any conference at all. The letter quotes the National Operative Painters' Society as one of the bodies which is in complete agreement. That also is' not in accordance with the facts. So far from that being the case the fact is that as soon as the letter was issued it claimed the attention of the National Operative Painters' Society and that society has made various objections to the Regulations and has pressed for various amendments. I think that it is a serious matter to send out a letter like this, a letter so grossly misleading, and I think the Home Office is deserving of censure in the matter. It will be no defence for the Home Office to say that though the Regulations provide for external work, yet in the changed circumstances—the circumstance being that the Convention has not been ratified—the Regulations can now apply to both questions. That will be no defence—leaving aside the totally wrong impression the letter gives; there can be no dispute about that. I must emphasise that the Regulations will, as a matter of fact, be of very little use in stopping

191
lead poisoning. The Government, I know, express the expectation that the Regulations will succeed. A noble Lord says "Hear, hear" but he cannot bring any sufficient evidence to support those expectations. As a matter of fact, those expectations are not based on experience, cannot be supported by experience, and are contrary to experience. In these circumstances I submit that this is a totally inadequate defence to put that forward.
What are the facts about trying in the past by regulation to stop lead poisoning? Both in the manufacture of white lead itself and in the potteries industry Regulations have not been able to stop the evil. The most they have been able to do is to minimise the evil. That is not surprising in view of the fact that even so minute a quantity as one-thirty-second of a grain of white lead absorbed daily may cause chronic poisoning in the course of years. I want to say one word about another industry and that is the manufacture of electrical accumulators. In that industry, despite stringent regulations, lead poisoning is still very common.
Finally, I desire to say one word about a vital matter, the question of a substitute for lead paint for interior work. When the Convention was signed in 1921 there was to be an interval of no less than six years given to white lead manufacturers in which to turn to some substitute for lead paint—a substitute which would not have the harmful effects of lead paint. In France, for instance, lead paint is hardly used at all now. The noble Lord says they have no lead, but they could get lead if necessary. Zinc paints are used. Although climatic conditions are somewhat different in this country, zinc can be used for interior work because that work is not affected by climate As a matter of fact, zinc paints are used in this country now and zinc paints are not harmful to health. Moreover, they give a beautiful surface. In the opinion of some they give as good a surface as, or indeed a better surface than, lead paint. Further, there is reason to suppose that other substitutes as well as zinc could be found for lead pain t—substitutes not harmful to health. It is probable that if the Convention had been ratified in 1921, in the intervening years until 1927 when it was to come into operation
192
other substitutes would have been found. One of the many evils of the Act of last year is to make the necessity for white lead manufacturers to begin manufacturing zinc or other substitutes less urgent than it otherwise would have been.
It comes to this—that the Bill of last year puts a premium on lead paint with all its harmful consequences, so that the action of the Government last year, in addition to being, as I have said, a breach of honour, means that hundreds of men will suffer from the terrible effects of lead paint who, but for that Bill, would have been free. I do urge, therefore, most strongly that the Government should make it clear that they will before long introduce legislation prohibiting the use of lead paint for interior work. The Government ought to make it perfectly plain to the white lead manufacturers that, despite what took place last year, it is to their interests to begin as soon as possible manufacturing zinc paint or other substitutes for lead paint, so that the sufferings caused by lead paint may once and for all be ended. If things work out in that way then the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge, though the sacrifice has been great, will not have been in vain. As regards my Motion for Papers I should like to keep that in reserve. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, I very much regret to think that the noble Lord opposite has thought fit to make a speech of such vitriolic violence upon one of the most vexed and difficult problems of industrial policy in international affairs. The only reason that I rise this afternoon is that I presided over the International Labour Conference of 1921 at Geneva and, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I was to some extent responsible for the Draft Convention that is under debate. Personally I regret that His Majesty's Government have not been able to recommend Parliament to ratify the White Lead Convention. On the other hand, listening to the somewhat uninformed arguments that have been addressed to the House, your Lordships might be led to imagine that this was a question of breach of faith without regard to the health and welfare of the workers in the trade that uses white lead in interior painting or to the general opinion of the civilised world.

193
The facts are very different. The Conference sat for some six weeks in that year and, of all the questions submitted to it, there was none that provoked so much controversy as the use of white lead in painting. It was not, as the noble Lord led your Lordships to believe, a matter of humanity against callousness in regard to human health and welfare. On the contrary, it was a great struggle of trade interests in which the arguments were very powerful on both sides and as the result of which a compromise was adopted, entirely owing to the persuasiveness and the ability of Sir Thomas Legge. It was a fight between the lead-producing and lead-using countries and the zinc-producing and zinc-using countries. The Commonwealth of Australia, for instance, was unanimously against any such Convention, and the whole of its Delegation voted in that sense. Germany ranged itself on the same side as Australia while, on the other hand, France and Belgium, being zinc-producing and zinc-using countries and not requiring to use lead, saw an advantage not only from the hygienic but also from the commercial point of view in the adoption of such a Convention. Three Committees were appointed to consider the matter and sat for three weeks—a Commercial, a Scientific and a Hygienic Committee. They had experts of the greatest authority sitting upon them. I recollect that there was one who was paid £5,000 for coming to Geneva, but he was not paid in the least from any reason of public health but because the vital interests of a great many countries which were Members of the League of Nations were concerned, and especially those of Australia, of which lead constitutes one-third of the whole mineral production.
It was almost certain at last that no agreement could be reached and I recollect breaking ail the rules of procedure in order to allow Sir Thomas Legge to move, almost as a desperate hope, the resolution that was finally embodied in the Draft Convention that has not been brought to the notice of this Parliament. On the other hand, many of those who favoured the Convention believe that half measures, though not wholly effective, might do a great deal to stop the evil of which complaint is made. I recollect that that year the
194
number of deaths arising from lead poisoning in the whole of the countries amounted to four hundred—a very serious but not an enormous figure. We thought, therefore, that it was possible that in six years such scientific discoveries and such application of those discoveries might be made as would not put this country and other countries using lead at a disadvantage as compared with the zinc countries. It does not seem that this has taken place. Moreover, the building trades were themselves altogether opposed to any such Draft Convention. I recollect that a representative of the master builders spoke for the British employers as one of their delegates during the Conference.
It was quite open, as it has always been open, for the Government of any country to recommend or not to recommend the adoption of a Draft Convention. It is only, as your Lordships know, when a Draft Convention has been ratified by the national Parliament of any country that is a party to the League of Nations that it then becomes a matter of honourable obligation. If the Convention is adopted and then, by some means or other is not made operative in respect of the trades involved, there is procedure under the Treaty of Peace for bringing the offending country to the High Court of International Justice and awarding economic penalties, which, personally, I do not think could ever be applied. But that does not apply in this case. There is no question of dishonour in the decision of the Government to take the course that it has now recommended.
This is without question one of the most difficult matters that could be considered in regard to a great staple trade in this country. Nobody who has seen the effects of lead poisoning could underrate them and nobody could feel anything but commiseration for those who are its victims. I believe that the course now adopted, which finds expression in the Act passed last Session, will have some effect for good, On the other hand I believe that it will be necessary, after it has been tried and, as some of us fear, has failed of its full effect, to propose again a Draft Convention for the consideration of Parliament. But the only point that we have to consider now is whether the Parliament of this country should always be the corpus vile of experiment in social legislation which has

195
not been adopted elsewhere and to which some of the sister dominions object so strongly.
I venture to think that in any case to try to make partisan capital out of the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge is a very monstrous abuse. Nobody who knows him and has seen anything of his work over a long period of years can feel anything but the highest respect for him, and no doubt he is heart and soul in favour of this Convention. It was his work to a large extent, in that the compromise that was accepted—a period of years before which no Convention should come into effect—was the proposal that he himself brought forward. If we can consider that we are postponing the enactment or ratification of the Convention in order to try whether anything short of that will effect its purpose, then I do not think that the Government is far wrong, because trade interests will undoubtedly be prejudicially affected and it is not quite certain that we cannot save lives and avoid suffering without it. I should like to end, as I began, by saying that, had I had any say in the matter, either at Geneva or at home, I should have been in favour of ratifying the Convention. On the other hand, if it is only postponed for a little time for further experiments and for the concurrence and co-operation of the other nations which are involved, I cannot think that much harm has been done.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, it is difficult for any one who has listened to the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down to know on what side he stands in this controversy, He has sat on each side of the fence and propped himself first on one foot and then on the other alternately. He began by telling us of the Convention. He began by telling us of his experience of it and expressing his regret that the conclusion which was reached at that Convention was, not adopted by this country.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Quite so.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Then he went on to tell us of the number of trade interests represented there from various countries, of the conflict of opinion and discussion, and finally reminded us that the resolution come to was a unanimous resolution and was embodied in the Convention, which, therefore, put an end to
196
the discussion and superseded it. The noble Lord, in other words, said truly that the important thing was the Convention itself and not the discussion which took place and led up to it. But then he went on to announce the most extra, ordinary doctrine of all, that the obligation upon us in respect of the Conference at Geneva was an obligation which, as I understood him, was only to have binding effect if adopted by the Parliaments of the countries which had taken part in it. I should like, when the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, comes to speak, to ask him very clearly whether he accepts that doctrine about the League of Nations. Is it the case that it is only subject to whatever may happen in the Parliament of the countries concerned that the resolutions of the League of Nations have any efficacy?—because that is the doctrine of the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): I think the noble and learned Viscount forgets that this is under the special procedure of the International Labour Office.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Be it so, but the Convention was adopted in 1921 and there it is, and what I want to know from the noble Viscount is whether he considers that such a Convention has no effect unless it is approved by the Parliaments of the countries concerned? If so, then, I would ask, what is the use of the League of Nations? We seem to have been listening to a great deal of hypocrisy about it if that be the case. As I understood the foundation of the League of Nations it was not a body to which the countries concerned delegated their sovereignty. They retained their sovereignity, but they went into conference to see whether they could agree upon certain principles and then go to the League with the general consent of all concerned. That was the doctrine of the League of Nations. If you once assented to a principle at Geneva then you had assented to it, and, although no one could be said to have given up his sovereignty, the very purpose of the League was to some extent to qualify sovereignty by assenting to certain principles on which nations could agree. I think that the next debate that we shall have to raise in this House is a

197
debate upon the foundation of the League of Nations, if that doctrine is challenged, and from what the noble Viscount has said I am not quite sure what his own position is in regard to it.
Anyhow, here we are with a great proposal, which was adopted unanimously and in which this country concurred and which now the Government says it cannot carry out. That was not the original proposal of the British Government, but it is now the proposal of the British Government. What can you expect from the people of this country when you so deal with things in which they are deeply interested? There is a popular supposition that the Labour Party is a Party which depends only upon some written and rigid programme The Labour Party goes far beyond that. The Labour Party is a spirit which is very active in the constituencies just now. It is a spirit which is costing the Government by-election after by-election, and may cost them many more in the near future. All I can say is that a Conservative Government which flouts and disregards that spirit is a very foolish Government and will bring a Labour majority upon themselves if they persist in that attitude. The tree course is to study the spirit in which people look at those things and to remember that the Labour movement is a movement of idealism which will revenge itself upon those who flout it.
I think that the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this question has been a very dubious one indeed and that my noble friend has been well advised in bringing forward the subject to-day. I think it is a clear illustration of the way in which the Government are apt to overlook the spirit and hold to the letter, and it is just that which is bringing up the Labour Party in increasing strength, which they will have to encounter before they are much older as a Government.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I only desire to answer a definite question, out of courtesy. I have no desire to take part in the general debate. My noble friend Lord Desborough is well qualified to deal with the points which have been raised by Lord Arnold. As to the particular point raised by Viscount Haldane, I
198
think it is really quite clear. The Labour Office sits, as the noble and learned Viscount is well aware, under quite different Regulations and constitution to the League itself. The League is governed entirely by the Covenant; the Labour Office is governed by the Articles in the Treaty of Versailles which constitute and direct its proceedings. With regard to this particular question of a Convention, as my noble friend who has done such admirable work at Geneva has already told you, the position is quite clear. The governing body and the Conference of the International Labour Office meets and you may either have a Convention or a recommendation proposed. If it is a Convention and it is passed by the adequate majority, the obligation undertaken by each member of the Conference is that the matter shall be presented to the proper constitutional authorities at home.
Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to read the actual Article (Article 405) which I have before me. In that Article it is stated:—
"Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the Conference, bring the recommendation or Draft Convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action."
That is the only obligation that is undertaken. The Article, In a subsequent paragraph, proceeds:—
"If on a recommendation no legislative or other action is taken to make a recommendation effective, or if the Draft Convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter no further obligations shall rest upon the member."
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Why does not the Government make a recommendation? That is what we complain of.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The Government are entitled to present and have presented to Parliament their views on the subject. It is for Parliament to judge whether their views are right and also to take whatever action it likes.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to join issue entirely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has said. I will join issue with him on the Report which is issued by the Foreign Secretary as regards the last meeting of the Council which took place at Geneva. In addition to that I have here the recommendations. The Report says:—
"On the 24th September, 1926, the Seventh Assembly adopted a resolution calling the attention of the Governments of all States Members of the League to the necessity for taking all possible measures to expedite the ratification of Conventions and Agreements signed in their name, and inviting the council to call for a report every six months on the progress of ratification and to consider methods for securing the more rapid bringing into force of those Agreements and Conventions … The Council accordingly instructed the Secretary-General to submit at its next session a report on the progress made in the ratification of international engagements concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Hear, hear. Not of the Labour Office.
LORD PARMOOR: That denotes this. Although there may not be a technical obligation there is an understanding throughout the Assembly. The Assembly itself has passed a resolution in the sense that it is desirable that these Conventions should be ratified, that the question of their ratification should be brought before Parliament and that an opportunity should be given to Parliament for their ratification. I have read what was actually stated in the Report itself.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That has nothing whatever to do with it. It is quite irrelevant. That was in reference to engagements concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, not of the Labour Office which proceeds entirely separately from the League of Nations. I moved the resolution myself, which was for the purpose of preventing the delays which have unfortunately taken place in the ratification of Agreements signed in pursuance of the proceedings at the meetings of the League of Nations. It has nothing whatever to do with the Labour Office, which is under a different constitution.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry again to be in disagreement on a point of procedure with the noble Viscount. I have before me the copies of these Conventions for ratification or recommendation which the Assembly asks should be dealt with as soon as possible. Among others is this veer Convention which we are discussing this afternoon. It makes no difference whatever whether the Convention comes from one source or the other. It is equally in the form of a Convention and equally desirable, according to the views of the Assembly, that it should be recommended for ratification. I have here the whole list from the League of Nations Union. You may see in it what we have not ratified and not even recommended for ratification, including the Convention relating to white lead. It is to these Conventions that the White Paper from which I have read a passage has reference.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord is entirely wrong. If he had read carefully he would have seen it is headed "International Labour Office" and has nothing whatever to do with the League of Nations.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry again to interrupt. It is because it is headed "International Labour Office" that it does include this Convention to which I have alluded. I do not want to argue the matter any further, but I think it is quite clear, and I have read the passage from the Report.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to say a very few words in answer to the Motion which has been put down by my noble friend Lord Arnold with reference to the much regretted resignation of the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, Sir Thomas Legge, and I should like to join with those who have already spoken in expressing the appreciation of the Home Office, of employers of labour and of employees, of the inestimable services rendered by Sir Thomas Legge over a very long period of years. I can assure your Lordships that the Home Office heard with very great regret that he considered it necessary to resign on account of a difference of opinion—there is no doubt about it—as to the proper method of dealing with this very important question of lead poisoning. There is no doubt that he

201
and the Government had a very serious difference on this point and he thought it necessary to resign. It has already been pointed out that his resignation could not have been very long postponed—I think he was in his sixty-fourth year—but it is none the less to be regretted, because I should also like to point out this, that if all distinguished civil servants thought it necessary to resign because they happened to disagree with the head of a Department or the head of the Government, the Civil Service upon which the good government of this country so largely depends would soon find itself in the Slough of Despond.
With regard to the Motion itself, I do not propose to go into it at length. I have already gone into it on two occasions, and I am not sure whether one was a very proper occasion on which to go into it—namely, in Committee on the Bill when we discussed whether we should proceed by the method of absolute prohibition of lead paint for interior work or by the method of regulation on which I have already said a good deal. I do not propose to repeat what I have said. It has already been pointed out in the course of the debate by my noble friend behind me who attended this Conference that there was to a great extent a very sharp difference of opinion between those countries who used lead and those who used zinc. I do not know whether the House would bear with me if for one moment I quoted what was said by the Chairman of the Committee at the Conference. I believe that the Chairman of the Committee of Experts at Geneva was a Canadian Government Delegate.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: There were several Committees but he was one of several chairmen.
LORD DESBOROUGH: He was the Chairman of the Committee of Experts which considered the whole position with the help of a Medical Sub-Committee, during several weeks, the essential question being how best to reconcile the protection of painters with the practical indispensability of lead paint. This is an expert who said that you cannot absolutely knock out lead paint, and he went on to say that the Committee recommended that the reasonable solution of the hygienic problem was the establishment of Regulations, which they outlined
202
very much as in the Bill. He also said that he considered that the Convention would have been unanimous on the question of proceeding by regulation and not by prohibition
"… if the majority of the workers representatives had (as it was understood they had agreed) voted for it instead of abstaining. It was owing to the interposition of the French and Belgian representatives (upon arguments which were not strictly scientific, and possibly influenced by the fact that their countries are the chief producers of rival pigments) that the Conference itself on the last working day, in a state of hustle, rejected the Committee's recommendation and put forward the Draft Convention."
It was due to the assiduity and ability of Sir Thomas Legge that in a hurry the Convention adopted it rather than allow the whole thing to be a failure and no conclusion come to. I think it has been quite clearly proved that in those Conventions nothing whatever is signed. Therefore there is no question of going back or of any point of honour. There is actually no question of honour involved.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Only the President signs.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The Delegates do not sign. The British Government have been attacked. Because a British Delegate in certain circumstances agreed to and voted for this Draft Convention and the Government have not, carried it out, it is said that there is some want of honour on the part of the Government, or some derogation of duty. Nothing of the sort. I will read to your Lordships what happens at these Conventions:—
"Each of the Members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the Conference, bring the recommendation or Draft Convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action."
We have not yet got to the point where we are governed by Geneva or even by Moscow.
The Government of each country no doubt pays great attention to anything which is unanimously voted in the hope that there may be on these labour

203
matters some general agreement among all countries, but there is no unanimity about this. Take, for instance, the British Empire. Australia is strongly against it, Canada is against it and South Africa and New Zealand are against it. The British Empire is not in favour of this and has not ratified the Convention. Nor do I think that there is very much chance of their ratifying it.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships over these matters, but I should like to point out that one great step has been taken in the passing of the Act, which your Lordships did by a two to one majority. It does seem to me unnecessary to rake this up for a third time after this House has by a two to one majority passed this on two occasions. The Government were justified in proceeding by regulation instead of by total prohibition and they, in fact, took the opportunity of being as much in advance as they could with the Regulations. They have had a great many conferences with all those interested, including employers and employed, in order to draw up the best possible Regulations. There has been a little delay at the last moment with regard to them. We are very carefully going into the question of the protection of people who use lead paint, by, for instance, prohibiting the use of any lead paint in the form of spray and by prohibiting dry rubbing down and scraping. These Regulations are in hand and I think they will shortly be issued.
Those who are interested in this question should at all events be grateful that the Government of which my noble friend opposite was a member for the first time passed an Act requiring a return of cases of lead poisoning occurring in the house-painting industry and also for the registration of employers. That provision was made for the first time. Previously I do not think the returns had been official. After the Act has been in operation we shall have figures before us on which we can rely. I can only conclude by saying that it is rather late in the day to open for a third time a question which has already been decided by Parliament. I would urge those who wish to put a stop to this admitted evil—that is to say, lead poisoning—to give every assistance in their power to the Government in order to draw up Regulations
204
which will fit the case and give the greatest security to those who are engaged in what is admittedly a dangerous occupation.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in the middle of this debate two noble Lords engaged in some technical discussion as to the procedure at Geneva. As they were both experts on that matter and did not agree I am not proposing to follow them into those difficulties, nor am I proposing to deal with the question of any breach of honour, but it seems to me that there does remain a word or two to be said on this question. I would first challenge the concluding words of the noble Lord opposite—and he employed the same expression more than once in his speech—which seemed to suggest that it was an impertinence and an impropriety to raise this matter again for the third time, I think he said, when it had been dealt with before. What we consider and what we feel is that men are being poisoned every day and that is going on day by day. Whatever your Lordships' Resolutions may be and whatever Conventions may be agreed, while that is going on day by day it seems to us to be a matter of continuing interest and one which it is proper to raise until it is amended.
I cannot accept any sort of censure by the noble Lord opposite for raising the matter, and, indeed, I think we are entitled to say that, this Convention about which we are talking having been agreed to six years ago, a good deal of patience has already been shown. Six years' poisoning has been allowed to go on unchecked and only now is some attempt made to deal with it. Surely that is a matter with which we are entitled to deal. I do not think that the Government were very happy in their first defender who spoke from the opposite Benches. I am not sure that he was not too honest and did not prove rather too much. He began by telling your Lordships with what difficulty this Convention was arrived at, how conflicting the interests were, how difficult to reconcile, but how at the end of all this difficulty and all these conflicts they were reconciled and there was a unanimous agreement on this Convention. It was said that Australia did not agree and the noble Lord opposite repeated that. My noble friend, who is better informed

205
than I am in these matters, will no doubt deal with that. All we have heard is that it was unanimously agreed to. It seems to me that the very difficulty that was encountered in arriving at unanimity and arriving at the Convention makes it the more imperative when such agreement has been reached that some steps should be taken to carry it out.
On this question of unanimity the noble Lord opposite made what seemed to me a very remarkable statement. In one portion of his speech he said that after a long discussion, when matters seemed hopeless, in rather a hustle, at the end of the proceedings, they finally and unanimously agreed upon this Convention. What exactly are we to understand by that? Are we to understand that after a hot fit of humanity at Geneva it is now felt that file agreement was a mistake in the light of a cold fit of finance? Is that what we are to understand?
LORD DESBOROUGH: That was a quotation from the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Obed Smith. He was there.
EARL RUSSELL: Did the noble Lord quote that with agreement or disagreement? I understood him to quote it to this house with agreement. If so, I would ask: What exactly are we to understand? For my own part, if the Government are under the impression that this Convention is a mistake, that this attempt to stop lead poisoning is a mistake, I should very much prefer their denouncing it and saying we will have nothing to do with it rather than pretending to carry it out by this Lead Paint Act, which seems to us a piece of camouflage. That is not the right way of dealing with it.
I would like to recall to your Lordships' consideration what is and will be the attitude of the ordinary man in the street about this matter. The noble and learned Viscount has already called attention to that. The man in the street does not care about Conventions or ratifications or anything else. Tie says here is a dangerous trade by which people are being poisoned. Surely it was very unfortunate that the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, in the course of his observations, after saying that about 400 people a year are poisoned and that this was not an enormous number, should go on to talk about the great trade interests involved
206
in lead paint. That was an unfortunate comparison between little and great. These are the sort of things considered outside and they produce the impression that vested interests are always likely to succeed as against the health and lives of working men. I very much doubt if that is the individual feeling of noble Lords opposite—I should be the last to accuse any individual member of your Lordships' House of less humane feeling than I possess myself—but that is the impression produced outside, that vested interests are always allowed to find a way of doing anything in their interests and that anything that tends to eliminate danger to the life and health of working men is not done.
Forty deaths a year—I think that is the number stated—occur in this country and I think we may fairly say there are four hundred cases which do not result in death. This is a very serious and horrible form of poison. The noble Lord opposite admitted that. Is it right that even in this House, and by the two to one majorities which are used against us, we should put aside consideration of these deaths and injuries and should not do our utmost to say they should stop? We are now asked to wait an untold number of years to see how this measure will succeed. By whom are we told that it cannot succeed? By this civil servant who has thought fit to resign upon this issue. The noble Lord opposite said that if all civil servants were to resign whenever they disagreed with what their chiefs did there would be no civil servants left. That undoubtedly is perfectly true, but it is a tradition of the Civil Service to serve loyally and faithfully a succession of different masters with different views and different political ideals. When, therefore, a case arises in which a distinguished civil servant feels it necessary to break with such a tradition he never does it on a matter of political disagreement but does it on a matter of honour, on a feeling which makes it impossible for him to continue. I do not think the noble Lord gained anything by minimising the resignation of an important civil servant upon grounds which he has publicly stated.
TEE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I do not rise to discuss the Geneva Convention or the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge, but

207
there is a practical matter which I should like to bring before the House in connection with these Regulations. I am one of those who believe that the matter would be far better dealt with by the Geneva Convention than by Regulations, but the Regulations have been accepted and very shortly they will be issued. The point I want to make is this, that the Regulations will be perfectly useless unless you have a sufficient number of factory inspectors to see that they are enforced. These Regulations do not deal with large bodies of men collected together in factories or working under one or two large employers. They deal with large numbers of men working in twos and threes or in many cases individually. It will be extraordinarily difficult for these Regulations, excellent as they may be on paper, to be carried out unless there are sufficient inspectors to see that they are enforced. This was recognised by the Home Secretary in another place. On the Second Reading of this measure he said that although it was quite impossible to appoint 70,000 inspectors to look after 70,000 men, yet he would ask for more factory inspectors so as to see that this measure was properly put into effect.
While I am sorry these Regulations have been adopted instead of the other policy, yet I want them to have a fair chance. The Government believe this to be the best way of remedying this evil The results will be very easily tested in about a year's time by statistics of disease and deaths. If the numbers are reduced the Government will have been largely justified in their policy. If, on the other hand, the numbers are still showing on appreciable decrease, the Government will have to fall back on the other policy, the policy embodied in the Geneva Convention. But there is no possibility of these Regulations having a fair test unless the Government are prepared to see that there are sufficient inspectors appointed to enforce them.
LORD ARNOLD: MY Lords, I would ask permission to deal with certain points raised in regard to my own speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, referred to my speech as being uninformed, but he did not attempt to reply to a single argument I used nor to rebut a single statement I made. Having said that my speech was uninformed, he then gave as an illustration that Australia was against
208
this Convention at the time of the Convention. That is not so. Australia voted for the Convention in 1921.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Australia opposed the Convention all through and the policy of the Convention. It accepted a compromise at the last moment. I used the argument in that sense.
LORD ARNOLD: A vote is a vote. There may be any amount of discussion before hand but when a vote is given it is given. Australia voted for the Geneva Convention.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Australia has not ratified it.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Viscount also said that employers' and builders' delegates did not like what was being done. I cannot be absolutely certain on the point, but I think I am correct in saying that when it came to a vote no delegate in that category voted against the Convention. Indeed, I think every delegate of that kind voted for the Convention. Then the noble Lord said that we should not be asked to do something that is not adopted elsewhere. As a matter of fact the Convention has been adopted by nearly every country represented at Geneva, by nearly every important industrial country, except Germany. In view of the defection of Great Britain it is not certain whether Germany will adopt the Convention now. At the time there was practical unanimity. The phrase used by Sir Montagu Barlow was that the Convention was agreed to unanimously. I believe Canada at that time did not actually vote for, but also did not vote against, the Convention. There was unanimity with that exception. What has happened since? I am afraid that this suggestion about Australia and Canada and one or two other countries now being against the Convention is really only a further confirmation of what have said about the extremely powerful nature of the white lead industry. I think a good deal of explanation could be found in that way. I cannot be sure, but I think that is an important consideration. At all events, all countries voted in 1921—except Canada.
I turn now to the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I understood him to argue that there was no kind of obligation on the Government

209
of the day to recommend to Parliament that the vote of a country's Delegate—our own in this case—should be honoured by the Parliament in that country. I cannot think that this is his view of the case because, if that were to be the position the result of every Conference of this kind at Geneva might end in perfectly hopeless confusion. Surely there is an obligation on the Government to recommend that the vote of its own Delegates should be honoured by Parliament. I think there can be no dispute about that.
I come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough. My noble friend Lord Russell dealt so effectively, if I may say so, with the question of civil servants' resignations that I need not say anything about that except to remark that it is, of course, a question of degree, and that in this case Sir Thomas Legge felt that, as so much suffering to these men is involved, he was bound to resign. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, if I may say so with respect, has let the case go by default. He did not attempt to deal with any of the new facts that I brought forward. He said that we had had them all before. But we have not had them all before. We have not had before the Home Office letter of December 31. Not a single defence did the noble Lord make of that letter, which is grossly misleading. He did not even refer to the misleading nature of the letter, and he made no defence or apology for the reply given by the Home Secretary which also gave a wrong impression. As I say, he let the whole case go by default, and in those circumstances I do not see that I can say anything more at the moment except that that point will not be overlooked.
No attempt has been made to reply to the main contentions advanced from this Bench. He said that there was a majority of two to one in your Lordships' House for the Bill. Certainly there was, and it might just as well have been seventy to one, because that is the majority against myself and my colleagues on this Bench if all the Peers attend. But there is nothing in that. The Conservative Government can always get a majority. We do contend, however, that in this matter the rights of the case are upon the side that we have put to the
210
House, and it is a matter for regret that the noble Lord in his reply has given no indication that the Government sufficiently realise the gravity of the position or that they will at an early date bring in legislation prohibiting the use of lead paint. I do not intend to press for Papers, though, if the noble Lord had made some defence or had told us that some conferences were held in December regarding the Home Office letter, I should have asked for particulars, but, as evidently there were no conferences, it is no use my pressing for Papers. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DUTIES OF A MANDATORY POWER.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the responsibilities and duties of a Mandatory Power in the administration of a mandated area. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Question that I have to raise will not lead again to any misunderstanding between the noble Viscount opposite and myself, because I always feel that on questions concerning the League there ought not, at any rate on technical points, to be antagonism between those who have had a large practical experience at Geneva. I have indicated to the noble Viscount that the points to which I wish to call attention concern the Tanganyika Mandate, and I wish to do so at this time because I want to refer to a statement that was made in another place by the Secretary of State for Dominion and Colonial Affairs, and I do not want the occasion to pass by without the matter being considered in your Lordships' House.
The Tanganyika Mandate comes, of course, within Article 22 of the Covenant of the League, but it conies under the special provisions applicable to territories in Central Africa in which, under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, the interests of Germany were renounced. I emphasise the word "renounced," because that was the true position. Article 22 contained these words:—
"To those Colonies and territories which, as a consequence of the late War, have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States"—

211
that is, in this case, under the sovereignty of Germany—
"which formerly governed them … there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
The leading factor that really governs the whole position is that the Mandatory Power is not in the position of all ordinary sovereign Power, having regard to the rights of its own nationals, but in that of a trustee. It is there in order to safeguard the interests of the natives and to do what it can to qualify them to be capable of independent government.
The word used in the same Article is "tutelage" The Mandatory Power is asked to undertake the responsibility of accepting tutelage, and it is stated, in the words of the Article,—
"that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
Accordingly their duty is that of trustees, and the League of Nations are the body or authority to whom they may have to give an account of their stewardship. Similar passages occur several times in Article 22, and it is particularly pointed out that the duties of administration—not of sovereignty or anything of that kind—are duties entrusted to the Mandatory Powers which they have to carry out as a matter of trusteeship. It is then stated that in each Mandate the particular powers shall be explicitly defined. I shall have a word to say on that point at a subsequent stage, but I need not refer to it at the moment.
The objection that I have to raise—and I should be glad of the noble Viscount's particular attention on this point—is that it appears to me to have been stated or claimed, not that the Mandatory Power was in the position of a trustee, but that it had in the ordinary sense a right and title, in Tanganyika for instance, as if that territory were a part of our Empire. I do not know whether this was intended, but it certainly appears to have been stated, and the point is so important, in my opinion, that I desire to take the earliest possible opportunity of raising my protest in your Lordships' House. As regards the position between a mandated territory and
212
a Mandatory Power, I will make three quotations, though I think that the terms of Article 22 are clear and specific. In what was known as the Colby Note, representing the United States, this statement appeared:—
"This dominion of territories"—
that is to say, the mandated dominion of territories—
"brought under the temporary control"—
I will ask your Lordships to note the word "temporary"—
"of the Allied and Associated Powers will be wholly misconceived, not to say abused, if there is ever the slightest deviation from the spirit and exclusive purpose of a trusteeship as strict as it is comprehensive."
I shall be glad to hear from the noble Viscount when he comes to reply if he agrees with that. It is an extremely important point regarding the policy of this country when we are a Mandatory Power dealing with a mandated area.
Then M. de Caix, on behalf of the French Government at the meeting at Rome in 1926, made this statement as a general statement of the principles involved:—
"The Mandate is a provisional system designed to enable populations which, politically speaking, are still minors to educate themselves so as to arrive one day at full self-government."
There, again, I should like to know whether the noble Viscount has any fault to find with that statement. It indicates quite clearly the position of trustee and trusteeship as between the mandated area and the Mandatory Power. If I might quote again from a well-known Governor-General—an English source, but all the better for this purpose—Sir Charles Fergusson, who was Governor-General of New Zealand, stated his view of the relationship between New Zealand as a Mandatory Power and Samoa as a mandated area. He said it was one of trusteeship, and he emphasised it in this way, that if there was a conflict of interest between the native interest and the interest of the Mandatory Power (that of New Zealand in this case) the interest of the natives was to take the dominant position. I have not the exact quotation, but this is the summary at the end of his speech. He says the only consideration is the ultimate benefit of the Samoan people. I should have thought that on that point, both as a matter of obligation and of honour, there could be no doubt.
As regards Tanganyika, a statement, reported in The Times on January 15 of this year, was made by Sir Donald Cameron, who said that he made the statement—and this is the importance of it—with the full authority of His Majesty's Government. His statement is absolutely contradictory of the statements I have read from Sir Charles Fergusson and from the other two great authorities, and appears to me to be entirely inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 22 of the Covenant. He says, as reported:—
"Tanganyika is a part of the British Empire, and will remain so."
Does the noble Viscount say that a mandated territory is a part of the British Empire? Much less, I am sure, will he say that there is any necessity that it should remain so. These are matters of infinite importance as regards our honourable dealing with these mandated territories. Then, after saying that he has repeatedly stated to the chiefs and native inhabitants of the Territory that Tanganyika is a part of the British Empire, and will remain so, he adds:
"To them these words are a pledge."
That is a very serious statement from the representative of a Mandatory Power to a mandated area, especially as he stated that he made the statement with the full authority of the Government.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount—because I am not dealing with this as a matter of political difference—whether in his view it can possibly be stated that a mandated area is part of the British Empire, or that any Government can give a pledge that it will remain so. Why, we are there as agents of the League of Nations; we are there to see that the obligations under Article 22 are carried out, and gradually to educate the natives so that they may become a self-governing community themselves. That does not mean a part of the British Empire. I am not suggesting that we should not carry out our duties, but one thing is quite certain, that, so far as the League of Nations are concerned, we can only properly represent them as long as we do carry out our duties, which are duties of tutelage to persons who are to have the benefit of a trust. And if the duties of tutelage are properly carried out—I do not suggest that they will not be—the sooner will the time come when
214
the Mandatory Power will be no longer required, and the mandated area can stand on its own foundation and its own responsibility. Article 22 says that
"… this tutelage should be exercised by them"—
that is, the Mandatory Powers—
"as Mandatories on behalf of the League"—
the tutelage being the education of the native populations until they are ready for self-government. This, of course, is in the form of what is called Mandate B.
It is impossible to reconcile those two statements. Which is the right one? I can draw no other conclusion from the terms of Article 22 than that the right view is that expressed by Sir Charles Fergusson and M. de Caix and in the Colby Note. I have heard it suggested that M. Hymans, the Belgian expert on these subjects, had a different view, but I have read everything he has said, and his view seems to me to be precisely the same as that which I have quoted. On the 22nd of this month a printed Note was issued from the Dominions Office under the name of Mr. Amery, stating what their views are, and I want to know whether the noble Viscount concurs in the views so stated. It points out quite properly that the position depends on Article 22, and then it says:—
"Having arranged the allocation and delimitation of these territories as between themselves"—
which had to be done, of course—
"the Governments concerned agreed to accept their respective Mandates and to exercise them on behalf of the League of Nations on the proposed terms"—
of course, that is what we did—
"and the Mandates were then confirmed by the Council of the League."
That is quite inconsistent with the statement made by Sir Donald Cameron, and said to have been made on behalf of the Government.
Then the Note goes on to say:—
"The Mandates do not contain any provision for transfer to another Power."
No, they do not; they have not been transferred to any one as a matter of fact. The Mandatory Power for the time being holds them on behalf of the League of Nations, and if such conditions arise that the trusteeship can be no longer

215
continued other arrangements have to be made. Then we come to the particular point of the Tanganyika case. The Note continues:—
"Article 10 of the Tanganyika Mandate authorises the Mandatory to constitute the territory into a Customs, fiscal, and administrative union or federation with adjacent territories under his own control, provided that the provisions of the Mandate are not infringed."
Quite so, but what is the meaning of that, having regard to the statement of Sir Donald Cameron? Does it mean that really and in truth we are only agents for the League of Nations for this purpose, and that our only duty is to administer the Territory within the provisions of the Mandate? Or does it mean that we have the Imperial power to do what we like, to administer the Territory in such way as we like, and to give a pledge that we will remain there for ever, and deal with it for ever as part of our general Empire?
The Note also goes on to point out that in some cases the mandated territories are to be governed
"as integral parts of the Mandatory Power's neighbouring territories"—
which, of course, shows that they are not a part of the Empire. The obligation is that for the purpose of administration, and for that purpose only, they may be regarded as integral parts of the Mandatory Power's neighbouring territories. I cannot myself see any answer to the quotations I have given, and what I want to ask the noble Viscount is this: Does the Government agree with this representation, which was said to have been authorised by the Government, that Tanganyika is a part of the British Empire and will remain so?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord will allow me very respectfully to say that he has given exceedingly short notice of this Question; indeed it did not appear on the Paper until this morning.
LORD PARMOOR: No, but I gave you notice.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It is quite true that the noble Lord spoke to me yesterday evening on the subject, and he says he told me he was going to raise the question of Tanganyika. No doubt he did say so, but I did not so
216
understand him. These verbal conversations are perhaps not a very convenient method of giving notice of an important matter. And the noble Lord, if he gave me notice, gave to the House no notice of his intention, beyond what appears in this morning's Papers. I am sure the noble Lord will not misunderstand me if I say that. I do not think that this is the most convenient way of raising a Question of this importance.
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Viscount had indicated to me that there would have been the slightest inconvenience, knowing his great knowledge of these matters, I should have postponed the Question. He indicated the contrary.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I did not say anything at all. The noble Lord told me he was going to raise the Question, and of course I said I would do my best to answer. I did not know in the least what he was going to say. The noble Lord first read a number of statements as to the meaning of Article 22. I am sure he will understand that it will be quite impossible for me to assent to statements that I hear across the floor of the House as to the meaning of Article 22. In its broad lines I think the meaning of Article 22 is quite plain. The Government accepts all the obligations implied by Article 22, and has no desire whatever to stretch its rights in mandated territories beyond those given to it expressly by the acceptance of the Mandate under the terms of that Article. The noble Lord read the earlier passages of the Article, among them the phrase that these territories were to form "a sacred trust to civilisation," and that this tutelage should be exercised by the Mandatories on behalf of the League. Well, those words speak for themselves; I do not know that any commentary by even very distinguished Governors will make them much plainer than they are as they stand.
It is suggested that there was something in a statement made by the Governor of Tanganyika which was not quite in accordance with those provisions. The matter has been the subject of Question and answer, as the noble Lord is well aware, in the House of Commons. The Question was asked whether the Governor of Tanganyika Territory stated that Tanganyika was part of the British Empire

217
and would remain so, and whether the Government accepted that view. I will not read the whole of the answer made by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Dominions, but what he said was that strictly speaking, of course, it is not true that mandated territories are part of the British Empire. The inhabitants are not British subjects, for instance. He says in the most specific way that Mandates are obligations which we have undertaken towards the League of Nations. There is no doubt about that. The position is quite clear.
But it is also true that, when you are speaking of such a Mandate as the Mandate under which we hold Tanganyika for the purposes of administration, it does not convey a very false impression to say that the administration is part of the British Empire; that is to say, necessarily it is carried on by the British Government; there is no other way in which it can be carried on. I quite agree that if you are going to make the statement before one of the bodies at Geneva as to the exact position which you hold you would never think of saying that mandated territories were part of the British Empire; but, when you are trying to convey to native populations, who are anxious about their future, some assurance that they may be quite satisfied that the administration which they are under at present will continue, I do not think it is a very grave matter that the Governor, speaking in what I dare say was the most intelligible way to the audience which he was addressing, should describe the Territory as part of the British Empire, and should say that it would remain so. He gave them an undertaking that, as far as the British Government were concerned, they had no intention of abandoning their administration of the Mandated Territory. I cannot see anything myself to object to in such an assurance being given, if it was desirable for local reasons. Beyond that I really do not know what it is that the noble Lord complains of.
LORD PARMOOR: I asked the noble Viscount whether that was accurate.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have explained that it is not, strictly speaking, accurate. It entirely depends on whether you look upon it from the
218
point of view of a trust for the benefit of the inhabitants or from the point of view of the administrative duties that fall on the Government. From the point of view of the administrative duties it is part of the general governmental system of the British Empire, and is administered necessarily as part of that. Of course, that does not in any way diminish or cut down the obligation which we owe under the Mandate to administer this Territory under the conditions which we have undertaker, and for which we give an account every year to the League of Nations. There is no intention whatever of cutting down or diminishing that obligation, and I am sure that my right hon. friend would be the last person in the world to desire to do so.
As to the question of who is the owner of the territory in a mandated territory, that is an exceedingly difficult question. I do not pretend to have a very decided opinion upon it. What happened? These territories were renounced by Germany, not in favour of the League of Nations, but in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers. They passed, therefore, I imagine, to the sovereignty of the Associated and Allied Powers jointly; I imagine that was the effect of what was done. They have never transferred the sovereignty to anybody that I know of. What they have done is to agree among themselves that certain Mandates should be given to certain countries, and that arrangement was brought before the League of Nations. The conditions of these Mandates were discussed elaborately, both before the Council and before the Assembly of the League of Nations and, I think I am right in saying, were modified in some particulars, and, after being modified and discussed, they were accepted by the Mandatory Powers as the administrative bodies in charge of those territories. I dare say more skilled international lawyers would be able to give an answer, but personally I do not know exactly where the sovereignty of this Territory really lies. It seems to me a very difficult matter to say. Of course, it is of no great importance except from a theoretical point of view.
It is also perfectly true, as the noble Lord is aware, that these Mandates once having been given are irrevocable; that is to say, there is no power of revoking them conferred by the Covenant. They

219
can be resigned but there is no power of revoking them. I do not understand what it is the noble Lord is so distressed about. If I knew I would endeavour to give him any assurance in my power. All I can say is that the Government fully recognise their obligations under the Covenant and, of course, they are determined to discharge fully their duties as defined in the Mandate. Beyond that I am afraid I can say nothing.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, perhaps I may say one word in reply. I think the noble Viscount says, in effect, that he agrees with my statement. At any rate he has not, I believe, found fault with the statement I made. If he agrees that it is not part of the Empire, no such statement ought to be made, and all the obligations ought to be regarded. I entirely agree with him that the Mandate creates the relationship of a trusteeship, but it is quite clear to my mind that in the statement which I read there is no suggestion of trusteeship but a statement of Imperial ownership in the very strongest terms.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Lord must not assume that. I gather from the answer given by my
220
right hon. friend that there were earlier passages in the statement of the Governor in which he recognised to the full the obligations of a Mandatory.
LORD PARMOOR: Is it part of the British Empire?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It was before that.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session, do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in the Chairman of Committees Committee Room, this day, at twelve o'clock.

BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.