Sitting of 24 February 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Greenock Burgh Extension, &c., Bill (by Order,
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    HOSPITAL TREATMENT AND ALLOWANCES.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that in the Edinburgh area there is an increasing number of cases of disabled ex-service men who are being refused treatment by the Deputy-Commissioner of Medical Services and are being referred by him to their panel doctors who find them unfit for work and entitled to the National Health Insurance allowances; and will he see that more sympathetic consideration is given to these cases and hospital treatment with allowances given where deterioration has taken place?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): It is the duty of the Deputy-Commissioner of Medical Services to prescribe whatever form of treatment he may consider necessary in a particular case. In a case where no specialist treatment is called for, but attention from the general medical practitioner is all that is required, the pensioner is advised to consult the practitioner whose services are available to him under the Health Insurance Acts. I should not be justified in requiring, as the hon. Member suggests in the last part of his question, the provision of hospital treatment in all cases of deterioration, regardless of the medical
    1880
    view as to whether such treatment in a hospital were necessary or not. With regard to the grant of allowances under Article 6 of the Warrant, I would remind the hon. Member that the conditions governing the matter are not identical with those which determine sickness benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts.
    Dr. SHIELS: Does he right hon. Gentleman agree that if an ex-service man is sufficiently disabled to be unable to work, he should be entitled to treatment by the Ministry?
    Major TRYON: The test by which we decide this matter is the medical opinion of those who are acting for the Ministry.

    NEED PENSIONERS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Dr. SHIELSasked the Minister of Pensions if he has issued instructions that when the condition and circumstances of need pensioners are being revised they are to be called up for medical examination by the Ministry, or is the certificate of a qualified medical practitioner still accepted as valid evidence?
    Major TRYON: No general instruction to the effect suggested has been issued. A certificate from the pensioner's own doctor is taken as evidence in support of a claim, but if, as necessarily happens in some cases, this evidence is not sufficient to enable the Ministry to determine the claim, an examination by a medical officer of the Ministry is directed.

    CAMERONIAN SCOTTIH, RIFLES (T. F. LIND).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Rifleman T. F. Lind, No. 3,234,052, late Cameronian Scottish Rifles, has been awarded a temporary allowance of 3s. 6d. per week; that this man completed seven years' service with the colours, and was discharged as unfit for any form of military service, although fit for employment in civil life; that he suffers from recurring epileptic fits which the commissioners deny is attributable to his military service; and whether, in view of the fact that this man served seven years, he will have this case reconsidered?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I have been asked to reply. As the disability in respect of which Mr. Lind was invalided from the Army was not attributable to his military service, the temporary pension awarded to him by the Chelsea Commissioners is the appropriate award in his case. His service is insufficient for a separate award of service pension.

    WIDOW'S APPLICATION (MRS. A. MARSHALL).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Annie Marshall, 87, Kerse Road, Grangemouth, Scotland, widow of T. W. Marshall, sapper, WR/267,622, Royal Engineers, has been refused a pension on the ground that her husband did not die within seven years of the termination of his active service; that Marshall was discharged from the Army suffering from lymphadenoma and received a pension of 40 per cent. for the same, which fact is certified as the cause of his death; and that, on 15th November, 1921, the doctor in the hospital reported that his disability might later become worse; and whether, in view of the circumstances, he is prepared to review the case or allow the Widow a passion?
    Major TRYON: The disease (lymphadenoma) for which Mr. Marshall was pensioned, and of which he subsequently died, was constitutional in origin, and I am advised that, while aggravation of the disease by his war service was admitted, it cannot be held that the effects of this aggravation either caused or materially hastened his death seven and a half years after his discharge. In these circumstances, it is regretted that his widow is not eligible for pension. I may add that an appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal was disallowed on the 10th December last.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If a man died within seven years of this disease, does the widow receive a pension?
    Major TRYON: If there be any dispute between a widow and the Ministry in a case like this, the final decision would rest with the tribunal who have decided against the applicant.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right and proper that a woman who has been drawing an allowance while her husband was getting a pension for services rendered for incapacity due to his service, if her husband dies of the incapacity for which he is receiving a pension, the woman's allowance should also be cut off?
    Major TRYON: The pension necessarily ceases with the death of the man, and the claim of the widow in this case fell to be determined by the tribunal which decided adversely to the applicant.

    HIGHLAND LIGHT INFANTRY (J. J. WELSH).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private J. J. Welsh, late No. 383,325, Highland Light Infantry, of 71, Hamilton Street, Govan, has been offered a lump sum payment in lieu of pension; that the decision of the final board in the joint assessment of his pensionable injuries is over 20 per cent.; whether he is aware that one of his claims was for injury to head and arm caused by the butt of a rifle when a prisoner of war in Germany; that the medical referee on 23rd May, 1919, estimated his incapacity from this disablement at 100 per cent., and that on 31st July, 1925, the Pensions (Entitlement) Appeals Tribunal decided that the injury to head was neither attributable to, nor aggravated by, war service; and whether, in view of these contradictions, he will have this man's case further reviewed?
    Major TRYON: I fear that the hon. Member has been misinformed as to the facts in this case. It is not a fact that Mr. Welsh has been offered a lump sum payment in lieu of pension. The lump sum paid to him is the terminal gratuity following on a period of allowance awarded in accordance with the decision of the Ministry and of the Appeal Tribunal. Nor is it the case that the decision of the final board in the joint assessment of his pensionable disability was ever 20 per cent. The fact is that Mr. Welsh has claimed for a variety of injuries and ailments since his discharge in 1919, each of which has been dealt with fully by the Ministry and by the Appeal Tribunals. As the history of the case is a long one, I propose to communicate the full particulars to the hon. Member in writing. I may add that I am not

    1883
    aware of any grounds on which I could adopt the course suggested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his promise to send me the history of the case. I have also the history of the case, and is it not a fact that these items are put down as having been decided by the various tribunals and committees before which this man appeared?
    Major TRYON: If all the questions -which have been raised by the hon. Member have been decided by the tribunal, it is obvious that I cannot take any further action. I shall, however, go carefully into the points raised by the hon. Member, and I will communicate with him.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are not these items as to what the man has suffered and the assessments which have been made in the history of the case
    Major TRYON: The points where the hon. Member has fallen into error in his original question are set out in the reply which I have given.

    WAR PENSIONS.
    Mr. DALTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum paid in war pensions since the conclusion of the Armistice?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Winston Churchill): The total sum expended on war pensions (including medical treatment but excluding administration) from the Armistice to 31at March, 1927, is estimated at £647,000,000.

  POOR LAW.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (RELIEF).
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Pensions what was his reply to the Gates-head Board of Guardians as to the propriety of taking into consideration naval and military pensions when fixing Poor Law relief; and whether he has been consulted by any other boards of guardians?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member refers, I presume, to a reply which was
    1884
    addressed to the board of guardians referred to on the 5th October last, in response to an inquiry from the board as to a supposed discrepancy between statements made by my Department and those given by the Minister of Health, with respect to the manner in which children's pensions or allowances payable under the Warrant should be regarded in connection with the administration of poor relief. The board were informed that a pension awarded to a child was intended for the entire maintenance of the child, but that it was not for my Department to advise guardians how the income of individual members of a household should be regarded for purposes of relief. No similar communication from any other board of guardians can be traced.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does that mean that pensions are to be regarded in the consideration of Poor Law relief, or not?
    Major TRYON: It means that the matter is not one for my Department, but for the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does it mean that pensions are a subject to be taken into consideration by the guardians or not?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

    ROAD CASUALTIES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the increasing practice of admitting road casualties into Poor Law institutions, with the resulting cost of maintenance being thrown upon local funds; and will he consider legislation defining the powers of boards of guardians in respect of the maintenance of patients admitted to such Poor Law institutions after road accidents?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have received certain representations on this matter, which are now under consideration.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these patients are asked to recoup the cost of their maintenance?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    STONE-POUNDING.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether stone-pounding has been abolished in all Poor Law unions; and, if not, in which unions this form of work is given to casual tramps?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the hon. Member a list of the unions in which a task of stone-pounding was imposed in May, 1925, when the last return was made to the Department. In the great majority of cases this task was imposed only for a very small number of the cases admitted.

    CASUAL WARDS.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Health whether the arrangement for allowing to casuals necessary and reasonable time for repairing and cleaning their own clothing, as well as cleaning and general labouring, to be counted as part of their task time in the casual wards under the Metropolitan Asylums Board, has been found in practice to give satisfactory results; and, if so, whether he will issue a circular recommending those responsible for the conduct of other casual wards to adopt the same arrangement?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements on the lines indicated by the hon. Member have been made by the Metropolitan Asylums Board as an experiment. These arrangements are now under review by the Managers. I am not yet able to say whether the results are such as to make it desirable to adopt the course he suggests.
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Edmonton casual words are sometimes being used for nearly four times their capacity; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that the accommodation in these wards is being found inadequate. A scheme for the provision of further accommodation is in an advanced stage.
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Health what was the total number of persons in the casual wards of the Poor Law unions in England and Wales on the 31st January last; what number of these
    1886
    were males; and how many of them were ex-service men who had fought or served during the Great War?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total number of casuals in receipt of relief in England and Wales on the night of Friday, the 28th January, 1927, was 10,610. No information is available as to the number of males or as to the number of ex-service men included in this figure. On the 1st January in each of the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, 94 per cent. of the casuals were men, but separate figures of sex are not available for the date now taken, and I cannot say bow many of the casuals were ex-service men who had fought or served during the War.
    Mr. BROAD: In view of the interest taken in homes for heroes, will the Minister endeavour to ascertain how many of these casuals are ex-service men?
    Mr. BROADasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Andover Board of Guardians have publicly stated that their casual ward accommodation is inadequate to enable them to carry out the orders of the Ministry; whether this applies to other boards of guardians; and whether any, and, if so, what steps are proposed to be taken in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any public statement of the Andover Guardians to the effect indicated, but I will make further inquiries. On the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the answer I gave to the bon. Member for Bristol East on the 2nd December last, a copy of which I am forwarding to him.

  DISORDERLY PREMISES.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to avoid in future the state of affairs existing within police knowledge, as revealed in the recent case of the restaurant in Great White Lion Street, Soho?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The premises to which I understand my Noble Friend to refer have received the special attention of

  1887
  the police. The proprietor has twice been prosecuted and convicted for permitting disorderly conduct and other undesirable activities on the premises, which will continue to be kept under observation with a view suitable action in the event of any further offences against the law.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to introduce any form of colour bar into this country or make any distinction between blacks and whites?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That does not arise on this question.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not this episode reinforce a question which I have frequently asked as to whether it is not time that he gave serious attention to some of these resorts in London and have, a general clearing up?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon and gallant Gentleman surely knows that I do think it is a, very serious question, and I am willing at all times to receive any information from the hon. and gallant Member or anyone else.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman not told me already that he has not the legal powers to deal with this question and, in view of the meagre programme of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman ask for those powers?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I were satisfied that it is the general wish of the House that the Home Secretary should have more powers in this direction, it might be possible to introduce a Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not satisfied that that is the case.
  Mr. MACLEAN: If the right hon. Gentleman considers that he has not sufficient police to co-operate in scrutinising more carefully these resorts, will he see that some of the police are withdrawn from the meetings where they are sent to take notes?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order order. We have a long list of questions to go through.

  ARMOURED CRUISER POTEMKIN (FILM).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether his leave has been sought to allow the film known as he Armoured Cruiser Potemkin, produced by the Amkino Company to be shown in Great Britain; and if he is aware that this film deals exclusively with events of more than 20 years ago, and has been shown in Germany and the United States of America?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

  POLICE.

    LOST PROPERTY OFFICE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary the cost incurred in the administration of the Metropolitan Police Lost Property Office during the year ending the last convenient date?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Approximately £9,700, or, including the pensions of retired members of the staff, £12,000.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the increased cost of the new Lost Property Office?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that, much as it may be against the hon. Member's wish, I must ask him to put down another question.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the feasibility of making a small charge to meet the loss, as was recommended by the Committee?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That has been considered, but it has always been a delight to the police to do as much as they can for the public.

    AMATEUR POLICE FORCES.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Home Secretary whether any county council has applied to him for permission to establish an amateur police force; whether permission has been given; if so, will he say wherein this amateur police force will differ from special con-

    1889
    stables; what will be their number, duties, equipment and pay; and what annual expenditure is estimated as necessary to maintain this force by the county council or county councils concerned?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know of no such proposal apart from normal developments in connection with the special constabulary, e.g., the provision of uniforms in certain cases.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a report appeared in certain newspapers stating that the Hertfordshire County Council had applied for such powers?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must confess I had not seen the report. The question gave no notification that it was in the hon. Gentleman's mind, but I will hove it looked up.

    POLICE FUND (ADVISORY COUNCIL).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary whether he has any objection to the Police Federation nominating representatives to sit on the board of the Police Fund recently established by Royal Charter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The constitution of the advisory council is a matter for the decision of the trustees of the fund, but, speaking strictly in my capacity as Home Secretary, I am in sympathy with the suggestion in the question, and shall be prepared in due course to make representations to myself as chairman of the trustees.

    ISLE OF WIGHT CONSTABULARY (BONUS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary what steps he has taken to secure payment of the cost-of-living bonus due to the Isle of Wight constabulary; for how long these payments have been outstanding; and whether individual officers may proceed by way of civil process to recover wages due?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The police authority granted and paid the bonus for the six months September, 1920, to March, 1921, but did not grant it for the re mainder of the full period to September, 1921, for which the Bonus Committee's
    1890
    scheme provided. Representations have been made to the police authority and a deduction has been made from the Exchequer grant. I cannot undertake to advise the hon. Member on the last part of the question.
    Mr. HAYES: In the event of an individual officer applying for permission, will the officer make any objection to his suing in a civil Court?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that must wait, if an application be made, it will be properly considered and dealt with.

    PENSION (J. LEAKE).
    Dr. SALTERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Police-constable James Leake, No. 95,536, M Division, Metropolitan Police, who, whilst in pursuit of a man suspected of having committed a felony, sustained injuries resulting in the loss of one eye, on account of which he was invalided from the service and awarded a pension on the scale he would have received under ordinary circumstances; and whether he will reconsider the ease with a view to an injury-on-duty non-accidental pension being granted?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have considered the circumstances of this ease, which clearly do not permit of the grant of a pension on the "non-accidental" scale. An ordinary pension was granted instead of a special pension on the "accidental" scale, because the former was higher in amount in this particular case.

  DRUNKENNESS, LONDON (PROCEEDINGS AND CONVICTIONS).
  Mr. FENBYasked the Home Secretary the number of proceedings for drunkenness and convictions for drunkenness, male and female, in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London for the calendar years 1918 to 1926, inclusive?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The figures asked for cannot conveniently be given orally. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate my answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  STATEMENT showing the Number of Proceedings for Drunkenness and Convictions for Drunkenness in the Metropolitan Police District and City of London during the Years 1918 to 1926.

  Number of Proceedings.

  Number of Convictions.

  Number of Proceedings.

  Number of Convictions.

  Year.

  Metropolitan Police District.

  City of London.

  Males.

  Females.

  Males.

  Females.

  1918…

  …

  11,358

  6,690

  3,211

  294

  194

  44

  1919…

  …

  23,683

  15,486

  5,188

  446

  322

  57

  1920…

  …

  33,185

  23,581

  6,375

  491

  399

  44

  1921…

  …

  30,091

  21,916

  5,494

  416

  329

  49

  1922…

  …

  33,912

  24,389

  6,410

  557

  432

  102

  1923…

  …

  32,983

  23,414

  6,610

  498

  396

  70

  1924…

  …

  33,018

  23,512

  6,536

  426

  332

  57

  1925…

  …

  32,900

  23,197

  6,384

  442

  334

  60

  1926…

  …

  32,010

  22,631

  6,226

  388

  269

  48

  The figures for 1918 to 1925 are taken from Table VI of the Annual Volume of Licensing Statistics, and those for the year 1926 are estimated for the Volume now in course of preparation.

  SHOPS ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Mr. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he will consider the desirability of altering the terms of reference of the proposed Departmental Committee on the Shops (Early Closing) Acts, 1920 and 1921, so as to permit consideration being given to the hours of labour of shop assistants and workers in the catering trades;
  (2) if he will consider the advisability of amending the terms of reference of the proposed Departmental Committee on the Shops (Early Closing) Acts, 1920 and 1921, so that consideration may be given to the desirability or otherwise of local closing orders under the 1912 Shops Act being made at an earlier hour than seven o'clock on week nights?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When settling the terms of reference to the Committee, I considered very carefully the scope of the inquiry, and decided that it would be best to restrict it to the specific question on which serious public controversy has arisen, and on which an early decision is necessary, and to reserve other issues for consideration after the Committee has reported.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when the hours were extended in the confectionery trade, several hours a week were added to the
  1892
  labour of a large number of women and young persons, and does he not think that, if the Acts are to be modified, the terms of reference should include terms which will enable the Committee to give consideration to the hours of so many young people?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The only Acts which would be modified, assuming that the House accept the Report of the Committee, are the Acts of 1920 and 1921, commonly known as D.O.R.A., and it is these Acts that I am asking the Committee to consider and report upon.
  Mr. TAYLORAre the terms of reference, including the words "with modifications," sufficient to enable the Committee to consider the question of hours, and give some protection particularly to young persons?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hardly like to prejudge the meaning of the terms of reference, but I thought they were fairly clear—
  "To consider and report whether it is desirable that those Acts should or should not be made permanent, and, if made permanent, whether with or without modification."
  That clearly relates to the question whether the Acts of 1920 and 1921 should be abrogated altogether or, if made permanent, should be made permanent with or without modification.
  Mr. TAYLOR—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have a large number of questions to deal with to-day.

  COLONIAL SOLDIERS (MAINTENANCE ORDERS).
  Mr. SNELLasked the Horne Secretary (1) whether he will consider the possibility of introducing legislation with a view to bringing the law of divorce in England and Wales into line with that of Scotland, which allows divorce for malicious desertion of four years, in order to give relief to the deserted wives of Colonials;
  (2) Whether he is aware that there are living in this country a considerable number of British-born women who, during the War, married soldiers from the Colonies; that many of these husbands returned to their homes leaving their hives and children behind them unprovided for and dependent upon relatives or public funds; that, although these women are actually deserted and are bound to absconders who may have remarried in their own countries, they are unable to prove misconduct, and that the High Commissioners of the Colonies are unable to take any action in the matter; and will he have the whole question considered, with a view to seeing whether there is any way of assisting women and children in this position?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not see my way at the present time to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to divorce. The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, allows deserted wives to obtain provisional maintenance orders against their husbands residing in those parts of the Dominions that have passed reciprocal legislation, and the orders, after confirmation in an Oversea Court, are enforceable overseas.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the Home Secretary consider the question of introducing legislation to make it possible for such women to sue in the English Courts, which they are debarred at the present time from doing on the ground that they are deemed to be domiciled overseas?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They can sue in the English Courts, and, if they
  1894
  obtain Orders, they are enforceable. I see that my hon. Friend shakes his head—
  Mr. WILLIAMS: They cannot sue in respect of divorce.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, but these questions relate to maintenance Orders.

  COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the anti-British activities in this country of certain Communist agitators in the pay of the Third International; and will he consider introducing legislation to protect public interests in this respect?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. This aspect of the matter is receiving my constant attention, but I have no legislative proposals to make at present.
  Mr. CLARRY: May I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the powers that he has at present to deal with this menace to this country?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I am afraid my hon. Friend must not put that into my mouth. If I were not satisfied it would be my duty to come to the House, and ask for further powers. All I can say is that I am keeping a very close eye on the matter, and if necessary I shall come and ask for further powers.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has been made acquainted with the names of the "certain" Communist agitators referred to in the question? How does he know whether they are certain or uncertain?

  RUSSIA.

    M. SABLINE.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of all correspondence which has passed between him and a Russian citizen named Sabline, in reference to anti-Bolshevik propaganda and the part played by Russian subjects during the general strike in securing the defeat of the workers on strike during last summer?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Among the many letters sent to the Home Office or to me at the time of the General Strike was one, and only one, from a Mr. Sabline, which was acknowledged in terms that have been quoted in the Press. The letter is not of sufficient importance to justify printing it, but the hon. Member is welcome to see it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage the subjects of other nations to take part in putting down strikes or lock-outs in this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member has read the letter, which has been published in a paper, I Chink, called the "Daily Herald," he will have seen that a very proper reply was given, with an acknowledgment of thanks.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it the Government policy to approve of the interference of friends from other countries in the internal affairs of this country on the side of the Government's own policy against the workers?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question on the Paper asked for information, and I have given the information. I do not think the hon. Member's supplementary question arises out of it.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Home Secretary on how many occasions he has interviewed Mr. Sabline since taking office; and whether these interviews related to the affairs of Russia or of Great Britain?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I once met Mr. Sabline in a private house. He has, I believe, once seen one of my Secretaries at the Home Office, but the conversation in neither case was of the character or importance suggested by the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is proper to receive a Russian who, in the words of the Trade Agreement, is fomenting rebellion against the Government of Russia?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a long tradition of the Home Office to be courteous, and I always receive, as far as time permits, those who desire to see me.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Was not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this could well be construed as an infringement of the Trade Agreement?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not heard of any complaint that it was such an infringement.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Russian subject is boasting that he has the right hon. Gentleman under his thumb?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not seen that.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Many people say that sort of thing.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Home Secretary how many Russians gave their services to the Government in the industrial struggle of May last, for which he despatched a letter of thanks to Mr. Sabline; and whether lie will state the nature of these services?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is mistaken. I did not thank Mr. Sabline for services given by Russians to the Government, and I know of no such services. Mr. Sabline wrote to inform me that a number of his compatriots had responded to the general call for assistance in the maintenance of essential services and a courteous acknowledgment was sent to him on my behalf. As I have just informed the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, the correspondence is open to inspection.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Did the right hon. Gentleman then give thanks for these services without having the least knowledge of what they were?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was a general expression of thanks to this gentleman and some of his compatriots who had rendered this country service and one of my secretaries, in the usual courteous manner of the Home Office, thanked him for his letter.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman find out what the services were before he despatched the letter of thanks?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to take refuge in ignorance, but this matter was just after the general strike, when I was very busy, and I am bound

    1897
    to confess that I did not see the letter. It was opened by my secretary in the usual way, and he courteously thanked him.

    NATURALISATION, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary how many Russian subjects were naturalised in Great Britain during each of the following years: 1923, 1924, and 1925; the various trades or callings in which these persons were engaged at the time of naturalisation; and the length of residence in each case before naturalisation was granted?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As shown by the annual returns presented to Parliament, the figures asked for in the first part of the question are—in 1923, 375; in 1924, 365; in 1925, 352. I cannot undertake to give the other information asked for, but the hon. Member will find some of it in the monthly Gazette notices.

    DEPORTATION ORDERS, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary how many Russian subjects have been arrested and imprisoned in this country without trial; and the shortest and longest term of imprisonment such prisoners have undergone before deportation or release?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have some difficulty in guessing what information the hon. Member seeks in this question. The best answer I can give is, I think, the number of deportation orders made and enforced against aliens of Russian extraction without recommendation from the convicting Court, namely, since the War to the present time, 57. None of these Russians deported during my term of office has been detained in prison in these circumstances.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House the period of detention without trial which Tchitcherin, Litvinoff and Borodin underwent in this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was, of course, before my time, but, if the hon. Member presses for it, and puts a question down, I will do my best to give him an answer.
    Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to how
    1898
    many Socialists have been put in prison without trial by the Soviet Government, and probably are still there?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which notice should be given.

  STEAM WAGONS.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that steam wagons create a nuisance from the point of view of other authorities as well as being a danger to traffic through injury to eyes and obscuring the view with smoke; and whether he will call a conference with a view to mitigating a growing evil in the Metropolitan area?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. I agree that in some cases steam and smoke emitted by steam wagons and locomotives constitute both a nuisance and a danger to traffic. I hardly think that a conference would be the most effective way of dealing with the question, but, in so far as it is a matter for the police, I am consulting with my right hon. friend the Home Secretary. The existing law on the subject is not altogether adequate, and I hope to deal with this aspect of the question in the proposed Bill for the better regulation of road traffic.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the law at present gives the police no right to take any action in this matter?
  Colonel ASHLEY: As I have indicated, a matter which deals with police action is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have complained to the police and they have said that they have not the power?
  Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Gentleman had noticed the last sentence in my answer, he would have heard that I said:
  "The existing law on the subject is not altogether adequate, and I hope to deal with this aspect of the question in the proposed Bill far the better regulation of road traffic."
  Sir BASIL PETO: Can my right hon. Friend say when this proposed Bill is likely to come before the House?
  Colonel ASHLEY: There is a question dealing with that subject later.

  VAGRANCY OFFENCES.
  Mr. J. PALINasked the Home Secretary if he has any statistics showing whether the number of vagrants convicted for crimes other than vagrancy offences increases during the winter months?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. The returns made, except of convictions for drunkenness, are for whole years and not for separate months.

  SILICOSIS.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether he has reached a decision as to amending the law which relates to compensation for silicosis; and whether he contemplates introducing amending legislation in the course of the present Session?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member does not indicate what amendment of the law he has in mind and I have no amending legislation on this subject in contemplation. If he is referring to the point he raised in the question he asked in this House on 15th February of last year in connection with the provisions as to the making of claims in the Refractories Industries Scheme, I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply I gave on that occasion. As I then pointed out, the provisions in question are on the whole very favourable to the workman, and the Departmental Committee which inquired into the working of the scheme did not recommend any alteration.
  Mr. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman promised last year to inquire into certain cases of real hardship to which I had drawn attention under this Act. Will he give an answer on that point?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In writing?
  Mr. SMITH: No; I raised the question last year, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would inquire into cases of real
  1900
  hardship, and give consideration to them. I should like to know if he has made up his mind on those cases.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry. I have last year's OFFICIAL REPORT here, but I do not see that the hon. Member mentioned any particular cases. If he did so, I would most certainly have inquired into them.

  THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS REGIS TRATION ACT.
  Mr. BECKETTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a Report of the London County Council Public Control Committee which urges him to amend the Theatrical Employers Registration Act, and points out that under the present Act the council is not empowered to enforce the Act's penal provisions; and whether he is considering amending the Act?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand from reports which I have seen in the Press that the London County Council are considering the question of asking me to introduce legislation to amend the Act, but the council's representations have not yet been received. When they are I shall, of course, consider them.
  Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that the same trouble has happened with licensing authorities with regard to the Act?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have had no representations.

  HOSPITALS (STREET COLLECTIONS).
  Mr. VIANTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the West London Amalgamated Hospital Society has for many years organised processions, and collections have been taken en route, for the purpose of helping the hospitals of London, and that by this means considerable sums of money have been obtained by a society of voluntary workers; that the society has been notified that in future collections can only be made at stationary points; and whether, in view of the fact that this new regulation will seriously affect the receipts, he will reconsider the matter?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before 1920 collections accompanying moving processions were entirely prohibited. In 1920 the Regulations were amended so as to allow collecting processions in special cases, but experience has shown that these processions are liable to cause so much disturbance and interference with traffic that it was decided to amend the Street Collection Regulations so as to prohibit the practice. I am sorry to have to put any obstacle in the way of collections for good objects, but the London traffic problem is now such that other considerations must be subordinated to traffic considerations.

  BEGGING FOR HOT WATER (SENTENCE).
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a man who was arrested, tried, and convicted at Christchurch, Hampshire, for having begged and obtained a little hot water, and whether he will consider the sentence with a view to remission?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I find on inquiry that complaints have been received by the local police that vagrants discharged from the casual ward at Christchurch at once begin begging, to the annoyance of residents, although they are always provided with a hot meal immediately before discharge. The man referred to admitted begging within an hour after discharge. The Court, who I think are the best judge of the circumstances, imposed a penalty of one day's detention on condition that the prisoner left the district at once. That meant that he was free on the termination of the sitting of the Court, and no question of remission of sentence arises.

  MANCHESTER PRISON.
  Mr. MERRIMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the Manchester City Justices endorsing the opinion of the visiting committee of Manchester Prison and urging the necessity of providing premises in that prison to which adults and children may be remanded; and whether he proposes to take action in the matter?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, that resolution has been brought to my notice. The question of providing remand homes for untried prisoners is a difficult and important one, which so far as it relates to young persons has been brought prominently before the Departmental Committee which is about to report on the treatment of young offenders generally, and my consideration of the matter must await the Report of that Committee. I would, however, point out to my hon. Friend that under the provisions of Section 97 of the Children Act, 1908, a child under 14 cannot in any case be remanded to prison, nor can a young person between 14 and 16, unless he is certified to be of a depraved or unruly character.

  EDUCATION.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLMASTERS (PENSIONS).
    Viscount SANDONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can make any statement as to the proposed Government pension scheme for private schoolmasters; whether he has received any protests; whether he can publish the Government actuary's Report on the terms; and to what age the recipient would have to live before he had received back the sums he had originally contributed?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lard Eustace Percy): The scheme in question was published in draft on 5th July and sealed on 11th October last. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a Memorandum on the effect of the scheme. Up to the present, applications have been received from 127 schools (of which 73 are privately owned and 54 conducted by governing bodies), and 39 have been formally approved. I have received criticisms of the scheme on the ground that its conditions were in some respects different from those under the Act, but these differences were necessary in order to observe the statutory requirement that the contributions to be paid might be expected to be equal in value to the benefits payable. I have no formal report upon the scheme by the Government Actuary, but it was, of course, framed in consultation with him, as required by the Act. The answer

    1903
    to the last part of the question depends on the circumstances of each particular case.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that better terms can be obtained outside?
    Lord E. PERCY: If these gentlemen can get better terms elsewhere, they will doubtless take them.

    MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education how Many local education authorities have made complete provision for the number of mentally defective children under their jurisdiction; how many have made partial provision; and how many have not yet made any provision?
    Lord E. PERCY: In the case of about 33 local education authorities the provision for the education in special schools of mentally defective children was fairly complete in 1925, the latest period for which returns are available; partial provision was made by some 175 authorities, and 110 authorities had made no provision. In addition, about 50 authorities, including some of those who had made no special school provision, had arranged for the supervision of mentally defective children in their areas.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is it not about time some action was taken with these 110 authorities, who have not made any provision to fulfil their legal obligations?
    Lord E. PERCY: I agree some action should be taken to see that authorities fulfil their statutory obligations, but it must be remembered that many of these 110 authorities are very small Part III authorities who will probably have such a small number of children in their area that special school accommodation is impossible.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the Noble Lord consider making representations to these authorities drawing attention to the fact that they are not fulfilling their statutory obligations?
    Lord E. PERCY: I assure the hon. Member that the Board are constantly in communication with these and other authorities.
    Mr. COVE: Has the Noble Lord done anything to discourage these authorities from making effective provision?
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Would it be possible for some of these small authorities which are contiguous to have joint authorities?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, that would be possible, and it is possible for them to contribute to sending their children to privately-owned schools.
    Mr. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education if he will give the present estimated number of mentally-defective children who might benefit by admission to special schools; how many o these children are at present in special schools; how many are in public elementary schools; how many in other institutions; and how many are not attending any school?
    Lord E. PERCY: It is not possible to estimate the number of mentally-defective children who might benefit by admission to special schools; but of about 33,000 mentally-defective children classed as educable, in England and Wales, in 1925, 15,773 were attending special schools; 12,470 were at public elementary schools; 860 were at other institutions; and 3,872 were not attending any school. The accommodation in mentally - defective schools on 31st March, 1925, was 16,746 and on 31st March, 1926, 17,154.
    Mr. MORRISON: Does the Noble Lord not think, seeing that there are 15,000 mentally-defective children attending ordinary schools, that that is a state of affairs which is not fair, either to the teachers who have to teach the children or to the ether children in the schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: The actual figure is 12,000, not 15,000. Tie answer to the hon. Member's question depends to a very great extent upon the degree of the mental defect. I agree that those children who are so backward that they cannot be dealt with in the ordinary elementary schools, ought to have special provision made for them.

    MEDICAL INSPECTION, LONDON.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Education what was the annual expenditure incurred during the past three years for the

    1905
    medical inspection of children attending the London County Council schools; whether that expenditure covered the provision of towels for the use of the scholars; and whether he can say how many towels were provided, and for what number of children?
    Lord E. PERCY: The net expenditure on the medical inspection and treatment of children attending public elementary schools under the London County Council was as follows:

    £

    1924–25

    …

    181,100

    1925–26

    …

    195,390

    1926–27 (estimated)

    …

    201,555

    So far as I am aware, these figures do not include expenditure on the provision of towels for the children's use. Towels are, of course, supplied as part of the ordinary equipment of public elementary schools.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES).
    Mr. GILLETTasked the President of the Board of Education what items are included under the headings administration (elementary) and other expenses elementary) in Circular 1388?
    Lord E. PERCY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on 17th February to the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan), a copy of which I am sending him.

    BOOKS, STATIONERY AND APPARATUS.
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Education the average expenditure per pupil in elementary schools upon books, stationery, and apparatus, respectively, for the years 1920 to 1925, respectively?
    Lord E. PERCY: The amounts do not show the net, but only the gross, expenditure on these items, and they group stationery with books, and apparatus with furniture and equipment. For details I would refer the hon. Member to pages 22 to 25 of the Memorandum on the Board of Education Estimates, 1926 [Cmd. 2688].

    SCHOOL BUILDINGS, WIGAN.
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his
    1906
    attention has been drawn to the Report of Dr. Henry Whitehead concerning the Wigan schools, in which he states that the majority of the schools were built prior to 1880, that their heating, lighting, and ventilation are generally bad, that some of the sanitary conveniences constitute definite nuisances, that there are no open-air schools in the town, no school baths, nor any provision for blind, deaf, or physically and mentally defective children; whether the officers of the Board of Education have inquired into this condition of affairs; and what action if any, the Board of Education proposes to take?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the report in question. Prior to its publication 14 schools in the area of this authority had been placed upon the "black list," and I have already received substantial proposals for dealing with 11 of them.

    HIGHER EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES).
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education the reason why, in his recent Circular to the local education authorities, the limit of 3s. per head to expenditure on administration, higher education, has been based upon the average attendance in public elementary schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: Average attendance in public elementary schools has been in continuous use for the last seven years as a factor in calculating the recognisable expenditure of authorities on maintenance allowances for higher education and it does not appear to be an unsuitable basis for the standard now proposed.
    Mr. JONES: Does not the Noble Lord agree that in fixing the limit on this basis it tends to increase the burden on those who mast require assistance?
    Lord E. PERCY: I should say certainly not. I do not know why the hon. Member should say that. I should be prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. Member.
    Mr. COVE: Does not this Regulation tend to penalise those authorities who make a more liberal provision for secondary education, and who have a greater percentage of children in secondary schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: I cannot admit that administration costs of an authority necessarily rise in proportion to the number of children in secondary schools, but if the standard is; not fixed high enough it might in certain cases have a penalising effect. I think it has been fixed high enough. However, that is a matter for discussion.

    PRIVATE SCHOOL, BURSTON.
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether the primary day school at Burston, Norfolk, known as the Burston Strike School, receives any financial support from the education grant or from the rates?
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the curriculum of teaching at the Burston Strike School includes trades unionism and Socialism as school subjects, and that the ninth anniversary of the Russian revolution was celebrated by speeches from the children and the singing of the International and the Red Flag; whether such education is accepted as a substitute for the education provided in the council school; and, if not, whether he will call the attention of the local education authority to the matter?
    Lord E. PERCY: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will answer these questions together. The so-called "strike" school at Burston receives no aid from public funds. I understand that it has been provided and supported largely out of funds supplied by certain Labour organisations, and that it is run as a private venture by two teachers who were dismissed by the local authority from the council school in 1914. I have no information as to the nature of the curriculum or the manner in which the school is conducted. The local authority, who are primarily responsible for the administration of the law of school attendance, are fully acquainted with the facts of the case, and I do not think that I can usefully intervene in the matter.
    Sir B. PETO: May I have the pleasure of sending to the Noble Lord the information upon which my second question is based, taken from the official monthly organ of the Teachers Labour League?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the Noble Lord ever read the song entitled "The Red Flag," and, if so, has he any objection to it?
    Lord E. PERCY: I should be very glad to receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) any information which he can send to me. With regard to the second supplementary question, I may say that I have the strongest objection to the "Red Flag" on artistic and other grounds.
    Mr. PALING: Has the local education authority ever sent a complaint regarding this school?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can be acquainted with the history of the whole incident. It is a very long story, but I will explain matters to the hon. Member, if he likes to see me afterwards.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not possible to answer my question?

  INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether it would be convenient to make a statement in the present Session on the work of the Industrial Research Committee since its inception, or whether some one could give an authoritative account in one of the Committee Rooms?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If there were a general desire for such a discussion, it could be selected by the usual process for discussion during the Debates on the Estimates. After the Estimates are over, and if it has not been raised, it would be possible to see how much general interest there is in this subject, and then the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend could be reviewed

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (INTER-NATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE).
  Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to send a woman as a fully accredited delegate to the International Labour Conference to take place at. Geneva next May, and also women as technical advisers;
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. As at present advised the Government do not propose to send a woman delegate to the International Labour Conference in May next, but it is anticipated that one of the technical advisers will be a woman.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be fair, seeing that many of the questions which have to be dealt with at Geneva relate entirely to women, to send a woman, with full powers?
  Mr. BETTERTON: No, this is not a sex question at all. In our view, it is a question of the most suitable representative of the Government at this conference, and on this occasion it happens to be a man.
  Mr. PALING: Is it the intention of the Government to carry out the recommendations already made at Geneva?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS.
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the short time available on Tuesday and Wednesday nights for Private Members' Motions, he will recommend to the House an alteration of Standing Orders which would prohibit any Division on Government Business being begun after 8.15 on either of these two nights?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government fully recognise the hardship of curtailing Private Members' time, and will do all they can to avoid such Divisions taking place immediately before the interruption of Government Business on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. As at present advised, the Government do not propose to suggest any alteration of the Standing Orders.

  HOUSING.

    HOUSES COMPLETED.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been completed to date under the various Housing Acts, and how many are at present under construction, giving separate figures for municipal and private enterprise?
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the 1st instant, the number of houses completed in England and Wales with State assistance under the various Housing Acts were 294,515 by local authorities, and 224,929 by private enterprise. The numbers uncles construction under the Housing Acts on the 1st instant were 60,369 by local authorities, and 42,494 by private enterprise.

    TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health how many towns have begun to formulate town planning schemes; and how many towns with a population of 10,000 or more have done nothing in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Two hundred and ninety-four urban authorities have prepared or are preparing town planning schemes, a number of which extend to portions of other urban areas. The number of urban authorities with a population of 10,000 or over in whose areas formal steps have not, so far as I am aware, been taken in the preparation of town planning schemes is 276.
    Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he proposes to take to stimulate these local authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Pressure is being continually put upon them by my Department.

    RURAL COTTAGES.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health in which districts advisory committees have been, or are about to be, set up, in order to advise on the reconditioning of b cottage architecture under The Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I have, as yet, no information on the matter referred to by my Noble Friend.

    CAMBRIDGE.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health whether he has agreed to the Cambridge town council letting land at a nominal rent to a local society with a view to building houses to be let at 5s. 6d. per week; and what other councils have made similar arrangements for letting building land at nominal rents?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A proposal of the nature referred to was recently received from the town council, but understand that the society have now another site in contemplation, and, therefore, I have not had occasion to give my consent to the letting. As regards the second part of the question, I am not aware of a case; but a reduction in the price of land is one of the ways of giving subsidies open to a local authority under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and this method has been followed in some instances, though no separate record of it has been kept.

    CONSTRUCTION (SPECIAL METHODS).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built of concrete construction, or of other special modes of construction, in local authority schemes and by private enterprise under the several Housing Acts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer:
    Statistics are not available showing the total number of houses of concrete and other special methods of construction built since the War. Estimates based on returns obtained from local authorities in connected with State-assisted schemes under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 show that contracts have been made for 41,849 concrete houses and 8,563 houses of other special methods of construction, of which 22,361 houses of concrete and 3,887 of other special methods have been completed under these Acts. Of the completed houses, 17,012 in concrete have been built by local authorities, and 5,349 by private enterprise; while of the houses built by other special methods, 2,600 have been completed by local authorities and 1,287 by private enterprise.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the amount of Exchequer assistance granted to local authorities in England and Wales for slum clearance schemes for each year since 1919 under Parts I and II of the Housing Act., 1890, showing separate figures for London and for the rest of England and Wales?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Prior to the financial year 1924–25, separate accounts were, not furnished to the Department for expenditure under Parts I and II of the Housing Act, 1890, as distinct from Part III of that Act, and I regret that I am unable to furnish information prior to that year. The payments made on account of Exchequer subsidy for 1024–25 onwards are as follow:

    Year.

    London.

    Rest of England and Wales.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    1924–5

    12,800

    2,592

    15,392

    1925–6

    18,950

    8,000

    26,950

    1926–7 (Estimate).

    26,050

    18,150

    44,200

    SUB-LETTING.
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the overcrowding by tenants of leased houses, he will suggest. to the different boards of guardians that, they should prepare a report of all cases of rent relief to applicants who rent unfurnished rooms, giving the name of the owner and subletting lessee in each case, and the amount of rent received by each; and whether, if they have not the necessary powers to obtain such information, he will consider the desirability of obtaining them by legislation, with the object of preventing the abuse of overcharging by tenants who sublet?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Rent Restriction Acts already contain provisions, directed against the abuse of overcharging by tenants who sublet, and the County Courts are empowered, on the application of a landlord or tenant, to determine summarily any question as to the amount of rent properly payable. I do not think that there would be advantage in obtaining such reports as my hon. Friend contemplates, but where a board of guardians have reason to believe that an applicant is being charged an excessive rent, they can assist the applicant to obtain the redress provided

    1913
    by the Rent Restriction Acts, and such action has been taken by boards of guardians in some instances.

    WISBECH BOROUGH COUNCIL.
    Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTHasked the Minister of Health on what grounds he has refused his sanction to the last housing scheme passed by the Wisbech Borough Council?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Proposals for the erection of 36 houses were submitted by the town council on the 15th ultimo. The average cost per house was a high one, having regard to the small area of the proposed houses. I approved eight of these houses on the 10th instant, in order to enable the present housing scheme of the council to be completed, but as regards the remaining 28 the council were advised to negotiate for revised prices. The contractors have agreed to construct houses with a larger area for the same price, and my approval to these 28 houses was given on the 19th instant.

  REFUSE DUMPS, TILBURY.
  Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that complaints Lave recently been made of the nuisance caused by the refuse dump at Tilbury; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of some complaints. The local authorities have been informed of the action which they can take if there be a nuisance.
  Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Health when the investigation into the question of refuse dumps will be completed and a Report received by him; and whether he will take steps to prevent the creation of new dumps in the Lower Thames area pending the receipt of such Report?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot at present state when the investigation will be completed. It has been delayed by various difficulties, but the Report will be made as soon as possible. In answer to the second part of the question I can only say that I have no authority to prevent the formation of these dumps
  Mr. LOOKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the Report?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it will be ready before long.

  MENTAL HOSPITALS.
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in mental hospitals and homes on the 1st January, 1927?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of persons certified in England and Wales under the Lunacy Acts resident in county and borough mental hospitals, registered hospitals, licensed houses and in single care on the 1st January, 1927, was 116,748. There were in addition 796 voluntary boarders. The number of mental defectives resident in institutions and under guardianship on the same date was 22,739.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health the number of widows who have qualified to receive the pension under Section 18 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the latest figures available for England, Scotland and Wales, 131,381 widows have been awarded pensions under Section 18 of the Contributory Pensions Act.
  Mr. TINKER: Can we have details of the provision the right hon. Gentleman intends to make for these widows for the time when these pensions expire?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no further provision.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce legislation to provide further provision?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Anas Knowles, of 10, Longshaw Street, Blackburn, claim No. Z. 58,758, who is in receipt of a dependant's pension of 9s. 7d. in respect, of a son lost in the War, and who, contrary to Section 24 of the Widows'. Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, has been awarded a pension

  1915
  of 5d. a week under the Act on the death of her husband; and whether he will reconsider this case?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information before my Department when Mrs. Knowle's application was examined was to the effect that she was not the natural parent but the foster-parent of the deceased soldier. As regards the second part of the question, Mrs. Knowles has appealed against my decision to the referees appointed under the Act, who will in due course notify her of the result of her appeal.

  SCARLET FEVER AND DIPHTHERIA (SERUM TREATMENT).
  Mr. BENNETTasked the Minister of Health to what extent the serum treatment of scarlet fever and the Schick test and von Behring's method of immunisation against diphtheria are being used in this country by the various local authorities?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Exact figures are not available, but the methods mentioned by my hon. Friend are being increasingly used throughout the country, and with encouraging results. I am advised that the serum treatment of scarlet fever is of value, particularly in severe cases of the disease and in the prevention of its complications. A fair number of local authorities, especially the larger ones, now provide active immunisation against diphtheria for those who wish to avail themselves of it, at child welfare centres, in schools, in residential institutions or among the nursing staffs of infectious diseases hospitals.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    DENTAL FEES.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many panel doctors charge insured persons fees for small dental services such as an ordinary general practitioner is accustomed to render to his patients; and whether, as a decision has recently been given by a committee of referees appointed by him under the medical benefit regulations to the effect that such services are within the range of the medical services which an insured
    1916
    person is entitled to receive from his doctor, he will take steps to see that the practice of charging insured persons for dental services is discontinued by panel doctors, and that fees already paid to them by insured persons for such services are returned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The decision of Referees to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was given on the facts of a particular case, and cannot be regarded as a decision that dental treatment is necessarily or always part of an insurance practitioner's obligations. I am not aware that insurance practitioners generally charge fees to patients for dental services, though isolated eases of the sort may occur. Any complaint of this kind should be referred to the Local Insurance Committee, who have power to require the refund of any fees irregularly charged.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the increase in the amount of benefits paid by approved societies to their members during the past year and the decrease in the amount of contributions received from their members on account of the industrial crisis and from the State on account of the operations of Part I of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, a number of these societies, whose position at the beginning of this year proved to be actuarially sound, are now faced with the prospect of falling into deficiency before the end of the current quinquennial period; and what action, if any, the Government proposes to take to strengthen the financial position of these threatened societies?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the strain imposed upon certain approved societies by causes connected with the industrial crisis of last year. I cannot, however, accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion as to the consequences. The valuations are separated by a period of five years, and I should not be warranted in drawing conclusions as to the results of the next valuation by reference only to the conditions prevailing over a few months. In any case, the National Health Insurance Act enables the Central Fund to come to the aid of societies which have fallen into deficiency through no fault of their own, and I

    1917
    am satisfied that no further action by the Government is required. As far as regards the reduction in the State contribution under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Section 3 of that Act, wherein very full provision is made for the protection of societies against the contingency to which he refers.

  OPEN SPACES, LONDON.
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Health (1) whether, seeing that the Covent Garden Bill has been withdrawn, he will now take steps to safeguard the open spaces on the Foundling Hospital estate from possible encroachments from other sources;
  (2) whether he will set up a Committee to investigate the problem of London squares to ascertain what steps, if any, can be taken to arrange for more of them to be thrown open to the general public?
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Minister of Health whether he will set up a Departmental or any other committee to investigate the question of squares and open spaces in London?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With permission, I will answer these questions together.
  As I informed the hon. Member for Holborn last Thursday, I do not at the moment contemplate the appointment of a committee, but I am in communication with the London County Council, who have the question of the London squares under consideration, and I will continue to give the matter my personal attention. The squares on the Foundling Hospital estate, which the hon. and gal lant Member for Gainsborough specially mentions, are within the area of a town-planning scheme which the London County Council are now preparing.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it possible to consider such squares as St. James's Square and Grosvenor Square, which are seldom used by the general public? It means such a waste.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole question of the squares in London is under consideration by the London County Council.

  VACCINATION (SHEFFIELD AND SOUTHPORT).
  Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Heath (1) whether he has ordered, or will order, an inquiry into the cases of illness resulting from recent vaccinations at Sheffield;
  (2) whether he is aware of the reactions following vaccination at Sheffield, Southport, and other towns; whether his Department attributes these results to the technique or to the quality of the viccine; and is he prepared to publish the evidence?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will with permission answer these questions together. I am aware that severe reactions following vaccination have been reported at Sheffield and other towns. A medical officer of my Department has recently made inquiries into the results of vaccination at Sheffield on behalf of the Vaccination Committee which is now sitting, and his report will be submitted to that Committee, which will no doubt consider the points mentioned in the hon. Member's second question.

  SMALL-POX.
  Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health how many cases of small-pox were notified in the year 1926; how many deaths were registered in the year 1926 as due to small-pox; how many of these were found to be actually due to some other disease; and how many death certificates were sent in in 1925 and 1926 on which the words vaccination or vaccinia, appeared as the cause or one of the causes of death?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 10,158 cases of small-pox were notified in England and Wales in 1926, but this figure is subject to revision. Nineteen deaths were registered in 1926 in respect of which smallpox appeared on the death certificates as the cause or one of the causes of death. The word "vaccination" or "vaccinia" appeared as the cause, or one of the causes, of death upon nine medical certificates of causes of death in 1925 and upon four in 1926, but in one of the cases in 1925 and in three of the cases in 1926 the certification as a cause of death was subsequently withdrawn by the certifying practitioner.

  HEALTH VISITORS.
  Mr. G. HURSTasked the Minister of Health whether any association of nurses was consulted before the issue of the Regulations of February, 1925, as to the position of health visitors employed by local authorities; if he is aware of the shortage of candidates under such Regulations and the difficulties of nurses in complying therewith; and if he has considered the desirability of revising them?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware that there are not yet so many candidates under training for the position of health visitor as is desirable, but my attention has not been called to any particular difficulties in complying with the existing Regulations. It is not proposed at present to revise the Regulations which have been in operation only since April, 1925.

  PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES (SALARIES).
  Mr. HURSTasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the low salaries now paid to trained nurses employed by local authorities; and if he will consider the desirability of establishing a reasonable minimum wage in the public health service?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that in certain areas the salaries paid to nurses engaged in some of the public health services are not commensurate with the importance and character of the duties performed; and in such cases as come within my jurisdiction, representations are made to the local authorities concerned with a view to a reconsideration of the salaries offered. These officers are, of course, appointed and paid by the local authorities and the varying local conditions and the divergent views as to remuneration taken by them in the exercise of their discretion renders difficult the introduction of a minimum wage or greater uniformity in the terms of service.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
  Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed
  1920
  to reintroduce the Mental Deficiency Bill this Session; and, if so, whether it will be introduced before Easter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government do not propose to re-introduce the Mental Deficiency Bi I. But the hon. Member for Bridgwater has presented a Bill which, I understand, will incorporate certain of the provisions of the Government Bill of last Session.

  MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health what steps he takes to ensure that butter and other milk products imported into this country are produced under the same conditions as those imposed by t le Milk and Dairies Order?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no control over the conditions of production of butter and other milk products outside this country, but these products in common with other foods are subject to inspection both at the time of importation and when exposed for sale, and if they are unsound or in any way unfit for food, they are destroyed. I may perhaps add that in must of the countries from which dairy produce is exported on a large scale, there is strict Government control of the conditions of production.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES, SHEFFIELD.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Health how many cases of and deaths from small-pox have been notified in Sheffield during the months of December, 1926, January, 1927, and to the latest date available in the month of February; how many deaths from measles have been registered in that time; and how many cases of and deaths from scarlet fever and diphtheria have beer: registered in that time in Sheffield?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the figures:
  The provisional numbers of notifications and deaths registered from the undermentioned diseases in Sheffield for the

  1921
  period 28th November, 1926–19th February, 1927, inclusive, were as follow:

  Notifications.

  Deaths.

  Small-pox:

  December

  …

  58

  Nil

  January

  …

  297

  Nil

  February

  …

  124

  Nil

  Scarlet Fever

  …

  398

  5

  Diphtheria

  …

  296

  13

  No deaths from measles were registered in Sheffield during this period.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (MESSENGERS' SALARIES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the salary of messengers employed by the Customs and Excise Department is only £2 1s, 2d. per week after health and unemployment insurance is deducted; whether he is aware of the nature of their work and the strict medical examination they have to undergo; and whether he is prepared to grant an increase in their wages?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am aware of the remuneration and conditions of service of the messengers referred to, in regard to some of whom the figures quoted in the question are correct. I do not think that the remuneration of civil servants can properly be dealt with by questions in this House. There is a recognised procedure for dealing with such questions which has been duly followed in this case.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that that is a very bad example to employers all over the country, and will he look into this special case?
  Mr. McNEILL: It is a matter of opinion.

  AUSTRIAN RECONSTRUCTION LOAN.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the British Government have ever held any Austrian reconstruction loan; and, if so, when was it sold or how much is still held?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Guaranteed Austrian Bonds which His Majesty's Government received in 1923 in return for previous cash advances to Austria have been disposed of from time to time as occasion offered.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: None is held at present?
  Mr. CHURCHILLNone is held at present.

  DOLLARS (EXCHANGE).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average price paid for dollars during 1926?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The average weekly market rate for the calendar year 1926 was 4·8586 dollars to the £ sterling.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH CREDIT).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the credit given to this country by the firm of Morgan, Grenfell, and Company in April, 1925, has as yet involved us in any expense; and, if so, how much?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I assume the hon. and gallant Member refers to the credit of $100,000,000 arranged in 1925 with Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company. The expense has been limited to the commissions sanctioned by Parliament, namely, $2,500,000 in respect of the two years.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not a fact that on the other credits arranged at the same time no commission was paid?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They were arranged between the Bank of England and the Federal Bank of the United States.

  NATIONAL DEBT (INTEREST),
  Mr. DALTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum paid in interest on the National Debt since the conclusion of the Armistice?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: About £2,5843,000,000 in the 7½, years.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Would the Government state what business it is proposed to take next week?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): The business will be:
Monday: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, Committee stage. A Debate on the Washington Hours Convention will take place on the Ministry of Labour Vote.
Tuesday and Wednesday: Business up to 8.15 will be announced to-morrow.
Thursday: Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, Report stage.
Mr. MacDONALD: Has the Government yet made up its mind when it is going to give a day for discussion of Russia, which was promised by the Prime Minister?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: That day has not yet been fixed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any Private Business set clown at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be taken after half-past Nine of the Clock." —[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Mr. STEPHENOn a point of Order. I wish to ask whether this Motion is in order, whether there are not two questions involved here, one that Government business have precedence, and then something with regard to Private Business?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion is in order. It is true that there are two separate questions, but the first question is merely an arrangement of the business of the House. I shall, of course, separate them if asked to do so, but I hardly think the House would desire it.
Mr. STEPHEN: I wished to ask a question with regard to the second part of the Motion, and I was not sure whether I should ask it at this stage. I want to know the reason for the second part of the Motion, and why by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means Private Business should be taken after 9.30?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: It is perfectly true that thin Motion embraces two motions, but it is the custom so to frame it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to know only about the second part, that lealing with the Motion put down by request of the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is done to allow the second opposed Order to be taken after 9.30 p.m. Otherwise, under the Standing Orders, the second Order could not be taken after 9.30.
Mr. STEPHEN: Is this second part of the Motion debateable?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether the Chairman of Ways and Means expects to get the first Order through before hall-Fast nine o'clock'?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: I have not the least idea.
Mr. MACLEAN: Then why this Motion, if you have not an idea? You are putting it down.
Commander EYRES MONSELL: Because he hopes to get it through.
Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (1925) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "to amend the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925," presented 1): Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY; supported by Mr. Broad, Mr. John Edwards, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Scurry, and Colonel Wedgwood; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
  INSPECTION OF DAMS, EMBANKMENTS, AND RESERVOIRS BILL,
  "to provide for the inspection and maintenance of dams, embankments, and reservoirs, and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Major 0 WEN; supported by Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Hayes, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. C. P. Williams, and Mr Herbert Williams: to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
  PARISH COUNCILS (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION EXPENSES) (NO. 2) BILL,
  "to remove doubts as to the legality of certain payments by parish councils and parish meetings," presented by Mr. RAINS; supported by Sir Charles Wilson, Mr. Webb, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Robert Richardson, Lieut.-Colonel Gadic, Mr. Womersley, and Mr. Jephcott: to he read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
  LIQUOR (POPULAR CONTROL) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to the manufacture, sale, and supply of intoxicating liquor, and to provide for the popular control thereof and of the grant and renewal of licences; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. AMMON; supported by Viscountess Astor, Mr. Briant, and Mr. James Hudson; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
NAVY ESTIMATES, 1927.
Estimate presented, for the Navy for the year 1927 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to he printed. [No. 26.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "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, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, 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 he approved by the Scottish Board of Health."
  Resolution agreed to.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Relief to dependants of persons involved in trade dispute.)
  Mr. KIDD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words,
  "Provided that, before any such relief as is proposed shall he given, the parish council for the area affected may decide to take a ballot of the ratepayers in such area in order that such ratepayers may decide whether the relief proposed shall or shall not be allowed, and the grant or avoidance of such relief shall he determined by the decision indicated by such ballot. Such ballot shall he conducted by such parish council on the lines appropriate to a parish council election, and the expenses thereof shall be a charge on the rates of the parish affected."
  I think I am justified in saying that the speeches which we heard on the Second Reading of the Bill in different parts of the House indicated the desirability of an Amendment of this character. It is common ground, and the fact is rather deplored, that this Bill, although, I believe, only a temporary Measure, introduces an entirely new
  1956
  principle in regard to the Poor Law in Scotland, and I hope the Lord Advocate, particularly after his speech when the Bill was previously under discussion, will agree that this is an Amendment which might fairly be accepted. It seeks to restrict as far as possible the operation of this new principle during the period for which the Bill will last. Having before us the possibility of a comparatively early revision of the whole Poor Law, I hope it will be agreed that meantime the operation of a new principle like this should be restricted. There are several reasons for doing so. None know better than the Labour Members the effect of a rise in rates. None appreciate better than they do the fact that a rise in rates is an interference with and a burden upon industry as such. They realise, as we all realise, that increased rates tend to depress industry and increase unemployment. For that reason alone, any principle which has a tendency of that kind ought to be restricted as far as possible. There is no denying the fact—despite the statement of the Lord Advocate that there is going to be a revision of the Poor Law which will render this Bill a temporary Measure—that there is throughout Scotland a serious feeling of discomfiture at the very introduction of this principle. The Amendment gives some assurance to the people of Scotland that the Measure is only tmporary. If the Amendment were accepted, the fears of the people of Scotland would be decreased, because before any extra burden could be put upon the rates, the matter would be decided by the ratepayers themselves. It has long been the cry that we should trust the people. This Amendment simply asks that we should trust the people. In view of the tenor of the speeches from all parts of the House on Tuesday, and in view of the attitude of the Lord Advocate himself in introducing the Bill, I hope I am right in thinking that there will be comparative unanimity in regard to this Amendment and that it will be accepted. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider, first that this is a new principle, and, secondly, that the Measure is only temporary. He should have consideration for the almost unanimous feeling of suspicion expressed in different parts of the House and the

  1957
  alarm expressed in Scotland, and, with all these facts in view, I ask the right Ion. Gentleman to consider whether this Amendment is not entirely justified and one in which he ought to concur.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The Government cannot accept this Amendment for at least two reasons, which, I think, will be sufficient to dispose of it. If it be right and proper that this relief should be given in the appropriate circumstances described in the Bill, then I do not think it would be right and proper to leave it to depend on the wishes of the other ratepayers in the locality at the time. It seems to me that it is either right or wrong to give this relief. If it is right, then it ought to be given whatever the other ratepayers may think about it. The second objection is even more insuperable. What is to happen to the unfortunate person who desires relief and is justly entitled to relief while this ballot is being taken? Are we to have two or three weeks' delay—putting it in the most moderate sense—while a ballot is being taken? I do not think the proposal is either workable or just.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I think I am expressing the general feeling of the Committee in saying that I am glad the Government are not going to accept this Amendment—this wonderful expression of opinion on the part of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd). He is asking us to establish in a Bill of this kind the principle of the referendum. I have no objection to the referendum being established on a national basis, but I object to the referendum upon such a purely local basis as this would undoubtedly turn out to be. If you are going to have a referendum of this kind in a particular area, what is going to happen? Glasgow, for example, contains practically two parishes, Goven and Glasgow, and Glasgow would undoubtedly carry the principle of this Bill by an overwhelming majority. But what about Cathcart? You would find there that on a referendum in that parish the principle would be defeated. I feel certain the Mover of the Amendment does not seriously desire to put it before Scotland, or he would not have brought it forward as an Amendment to
  1958
  this Measure. He is making a gesture, and I hope it indicates that he is being gradually converted to the principle of the referendum; that he is starting by applying it to local circumstances, but that soon we will find him wedded to the idea of a national referendum. I hope on that idea he will be able to introduce a better Amendment than the one he has moved to-day.
  4.0 p.m.
  There is another thing to which I object, and it is that the hon. Member for Linlithgow should take it upon himself to speak in the manner in which he has spoken about the loudly-expressed and widespread feeling in Scotland upon this particular question. I am quite satisfied, from what I know of the industrial towns of Scotland, that they welcome a Measure of this kind, and that there is no real dissatisfaction or apprehension in the matter. The only objection they have is that, in their opinion, the amount that is going to be granted by the Government, according to the Financial Resolution, is not sufficiently large. I am confident that if the hon. Member went through the parishes in his own constituency, and put the question to the representatives of the parish councils there, he would find that they would express themselves very definitely and clearly in favour of the Bill and against his Amendment. I think, therefore, that the hon. Member, having made this gesture, and having made this public statement about having some idea and some favour for a referendum even in a limited form, will withdraw his Amendment and let us get on to the real business.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I was particularly glad to hear the Lord Advocate use the words, that it was a, question of it being either "right or wrong." The fact that these words have been used is sufficient admonition to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) to follow the right path in regard to the question of local option. This is a moral issue. It has been recognised by the Law Courts and now by the Government, and, since it is a question to be determined on the principle whether it is right or wrong, we hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep to the right path in future and keep off local option.
  Mr. KIDD: I cannot but respect the moral admonition of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), and, since I put the Amendment down with considerable hopes that it would be received with sympathy on the Labour benches, having brought it forward as the result of strong representations from my own county, and since the Lord Advocate shares their views, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out from the word "force," in line 15, to the end of line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words "until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven."
  The Government have been accused of undue haste in bringing forward this Bill. So far as that part of it which refers to the grant of a sum of money and to legalising the action of the parish councils is concerned, I do not think that that accusation of hastiness can be properly sustained. The Secretary of State for Scotland has defended himself from that accusation, but there is another reason, to which I would like to allude, why this legislation should be brought forward at once. The people in Scotland at the present time are refusing to pay their rates under the judgment of the Court, therefore, it becomes necessary at the earliest possible moment that we should legalise what has been done and vote the sum of money with which we dealt with yesterday. So far as that matter is concerned, there has in my opinion been no undue haste. But with regard to the other matter which is contained in the Bill, the alteration of the law of Scotland, there is, if we consult the Press, the Resolutions which have been sent to us from various bodies, and the letters which have been written and so on, some justification for the accusation of hastiness.
  My Amendment would have the effect of making this Bill apply to the emergency—it is called the Emergency Provisions Bill—and would enable the parish councils to deal with the emergency in the way which, I think, we all approve, while leaving the other matter as before. I propose that the provisions regarding the issue of relief to depen-
  1960
  dants should be legalised, but that those provisions should cease on the 31st March this year. I mention that date, because there may be still pending some cases which are the result of the labour dispute, and it is a convenient date to fix. Apparently, the Government are putting forward these alterations in the law of Scotland temporarily, to last until 1930, because it is assumed that before that date there will be a general overhaul of the Poor Law, both in England and in Scotland, and that the two countries will be brought into line during that time. That is too long a time to leave an important matter of this kind in suspense. I know that there is a great volume of opinion behind me in this matter. A great many people in Scotland do not approve of the alteration in the old law of Scotland. It may be considered more harsh than what prevails in England, but, if the two countries are to he brought into line, would it not he possible to alter the law of England? We in our country are in the habit of saving that in many respects we manage things better than our southern neighbours, and I therefore make this suggestion.
  Of course, we have in view what I think must be in the minds of everybody when he comes to think over this matter. What is proposed to be done is really an encouragement of labour disputes. The responsibility for the maintenance of a man's wife and family rests upon the man himself. That is recognised by the law of Scotland. A man can be compelled by law, if he deserts his wife and family, to contribute towards their support, and, if the Inspector of Poor has to give relief to his wife and family, the cost may be charged against him. You are really saying to people who are likely to engage in labour disputes: "Go ahead with your labour dispute, the parish will look after your wife and children while you are out of work." That is a tendency in the wrong direction altogether, and any alteration in the law which we make should be in the opposite direction. I do not think that we can really properly be accused of any harshness or cruelty in this matter. Those sort of taunts are very often thrown across the Floor of the House or are used outside, but members of parish councils, Members of Parliament, and private individuals who have

  1961
  to deal with these matters, and who have expressed opinions about them, are not dealing with their own money; they are dealing with public money. They have the responsibility of dealing with money which has been contributed by other people.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet seems to me to be going into the question of Poor Law relief as a whole, but the Amendment deals only with the emergency period, and the question whether that period should terminate on the 31st March next or continue as long as the Emergency Provisions Act lasts.
  Sir A. SPROT: I am sorry; I will not pursue that matter any further. I was merely trying to defend myself in advance from any accusation of want of sympathy with the poor that might be thrown at me for having proposed this Amendment. I have, however, done with that subject, and I have already dealt with the subject of the Amendment which proposes to bring the relief to an end on the 31st March next instead of as proposed in the Bill.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment, Consideration for a minute or two, I think will convince my hon. Friend how impracticable it is. I ventured the other day to try and get at the essence of what we are doing, and I certainly regard as an important part of this Bill the principle to be followed in the future. You cannot know how to deal with the gap until you have settled what your policy in the future is going to be, and it seems to be a necessary corollary of dealing with the gap in the way we propose that we must continue the system for some time, at least until we are considering the big question generally of the reform of our Poor Law. I would just like to try and visualise for my hon. Friend's benefit what would happen if his Amendment were given effect to. Assume that we accepted this Amendment and the result was that these provisions, which after all are a corollary of what we did in 1921, and the relief to the dependants who are to be benefited under this Bill, come to an end on 31st March this year, and assume—one does not want readily to assume it—that there is this summer a dispute similar to that which we suffered last
  1962
  year, what will be the position of the parish councils and these dependants? They will be faced with the judgment of Lord Constable of last December, and the result will be that they will not be able to give a penny to any of these dependants. I am not going to talk about starvation or anything of that kind, but I do ask my hon. and gallant Friend to visualise what the position will be. The parish councils' hands will be tied and they will be in the same difficulty. I assume that the same Government will still be in office with the same policy. What are the Government to do? Are they to issue another circular? How can they in face of the Constable judgment? Therefore, it does seem to me that the only practicable way to deal with this matter is to continue the provision unless and until we are considering the general question of the reform of the Poor Law, including the 1921 Act and all its consequences. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not press the Amendment, because it would just reproduce once more the very difficulty which we experienced last summer, and which, on his own argument, we are perfectly right in putting right at the present moment. Why should we not put right any possible recurrence of that difficulty within a reasonable period?
  Sir A. SPROT: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: Before the Amendment be withdrawn, I should like to say that my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate used some very spacious language in his reply to my hon. Friend, which I think may be capable of misinterpretation. We are dealing in regard to this particular matter with a state of emergency, and the Bill itself is described as making emergency provisions. One of the chief features which has enabled many people on these benches to support the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the, Lord Advocate in this matter has been that the Government committed them to a particular course of action during the recent unfortunate stoppage, which had to be cleared up, and it was impossible to allow a more or less insolvent community to meet a bill which had been created by the action of the Government themselves. That, I venture to say

  1963
  to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, is the main motive which has obtained for them the support of these benches on this question. And when my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate begins to talk about the future, he must realise that the majority of us who sit behind are thinking of a narrowly restricted future, and not of the spacious times which he seems to contemplate. Accordingly it is only because we have got an undertaking in the speeches which have been delivered that this whole matter is going to be reviewed, with a proper consideration of all the attendant circumstances before the expiry of this period, that we consent to give our vote for these proposals. I wish it to be made perfectly clear in this House at the present time that, so far as the bulk of the Conservative opinion on these benches is concerned, we are not prepared to say that this is a policy devised for the future which cannot be reviewed or altered. I want to make my own position perfectly clear, that I am committed to nothing but the particularly limited period which the right hon. Gentleman has placed in the Bill.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not aware that I suggested that I should not hold myself perfectly free to review the whole of this question of the change operated in 1921 and the change operated now at the end of three years. So far as I know, at any rate, a large body of opinion on all sides of the House is agreed that Section 4, which continues the temporary legislation until 1930, is a sound provision, and, if that is so, accepting that the emergency for which the 1921 Act was passed should be provided fog, by legislation to last till 1930, all that I have suggested and am suggesting is that this Bill, which I regard as a corollary of that legislation, should continue so long as and no longer than the 1921 legislation. If I had not made that clear, it is my fault.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to congratulate the Lord Advocate on the way in which he has handled this matter. The Government proposal is that this should extend so long as the 1921 Act is in force, and I want to remind the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) that I fancy he was a Member of the Govern-
  1964
  ment that created this impasse in 1921. For the first time in the history of Scotland, the Government of that day put able-bodied men on to the poor rate, and long after they are dead and forgotten the people of Scotland will continue to have very unkindly thoughts of that particular action. When, therefore, we get the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead rising in his place here to abuse the Lord Advocate for trying to clear up the mess which he helped to make, we are astonished.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I too am surprised at the action of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and I should be very sorry if one of the remarks that he made exactly represented the position when he said he was voicing the views of members of the Conservative party in making the declaration that he will not bind himself for the future. None of us can do that. None of us knows what the future will bring forth, but all of us know what the past has done, and what my right hon. Friend is evidently willing to bind himself to is the continuation of a system that is abhorrent to anybody who has any belief in the progress of civilisation at all. Nobody, I am sure, knows better than the right hon. Member for Hillhead that the Scotland of 1845 does not now exist and that we have to deal with circumstances entirely different from those which faced our grandfathers at that particular period. I have not lad the opportunity of saying much that is kindly about the Government on this matter, because I do not believe the Bill is sufficient, but I am bound to say that I associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) in congratulating the Lord Advocate, who, I think, better represents the point of view of real Conservative opinion in this House in the remarks that he has made on this matter than the right hon. Member for Hillhead. If there was any argument used of a spacious character, it certainly came from my colleague the hon. Member who represents another division of the county of Lanark, for I could read much into it. We can always be suspicious of him, and I could see more in that proposal of his than perhaps some other people have any idea that we would see in it, but I do not want to go into that further now, since he has agreed to withdraw his

  1965
  Amendment, and I want to congratulate the Government on the stand they have taken, and particularly the Lord Advocate on the sentiments that he has expressed with regard to the matter now under discussion.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Treasury contribution towards expenditure on relief dependants of persons involved trade dispute.)
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on Clause 2, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd)—in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words "thirtieth day of April," and to insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-five"—is without the Financial Resolution on which the Clause is founded.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "not exceeding," and to insert instead thereof the words "equal to."
  This is consequential on what was accepted yesterday.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Power to give relief on loan.)
  Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the word "an," and to insert instead thereof the words "a written."
  I do not know whether the Government will accept this.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order. There is a further Amendment to Clause 3 on the Paper.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think not.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: It is an Amendment to leave out the Clause.
  The CHAIRMAN: You do not move to leave out a Clause in Committee. A Clause is put, and if you do not like it, you object to it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: But this is the vital Clause of the Bill, in which everyone is interested.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I trust that no one will object, merely on a point of order, to our discussing it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am in the position that I do not wish to create a precedent, and yet, at the same time, I understand that there was a genuine misunderstanding in the matter. I think I may lay it down that in Committee there is no Amendment that can be accepted to leave out a Clause. A Clause has to be put, whether amended or not amended, and those who oppose it can speak and vote against it. On the Report stage it is different. There, a Clause is not put, and if anyone wishes to omit it, he has to put down an Amendment to that effect. Under these circumstances, I think, as there is evidently a genuine misapprehension, I will put the Question again. The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.'
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to thank you, Mr. Hope, on behalf of many Members on this side who are interested in this very serious innovation in Scottish Poor Law, for the privilege you have just given us of explaining our position. The Lord Advocate, not only on this Bill, but on all other occasions in dealing with Scottish law, has shown an incisiveness and a clarity which are very welcome in these difficult matters, but on this point, so far as we have been able to understand, he has not given any reason whatever why what is an irrelevant matter to the main purpose of the Bill should have been imported at all. The main purpose of this Bill is, I believe, simply to legalise the position so far as the payment of relief to miners' dependants, as a result of the Circular issued by the Scottish Board of Health during the recent stoppage, is concerned, but here in

  1967
  Clause 3 there is imported into Scottish Poor Law practice that which has never hitherto been done. We are told that it is to assimilate the Scottish practice to the English practice, but if we are going to assimilate all our Scottish Poor Law practice to English Poor Law practice, it will not be a miserably small Bill of this kind that will have to deal with it, but a very large one indeed. Out of all the mass of dissimilarity which exists, the Government are seizing upon this one, which gives parish councils the power to give relief by way of loan and not, as hitherto, by way of simple grant.
  There is some experience of what this means in England. I have here the particulars of the Wakefield Union, where there has been almost £200,000 given by way of loans to necessitous people in their area. Not only to miners' dependants, but outwith the miners, they are insisting upon an applicant signing a declaration that whatever money he is given is to be regarded as a loan and is to be recoverable as an alimentary debt. Here is £200,000, which this particular union has issued by way of loan, and when an applicant, an able-bodied man gets work, the union endeavours to get him voluntarily to pay from his wages the moneys which it has advanced. I beg the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is in the initial stages after a man has got work, that it is almost impossible to pay back the money advanced. He is probably in debt to his grocer, in debt to his landlord, and to all sorts of people round about him, and these he naturally regards as the first charges he has got to meet. But the Wakefield Union comes along and solicits repayment. If it cannot get it, for one reason or another, then it writes to his employer. His employer, unless the man be willing, cannot deduct the money from his wages, as it would be a violation of the Truck Act. The next step is for the Wakefield Union, or any other union, to sue the man in the nearest County Court for recovery, and get power to abstract from his wages so much per week. In this particular union the amount that is asked is not less than 2s. per week.
  One can imagine what happens in the case of a labourer at a pithead, getting 36s. a week, in debt to his grocer, to his
  1968
  landlord and so on, suddenly being called upon to meet this, and to pay legal expenses in addition. That, I submit, will land us, if it be carried out in Scotland, in very serious legal expenses, and will do the very reverse of bringing about that peace in industry which is so loudly proclaimed to be the policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why is this proposal in this Bill at all? As I understand it, there have been four or live big changes in the law of Scotland as far as the financial side of the Poor Law is concerned since 1579. Since the Act of 1579, there have been wide disparities between our practice and the English practice. For instant e, under the Scottish Poor Law Act of 1579, there is no provision for enabling the overseers to provide work for the able-bodied unemployed at all. In England they had such power, but in Scotland they had not. In England, the unemployed were regarded as sorners, gypsies and as vagabonds, and a whole string of legislation, almost covering three centuries, has dealt with these able-bodied vagrants, as they were called. Under one Statute power was given to seize them on the King's highway, brand them, and compel them to work for private persons. Under our Scottish Poor Law there never existed the power for the Poor Law authorities to set able-bodied men to work, and the sole source from which Poor Law relief could be got was from the Kirk Session collection, and that existed right down, as far as I can discover, until after the second Jacobite rebellion. The Kirk Sessions, until 1755, were able to provide relief of seine kind. Then there was the Presbyterian Secession, when people left the Established Church. Heretors and Elders did not see they way to provide—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is getting a long way from the question of loans.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I want to explain the successive stages after the settlement in the period of the Reformation, when it was a definite charge upon the heritors that they should pay for the poor, and I am seeking to show very roughly, by successive stages, that the heritors have divested themselves of their liabilities, and now we have arrived at the position when it is not relief that is to be given at all, but the poor are to be compelled to maintain themselves; because if this

  1969
  be carried out, there will be no longer an assessment for the poor at all. The poor would be getting a loan. Clause 3 specifically says that this is to apply not only to strikers, not only to the dependants of strikers, but even to every case under the Poor Law Act of 1845. So that the authority of the Parish Council may in future decide that every relief shall be by way of loan.
  If this be carried, there will be a boom for the legal fraternity. I see the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) smiling. He has differed from the other parts of the Bill but given whole-hearted support here. There will be a tremendous increase in the number of prosecutions of the poorest of the poor, and it is going to add to the cost of Poor Law administration. It would not be so bad if this were limited to cases, say, during a trade dispute. Under Clause 3 every recipient of Poor Law relief can be compelled to sign a declaration of debt before he can get a penny. It is common knowledge that it is part of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite not only to amend the Poor Law Acts of Scotland, but to amend the Franchise Act, and we have learnt in some press organs that there is a strongly backed proposal to wipe out of the franchise roll those who incur an alimentary debt; it is a matter of purging the roll of recipients of Poor Law relief. If this be an indirect method of getting rid of the burden of the poorest of the poor, I think the House should have a frank, clear and full statement from the Lord Advocate as to exactly what this means, because I think public opinion in Scotland is entitled to know exactly where we stand in this matter.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I welcome the opportunity of explaining the proposal in Clause 3. Some of the speakers on the other side, it appears to me, are very anxious to have all the benefits of the English system which we are incorporating in our Scottish law by this Bill, without any of its limitations. This relief to dependants which has been granted for centuries in England has all that time been coupled with the power to do it by way of loan, and I shall hope to satisfy the Committee very shortly by some information regarding the experience in England as to the reasonableness of having that same limitation in Scotland. I would like to
  1970
  make quite clear once more, that one of the main reasons for dealing with the gap in the way we have dealt with it, is this power to give relief by way of loan. In England, where the power is fully as wide as, and almost identical with what we propose in Clause 3, and has existed for centuries, the experience is that substantially it has been very little used for centuries.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Only since 1836.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It has existed for centuries, and the experience is that substantially it has been very little used except in connection with the very class of circumstances arising out of a trade dispute which we are here more immediately considering, and both in 1921—to take an illustration—and last year, the majority of the relief given was given by way of loan. It may also interest the Committee to know that of the amount given by way of loan, looking at it as a whole, undoubtedly a larger amount than 50 per cent. has actually been recovered, and in some cases 100 per cent. has been recovered. That means that, in these circumstances, a substantial proportion—I do not mean to put it higher than that—of the relief given to the dependants of the unemployed men, has never gone on the rates at all in England. Now the proposal of the hon. Member to leave out Clause 3 would mean that the whole of the cost would go on the ratepayers. We take the opposite view, namely, that if you are going to import this relief for dependants—and it seems fair to do so in present circumstance—then you should import with it also the conditions under which it has been administered here, and one of the most inherent and important conditions is that the larger part of the relief so granted has been granted by way of loan. I cannot give the actual figures, but, roughly speaking, I think I can fairly say the larger proportion, taking the experience in 1921, is actually recovered, and relieves the rates to that extent.
  That was one of the most material reasons why the Government gave the 40 per cent. grant; because—if hon. Members follow what I mean—as regards the bridging of the gap, that is already past and done with, and in order that we might legalise the expenditure during

  1971
  that period we could not declare that any of it was granted by way of loan. If this Bill had come into operation, say on the 1st May last, then the experience would have been that a considerable amount would have been granted by way of loan and the whole of the £650,000 would not have fallen on the ratepayers. That is one of the reasons which have influenced the Government—others have been given, but it is one important reason—that it is fair that the parish councils should not have to bear the whole of that £650,000.
  If I may take the opportunity of replying to observations made from the Opposition Front Bench yesterday, that also makes it quite clear that this is no precedent for any particular claim for the English system; it is merely in order to put the Scottish parish councils during that gap period, in the position in which they would have been if the English law had existed that it is necessary, or wise, or fair to give this contribution from the Exchequer. Therefore we ask the House to pass this Clause as being an essential part of that portion of the system of English Poor Law administration which we are adopting in Clause 1; it is an essential and, from the financial point of view as well, a very important part. I quite appreciate the criticism that in doing this we have included not only this particular relief that we are more immediately considering under the Bill hut relief given under the 1921 Act and the 1845 Act. The reason is that it is administratively impossible to separate them. Let me take an illustration. A man applies for relief for his dependants during the dispute, and under conditions which would entitle that relief to be given. Under Clause 1 of the Bill that relief is given—or will be given—at the beginning stage under this Bill. But who can tell at what stage the condition will be reached when that relief will really be under the 1845 Act? In cases like that, it very often passes from the one category to the other, and it really is quite impossible to separate the two administratively.
  That is the reason why we have put it in, and I have no reason to suppose that the parish councils of Scotland which, as everyone will agree, do their work very well and very fairly, will administer the
  1972
  law any less fairly, or on any substantially different lines from the lines on which English guardians have dealt with this question of loans. Their experience has been that this power to give by way of loan is not a normal accompaniment of relief. In how many of the cases under the 1845 Act would it be worth while even to write out the receipt or to give the notice? There are cases where there would be no hope of repayment, and nobody would dream, either in fairness, or from the point of view of practicability, of suggesting that it was a loan. Once more I would accentuate—the hon. Member who spoke last undoubtedly realises it, but I am not sure that every hon. Member realises it—that this is purely an option to the parish council. It is entirely in their discretion, and surely we can trust the parish Councils to administer it fairly.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any figures respecting cases in England showing how many, if any, were taken to the Court?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir; but there were very few.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Are we to understand that under Clause 3 it is to become a permanent part of the system in Scotland.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Until 1930.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: What is the procedure for the recovery of these loans?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The Small Debt Court.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what is the procedure for the recovery of these loans.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, will he tell the Committee whether it is not the case that, under Clause 3, it not necessary that the recipient of Poor Law relief should have signed undertaking admitting that it is a loan—that a simple intimation from the parish council, without either the assent or the consent of the recipient, will be sufficient to make that relief a loan?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The words of the Clause make it quite clear. He must

  1973
  either have a receipt for the actual payment of relief containing the statement that it is given by way of loan, or a notification in writing that the relief is so provided must be given. And of course you must give the notification at the time you give the relief.
  Mr. STEWART: I think we are all indebted to the Lord Advocate for making quite clear to us matters on which we were somewhat doubtful previously, but even after that explanation I am not satisfied as to what is going to take place. As I understand it, we are incorporating this new provision in Scottish law so that it may be in keeping with the law as it exists in England. The fact that we are incorporating a good thing from English law is no reason for attaching a bad one—as we think this one to be. The Lord Advocate said that 50 per cent. of the money loaned since 1921 in England had been recovered, and in some cases even more than that.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The relief given "during the 1921 stoppage" was w hat I said.
  Mr. STEWART: True it may have been recovered, but what were the conditions under which it was recovered? Was it obtained by stress or a threat, because it was alimentary, because the person had not complied with the law, and a decree had been given, or a threat had been made to apply to the Court? At any rate it would be recovered at a time when the man was deeply in debt, and when his financial position was as bad as it had been at the time when the relief was granted. During the stoppage the man would not only incur debt in the shape of a loan from the board of guardians, but would also incur debts to his landlord, his grocer, and other people; and then, a week or two after he had started work again, with perhaps only £2 or £2 10s. a week coming in, an application is made for him forthwith to make contributions towards the reduction of the debt. The Lord Advocate knows as well as I do that the relief given is never quite sufficient to meet the cost of the absolute necessities of life, and this privation over a prolonged period tells its tale, and at the end of the struggle the man is actually in need of some relief to supplement his wages for the time being.
  1974
  As I said on Tuesday night, I have had some experience of the Poor Law, and I am glad to bear testimony to the fact that since the time when I was a member of a parish council the administration of the Poor Law has entirely changed, and that where there was what I regarded at the time as foolish cruelty it is now quite common to find a humanitarian administration of the law such as was entirely absent previously. While that is true, however, it is also true that there still exists amongst a section of the people a feeling that things have gone too far; there is a desire, shared by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir A. Sprot) if I did not misunderstand him, to get back to the glorious days when relief was not given so indiscriminately and without regard to the ratepayer. I would beg the Lord Advocate to consider seriously what is going to be done. In view of the extraordinary position that has cropped up, and the tremendous burden which will be thrown on the ratepayers in nearly all industrial districts of Scotland, the Board of Health, in their desire for economy, may feel the necessity for a stricter administration of the law, and -urge the recovery of loans which were incurred by people to tide them over the period of distress. The parish councils may be compelled by circulars from the Board of Health to take more action than they are taking. The Bill says the money "shall be" recoverable by the parish council. Those words "shall be" may be interpreted as something in the nature of compulsion, and the parish councils may have circulars from the Board of Health—I think I have seen them in days gone by — ordering action to be taken on lines such as the parish councils themselves would not altogether favour. In incorporating this provision in the Scottish law I think the Government are doing a bad thing for Scottish Poor Law administration.
  Another point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. There is throughout the country and in a section of the Press a demand that recipients of Poor Law relief shall be deprived of their votes. Here there is an opportunity for it to be done. If a loan has been granted and not repaid, or if an attempt has not been made to repay it, it may be that this demand for disfranchisement will become stronger and it may become the law once again that anyone

  1975
  who has received Poor Law relief either in the shape of a loan or a grant shall be deprived of his right of citizenship. I can see no reason whatever why this bad part of the English law should be forced upon us, and I hope the Committee will reject the Clause as it now stands.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I wish it had been possible for the Lord Advocate to have met us in this matter, in view of what has been said from his side of the Committee and also from our side. I realise that hon. Members opposite have no idea of establishing anything in the way of a new system of nationalisation, but unwittingly this Bill, although hon. Members opposite are opposed to nationalisation, is going to set up national pawnshops so far as Scotland is concerned—pawnshops on a gigantic scale. There will be only this difference between those pawnshops and privately-owned pawnshops, that in a privately-owned pawnshop you must have security before you can get a loan, while under Clause 3 the Government are going to give rights to the parish councils to grant loans without any security so far as the applicants for the loans are concerned. The security in many instances will only have to be the mental stability of those individuals who are compelled, because of poverty, to apply for relief. There are so many who because of poverty are compelled to apply for relief, and who, where that relief is granted on loans and they have given a promise to repay it, will do everything possible to keep that promise. There will be over hundred of instances, if this Clause goes through, where people will be prepared to starve themselves and their wives and children for the purpose of fulfilling the bargain that has been imposed upon them by the parish council. There are many parish councils that will seek in a humane way to administer this particular Clause if it goes through this House, but I likewise know that there are many parish councils who are willing to take full advantage of a Clause like this and to impose their sweet will upon those who are compelled because of poverty to apply for the assistance that the Poor Law can give them.
  Clause 3 is not to deal with an emergency. Clauses 1 and 2 and the pro-
  1976
  longation of the 1921 Act in Clause 4 are really put forward to deal with an emergency, but Clause 3 does not deal with that emergency. It seeks to impose upon Scotland something in connection with the administration of the Poor Law which could quite well be dealt with, if the Government thought fit to deal with it and if they are in office, in 1930 when they are really overhauling the whole of the Poor Law system. I would plead with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who no doubt will be replying to the Debate, that if you are going to deal with emergency conditions we on this side of the House are willing, but this particular Clause seeks to enforce certain conditions and it has not the support of the parish councils. I do not know of any parish council that has passed a resolution in favour of Clause 3. All the parish councils have passed resolutions in favour of the other Clauses of the Bill, many of them wanting the Bill to go further in regard to finance. I do know of parish councils and public authorities that have sent telegrams to Members of this House asking them to oppose these provisions for loans, because the Parish Councils Association have not yet had time to consider this particular proposal. If the Committee does pass this Clause, they will be going entirely in opposition to the views of the parish councils in Scotland and in direct opposition to the expressed views of those who are responsible for the administration of the Poor Law. For the reason that the Government are now seeking to set up national pawnshops so far as Scotland is concerned without asking the applicants for loans to provide possible security I oppose this particular Clause.
  Mr. D. GRAHAM: The attitude adopted by the Lord Advocate and the statements he has made do not clear up the doubts that are in my mind in regard to this matter. I do not see how this Clause can be made workable at all. It seeks to impose upon parish councils duties that they are not particularly well fitted to perform. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) has said, Clause 1 deals with a particular condition of things. It refers "to relief to the destitute dependants of any destitute able-bodied person who is out of employment owing to his being directly involved in a trade dispute."
  That is quite understandable and I am quite sure that the parish councils in Scot-

  1977
  land will be able to deal with that situation fairly well, but when you come to Clause 3 it raises an entirely new situation. It deals with the matter generally and lays it down that any relief whatever given to any person or to his dependants,
  "which the parish council shall direct to be provided by a loan, shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a loan to the person to or on account of whom or to whose dependants the relief shall have been provided."
  In that connection the parish councils, in very many cases, are not able to distinguish between the man who is idle in consequence of the dispute and the man who is idle because of depression of trade or the caprice of the employer or, in some cases, the vindictiveness of the employer.
  To make my point clear, I would draw attention to the fact that in the months immediately preceding the stoppage in the mining industry, the mining parishes in the county of Lanark were giving clear evidence of an exceptional amount of unemployment. Figures were given to us in reply to questions in this House in regard to the following parishes in the county of Lanark:—Blantyre, Both-well, Cambuslang, Carluke, Carmichael, Carnwath, Dalserf, Douglas, Hamilton, East Kilbride, Lanark, Stonehouse, Cadder, Cambusnethan, and Carmun-nock. In those parishes, which are largely mining, in the first three months of 1926 there was an increase of 623 persons, or fully 52 per cent., on the unemployed list compared with the first three months of 1925. We find that in the county of Lanark a very large proportion of parishes had no unemployed at all, or, at any rate, no relief to pay during those two years. It is the common impression, largely stressed by Members on the other side, that had there been no dispute in the mining industry everything was pointing to a return of good trade. Those figures show the opposite, at least so far as the mining parishes in the county of Lanark are concerned. Since the dispute has ended, we have thousands of men idle in Lanarkshire who should be working. I would point out that in the mining industry, in particular, instead of fewer men being employed, there is room for a considerable addition to the numbers already engaged. It is all a question of organisation; but I cannot deal with
  1978
  that aspect of the matter now. In the county of Lanark we have ten thousand or fifteen thousand persons at present idle, and no parish council can say that they are idle in consequence of the late dispute. But some of the parish councils in the county of Lanark would have it that these men, before they may be entitled to get any relief under Clause 3, must enter into an obligation to pay this money back when they find employment. They may have to leave their district entirely before they can find employment.
  I quite appreciate the reasonable proposition, generally speaking, that the Lord Advocate adopted when he was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), but I do not agree with him that this matter will be so easily worked as apparently he thinks. I know that there is a considerable difficulty here and I am quite willing to admit and to appreciate the difficulties that the Government are faced with in a matter of this sort. Possibly their desire to assimilate the law of England to the law of Scotland—to the better part of the English system of law—may be desirable, but I would remind my right hon. Friend that in England this does not work any too well. If all the reports we get are true, the system does not seem to work very well, so that there can be no necessity for bringing men into the County Courts and no necessity for threatening them and pointing their furniture. This proposal may effect the very opposite to the end the Government have in view. A big proportion of the men will have to shift from one district to another, probably from one county to another, and possibly from Scotland to England. You will find that a fair proportion of the men will use their wits to get out of an obligation of this kind. They will accept—and they will be perfectly right in accepting—the proposal which is laid down in the Bill. They will accept this money. Some people say that that would be an immoral act, but it is no more immoral for them to get out of an agreement forced upon them—an agreement where advantage is taken of their social and economic necessities—than it would be for the parish council to impose such an unreasonable condition upon them. I submit that, all things con-sidered, it would be a very great advan-

  1979
  tage to the bringing about of a better state of feeling in the country between capital and labour—which hon. Members on the other side assume to be an absolute necessity and which we hear so much talk about—if the Government in these cases would declare a complete settling of the account, and if they did not put into operation or try to impose upon the parishes in Scotland the duty of imposing an obligation of this kind upon the ratepayers.
  You will have the parishes all divided. The people in each parish will be divided and it will create a sort of semi-civil war with one section fighting against the other. You cannot bring peace along those lines, and your proposal will work out to the disadvantage of peaceful conditions. Therefore, I want to put to the Government the danger of passing this Clause because of its unworkable character, and because it will tend to create bitter feelings between the community and the members of parish councils. What is being proposed is clearly an interpolation and something which is entirely foreign to the object for which the Bill has been introduced. Any amount of difficulties will be created which the parish councils do not want cast upon them. For these reasons I ask the Government to reconsider the whole position, and if they want to assimilate the law of Scotland to the law of England the whole question should be dealt with without interfering with the prerogatives of any particular party.
  Mr. BARR: We are dealing this afternoon with a large question which may have far-reaching results. The Lord Advocate said these powers had not in normal times been taken advantage of throughout England. I would point out that we are now dealing with abnormal times in this emergency Measure. We have seen to-day how great may be the burden of a parish council. The Member for Dundee (Mr. Serymgeour) indicated a district—I think it was Wakefield—where they had £200,000 out on loan and another colleague on these benches told me yesterday that in his district the sum out on loans from boards of guardians was nearly £300,000. Therefore, this is a far-reaching question affecting Poor Law administration in Scotland very seriously. The Lord Advocate said that
  1980
  some of us were disposed to take the advantages of the English law without submitting to its limitations and drawbacks. I was very curious to know how far this proposal had been an advantage in English Poor Law administration and I took the pains to read up what was said on this particular subject of loans in place of grants on the part of boards of guardians under the English Poor Law Amendment Act, 1884. I went into the details of this subject so far as it was traversed by the Poor Law Commission of 1909. I find that there are a number of representatives of boards of guardians, local government officers and others who plead for the system, but there are just as many who oppose it. Some of them put the proposal forward on the ground that it would be a deterrent; arguing that persons able to pay, if they knew there was to be recovery of this kind, would not apply at all. On the other hand, it was argued that the very people who were least deserving would be least deterred because they would have no conscience at all about an obligation to repay, whereas those in dire need, who had a conscience in this matter would be deterred. The Commissioners say:
  "It is undesirable and impolitic that the poorest classes, when in real need of relief, should be placed in fear of harassing actions in the future."
  Instead of being a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well, this proposal is going to do something which is a terror to those who desire to do well and which will win the praises of the evil doers who are ready to declare that they will pay hack the money without having the least intention of doing so. The Commissioners use an argument in which they say that, if you enforce in a time of distress or at the close of a period of distress regular payments week by week of this kind, you are preventing deserving men from laying in store for old age and sickness and for maintenance in after days, and thereby the public authorities themselves would not gain anything at all because they would have the later burden that might have been avoided if the man had been encouraged to aim at a position of true independence because then he might have been able to provide for himself. On the ground of sound finance, serious exception can be taken to this proposal. Surely it is in the interests of parish

  1981
  council finance that they should know exactly how they stand and have a clear hill, and not have debts running into thousands of pounds that may be assets or may be no assets at all. I was led to look at this matter from the point of view of the recipients, and I wish to point out, as stated in the Circular of the Board of Health of the 8th May, that the amount here concerned may not be connected with the merits or demerits of the dispute at all. I take safety men who worked for many weeks after the stoppage and who, on grounds of economy, were dispensed with and who were unable to obtain relief because the coal dispute was in existence. These safety men, but for the dispute, would have seen employed, but they were unable to obtain unemployment benefit, and many of them were obliged to go on the parish. Here you are dealing with men of that type who are to be penalised although they were not able to follow their daily employment. Instead of coming forward and helping these men in a brotherly way and showing them more of the spirit of brotherly sympathy and helping them to make a new start, you are going to put a millstone round their necks. Because you have saved a man from shipwreck, you decree that henceforth all the voyage of his life must be bound in shallows and in misery. The Lord Advocate has told us that, in normal cases, very little of this money is recovered. He told us that 50 per cent. is recovered in these abnormal times in certain districts. All credit to the men who have suffered so much and are now repaying money to that extent! If, however, you let your vision range over the normal condition of things, you will find it works out that very little of this money is recovered. I will give one or two instances. The Commission say:
  "The results are so uncertain that the guardians are reluctant to put the law in motion at all."
  One of the witnesses who was a member of the Marylebone Board of Guardians, said:
  "The recovery of loans has always been a difficulty. We have attempted to recover amounts, but the difficulty is that unless you can prove earnings, and unless you can prove position, it is hopeless."
  Another witness said that the amount. recovered is comparatively trifling. I know these are individual cases, but I was
  1982
  very much struck by a statistical statement in Appendix 19 of the Report in which a Poor Law officer, Mr. Baldwyn Fleming, in charge of a big area covering Dorset, Hampshire and Wiltshire, gives statistics for 54 unions which had given money on loan, and only in 10 cases was anything recovered in connection with those loans. The whole sum recovered in that area was £443, and of that, £373 was recovered from Portsmouth alone. In 53 cases there was only a sum of £70 recovered in all. Therefore, I think it will be clear that we are stepping on very shaky ground in regard to the new proposal which it is proposed to set up. I think this proposal lends itself to great laxity and even crookedness in administration, and there is a great deal of make-believe about it. By a form of make-believe, those who are giving the relief are launching out into extravagance and saving themselves by saying that the money will be recovered. I visualise what would have been said if this Clause had been proposed from this side of the House. It would have been said that we were proposing to pay the dependants of strikers and those who are out of work and place them on the rates; that we were sapping "the glorious privilege of being independent" of the Scottish people, and were coming up against the traditions of our ancient virtue in Scotland. They might even have said that there was some Russian influence behind what we were doing. What do we find now? We find the Government, having failed in all their other enterprises, coming forward and playing the part of the pawnbroker and the moneylender, while we on this side stand as the sole custodians of the ancient independence, traditions and virtues of the Scottish people.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am sorry that the Lord Advocate cannot produce figures showing in how many cases those who had been provided with loans had to be taken to the Courts. The fact that that particular part of his evidence was left out has, no doubt, its own significance. The principle of the case here is a national one. If there is a case for application for relief from. a parish council on the score of destitution, even under such special circumstances as those which are particularly provided for in the Bill, then it is a question Of being either right or wrong. If it is right, then the money

  1983
  should be given without any bargaining. In Scotland we do not want, although You have it in England, any haggling over the question whether a person is entitled to get relief without having to refund it. The argument is put forward by the Lord Advocate that we have been, or at least a section of the House has been, following the line of England in acceptance of the Bill generally. For myself, I am not looking to England for any particular lead in this or anything else. My own feeling is that Scotland, as has been already said, can do very much better, not only in the granting of relief, but in settling how we are to get the fund for the payment of relief.
  As regards the idea of poor people coming before parish councils and having to face circumstances like these, that certainly, to anyone like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) and myself, who have had years of experience in parish council work, would be a very deplorable development. I am glad to know that the parish councils are represented here to-day, although they are not able to get a look-in as regards what they wanted to do in making a protest. The Government have been cute enough to dodge that particular aspect of this case, but I am glad to know from the chairman of the Dundee Parish Council that they at any rate do not want this particular Clause. If we think of the experience that Scotsmen have had of lending money at times to people in unfortunate circumstances—people in England appear to give it without any expectation of its being returned—I can assure the Government that in Scotland people do lend money under such circumstances, and it is true that it is very difficult to find people able to refund the money lent in that way. The truth is that, when we come to face the question of poverty and destitution, it becomes an absurdity to arrange for anything of this kind. The introduction of this Clause suggests the idea that poverty is a sort of emergency; but as a matter of fact it seems to he a settled condition of affairs from which large bodies of the people do not seem to he able to get out. Of course, that raises very large issues, which we are not entitled to touch upon here, but at the same time we are entitled to say that England and Scotland, as matters stand now, are inter-
  1984
  linked and absolutely responsible in the collective sense for the production of that poverty, and, if there is a claim in respect of special necessitous circumstances, it is the national Exchequer that ought to meet that situation.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is getting away from this Clause altogether.
  Mr. SCRYMEOUR: In a certain degree, I agree that that is so. To get back to what the Lord Advocate said as to this being better than having the financial responsibility resting upon the rates, that is to say, the local ratepayers, while that is quite satisfactory from his point of view, it is not satisfactory from the point of view of men or women who have been ratepayers, and many of whom, indeed, are actually ratepayers at the time of making their application; and for them to be placed in the position of having to find the money for their own circumstances would in reality be giving an optional power to the parish council to deprive the ratepayer of the rights which formerly he had. As regards the old-time situation, into the history of which my colleague (Mr. Johnston) has gone, there undoubtedly was a guarantee to those who were legitimately in need of assistance that they would obtain it; but here you are going to adopt an entirely new system, which, if applied, for instance, to the case of the Army pensioner, would involve the exaction of repayment of the sums that are being, and have for some years been given, to any of these men. These are industrial soldiers whose cases we are considering here. They are always in the conflict, and, in the circumstances that we are now contemplating, they are in the position of being defeated soldiers, they are broken-down soldiers, broken down in striving to build up the interests of the nation; and, while I am quite confident that some improvement has taken place in these parish councils, undoubtedly there are elements in them, which are to some extent represented here to-day by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot), that would undoubtedly take advantage of this Clause to assist their particular ideas and proclivities. It will give them the opportunity to give some relief on condition that it is handed back at an early date. As a Scottish Mem-

  1985
  ber, I protest against this situation, and I trust that the question will be pressed to a Division.
  Mr. W. M. WATSON: I have no intention of traversing the ground that has already been covered by my colleagues on this side, but I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will answer the questions which they have put to him when he comes to reply. In order to justify the inclusion of the ordinary poor in this Clause, the Lord Advocate used the argument that there was a point which would be reached when you could not say when emergency relief became relief under the ordinary Poor Law.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It is quite true.
  Mr. WATSON: The right hon. Gentleman says it is quite true. The question that I wish to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it affects the parish councils who have been making these emergency payments, is this: Are all the payments that have been made by the parish councils during that period to 13.3 included in the sum that is to be relieved by the Scottish Board of Health? Is the 40 per cent. to apply to the whole of the money, or is the Scottish Board of Health going to draw fine distinctions between those who have been paid ordinary Poor Law relief during that period, those who have been paid, under the Act of 1921, as able-bodied unemployed, and that section who have been paid what is known as emergency relief? My contention is that, if it has been possible for the parish councils to keep a clear statement as to those who were paid ordinary relief, those who were paid relief as able-bodied unemployed, and those who were paid emergency relief during this emergency period, it is quite possible for the parish councils in future to make a distinction between the ordinary poor and those who receive relief either under the Act of 1921 or in the form of loans if they are engaged in a trade dispute. If the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland would agree to keep the ordinary poor out of the operation of this Clause, I do not think there would be very much objection to the Clause on this side of the House; but if they are all to be lumped together under this Clause, our contention will be, and I hope the Secretary of State will meet the point, that no fine distinctions should
  1986
  be drawn in regard to the payments made by parish councils during the emergency period, but that the whole sum that has been paid out by the parish councils should be subject to the 40 per cent. grant that we are to get from the Government. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with that point when he comes to reply.
  Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: There are one or two items in the Bill which are a cause of very great dispute. In the first place, while the Bill deals specifically with payments to destitute people who are out of employment on account of a dispute., and particularly leaves it open to the parish council to treat any grant as a loan, it will, I think, surely follow that public pressure will cause every parish council to regard such a. grant as a loan. It would lay every official of a parish council open to very great difficulties with the ratepayers of his district if, in making such a grant, he did not take advantage of Clause 3 of this Measure. The second point is that, according to Clause 3, either the person receiving the grant must sign a document stating that he is so receiving it, or it is to be considered as a loan if the parish council themselves send an intimation to him that the money paid to his dependants is paid by way of loan. I have never known in Scots law any contract which can be constructed in that way. In the case say, of the dependants of a man who is out of employment on account of a dispute, it says that., directly his dependants are supported by the parish council, he may receive an intimation from the parish council that that money has been given to his dependants by way of a loan, and by that he is, under this Measure, bound as a debtor to the parish council. Moreover, the parish council are obtaining a greater power over their debtor than any other creditor or moneylender would have in England, for the debt is to be considered as an alimentary debt, and the parish council will have the right to pursue that man, by way of arrestment, further than any other ordinary creditor will in England. It means that, if this is allowed to go through as an alimentary debt, the parish council, having a decree, could proceed to arrest the debtor's wages, and the Limitation of Arrestments Act would not apply; the 35s, a week which is granted

  1987
  as an exemption from arrestment in all ordinary claims would not be granted to him in this case. I agree that it is not likely that a parish council would exercise many of these powers, but we must have in mind the public pressure which would be imposed upon the officials of a parish council.
  Let me take an instance that occurs to me. It is a pure speculation, but it occurs to me that a parish council will issue its accounts, in which necessarily on the asset side will appear loans to the dependants of able-bodied persons unemployed on account of a trade dispute. In the first year that may not be a very large sum, but year after year goes by and there is a very large accumulated asset. Immediately you have every member of the parish council subjected, at every meeting he attends, to questions and criticisms as to why it is that the parish council, having these people now employed, does not pursue them to repay the debt. I can foresee clearly that you will have in certain areas from a certain section of the people, a. great deal of pressure applied to parish council members and officials to compel payment from people who they themselves may well know are quite unable to pay. I do not think it is a good thing that officials or members of parish councils should be in that position. I do not think any man whose family is in want, and is relieved because it is in want, through no fault of his own should at the end of a time of dispute or unemployment have to set out to maintain his family with the burden on his mind of the debt that has been incurred during that period. Still less do I think that man ought to start out with the possible dread of having this liability against him which can be enforced against him as an alimentary debt.
  After all, for what do parish councils exist, and for what do we pay our rates? It is to maintain in life and efficiency the men and women and their dependants who are at a certain time in real want. I do not think we ought to enquire as to the cause of their being in that condition so long as it is not due to their own deliberate fault. If we relieve want, we surely know perfectly well that the margin even between want and necessaries is small, that the margin allowed over necessaries for the trifling comforts of life is almost non-existent, and that
  1988
  in ordinary circumstances the workingman's wife, who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the home, fixes her household economy according to the wage her husband receives. You are now going to add to one of the most magnificent, though one of the most burdened of all the people of Scotland, the wife of the artisan, the torture of knowing that behind all the economy which she arranges for the expenditure of her husband's wages when he is employed there is the dread of this debt, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, both in the rural and in the urban districts, perhaps even more in the rural district, the feeling of humiliation which is in the minds of the women of Scotland when they know they are in debt. Therefore I object to Clause 3, first because it institutes a new principle in our Scottish parochial life which I think is not a good one and, second, because it opens members and officials of parish councils to outside pressure to do things which otherwise they would not be willing to do, and, thirdly, because it puts a. man, on account of it being an alimentary debt, in a situation when he does start work in which I think no man, without it is his own direct fault, ought to be put either by the Legislature or the local authority. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will yet reconsider the introduction of this principle.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I want to join with others in objecting to this Clause remaining in the Bill on the ground that it is setting up a very dangerous and unsatisfactory method which has not hitherto existed in Scotland. The Clause as it stands says, "any relief," not relief granted to those who are defined in Clause 1, but any relief whatsoever, whether by payment in money or payment in clothes or in food. The cost price of anything that is given by a. parish council in the way of relief is to be considered as a loan. It may even be construed that anyone admitted into a poor-house may be sued afterwards for the cost of his maintenance. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will make it clear whether that is so. Then there is another point. Supposing a man is unemployed. who has been working for a period of years, paying his rent and rates regularly. For a certain period he will be in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  1989
  If he cannot find employment within the period, his unemployment benefit may cease, and he becomes helpless so far as receiving anything that will keep him going, unless he applies to the parish council.
  There is no stipulation made here as to whether he is to be permitted to draw benefit for a certain period before he is asked to agree to any relief from the parish council being considered as a loan. According to the wording of the Clause, as soon as he applies for relief, and the parish council agrees to pay him relief, the very first week's relief granted to him can be considered as a loan, irrespective of the fact that he may have been paying poor rates for 10, 15, 20 or, it may even be 30 years. He is not going to receive anything in respect of the poor rates he has paid, which, after all, are as much an insurance against unemployment and bad times as is the amount of money he pays week after week into the Unemployment Fund in deductions made from his wages. The one is an insurance against distress, and the other is an insurance during his period of unemployment, and a man is just as much entitled to get Poor Law relief without being asked to repay it as he is at present to obtain unemployment benefit, and he is not asked to repay that. It is insurance in both cases, and if this Clause is allowed to go through without protest, we may very well, see at some future date something introduced by the Minister of Labour of the same character, that all benefit paid to an unemployed man or woman is to be looked upon as a loan.
  6.0 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has only to consider the statement made by the parish council authorities in Govan and Glasgow, who made certain very startling statements and submitted some very staggering figures to the Blanesburgh Committee. If you are going to consider every payment of poor relief by either of these parishes as a loan, you are going to he faced with a considerable number of difficulties amongst the people there. Glasgow pays £6,500 a week in Poor Law relief, and Govan £4,645, that is £11,000 in those two parishes, which constitute the major portion of the Poor Law area of Glasgow. Is the whole, or part, of that £11,000 going to be brought under Clause 3, because according to the
  1990
  geography of Glasgow and of the coal mining area of Scotland there are very few dependants of miners living in Glasgow who come under the category of the remainder of this Bill. The great amount of Poor Law relief paid in the West of Scotland is paid by the parishes of Glasgow and Govan, the industrial parishes in Scotland. Edinburgh comes in as well. Clause 3 means any relief at all,, not merely monetary but relief given in kind, including admission and maintenance in a Poor Law institution, and the whole of this sum of £11,000 plus the amount of money it is costing to maintain the poor people in Poor Law institutions in Glasgow can be made recoverable under Clause 3 if the recipients of relief are notified by the parish council. Let us know where we are. Is that the method under the English law? If so, it is entirely foreign to the method of dealing with Poor Law relief in Scotland. If the Government are going to introduce this new system of Poor Law relief, why could not they bring in a special Poor Law Bill for Scotland, dealing with the matter specifically, instead of smuggling it. through in this way, in a Bill which would obtain general consent in every Poor Law area in Scotland where there has been a considerable increase of unemployment and destitution due to the miners' dispute. The Government are getting a Bill through with practical unanimity in this House dealing with the emergency question, and in getting that unanimity they are taking advantage of it by smuggling through Clause 3, and saying that unless they get that Clause it will wreck the Bill.
  I submit to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate that when they are planning a new principle of Poor Law relief in Scotland, they ought not to insert it in a Bill which is dealing with an emergency. They are introducing a new principle into the Poor Law of Scotland, and they are doing it in a Bill which is intended to
  "make provision as to poor relief to dependants and persons involved in a trade dispute in Scotland, to enable relief to be given by way of loan…"
  The primary part of this Measure deals wth the emergency queston, while the new principle has been left to a secondary

  1991
  phrase in the title of the Bill. Clause 5 says:
  "This Act may be cited as the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1927."
  Mr. DUNCAN: The Moneylenders Act!
  Mr. MACLEAN: Not a, Moneylenders Act but a Moneytakers Act: moneytakers on the part of the Government. I do not think that hon. Members opposite understand the Bill correctly. This Act may be cited as the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, not as the Poor Law Act, but as an Emergency Act, and the Government are asking us to establish this new principle in the Poor Law of Scotland under this Emergency Act. The Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland are not dealing fairly with Members in this House, and they are dealing less fairly with the Scottish Members and the Scottish people. They are here to protect the interests of the Scottish people and to conserve their rights under the Act of Union, and to see that no new principles are enacted in any Acts of Parliament dealing with Scotland that are foreign to Scottish law.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland is now a Secretary of State and is looked upon as possessing a higher status than formerly, and he and the Lord Advocate come to this House and bring forward a Bill in which they are doing an injury to Scotland which no one would have expected two Scotsmen such as they are would have done to the Scottish people. They are placing themselves very much in the category of some of the old Secretaries of State whom we had when we had Lord Bute practically dominating the Government of the country, in the days when "Junius" was writing his famous letters. We have got right back to those old times, and we have a Secretary of State and a Lord Advocate who are simply placing the whole of Scotland and Scottish affairs under the feet of Englishmen, for them to do as they will. So long as we have Scottish Members in this House, Labour Members upon whose shoulders seem to rest the duty as well as the desire, intention and determination of maintaining the ancient liberties of Scotland, protests will be made. I want to warn the Secretary of State for
  1992
  Scotland, and the Lord Advocate, that if, as a result of what has transpired to-day, and a succession of election results similar to the one announced today, this Government goes out of power very soon, one of the first Measures that I and my colleagues from Scotland will demand from the Labour Government that will take the place of the present Government, will be the abolition of this particular Clause.
  Mr. JAMES BROWN: I want to emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell) regarding this Clause. I believe that the Exchequer ought to have stood the whole of the expense of all that was done in Scotland. Confining oneself to the present Clause, I think a very bad principle is being introduced. It is certainly a new principle and I think it will be a humiliating and crippling principle and, therefore, a vicious principle to be introduced into Scottish law. I think it emphasises the good claim that every Scottish Member might make now for Scottish home rule, but, as the novelists would say, "that is another story," and we shall have to do that later on. I had thought that our fears were exaggerated. I had no idea, until my fears were aroused from words that came from the lips of some hon. Members, that this principle will apply to money other than that given to people in emergency in a trade dispute. I thought the Bill would be purely confined to that, but there has been no statement from the other side and I have seen no one on the other side anxious to make a statement to allay the fears that this principle will apply to people who get ordinary Poor Law relief. If that is to be the effect, I trust that we shall be able to frustrate it by getting this Clause cut out of the Bill. I hope the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate will, in that case, take a different view, and not put that principle in the Bill
  Let us consider the state of the man who is in receipt of any assistance during a dispute, during emergency, or at any other period. There is no incentive for that man to get well if he has been sick, or to go back to work if he has been unemployed, or to get things straightened out, if there is to be entailed upon him perpetual pauperism. Our men are always on the verge of poverty, and with this

  1993
  added burden hanging over the household, hanging over the breadwinner, what hope is there that any man can go back to his employment with any chance of doing his best, knowing that this money is recoverable in the same way as an alimentary debt would be, that his wages may be arrested and that he has not the relief that we have already obtained in Scotland?
  This Clause ought to be taken out of the Bill. If a man has the right to be assisted, then it should not be by way of loan. That is a sound principle, but if there is a fear in the mind of the man, and if a sword of Damocles is to be continually hanging over him, the position a ill be very much aggravated. I do not say that parish councils would always exercise pressure, but there would be a fear that they might, and there might be pressure behind the parish councils, and the officials to extort the very last penny from the people who owed the money. Even the giving of the loan might be against the minds of many people in that particular area. I think the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to give us some assurance on these points, if they cannot withdraw the Clause. Why should this be imposed upon Scotland, of all countries in the world. We need not be very Mate in putting the thing forward. People may scoff, the Sassenach may scoff, but it still, thank God I remains true that the dearest thing to the heart of a Scotsman or a Scotswoman is independence. There is nothing they cherish more.
  Why, then, should we be saddled with a think like this, brought forward, ostensibly, for the relief of people but saddling them with something which they will not be able to pay and putting upon them something which otherwise they would not have incurred? I trust that we shall do our best to convince every Scotsman who cherishes independence to assist us in this matter, I am sure that Scotsmen among the party opposite cherish Scottish independence as much as I do, that they see the weakness of this Clause as much as I do, and that they are as anxious to get it out of the way as I am. I hope they will be as anxious and determined as I am to get it out of the way. Then, there will be no fear. Otherwise, there will be a fear hanging over the household, and the weight of it will
  1994
  be upon the person who will be getting the loan, and the result will be not to help but to hurt. Therefore, I hope the Clause will be rejected.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: No apology was needed for an Englishman intervening in the earlier part of the Bill, because it was a question of England paying a part of it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: England is paying nothing. We are only getting back something of what we have paid.
  Mr. HERBERT: That is another question. On this Clause an Englishman is not directly concerned, but when Scotsmen fall out it is possible that an honest Englishman may be allowed to express an opinion. I must confess that, in the first place, I think it is a little unfortunate that the change in the Poor Law which is proposed in this Clause should be introduced in this way in an emergency Bill, so called, and that it makes this alteration not merely for the purpose of relief given in a, case of emergency, but relief given under the old existing Poor Law of Scotland. Apart from the inadvisability of bringing it up in this Bill, it is bringing Scottish law into accordance with English law in regard to relief by way of loan, and, taking the principle broadly, I think perhaps it is not inadvisable that the principle should apply in proper cases, that is to say, in cases where the persons relieved are people usually earning substantial wages but who have ceased to earn those wages and are in want by reason of an industrial stoppage or dispute but who in the course of time will again earn wages out of which they might pay for the period of the stoppage.
  I want to ask for some reply from the Government on the last line of the Clause which provides that any loan given in this way shall be recoverable as an alimentary debt. I do not profess to know exactly the meaning of an "alimentary debt," but so far as I understand—there is nothing equivalent to it in England—the creditor has to go before the Court and obtain an order from a Judge enabling him to "arrest," using the Scottish word, money Which is due to the debtor. That procedure is perfectly well known in this country, but our Courts being what they are orders are not made in that way and are not enforceable by

  1995
  imprisonment, except in those cases where the debtor is reasonably able to pay if he chooses to do so. If I am right in understanding that the last line of the Clause means that the creditor, the Poor Law authority, could go—I am not saying they would, but that they have the power—and arrest a man's wages regardless of whether they were sufficient to provide any surplus beyond the maintenance of himself and his family, then I think that is wrong—
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It is quite clear they could not do anything without going to the Court in the same way as in England, and it would be for the Court to say whether instalments should be paid or not.
  Mr. R. MITCHELL: Is it not the case that after obtaining judgment in England, which corresponds to our decree in Scotland and which carries the right of arrest on an alimentary debt, the creditor in England would require to go to the Courts for a second judgment authorising arrest?
  Mr. HERBERT: I am much obliged to the Lord Advocate for what he has said, but I hope when he comes to reply that he will explain the matter a little further. Having raised this question it may be that a little more light will be thrown on the subject, and the Lord Advocate may be able to satisfy the Committee that this is not putting a Scotsman who is relieved under the Poor Law in any worse position than an Englishman who is relieved under the Poor Law. If he can satisfy me entirely upon that head I have nothing more to say about it, but if it be the case that it would give Scottish Poor Law authorities any more powers to seize a man's wages than the Poor Law authorities have in this country, then I think on Report stage the Government should reconsider this particular Clause.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I have before me a copy of a consolidation Poor Law Bill which is at present before the House of Lords. As far as England is concerned, as I read it there is an alternative remedy. The guardians may either go to the County Court, or other Court, for the recovery of small debts and get their decree in the ordinary way, or they may go to a justice of the peace and make
  1996
  application for getting the man and his employer before them and getting a payment of so much out of the man's wages having regard to the circumstances of the man and his family. That is an alternative not a cumulative remedy. In Scotland, the second remedy does not exist, and it will be necessary, before putting in force the recovery of any loan contemplated here, to go to the Courts and get a decree, and the small debt Court will be the appropriate place to go. The hon. Member opposite will agree that this will be the normal place where proceedings will be taken.
  Mr. MITCHELL: Is it not the case that the right of arrest, if this Clause be passed, follows automatically?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: That is just what I am saying. You cannot arrest on this Clause. You must have a decree before you can arrest. That is as clear as anything. It could not possibly be done under this Clause.
  Mr. MITCHELL: The Lord Advocate has quite misunderstood me. Is it not the case that, having a, decree from the Court, the power to arrest the full earnings of a man follows automatically? There is no limitation on the decree, whereas in England you have to get further power.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg pardon. The hon. Member, I thought, was talking about doing something without getting a decree. The Court will have to be approached to get a decree, and in the small debt Court you would certainly have to satisfy the Court that it was reasonable you should get your decree. Does the hon. Member suggest that a parish council, having got a decree, will go and arrest a man's wages It would make him an applicant for relief immediately afterwards—
  Mr. BATEY: They do it in England. It has been done in my own division.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It would be a vicious circle. It would be merely driving a man on to their own Poor Law funds again. What is the advantage of that? A parish council will not do that any more than a board of guardians. One must assume a certain amount of common sense on the part of parish councils in these matters, and it seems to me that there is no hardship involved.
  Mr. HARDIE: I do not think the Lord Advocate has made the position quite clear. He has done so in regard to Scottish law, but not in relation to Clause 3 of this Bill. In relation to that Clause the Government are asking for something that does not work in Scottish law. The moment you get a decree, then the power follows as night follows day, and you do not require to go back to the Court for any further powers. I have been told by some English Members that it has been done in certain cases in England, and that men who have received relief as a loan have had to become applicants for relief the next day. This is the way it has actually worked in England, and the Lord Advocate wants to apply it to Scotland! We ought to understand very clearly what is to be the amount of income in any household before we begin to take diligence upon the home. There is nothing in the Clause to say what the standard of income is to be in any house before you can start taking something from that household. As a matter of fact, in England no cognisance is taken whatever of the income of the household, and a learned professor only last night, dealing with the cost of keeping a man, his wife, and three children in health, providing them with the plainest possible food necessary to maintain these five persons in good health, stated that it would take at least 42s. per week. There is nothing in this Bill about any standard rate of income of a house, and I think something should be done on the Report stage in order to fix the standard of income in relation to the dependants of a man before anything is taken from that household. I want this point answered.
  Then, of course, there are various types of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief. You have the ordinary applicants, who are described as "ins-and-outs." Here we are dealing with a man and his dependants who through no fault of his own is not able to earn his living, and I resent any implied intention to include this kind of man under the purview of this Bill and among those who are called "ins-and-outs." The type of individual which this Bill seeks to deal with is the man who does not want to have a loan; he wants to have
  1998
  work. The Government will have to be very careful, for we have a great reputation in Scotland for our sense of independence, and we are often quoted as being a thrifty people. But by thrift we do not mean that a working man who has been compelled to get a loan must, in order to repay that loan, cut down the food supplies of his wife and children. That is a false kind of thrift, it brings a charge upon the State, because the moment you decrease health you increase rates. I want the question I have put answered, if possible, from the Front Bench, and I hope the Secretary of State will make it clear that this Bill will not have the effect of pillorying these people as paupers.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: It is desirable that we should make clear what is the position in England in enforcing loans made by the guardians under the conditions that we have been discussing, and what is the position in Scotland under the Bill. I do not profess to know exactly what is the effect of the Scottish law, but of English law I think I do know a little. Under the English law it is open for the guardians to sue in the County Court for the amount due as a debt on the loan. The guardians would get judgment there from the Judge. If the debt was not paid they would either levy execution on the man's goods, which probably would not be worth while, or they could go to the Court on what is called a judgment summons, and they could ask the Judge to order either payment of the whole sum due or payment of the debt by instalments. The Judge would not make the one order or the other without being satisfied that the man could pay something. The Judge having made the order, whether for a shilling a week or five shillings a month or whatever it might be, if it was not complied with, a further application could be made to the Judge to commit the debtor to prison. The Judge would bear evidence as to the circumstances of the individual, and he would in the ordinary course, in all probability, if the debtor was not contumacious, make either a fresh order for a smaller amount, or, if the debtor was contumacious, he would make an order committing him to prison, the order not to be enforced for a certain time so as to give the man another opportunity of paying.

  1999
  Under the Poor Law Act, No. 17, Geo. V, which the Lord Advocate has handed to me, there is an alternative remedy. The guardians can go before the magistrates in our police courts, and they can then have a summons and call on the employer to attend as well, and on hearing the whole of the circumstances of the case the magistrates could in their discretion—and apparently if the debtor did not attend they would have to do so —make an order which, I gather, is really an arrestment of wages. They could order the employer to pay a certain amount or the whole out of the wages as they became due. It would be really administered in the same way as the judgment summons. They would take account of the circumstances of the family, how many children there were, what wages a man was receiving, and the man would have to pay by instalments. I would like to be clear on one point as to Scottish arrestment. I understand that on an alimentary debt there is a procedure by which they get a decree or judgment, and then the Judge has still a discretion to order payments by instalments the same as in England. On that point I am not quite clear. If it is a fact that the Judge has no alternative but to order payment of the full amount out of the wages and to take the whole wages, it is obviously unfair.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: The Lord Advocate has been good enough to give me an explanation, and if it be the case that by this process of arrestment it is still in the discretion of the Judge or magistrate who makes the order to order something less than the whole to be paid and not to give the creditor the opportunity of seizing the whole of the amount, then a very great part of my objection is withdrawn. Of course, one is at a considerable disadvantage in having to deal with a question of Scottish law, but I am given to understand that it is really necessary to make this particular debt to the Poor Law authority an alimentary debt under Scottish law. Otherwise the Scottish law gives no means of recovering a debt of this kind, and, if that be so, it may be hard on the debtor, who has the misfortune of finding Scotland in this particular instance behind England in the matter of its law. I think that in the circumstances there
  2000
  can really be no answer to the Lord Advocate's case, if it be that unless this debt is an alimentary debt it is really irrecoverable. If it be correct that the Court or magistrate has a discretion under which he need not give the creditor the power to arrest the whole of the wages, then I think the objection to it goes.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is the point not further complicated? The explanation of the Lord Advocate is that the Government are bringing the Poor Law in Scotland into line with the Poor Law in England, but they are leaving the legal aspect entirely different. They are not altering the recovery of debt. In order to make both things equal it will be necessary to alter the law of Scotland as regards the recovery of debt, just as the Poor Law is being altered. What has satisfied the last speaker is merely the recovery of debt and not the legal aspect at all.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Of course I am impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell), that if you have a very unreasonable parish council it might happen that they would use this power in a way that one would not assume that any ordinary parish council would do. The arrestment of wages would not apply in the question of an alimentary debt, but for practical purposes it does not seem to me to matter very much whether the word "alimentary" is there or not. The word "alimentary" being there, it did not enter my head that any reasonable parish council which is liable to support a man if he had not an alimentary income, would drive him into the position of not having an alimentary income. The Government, however, are quite willing to undertake to reconsider the closing sentences of this Clause before the Report stage. We will consider them in the light of the criticisms that have been made.
  Mr. WRIGHT: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) explained one reason why he thought there was some purpose to be served by the use of a loan. A person receiving substantial wages might find it an advantage to have the use of a loan with a reasonable prospect of repayment at no distant date. One could agree with that point of view if it represented the posi-

  2001
  tion of a vast number of our people in Scotland. The reverse happens to be the case. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) explained a number of the points of English law, for which we were very much obliged to him. I am sorry he did not explain it in all its bearings, because I am informed by two of my colleagues who have had experience of mining areas where this question has arisen, that it is possible for the board of guardians to apply to the Court with a view to having arrestment of wages, which may in some cases amount to 10s. or 15s. a week, and in such cases the home is left absolutely destitute. That may take place where the colliery is working full time or part time. It is enough to involve enormous hardship on a vast number of the working people of Scotland. We must look before we leap into this dangerous position which already affects so many of our people. I want to put a question to the Lord Advocate, who is always filled with a spirit of sweet reasonableness, for which I am grateful to him. Cannot the Government reconsider or withdraw the whole of this Clause? It may be true, as they say, that there has been no rush with regard to this Bill, but it certainly will come as a great surprise to vast numbers of parish councils in Scotland, so far as this particular Clause is concerned.
  I am convinced that the Government would meet not merely the wishes of Opposition Members, but of a large number of the parish councils in industrial areas if they reconsidered the Clause. We have asked the Government to concede many points during the last few days but they have conceded scarcely one. This is not an unreasonable request to make. I regard this particular Clause with considerable apprehension, striving to represent, as I do, an industrial area which is very much concerned about this matter. It is not my area only, though it has suffered very severely during recent years. We heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) this afternoon, in an excellent speech, what have been the actual facts in regard to loans made in England in days gone by. In a large number of cases they have not been repaid. One need not he surprised. It is an old saying that,
  2002
  "You cannot get butter out of a dog's throat,"
  also that,
  "You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear,"
  and further that,
  "You cannot take the 'breeks' off a Highland man."
  You cannot do the impossible. The Lord Advocate was good enough to tell us that the English system of loans has existed for centuries, although he was careful to explain that it had been very little used. It so happens that I have hail considerable experience of industrial disputes in this country. My first experience of an industrial stoppage was in 1875, and in one way or another, I have been mixed up in many big disputes in the coal mining industry. I have never known a case until quite recently where the miners have availed themselves of this opportunity of loans. Certainly there were no such cases previous to 1893, and the dispute of 1893 lasted for sixteen weeks and affected 400,000 men. In 1892, there was a dispute in Durham and I think in Northumberland, which lasted for many weeks, and this practice was not in operation then. In 1894, in the mining areas of Scotland it did not apply and it did not apply, I am told, in 1912. I shall be obliged to the Lord Advocate for some further confirmation of his statement as to the extent to which it has been used.
  There is the further point that it will inflict a grave hardship upon a deserving class of the community. Let the Committee consider what will happen if this money be paid in the form of loans and has to be repaid in Scotland on the terms which have already been enforced in Durham. What happens on the termination of a dispute in the mining or some other industry? To begin with, arrears of all kinds have to be met by the perplexed housewife. There are arrears of house rent which have to be paid after the commencement of work—not merely the ordinary rent but something additional towards the arrears. It may be a quarter or half the amount. Then there are arrears due to the insurance company; there are loans from tradesmen to be repaid; there are arrears due on the hire purchase system, whereby an increasingly large number of working people have to furnish their homes. According to the standard of

  2003
  home life these payments may cover a number of years. There are also loans from relatives and other sources. It has also to be borne in mind that when work is resumed the collieries may only work for two or three or four days in a week, and all money that is going into a household will be required for the provision of the barest necessities of life. If this proposal becomes law, it will inflict an additional burden on an already overburdened section of the community in Scotland.
  It will come into law with the opposition of the whole body of Labour Members here, and without a single word in its favour from a Scottish Conservative Member, except that in two cases Amendments have been moved, one by the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Lanarkshire (Sir A. Sprot) and the other by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), both of which were rejected by the Government. So far as I can recall, there has not been a word in favour of this proposal from any of the Conservative Members from Scotland who represent chiefly agricultural areas and not industrial areas. Therefore, it will became law by the votes of Conservative Members who have not heard the Debate and who do not understand the conditions which prevail in Scotland. It is another reason in favour of Home Rule for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite may "Smile, and smile, and smile," and, if I knew no more about Scottish life than they do, and if I were in the happy position in which they are, perhaps I too could afford to smile. But if one has been among the people of Scotland and has lived their life, followed their work, and understood their hardships, then one must have a heart of stone to smile at the kind of thing which is going on at present. Just now the people of Scotlnad are suffering grievous burdens with extraordinary patience and they ought not to be called upon to bear further burdens. I hope this Clause will be withdrawn. We have heard much in this House in recent months about the principles which exist in industry in America and the prosperity which prevails there. I should like to see some effort made by the Government, if they are sincere in their thoughts about peace and goodwill in industry, to see if it is
  2004
  not possible by modern methods and machinery to pay the highest wage and sell products at the lowest price in order to bring real prosperity back to the country. That is not the method which we usually advocate, but I am sure it is taking place there and I hope it will take place here.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope the Committee is now prepared to come to a decision. We do not complain of the length of this Debate. I welcome the opportunity which it has afforded to Members on all sides of expressing their views upon this problem. It may be observed in passing that there has been a measure of advantage in having the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House in order that the vexed points of difference between English and Scottish law might be fully explored. I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say that, in introducing this particular Clause of the Bill, there was no desire on the part of the Government or of those responsible for promoting the Bill, other than to produce as nearly as we might, similar conditions in the administration of this relief in England and in Scotland. I will not labour this point, but I would observe that some hon. Members have talked as if they only desired this Bill to deal with what is past, and to leave the situation in Scotland in the position in which it was when this relief was declared illegal. I have said that such a proposal is impossible. It is clearly a condition of the making of the 40 per cent. grant by the Government that this Clause 3 shall be part of the Measure. I am at a loss to understand why a system which it has been possible to administer in England over a long period of time should be found impossible of administration by Scottish methods.
  Mr. BATEY: No, it is only a recent matter.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member says it has only been introduced recently, but that is not the fact. The fact is that the law has made it permissible in England for over a generation to carry out this method of relief.
  Mr. BATEY: But it was never put into operation until this Government came into power.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Not at all, that is quite erroneous. I think the Lord Advocate made it clear that in regard to the ordinary method of Poor Law relief in this country, the system of loan was not largely or in many cases adopted. Yet it is the fact that it has been used. It has been used during large industrial disputes such as this country has unfortunately had to go through. Some hon. Members have quoted to us evidence given before the Poor Law Commission in 1909. Is there a single lion. Member here who would say that the conditions and circumstances which we have to face to-day are the conditions and circumstances which those who were giving evidence in 1909 had to face? The truth of the matter is that the only justification for this relief is to be found in the modern difficulties which have arisen in connection with these great disputes. In these circumstances, I am confident that the common sense, not only of the general populace in Scotland, but of those who have to administer parish council relief and who will be responsible for the carrying out of what is always an onerous duty, will realise the advantage which this proposal gives to them in dealing fairly and honestly with the cases which arise and in doing their work properly. Something has been said about Scottish independence. I am not going to attempt a definition of independence, but is it conceivable that, if a man wishes to be independent, he will be less ready to take, in fair and proper circumstances, a loan but will prefer to become dependent on poor relief?
  Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: He is a pauper all the same.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not agree.
  Mr. WEBB: The man who receives Poor Law Relief on loan is a pauper, remains a pauper, and is still a pauper, even if the full amount be repaid. That is the law.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: But if we are dealing with what we call moral independence, does anyone suggest that the acceptance of a loan is not a far more independent line than the other line? Be that as it may, this is one of the conditions under which this advantage is being given to the dependants of those concerned in industrial disputes, an ad-
  2006
  vantage which has been denied to Scotland up to now. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Dunferm-line (Mr. W. M'Lean Watson) as to the distribution of this 40 per cent. If I understand the position aright, it is essential that the disbursements which have been made by the parish councils in this respect, and which have been kept in separate accounts, must be submitted to the Board of Health. If and when these accounts have been properly audited there is no doubt that the councils will get 40 per cent. of their approved expenditure. That was, as I understood it, the nature of the question, and I think that is a fair and reasonable way of dealing with it.
  Mr. W. M'LEAN WATSON: Does that apply to emergency relief or to all relief by the parish council?
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, it is to apply only to what has been called the "illegal relief," such as that which was dealt with in the Constable judgment. Nobody has suggested any other method of meeting this problem. That was the reason for the Government having to take action in the matter. The decision in the Court brought the matter to a head, and it was to deal with the problem and regularise the situation that the Bill was introduced. It cannot be expected to extend to other circumstances. I think it will be found by experience that the proposal is fair, honest and just; that it will make the administration equal in its justice, or injustice as hon. Members may like to say, between Scotland and England in dealing with this problem, and it can at the end of 1930, or even before that, come up for review if and when Parliament may determine.
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I have no intention of standing for any long time between the Committee and the taking of the Division, but there are some points which want some amplification before we finish the debate regarding this Third Clause. In his closing statement, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that evidently hon. Members wanted only to deal with the past without making any arrangements for the future. So far as my colleagues and myself are concerned, that is not our attitude. We have a pro-

  2007
  found difference on certain points of the Bill. For instance, we differ on the amount that is to be paid by the Government. We have differed from the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the loans, and we differ profoundly this afternoon from the Lord Advocate particularly, on the question of making an alimentary debt. I want to thank the Lord Advocate for making the concession that he has made regarding the question of an alimentary debt. It certainly removes one of our difficulties.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I have undertaken only to consider it.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I understood that the Lord Advocate informed us that that was a matter that he would consider and put right on the Report Stage. That was our understanding.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I said I would undertake to consider it before the Report Stage. That is all that was said.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I understood it was to be considered from the point of view of the difficulties we have pointed out. I do not want to put words into the Lord Advocate's mouth that he did not say, but that is quite frankly what we understood. So far as Clause 3 is concerned, we still profoundly object to what it contains. The Lord Advocate has told us, just as the Secretary of State for Scotland has told us in the course of these discussions, that this is emergency legislation. It is legislation to tide us over for a certain time. Surely it is a mistake to put into emergency legislation such a vital change as is implied in this question of a loan so far as the Scottish Poor Law is concerned. It is a principle we have never had embodied in our Poor Law during the whole course of our history, and surely, if you are bringing forward an emergency Measure that is to tide us over until you can go into the whole question of the Poor Law of the country, it is a mistake to make a vital change of that character. Consequently, we are profoundly dissatisfied with Clause 3.
  The Lord Advocate, in addition to what I have already quoted, said we evidently want the benefit of the English law without its limitation. I want to ask the
  2008
  Lord Advocate why not, if, from the experience of the English people, this has been found to be a vicious principle? I do not know whether the Lord Advocate was in the House two nights ago when we were discussing this same thing, and we had from my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for the Hillsborough Division of Sheffield (Mr. A. V. Alexander) a statement in which he painted a picture of the tragedy involved in the very point that we are discussing in this Bill, namely, the loan. He drew a picture of hundreds of miners being dragged before County Courts in England in order to recover the loans that they had obtained during the last nine months. Is that a tragedy that the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland can calmly contemplate so far as Scotland is concerned No, that is a phase of this qeustion that is far too serious to be calmly contemplated by any section of the Scottish Members, and I would earnestly appeal, even at this late stage in the discussion, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate seriously to discuss the point that we are objecting to in Clause 3 where money granted by way of emergency relief is going to be looked upon as a loan. Some of us who live in industrial districts, and particularly in the mining districts, know what it would mean if this particular law were in operation now. We know that in the mining districts there are families owing as much as £20 for rent and rates. In addition to that, there are the arrears for medical attendance on the wives and families. They have also the debt they have incurred to the grocer and the baker and to others who have been supplying their wants during those nine months. If this particular Clause we are now discussing had been in operation, it would simply have meant a-at they would have had an additional debt amounting in each family to between £15 and £20 which would have meant that the wages of the miners in Scotland would have been in pawn for the next 18 months or two years. That is the position that is involved in the point we are discussing.
  May I say further to the Lord Advocate that, even the concession with regard to alimentary debt, even the granting of that concession and the removal of the difficulty, will not place the Scottish miners and the English miners on exactly

  2009
  an equality, because in some of the mining districts of England, at least during these stoppages, no debt is accumulating so far as rent is concerned. In our Scottish districts, under present conditions, a heavy debt is being piled up against the Scottish miners during the course of these disputes. There have been cases where there is a debt of something like £20 against each family for rent and rates. Consequently, we cannot see our way to support a Measure that contains such things as the point we are discussing, namely, the granting of a loan, instead of giving to the relief of those who are caught in an emergency such as that for which this Bill makes provision. I hope the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland will see their way at this late hour to concede the point that we are asking, that it will not be a loan but that it will be a grant. I hope that they and the Government will recognise that the persons who are caught in an emergency are those persons who are paying their rates under normal conditions and circumstances, and, when they ate caught in an emergency, surely they are entitled to be treated in a different fashion than simply to be granted a loan which will hang round their necks like a millstone for months and possibly for years to come. We do not want
  repeated in Scotland some of the things they have had in recent times in England with regard to emergency relief, with men dragged up in hundreds in the mining districts and, if I understood one of my colleagues aright, in one case a man being left with only 11s., after he had been charged in Court and a decree given against him, on which to maintain his wife and children. I hope the Government, even this Conservative Government, are not going to be so hard hearted as to pass a law which will place that round the neck of the Scottish people. If they do, we at least on these benches will oppose it to the utmost of our power.
  Mr. WRIGHT: May I put one question to the Lord Advocate? He discussed loans as being available in England for generations. Will he specifiy the mining areas in England for the 50 years preceding 1921 where these loans have been used by the miners?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I should certainly need notice of that question.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 107.

  Division No. 21.]

  AYES.

  [7.13 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

  Albery, Irving James

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Gates, Percy

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Christie, J. A.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Apsley, Lord

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dove')

  Cope, Major William

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Hanbury, C.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Harland, A.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  hartington, Marquess of

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Brass, Captain W.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

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

  Ellis, R. G.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Forrest, W.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, N. (Ladywood)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

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

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Oakley, T.

  Starry-Deans, R.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Philipson, Mabel

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Lougher, L.

  Ratmden, E.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Tasker, R Inigo.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Lynn, Sir Robert J.

  Remer, J. R.

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

  MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wells, S. R.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sandon, Lord

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

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Savory, S. S.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Meller, R. J.

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Merriman, F. B.

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

  Withers, John James

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wood, Sir s. Hill- (High Peak)

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Smithers, Waldron

  Neville, R. J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Lord Stanley.

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

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

  NOES.

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

  Harris, Percy A.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ber (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barnes, A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Barr, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Kennedy, T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lee, F.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Livingstone, A. M.

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

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Connolly, M.

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duncan, C.

  Morris, R. H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

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

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Fenby, T. D.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Owen, Major G.

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Palin, John Henry

  whiteley, W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Riley, Ben

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D R. (Glamorgan)

  Ritson, J.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Groves, T.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Scryrngeour, E.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Hardie, George D.

  Scurr, John

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clauses 4 (11 and 12 Geo. V. c. 64 to be further continued) and 5 (Short title and extent), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [MONEY].
Resolution reported,
"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 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."

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 (Grants for public works), 2 (Certain debts not to be reckoned as assets of local loans fund), and 3 (Remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eyemouth Harbour) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to discharge of liability of Irish Free State Government in respect of local loans.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Colonel GRETTON: Clause 4 raises a question as to certain obligations by the Free State in the form of a fixed annuity of £600,000 for 20 years. I am not questioning the arrangement made on behalf of the British Government nor saying that it is not a businesslike one and, on the whole, one which it is not desirable to make, but before the Clause is accepted by the Committee, I would take the opportunity of asking the representative of the Treasury what the. Treasury think of the security for the payments proposed to be made in discharge of the debt. A speech was made in the House the other day—unfortunately, I only heard the end of it —taking a very optimistic view of the general condition of things in the Irish Free State, but information of another kind is disclosed by the official returns. The latest figures of revenue returns and expenditure show that there is a deficit
2014
in the public revenue. The railway receipts have fallen very heavily, and particularly in the total of goods carried and on account of the reduced traffic. There is another aspect of the case. The bank returns have progressively and steadily fallen for a number of years, and the decrease in the turnover is exceedingly marked. The banking turnover has fallen steadily and increasingly ever since the year 1922, when the Irish Free State was set up. Looking at other official returns of exports and imports, it will be seen that the trade of Ireland is unfortunately declining, and those who know the Free-State well remark, on all occasions when they come here, on the increasing amount of poverty and distress which exists there. All this is exceedingly deplorable, and to be lamented by every Englishman in this House. My right hon. Friend will probably say that the repayment is more secure than it would have been under the arrangement which it supersedes, but the general aspect of the case is of serious importance to the English Treasury, and I would respectfully ask my right hon. Friend if he can give the Committee some assurance as to what is the position as to the security for repayment of the debt.
Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It is rather a pity that, arising out of the controversy with Ireland, in regard to which we came to a settlement some years ago, the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) does not seem to learn very much as the years go by. We have debated this case again and again in the House, and most of us thought we had come to a decision when we should no longer have these matters raised in an acrimonious way.
Colonel GRETTON: I must protest. I have not said one word that could be called acrimonious. On the contrary, I said I deplored the position.
Mr. ALEXANDER: Nobody who listened to the speech or who examines the OFFICIAL REPOET to-morrow will fail to take this point, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made reference to the economic position of the Irish Free State as being worse than it ought to be since it became a Free State, and that opinion, expressed by a right hon. and gallant Gentleman who held the position which he occupied in the controversy, will be taken on that basis by the

2015
public when it is published. It seems to us on this side, at any rate, to be a matter of very great regret that the occasion of making a stabilising arrangement, as I take this to be, between the Treasury and the Irish Free State should be used for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the decrease in railway receipts in the Irish Free State, but I wonder what he thinks of the reports of a decrease in the railway receipts in this country.
Colonel GRETTON: There was no coal strike in Ireland.
Mr. ALEXANDER: Surely the volume of traffic moved in the Irish Free State has been affected to some extent by the position in this country, and the whole position in regard to trade ought to be dealt with from the point of view of Great Britain and the Irish Free State as a whole. The same thing might be applied to his remarks concerning the alleged poverty of the people in the Irish Free State. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not desire to give private information to the Committee. He may have private information which is not available to us, but, at any rate, we do not need private information to understand what is the poverty of the people in this country, as a result of the carrying out of the very policy which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has upheld in supporting the Government here. I should not have said these things to-night if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not made the point. As a matter of fact, the only question which really arises on this Clause is this: Is it wise for the British Treasury at this stage to make an arrangement with the Irish Free State which will be of advantage to the Treasury, because it eliminates the risk to this country of fluctuating expenses in connection with the debt?
If that is the point to be settled, surely it is very unworthy to raise political and controversial issues on such a question as that. I have asked at a previous stage of the Bill—and I am sure the Financial Secretary did not resent the question—that it would be of great value and interest if we could have had something more detailed than the general assurance he gave us that the settlement to be made was a favourable settlement
2016
to the Treasury. If we could have had a statement, say, as to what would he the actual saving which he estimated to the British Treasury, it would have been assuring to the House generally. While we desire to be assured on that matter, we do not forget the Debates in the House in the last few years in which we have drawn attention to the very favourable settlement made by the Members of the House at the expense of the British taxpayer in favour of Northern Ireland. We do not forget that, and because we have asked questions about the settlement made in the past with regard to Northern Ireland, we think it only fair to ask the same question with regard to the settlement with the Irish Free State, to make sure that the interest of the British taxpayer is being safeguarded.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I confess it occurred to me that the reproof administered by the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. and gallant Friend was entirely out of place. I am bound to say that, as far as I have been able to judge, if any acrimony has been introduced into the Debate to-night, it is not by my right hon. Friend, but by the hon. Gentleman. I think my right hon. Friend, or any Member of this House, when we are discussing financial arrangements between the Free State and ourselves, is perfectly entitled to call attention to any matter bearing upon the economic and financial position of the country with which we are in intimate relation. My right hon. Friend asks whether the Treasury think that the payments which we have arranged to receive are reasonably secure. I am quite aware of the financial difficulties with which the Free State has to contend, and I sympathise with the Government and country which have to contend with those difficulties. We have our own financial difficulties, and we are not, perhaps, in a position that we can throw stones at anybody else.
The short answer which I will give to my right hon. Friend is that this is the compounding of a debt. Whatever the difficulties the Irish Free State may have in meeting their obligations to us, I am sure they will meet them honestly and honourably if they can, and I think they will be able to do so without any danger of default. But if any hon. Member has

2017
any doubts on that point, let him reflect that if we had not made these arrangements, if we had not funded the debt, there would still have been a continuing liability from the Irish Free State to ourselves, extending over a very much longer period than under this arrangement, and if there are difficulties under this arrangement, the difficulties in the other case would have been probably greater. The hon. Gentleman opposite also suggested there might be some difficulty in obtaining these payments from the Irish Free State, and I understood him to ask me some question with regard to the financial stability of that Government and country.
Mr. ALEXANDER: The only question I put was whether he could give, us something more in detail, in view of the assurance that the settlement was favourable to us.
Mr. McNEILL: I think the way the hon. Gentleman put it was, what was the saving? I explained quite fully yesterday that it is not a question of saving; it is a question of liquidating the debt. What I pointed out was that the arrangement we have made with the Irish Free State was such that the interest upon the debt will be paid, the capital debt liquidated by the sinking fund forming part of these annuities, and that at the end of 20 years we shall have extinguished the debt. If that be realised—and, as I have already said, we do not anticipate that it will not he realised—surely that is a very satisfactory arrangement from our point of view, even if it were not also true, as I have pointed out, that it eliminates possible causes of friction and of overlapping between the two Governments. Moreover, it does not leave us in the position to pay charges over which we should have no control, and no opportunity of investigation. Therefore, both from the political point of view and the financial point of view, it appears to be an arrangement which this House might very reasonably accept.
Clause 5 (Short Title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): As there are some Private Bills set down for 8.15, the Sitting is suspended until that time.
Sitting suspended at Twenty Minutes before Eight o'Clock.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order, Mr. Hope. I wish to paint out that the objections as far as my friends and myself are concerned to this Bill are identically on the same ground as to the general omnibus Bill which follows, and, if it meet the convenience of the House, instead of having two Debates, I suggest that the general Debate might take place on the first Bill, and we will accept the result of that Debate in relation to the other Bills. I think that will be the best method of procedure.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): If that meet the general wish of the House, I have no objection. But it must be understood that the Division on the first Bill will take place in time for the second Bill to be proceeded with.
Sir EVELYN CECIL: Being in charge of the second Bill, I have no objection to that course.
Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
My object in moving this Amendment is to get some assurance in regard to certain railway employés. We have heard a good deal about pleading for peace in industry, and a few days ago I remarked on that point that if the employers would set about the matter, and agree to have some machinery for dealing with affairs in their various departments, they would find the trade union officials had been long upon their doorstep, in fact we are now knocking at their door

2019
and axe asking that something should be done as far as representation is concerned for a group of persons who work on the railways. At the present time the National Union of Railwaymen are allowed to negotiate in regard to such employés as sea captains, sailors, dredgermen, lighthouse keepers and divers who are in the employ of the railway companies. Yet we are not allowed to negotiate on behalf of the hotel staff, neither have we got machinery similar to that enjoyed by the travelling grades for the dining car staff. One would want a rather elastic imagination to assume that the dining car staff are not as closely allied to railway workers as sea captains, lighthouse keepers or divers. I see the Minister of Transport sitting opposite, and I dare say he is often in trouble when making a railway journey about consulting a time table, but if he gees on to a railway station even the common or garden porter can tell him at once what he wants to know. It is the same in the hotels where you find capable people who are quite encyclopœdias, and Yet they are not allowed to have the machinery that we want for these men. The people for whom we are pleading want a union like the National Union of Railwaymen to put their case for them.
Mr. THOMAS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think there will not be any challenge from supporters of this Bill asserting that we are not exercising a perfectly legitimate right in taking this Parliamentary opportunity to ventilate a situation which really is not contained in the Bill. I know in the early stages of the blocking of Railway Bills there were folks who argued that it was unfair to raise in the House of Commons matters which are not specifically dealt with in the particular Bill before the House. Parliament has always held that, when any corporation is seeking extended powers from this House, the House is entitled to express its views as to whether they think that particular body is doing the right thing, and I think that particular general principle has been accepted all round. So far as the merits of the Bill are concerned—my observations apply to both Bills—I not only think that they are good Bills, but I go further and I
2020
say they are necessary Bills, in fact, both railway companies are entitled to say to the House that, so fir as the merits of these particular Bills are concerned, they are not only necessary and requisite, but that they serve a useful public purpose. My hon. Friend who preceded me has already pointed out that there never was a time when conciliation in industrial disputes could more appropriately take the place of strikes and lock-outs. Whatever may be said generally about recent events or the broad principle of peace in industry, I believe that too little has been made of the real spirit of conciliation in a large number of industrial disputes.
I believe that the machinery existing in the railway service which is now applied to a large section of railway workers, is not only the best machinery in the country, but I believe it is machinery which embodies a principle that could be usefully copied by many other industries in this country, because the primary function of that machinery is to exhaust every possible means of conciliation and negotiation, and thus render it almost impossible to resort to a strike if it is humanly possible. But, over and above that, my experience of trade negotiations is that often the two parties themselves are so intimately connected or wrapped up with the individual side of their particular case, that a new mind, an independent person who can bring an independent and clear mind to bear on fie situation, will contribute to a solution of the problem. In the National Wages Board, my experience proves conclusively that representatives of Capital and Labour who are independent of the railway industry themselves, can often contribute, and have on many occasions contributed, to a solution of these problems. Therefore, on the question of the machinery, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it is good, and I want to see it extended and developed.
I myself, not only when the present Railways Act—th amalgamating Act—was passing through this House, but in the negotiations chat preceded the passing of the Act, made strenuous efforts to make the machinery I have already described sufficiently elastic to include everybody. And I have said publicly outside, and I say in this House, that I know of nothing that would go further

2021
to contribute to industrial peace on the railways than the passibility of bringing every grade in the service within the purview of that machinery. I am not unmindful of the fact that, while it is easy to say that, there are many difficulties in the way; but, notwithstanding that, I still look upon that as an ideal and something worth accomplishing. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, a large section of railwaymen to-day are not only excluded from the conciliation machinery, but are deprived of the necessary trade union machinery for conducting their negotiations. The argument of the railway companies can be shortly summarised in this way, that the dining-car staff is so interwoven with the hotel staff, and is so different in its character, its work, and so on, that it is difficult to connect them with the railwaymen, and to make them in the broad sense railwaymen.
We do not think that there are insuperable difficulties. We believe that there ought to be machinery, we believe that all employés to-day in the service of any body or any corporation should not only have the right to have, but should actually have, some trade union body, if they so desire, to conduct their negotiations. This has been felt so keenly by the Executive Committee of our Union that they decided that this matter should be ventilated. It would be easy to force a Division on a matter of this kind, but, whatever the result of the Division might be, even if it went in our favour, that would not solve the problem. It might have the effect of killing the Bill, of killing a good Bill and preventing the doing of necessary things; but it still would not solve the problem with which I am dealing, namely, the spirit of negotiation and conciliation, and the right of negotiation for all employés. That, as I have said, can only be done, not by rejecting a Bill of this kind, but by a spirit of good will on both sides. I see in front of me a number of hon. Gentlemen who are as closely connected with the railways on the one side as I am on the other, and I am quite sure that, having listened to the eloquence of my hon. Friend and to the plea that I am myself making, they will not only take due note of it, but will convey to that body which never does any work except draw their
2022
fees, the arguments that we have put forward.
Mr. LLOYD: I think it will not be improper, even in view of the very amiable speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), if I offer a few words of explanation to the House on this Bill. I understand that the matter of it is not really the subject of any dispute on the part of either the Mover or the Seconder of the Amendment, and I think, therefore, that just a brief word is all that is required. The Bill is a perfectly ordinary Bill, seeking general powers for railway works, and I think that perhaps the only thing that might be said about it in that regard is to draw a comparison between the extraordinarily elaborate harness which Parliament, in its wisdom, has fitted upon the railway companies when they are trying to carry out their work in the service of the public, and the unwillingness of the other half of the industry, namely, the trade union side, to welcome any similar harness. We are certainly gravely restricted in the maintenance of our duties to the public by the necessity of coming to this House for powers, but that is a necessity which has been enforced upon the railways by Parliament and we must put up with it. Perhaps the only other word that need be said about the Bill is this, and it is a mere matter of sentimental consideration to those of us who are engineers and are interested in the great engineering works of this country. It is that, among the lesser powers which are sought in this Bill, are powers for a certain diversion of the railway lines in Cornwall, which is really concerned with the elimination from the railway system of the fine old timber viaducts which were monuments of the great engineering capability of that early railway engineer Brunel. That, I am sure, is a, matter of regret to all of us who are interested in the engineering profession, and it is, perhaps, worth while to draw the attention of the House to it.
I understand that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are concerned, not with the subject-matter of the Bill, but with the desire—a perfectly proper desire—to draw the attention of the House to certain features of railway organisation to which they take exception. That exception is taken par-

2023
ticularly to the fact that there are certain men engaged in the railway service who do not at present come within the compass of the great organisation of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is the leader. I do not think that that is a matter on which the House will itself desire to pass judgment; and I would go further, and say that we on these Benches would probably ourselves have more faith in the wisdom and the ability for negotiation, and all the machinery for the settlement of such disputes by conciliation, which are represented by the right hon. Gentleman, than in any decision of the House on such subjects. These are intimate matters of railway policy which are best decided by those most expert and most informed on the matter, and are certainly not easily understood by Members who have so many other matters to occupy their mind. It is, perhaps, rather easy to demonstrate the difficulty of the subject even to the lay mind. The Mover said, quite rightly, that many people in the service of the railway companies remote from the immediate rail service are mines of knowledge about railway working, and with that I cordially agree. But this class of people engaged on the railways does include men not only actively employed on the running plant but also men engaged in refreshment rooms and hotels, and I suppose I should also include women in that class. I have no doubt there are women engaged in the railway service who are equally competent to give information about train services and so on. I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman's union is open to women, but I imagine there are limits in that direction which might even prove a difficulty to him.
Another point I might raise is that among these various classes come all the cooking staff, not only in the hotels but on the railways—cooks and assistant cooks. A cook is a poet, an artist, a person not subject to ordinary rules at all, and the right hon. Gentleman's endeavour to bring such a person under the ordinary routine regulations of a union may be a far greater undertaking than he himself realises. I do not want to labour that point—it is, after all, a matter for him—but no one recognises more than those "lilies of the field," I think he would call them, the railway
2024
directors, people who "toil not neither do they spin,' the enormous value, not only in the public service but in the ordinary commercial working of a great undertaking like the railway, of the great conciliation machinery which has grown so much in usefulness under the able support and encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman. None of us would wish to do anything that would put any difficulties in the way of that machinery, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) will be willing to show their faith in conciliation by withdrawing their opposition to what I think they both agree is a perfectly good Bill and by leaving this question to be worked out among the experts who are capable of dealing with it. In that hope I am sure those on these benches who are connected with railway companies are only too anxious to convey to the responsible authorities of those railways, and particularly in this connection to the responsible authorities of the Great Western Railway, the very encouraging views of the Mover and Seconder, and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman, and I should like to assure him that they will do so.
Mr. W. BAKER: I am reluctant to break in upon this very pleasant discussion with an element of criticism, but I welcome the opportunity because I think it is about time a few words were said with regard to the Southern Railway in the House as well as in the newspaper Press. I rejoice to see that the hon. Baronet the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) is present, and I hope he will be as vigorous in his condemnation of the Southern Railway to-night as he is periodically in the columns of the "Times," and seeing that the two companies are bracketed on this occasion suggest to the spokesmen for the Southern Railway that they might quite well take the Great Western Railway as their model in very many respects. I believe a very strong indictment could be made out with regard to the Southern Railway Company if an attempt were made to survey it as a railway system. One right refer to their Continental services and to the practice which they follow alone amongst English railways of charging higher fares to persons who have occasion to use boat trains. One

2025
might refer to the way it has broken out into a huge development in respect of Pulman cars while leaving the third-class passengers to travel in pre-historic carriages. One might almost ask why it is that the directors of the Southern Railway Company are so interested in developing the Pulman car side of their service. One is almost prompted to ask whether the directors are interested in the company which manufactures and runs Pulman cars on British roads. If it is a fact that they are so interested I think that item of information would be of very great interest to the many hundreds of thousands of persons who use the railway regularly throughout the year.
I want to confine myself to-night to two very small points in the hope that this discussion may lead to an improvement. The first is with regard to the time table of the Southern Railway. I congratulate the person who first thought of the idea. It is certainly remarkably ingenious to arrange with Bradshaw that a section of Bradshaw should be sold as the Southern Railway time table at a cost to the passenger of 6d., but speaking for myself, I find that the modern so-called Southern Railway time table is far from being suitable to my purposes as a traveller. Take one illustration, about which I wrote to the company. It runs an electric train service: between Victoria and Coulsdon, but if you wish to find a reference to the trains, despite the fact that it is a regular and a valuable service, you can only obtain that information by making two separate references, and if you want the information in an easy form I know of no other way in which it can be obtained than by writing to a local station, say Purley or Coulsdon, and purchasing a local time table at a cost, including postage, of about 5d. I think the company might very well give this matter their attention and endeavour to place the information which is required in the public's hand in the easiest and simplest possible form.
The second point is with regard to the railway service between Streatham Hill, Streatham and the main line of the old Brighton railway, to places like Purley and Coulsdon. I hope this matter will he within the knowledge of the spokesman of the railway company, because I have had correspondence with the Minister of Transport on the subject and I under-
2026
stand that he was good enough to bring the matter to the notice of the Southern Railway Company. Both Streatham Hill and Streatham are on the main Brighton Road, and one would imagine that the railway service would be anxious to compete with the large number of road vehicles which pass along that thoroughfare. Between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. it is possible to go by omnibus, or partly by omnibus and partly by tram, from Streatham Hill to Coulsdon at a cost of a few coppers; it may be 4d., certainly it will not be much more. I understand that at any time of the clay it is possible to go from Streatham Hill to Coulsdon at a total cost of 8d. for the single journey. When we turn to the railway company's means of transport, I understand that the return fare is in the neighbourhood of 2s. 9d. If the railway company offer cheap facilities, and quite possibly they do, they are very careful not to advertise them too widely. In addition, it is with the utmost difficulty that you can make the journey by rail from the stations in question.
The substance of my request to-night is that the railway company will see whether it is not within their power to run their present electric service beyond the Crystal Palace so that passengers in the area to which I have referred may have the means of connecting up with the main line at East Croydon or, alternatively, that they will see whether it is not possible to run some sort of service from Streatham via Streatham Common on to the main line to Purley and Coulsdon. I have no knowledge as to the position regarding the railway track between Streatham and Streatham Common but, judging by a plan which appears in the railway time table, it would appear that an actual track is in existence. I hope that the railway company will give their careful consideration to these complaints, and that it may be possible not only greatly to improve the railway facilities in the districts referred to, but also that it may be possible for the railway company to put on something like a competing service with the road servives of which they complain.
Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: On the last occasion on which I addressed myself to railway Bills before this House, I had the strenuous oppo-

2027
sition of the two right hon. Gentlemen now on the Front Opposition Bench, with results which are to be found in the third Bill before the House this evening—the Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill. Like the last speaker, I want to take this, the only, opportunity which the procedure of the House offers, to make a few criticisms and, I hope, to offer a few suggestions about the Continental service of the Southern Railway Company. I would like to point out, first, that this Continental service of the Southern Railway Company practically represents a monopoly. It is true that there are other ser vices to the Continent, but the service from Dover to Calais and the service from Folkestone to Boulogne are the only services which connect with the large through Continental trains, and, therefore, for all practical purposes, they create a monopoly. How does the Southern Railway utilise the monopoly, and what is its effect upon the traffic? It is quite obvious that if people wish to travel abroad they must cross the sea somehow. They cannot swim across, although I am quite sure that many distressed passengers have recognised the fact that such a crossing would be much more comfortable than by the ordinary passenger boats, but, unfortunately, that would take too long. Therefore they are obliged to travel in the boat which the railway company provide.
I am not concerned with what may be called the first-class 11 o'clock service from Victoria. That is an extremely good service. Partly as a result of the criticism, in the Press, in this House and elsewhere, that service is now admirable, and it only shows what a railway company can do if they try. The new boats that they provide are commodious, and in every way first class. The railway accommodation on the other side, largely owing to the enterprise of the sleeping car company, the Pullman Dar Company, is also first rate. The service which I criticise is the one which ought to be the best, that is, the service which provides for the poorer classes of excursionists, whose comfort, apparently, is totally disregarded at the present time. What is called the 10 o'clock service from Paris, makes a connection with trains from Switzerland, for instance, where a great number of excursionists go by the
2028
Polytechnic, Cook's, and other tourist services. They connect with the 10 o'clock service from Paris, which takes on to Calais passengers who have paid comparatively inexpensively for the journey and voyage from all parts of Europe.
That service, I do not hesitate to say, is nothing less than a scandal. The boat is small, old and antiquated, and at certain times of the year is crowded beyond the limits of safety. The boat on which I travelled recently by that service contained about 757 passengers, in addition to the crew. Of the boats, which accommodate 30 passengers each, I think, at the outside, there may have been 10, so that if any accident had happened in fog or otherwise to that ship on the way over, there would have been accommodation for only 300 passengers at the outside in the boats, and the rest would have been left to drown or swim, or get over as best they could. Therefore, these ships are not only uncomfortable, but, in my submission, they are unsafe.
The scene that we witnessed on that boat was degrading to the enterprise and the commercial reputation of this company. What the foreigners think of it when they cross for the first time. I cannot imagine, but what the people from the United States think of it I can imagine, because they expressed their opinion very loudly and frankly to me several times on board the ship on the way over. There is not seating accommodation for half the people. The cabins are crowded downstairs—the ones where the restaurant is—and the ordinary cabins for the public are so crowded that you are fortunate enough if you can find standing room in them. I have seen 10 or 15 women lying on the floor of the ladies' cabin, because there was no room for them to sit and, incidentally, the crossing was rough, and they were extremely sick. The discomfort of that voyage across is beyond all description, and the only excuse we get is that the railway company says it is a French boat. That is no excuse whatever. I pay my fare to the English railway company in London who, presumably, are partners with the French company, and having taken my railway fare and carried me across the sea, they are bound to provide me reasonable accommodation on the way home. It is no answer to say that the boat flies the French flag, or the flag of any other nationality you like to think

2029
of. It is part of the service of the railway company, and they should arrange with their partners to see that the service is decent—and decent it is not at the present time. The boats which they provide for the more opulent service show what they can do, but they are disgracefully neglecting in this service the very people who should be provided for.
In an article in a newspaper the other day it was said that these people were holidaymakers hurrying home. If they were hurrying home they would not go by the Southern—it would be singularly ineffective. But if it were true, why should passengers hurrying home not be provided with comfort as well as anybody else? You get on board. You push your way along and you are very fortunate if you can stand. You fall over luggage at every corner. In the restaurant you cannot find a seat. If you do and you are fortunate enough to get food, you are overcharged for it, and, ultimately, when you get into the harbour at Dover you are flooded by an inrush of porters, all squabbling, everyone covering their backs with luggage like the White Knight in "Alice in Wonderland." When you have fought your way up the narrow gangway, half the size it ought to be, on to the quay and get to the Customs House, you are fortunate if you get to your destination three-quarters of an hour after the advertised time. And when you get to London the greatest scandal of the whole journey takes place. You have to wait, very often, half or three quarters of an hour on a greasy platform for your luggage to be examined, not in a properly warmed shed, but on the platform where you have arrived. It is not the case of people who have had a comfortable sleeping car on the journey, who are met by servants at the station and who have their luggage fetched the next day. How about the people who cannot afford this, who have had to sit up all night, who are rather cross, but who have been fortunate enough to catch the first train to Victoria. On a cold December night they have to walk up and down the platform for three quarters of an hour until all the other trains come in, generally from half an hour to two hours late, at the end of which the Custom House officers examine their luggage on the platform. A nice occupation for Christmas! It makes men
2030
men, but it is peculiarly distressing for an over-tired old gentleman to have to walk up and down a platform—you cannot sit and wait—for three quarters of an hour. Could anything be more inhuman?
9.0 p.m.
Surely this company, which has been spending a good deal of money at Southampton, could provide some sort of shed where people could wait, or they might even provide camp stools and let them out at 6d. an hour. It might help them to pay a dividend on their common stock. When there is a crush on the train services at holiday times the Southern Railway find no difficulty in providing extra trains; when excursions are running on Whitsuntide, August Bank Holiday, or Christmas. They know how many passengers they have to carry on the boats going from Dover to Calais and on the return journey. They know exactly how many, and if they can provide relief trains at the stations at holiday times, why cannot they provide a relief steamer at the port? It is perfectly easy to do. The old-fashioned, archaic boats that are run on this service are interesting survivals of a bygone age, and might serve as examples in the British Museum. They would be interesting as relics, but as boats of travel they are deplorable. These old tubs: surely they can run two of them, as they know in ample time the number of passengers. What is to prevent them? The expense! After all, if the company are catering for the public, and carry them as part of your Continental service and charge reasonable fares, they ought, to make reasonable provision and provide for an excessive number of passengers on the sea, just as they provide for an excessive number at the station.
The Southern Railway, instead of saying, "There is a sea voyage intervening, and we will make it as little disagreeable as we can," apparently take exactly the opposite view, and say, "There is a sea voyage intervening; we cannot help a little discomfort; it will not matter very much, and you are sure to be sick." That is their attitude. I hope something will be done in this particular service. Do not let it be supposed that I am criticising the whole of the services. I am criticising this particular one. Either they should

2031
arrange that no excessive number of passengers is concentrated on these old boats, or else arrange with the French Government or the French railway to provide, at any rate, decent and reasonable accommodation. I hope the Debate this evening will lead to something being done.
Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The speech to which we have just listened is one of the most heart-breaking it has ever been my lot to listen to. It is the sort of speech which we might have expected from the Labour benches. The argument put forward in the speech of the hon. and learned Member is, that if we want something we cannot afford, great injustice is being done. From my own experience, I would say that there is a very simple remedy for all the complaints of the hon. and learned Member. Before the War, when I was comparatively well-to-do, I used to go by this route to the Continent; but, since the War, not being able to afford the faxes on that service, I just did not go, because I knew considerable discomfort would be involved if I did. There is no compulsion on anyone to go to Switzerland by the Polytechnic or any other tour for winter sports or anything else, and those who go to France go for the purpose for which the vast bulk do go to France. The hon. and learned Member should certainly cheer up and consider whether he could not avoid all the discomforts and injustices which he has enumerated by the simple process of not going.
Mr. WITHERS: I must congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Basset-law (Sir E. Hume-Williams) on having been able to get letters ventilating his views published in the journal he mentioned. I am sorry to say that my language has been so unrestrained in the various letters that I have written from year to year that that journal has not I ublished them. I wish to associate myself in every way with what the hon. and learned Member has said to-night. Unfortunately, I have had to go very often on business across the Channel, and I am bound to say that I can bear out everything about which the hon. and learned Member complains. The good services are very good; there is no doubt
2032
about it. The boats are good and so on. But the services, other than the 11 o'clock from London and the 12 o'clock from Paris, are really dreadful. The hon. and learned Member has dealt with all the points that call for discussion except one, and that I would like to mention. In returning from the Continent you come back, say, from Vienna, Zurich or some distant place, and that involves a night journey. You arrive at Boulogne, and there you find the boats entirely full. There is no sitting room for anyone after the long night journey. You ask the reason. What is it?
The railway people, in order to add to their enormous profits on this monopoly route, have had the audacity to allow 7s. 6d. day trippers to go over from Folkestone, and on the return journey to crowd out the long-distance travellers front whom they have extracted exorbitant charges. It is scandalous. If a company runs excursions it ought to run excursion steamers. What would be said if one of the great railway companies which runs great expresses to Scotland were to allow day trippers and Saturday afternoon trippers to crowd into the Scottish express? It is not at all reasonable. I hope that this Debate will bring some sense into the minds of the directors of the Southern Railway, sc that this sort of thing will not be allowed.
Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Basset-law (Sir E. Hume-Williams) who, it seems to me, has constituted himself the watch dog in this matter. There must be many Members of the House who, like myself, if and when they undertake a Channel crossing, will have the initials "E.H.W." painted in large white letters on their bags. There was one point, both in his speech and in that of the last speaker, with which I wish to quarrel. They have both spoken of this as a monopolist route. That it is not. It shows a certain lack of imagination that they have omitted to mention the simplest and easiest and safest and pleasantest method of travelling, which is that of Imperial Airways. The Imperial Airways route is a route that might in some respects be called a monopoly, because it has great privileges granted to it by the State, but if anyone is familiar with the difficulties

2033
put in the way of civil flying by the Government—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now discussing omnibus Bills of the Great Western and Southern Railways.
Sir G. BUTLER: I was hoping to return to that subject very quickly by saying that for these companies to accept the privileges they have without recognising a corresponding duty to the public whom they convey, is to misunderstand the whole situation and the privileges which they enjoy. I hope that as a matter of conscience, if nothing else, the directors of the Southern and Great Western Railways will take to heart some of the remarks that have been made to-night.
Mr. GALBRAITH: I want to say a few words which do not raise a problem so distressing as that mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams), but one which seriously affects many of the constituents whom I have the honour to represent. In my constituency is situated the important and growing district known as Purley. For some considerable time past we have been complaining of the railway facilities to Purley, and have been pressing upon the Southern Railway Company the desirability of improving them. A deputation of many of us waited upon the Company a year or so ago. We were told, "Oh, we admit that at present the railway facilities are not as they should be, but only wait until a certain portion of the line is electrified!" We have waited, and now that portion of the Southern Railway which runs to Purley is electrified. Unfortunately for the people who desire to travel upon that line, the railway company has by some mishap or another forgotten to warm the trains, and for steam trains we have had substituted electric trains which there is no means of heating. I have here a letter from the Clerk of the Urban District Council of Coulsdon and Purley, who mentions that a considerable number of people travel from Purley as far as East Croydon, and then get out of the cold electric trains for the purpose of entering steam trains, by which they can travel in reasonable comfort to London Bridge.
A few days ago, outside Cannon Street Station, I observed a poster which in
2034
large letters said, "Go to Surrey and be free from worry." I could not help thinking that that was an extremely daring thing for the Southern Railway to display in a prominent position.
There is another matter which we have long been pressing upon the Southern Railway Company and in regard to which we have got no satisfaction. About a year or so ago, a large number of the trains from Purley and district ran directly into Cannon Street and Charing Cross stations. It is within my own knowledge that a considerable number of people went to live in the Purley district because they were able to get this direct communication with Charing Cross and Cannon Street, which was extremely important for the purpose of the businesses and professions in which they were engaged. Some time this year a large number of these trains ceased to run into Cannon Street and Charing Cross, and ran instead into the detestable and melancholy district called "London Bridge Low Level." From there you have to go up to other parts of London Bridge platforms for the purpose of getting along to Cannon Street or Charing Cross. The difficulty is that there are eight or 10 platforms at London Bridge, and when you emerge from a train at the Low Level, you have not the slightest idea from which of the other platforms the connecting trains are to run. We have suggested to the company that it would be desirable and convenient to arrange for indicators to inform passengers where these connecting trains are to be found. These are two matters which we have been long pressing upon the Southern Railway Company. I am taking this opportunity of calling public attention to them.
Sir EVELYN CECIL: I think it will be convenient if, at this stage, I say a few words on behalf of the Southern Railway Company in regard to some of the points which have been raised. The original discussion was initiated upon a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Lloyd) has very suitably and excellently replied, and I do not think I need allude to that particular question further than to endorse his remarks. Two or three other points, however, of a minor character have been raised. The hon. Member for East

2035
Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) held up to us the Great Western Railway as a model. We shall be glad to carry out to the best of our power many of the excellent things which the Great Western Railway Company has so well conceived and carried into execution. As to the smaller matters mentioned, I must apologise to the House if I make a rather detailed speech, but I shall try to answer these points. Reference has been made to the Pullman cars, and it is suggested that third-class passengers are left out in the cold. I would point out that there is an extra charge for using Pullman cars, and I do not see that there is any grievance if the Pullman cars are a little more comfortable. I think it was also asked whether the railway company had any interest in the Pullman company. They have none at all except in so far as they are concerned in making things comfortable for the public. An arrangement has been come to with the Pullman Company in order to give greater comfort and convenience to the public. There was also a question about time tables, and I suggest to the hon. Member that he will probably get all the information he wanted from the A.B.C. Bradshaw if the other Bradshaw does not suit him. I think it was the hon. Member for East Bristol also who made some reference to the electric train service, and I think he mentioned chiefly Coulsdon, which is, I suppose, for him the centre of the world. The electric service has recently been opened to Coulsdon, and the Southern Bailway consider that electrification is, on the whole, working so well throughout the suburbs of London that they are anxious to extend it.
Mr. BAKER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has misapprehended my point. I have no criticism to make with regard to the electric service between Victoria and Coulsdon. My complaint is with regard to the electric service between Victoria and the Crystal Palace. The Crystal Palace is nowhere in regard to railway transit, whereas if this line to the Crystal Palace were taken to a point which would enable passengers to connect with the main line, the Southern Railway would do itself and its passengers a great deal of service.
Sir E. CECIL: then I come to the hon. and learned Member for Basset-
2036
law (Sir E. Hume-Williams), who has imparted to the House some of his well-known prejudices against the Southern Railway Company. I sometimes wish I could persuade him to put on a different pair of spectacles and to see some of the good points of the Southern Railway Company, but I wonder whether he will ever see any good points in the Southern Railway Company.
Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I strained myself in admiration of the Southern Railway Company. I could not say enough.
Sir E. CECIL: I an, sorry if I did not hear that, part of the hon. and learned Member's speech, but he was very cynical in regard to the boats on the cross-channel services. I can assure him that everything is being done to try to improve matters on the steamers. Sometimes you will get a rush of Polytechnic and other parties at a moment's notice, and it is difficult to provide for them. The company are trying to make better arrangements as regards gangways, and are enlarging Dover Marine Station. They are making further arrangements for the Customs. This is a serious and difficult matter, especially now that the Customs are more exacting. Another suggestion made is that the Customs arrangements at Victoria were very ill-managed. May I tell the hon. and learned Member that his suggestion for an alteration in this respect has been anticipated, and that the railway company have arranged for a different Customs room or hall on the lower level which will give a great deal more space and will, I hope, more convenient. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Galbraith) complained about a part of the line which has been electrified. I should say that the overhead system is going to be scrapped by the company, in order that they may have one homogeneous system. I hope that change will be carried out within a comparatively short time. If there is a difficulty about the warming of the trains on that particular line, I hope tie hon. Member does not expect us to spend a great deal of money upon that.
Mr. GALBRAITH: When approximately is this likely to be done?
Sir E. CECIL: I cannot give a date. The hon. Member also referred to the number of platforms at London Bridge, and desired that there should be some indicators as to where the trains were to start. We will gladly look into that point and see if these cannot be provided. To return to the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw, may I say that there are two new steamers to be built. There will be another steamer shortly.
Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: For which service?
Sir E. CECIL: I cannot say for which service.
Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: That is the whole point.
Sir E. CECIL: You cannot earmark a particular steamer for a particular service. As regards these steamers, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that we are limited as to the amount of water which these steamers can draw, because of the shallow nature of the harbours, particularly Calais Harbour. You cannot build steamers for this service which draw a great deal of water, and we must necessarily content ourselves with steamers which, if they are not what the hon. and learned Gentleman calls "tubs," are at any rate steamers which draw very little water. That is a permanent handicap, and it is as well that the public should realise it. The Southern Railway has big problems before it in consequence, partly, of its history. It is an amalgamation of three or four competing companies, especially in the South Eastern direction. At one time these separate companies were competing against each other and building parallel lines, all of which are still in existence, and on these lines the company has to run trains with perhaps very little traffic for them. Thus you have not only lines which are unremunerative, but you have a network of lines which involves a number of junctions, and makes it more difficult to provide connections. These are special circumstances, and unless the House is prepared to authorise the abolition of a certain number of these lines, which is unlikely, they must be content to make allowance for those circumstances. The management of the railway is fully alive to these
2038
failings, but continued efforts will be made as energetically as possible to remedy them so far as circumstances make it practicable to do so.
Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to hand over the Southern Railway to the management of the Great Western Railway? In view of all the statements we have heard to-day about the Southern Railway, that is the most desirable thing which could happen. I travel on the Southern Railway frequently, and can bear out all the complaints I have heard this evening. Among other things I have discovered is that the Southern Railway employs a large number of men as porters. Passengers have been bothered for tips for the handling of their luggage. We understand that none of these men is paid any wages by the company. They claim that they are outside the service. They want to be inside the service. If the National Union of Railwaymen is anxious to get inside their union men who are skippers of ships, they should do something to get these men inside the service. Every man should claim in return for his labour a recognised legal wage, and should not depend on the system of tips.
Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed, or has run up against someone who has been pulling his leg. I can assure him that the suggestion he has just made is entirely incorrect as far as the Southern Railway is concerned, and I believe the whole railway system is the same.
Mr. MARDY JONES: I am prepared to produce the names of men who have made that statement, and who have been employed on the railway from 20 to 30 years.
Sir G. COURTHORE: The directors and managers of the Southern Railway will be very glad to receive such information, and I shall be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman will send it as soon as he conveniently can. I would like to add one word of congratulation to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams). Re has added to the brilliancy of his reputation by a brilliant argument to-night.

2039
He has lodged a very grievous attack against the Southern Railway. On examination it boils down to this: While he is delighted with the service supplied to him by the Southern Railway when he travels on the Southern Railway's boats, he is gravely dissatisfied with the Southern Railway when he returns from Paris or from Switzerland as a Polytechnic traveller on a, foreign railway and a foreign boat. The only complaint that he really has against the Southern Railway is that the Southern Railway issue him a through ticket to save him the trouble of having to book a Swiss ticket or whatever it might be. It is quite possible that we might oblige him by issuing a through ticket to Madagascar or the Antipodes, but surely he would not suggest it is a failure on the part of the Southern Railway if he finds himself inconvenienced by the attentions of native porters or something of that kind. I hope that in future he will be as particular in the soundness of his arguments before this House on railway matters as his reputation has proved him to be in other places. With regard to the complaint he has made about Victoria Station, he has already been told that a large capital sum was being spent at Victoria upon providing a thoroughly up-to-date and commodious service for the Customs examination, and it will not be long before that service is in force. I think he will find himself, before many weeks or months are past when he returns from the Continent, in bewildered pleasure and amazement at the arrangements at Victoria. I hope that, in his pleasure, he will not be as bewildered with his new surroundings as he is when he ventures into the realms of Alice in, Wonderland and confuses the white rabbit with Tweedledum.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL (by Order)—Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL (By Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The public generally will be more than satisfied with the result of to-night's debate. They will read with s'tisfaction that new time tables are to be provided, that the Southern Railway will be electrified, that the lighthouse men and captains are all to be included in conciliation—I am speaking generally. The Southern Railway will be able to vindicate themselves in resisting the combined attack of hon. Members for Cambridge University. This Bill is a non-controversial Bill. It deals exclusively with one particular subject, the superannuation of a certain section of the staff. The reason we are opposing this Bill in precisely the same sense that we opposed the last Bill, is not because the Bill is not a good Bill. As a matter of fact, I think it is due from me to congratulate first, the House of Commons. In its wisdom, when this matter was last discussed, the House by an overwhelming majority took the view that the fair thing was not being done. The Company then generously undertook that the matter would be reconsidered. They rightly pointed out that if a satisfactory scheme was likely to be instituted it would not be done by this House itself propounding a particular scheme but rather by both parties hammering out their difficulties and differences. I think that is a fair representation of the situation when the Bill was last before the House.
Since then, long and protracted negotiations have taken place. The result of these negotiations is an agreed Bill to-night so far as particular sections of the railway services is concerned. In saying "an agreed Bill," I want to congratulate all parties on the success of their negotiations. We are dealing with a Superannuation Bill. Whatever may be said about the difficulties, the advantages or disadvantages of railway

2041
amalgamations, I do not think it can be disputed that it has brought home to the railway men themselves, in a most uncomfortable way, the precarious position in which some of them find themselves. A superanuation scheme is a good thing, because it at least ensures some provision for old age. It is a security to the individual—something that is looked forward to. But I submit that, as it is a good thing for the principal officers of the company and for the clerical staff, so it is not only a good thing but it is essential to every member of the staff. Our experience is that the humble platelayers, after 30 or 40 years' service, the guards, or the shunters, or all those other grades who render service equally essential to that of the clerical staff, are not only entitled to be considered in this question of superannuation, but we feel that immediate provision ought to be made for them.
I never hesitate to say that I favour a contributory scheme. On certain railways certain grades do contribute, and good schemes are in existence, but in connection with this amalgamation we have already heard of the difficulties of the different lines and different routes, and that there were different systems practically in operation in connection with superannuation throughout the whole of the lines that now form the Southern group. Further, not only were there difficulties and differences, but one is told of all manner of promises that the men allege were made to them. For instance, there is a section of the Southern Railway men who say to me that a definite promise was made to them by Lord Bessborough. There are differences of opinion and different interpretations with regard to that promise, as far as their superannuation is concerned, but the broad general fact remains that this Bill is essentially a Bill for one section of the staff alone.
If the spokesman for the Southern Railway intends to remedy all the grievances which have been ventilated, if he is going to provide all the things that have been urged, it is going to be somewhat difficult for me to know exactly where the money is coming from for the superannuation that I am advocating. But I will put it on no higher ground than this, that the claim of these men for superannuation after 30
2042
or 40 years' service is at least equal to the need of the flying squadron suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers).
I do not propose to carry my opposition to this Bill to the Division Lobby, because, as I said previously, it would serve no useful purpose if one could defeat something that will benefit one section of the men. I hope, as a result of this Debate and the ventilation of this question, that the company will seriously consider the unfortunate position of a large number of faithful men, whose services must be appreciated by the railway company, and that with joint consultation and a contributory scheme all round, some effort will be made that will enable them shortly to come to this House with a Bill affecting not only one section, but all sections of the railway service.
Mr. TOWNEND: I was very pleased to hear from the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that he was not going to press his Amendment to a division, and I want to associate myself with him in the sentiments he expressed when he described this as a very good Bill. I also want to thank him for the congratulations he extended to those parties who have been responsible for bringing this Bill, a mutually agreed Bill, to the House of Commons as the result of what took place some 12 months ago, as has already been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams), who had an experience which quite obviously he did not desire to see repeated as far as any further Railway Bills were concerned. At the same time, bearing in mind that this is a mutually agreed Bill as between the Association that I represent, namely, the salaried staff, the section to which the right hon. Gentleman for Derby referred as being concerned with this Bill, and seeing that that particular claim, put forward 12 months ago, has been so satisfactorily met, think one can to some extent—nay, completely —associate oneself with the wish expressed by the right hon. Member for Derby that at the earliest possible moment the Southern Railway Company will be able to extend pension benefits to those who are not, owing to their conditions, members of the superannuation fund.
Sir E. CECIL: I am glad that I can associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) with regard to the proceedings and negotiations which have been antecedent to this Bill. Last year I expressed the hope that any negotiations which might follow should be carried on on both sides in a thoroughly friendly spirit. I am delighted on this occasion to acknowledge the friendly spirit in which they have been carried on, and to say that I feel that it is of good augury for the future. It is a spirit with which the Board of the Southern Railway are thoroughly imbued in these matters, and which I shall always do my utmost to foster and induce to continue in every possible negotiation that may be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of peace in industry. I have always felt with great keenness the need for encouraging on every occasion this peace in industry, and for my part—and I am sure I can speak for my colleagues—I may say that we are only too glad to talk over in a friendly way those difficulties or grievances which may arise, in order to arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion. At any rate, that has happened on this occasion. The officers of the company who have been engaged in the detailed negotiations have, I think, thoroughly carried out that spirit also, and so have the negotiators on the part of the Railway Union.
This Bill is, of course, for the salaried officers of the railway only, and I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he wants superannuation extended in some other respects. I should like to point out that to bring in only a certain number of the railway staff would cause a great deal of discontent in one quarter or another. It is almost impossible to make two men work side by side, one on a superannuation system and another not on a superannuation system.
Mr. THOMAS: I recognise the difficulty, but if the principle were accepted, it would be a matter of adjustment, and I am sure no one enjoying superannuation would experience any difficulty in trying to adapt himself to the circumstances in trying to work with someone else who ought to get it.
Sir E, CECIL: Another difficulty is that the Southern Railway at the present time has got a voluntary pension scheme of the wages staff to which the men contribute nothing. I have had the figures taken out, and the sum paid in that respect in 1926 amounted to £165,000. Of course the right hon. Gentleman will see that that complicates the situation. A superannuation scheme for the wages staff would require a great deal of consideration. But these are merely observations on what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I want again to tell the House how cordially I welcome the friendly spirit in which these questions are approached, and I trust it will continue.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
Mr. AMMON: I claim the indulgence of the House for a short time only, to raise a question on the subject of pensions and in relation to certain disability pensions that have been paid to men who have suffered through the Great War. The point I want to bring before the Treasury arises out of what is cumbrously known in the Service as the Service-cum-Disability Pension. As it is a very important point, I had better state exactly what the position is at the present time. In Section 5 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, it is laid down that a person shall not be entitled to reckon the same period of time both for the purpose of a superannuation allowance and also for the purpose of navel and military and non-effective pay. At the time of the War, a man had to serve 18 years with the Army before he became entitled to a pension, and then, of course, if, afterwards, as many did, he entered the Post Office service as a postman, cleaner or liftman, as the case might be, he was then able, at the end of the service, to

2045
draw his pension as a civil servant, and the pension he was already in receipt of for military service. At the outbreak of war, however, it was decided that that period should be reduced to 14 years. It might be stated in this way. A man who served 10 years with the Colours and four years then in the First Reserve, while following the employment of a postman, or in some other capacity in the Civil Service, and then, if called upon during the Great War, and subsequently suffering disability which brought him under the Pensions Ministry, he was allowed to count that period of service that lie had done contemporaneously in the Civil Service and in the Reserve, counting both periods for pension.
That gave riseto a very, curious anomaly, which I tried to get the Treasury and other Government Departments to recognise. There, then, arises the position of men who come under the Service-cum-Disability Pension. I apologise to the House for the wretched title, but that is the title by which it is known in the Service and at the Treasury itself. A man, for instance, might serve a period of 12 years in all, that is to say, eight years with the Colours and four years in the Post Office service, during the War. He was called out of the Service in the War as a reserve man. Those four years were running contemporaneously, both in the Post Office as a postman and as a man serving in the Army, but he had not done the 14 years which entitled him to a full military and Civil pension should disability follow. Then there came later an agreement with the Treasury that, should a question arise for disability and he was awarded a 20 per cont. disability pension, he should be allowed to count for service such disability as he is entitled to, plus his Civil Service pension. Then arose some difficulty. It was contended that he fell within the purview of the Superannuation Act, 1887, and he was told he could not draw two pensions for the same period of service; and that he would have to forfeit that part which had been served simultaneously in the Civil Service and with the Army.
The point I want to raise is that that does seem to be an unfair reading or the Regulation that was made, because, in the first instance, this man would not
2046
have been considered for pension had there not been disability. It was the mere fact that he was suffering from disability that brought him within the ambit of these double pensions. Therefore, it seems unfair to bring in the reading of the Superannuation Act, 1887, because the circumstances could never have been under consideration when that Act was first framed, as it had no regard to any possible war, at least of the magnitude of the Great War. All it had regard to was that, those men having done so many years of service, then entering the Post Office service or any other Government Department, and serving a period in the first Army Reserve, with the liability to be called up, could not then count those two periods. But that is all set aside by the fact that a man, not having done full time in the Army to qualify for Army pension, is allowed to count it because of the disability he is suffering as a result of the Great War. My contention is that under that it is quite irregular to bring him under the Act of 1887, as that never entered into the consideration at all. He would not have received a pension had there been no disability. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to give some further consideration to the point.
Let me show what happens. I have a case of a postman in Glasgow who has been, and still is, in hospital in Eden Hall. This man was awarded two pensions under the scheme I have tried to describe, but after a time it was found, according to the Department, that six years out of the period had been served simultaneously in both the Army and the Post Office; and this man, who was receiving a pension of 50 odd a year, was called upon to refund a payment of £104 which he had had in excess. There are two comments one can make. One is that under such conditions a man in such poor circumstances ought not to be called upon to pay for mistakes made in the Department itself. However, they said he could take one of two courses. He could either refund this £104 or take the lower pension and content himself with that. He could take the Post Office pension of 18s. 4d. and pay back the £104 out of that, or he could take the other course of receiving only £13 13s. 9d. a year as his disability pension.

2047
I want to submit that there ought to be uniformity in this matter. Under Article 1163 of the Royal Warrant the Treasury did concede that in the case of a man who had done the full 14 years' service it would be so difficult to determine what part was due to service and what part was due to disability that they would not interfere with his taking his pension for the two periods, though they might have overlapped. I am asking that that may be made to apply uniformly to people in this position. A man who happens to have done two years less in the Army, and, through being called up and being wounded, or otherwise suffering disability, has shortened his pension life in the Post Office service—finding himself in this peculiar position through no fault of his own—ought to be placed on an equality with the other man, this Article 1163 being made to operate in his case. As one reads Article 1163, I should imagine it ought to apply and probably it is just a mistake, or there has been some confusion in the Department about it.
10.0 p.m.
I gave the right hon. Gentleman good notice of this, and I have communicated with the Department, and I should be very glad if, in the interests of these men, who are in more or less humble positions in the service, and who retire on very small pensions owing to the fact that they were badly hurt during the War and thus injured their chances of proceeding to higher pensions in the Civil Service, it could be laid down that a similar rule should apply to them. A man should not be called upon to refund money which it is impossible for him to repay and he should be placed in such a position that he can feel he has a right to enjoy this pension for The intervening period that may have elapsed when he was serving in the forces while technically attached to the Post Office service.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having courteously given me good notice of his intention to raise this point. I am very glad he did give me such notice, because a very complicated and difficult set of circumstances is involved. I agree with a good deal of what he has said. It is very hard that a man should lose a considerable part, or even the whole, of a pension
2048
which he has enjoyed, even though he may have wrongly enjoyed it; but, as the hon. Gentleman and the House knows, what the Treasury has to do is to administer the law, and the law on the subject is really quite plain. Section 5 of the Superannuation Act says:
"A person shall not be entitled to reckon the same period of time both for the purpose of a superannuation allowance under the Superannuation Acts and also for the purpose of naval or military non-effective pay."
That is a Section of a Statute, and the Treasury have to administer that, and any difficult and complicated facts which may arise have to be fitted into the four corners of that Statute. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he does not contest the application of that Section so far as ordinary service pensions are concerned. On the other hand, I may say that the Treasury do not claim that a disability pension pure and simple comes within the scope of that Section 5. That I admit. The difficulty arises when an award is made to a disabled man both for disability and for service. In some cases, as under Article 1163 of the Royal Warrant, a single award is made covering both disability and service. The hon. Gentleman, as far as I could understand him, said that in these cases there would have been no pension but for the disability, and from that fact he implied, I think, that these awards were not in any respect on account of service.
Mr. AMMON: Probably I did not make myself clear. Under Article 1163 men who have done the full 14 years would get the pension to which they are entitled for full service. The person I am referring to is one who comes under the service-cum-disability description, who has done, perhaps, only 12 years. He would not have got a pension unless there had been disability, and my point is that as he has only got it because of disability there ought to be no question of saying what line you are to draw between disability and service, and it ought to be allowed for disability alone.
Mr. McNEILL: I venture to submit to the hon. Member that that is an impossible position, because these awards are not made entirely on the ground of disability. It may very well be that an award would not have been made but for the disability, but what the award really

2049
covered is this—first of all the disability, and, secondly, an award to compensate the man for having been cut out from the possibility of earning a full-time service pension; so that a proportion of the award is in respect of service, and it is not a full disability pension. In this case the Treasury has agreed that the military pension shall not be regarded as coming within the scope of Section 5, though there is no doubt at all that some part of that award is intended to cover military service. What I think is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is this. The difference is as to the type of award under Army Order 330 of 1918. Awards made under that Order to disabled men, with service of over 14 years and less than 21 years, are pensions for service in addition to pension for disablement. It is in these cases that the difficulty arises. In such a case, the disablement pension is not touched, but the additional pension for service cannot be treated differently from an ordinary service pension. In either case, a definitely ascertainable period of service has been reckoned for both civil and military pension. That is definitely forbidden by the Section of the Statute of 1887 which I have read out. What the Treasury can do in these cases, and this itself is a concession, is to refrain from claiming a refund of past overpayments. They cannot possibly make the overpayments for the future.
Mr. AMMON: Do I gather that there will be no claims made for repayment?
Mr. McNEILL: No. On the contrary, I say that there was no power on the part of the Treasury to remit them, and that repayment of these sums must be made. The hon. Gentleman seems to think there is some inequality in the cases in which these refunds have been claimed. No refund is claimed in cases where there was an error on the part of the Department. Where a man elects to take his civil pension and to forgo the military pension, he is called upon to make repayment of the military pension which he has received, for this reason, that in that case there was no mistake whatever on the part of the Department. During the War, if a man received a disability, he did not thereby become entitled to any civil superannuation; that is a future claim. He goes on
2050
receiving that military pension, as he is entitled to do, and no Department could step in and call upon him to make any option. It is only when, at a later period, he becomes entitled to a civil superannuation, that then the option is put to him. It is said to him, "It is quite right; if you choose to take your civil pension, well and good; but if you make that option, you have been for some time receiving payments to which you are not entitled in view of the option you now make. Therefore, if you make that option, you must refund what has been paid to you." But take the opposite case, where a man takes the option to claim his military pension. He has been receiving civil superannuation; but, in that case, if he has been receiving civil superannuation, it has been through an error on the part of the Department, and where that is the case it is written off and no claim is made. Therefore, it is really perfectly fair to the man that, being given the option to take one or other of the two pensions, whichever suits him best, that, according as he makes his option, he should have that remission made if there has been a fault on the part of the Department, but, on the other hand, where there has been no fault, it is perfectly fair that he should be called upon to make repayment of what has been paid to him perfectly correctly under the circumstances when they were made.
Let me point out what would be the result if these repayments were not required. It would be possible for a man with a permanent disablement pension to go on drawing that pension for 20 years, and perhaps more, and at the end of that period, when he was retiring from the Civil Service, to say, "I now make my option in favour of the Civil Service pension; I am to retire next month." If he was not called upon to make repayment of what he had been drawing for 20 years on his military pension, he would be, obviously, in a position to enjoy both, which would be not only grossly unfair to the taxpayer, but would be in direct violation of the Statute. Therefore, while I fully understand the difficulty and hardship that in some cases has resulted from this state of things, it is not possible for me to remedy it in the way in which the hon. Gentleman desires, and I do not think, in point of

2051
fact, that any very serious hardship has taken place. I think I know the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and in that case, as in some others, this man had the option of taking either the military or the civil pension, and, if I am right as to the identity of the man, he has, in fact, received a sum of £55 which he was not in any way entitled to. I think there is no real hardship, after he has made his option in his own interest, that he should repay the sum which ought not to have been paid to him, and which was not paid to him through any mistake whatever on the part of the Department.
Mr. W. BAKER: I am sure the House is much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the very careful way in which he has explained the position with regard to this case, but, if he will permit me to say so, I think that his explanation is a very difficult one to convey to the men who feel that they are suffering under a real sense of grievance. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Treasury have to administer the law, but I respectfully submit that the Treasury are endeavouring to administer a law which is not applicable to the circumstances of the Great War. The Statute of 1887 was passed when there could be no foreknowledge of disability pensions in the circumstances of which we have now a great deal too much information. At that time no man in this Chamber could foresee what was to happen, and in those circumstances it seems to me that in this connection the Treasury has done the harsh thing, because they have endeavoured to fit past legislation into circumstances to which that legislation could not reasonably be held to apply. I would draw attention to the actual wording of the Section, which says:
"That the same period of time shall not be counted for both civil and military pension."
I submit that in the case in which I am concerned, which I think is the one submitted by my hon. Friend, the case of McTaggart, he would not have received a pension for disability had it not been for the disability which came to him during the Great War, and which caused
2052
his retirement from the Civil Service. We have an extraordinary state of affairs with regard to this man's ease. I understand he performed 10 years' service with the Colours, and in addition he performed certain civil service, and he is suffering from a serious disability which has caused his retirement both from the Army and the Civil Service. This is the point I want to emphasise. Mr. MeTaggart, with 10 years' military service, a serious disability, and in addition has some civil service, is offered the choice between a pension of £26 18s. 4d. on condition that he refunds 104 or a pension of £13 13s. 9d. with no refundment whatever. Quite apart from the merits of the case, and the legal position, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury that a pension of £13 13s. 9d. per year in respect of 10 years' military service, five years' civil service, and a serious disability which prevents that man earning his living is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I sincerely hope that the Treasury will look this matter in the light of the statements made to-night because it is possible for a serious hardship to take place.
I submit that there is a serious hardship in this case if a pension of £13 13s. 9d. is to be given to a man in respect of the service. I have mentioned. I know the difficulty from which the Treasury suffers. I know that they feel if they make a concession with regard to a case of this character they will open the floodgates, and receive thousands of similar applications. But be the difficulties what they may, I say £13 13s. 9d. as an annual pension is no sum to offer a man for such a period of military and civil service, and a serious disability which prevents him earning his living. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether there are not precedents which would enable his Department to waive the claim for refund-meat. I have known such claims waived after a great deal of pressure has been put upon the Treasury, and I believe the Treasury has sufficient discretion to waive this demand for refundment.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

HOUSING.
  RURAL WORKERS' BILL.
  RURAL WORKERS' BILL.
  COUNCIL HOUSES (DECORATIVE WORK).
  COUNCIL HOUSES (DECORATIVE WORK).
  POOR LAW ASSESSMENT (SANATORIUM RESIDENCE).
  POOR LAW ASSESSMENT (SANATORIUM RESIDENCE).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  BRIDGNORTH UNION (CASUALS' NIGHT CLOTHING).
  BRIDGNORTH UNION (CASUALS' NIGHT CLOTHING).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
INCOME TAX.
  RAILWAY EMPLOYES' SICK AND DIVIDEND CLUB.
  RAILWAY EMPLOYES' SICK AND DIVIDEND CLUB.
  FOREIGN FILMS (ROYALTIES).
  FOREIGN FILMS (ROYALTIES).
  MOTOR TAX REVENUE.
  MOTOR TAX REVENUE.
  WINE IMPORTS (GRAPE JUICE).
  WINE IMPORTS (GRAPE JUICE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYES (GRATUITY).
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYES (GRATUITY).
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  RECRUITING.
  RECRUITING.
  CHIEF WRITERS (PROMOTION).
  CHIEF WRITERS (PROMOTION).
  INVALIDED RATINGS.
  INVALIDED RATINGS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (LOCOMOTIVES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (LOCOMOTIVES).
  PRISON OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  PRISON OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL LEVY).
  TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL LEVY).
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
  FIGHTING FORCES (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES).
  FIGHTING FORCES (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES).
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  SOMERSET HOUSE (ATTENDANTS).
  SOMERSET HOUSE (ATTENDANTS).
  AIR MINISTRY (DIRECTORSHIPS).
  AIR MINISTRY (DIRECTORSHIPS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CONTRACTS.
  CONTRACTS.
  FATAL ACCIDENTS.
  FATAL ACCIDENTS.
  AEROPLANES AND SEAPLANES.
  AEROPLANES AND SEAPLANES.
  CIVIL PILOTS' LICENCES.
  CIVIL PILOTS' LICENCES.
  BRITISH-GERMAN AIR TRAFFIC (AGREEMENT).
  BRITISH-GERMAN AIR TRAFFIC (AGREEMENT).
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON AND NORTH E STERN RAILWAY (SUBURBAN SERVICE).
  LONDON AND NORTH E STERN RAILWAY (SUBURBAN SERVICE).
  RAILWAY CHARGES.
  RAILWAY CHARGES.
  STREET ACCIDENTS, LONDON.
  STREET ACCIDENTS, LONDON.
  ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC.
  ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC.
  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  SUPPLIES, EASTERN COUNTIES.
  SUPPLIES, EASTERN COUNTIES.
  EIGHT HOURS ACT.
  EIGHT HOURS ACT.
  AGED MINERS.
  AGED MINERS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES).
  MEDICAL SERVICE, UIG.
  MEDICAL SERVICE, UIG.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROYAL ARTILLERY (SECONDED OFFICERS AND BAND SUBSCRIPTIONS).
  ROYAL ARTILLERY (SECONDED OFFICERS AND BAND SUBSCRIPTIONS).
  RECRUITING OFFICERS.
  RECRUITING OFFICERS.
  INTERNATIONAL EOONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL EOONOMIC CONFERENCE.
CHINA.
  SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (ARMED FORCES).
  SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (ARMED FORCES).
  WANHSIEN INCIDENT.
  WANHSIEN INCIDENT.
  BRITISH FLEET.
  BRITISH FLEET.
EDUCATION.
  TEACHING (POLITICS).
  TEACHING (POLITICS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (EXPENDITURE).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (EXPENDITURE).
  IMPERIAL EDUCATION CON FERENCE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  IMPERIAL EDUCATION CON FERENCE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.
  BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.
  INDIA (CURRENCY AND FINANCE).
  INDIA (CURRENCY AND FINANCE).
POST OFFICE.
  DESK TELEPHONES.
  DESK TELEPHONES.
  ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF'S DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
  ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF'S DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  FINAL AWARDS (REGULATIONS).
  FINAL AWARDS (REGULATIONS).
  CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
  CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (SWAZILAND).
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (SWAZILAND).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES' WAGES).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES' WAGES).
KENYA.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
  MR. JASPER ABRAHAM.
  MR. JASPER ABRAHAM.
  BANKING FACILITIES.
  BANKING FACILITIES.
AGRICULTURE.
  LONG-TERM CREDITS.
  LONG-TERM CREDITS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS (LOSSES).
  SMALL HOLDINGS (LOSSES).
  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.
  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ISLE OF WIGHT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SCARBOROUGH GAS COMPANY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
YEADON WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed
222
with in respect of the Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill read 2a accordingly.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Rending of this Bill. I may say at once that the Bill is short, is wholly uncontroversial and is simply intended to tighten up and render more efficient the administration by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Diseases of Animals Acts, The first clause of the Bill carries out a recommendation of the Departmental Committee which sat in 1922 and in 1924, presided over by Captain Ernest Pretyman. The clause provides for simplification of the procedure set out in detail in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, which is described as the principal Act.
That is the procedure which has to be followed in a place or in an area where an outbreak takes place, with consequent restrictions, and where subsequently those restrictions can be removed on the disappearance of the disease. This procedure is very cumbersome, it is quite out of date, and it involves delay and quite unnecessary expense. This clause simply provides that the Minister of Agriculture shall be able by Departmental Order to prescribe the procedure necessary for the purpose which, as a matter of fact, is already done by him with great success in the case of swine fever. The Bill really assimilates the administrative procedure in the case of swine fever to these more serious contagious diseases.
Clause 2 has reference to cattle plague, or what is known in some parts of the world as rinderpest. Fortunately, since 1877 we have had no outbreaks of Cattle plague in this country, though many of your Lordships will know that about the middle and during the latter part of last century it was amongst our most serious animal diseases. As the law stands today, the Minister gives directions for

223
the slaughter of animals affected with cattle plague and must insist upon the slaughter, not only of affected animals, but of all those deemed to have been in contact with affected animals in the same shed or otherwise. Your Lordships may be aware that several years ago there was discovered a very effective immunising agent winch has been successfully employed in various parts of the world where cattle plague has broken out, and in those countries, notably in South Africa, in India, is Japan and more recently in Palestine, it has enabled the spread of this disease to be entirely prevented in the case of in-contact animals. This clause is simply intended to permit the use of this immunising agent in the event, which we hope may never occur again, of an outbreak of cattle plague in this country, thus avoiding a great waste of animal life and also a great waste of public money.
As regards the third clause it authorises the Minister to order the slaughter of all animals in an imported animals wharf or landing place that are deemed to be affected with any contagious disease which renders animals at any time liable to slaughter. Under the present law the Minister has the power to order the slaughter in these places of all animals affected with foot and-mouth disease, pleuro-pneumonia or cattle plague, but he has no power to order the slaughter in such places of other animals affected with serious contagious diseases and we particularly want to have this power in relation to the scheduled forms of tuberculosis. It is rather a curious anomaly that to-day, while all local authorities have power to order the slaughter of animals affected with the scheduled forms of tuberculosis, the Minister of Agriculture has no power in the case of animals that have come into this country and are detained at these landing places and animal wharves. This clause is designed simply to remove that anomaly and I hope that it will be approved by your Lordships.
Clause 4 amends the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, by authorising an increase of the fees charged to importers where it is desirable that their animals should be detained for inspection and testing. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an illustration of our aim in this
224
connection. It is proposed to detain all horses imported into this country so that they may be tested with mallein, a test which, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, has proved to be an effective means of preventing the spread of glanders or farcy, which used to be so serious among horses in this country. If this clause is agreed to it will be possible to use the mallein test and so prevent glanders reappearing in this country.
Perhaps from the administrative point of view the most important clause in the Bill is Clause 5, which provides, also on the recommendation of the Pretyman Committee, that the maximum penalties in the case of offences against the Diseases of Animals Acts shall be increased so as to give magistrates wider powers to deal with offences of a serious character. Of these offences the most serious in our view is the neglect to report the existence of the disease, and we have reason to believe that in recent years neglect on the part of stock owners to report outbreaks of the disease has led to some of the more serious and widespread outbreaks. Neglect of that sort, of course, not only exposes neighbouring stock to the risk of infection and loss, but involves a large expenditure of public money in stamping out the various outbreaks that may result from such concealment. The Bill provides for a maximum penalty of £50, or £5 per animal, whichever is the greater, and also for a fine of £10 per ton in the case of carcasses, litter, fodder and other such commodities. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the passing of this clause would not affect the amount of penalty which it is open to the magistrates to impose in minor cases, but it would enable them to impose a more suitable penalty in the case of these graver offences, of which we regard concealment as among the most serious.
Finally, this Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland—we wish that we could say that it should—because the powers in relation to the diseases of animals in that country were transferred, as no doubt your Lordships will remember, to the Government of Northern Ireland by the Ireland (Confirmation of Agreement) Act, 1925. It will, of course, be for the Government of Northern Ireland to decide whether they will pass similar

225
legislation applicable to that part of the United Kingdom.
Before I sit down I think your Lordships would probably like to know something about the position of foot-and-mouth disease in this country at the present time. If you will allow me to say so, I think it is only fair to the extremely efficient veterinary staff of my Department to testify to the great value of their work and the reassuring results that have flowed from it during the last few months. In 1923 there were no less than 1,929 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country, involving an expenditure of public money of £2,205,000. That was the peak year. In 1924 there were 1,440 outbreaks, involving an expenditure of £1,389,000. In 1926 the number had shrunk to 204 outbreaks only, as compared with seven times that number two years before, and the expenditure was £188,000. So far this year there have been only 19 outbreaks, compared with 39 during the corresponding period of last year. The tracing of the Lanarkshire outbreak last May to continental pig careases has definitely established a previously unknown source of danger of infection to our stock, and it is really the most valuable discovery in the direction of effectively stamping out the disease that has been made for many years past.
Your Lordships will remember that the Minister thought it desirable as the result of that discovery to place an embargo upon all fresh meat coming from the Continent, and I think your Lordships will agree that the policy then adopted has been justified in the light of the Comparative figures which come from other countries in relation to this disease. Your Lordships will note that there were only 204 outbreaks last year. In Germany there were no fewer than 187,527 outbreaks as compared with our 204, and that was a considerable increase on the two previous years for which the figures were 40,000 and 56,000 respectively. In Denmark the number of outbreaks in 1924 was 8,000, and the figure rose in 1925 to 53,000 and last year to no fewer than 97,400. The outbreaks in Holland in 1925 were 31,000 and they rose last year to 62,600. In Belgium in 1925 the outbreaks numbered 3,000 and last year they rose to 35,500, an enormous increase in a very small country. In
226
France in 1925 there were 17,000 outbreaks and last year 48,900. I mention those figures only as an indication that our policy founded upon the Lanarkshire outbreak is a wise policy and is protecting us more or less effectively against the real danger of a serious prevalence of the disease in countries not very far from our shores.
There is one other matter to which I feel bound to refer, and if I did not do so the noble and learned Viscount opposite would be sure to say something about it. It is the work which has been carried on during the last three years by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee, over which Professor Sir William Leishman presided until his death and over which Professor Martin now presides. Your Lordships may remember that there was a rather premature announcement made by two experts, both of them I think of German origin, Drs. Frosch and Dahmen, in the year 1924, as to the supposed isolation of the micro-organism responsible for the disease. Unfortunately it has been demonstrated that these alleged discoveries were not well founded. The labours of the Research Committee have resulted in their having regretfully to say that so far it has been found quite impossible to cultivate this virus and therefore to prepare anything in the nature of an immunising serum, but knowledge of the virus has been extended by their labours in many directions, as a result of interesting experiments, including its susceptibility to various disinfectants, one of which is vinegar, under certain conditions. But far the most important discovery which will be announced in their Report which will be published to-morrow relates to the vitality of the germ of the disease. It has been discovered that in animal flesh the virus becomes inert within twenty-four hours after the slaughter of the animal. In the case of blood the virus remains still active for thirty to forty days after slaughter and in the case of bone marrow, which we have suspected for some time past, the virus remains active for seventy-six days after slaughter.
I only want to say, in conclusion, that we have traced a good many of the more recent outbreaks to the consumption by pigs of slaughter-house offal, and we have reason to suspect that the contagion has

227
resulted from the fact that in bone marrow as well as in blood the germ remains persistent for so long a time. At an early date, possibly during the next twenty-four hours, an Order will be issued which will compel those who use slaughter-house offal for the feeding of pigs to boil it—or at least raise it to a certain high temperature—before so feeding it. That is as far as I feel justified in going now, but I thought it was only fair, in dealing with this Bill, that I should make some reference to this important discovery.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite rightly thought that what would interest me personally would be the latter part of his statement relating to virus and micro-organism. It is disappointing that the micro-organism has not yet been isolated, but that is not the fault of those who have been engaged upon research work, because, as the noble Lord said, it was supposed that this micro-organism had been isolated in 1924. That turned out to be a delusion. However, I think something very substantial has been achieved by the Research Committee under Professor Martin in so far as they have succeeded in showing that the germ continues to exist longer in vitality the more appropriate the surroundings in which it is lodged. The marrow seems to be a very important surrounding of that kind. The noble Lord referred to the Lanarkshire outbreak, near Carluke I think it was, and that was definitely shown to be due to stuff imported from a port in which pigs had been in contact with the material brought in.
All that shows what an enormous amount we have to learn about foot-and-mouth disease. I do not myself believe it will be a very deadly disease once means are acquired of either immunising the animal or destroying the germ. It is not a disease which affects seriously the animal while the animal continues to live and it is a disease which probably can be controlled. However, we are a long way from that, and I will only say I am very glad to hear the statement of the noble Lord that the Committee is pursuing and has pursued its course with practical results, such as those of which
228
he has told us. It was in the time of the late Government that it became keenly interested in this matter and endeavoured to get at the root of it, but things passed into the hands of the noble Lord and his friends, who have carried out the research work effectively. As to the other parts of the Bill I do not feel that I know enough about them to express an opinion, but the provisions seem to me to be reasonably designed for the purpose of enforcing the law more directly than it is enforced to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Protection of lapwings.
1. It shall not be lawful for any person—

(a) during any time between the fourteenth day of March and the eleventh day of August to sell any lapwing for human consumption, or to have any lapwing in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption; or

(b) to sell for human consumption, or to have in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption, any egg of the lapwing.

LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "time between the fourteenth day of March and the eleventh day of August" and insert "such period as may be specified from time to time by an order of the Secretary of State." The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment at the instance of the Home Office, and the reason of my doing so is this. As your Lordships are well aware, there are two Advisory Committees, one to advise the Secretary for Scotland and the other to advise the Home Secretary, with regard to the protection of birds. Certain

229
representations have been made to the English Committee by poulterers and others to the effect that, while they were quite willing to give up the very large trade in plovers' eggs, they did ask for some consideration with regard to the sale of lapwings in the close season. They represented that these lapwings kept in cold storage were not really killed in the close season, and, indeed, those which were killed in the close season were of very little value; but they did supply a want when other game birds were out of season.
The Committee thought, after hearing them at some considerable length, that there was much force in their argument, and therefore they advised the Home Secretary at all events to put down this Amendment, as it might possibly facilitate the passing of the Bill, in which they are interested, in another place if the matter were dealt with here in this way. They will be quite satisfied if these birds are, not interfered with during the close season. I do not know whether my noble friend will take the same view of this matter, but I can assure him that this action is taken so as to facilitate the passage of the Bill and in response to the advice given by the Committee appointed to advise the Home Secretary on these matters. There is also another point which might perhaps appeal to my noble and learned friend, and that is, that instead of having a hard-and-fast line with regard to dates it is suggested that the Home Secretary should be allowed to see how the provisions of the Bill work, and should have absolute power to make any orders which might meet the case, even going so far as a total prohibition of the killing of lapwings.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("time between the fourteenth day of March and the eleventh day of August") and insert ("such period as may be specified from time to time by an order of the Secretary of State").—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot help thinking that the first part of the noble Lord's argument was addressed to an Amendment that is not really on the Paper at all, because the only Amendment that he proposes to move is one that substitutes in the place of the fixed times provided by the Bill a reference to the Home Secretary, which was the latter
230
part of his argument and not the former. That, I understand, is the only Amendment which is before the House, and I submit respectfully that there is no reason in the world why it should be adopted. I do not quite understand these Committees which appear suddenly to have sprung into life, because this Bill is absolutely nothing but a reproduction of the measure that was before the House last year, and the Government themselves actually proposed this very limit of time which I have inserted in my Bill.
That is the first answer, and the second is this. What reason is there for taking away from the provisions of an Act of Parliament the power which the Act contains, and putting it into the hands of anybody else? I strongly object to that kind of legislation. If it be found that for any reason whatever this Bill fails to operate, either because it is too lenient or because it is excessively drastic, the proper method of amending it is by another Bill, and not by putting an elastic power into the hands of any Minister advised by Committees whom we have no opportunity of examining. I should like very much to have had a word or two with this Committee, which appears to take the view that the plovers will be adequately protected if you will only allow the poulterers to kill enough of them in the season, when they can kill them, in order to put them into cold storage for the period when they cannot. I hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I have been very much impressed by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord. After all, what is this Amendment? It is merely a repetition of the very bad practice which has obtained during the last six or seven years, that no Bill can be brought in of which the provisions are decided by Parliament, but that the provisions must be decided by a Secretary of State or a Government Department. The power is taken entirely out of the hands of Parliament and put into the hands of a dictator, either of a Secretary of State or a Department. Now, the Secretaries of State have a very great deal to do. Surely it is not worth while to take up their time in saying whether the close time is to be from March 15 or March 21. Far

231
better let it be decided in an Act of Parliament. Further, I must protest against taking away the powers of Parliament and putting them into the hands of officials. If the noble and learned Lord goes to a Division I shall vote with him.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, this Amendment does not meet with a very great deal of acceptance from either side of the House. I may say that the Committee referred to is presided over by a great ornithological authority, and a great friend of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Grey of Fallodon. The reason why it did not appear before is that the representations were only made to this Committee, as I understand, after the Bill had been through your Lordships' House. The Amendment was only put forward as a suggestion in the hope that the Bill might possibly avoid the several processes that may take place in the other House. But, as my noble friend does not wish to accept the Amendment, I do not wish to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Application to Scotland.
3. This Act shall apply to Scotland.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out "apply to Scotland" and insert "not apply to Northern Ireland." The noble Lord said: I hope that my noble friend will like my next Amendment rather better. My information is that this Bill will naturally apply to Scotland if it is not stated that it does not, and, with regard to Northern Ireland, it is felt by the Government that this is one of those matters which can very well be dealt with by the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, line 20, leave out ("apply to Scotland") and insert ("not apply to Northern Ireland")—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: This is an Amendment which appeals to me more than the other, but is it really necessary? I say frankly that I am very anxious indeed to expedite the passage of this Bill in order to secure its early consideration in another place. If, of course, this Amendment is necessary it does necessarily postpone this Bill here, for a
232
further short time, it may be, but it does postpone it. When we have Amendments we have another stage, but if it be necessary, and the noble Lord says that it is on the authority of the Home Office, then I should not dream of opposing it.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am advised that it is necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

LUNACY AND MENTAL DISORDER.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorder, and to ask whether it is proposed to introduce legislation on the subject. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to me to-day to be addressing your Lordships upon a non-controversial subject. Possibly the noble Lord opposite would not quite agree with that description of it, because I am afraid there are some points that are in controversy, but at any rate as regards the ordinary Party controversies it is a non-controversial subject. I want to call your Lordships' attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorder which sat for something like a year and a half and reported last July. I think the first thing I should say and that I believe any member of that Commission would say in referring to it, would be to express the sense we all felt of the great skill and care with which our deliberations were guided and conducted by our Chairman, Mr. Macmillan, K.C. He not only kept his Commission to their work and at their work, but he also succeeded, as in this case was very important, in getting all that was to be got out of all the witnesses who come before us, some of whom were at the beginning a little inclined to regard us, I think, as a hostile body. All of us are grateful to him for that.
There is another matter which I should like to mention at the outset and it is this. It is perhaps too much to expect that many of your Lordships will read the whole Report of the Commission, because it is of a certain length and rather detailed, but it would be a good thing

233
for future discussions and before any legislative measure dealing with these matters comes up if your Lordships were to read a Memorandum which is called, I think, Chapter II. The exact name is "General Considerations of Policy." It deals with the aspect from which the Commission approached this subject. It is a comparatively short document and really covers what I might call the principles upon which we proceeded. This subject of mental disorder is one which has developed a good deal in recent years. It is not so very long since a lunatic was regarded, or at any rate almost treated, as if he were a criminal. He was given a bed of straw, he was chained to a staple and he was left in a condition in which it was supposed he could do no harm to any one else. I do not know that they cared very much if he did harm to himself. In that condition, not unnaturally, he did not frequently get cured.
Before I come to the Report I think it is worth while for your Lordships to consider a little the historical development, because we are still suffering somewhat from the history of this matter even after that rather brutal period. The primary consideration which was in the minds of the public in the treatment of those who had diseased minds was not cure but detention, the protection of society from people who were dangerous, and that unfortunate idea of detention has for too long run throughout the whole system. There was fear on the part of the public of the lunatic. That has also led to what is really a, popular misconception which exists very largely to-day, that the majority of lunatics are violent and dangerous people, that they have homicidal or suicidal tendencies, and that if they were left at large they would immediately run amok. That is singularly untrue to-day. In the course of my duties I went over an asylum which is near me in the country. It is extremely well-conducted, perhaps in a somewhat old-fashioned way, and the first thing I did when the superintendent asked me where I should like to begin was to ask to see first his refractory ward. He laughed in my face and said: "I have no refractory ward." I ultimately went over the whole of that asylum, containing between 600 and 800 inmates, and I can assure your Lordships that out of that large number there were not more
234
than ten or a dozen who were noisy or in any sense of the word violent. The public does not appreciate that.
What I think is absolutely necessary if we are to deal with this serious question in the light of modern medical knowledge and treatment, is that we should get out of our minds the idea that lunatics as a class are violent and dangerous people for whom the primary treatment is detention. What they are, and what we were very desirous the public should understand them to be, are people who are unfortunately suffering from an ailment, but a mental ailment instead of a bodily ailment, and they should be treated for their mental ailment on medical lines in exactly the same way as any of us are treated for our bodily ailments when we require treatment. There is a difference, of course, and it is a very important difference. It is that in the case of those of sound mind they co-operate, at any rate as a general rule, with those who are endeavouring to benefit them and do all they can to hasten their cure and to assist in their treatment; but even that is not always true in cases of delirium. The difficulty in the case of persons of unsound mind is that the vast majority of them are satisfied they require no treatment at all and that the attempt to treat them is an outrage, that their confinement is an outrage, and that they are being wrongfully detained and wrongfully treated when they are, in fact, as sane as other people. I think it is very important that we should not only remove from the minds of the public the impression of which I have spoken, but, above all, remove this other impression from the minds of the patients, and in the modern method of treatment I think a great deal has been accomplished in that direction.
It is about twenty-five years since I was actively occupied in inspecting asylums and having official relations with them and in that quarter of a century there has been a most marvellous development. The old apparatus of locks, bars and prison-like surroundings have very largely gone and the amount of freedom which exists in the modern asylum would have been unthinkable twenty-five years ago. There is one institution—true, it is a private institution and not a rate-aided one—that I have in my mind where I think something like 40 per cent.

235
certainly 30 per cent. of the patients are allowed to leave the institution on parole and go freely into the town, deal with the shops and associate with the townspeople. It is true of a great many institutions that not more than a percentage of the patients are kept actually under lock and key, certainly less than 50 per cent. It has been found that patients when reasonably treated will very often to a large extent behave reasonably in spite of their disease being one of unreason.
There is one class to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention a little particularly, because it is an important class and one which has helped to raise misapprehension in the public mind. That is the class of paranoiacs. A paranoiac is a person who is subject to a fixed delusion, a delusion from which he cannot escape and of which he cannot rid himself, but in all other respects he may be a sane, reasonable and logical human being. He may be clean and tidy in his habits, he may be intelligent, but this delusion obsesses him and it cannot be got rid of. Here comes in a very difficult question, that of the definition of insanity. I should not attempt myself, and I think that none of us who sat on the Commission, after we have had all the assistance which we had and after hearing all the evidence of the medical men called before us, would feel competent to write a treatise on the definition of insanity. The standard that the law lays down, however, is a more possible one to arrive at. The standard the law lays down is one of conduct.
Suppose there is a paranoiac who has a delusion that the earth is flat and nothing can cure him from that delusion. That delusion itself is perfectly harmless, it is not likely to lead to any evil consequences, and there is no reason why he should be confined. Let me take another delusion, by no means infrequent in women, and that is a delusion that some distinguished public man is their lover or their husband and that they are being forcibly and wrongfully kept from him by the intrigues of other people. So long as that remains a delusion and does not lead to any action, it is not for the law to interfere, not even though perhaps the victim is pursued with letters. But if it leads to the action of camping on his doorstep, ringing his front door bell,
236
hampering him in his public work, then the interest of the sane has to prevail and it becomes necessary that that person should be in some way restrained.
I can give your Lordships another instance of a different kind which came within my own experience. It was a case in which a man had the delusion that he had been wrongly convicted of stealing meat from one of the large stores, and in revenge he broke their windows. He was taken to the police station and passed to the asylum. In the asylum his conduct was exemplary, and there was nothing to distinguish him from a sane man. In about a year the superintendent said that it was not possible for him to sign the necessary certificate that he had observed any signs of insanity in the last three months and he advised the committee that the man ought to be allowed to go. I was chairman of the committee at the time. I went into the case, I examined the man on his delusion and he assured me that he was entirely free of it and that, if allowed to go, there would be no more delusion. We discharged him; we had no alternative. The next day he broke the same plate glass windows, was taken to the police station again, and came back to the asylum where he behaved in the same way. After six months the superintendent made the same report to us. It being our duty to protect the property of sane citizens and traders we did all we could to see that the same thing did not happen again. We sent him to a relative in Cornwall, and saw that he was put on the train and went there. In three days' time he was back in London and broke the same windows.
That is the difficulty in the case of paranoiacs, and it is because of this class that the cry is sometimes raised that lunatics are wrongfully detained. No person seeing lunatics of this class detained in an asylum would be able to ascertain that they were in any way affected. They would think, and in some cases they would go away and report, that a perfectly sane man was being wrongfully detained. It is this class of case that has given rise to the complaints made by some members of the public about men being wrongfully detained in asylums. I think it is right, before I go further, that I should say that the Royal Commission appointed in consequence of

237
the Harnett case, in which the jury found Harnett was wrongfully detained, made the most special inquiries into all allegations of wrongful detention, and they were not able to trace in the whole of the asylums of this country a single case in which they could say that a man was wrongfully detained. That is stated in our Report, and it ought to reassure the public, but I am afraid that the kind of public that raises these allegations against the treatment of lunatics and the conduct of asylums is sometimes not susceptible to the argument of facts.
There is another important and similar point to which we should also direct our attention and that is where people are wrongfully certified. The process of certification has attracted great attention, and here one still gets the lasting evil of the original idea of prison because, as the original idea of detention instead of medical treatment still survived when, in the days of Charles Reade and later, steps were very properly taken to protect lunatics, the public and Parliament directed their attention to the avoidance of wrongful detention and therefore certification is hedged round with precautions that ought to operate successfully. Again, I am glad to say we did not come across any case in which we could say that a man had been wrongfully certified. I am not going to say, and it would not be honest to say, that there were not cases in which sometimes a business which ought to be regarded as a very serious and responsible one was not perhaps a little too much of a routine; but there was no case in which a man had been wrongfully certified.
I venture to submit these preliminary considerations to your Lordships because, in dealing with this matter, it is important to understand the kind of thing that arises. There are a great many cases in which there is no sort of doubt about certification, and there are a good many other cases in which, in view of the doctor's report, there is practically no doubt. But, in a matter of this kind, there are, and there always must be, border-line eases, cases where the conduct has been abnormal and where on the doctor's advice the certifying magistrate must be told that it is likely that the conduct will remain abnormal, or become more abnormal and in which, on the contrary, the conduct may become
238
better, and it may be said that the patient has been certified unnecessarily.
There is a curious thing about certification and about the early stages of this disease—that as a general rule the most violent, the most obstreperous and the most obviously lunatic of the persons to be certified are generally the persons soonest to be cured and discharged. These are the people of whom doctors have hope. Your well-behaved lunatic, with his one obsession, is the man for whom hope is generally absent and in whose case this fixed delusion is almost always associated with an idea of persecution. In his case the idea of persecution grows until he develops not merely a desire to break plate glass windows as in the case I mentioned, but a homicidal tendency towards the person he believes to be his persecutor, and it therefore becomes impossible ever to let him loose upon society.
But violent cases are generally the easiest cured and I think we were all of us very much struck, and I am sure your Lordships will be very much struck, by the enormous number of cases which it was possible to discharge. Within a few weeks, very often within a few days of certification, it was possible to let them go. Now, when we came across that fact we came across considerations which moved us to consider whether some provisional treatment could not be found by which these cases could be dealt with without actual certification. We were told by everyone concerned, and it can readily be believed, that upon persons who were certified there was placed a stigma, a stigma of a certificate that he had been a madman. The undiscriminating public thinks "Once a madman always a madman," and that stigma is apt to cling to them through life. In the case of a working man, unless he hides his identity and changes his place of livelihood, it may prevent him getting work. If he stops in the same place it may cause him to be an object of derision to his neighbours and may even in some cases cause a mild sort of persecution, which again may upset his mental equilibrium. Therefore that stigma is a very serious one.
Moreover, another stigma also follows, that is the stigma of the Poor Law. As the law is now constituted practically every person who is dealt with

239
in a rate-aided institution—and that comprises almost the entire body of certificated lunatics in this country—is technically a pauper lunatic. In most cases also certification proceeds and takes place through the workhouse, and if not through the workhouse at least in connection with the relieving officer, who is a Poor Law official. So there is a double stigma, and we all felt that if something could be done by some sort of provisional treatment to remove that stigma it ought to be done. Your Lordships will see at once from what I have already said the difficulties with which we were faced. If you are to have an incomplete and a provisional stage is it to be upon the doctor's certificate alone, or is it to be, as in the present case, upon the doctor's certificate backed up by the order of the justices?
It may be asked: Why, if it is to be so provisional and so short, do you require the right to detain and the right to restrain at all? It is required for the reason that, as I have just told you, the most violent cases are the cases with the best hope of cure, but if they were not detained they would go raving and tearing about the streets to their own injury and the injury of the general public. Therefore restraint is absolutely necessary. A considerable portion of our recommendations is devoted to a system of provisional treatment and a sort of quasi-certification which we would not call certification, extending, if you like, for six months. All the evidence showed that the majority of those certified would be discharged before the expiration of the period and would be able to say they had never been certified lunatics. The difference, of course, is one of words rather than one of facts, but it is a difference which is of importance to the persons concerned. That portion of our recommendation is one to which we attach a good deal of importance.
Then, of course, coupled with that there is the very important question of classification at the early stages. I dare say many of your Lordships have read a book called "Christina Alberta's Father," in which there is a description of the receiving ward of a workhouse for the mentally afflicted. It is rather a terrible description, and I am afraid that in some cases it is not altogether an untrue description, because this is the sort of reception
240
room into which are gathered those who are in process of being observed and perhaps some of those certified for whom asylums are not yet found. There are herded together every class and every kind of mental disorder. One would think—though I am not quite sure that doctors think this as much as laymen think it—that such association would have the worst possible effect upon those we hope to cure. Fortunately, I think, that is to some extent offset by the fact that in many cases the mentally disturbed live very much in a world of their own, are closely surrounded by that world and are very little affected by what goes on outside it. Still, obviously it is extraordinarily undesirable, and quite apart from anything else there are sights and sounds necessarily and inevitably in places of this sort which must be very distressing to other people there suffering from less advanced stages of the disease. Therefore, earlier classification is very desirable.
When we came to that, as indeed when we came to many other questions, it appeared at once, as your Lordships will readily understand, that this is to a large extent a question of the amount of money you are prepared to spend. Closer classification means more medical officers, more attendants, smaller wards, in many cases new buildings. It means the expenditure of public money. Your Lordships can appreciate how difficult it is at this moment to ask for or suggest the expenditure of public money. All the Commission have been able to do in their Report is to lay the considerations before Parliament and to point out what I hope is true, that the adoption of these recommendations, while no doubt involving the expenditure of public money, would give a return not only in actual dividends of the smaller number of lunatics having to be maintained at the public expense but in the quicker return to health of citizens of the country.
But it is undoubtedly the case, I think, that in most of the rate-aided asylums at this moment it would certainly be better to have a quite definite increase in the number of medical officers and a quite definite increase in the number of attendants. Wards are too large and individual attention is too difficult. There again, I do not wish your Lordships to be

241
misled in any way. If you take the average asylum, say for 1,000 cases, unfortunately there is a very large percentage of that asylum population for which medical treatment is no use. There are the hopeless cases, the advanced cases of general paralysis of the insane, the ordinary senile dements and cases of that sort, for whom all you can do is to make their life as passable as possible until its termination, but for whom medical skill can do nothing in the way of cure and for whom the doctor is only necessary to treat as far as he is able such physical ailments as may occur to them. That class does not want an increase in medical attendants. There are other classes in perfectly good physical health, such as paranoiacs in which after a certain stage you cease to have very much hope. But at the same time constant watchfulness, constant care and constant individual observation of those whom you have any hope of preparing for discharge is the best and only way of getting maximum discharges from asylums.
I have referred already to the uninformed public and the view which they take of these things. It was very early brought home to us, as your Lordships, I am sure, will readily believe, that the chief pride of the superintendent of an asylum is not the number of inmates that lie, manages to keep but the number of inmates that he manages to set free and to restore to their friends and relations and to their country. That is what every doctor aims at. The advances that have been made in the last twenty-five years have not been due to the Legislature, they have not been due even to the excellent work of the county councils in control of these institutions, but they have been due primarily to the initiative of the medical men themselves, who have sought and are constantly seeking to deal as best they may with these unfortunate cases, to treat them in the best way they know and to discharge them cured as soon as possible.
When one speaks of cure, I think one ought to say that what you can do for a mind diseased is exactly what Shakespeare said—it is to minister to it. There is no drug that will cure it; there is no specific treatment that will cure it; you can only do with it that which doctors now recognise that they do with physical diseases—namely, put the patient
242
in the best condition to fight the disease himself and to recover from it. Doctors no longer think that they take diseases and cure them; they admit now that, in the case of physical disease, what they do is to put the patient in the position in which he is able to cure it himself and endure the fight until it is over. That is really all that you can do with mental disease. I put that point to one of the most distinguished doctors that appeared before us. I said: "It comes to this—does it not?—that you have to admit that, having done the best you can in the way of treatment, you must leave the cure to God"; and he said: "That is practically the position."
We think that the adoption of the recommendations that we have made may do a great deal to lessen the asylum population, because there are certain classes that can be cared for with less expensive treatment and with less medical supervision, and we think that under such a system there will be quicker discharges and also that it may be possible to arrange to relieve the asylums of cases, of which there are quite a number, in which the person resident in the asylum could quite safely be allowed to live outside the asylum if only there were available some relative, some friend, some home in which attention could be given and in which he would be looked after. Many of these unfortunate people have to remain in the asylum chiefly for the reason that it is their only home, and that it would not be safe to set them at large to meet the stress and the battle of the world, because they would at once relapse and come back. Indeed, it would not be fair to do so.
There is a further question, and a very important one, which, before we come to any legislation, I hope the Ministry of Health will consider, and no doubt your Lordships also, and that is the extent to which, in any provisional treatment, it is necessary to invoke the justices. The justice is invoked because he is the representative of the public, and he is invoked in consequence of the old and utterly fallacious idea that the doctor, as an enemy of the human race, is trying wrongfully to put an innocent man in prison. That is really the reason for invoking him. What can the poor justice do? He can only satisfy himself, so far as he can, by conversation with the doctor. In some

243
few cases he can satisfy himself, by actually seeing the man, that it is an obvious case, and in all cases he can hear what a man has to say and take what steps he thinks proper. I do not deny for a moment that it is a safeguard, but it is a safeguard which is not in fact required, at any rate in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred.
Whether it is necessary to keep him for the hundredth case, even in provisional treatment, I do not know. Let your Lordships consider the case of one of yourselves, or any friend of yours, suffering from some fever which ends in delirium. You are restrained by force, you are not allowed to get out of bed and walk on wet grass in the cold morning without any clothes. But nobody calls in a justice to sanction that restraint. Of course you are grateful for it when you are well, but at the time you have no more responsibility for your treatment than one of these unfortunate people. You may possibly resent the restraint. There are cases where people have to be held down by one or two other people, but no one thinks of calling that wrongful imprisonment or wrongful restraint. If only we could get rid of the unfortunate atmosphere in which this matter has been wrapped up and could apply to some extent the same considerations and the same tests to these unfortunate people, I think we should be making a great step in advance.
If I am told, as the noble Viscount opposite may tell me and as the Ministry of Health may think, that even the one case in a hundred is proper to be looked into and proper to be safeguarded, I should not for a moment deny it; but if I am told that we are removing a real safeguard, I doubt it. I would suggest to the House that an infinitely better safeguard than the intervention of any justice exists at the present time, and that is the fact that the reception in an asylum of any certified lunatic has to be reported at once to the Board of Control, who have all the papers connected with the matter. Your Lordships are aware, no doubt, that what is now called the Board of Control is the successor of what used to be called the Lunacy Commission. It is composed of people who are most expert in this matter, people who spend their whole lives, day in and day out, considering
244
these cases, visiting asylums and dealing with the complaints of patients and with the whole system, and they are fully competent to detect and to put right without any delay any sort of wrongful cases that arise. I confess that I think that there exists in this country no real risk of a sane man being "railroaded" into an asylum, if I may use an American phrase. If you succeeded by some good fortune in getting him there, you would not be able to keep him there for more than three or four days. I think we ought to remember, when we talk about losing the protection of the justice, that we have a very much more important, a much better informed and a much more skilled protection in the Board of Control, with ample powers to enforce their orders.
There is one other point to which I should like to call your Lordships attention, and that is the present rather curious position of what are called licensed houses, which are generally known as private asylums. These are institutions run for profit in which lunatics are taken care of and to which, if they can afford to pay, they may be admitted. They are for private patients as opposed to what are called public patients or pauper lunatics, and at present the procedure for certification is rather different and in some cases patients have perhaps a little less protection. There is a very natural and a very proper feeling on the part of the public that there is a possibility of danger in a place that is run by a proprietor for his own profit, and it is, of course, perfectly obvious that his duty and his interest may conflict. If he has a patient who is paying £500 a year—and sums even in excess of that are paid to some of these private asylums—he may have the financial temptation to delay or to hinder the discharge of that patient when he ought otherwise to be discharged.
It is a perfectly legitimate feeling. I do not think that it has any foundation in fact, but it seems to me that the way in which to deal with that legitimate fear is not the way in which Parliament dealt with it in 1890. In that year this fear was clearly present to the mind of Parliament, and licensed houses were looked upon as suspect, to put it at its lowest. What Parliament said in 1890 was: We will not abolish licensed houses, we will not destroy this private property

245
—and I do not conceal from your Lordships that it is very valuable and lucrative private property—but we will say that no new licensed houses shall be established, those existing shall be allowed to die out, and no increase shall be permitted in the number of beds in existing houses. One supposes that in 1890 the hope of Parliament was that this vested interest would be extinguished without compensation. The results hoped for have not been achieved. There are fewer licensed houses now than in 1890, but by no means so very many fewer as to suggest that the process of extinction would take place within a reasonable time, and I venture to suggest that this is not the right way to deal with the subject. Parliament, when it legislates this time, must make up its mind, aye or no, whether the licensed house is fit to exist or not. If it is not fit to exist Parliament must abolish it. If it is fit, we have suggested, and I think the Report suggests, that there should be what I call free trade in licensed houses; that is to say, subject to the approval always of the Board of Control, it should be possible to set up new and fresh licensed houses, and this limitation upon their creation should be abolished. One advantageous effect would be that geographically they would be far better distributed than they are at present.
The alternative is obviously rather a difficult one, if you are going to say you will abolish the licensed house. If you are going to say that you are going to abolish the licensed house you are going to say that rich people, when afflicted in this way, are not to be allowed to be treated where they choose—to select their own environment or to have it selected by their advisers. We were told, and I believe rightly told, that the majority of people who are able to pay for private treatment would prefer to make their own choice rather than be forced into some public institution. That again raises a difficulty. Into what institutions are you going to force them to go? Clearly not into rate-aided institutions, which accommodate the pauper lunatics. You would have to build public institutions out of public money and you would have people possessed of their own money living in institutions for which public money was not really required. That is hardly reasonable. Again, what sort of accommodation would be provided? If
246
a man says that he wants £1,000 a year accommodation, is the county council or a committee of the county council to be called upon to provide varying types of accommodation, as in the case of a great hotel? Is not the tendency likely to be that the accommodation will be standardised? That seems hardly reasonable from the point of view of those who require special accommodation and are prepared to pay for it themselves. You have in this House, in Lord Sandhurst, one of the Lord Chancellor's Visitors, who is far more acquainted with private asylums than I am, because it is his duty constantly to visit them, and I think he was one of the people who gave evidence before us. That standardised accommodation would be very much resented by the class affected. It seems to me to be carrying a theoretical proposition rather far to set up a new public institution for people who do not want it and are willing to pay for themselves elsewhere.
There is also the question of the Board of Control itself. At the present moment the Board of Control is very much understaffed. It is urgent that it should have its members increased, and have more people to do inspection work. It is almost impossible far it at the present moment to hold the number of meetings which it should hold for the consideration of problems which constantly arise, because important and well-informed members have to be running up and down the country doing the absolutely necessary inspection of asylums. The numbers of the Board certainly should be increased, and even if the Government feel unable to do anything else with regard to the Report of the Royal Commission, I think they will have helped the matter if they increase the numbers of the Board of Control, and, by the experience gained, help to shape the measure which they will, I hope, at some time introduce.
What I really want to ask to-day is, what hope is there of legislation being introduced and at what time? One recognised, when it was thought that the Poor Law was going to occupy the attention of Parliament this year, that that was an enormous subject and that the same Department, the Ministry of Health, would be dealing with it, and therefore it was quite impossible to hope that lunacy reform might be one of the subjects dealt

247
with this Session. The King's Speech and subsequent debate have assured us that Poor Law is not going to be dealt with this Session. Is not this a good opportunity for at any rate introducing, perhaps into this House, a Bill for dealing with this subject, and for carrying out such recommendations as commend themselves to the Government, so that the public may have time to be instructed and to learn?—because I confess at once that in many respects you are dealing with a very uninstructed public, and that is one of the difficulties in another place.
Cannot something be done this year? The Minister of Health has no other great proposal before Parliament. There was a reference in the King's Speech to other Departmental measures. Might this be one of those other Departmental measures? It is a very important one. I urge that the Government should at any rate give their minds to this matter, and perhaps the noble Viscount when he replies will be able to give me some indication as to the extent to which their minds have been given to it. It is nine months since the Royal Commission reported. They must have had time to digest even that bulky document, and have had time to begin to consider whether they will legislate, and how they will legislate. That legislation is difficult and complicated, I admit. The draftsmanship of the Bill will tax the skill of the best Parliamentary draftsmen. It is a pretty complicated Act as it is, and it would be a good thing if the problem could be simplified. Many of those who have to administer the present Act tell us that the complicated procedure very often makes it difficult to know what to do, and in some ways unnecessary difficulties created by the Act are got over by a sort of, what shall I say?—well-intentioned breach of the letter of the law almost in some cases—all in the interest, of course, of patients.
If we are to be told that no effective legislation can be passed this year, I think we might at least be informed that towards the end of the Session there might be presented to this House, be it only for First Reading, some Bill embodying the conclusions at which the Departments have arrived, so that persons at large could study it and the
248
public mind could be prepared. But if the question of the Poor Law is coming on next year that means that there is no hope for this measure next year, and that you are going to postpone the reform for three or four or five years after the Report of the Royal Commission. I recognise that it does often happen to the Reports of Royal Commissions, but in this case you would, I think, by adopting most of our proposals, effect many very important objects.
Among other things you would succeed in reducing the actual interned asylum population and you would be able to release many of them; your action would in many cases, I think, lead to better treatment and better chance of cure for those who are there, and many would never reach the doors of the actual asylum at all, particularly if something in the nature of a clearing-house were set up in large urban centres. You will certainly do good work if you strengthen the Board of Control, and something at some time or other must be done to meet the licensed house question. All these are matters which involve day by day the treatment of patients, and to put them off for years is putting off the beginning of a reform which in the view of all of us who were concerned in this long and interesting Inquiry, is a very important reform. I cannot do more than commend it to your Lordships with such arguments as I have at my command, but I do urge that it is a matter which should not be lost sight of.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I had some hesitation as to whether I ought to address your Lordships on this subject, for the reason, referred to by my noble friend in his speech, that I occupy a humble office in the administration of the Lunacy Law; but, for that very reason I have a special interest in the subject, and have been obliged to form some personal opinions upon it. Therefore I take the liberty to make a few observations. There was considerable disappointment three years ago when the Mental Treatment Bill, which was piloted through this House with infinite pains and great ability by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and which would have achieved several objects recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, failed to pass. It is chiefly with those reforms that I desire to deal.

249
My noble friend has enlarged upon the necessity for early treatment, which is almost, I might say, a closed book so far as argument is concerned. There is no want of unanimity among those conversant with the treatment of the insane as to the absolute necessity of getting hold of the patient at the earliest possible moment, instead of getting hold of him, as is pointed out in the Report, at a time when the disease is so marked that the symptoms are obvious and the treatment is becoming more difficult. I do not wish to enlarge upon that any further, because my noble friend has dealt with it, but there is one matter connected with it to which I should like to draw attention—namely, the subject of voluntary boarders. In the registered hospitals, I think I am not exaggerating in saying, something like a third of the patients in some of them are voluntary boarders. In the licensed houses there are also a large number of voluntary boarders. In Scotland, owing, I think, partly to a somewhat different interpretation of the law, the number of voluntary boarders is even larger than it is in England, but a rate-aided patient cannot in this country be a voluntary boarder.
That is a subject upon which this House has already expressed its opinion. There is really no controversy about it. The reception of voluntary boarders into rate-aided institutions was accepted by this House when the Mental Treatment Bill was before it, and I remember at the time of the Dissolution which prevented that Bill being carried into law I was talking to a medical superintendent of an asylum in the West, and I said to him: "Well, I am afraid this Bill is lost," and he said: "Yes, only last night a patient was imploring me to take him as a voluntary boarder, and I was obliged to say to him that the law did not allow me to do it." It really is a case of one law for the rich and another for the poor, and is a matter which urgently calls for reform.
Another matter to which I think my noble friend did not refer, except allusively, is the question of after-care. If the noble Viscount who usually presides over our proceedings were here he would remember that in 1923 he attended a meeting of the Mental After-Care Association, and at that meeting he foreshadowed
250
the Mental Treatment Bill which was introduced in that year. He also foreshadowed that in that Bill provision would be made to enable local authorities to provide for the after-care of patients, either directly or through voluntary institutions. And, so far as the introduction of the Bill was concerned, that promise was carried out. The Mental After-Care Association does invaluable work in this direction. It is one of the most deserving charities in the country, one which I do not hesitate to commend to the favourable consideration of noble Lords. But it is perfectly obvious that the care of patients leaving asylums at the time which is most critical for them, and whose homes do not provide facilities for that sort of care and observation which is very necessary, should not be left to, and cannot be adequately attended to by, any charitable institution. This reform, which, as I have said, like the other, has already been approved in principle by this House, is again recommended by the Report of the Royal Commission, Those are subjects which urgently call for the sympathetic consideration of His Majesty's Government.
There is a further subject to which I should like to call attention, and which is referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission, because it really does interpose difficulties in the way of carrying out the law as it stands at present. I refer to the very natural hesitation which the medical profession feel in certifying patients. Recent cases have alarmed them and they feel that in certifying a patient, even in the best of faith and with all the care they can take, they are not adequately protected against subsequent litigation. My noble friend has pointed out the extreme difficulty of dealing with some of the cases of insanity which find their way into the asylums and of determining whether the patient in an asylum is really insane or not. The difficulty must be greater still with a patient outside an asylum who is only seen by a medical man in an interview, short or long, it may be a quarter of an hour or it may be an hour, but it is a single interview. He may observe symptoms which to him in this interview convey clearly indications of insanity but which are extremely difficult to reduce

251
into writing, still more difficult to reduce into words which would satisfy a jury whose sympathies have been worked upon by an ingenious counsel. The result is that you find cases in which it is clear that for the benefit of the patient as well as of the public it is desirable the patient should be placed under supervision, yet in which it is very difficult to find medical men who are willing to certify.
The Report suggests that the onus of proof in regard to good faith and reasonable care should be shifted, that instead of the medical man having to show that he exercised due care and acted in good faith, it should be for the complaining patient to show that the medical man was actuated by bad faith and did not use reasonable care. That would be a good thing as far as it goes, I do not doubt, but I feel that it is hardly enough to inspire confidence in the medical profession. At the same time I feel that there is great difficulty in going any further. It may be worth while to throw out a suggestion which may possibly merit consideration. It is that the damages recoverable in an action for wrongful certification should be limited to the period of one month, at the end of which a special report has to be made to the Board of Control, or at the end of which a fresh order for the detention of the patient would have to be made if the scheme of the report is carried out. That would limit the period during which the detention could really be attributed to the certificate, because it would bring the period to the point at which another responsibility came in. I know of no precedent for limiting the damages in that way, but is does seem to me to carry out the principle adopted by the Court in the Harnett case, with which many of your Lordships are doubtless familiar. I only throw that out as a suggestion which may be worth consideration. It is a matter which is of some urgency at the present time, but I fully recognise that these are things which cannot be dealt with in a violent hurry.
The matter is in a way ripe for legislation and overdue, but it is an advantage perhaps that the Mental Treatment Bill was not passed at the moment at which it might have been, because we now have the luminous Report to which the noble Earl has referred. It will enable the Government to deal with the matter much
252
more comprehensively than was proposed in the former Bill and if, as I understand, there is a prospect of amending the Poor Law as well, inasmuch as the Report contemplates alterations in the relations of guardians to the administration of asylums in which they have patients, it would be necessary to co-ordinate the Poor Law as amended with the Lunacy Law as amended. It may therefore be an advantage that the two things should be considered together. All I desire to urge is that if legislation is introduced next Session, which I am afraid is a Session already rather overcharged with potential legislation, I hope that such legislation will be proceeded with to an issue.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the two noble Lords who have just spoken have done so with such clearness and knowledge that I am particularly sorry to have to begin, as I think I had better do quite frankly, by confessing that the information I am authorised to give them is extremely limited. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke for a considerable period on this subject and I do not think the Ministry would disagree, at least in principle, with the majority of his remarks; but I think both he and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have said enough to convince the House that although many of the results the Commission set out to attain are in themselves universally admitted to be desirable, the steps that it would be necessary to take to bring those aims and objects into being might give rise to considerable controversy on grounds quite apart from the purely medical and scientific aspects involved. For instance, the example has been given of the Harnett case. The prolonged litigation that arose on that case is an example of how far the legal status of the medical profession is involved in the law as it stands at present. It also shows with what care it would be necessary to consider alterations of any kind in order to reduce to a minimum the possibility of similar cases arising out of the obscurity of the law.
It is not only in regard to the concrete recommendations of the Commission that this care is needed. On certain points, as for instance the licensed house, which was referred to, the Commission itself expressed divided views. I

253
do not think I need labour that point, but the House will no doubt appreciate that the Government feel there is need for the very closest consideration of this and similar questions in all their aspects, scientific, legal, financial and administrative, before they decide on their policy or enunciate it. In view of the fact that this Report was presented in July of last year, the Government feel that they are entitled to claim a rather longer period for the necessary investigation than has been available up to the present. In this connection I might point out that the Commission itself took two years over its own deliberations. Again, the present administration of the Lunacy Laws, as has been said, is closely interwoven with the Poor Law administration. Upon this the Report says:—
"We are of opinion that Lunacy Law and administration should be divorced from the Poor Law; but as this may be one of the results of the contemplated reform of the Poor Law, our proposals under this head must necessarily be tentative."
Until the Government's proposals for the reform of the Poor Law are in slightly more crystallised form it would obviously be almost useless for it to discuss the administrative side of the Commission's Report which forms a considerable proportion of the Report.
In reply to the other questions which were referred to by the noble Earl, I am sorry that the Minister cannot authorise me to give specific answers because he feels that such a discussion, before the Government's investigations are concluded and before the administrative side is properly settled, would enable him, only to make a very partial statement which might very easily, as the noble Earl will admit, cause unsettlement and controversy outside this House. That would be both unnecessary and undesirable. I am authorised, however, to tell the noble Earl that the Minister considers that there can be no dispute in regard to several of the principles which he mentioned, as for instance, the desirability of treating the mentally afflicted at the earliest possible opportunity after the disability has been made manifest and also the desirability of removing the Poor Law stigma. I can also assure him that the Government regard this Report as a most valuable document, and that they will not fail to adopt such of its recommendations as it may be found
254
possible to do when the investigations of the Government are completed, and when they are in a better position to consider the relations of this Report to their Poor Law Reform proposals.
It is not very much, but I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with these assurances and will be satisfied that there exists a strong disposition on the part of the Government towards accepting the majority of the Commission's Report, at least in principle, and that the unwillingness of the Minister to indicate his exact views on the points specifically raised by the noble Earl is not so much dictated by any idea of evading the points at issue but is due simply to the fact that the Government are most anxious to treat the Report as a whole. I will, of course, draw to the Minister's attention the suggestion which my noble friend made with regard to a draft Bill, and also the proposal which my noble friend Lord Sandhurst made regarding the suggestions for the period of detention and the safeguards for the medical officers involved in those cases.
VISCUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Lord who represents the Government has obviously been very much hampered in the statement he has made. He has not been furnished with very full materials and he has to avoid committing the Ministers who are responsible. It is a little unfortunate, and I cannot, help wishing that the noble and learned Viscount who presides on the Woolsack had been able to come here and take part in this debate. Like him, I occupied the Woolsack at a time when the Woolsack was closely associated with the administration of the Lunacy Law, more closely than it is to-day. The Board of Control has now been substituted for the Lunacy Commission with which in the old days, when my noble friend Lord Sandhurst was one of the Visitors, I was closely associated as Lord Chancellor and had a great deal to do in connection with the lunatics. Not only so, but I presided here for days over cases in which we had a lunatic, and an extremely clever one, addressing us from the Bar and exhausting every technicality to influence our judgment.
I listened to-day with the greatest interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Russell, who, with great lucidity,

255
gave us an exposition of the conclusions to which Mr. Macmillan's Commission has come. No doubt on those conclusions many points of difficulty will arise, such as the noble Earl opposite referred to, but, after all, on the main principles there is no room for a great deal of controversy. What I suggest to the Government is this. It is very unsatisfactory to let a thing slide with the sort of assurances that the noble Lord was able to give us. It would be much better if the Ministry of Health, whose business it is, were to set to work to have a Bill drafted. They have got some very competent people at the Ministry of Health who could do that along with the Parliamentary draftsman. Then let that Bill go to the Lord Chancellor, to be looked at from the point of view of the liberty of the subject, of which he is the custodian. It can then be considered with reference to the Chancery lunatics and all the other classes of lunatics with which the Lord Chancellor is more intimately concerned. When that is done a great many of the difficulties will have disappeared. I speak from experience of the preparation of such a Bill, especially after the careful work which the Royal Commission has done in this Report.
Then I hope that the Government—not with the intention of passing the Bill this Session, but with the intention of getting the public judgment—will introduce it, perhaps in this House, which is the most convenient place in which to introduce it. We can then consider it briefly and it can go over to next Session. The important thing is that it should be introduced and printed so that we can have the criticisms of the public. That is a far better course, to my mind, than that which was adumbrated by the noble Lord opposite. He could not do more to-day, but, on consideration, the Minister will see that progress can only be made if there is a large body of public opinion behind it. Until the Bill is produced there will be a cloud of suspicion about it. When it has been printed and discussed with the aid of a large number of people who are experts on the subject, like Mr. Macmillan, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Russell, people who can contribute to the discussion of the Bill, then we shall be able to put forward something at a
256
subsequent date which will command general assent. Therefore, I press the Government to set to work at once with a view of getting it into a shape in which it is possible for us to consider it later.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I need hardly say that I do not rise to add anything material to what my noble friend has said. He has explained the position of the Minister of Health, and I can only repeat the promise that he indicated and implied, that the Minister of Health will most certainly give full consideration to all that has fallen from the very competent speakers in this afternoon's debate. I have listened with very great interest and profound attention to what has fallen from the two noble Lords who spoke with such special knowledge of the subject. I think the speech of the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite was one of very profound interest, and I am certain that all your Lordships, who had the good fortune to listen to it, will feel he has given a most admirable survey—no doubt from his own point of view, but representing a large body of the most expert opinion—and a most interesting survey of the question as it stands to-day. I am sure that all he has said and all that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has added to what he said will receive the most careful consideration of the Minister of Health.
Your Lordships are well aware that in dealing with these great and complicated subjects one of the great difficulties which faces any Government and any Minister is the difficulty of time. These questions are very complicated, and, although it is perfectly true that with the progress of knowledge, with the progress of medical science, with the progress of administrative capacity, a very large measure of agreement is gradually reached and has, I believe, been reached by those who have been working with the noble Earl and the noble Lord opposite, still inevitably there are questions which arouse great differances of opinion, even outside that large body of public prejudice to which the noble Earl referred in more than one very important and very interesting passage of his speech. I have already indicated to your Lordships how valuable I think that speech has been, but I think one of the most valuable effects of it to those

257
who read it will be to alter the general attitude of the uninstructed public mind towards what have been, and perhaps still are, some of the most difficult aspects of this most difficult question.
I can only repeat my noble friend's assurance that the Government are most sensible of the importance of this question. They cannot dissociate it, and obviously ought not to dissociate it, from other problems, from the Poor Law. The Poor Law Bill itself is one of great difficulty, magnitude and complexity, and I do not think the Ministry of Health, represented by my noble friend, can be seriously blamed if they ask for more time to consider a Report which, though it has been in the hands of the public for a certain number of months, is of a kind which cannot be dealt with straight off even by the ablest of Parliamentary draftsmen or the most expert of civil servants. I think the debate this afternoon has been most interesting and instructive, and I hope your Lordships will be content with the statement my noble friend has made, meagre though that inevitably is and little as I am capable of supplementing it with further details.

NOTE TO THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
258
may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether he has any objection to an early discussion of the Note recently addressed to the Soviet Government? In any ordinary circumstances I should imagine the procedure would be to wait until a reply had been received, but I ask the question because I have observed a statement that an almost immediate discussion is going to take place in another place.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I cannot conceive that there is any objection to meeting the views of my noble friend and having a discussion on the subject. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to consult with the Foreign Office and with those who are responsible for the business of the House. If he will put off his Question, or if he will put down a Motion tentatively for, let us say, next Thursday, without prejudice to anything that may be said by the Marquess of Salisbury when he returns—he is more responsible than I am for the general conduct of business in the House—I am sure that would meet with general approval.
LORD NEWTON: I will put down a Motion with no day named.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Of course I can give no pledge as to date.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Hothfield—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  COVENTRY CORPORATION (BOUNDARY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]

    BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    DERBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL. [H.L.]
    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TRAMWAYS VEHICLES) BILL [H.L.]

    ISLE OF WIGHT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    SCARBOROUGH GAS COMPANY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

YEADON WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed for Tuesday next.
BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

EAST DEREHAM ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of East Dereham, in the County of Norfolk:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Order Committee.