Sitting of 17 November 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill.
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

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

    DISABILITY PENSION (MR. JOHN BRYANT).
    Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. John Bryant, 29, Saffron Street, Whitehall, enlisted as a fit man in September, 1914, but that as a result of injuries or strain hernia occurred, and an operation was performed; that the pensions appeal tribunal decided that the hernia was attributable to service, but expressed the view that the effects of the disability had passed away; that Mr. Bryant completed 20 years' service with the forces; that during last year it has been medically certified that he lost over four months' employment due to the hernia, which was admitted to be due to service; and whether, seeing that the Ministry continues to provide treatment and two trusses per year, he will consider the desirability of having Mr. Bryant re-examined, under Circular 30, with a view to a reissue of pension?
    The MINISTER OF PENSIONS (Major Tryon):As I have already informed the hon. Member, this case has been specially considered, but no grounds were found on which further action in
    1086
    the direction suggested would be justified.
    Mr. BAKER:Seeing that the disability was admittedly attributable to service and that the man had 20 years' service, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman justify the action of depriving this man of a pension?
    Major TRYON:Disability pension is not granted on length of service which, in this case, was not 20 years but 12. A medical examination was made, and it was found that the conditions did not justify the continuance of the pension.

    CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Pensions whether there are any cases on record of pensioners who, being in ignorance of the provisions of the Royal Warrant with respect to a child born within nine months of their discharge, have applied for provision for such child some time after its birth, and have received arrears or a grant for the loss sustained during the interim between the birth and the application; and, if so, how many such cases there are?
    Major TRYON:In cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, it is the rule to grant children's allowance, if admissible, from the date on which application is made for the allowance, and not from any earlier date. The pensioner is always made aware of the number of children, if any, for whom allowances are added to his pension.
    Mr. WELLOCK:Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer my question as to whether there are any cases of this kind?
    Major TRYON:I cannot say whether there are or not. We have no separate lists of these cases, but as the hon. Member knows this provision as to the nine months is quite clearly conveyed in the pensioner's handbook for 1919, and in the Royal Warrant.
    Mr. HAYES:If there are any cases in which this grant has been paid, can the Minister state under what authority the allowances have been made?
    Major TRYON:If there were some exceptional circumstances it might be possible for a grant to be made.

    COMMUTATION.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions the average time taken to settle an application for commutation of pension; whether these applications are referred to the local war pension committee in all cases; and if in cases of house purchase, where it is often urgent to pay the deposit, he will arrange that applications for commutation shall be dealt with by the area officers and deputy commissioners of medical services, or that the men desiring to purchase a house may be permitted to commute pension and the money-warrant to remain on deposit at the area office so that it may be available at any time for payment to the vendor of the property when the, pensioner has the prospect of obtaining a house?
    Major TRYON:The time taken to settle applications for commutation of pension varies greatly but the average time is at present about a month. Every application is considered in the first instance by the War Pensions Committee, but it would not be possible to delegate to local officers the final responsibility for determining whether all the requirements of the Statutory Regulations are fulfilled. Nor would it be consistent with my duty under those Regulations of safeguarding the interests of pensioners to authorise commutation for some generic purpose without investigation of the precise project in view, the soundness of which is a necessary factor in establishing that it will be to the man's distinct and permament advantage to allow him to surrender part of a life pension.

    CELLULOID FACTORIES.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether celluloid factories will be brought under the same restrictions as explosive factories in forthcoming legislation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks):This matter has been receiving very careful consideration. A code of Regulations is already in force, but the serious fires which have occurred recently in works manufacturing or hand-ling cinematograph film, have shown the necessity of requiring the adoption at those works of much more stringent pre-
    1088
    cautions. I am about, therefore, to issue two draft codes of amendment Regulations; one—which has already been informally discussed with the industry—dealing with the manufacture of film, and the other dealing with works in which waste film is manipulated. These Regulations will introduce a number of new and important safeguards, and they will, I anticipate, render any special legislative provision unnecessary.
    Mr. W. THORNE:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the report of the fire which took place recently at St. Pancras and the statement made by the woman factory inspector about the number of factories which she was called upon to examine, making it impossible to do the inspection properly?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I am afraid that is true.
    Mr. THORNE:Why not engage more inspectors?
    Colonel DAY:What portion of the industry is the right hon. Gentleman consulting in regard to fresh Regulations? There are many portions of the industry.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I am sorry that I cannot answer that question off-hand. These Regulations have been submitted to one association dealing with this matter, and, if the hon. Member likes, I will look it up and let him have the name of the association.
    Miss LAWRENCE:Arising out of the supplementary answer, is it not the case that the money lost in these fires would pay the salaries of several inspectors?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:As the hon. Member knows, I hope next year to introduce a Factories Bill, and I trust to have her full support in carrying it through.

    LICENSING LAW.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the Return of the convictions for drunkenness which have recently been published, he will take steps to introduce legislation which would restore to the clubs at least some of the rights of which club members were deprived by the Act of 1921?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Prime Minister's statement on Monday last.
    Colonel APPLIN:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of the Government which introduced these Measures promised that they should be removed at the end of the War?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR:In view of the acknowledged relationship between these two agencies, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see to the cutting out of this business altogether?
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the licensing restrictions now existing with regard to a bona fade travellers; and whether he proposes to take any action this Session to deal with these restrictions, having taken into account the great increase of travelling during recent years?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement on Monday last.
    Captain CROOKSHANK:Is it not true to say that all the facts in regard to these restrictions are known, and that what is wanted is a decision on policy?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I do not think, with great respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, that the facts are clear—at least, they are not all in one direction. I constantly receive resolutions and letters on both sides. We have first to ascertain where the balance of truth lies, and it may be necessary to appoint a Commission.

  POLICE.

    PRIVATE PARKING CENTRES, LONDON.
    Captain A. EVANSasked the Home Secretary the number of police officers employed on duty at private parking centres in the Metropolitan area; and whether they are continuously so employed?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The police do not supervise private parking centres, but in the case of parking places on the highway which have been duly appointed under the Minister of Transport's Regulations, the police do their best to see
    1090
    that the Regulations, in common with other Regulations, are not infringed. Whenever the police can be spared, they are employed in regulating the traffic and the parking of cars at two such places for 16 hours daily except on Sundays; at one other for an average of eight hours daily, and at another for eight hours daily on Monday to Friday and four hours on Saturday. All the other parking places are merely supervised by the police on patrol in the ordinary course of their duties.
    Captain EVANS:Are the police in addition to the attendants who are there by the authority of the Commissioner of Police—the licensed civilian attendants?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The police in uniform are totally different from the licensed attendants.
    Captain EVANS:What are the duties of the attendants as compared with those of the police?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:As I understand it, the attendant takes charge of the cars and sees that they are not stolen. The police are there to regulate the traffic which the attendant has no authority to do.
    Colonel DAY:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the attendants have to rely upon tips for their livelihood; and is it not time they received some payment?
    Mr. SPEAKER:That matter does not arise on this question.

    PRISONERS (CHARGES).
    Captain A. EVANSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case which came before the presiding magistrate at Bow Street on 11th October, where the police had taken down a statement and formally charged a person, and later re-charged the same person in the presence of another prisoner arrested subsequently; and if he will instruct the Commissioner of Police to give orders that this practice shall be discontinued?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Yes, Sir. The usual practice is not to re-charge a prisoner a second time, either in the presence of a second prisoner or otherwise, without good reason, and there is therefore no need for fresh instructions.

    1091
    In the present case, the reason for re-charging the first man was that he had been charged alone, instead of as acting in concert with a person unknown. The two were to be proceeded against jointly, and it was thought fairer in the circumstances, after the second man was arrested, to charge them jointly.
    Captain EVANS:Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the remarks of the magistrate in regard to this particular case?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I have communicated with the magistrate, who informs me that he has no reason to think that there was any intention of taking any unfair advantage of either prisoner.
    Captain GARRO - JONES:Who decides whether there is good reason for re-charging or not; and if the police themselves decide, what safeguard is there for the prisoner that the interests of justice are served in such cases?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The only person who can decide on charges is the inspector in charge of the police station to which the man is taken. He has to exercise that discretion, and I think hon. Members will agree that it is well exercised by men of experience such as the inspectors of the Metropolitan Police.
    Captain GARRO-JONES:Is not a grave principle of justice involved here, and is it to be left entirely in the discretion of a police officer?
    Mr. SPEAKER:That is the same question again.

    DOG RACING.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Home Secretary the number of police, mounted and on foot, on duty during September and October at or in connection with greyhound racing within the Metropolitan police area; the cost of the same; and what proportion is payable by the racecourse proprietors?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The average daily numbers in attendance were, during the months of September and October respectively, 148 and 135, at the cost of the Police Fund, and 177 and 166 at the cost of the proprietors. Those employed at the cost of the Police
    1092
    Fund were engaged mainly in the regulation of traffic on the highway, and their employment involved no extra charge to public funds apart from a trifling amount, under £20, for travelling expenses. Those employed on the racecourses were paid for by the pro-proprietors, and the total charges amounted to £2,129 approximately.
    Mr. MORRISON:Does that reply mean that the police who are employed inside the grounds have to be paid for by the proprietors, but that in regard to the police outside the proprietors are exempt from any contribution in connection with the regulation of the crowds?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:That is so. Inside, the proprietors have to pay, as they do on all race-courses. Outside, it is part and parcel of the duty of the police to arrange for the due control of the crowds, however they may be collected.
    Mr. MORRISON:But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a very large number of police, both mounted and on foot, are required in the immediate vicinity outside where these races take place, who would not be required there unless there were racing going on? Has he any power to require any proprietors to make any contribution towards that cost?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I do not think I have any power at all, and, on the whole, I think it is not necessary that I should. It is part of the duty of the police to regulate crowds, wherever they may be or however they may be caused.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary whether he will take any steps to amend the position and pensions of police pre-War pensioners either by making the percentage system permanent or by putting them in the same position and footing as present-day pensioners?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I regret that it is not possible to propose any further legislation on the subject.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY:Does not the increased cost of living apply just as much to the pre-War police pensioners as to the post-War men?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The matter was considered, I know, a few years ago when I was at the Treasury. I had it under careful consideration then, and the conclusion to which I was forced was that it was really not possible to deal with the cases of pre-War pensioners.
    Mr. HAYES:Now that the right hon. Gentleman is Home Secretary, does he not recognise that the wages, paid to the police prior to 1914 were grossly under the rate that ought to have been paid, as is evidenced by the post-War increases, and, as the injustice has been rectified for serving police, cannot he do something to rectify the injustice for old pre-War police pensioners?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members on the Front Bench on this side and, I think, the majority of the supporters behind him have pledged themselves in favour of an amendment of the pre-War scale of pensions?

    METROPOLITAN FORCE.
    Colonel VAUGHAN - MORGANasked the Home Secretary whether he will give comparative figures showing the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force in the various divisions for each year since 1919; and whether he can state that the present numbers are adequate to meet the great and growing task of dealing with London traffic and the additional work entailed by the growth of the population, especially in Outer London, without impairing the high standard of efficiency hitherto maintained?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:As the answer is long and contains many figures I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total strength of all divisions at 31st October was as follows:

    1919

    16,333

    1920

    18,683

    1921

    19,003

    1922

    18,436

    1923

    17,904

    1924

    18,077

    1925

    18,207

    1926

    18,867

    1927

    18,823

    1094
    I could hardly quote all the divisional figures in this reply, but I shall be pleased to send my hon. and gallant Friend particulars if he desires them. A full review of the police requirements of the Metropolitan Police District was conducted last year by a committee which I appointed for the purpose, and as a result of their recommendations the establishment of the Force was augmented in April last, and the divisional establishments were re-adjusted to meet existing needs. At present the Force is temporarily about 200 below the authorised establishment. The situation will be considered periodically, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all the varying requirements will be taken into account.

    COLONEL RICCIOTTI GARIBALDI.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether it was by his orders that inhibitions were placed on the movements of Colonel Ricciotti Garibaldi in this country; why he was prohibited from remaining in this country for the purpose of transacting his personal business; and why asylum was refused to this political refugee?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. This alien came to this country last January ostensibly en route to Cuba and he was held to his intention. Later he arrived here from the West and I decided that he ought not to stay in the United Kingdom. He left this country en route, I believe, to Italy. I am not aware that this alien was seeking asylum here or that he had any claim to be considered a political refugee.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Is this the Colonel Garibaldi who volunteered for the Allied armies before Italy's intervention in the War, and who raised an Italian corps; and is it not extraordinary that a man bearing this name should receive such treatment here?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I am not concerned with the details of what this gentleman did in or during the War. All I have to say is that he came here and applied to be allowed to go through this country to Cuba. I allowed him to do so, and he came here on his way back to his own country, but he did not apply for permission to remain here.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was prohibited for some time, at any rate, from coming to London to transact his business, and that he was treated as a criminal in this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not say that aliens are treated as criminals. There are certain Regulations with the administration of which I am entrusted by the House. This gentleman is quite obviously an alien, and I have applied the Regulations in regard to him as I should in regard to any other person who was an alien.
    Mr. THURTLE:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Colonel Garibaldi is not the same person who was turned out of France for Fascist activities?

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet issued his proposed communication in reply to the deputation from the Association of Education Committees urging upon him the desirability of legislation raising the obligatory age of school attendance to 15 years; and whether this communication will be published?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy):I hope to send the association the statement referred to in the course of the next few days. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the association would prefer that the statement should not be published before they have had an opportunity of considering it further and conferring with me again.

    TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS' EXAMINATION (COST).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in London and elsewhere neither the local education authority nor the University is prepared to accept any financial liability for the cost of the examination of training college students which has hitherto been borne by the Board of Education; and how does he propose to meet the difference between
    1096
    the 30s. per student proposed to be allowed by the Board for this purpose and the actual cost of the examination, amounting in London to as much as £4 per head?
    Lord E. PERCY:The matter is still under discussion, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement in detail.

    SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Education which firms or groups of firms, outwith the control of the State, are receiving assistance in their research work from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; the number of State servants who are assisting these firms and groups of firms; and the total amount of money paid by the State to assist in research work for industries outwith the control of the State?
    Lord E. PERCY:No direct financial assistance is given to individual firms for their research work. Full information of the conditions under which financial assistance is given to groups of firms and particulars of the research associations formed under the Government scheme for industrial research will be found in the Annual Reports of the Department and in a publication entitled "Co-operative Industrial Research" recently published by the Stationery Office, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. No State servants are directly assisting research carried out by groups of firms except in an advisory capacity. Special investigations are carried out for firms or groups of firms on repayment terms in State research establishments.

    STAG HUNTING.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to take powers to prevent further incidents such as that associated with the Devon and Somerset staghounds in August last, when a stag was roped over the antlers, dragged out of the river and its throat cut in the presence of a large crowd of people?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject of stag hunting at the present time.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN:Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a great outcry in the country against a lot of these cruel sports, and will he not take into consideration legislation against some of these so-called sports, which are in reality brutality?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I really think the hon. Member exaggerates altogether his own feelings, and attributes them to the country at large.
    Mr. WESTWOOD:Is the Home Secretary aware that there is an enormous number of letters of protest, that ministers of the Gospel have preached against these sports from their pulpits, and that it is not an outcry from this side only but from even his own side?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member must not make a speech.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the bringing in of an amended Workmen's Compensation Bill during the next Session that will do away with the waiting period of three days?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:No, Sir. The Holman Gregory Committee reported against such an alteration of the law, for the reasons set out in paragraph 74 of their Report, and I am not in favour of it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case between Thomas Lovett, plaintiff, and the York-shire Coalowners' Mutual Indemnity Company, Limited, defendants, in the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, on 18th July, 1927, where the defendant company had issued a certificate purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff, who is a medical practitioner, and which was calculated to deprive an injured workman of his compensation; and, if so, is it his intention to take power to prevent any combination of employers similar to the defendant company from conducting compensation business in future?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I have seen a newspaper article on this case and have directed a full inquiry into
    1098
    the circumstances before I can express any opinion. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    RAGS (STUDENTS AND WORKERS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Home Secretary if, in view of the degree of latitude which is allowed to students to inconvenience the general public by periodic outbursts called rags, as was evidenced by what took place in Gower Street on Thursday last, he will instruct the police to maintain the same tolerant attitude to similar exhibitions of youthful exuberance on the part of workers in London?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Outbursts or rags are of diverse characters, and it is the practice of the police to be tolerant when tolerance is in place and I do not think any special instructions are required.
    Mr. THURTLE:May we take it from the Home Secretary's reply that the same indulgence which is extended to medical students will be extended to the proletariat?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:It depends entirely on how the hon. Member behaves.
    Mr. HAYES:Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many members of the general public and the police were assaulted in connection with this recent rag?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I have had no report, but if the hon. Member likes to put a question down, I will, of course, get the information for him.
    Mr. MACLEAN:Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many police were required here, mounted and on foot, for the regulation of the traffic?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:It must be obvious that if the hon. Member wants detailed figures, he must put a question down.

    ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS).
    Mr. MORRISasked the Home Secretary, with regard to the experiments on living animals performed during the year 1926 under licences granted under

    1099
    the Act 39 and 40 Vic., c. 77, under what certificates, if any, were they performed; and by what licensees?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I would refer the hon. Member to the Return of Experiments on Living Animals for 1926 (No. 87 of 1927).

    JUVENILE COURTS (CIRCULAR).
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Home Secretary why his recent Circular to magistrates on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders was only issued to magistrates' clerks and not to individual justices, seeing that in many instances the provisions contained therein have failed to reach the individual magistrate concerned?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:I assume that the hon. Member's question relates to the Circular which was issued from the Home Office on 30th September last regarding Juvenile Courts. This Circular was issued in accordance with the usual practice to clerks to the justices, but the clerk was supplied in each case with a number of copies and was asked to supply a copy to every magistrate who ordinarily attended the Court. The clerk to the justices was further informed that additional copies could be obtained, if required, on application to the Home Office.

    PRISON SENTENCES.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by certain magistrates in obtaining information as to the exact differences accorded to prisoners sentenced to periods of hard labour, ordinary imprisonment, and imprisonment in the second division, and also that the issue of information on this subject to magistrates' clerks has not always reached individual magistrates; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a Circular for the personal information of every justice?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Full information on this subject was circulated to all Courts of summary jurisdiction some time ago, and I hope to issue a
    1100
    revised and comprehensive statement to all Courts at an early date. Arrangements will be made for a sufficient number of copies to be available for the information of all justices attending the Courts and for placing the Circular on sale.

    DOGS (CONTROL).
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has received information from any municipal councils of the passage of a new bye-law wherein all dogs are to be kept under control between sunset and sunrise; and if his consent has been given to it?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:The answer is in the negative.

    ALIENS RESTRICTION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Captain BOURNEasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to secure the passage into law this Session of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Bill?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:Owing to the pressure of Parliamentary business, His Majesty's Government have decided that the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Bill must be postponed until next Session, and Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, will accordingly remain in Part I of the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, 1927.

    MILLS AND FACTORIES (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. SANDEMANasked the Home Secretary the number of fatal accidents that occurred in mills and factories last year, occasioned by the throwing on of belts?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:If my hon. Friend is referring to the practice, common in cotton mills of "throwing on" light belts on to overhead pulleys from the floor without approaching the shafting, there are no statistics available on the subject, but the chief inspector informs me that he cannot recall any fatal accidents due to this practice.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    FINANCE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health the amount of contributions to health insurance in the insurance year ended July, 1927, and the amount paid out in benefits during the same period?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain):The amount of health insurance contributions collected in the year ended 3rd July, 1927, was approximately £24,900,000. The total income of the national health insurance scheme in the year, including interest and State grant, amounted to approximately £37,100,000.
    Returns of expenditure from approved societies and insurance committees are made only for complete calendar years, so that the amount paid out in benefits in the period specified in the question cannot be stated. It is, however, estimated on the basis of the amount of cash issued from the National Health Insurance Fund and other data, that in the period specified the expenditure on all health insurance benefits, together with expenses of administration, amounted to about £39,300,000. This figure is inclusive of expenditure on additional benefits.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS:Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us approximately what the cost of administration was?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I must have notice of that question.

    DENTAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he can give under national health insurance the total number of dental treatment cases and the cost for the six months of the financial year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The complete information asked for by the hon. Member is not available. Certain figures have, however, been obtained from a number of the largest societies, with a total membership of over 6,000,000 insured persons, and these show that during the 12 months from July, 1926, to June, 1927, the number of claims for dental benefit sanctioned by the societies
    1102
    was 571,435, at a cost to the societies of £1,426,832. It is estimated that the total number of claims sanctioned in the year by all approved societies was about 1,100,000 and the cost about £2,500,000.

    BENEFIT (ADA FIDDY).
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Health if he will make inquiries into the refusal of the Prudential approved society to pay sickness benefit to Ada Fiddy, No. 4,755,603; whether he is aware that late notification was entirely due to ignorance of the rules of this society and that no rule book had been supplied to the member; and if he will satisfy himself that this approved society takes proper steps to acquaint domestic servants and its members generally with the provision of their rules?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am aware of the circumstances of this case, which was brought to my notice in May, 1926. The approved society withheld payment of sickness benefit in accordance with Section 13 (4) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, which provides that benefit is only payable from the day following that on which notice of incapacity is given unless the member was not reasonably able to give notice earlier. Ignorance of this requirement cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse in itself for late notification. It is, I understand, the society's practice in accordance with its rules to inform each new member, on admission, that a copy of the rules can be obtained on payment of 2d.
    Mr. TAYLOR:Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these wealthy approved societies do not rob servant girls of their benefits by not taking proper precautions to make them acquainted with the provisions in their rules?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member had better put that question down on the Paper.
    Mr. TAYLOR rose——
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member must not remain standing when I rise. I think he had better put his supplementary Question in a form in which I can see it.

  POOR LAW.

    DECEASED PAUPERS (ANATOMICAL EXAMINATIONS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any protest from boards of guardians in reply to the letter issued by his Department asking the boards of guardians to hand over the bodies of paupers who die in their institutions, and who are without friends and relatives, to the medical schools for anatomical purposes; and will he state whether poor and friendless persons are given an opportunity of specifying before they die what shall be done with their bodies after death?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:Some boards of guardians have declined to exercise their powers under the Anatomy Acts, but I am not aware that any protest has been received. As regards the second part of the question, any inmate of an institution may express a desire that his body shall be interred without anatomical examination, and Section 7 of the Anatomy Act, 1832, provides that such a wish shall be respected.
    Colonel DAY:Can the right hon. Gentleman say if after the examinations the bodies are interred in consecrated ground?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:Oh, yes.

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (ELECTION).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Health whether he intends to introduce legislation postponing the election of boards of guardians which is due to take place next year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:No, Sir.
    Mr. DALTON:May I ask when the proposals for Poor Law reform, which will involve the abolition of the boards of guardians, will be introduced?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am not in a position to make a statement.

    OUT-RELIEF, WEST HAM.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Health whether he can give the decrease in the number of persons on out-relief in the West Ham Union since the suspension of the elected guardians, distinguishing between the able-bodied unemployed and others; and whether he can
    1104
    inform the House how many of these able-bodied unemployed have since found work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The number of persons in receipt of out-door relief in the West Ham Union on the 17th July, 1926, immediately prior to the supersession of the late guardians was 60,399; on the 5th instant the number was 28,807, a decrease of 31,592. In the same period the number of able-bodied unemployed in receipt of relief has fallen from 13,572 to 4,962, a decrease of 8,610.
    It cannot be stated with exactness how many of the able-bodied unemployed persons who have ceased to apply for relief have actually obtained work, since it is not the function of the guardians to keep records of the career of persons who have ceased to receive relief, but from the information received by the guardians and their staff I am advised that it may safely be assumed that the great bulk of the able-bodied unemployed who have ceased to apply for relief have obtained work.
    Miss LAWRENCE:If no records are kept, how can the board of guardians assure the Minister that those persons struck off relief have obtained work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The guardians have certain information given to them from time to time, and they get information from relieving officers. It is based on that information.
    Miss LAWRENCE:Will the Minister either publish that information or, alternatively, withdraw the statement he has made? Will he explain how in the absence of statistics the guardians can give him that assurance?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:What I said was that it was impossible to obtain exact figures, but a general impression may be derived from verbal conversations.
    Miss LAWRENCE:I want to ask the Minister a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER:I have had to tell hon. Members on other occasions that it is not in order to point a finger.
    Miss LAWRENCE:I apologise to you, Sir, and to the House. I desire to ask the Minister if he will inform the House on what evidence he stated in public that in despair a lot of the unem-

    1105
    ployed obtained work, and whether he will either substantiate the statement or withdraw it?
    Mr. SPEAKER:That is the same question again.
    Mr. W. THORNE:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the information already given to the House was not supplied to him by Sir Alfred Woodgate, and, if that be true, will he invite him to go to see a theatrical play called "The Big Liar"?

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) ACT.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Health the results of the administration of the Poor Law by guardians appointed under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926; and whether such administration has led to an increase or decrease in expenditure and pauperism?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I would refer my hon. Friend to the reports made by the guardians, which have been presented to Parliament. In every case there has been a decrease both in expenditure and in pauperism.

    REFORM PROPOSALS.
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Minister of Health whether, under his proposals for the reform of the Poor Law, county boroughs and municipalities in general will have power to co-opt members of the existing boards of guardians either on the statutory committee which they will have to set up or on any sub-committee of that statutory committee?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:Yes, Sir.
    Mr. PALING:When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to put his proposals into legislative form?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I have already said this afternoon that I am not in a position to make a statement.

    BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN, WEST HAM.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Health the number of children boarded out or sent to residential schools from the West Ham union area by the guardians in the year ended June, 1926, and in the year ended September, 1927?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am making inquiries, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

    CASUAL WARDS (HEATING).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Minister of Health whether there are still any casual wards without provision for heating; and, if so, will he state the names of the unions and counties where these wards are situate and for which sex they are provided?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:Yes, Sir. There are five such wards, one of which has only recently come to my notice. In three cases the guardians are taking active steps to make the necessary provision. In one the question of closing the wards is under consideration, and in the remaining case, my inspector is in communication with the guardians on the question. In the circumstances, my hon. Friend will probably not press for the information asked for in the second paragraph of his question.
    Mr. MACKINDER:In view of the number of casual wards that are being closed, can any provision be made for those men who are tramping about from one place to another?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS:Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the names of those Guardians ought to be given?
    HON. MEMBERS:No!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am willing to give them if the House desires to have them. The first is Cardigan, the second Carnarvon, the third Shaftesbury, the fourth Sheppy and the fifth Holsworthy.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health, whether he proposes introducing legislation making it compulsory that all labels on tins containing condensed skimmed milk shall bear the words, Unfit for babies, in large and prominent type across the centre of same?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The Condensed Milk Regulations of 1923, make it compulsory for the labels of tins of condensed skimmed milk to bear the words "Unfit for babies," and prescribe certain details as to the manner in which these words are to be printed.

    1107
    I am now making further Regulations modifying these details, so as to give greater prominence to the words in question.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the sale of milk is prohibited unless produced under the auspices of the Milk and Dairies Order, he will also prohibit the sale of foreign skimmed condensed milk unless produced under similar ideal conditions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY:Can my right hon. Friend say why it is forbidden to sell milk in this country except under the Milk and Dairies Order, and yet it can be sold when it comes from foreign sources?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I do not understand what my hon. and gallant Friend means.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY:Why is it permissible to sell in this country skimmed milk which is produced in foreign countries under conditions which would not be permitted in this country under the Milk and Dairies Order?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer given yesterday, he will see that the conditions in foreign countries have been found to be fully equivalent to those in this country.
    Major COLFOX:Does that mean all foreign countries?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:No; it does not mean all foreign countries, but two countries from which 95 per cent. of the skimmed milk imports of this country are obtained.

    LONDON REFUSE (COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the Report on refuse dumps; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I have not yet received the Report, but it is now in
    1108
    preparation. The investigation covers the whole question of the collection and disposal of London refuse, a very big subject on which it has been essential to obtain full information if the Report is to be of the desired value.
    Mr. LOOKER:May I ask my right hon. Friend if it be not the case that this Report has been in preparation for nearly two years and that there is only one officer in his Department who is attending to it and who knows anything about it, and will he take steps to expedite it and set up a Departmental Committee to inquire into it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I do not admit that there is only one officer who knows anything about it in my Department, and in these days of economy I do not think it necessary to set up a new staff.

    INFANT WELFARE CENTRE, KINVER.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he has approved of the transference of the infant welfare centre at Kinver, through the Staffordshire County Council, to be held on licensed club premises; and why the centre was removed from the premises previously occupied?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The premises were visited recently by one of my inspectors, who reported that the work of the infant welfare centre is not adversely affected by the use of these premises; that the premises are not unsuitable for the purposes of a centre; and that there are no other suitable premises available. I have been informed by the county council that they were compelled to leave the premises previously occupied as the result of a notice to quit.
    Mr. ADAMSON:Is the right hon. Member aware that a considerable number of residents refuse to attend a clinic upon licensed premises, and is it the policy of his Department to condone the action of the county council in subsidising a Conservative club for this purpose?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The fact that the premises are occupied by a Conservative club has prompted the question.
    Mr. ADAMSON:Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why they were re-

    1109
    moved from religious premises? If they are not prepared to agree to the premises being assessed, can they expect to get a place away from licensed premises?
    Mr. THURTLE:Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it desirable that an infant welfare centre like this should be held at a Conservative club?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:As I have said, I sent an inspector to see whether there was anything unsuitable, and the inspector reported that there was not. I understand the premises are not used as a club until after the sessions of the infant welfare centre are over.

    MILK CONSUMPTION.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Medical Research Council in its Special Report Series, No. 105, declares that as a result of careful investigation and test it has been proved that an addition of one pint of milk per day to the dietary of boys of school age increases the average weight by over 3 lbs. per annum, and the average height by almost 1 inch per annum; and what steps he proposes to take to see that the results of these investigations are fully utilised in improving public health?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am aware of the Report of the Medical Research Council to which the hon. Member refers. The most effective method of securing that the results of the investigations shall be utilised in improving public health is by making them known to the public at large, and I am glad to say that considerable publicity has been given to them not only by the Ministry of Health, but also by the National Milk Publicity Council and the milk industry itself.
    Mr. JOHNSTON:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Medical Research Council (Lord Balfour) has publicly complained that the valuable results of the investigations of his staff received no attention?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not refer-ring to this Department.
    Mr. JOHNSTON:Is the Minister of Health aware that Lord Balfour made
    1110
    that statement in the preface to the last Report of the Medical Research Council?

  HOUSING.

    REPAIRS (FACILITIES).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Health whether he would be prepared to introduce legislation to give facilities to house owners to enter adjoining property in order to carry out the repair of their own property, provided that proper notice was given to adjacent owners and that any damage caused to the latter was made good; and whether he is aware that the present state of the law inflicts hardship in many cases and hinders the keeping of property in good repair?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am not aware that the present state of the law causes such difficulty and hardship as is suggested, and, as at present advised, I should not be prepared to introduce legislation on the subject. If the hon. Member has any special class of case in mind, perhaps he would send me particulars.

    APARTMENT HOUSES.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Health the number of families living in one, two, three and four-apartment houses and upwards in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the figures for England and Wales in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland, the hon. Member should address his inquiry to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, respectively.
    Following is the statement:
    England and Wales—Census, 1921.
    Number of private families occupying—

    1 room

    317,417

    2 rooms

    917,958

    3 rooms

    1,358,681

    4 rooms

    2,144,183

    5 rooms and over

    4,000,958

    8,739,197

    1111
    These 8,739,197 private families occupied 7,759,821 structurally separate dwellings of which
    7,006,707 were occupied by 1 private family.
    597,807 were occupied by 2 private families.
    155,307 were occupied by 3 or more private families.

    SUBSIDY.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Health if he can state the total amount that has been paid in subsidy in connection with the various housing schemes in England and Wales since 1919; and the amount that has been paid to Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The total Exchequer payments made since 1919 in respect of housing schemes in England and Wales to 12th November, 1927, amount to £58,900,669, and the following amounts have been paid in respect of schemes in the county boroughs named:

    £

    Liverpool

    1,707,533

    Manchester

    920,001

    Birmingham

    1,408,733

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health the figures showing the number of women between the ages of 65 and 70, wives of insured contributors to the widows', orphans', and old age pensions, who will not be entitled to a pension owing to their husbands attaining the age of 70 before January, 1928?
    Colonel PERKINSasked the Minister of Health if he can state the number of wives who, under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, will be deprived of their pensions at the age of 65 owing to their husbands attaining the age of 70 during the last few days before the old age pension Section of the Act comes into force; and whether the Government will consider any modification of the existing Measure to deal sympathetically with these old people who will lose their pensions by a few days or a few hours only?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The estimated number of wives involved is, in the former case 20,000, and in the latter 250. With regard to these cases, I would point out that not only does the husband's insurance provide unrestricted old age pensions at 70 for himself and his wife, but in the event of the latter becoming a widow before she attains the age of 70, it would entitle her to a widow's pension.
    As regards the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Colonel Perkins), I am afraid I cannot promise the necessary amending legislation. At the commencement of any insurance scheme there must always be a certain number of cases which only just fail to satisfy the qualifying conditions.
    Mr. BATEY:Is it not a hardship that the pension should be refused to these widows because their husbands happened to be born three or four months too soon, and will the Minister persuade his own side to allow the private Bill to pass?
    Lieut.-Colonel THOMasked the Minister of Health the total amount of the contributions and of pensions and allowances paid under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act by 31st October last?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The total amount of the contributions collected under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act from 4th January, 1926, to 31st October, 1927, was approximately £38,000,000.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Health the total cost of pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act as existing on the 6th October last; and what portion of that cost falls upon the taxpayers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The total amount of pensions and allowances paid from 4th January, 1926, including old age pensions to persons aged 70 and over payable by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Act from 2nd July, 1926, to 6th October was approximately £17,800,000.
    As regards the portion of the total cost that falls upon the taxpayers, Sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Act provides for the charge on the Exchequer to be an equalised yearly payment of

    1113
    four million pounds in each of the 10 years ending 31st March, 1936. The cost of old age pensions to persons aged 70 and over, payable by virtue of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, is borne wholly by the Exchequer. The estimated amount of such pensions to the 6th October was £5,600,000.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. S. A. Helliwell, of Prescott Terrace, Stainland, Halifax, who has been deprived of her old age pension on the ground that she is an inmate of St. Luke's Hospital, Halifax, a Poor Law institution, despite the fact that she entered the institution on the advice of her private doctor, is a paying patient, and also pays poor and district rates for her private dwelling; and whether he will issue instruction for the old age pension to be reissued with arrears from the date of suspension?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:An appeal by Mrs. Helliwell against the decision of the local pensions committee, that she has become disqualified for continuing to receive an old age pension by reason of having been an inmate of a Poor Law institution for the purpose of receiving medical or surgical treatment for a period exceeding three months, was received by me on the 12th instant. The case is now under investigation, and a decision will be given as soon as possible.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (OVERTIME).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether overtime is being worked in any of his Departments at present; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:Overtime is being worked in the Pensions Branch of my Department, the number of officers at present working overtime being 992. The special circumstances which have necessitated recourse to overtime on this scale are the large number of claims to old age pensions at the age of 65 under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Contributory Acts, which have to be settled in sufficient time to allow of payments being made on 2nd January next. A substantial number of temporary
    1114
    ex-service clerks have been engaged for this work, but the hon. Member will appreciate that the services of the existing trained and permanent staff must necessarily, in times of special pressure be utilised to the fullest possible extent.
    Mr. MORRISON:Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is something on, the face of it very unbusiness-like for over 900 people in one Department to work overtime consistently while other employés in another Department are being discharged? Is there no co-operation between Departments, so that where men are being discharged they can be taken on by another Department?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I would rather like the hon. Member to go to Acton and see for himself the nature of the work that is being done, and, if he does, he will be convinced that it is not possible to take hundreds of people and put them on this work if the work is to be done in time. I have taken great pains myself to go into this business, because I am against the working of overtime unnecessarily, and there have been, a large number of men added to the staff temporarily for this purpose.
    Mr. MORRISON:Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the whole 992 that are there are all specialists and highly skilled men, and that the men who are being put off from other Departments cannot do the work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:Yes, that is exactly what I do mean. It does require a considerable amount of experience to deal quickly and accurately with this work and you cannot take hundreds of people and expect them in a couple of weeks to do the work that has been done by other people for months.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN:Are not the ex-service men who are being discharged from Kew by the Ministry of Labour trained in similar work, and will the right hon. Gentleman not get into touch with his colleague the Minister of Labour and prevent their dismissal while these persons are working overtime?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:No, I have done all that I can.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS:Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if the

    1115
    concessions sought for were granted it would obviate the necessity for this overtime?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.

    SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) ACT.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Health the estimated number of inspectors to be appointed under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, to come into force on 1st January next; whether they will all be appointed by the Ministry; what is the estimated aggregate of their salaries; whether the inspectors will be pension-able; and, if so, what is the capital sum out of which pensions will eventually be paid?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister):I have been asked to reply. Any new staff which the local weights and measures authorities may think necessary in connection with the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, part of which came into operation on the 1st July last, will be appointed and paid by those authorities. No inspectors will be appointed in this connection by any Department of State. I would remind my hon. Friend that witnesses representing those authorities stated to the Food Council (as appears from paragraph 56 of their Report, Cmd. 2591) that no large increase of staff would be necessitated; that in some cases any increase would be quite small and might only be temporary; and that in some no increase would be needed.

    STAFFS.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he proposes to take any steps with respect to the large increase in the number of persons employed in Government Departments, 3,390 having been added in the three months 1st April to 1st July; if any further increase occurred in the following three months; and what is the cause of these increases?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel):I would refer my hon. and
    1116
    gallant Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth).

    PENSIONS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in what Department, exclusive of the three fighting services, fractional periods of years are allowed to count for retired pay; in what Departments it is customary to allow officers to complete a stated period after reaching the ordinary age for retirement in order that they should derive the benefits in their pension; and in what Departments neither of these procedures is followed?
    Mr. SAMUEL:Civil Service pensions are calculated upon completed years of service only. Heads of Departments have discretion to call upon their officers to retire at any time between the ages of 60 and 65. In Departments in which a normal retiring age has been fixed between those limits, it is usual to allow a short extension of service in order to enable an officer to complete another year for pension.

    SOUTHEND (BOROUGH BOUNDARY).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Minister of Health whether he has been consulted upon proposals to enlarge the Borough of Southend by taking in certain adjoining districts or portions thereof; and whether he has received any representations from such districts or the neighbouring local authorities protesting against such an extension being carried out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. LOOKER:Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations within the last few days from any parish councils or other authority?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:No, Sir, they have not come to me.
    Mr. MONTAGUE:Will the Minister consider also the likely enlargement of Southend's political outlook?

    COMPANIES BILL.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister the intention of the Government with regard to the Companies Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin):In view of the state of Parliamentary business, I regret that it will not be possible to proceed with the Bill this Session.

    MINES (SUBSIDENCE).
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to give effect to the Royal Commission's Report on mining subsidence?
    The PRIME MINISTER:The Report is being considered by the Government Departments concerned.
    Mr. PALING:Does that mean that legislation is going to be put upon the Statute Book?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I cannot answer that question until the Report has been received and examined; but in any case it is obvious that there can be no legislation this side of Christmas.

    MID-SCOTLAND CANAL.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Prime Minister if the Government have considered the project of proceeding with the Mid-Scotland Canal; and, if so, what decision have they come to?
    Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury):I have been asked to reply. This matter has been carefully considered by previous Governments, and such information as is available indicates that the receipts from such a canal would not be likely to justify the very heavy cost of its construction.
    Mr. BUCHANAN:Is the hon. Member not aware that Conservative Members of Parliament in the West of Scotland held out this scheme as a cure for unemployment, and that unless it is proceeded with they will be accused of a breach of faith?

    SUGAR REFINING INDUSTRY (GREENOCK).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Prime Minister if he has received any representations from the Greenock Corporation as to the serious plight of the town owing to the position of the sugar-refining industry; if the Government have considered the position of this industry; and if he can state if they intend taking any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to safeguard the position?
    The PRIME MINISTER:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the other parts, I understand that the British Sugar Refiners have made representations to the Treasury and that these are receiving consideration.
    Mr. BUCHANAN:In view of the very serious plight of this town, will the right hon. Gentleman have the reports and their consideration speeded up with a view to an early settlement?
    The PRIME MINISTER:The Treasury is notoriously a very quick mover.

    COUNTY VALUATION COMMITTEES (MEMBERS' EXPENSES).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the growing difficulty of local assessment committees to appoint representatives to the county valuation committees owing to their inability to repay out of their funds the reasonable expenses incurred by their representatives in attending meetings of the county valuation committees; and whether he will consider taking steps, either administratively or by amendment to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to remove this disability?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I have received some letters on this subject. I would remind the hon. Member that a similar proposal was discussed but rejected when the Rating and Valuation Bill was under consideration, and I do not propose to ask the House to reconsider its decision to which administrative action must, of course, conform.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (BEDWELLTY GUARDIANS).
    Captain FRASERasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the

    1119
    guardians who are administering the affairs of the Bedwellty Union find their efforts to assist willing and suitable persons to migrate are hampered by the difficulty of obtaining the necessary nominations from residents in certain of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions; that the Church Army, in carrying on ii emigration work, is permitted to secure nominations from its overseas representatives; and will he consider the advisability of circularising all local authorities to this effect?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I am informer that certain voluntary societies including church organisations are able, through their representatives overseas, to arrange nominations in a limited number of case for persons who wish to go overseas but cannot obtain assisted passages unless they are nominated. I am afraid there would be no advantage in circularising local authorities as my hon. Friend suggests, as the number of person anxious to obtain nominations is already greater than the number for whom nominations can be secured.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the imposition of a small to on imports from Soviet Russia to provide compensation for losses by British subjects formerly resident in Russia, who are now in a state of penury?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill):I have no intention of recommending such a course at the present time.
    Sir A. KNOX:Will the right hon. Gentleman state what reasons he has against taking such a course?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:That would lead me into a far more extensive speech that I can give now.

    CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of unpaid Corporation Profits Tax out standing and the total amount thereof liable to be collected ultimately?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:The total amount of Corporation Profits Tax in assessment but unpaid at the 31st October, 1927, was approximately £7,800,000; but I am unable to say how much of this sum will ultimately prove to be recoverable.
    Mr. W. THORNE:Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer state what steps he is taking to obtain this money which is due to the Exchequer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:All the resources of civilisation are being used.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. GEORGE HIRSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the National Debt at 31st March, 1927; the amount due per head of the population; and the interest charges on the National Debt per head of the population for the year ending 31st March, 1927?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:The nominal amount of the National Debt on the 31st March last was £7,622,945,552 and the interest charge for the year ended the 31st March last was £316,403,057. The corresponding figures per head of the population are £168 11s. and £6 19s. 11d. respectively. These figures taken by themselves would however be misleading, since the nominal total affords no measure of the real burden of the debt and the interest figure for 1926–27 was abnormally high owing to the coal stoppage.

    GINGER WINE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is investigating the constituents of ginger wine with a view to action on the next Budget?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:I had the pleasure of dealing with ginger wine in this year's Budget, and I am not contemplating any change in the arrangement sanctioned by Parliament in the Finance Act.
    Mr. W. THORNE:May I ask whether Members of the Government drink any of this ginger wine?
    Mr. PALING:Give some to the Prime Minister.
    Commander BELLAIRS:Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that ginger wine is notoriously a very quick mover.

    AGRICULTURE (CREDITS.)
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intends to introduce and pass a Long Terms Credit Act for agriculturists; and, if so, will he explain why the existing Credit Facilities Act, which was passed to enable money to be lent on mortgage to farmers who had bought their holdings, is now a dead letter though the Act is still in full force and effect, and many of such farmers are still applying for loans?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division (Major Braithwaite). With regard to the latter part of the question, the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, empowered the Treasury to fix the aggregate amount to be lent under Section 1 of the Act, and this has been fixed at £5,000,000. These loans were made only to a limited class of farmers—those who agreed to purchase their land not earlier than 5th April, 1917, nor later than 27th June, 1921—and are therefore in a different category from the proposals now under consideration.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY:Cannot the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Public Works Loans Commissioners to increase the amount of £5,000,000 which has been announced under the existing Credit Facilities Act which has been a dead letter up to the present?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:If I started to use my influence endeavouring to add to the liabilities, capital and otherwise, of the State, I think we should get into an even more difficult position than that which we occupy at present.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE:Is my right hon. Friend aware that farm mortgages are now being called in, and could he not do something to alleviate the hardship caused to farmers through the Government's delay in bringing in their credits scheme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:We are going to bring in a credits scheme at the earliest possible Parliamentary opportunity.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH:Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that such a grant would merely have the result of throwing good money after bad and would not in the least solve the agricultural problem?

    STAMP DUTIES (CHEQUES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, when a customer of a bank takes his own money from his account, a stamped cheque is demanded, but when he buys goods from a department stores, acting as a bank, he pays for these goods without any stamped cheque; and whether he proposes to put the two transactions on the same footing?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of some specific case which illustrates his point, I will consider it.
    Commander BELLAIRS:Is my right hon. Friend aware that these stores act as banks—that they issue cheques, and that you may have a dozen different transactions over £2 and sign for them without any stamp; and why should not the banks be on the same footing?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:The question is a complicated one, and, in the form in which it has been put on the Paper by my hon. and gallant Friend, there is some doubt as to the exact part of the subject which he desires it to extend. If he will focus it precisely on the exact point, I will see if I can give him a more definite answer.

    TREASURY NOTE ISSUE.
    Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government intend to introduce legislation having for its object the transfer of control of the Treasury currency note issue to the issue department of the Bank of England?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:As I have stated on many occasions, legislative proposals with this object will be laid before Parliament in due course. The precise date is a matter involving very difficult technical considerations, and I am not at the present time in a position to make a further statement on the matter.

    NEW SILVER COINAGE (CROWN PIECES).
    Sir C. OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, after the appearance of the new silver coinage, permit limited numbers of the crown piece, not struck as proofs but of ordinary mintage, to be purchased at their facial value by persons desirous of using them for presentation or otherwise, without it being necessary for the buyer to procure also the smaller denominations at the same time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:If, as I hope, there is a desire for Crown pieces, these pieces will be struck and put in circulation next year through the ordinary channels. The Mint are not at present issuing any of the new coins, except as specimen sets, and could not undertake to issue particular pieces at face value.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that schoolboys are particularly anxious to have the crown piece re-introduced?
    Mr. CHURCHILL:I am in entire sympathy with the younger generation.

    INCOME TAX (SERVICE PENSIONS).
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that Army ranker pensioned officers have been served with demands to pay arrears of Income Tax on their service pensions which they have not received, their service pensions having been withdrawn when they were awarded permanent disability pensions; and whether the exemption of payment of taxes in respect of disability pensions extends to ex-Regular Army pensioners?
    Mr. SAMUEL:The exemption from Income Tax in respect of disability pensions, granted by Section 16 of the

    STATEMENT showing the weight of artifical silk charged with Excise Duty in the six months ended 31st October, 1927, compared with the six months ended 31st December, 1925

    Six months ended—

    Singles Yarn or Straw.

    Waste.

    Total.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    Lbs.

    31st October, 1927

    20,872,000

    652,000

    21,524,000

    31st December, 1925

    13,783,000

    311,000

    14,094,000

    Finance Act, 1919, applies only to that part of the award which is solely attributable to disablement or disability, and, therefore, does not extend to pre-War service retired pay or pension. Thus, an officer, whether promoted from the ranks or not, who is in receipt of such service pension and is granted retired pay in respect of disability, is entitled to exemption only in respect of so much of the total award as exceeds the service pension. This position is not affected by the fact that the service pension is not issued as such, and the total sum due to the officer is paid as a single award by one paying authority.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK:Does my hon. Friend understand that these pensioners have forfeited their ordinary pensions on receipt of disability pensions, and that now they are called upon to pay Income Tax after several years on their ordinary pensions which they do not receive?
    Mr. SAMUEL:No, Sir; my hon. and gallant Friend, if he will allow me to say so, has misconceived the position. If he will look at my answer, he will see that it covers his question and supplements it.

    SILK DUTIES.
    Sir J. POWERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the weight of artificial silk charged with Excise Duty during the last six months and, for comparison, the weight so charged during the first six months of the operation of the duty?
    Mr. SAMUEL:As the answer is in tabular form, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

COAL INDUSTRY.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave importance of the position in the coal industry—[Interruption]—and its reactions in the country, he, as Prime Minister and responsible for the Government, will take an early opportunity of making a statement to the House himself on the general intentions of his Government?
The PRIME MINISTER:The position of the Government in respect of the coal industry would have been fully explained yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade but for the unfortunate incident which then occurred. In the circumstances, I cannot promise to afford a further opportunity for Parliamentary discussion.
Mr. MacDONALD:I beg at once to give notice that we shall ask an opportunity to discuss a Motion to this effect:
"That this House protests that, in the Motion on the serious situation in the coal industry, which involved a Vote of Censure on the Government, the Prime Minister deliberately evaded a defence or explanation of the inaction of the Government and his responsibility as Prime Minister."

COAL INDUSTRY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. MacDONALD:Will the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us the business for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER:On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
  Thursday will be set apart for a Debate on International Peace and Disarmament, which the Opposition desire to initiate.
  On Friday, the Resolution submitting for the concurrence of the House the names of the members of the Indian Statutory Commission will be discussed. It is necessary for the Government of India (Statutory Commission) Bill [Lords] to become law before the assent of Parliament can be asked to the personnel of the proposed Indian Commission. In all probability the Bill will reach this. House from another, place to-day, and, in order to allow of an early Debate on the Indian Commission, it is hoped to pass the Bill referred to during
  1126
  the early part of next week, reserving any discussion on the question until the Resolution is before the House.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD:Does the announcement involve depriving the House of any opportunity of discussing the Government of India (Amendment) Bill, which I understand is to be introduced on Monday?
  The PRIME MINISTER:There is only one point in that Bill, on which I think there is unanimity in the House, and that is the putting forward of the date which appears in the original Act.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD:May I press for an answer to my question? Will Members of the House be allowed that opportunity of discussing the Government's action in appointing a Commission of this nature at all?
  The PRIME MINISTER:I think that that point must be for Mr. Speaker, and not for me.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:May I ask a question on the business for Thursday? The Prime Minister promised us in the summer, before the House rose, that a day would be given for a Debate on the Geneva Naval Conference. Now I understand that the Debate on Thursday is to be a general debate on Peace and Disarmament. May I ask the Prime Minister particularly if it is intended that the First Lord of the Admiralty will be prepared to make an explanation or statement on that occasion, and that it will be a proper opportunity of discussing the naval events at Geneva, without in any way dealing with the whole question of the League of Nations and disarmament through the League of Nations?
  The PRIME MINISTER:We can, on this side, only deal with one Leader of the Opposition at a time.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Since when has the right hon. Gentleman objected to giving information on business to any Member of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER:The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that I am always ready to do that. On the first point he raised I want to make it clear to him that we had discussed this matter with the Leader of his party, as I under-

  1127
  stood, and that the Debate will be one on Peace and Disarmament. It is obvious that the question the hon. and gallant Gentleman alludes to will be brought within the terms of that discussion.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:Will the First Lord of the Admiralty give us some explanation?
  Mr. MAXTON:How does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Opposition to deal with several Prime Ministers?
  Ordered,
  "That the proceedings on the Cinematograph Films Bill and on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—(The Prime Minister.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend Section 84A of the Government of India Act with respect to the time for the appointment of a Statutory Commision thereunder.'—[Government of India (Statutory Commission) Bill [Lords].
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (STATUTORY COMMISSION) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [15th November] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Proceedings for failure comply with the provisions as quota.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 13, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) In the case of a conviction on indictment, the Court, in addition to imposing any such fine as aforesaid,—
    (a) where the offender is a renter, may on a third offence order that his licence be revoked, and may order that no licence shall be issued to him, or to any person with whom he is financially associated, or to any person who acquires his business, or to any person who took part in the management of his business and was knowingly a party to the offence, for such period in each case as may be specified in the order;
    Provided that where any such order is made the order shall not operate so as to prevent the renter carrying out for a period not exceeding six months any obligations under any contract entered into by him before the institution of the proceedings;
    (b) where the offender is an exhibitor may on a third offence order his licence under this Act in respect of the theatre with respect to which the offence was committed to be revoked, and may order that for such period in each case as may be specified in the order no licence in respect of that theatre shall be issued to him or to any person with whom he is financially associated, or to any person who took part in the management of his business and was knowingly a party to the offence, or to any person whose licence in respect of any theatre has been revoked during the twelve months previous to the date of the conviction."—[Sir C. Oman.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER:I hope it will not be necessary to debate the Amendment at any very great length, but there are one or two things that need to be said on it. First of all, after the President of the Board of Trade had first opposed an Amendment to delete the Clause he agreed that there should be a free vote of the Committee. The
    1158
    result was rather startling. Of the 23 members of the Conservative party who took part in the Division, 17 voted against the Amendment now moved and only six in favour. I hope the House will take into full consideration the views then freely expressed by the Conservative Members in Committee and will not allow their decision to be reversed. The next point I want to put is this. I do not think there is any precedent at all in our English Statutes under which a man could not only be prosecuted and fined heavily but have his licence taken away from him for refusing to sell to someone else something he does not want to sell, and that really is what would be the result of adopting this Amendment. It is as if, in the licensed victuallers trade, a man refused to sell Ind Coope's Ale because he particularly wanted to sell Bass's, and he would then be liable not only to a penalty but also to have his licence taken away and prevented in future from getting a livelihood. That is the sort of thing that would happen if this penalty came to be imposed.
    I do not want to say any more to show the ridiculousness of the Amendment. I only say to members of the Conservative party that they would do very well to support their colleagues who came to this decision in Committee unless they wish to jeopardise the whole of the cinematograph exhibitors' side of the business. I have had a large number of consultations on the matter with those interested, and the whole trade is dead against such a drastic penalty being imposed as to take away a man's licence and prevent him subsequently from earning a livelihood. I hope in the interests of the industry and of the reputation of the party opposite in the country that they will not adopt the Amendment.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE:The hon. Gentleman now speaks of the whole trade. Up to this point he has only assumed the right to speak for a section of the trade. The offence in question is one committed accidentally against the central principle of the Bill, and that is the infringement of the quota provisions. We are to have a free vote on this question, and, perhaps, I may be permitted to remind hon. Members of the main arguments in favour of this penalty. In the first place, it is permissive, and, in the next place,

    1159
    it can be inflicted only by the High Court on indictment and only on the third offence. As an hon. Member very well put it the other night, it is no good having a penalty unless you make that penalty effective. It is no good having an insufficient penalty when you are dealing with persons and corporations such as are dealt with in this Bill—people who will not think anything of a penalty of £500. If their licence be revoked, then it becomes a very serious matter for them. With reference to the small man who may suffer under this Clause, I should like to point out that it must be remembered that the penalty would only be inflicted on a third offence. As the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) said, if a man cannot manage his business so as to avoid repeating an offence of this kind, then he deserves to be put out of business. With regard to the voting on this point upstairs, I am told that it was very greatly influenced by the approach of the lunch hour. We had had a long Debate on other points, and I do not think this point was sufficiently discussed or that its importance was realised. I hope that the House will support this penalty which deals with the central principle of the Bill that establishes the quota.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:This Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) late at night on Tuesday, in a speech which, coming from one whom we are rather proud of in this House as a great historical authority, showed the extraordinary qualities of what I may call xenophobia. He attempted to influence hon. Members on his own side of the House to vote by talking of certain classes of wealthy proprietors of picture palaces and then going on to talk about foreigners and foreign opposition to the Bill. Those hon. Members present in the House knew that the longer the hon. Member for Oxford University spoke the more vehement he became on this matter. He attempted, in particular, in a way that I repeat surprised me very much indeed, to exploit anti-foreign feeling. The people who will be injured in this matter are not foreigners at all; they are the proprietors of British picture houses, and I think it is unfair
    1160
    of the hon. Member, in view of the position he holds in this House, to appeal to the primitive instinct of hatred in a matter of this sort. The hon. Member's speech was a model of what a speech in Parliament, or, in fact, in any other assembly, should not be. I think it is most unfair to bring in the foreign question when the people mostly concerned are the proprietors of cinema theatres up and down the country.
    It is all very well for the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) to say that the Division upstairs took place just before the lunch hour, and so on. I had not the privilege of being on the Committee, but I have been reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Salford West (Lieut.-Commander Astbury), whom I will remind the House is interested in the business and he is also a leading authority and a King's Counsel—I am sorry he is not in his place now—made an appeal to his party not to pass this Amendment. I will not trouble the House with his words, but apparently they had some effect, because I am now going to read out some of the names of the Conservative Members of the Committee who voted against the hon. Member for Oxford University on that occasion. Here they are—the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson), the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Smith-Carington), the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Captain Styles), the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin), the hon. and gallant Member for Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury), the hon. Member for Berwick and Haddingtonshire (Colonel Crookshank), the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), the hon. Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Mr. Dixey), the hon. Member for Portsmouth Central (Sir H. Foster), the hon. Member for Eye (Lord Huntingfield)—who was in his place a moment ago, and is Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade—the hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Jacob), the hen. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James), the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Jephcott), and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald). Where are all those hon. Members now? Are they going to be overridden by an hon. Member having a second shot on the

    1161
    Floor of the House? Some years ago I got into trouble for trying to do the same thing that the hon. Member for Oxford University is trying to do now. I was in charge of a Bill, and we came to a decision upstairs, and afterwards the people who were interested in the Bill persuaded me to try to get the decision reversed on the Floor of the House. I was taken to task, and the Bill was wrecked simply because I was trying to do in my foolishness what the hon. Member is trying to do in his wisdom.
    Captain WATERHOUSE:This is not the same Amendment as the one taken upstairs. The offence has to take place three times instead of only once. It alters the whole thing.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:I do not think that that alters the principle. It does not affect the principle of the Bill, and the principle is this, that if you take away a man's livelihood you take away his life. If you say that these men are not to pursue their vocations, it will be a terrible penalty. It is really unfair and un-English that these sort of penalties should be allowed. We have always tried to avoid in our Common Law, however bad an offence may be, saying that a man shall not be prevented from working in his business.
    Captain WATERHOUSE:What about the licensed victualler?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:The licensed victualler is very rarely proceeded against in this way. There are very few cases indeed. I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his party have, in the past, fought against this very penalty being applied to the licensed victuallers. Why do they approve of it being applied to unfortunate exhibitors and renters—because it is not to apply to producers of films. The hon. Member for Oxford University is an ornament of a great company that has been formed for the production of films, but it does not apply to him. His Amendment does not apply to producers of films, but only to renters and exhibitors. I am afraid the hon. Member's xenophobia has permitted him to inflict that injustice. Those hon. Members on the Committee upstairs who, after hearing the discussion, voted against this very thing should at least tell their colleagues
    1162
    who will presently come in great numbers from every part of the House and various Committees what is really before the House now. Otherwise, Members will come in, will see which is the Conservative Lobby, and in they will go. The hon. Member for Oxford University will be standing majestically in the doorway telling them which way to go. I ask hon. Members to see to it that those Members are told that this is an attempt to reverse a decision which was supported by an overwhelming majority of the Conservative Members of the Committee.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN:The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has said that I am guilty of xenophobia. I am not in the least guilty of xenophobia; I am guilty of "xeno-filmophobia," which is to say, I very much dislike foreign films, and the result of my Amendment will be that exhibitors will take less foreign films because of the penalties impending on them if they do not take more British films. I received to-day a strange circular from a body of film producers, or rather I should say, of owners of picture palaces, saying: "You are going to compel us to buy stuff we do not want." That is what we want to prevent. To say that we are hitting producers or renters or anything of that kind is not representing our purpose properly; we are hitting foreign films.
    Colonel DAY:The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us about a letter he has received from exhibitors stating that if this Bill passes the exhibitors will be made to buy something they do not want. I do not think he has quite conveyed to the House—I am not going to labour the point—a correct definition of the letter or the correct meaning of it. The exhibitors, I would like to state, intend to suggest that we are endeavouring to make them buy something that the public themselves do not want to see. It is not a matter for the exhibitors. There are no more loyal body of men in the country than the exhibitors, and if at any time they can take British films they are only too delighted to do so. But, they do not want to have to take films that do not suit the public, and there are certain films that have been produced that the public will not pay their money to see. I

    1163
    sincerely trust that the Members of the House will take that point into consideration when they vote on this Amendment.
    Mr. R. MORRISON:Is not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Sir B. Chadwick) going to make any reply? May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in view of the fact that no less than 23 Members of his own party voted in favour of the deletion upstairs in Committee, he has given any reconsideration to the position of the Government?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick):I was not going to reply, because I thought the situation was so clear, and my right hon. Friend has already said he will leave the decision to a free vote of the House. The situation is perfectly clear as to whether the heavier penalty should be included in the Clause. I say now, as I have been asked to express my opinion, that as it is a free vote of the House, I am not going to abstain. I am going to vote for the Amendment, because I believe it is very true that in these cases you are applying this penalty to a class of people in regard to whom the imposition of an insignificant penalty would really make the Measure inoperative.
    Mr. R. MORRISON:On a point of Order. On the one occasion upon which we discussed this the President of the Board of Trade announced that it would be decided by a free vote of the House and that, because he wanted it to be made clear to every Member that it was a free vote, he himself proposed to abstain from casting a vote either way. Is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary representing the same Department now to get up and announce that he intends to vote for the Amendment?
    Mr. SPEAKER:I think it is rather a pity that the hon. Member drew the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. HARRIS:Penalties are rather a technical matter, and we are entitled to ask for the guidance of the Law Officers when you come to manufacture new penalties, new punishments for new offences. The experience of Courts of Law ought to be a guidance. I rise largely because of the remarkable speech
    1164
    of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). I am one of those who feel great veneration and respect for all places of learning, and when a Uuniversity Member takes part in a discussion I feel a natural respect for what he says. The hon. Member for Oxford University justified his Amendment on the ground that he hates all foreign films. That is a remarkable doctrine.
    Sir C. OMAN:I did not say "all" foreign films.
    Mr. HARRIS:I will leave out the word "all" and say "foreign films." I hope he is not going to apply the same doctrine to the use of books and to exclude from his place of learning the study of Virgil, or Xenophon or Homer. Is he going to suggest that students in the Universities are not to be allowed to study any books except English history books written by English Members of Parliament?
    Mr. ERSKINE:On a point of Order. Is this not rather wide of the Amendment?
    Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) was not here, I think, in the earlier part of the Debate, when we discussed this very fully. This Amendment is a question of penalty for a third offence.
    Mr. HARRIS:I would not have intervened except for the second speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University. Of course, he is speaking with all his influence as a professor of learning. I do not know, however, how far his doctrine of foreign films went. How about books? English authors are suffering a very lean time at present because of the difficulty of publishing their books and——
    Mr. SPEAKER:This is going back on the main part of the Bill which has been disposed of.
    Mr. HARRIS:I only wish to say that the learned professor representing Oxford University has put forward on the Floor of the House a doctrine which is thoroughly pernicious, and certainly a very bad guide to other Universities, younger and apparently more enlightened than the University he represents in this House.
    Mr. WALLHEAD:The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has told us he hates foreign films. I understand he is now connected in a prominent way with the production of British films. I should like to get from him a definition as to what British films consist of. I understand that an hon. Member in Committee explained that a rather famous British film, which people were invited to see because it was a British film, was actually produced in Nice by French supers dressed in British uniforms hired in Germany, and that it was produced by an American. A Conservative Member in the Committee, I think, gave the illustration, and I should like to know from the hon. Member for Oxford University whether he would call that a British film, and whether British producing firms are going to be prevented under a Clause in this Bill from working that kind of hocus
    pocus on the British public. If the Amendment I moved the other night had been accepted, every film would have been labelled, and that sort of thing might have been prevented; but the whole thing is typical of the attitude of the Conservative Government. I would like to know what the hon. Member for Oxford University describes as a British film.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The definition comes in Clause 26, which has still to be discussed. I would remind the House that we are working under an arrangement, and it is very important that Clause 26 should be discussed. I hope, therefore, the House is prepared now to go to a Division on this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 344.]

    AYES.

    [4.22 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut Colonel

    Couper, J. B.

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Apsley, Lord

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

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

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hilton, Cecil

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Drewe, C.

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Bennett, A. J.

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

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Berry, Sir George

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

    Bethel, A.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Falls, Sir Charles F.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Finburgh, S.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Buchan, John

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Gates, Percy

    Lamb. J. O.

    Burman, J. B.

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Long, Major Eric

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Looker, Herbert William

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Grace, John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Christie, J. A.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    McLean, Major A.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)

    Colfox, Major William Phillips

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cope, Major William

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Savory, S. S.

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Oakley, T.

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Penny, Frederick George

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Radford, E. A.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L

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

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Salmon, Major L.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Sir Charles Oman and Viscount Sandon.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    NOES.

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

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scurr, John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, Walter

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barnes, A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Snell, Harry

    Bondfield, Margaret

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

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Sullivan, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Duncan, C.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Montague, Frederick

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Morris. R. H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Fenby, T. D.

    Murnin, H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Flelden, E. B.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Westwood, J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Maier G.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Windsor, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Wright, W.

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

    Ritson, J.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    Hardie, George D.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Harris, Percy A.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

    Sir B. CHADWICK:I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, to leave out Subsection (2).
    If the House will turn to Clause 30 of the Bill they will find that these words are inserted in that part of the Bill. There is no necessity for them here.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Films to which Act applies.)
    Mr. KELLY:I beg to move, in page 14, line 16, to leave out the words "by educational institutions."

    1169
    The Clause excludes certain films and amongst the exclusions are "films used wholly or mainly by educational institutions for educational purposes." I am asking that the words "by educational institutions" should be deleted. I wonder what is intended by the Government when they use these words? Do they mean a film which is exhibited in a school? I am not sure how to speak of Oxford University after what we have just heard, but with regard to "educational institutions" I certainly consider these words ought not to be in the Bill. Surely if a film can be used for educational purposes it does not matter who is exhibiting it? The film dealing with scenery or travel or with what can be used for a lesson to young people or adults and can be classified as educational, certainly should not be in the Bill, no matter who exhibits it. There will be some difficulty in defining "educational institutions," and the words should come out. A film was prepared by the party opposite showing some of the Cabinet at work. I do not know whether that film, if exhibited by an educational institution, would come under this Clause. Certainly I am not prepared to say whether that would be a film for educational purposes. I ask the Government not to place limitations in this narrow way, and not to look upon this industry as something that ought to be harassed with penalties hanging over it at all times, but that they should give it some opportunity of development.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope that the temporary absence of the President of the Board of Trade does not mean that he has left word with the Parliamentary Secretary that he is on no account to consider accepting this Amendment. I wish the House to understand exactly what the Amendment does. At present educational films which are to be shown at schools and colleges are allowed under the Clause to count for the British quota; that is to say, they are educational films and will count for quota under certain limited conditions when shown in educational institutions. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman, as well as ourselves, wants to see these educational films encouraged. We do not want to force them on people but we might legitimately give them the
    1170
    advantage of counting for quota in the ordinary picture palaces of the country. It would not mean that every picture palace would immediately start showing educational films, but it would mean that, if hard up for quota films they would fall back on an educational film, and that would tend to improve the character of the films shown. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), I understand, is connected with the production of educational films. They are so popular in this House that we should do all we can to assist the development of those films in order to encourage his unselfish interests in the film producing trade. I hope we may have the hon. Member's effective support of this Amendment, in view of the fact that it will give educational films a better chance of being shown to the public. Incidentally, the Amendment will assist exhibitors all over the country, because it will widen the category of films from which people can form a quota of British films.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister):The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to what the Amendment would achieve. The Amendment has nothing to do with the question whether or not a particular film should be counted in the quota. We had a discussion in Committee, and I there found myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, that where an exhibitor showed an educational film as part of his ordinary trade, then that film should count in his quota. That is already provided for in Subsection (1), paragraph 2:
    "any film being a British film and a film of class (b), (d), (e), or (f)"—
    it is class (d) we are discussing—
    "shall be registrable as if it were a film to which this Act applies."
    I wish the right hon. Gentleman would read the Bill. What that paragraph does is this: If an exhibitor shows an educational film under (d), at the ordinary time of trade in his ordinary show, he can count it for quota. The Parliamentary draftsman redrafted the right 'hon. Gentleman's suggestion in order to give effect to it, and really I hope, he will take it from me that that is what the Clause does. Paragraph (i) of Sub-section (1) says that if the film has a general publicity value it can be taken into the renter's quota as well. The only thing

    1171
    we are discussing here is what is the right definition of an educational film. The only sensible definition, indeed the only definition which could be interpreted with reasonable accuracy and which the trade could operate with knowledge, is that in the Clause, "films used wholly or mainly by educational institutions for educational purposes." The Amendment suggests that we should put a limitation on educational purposes. In every case then the matter would be in dispute and nobody would know where he stood.
    Colonel WEDGW00D:Why? If the Amendment were carried, (d) would read:
    "Films used wholly or mainly for educational purposes."
    That is all.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:Exactly. The right hon. Gentleman wants to include these films in the quota. Therefore he proposes a wider definition in the exclusion Clause. He is proposing exactly the opposite of what he intends. I want to prevent him from making mistakes which he does not intend to make. The Clause says that any film is a film to which the Act applies with the exception of (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f). Obviously if you make it wider than that in the Bill you exclude more films from quota and include fewer. I appeal to the House to save the right hon. Gentleman from himself.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:The President of the Board of Trade must refer to his Bill. It is true that the Amendment would widen the number of films which would normally escape being films to which the Act applies. It would, widen the class of films which would be allowed to count for quota under certain terms. In any event the interpretation of this Bill will rest with the right hon. Gentleman. If he means the same thing as we mean, there is no trouble about it. The right hon. Gentleman will act upon his interpretation and not upon the drafting of the Bill. If he does that, so much the better. Here is plain English and the thing is perfectly clear to me. The Clause says:
    "Any film being a British film and a film"—
    1172
    of the character which we want to widen
    "shall be registrable as if it were a film to which this Act applies and shall be deemed to be a registered film for the purpose of the provisions of this Act."
    Therefore, it is obvious that the more films of that character which are permitted to be registered to count for the quota, the larger will—[Interruption]. If the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) had paid attention to this Bill at an earlier stage he might have acquired that art of interpreting English which is so valuable to a Member of Parliament.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL:My only interjection was that the meaning of the words was perfectly obvious.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER:We want to secure that educational films which in the right hon. Genteman's view were genuine educational films can be allowed to go into the quota. If the right hon. Gentleman will take together paragraph (d) and the proviso (ii) he will see that it does mean that the only educational films which can be counted for quota are films which are used wholly or mainly by educational institutions.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:No, it is not. Every film counts for quota unless it is expressly comprised under the paragraphs (a) to (f). Therefore, a film which is of an educational character and is not used wholly or mainly by an educational institution can count for general quota purposes. The only films that are brought in under proviso (ii) are films which are prima facie excluded as coming under (b), (d), (e) and (f). The wider you make paragraphs (a) and (f) the more films you exclude from the prima facie right to count for quota, and those films can only be brought back in exceptional cases.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The Amendment—in page 15, line 11, at the end, to insert the words "under British control," and a further Amendment—also in page 15, line 11, at the end, to insert the words "the majority of the directors of which are British subjects"—are dealt with later on by a Government Amendment—in page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
    "The expression 'British company' means a company registered under the laws

    1173
    of any part of the British Empire, the majority of the directors of which are British subjects."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Are you not taking the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends, in page 14, line 36, to leave out from the word "Act" to end of paragraph.
    Mr. SPEAKER:I do not think there is much in that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Are the Government prepared to accept that Amendment?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:No. We had a full discussion in Committee on the question of the renter's quota. If the film is of general commercial value it can come in for the renter's quota under proviso (i). If it is of peculiar value and is a film such as those mentioned in paragraphs (b), (d), (e) and (f), then it has to come in under proviso (ii).
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:: I do not propose to refute the right hon. Gentleman's arguments.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The next Amendment deals with the question of scenes.
    Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move, in page 15, line 12, after the word "scenes," to insert the words "being those scenes in which artificial scenery is required."
    We had a long discussion in Committee as to what was a studio scene, but we did not get any satisfactory definition. The definition given by various members of the Committee as to what constitutes a studio scene differed very much, so that we were not able to help one another. As this is a very important matter, I think there should be some definition in the Bill of a studio scene. Is a British film company to be allowed to take their studio scenes in France? I do not wonder that they prefer French artists and French supers. [An HON. MEMBER: "And German uniforms!"] Yes, or German uniforms. They may naturally prefer their studio scenes in France, but I do not think that even the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) would wish that British films should be of that character, and produced in that way. If we want to ensure that the studio scenes are produced in this country, then we have some definition of a studio, other-
    1174
    wise the Gaumont Company will produce British scenes with French capital and American producers in France, and be able to drive a coach and four through this Act, by defining a studio scene in such a way as practically to exclude studio scenes in this country.
    The question arises as to whether the studios have a roof. If there is no roof, it is not a studio scene. Such a company might be able to manage without a roof for their studio scenes and still succeed in making their French films into British films. I am sure the Government will not accept this Amendment, because they prefer to have a free hand and to allow people to produce so-called British films in France. There is big capital behind this business, and the F.B.I. would hot like to be interfered with in the way they carry out their studio scenes; consequently, the Government will not accept this Amendment. I maintain that if the Government wish to make this Act watertight and to make these films really British, they must have a definition of the character which I suggest in the Amendment.
    Sir B. CHADWICK:The right hon. Gentleman asks us to do something which would be very difficult. We are asked to define a studio. Before I attempt to give a definition of a studio, let me suggest what the words of the Amendment would mean. It would mean that anything was a studio in which artificial scenery was introduced. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman went into the garden to take an external photograph and he put up a Japanese umbrella. That would, under his Amendment, at once convert the garden into a studio.
    Mr. BECKETT:I think that would come in under properties and not scenery.
    Sir B. CHADWICK:The Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman would be impossible to apply to a studio, and everything concerned would be in a position of difficulty and uncertainty. "Studio" is an expression well understood by the people who produce films. I do not know that I would care to define what is a studio; but I should say that a studio is a studio in a building. At any rate, "studio" is a well-understood term in the trade, and we feel that the Clause as drafted meets the case. We cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BECKETT:I hope the Government will give a little more consideration to the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that "studio" is a term well known in the trade, although he cannot well define it, and that there-fore the Clause meets the case. If the hon. Member had taken the trouble to read the film trade papers while this interesting production of the Board of Trade was going through Committee, he would have found that a discussion was going on, and cinematograph experts were engaged in a heated discussion, as to whether they could tell what parts of a scene had been done in a studio and what parts had been done in the open air. An extraordinary series of pictures were produced in Italy on a very tiny scale, and were then photographed with a new enlarging camera. The film was shown in the ordinary picture halls, and everyone thought that the ruin of an ancient city must have been specially built in the open air before they could have produced this particular film; whereas the scene was created in the studio with the aid of a number of very cunningly made miniatures, and enlarged on a great scale.
    Despite the fact that all the best brains in the cinema world have been arguing for the last three months on this question of studio scenes, the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that the term "studio" is well understood in the cinema world, and that everything will be all right, although he himself does not understand it. A statement like that is holding Parliament up to ridicule. I am not particularly concerned about this Amendment, but if the Amendment is to be pressed to a Division I shall vote for it, because it strikes me as a little more practical than the proposal of the Government. Nobody seems to know the exact definition of "studio." The Board of Trade might engage the best experts, and pay them large fees, but they would not get two of them to agree when they see a film as to whether it was produced in a studio as a whole or whether certain parts were produced in the open air.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSON:I hope some further attempt will be made by the Government to meet us on this question. One always appreciates the courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary, but his statement that a studio is a studio does not
    1176
    take us much further, and the statement that the term is understood in the trade does not make the position much more hopeful. He says that the term is well understood in the trade, but that is not our trouble. This is an Act of Parliament which will have to be administered by a Government Department, and I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary has a brief from that Government Department which ultimately will be responsible for the details of administration. I also assume that someone in that Department will know what the thing really is for which we are now asking a definition. Seeing that the Parliamentary Secretary is unable to help us on this point, I would press the President of the Board of Trade to help him out and to help us out in an understanding of this very difficult thing, which the Parliamentary Secretary apparently cannot de-fine. If it is not defined, we may fairly assume that the issues with which the Government are dealing are so much beyond them that an Act of Parliament cannot be devised properly to cover the cases with which they are dealing.
    Colonel DAY:I did hope that we were going to have a definition. I think it must be generally known to all those who have had anything to do with the production of films that the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Gates-head (Mr. Beckett) are perfectly correct. If hon. Members have read the trade papers lately they will have seen that a great deal of discussion has been going on as to the correct definition of a studio scene. Everybody who has had any experience in the production of films knows that the camera can do very wonderful things. Scenes can be taken in miniature in a studio, and they can be magnified so wonderfully by the magnifying cameras that it would appear that they had been done in the open air. It is most essential for the correct working of the Act that there should be a definition of studio scenes, in order that there may be no misunderstanding on the question as to what is a British film. The whole object of this Bill is the production of British films, and we should be careful in defining the word "studio" in order that there shall be no misunderstanding about it.
    Mr. KELLY:I should not have intervened but for the speech of the Parlia-

    1177
    mentary Secretary, in which he said that the word "studio" is a well-defined term in the trade. If it is so well defined we ought to know what it is by now, because this matter was raised many times during the Committee stage. I think it would help to a better definition of the word "studio" if the Amendment was accepted. It means that when artificial scenery is used the film must be shot, or taken, in the British Empire. If there is any great love for the employment of the citizens within this
    Empire, any real and sincere desire to find them employment, these words will be accepted by the Government. It is not a question of putting up a Japanese umbrella or parasol in a garden and declaring that the garden becomes a studio at once. I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 235.

    Division No. 345.]

    AYES.

    [5.4 p.m.

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scrymgeour, E.

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

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

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sexton, James

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shaw, At. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, Walter

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smillie, Robert

    Barnes, A.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Batey, Joseph

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Kennedy, T.

    Snell, Harry

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawson, John James

    Sullivan, J

    Cape, Thomas

    Lee, F.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Duncan, C.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Morris, R. H.

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gillett, George M.

    Murnin, H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Owen, Major G.

    Westwood, J.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypcol)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeily)

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

    Riley, Ben

    Windsor, Walter

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hayes, John Henry

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Bullock, Captain M.

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Bennett, A. J.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Berry, Sir George

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bethel, A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Apsley, Lord

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

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

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burten

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Buchan, John

    Christie, J. A.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Remnant. Sir James

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Huntingfield, Lord

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

    Couper, J. B.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbre)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sandon, Lord

    Drewe, C.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon Sir Philip

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

    Ellis, R. G.

    Locker-Lampson, G.(Wood Green)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    England, Colonel A.

    Long, Major Eric

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Erskine, Lora (somerset, Weston-s.-M)

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Skelton, A. N.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Finburgh, S.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    McLean, Major A.

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Macmillan Captain H.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Gates, Percy

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

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

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Meller, R. J.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Goff, Sir Park

    Merriman, F. B.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Grace, John

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wells, S. R.

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

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

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

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

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Harland, A.

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Oakley, T.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Womersley, W. J

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Hilton, Cecil

    Phillipson, Mabel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Major Cope and Major Sir George Hennessy.

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Radford, E. A.

    Mr. SOMERVILLE:I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, after the word "in," to insert the words "any part of."
    This Amendment is necessary in order to insert a subsequent Amendment standing in my name—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Are we taking this Amendment? I understood we were not.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope):If the hon. Member wishes to
    1180
    move this Amendment, it can only be accepted as part of a further Amendment.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I cannot accept this Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:Does the hon. Member wish to move both?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE:Yes. This Amendment and also the subsequent one, which is to insert in Sub-section (3) (ii) after the word "Empire," the words:

    1181
    "which has adopted a statutory quota for the exhibition of British films,"
    increases the safeguards against bogus companies which may be run in other countries For the purpose of making bogus British films. That this danger is a real one was shown a few nights ago by Low's cartoon in the "Evening Standard." At present there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent a foreign company running a subsidiary company in a British Dominion, or in this country, with their own nominees and their own capital, and producing films which would fulfil the definition of British films in this Bill. Yet they will be altogether foreign films. If we adopt my proposal another safeguard, at any rate, will be introduced and studio scenes would be photographed in any part of the British Empire which has adopted a statutory quota. At the present time no Dominion has adopted a statutory quota. The result of this Amendment would be that American companies at Hollywood, who might wish to run subsidiary bogus companies in Canada, would not be able to do so. If the Amendment is contrary to any pledge given at the Imperial Conference, I should not, of course, press it, but as I read the debates at that Conference no such pledge was given. I hope the House will adopt the proposal.
    Viscount SANDON:I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I could not possibly accept this Amendment. It would, in fact, be contrary to an explicit pledge which I gave at the Imperial Conference. I could not of course commit this House, but as far as I am able to commit His Majesty's Government, I did give an explicit pledge at the Imperial Conference that our intention, to which we should invite the House of Commons to give effect, was that British films, provided they complied with the conditions laid down in Clause 3 of the Bill, should count for quota in whatever part of the British Empire they were produced. It seems to me that is not only consistent with, but is of the essence of all we are trying to do in this Bill. We are trying to have more British films produced in any part of the British Empire, provided the British character of those films is stamped upon them. That is part of the whole policy of preference. Wherever we give preference, we extend it to the whole
    1182
    Empire and, indeed, the guarantee that a film will be British in its character does not lie only, or even mainly, in the reciprocal character of the legislation which may be passed in this or that part of the British Empire. It lies in those conditions which the House is now laying down in Sub-section (3) as to what should constitute a British film; and, provided those conditions are fulfilled, it seems to me it does not matter whether they are fulfilled in the home country or in one of the Dominions.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel APPLIN:I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, to leave out the words "and the producer."
    This paragraph provides that the author of the scenario and the producer must have been a British subject at the time a film was made, if it is to be deemed a British film. That would be a very good measure, provided we were certain of getting British producers, but it has been found extremely difficult to obtain the required number of British producers of sufficient experience and standing to produce films successfully in the large numbers which the mere thought of this Bill has already made possible. To show the House the necessity for an Amendment of this kind, I may say that all the studios in England are booked up for at least 12 months and some of them for 18 months in advance. The only difficulty we now have is in finding producers, and until such time as we have a sufficient number of trained British producers it will be necessary to engage foreign producers to train the British producers. I am instructed that the only means of training a producer is to employ him as the assistant producer to some well-known highly-trained expert in technical producing, under whom he serves his apprenticeship and by whom he is instructed in the art of producing great films such as those which we see coming from America. I trust the President of the Board of Trade will realise the necessity for this Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHAN:I beg to second the Amendment.
    Colonel DAY:I think the House will make a grave mistake in accepting this Amendment. My own opinion, and I believe it is the opinion of many in the

    1183
    trade, is that we have some of the finest producers in the world in this country and, even in Hollywood to-day, some of the finest producers are British. I do not know if the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment is not confusing the term "producer" with the term "stage manager."
    Mr. HALL CAINE:Film director.
    Colonel DAY:Yes, that is what I am trying to indicate—that British producers or film directors are among the finest in the world. It will be within the memory of hon. Members—it appeared in the "Evening Standard" only this week—that a British producer, or film director, who is only 27 years of age is in receipt of a salary of over £300 a week. The great difficulty which we have experienced in the past concerning film production has not been that we have not had the producers; it has been the fact that the productions were not satisfactorily financed. A producer in America, whether British or of some other nationality, has unlimited capital to play with and can invent ideas and introduce spectacles into his pictures on a large scale whereas a producer who is stinted in finance cannot get the same effects. According to the President of the Board of Trade, when he introduced this Bill, he wanted British films with a British atmosphere and British ideals—films which would convey to our Dominions scenes from life in England. To suggest that foreign producers should be called in to produce films of that kind is ludicrous. Fancy, for example, bringing a man from America to produce a work by the great Hall Caine or some other famous British author. The hon. Member for Eastern Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) will appreciate what I am saying. How absurd it would be to bring in a German producer to produce a film of British home life or folk life. To cut out these all-important words will destroy the whole object of the Bill, simply to allow these people who are endeavouring to force this hill through for the purpose of some personal financial gain, to bring in foreign producers who know nothing whatever about British life or conditions.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:May I raise a point of Order? There are two
    1184
    Amendments on the Paper—one which we are now discussing to leave out the words "and the producer," and one which follows and which proposes after the word "and" to insert the words "after the first day of January, nine-teen hundred and thirty." If I invite the House, as I intend to do, to accept the Amendment now under discussion that necessarily rules out the Amendment which follows immediately afterwards unless that Amendment is to be moved later on and in a different form as a proviso.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:Technically, this Amendment would not rule out the following Amendment but would give it an entirely different sense. If the word "and" goes out obviously the word "producer" must go out; other-wise there would be no sense in the sentence. Then, if the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) wished to move the insertion of the words in the following Amendment, they would make the Sub-section read as follows:
    "The author of the scenario, after the first clay of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, must have been a British subject."
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I take it that the intention of the Amendment is that after 1st January, 1930, the producer would be required to be a British subject.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:That appears to be the intention, but, if this Amendment be carried, the word "producer" will have gone out.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I suppose hon. Members will put down Amendments in whatever form they think will raise the issue. What we have to deal with now is a plain issue, and I presume that if we strike out the words "and producer" it will then be in order to move a further Amendment to this effect:
    "Provided that after five years—or whatever the period—the producer must he a British subject."
    It would be technically in order if such an Amendment were moved and the House desired to discuss it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:I cannot say that offhand. I would have to see the whole text of the Sub-section before deciding that it would be in order.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I am only considering the interests of hon. Members who put down Amendments.
    Mr. ALEXANDER:On a point of Order. I should like to know exactly what we are going to consider. We are quite prepared to see the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment on the Paper, but we are not prepared to discuss anything else.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:It is not a question of what the hon. Member is or is not prepared to discuss. What will be discussed in this House rests with Mr. Speaker. How the hon. Member votes is, of course, his affair. What we have to direct our attention to now is the specific proposal that the words "and the producer" should be left out. That means that the producer may be a foreigner. I have no doubt whatever that in the interests of British film making this Amendment is right. I have every intention of supporting it and I invite the House to support it, but I should like to explain why I entirely disagree with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day). I quite agree with him that we have a certain number of highly efficient British producers, but there are others not so experienced who are coming along, and others not perhaps of quite the same standard of efficiency. What is the function of the the producer" should be left out. That tion—the expertise of this business. It is a matter of technical skill, and in order to get the best results I am perfectly clear that British industry ought to be able to draw, for this technical purpose, upon the best talent wherever it is to be found. When we have established great new industries in this country, as we have done before, we did not say, "You must only use British experts." We said, "We will exploit all the invention and all the technique the world can afford in making an article which shall, however, be British in its character." It seems to me the case is exactly the same here. I speak not without having tried to find out what has happened in other countries in this matter. I believe that in? America when seeking this directive talent—which is not for the purpose of inspiring the character of the films but is concerned with the technical direction—they have
    1186
    deliberately drawn on any country which would supply it. They are bringing in to-day, for this purely technical purpose, for this expert purpose, men of different countries—here a German, here an Englishman—and I am quite sure that if you are to get the highest technical efficiency in this British industry, which is already, under the stimulus of this Bill, beginning to grow, you do want to bring in this technical skill from outside.
    I say more. I say that if you refuse to do that, not only will you handicap British industry in producing British films, handicap the very object which you set out to produce by this Bill, but you will handicap British producers them-selves. How are you to train up these producers? Only by giving them the greatest possible opportunity to learn the technique that is required, and if you can bring in some great master of technique from outside, you will give your English-man a chance of working under that man and of profiting by his experience and skill. Lastly, let me say that there is no question of bringing in cheap foreign labour to supplant highly paid British labour. The only man who may be brought in is the highly paid man. You can get cheaper persons in this country, and for many films they may be adequate. Some of the best producers in this country are adequate to-day, and the only case where the foreign producer is going to be brought in is the case of a big production when the Al British capacity is for the time being absorbed on some other films.
    I speak, perhaps, after two years' study of this question, with almost as much knowledge of this trade as even the very expert gentlemen opposite, and, I think, with less prejudice—certainly with a keener desire to see British films produced—and it is because I have that de-sire, because I want to see the British film industry grow up under the best auspices, with the best skill at its command, because I want to see the British producer have the best possible chance of making himself efficient, that I welcome this Amendment and commend it to the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:The right hon. Gentleman would have made a splendid advocate of Free Trade, and I almost yearn to have him on our side of the House in our Free Trade Debates.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:On which side? The Liberal or the Socialist?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:I do not mind—on this side; there are only two sides on this question. But the right hon. Gentleman misses the point altogether when he comes down to details. He talks of producers being people who have had the necessary practice, but I agree with the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine), who knows something about this matter, and, if I may say so, is the son of a great artist. The great producer, according to the President of the Board of Trade, after his two years of study, is the man who has had practice and who is a master of technique. Heaven help us! The man who is an artist is the great producer. 'There are two kinds of producers. There are some men who do mechanical work, day in and day out, and whose stuff is no good at all, and there are other men who have the temperament of the artist and who will not work on a day when they have not the divine spirit. The producer of a film is as much an artist as the man who paints a picture or the man who writes music, and to talk, as the President does, of practice and technique shows that he knows nothing whatever about it.
    Coming to the actual merits of the Amendment itself, the producer is the man who creates the whole atmosphere of the film. It is the producer who sees to the dressing of the film, to the mannerisms, to all that makes the difference between a film that really represents English home life and the burlesque re-presentations that we see from time to time. All that is done by the producer, who is probably the most important person of all in this matter, and yet, for the sake of money making—and now we have the whole business exposed—in order that certain monopolies can make inflated dividends, anybody can be brought in as a producer, as long as his services are available, without regard to his nationality. He may be a Russian, or a German, or an American, or anything you like; he is, nevertheless, the most important person in the making of a film, but for money making purposes, all this question of the purity of British films is allowed to be put aside. Unlike my hon. Friend, I would be prepared to accept this Amendment, but it shows, at any
    1188
    rate, that when it comes to a question of dividends and profits, these monopolists in the film-producing business forget all about their patriotism and insularity and their xenophobia, and they become only money-grubbers, and they have the support of the President of the British Board of Trade.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD:I strongly urge the acceptance of this Amendment, for more than one reason, and I must admit at the beginning that I was one of those who opposed the President of the Board of Trade when this question was introduced in Commit-tee, but since that time I have had the opportunity of studying the industry and of learning more about the difficulties of obtaining sufficient producers to get a sufficient output of films to make this Bill effective. I understand on very good authority that there are not more than seven or eight first-class producers in this country at the present time. What are you going to do if this Amendment is defeated? You will leave the production of first-class British films entirely in the hands of this very small trade union of producers, who are able to hold up companies and company promoters for any salaries they may demand. Under these circumstances, it makes the production of British films very unprofitable and in many cases impossible. Therefore, I strongly urge the House to consider this matter very seriously before they reject the Amendment, because it will greatly affect the fortunes of the Bill and its effects on the production of British films.
    Mr. MAXTON:I would like to say a word against the acceptance of the Amendment. I have listened to the last three or four speeches on the subject, and particularly the one that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), who has just sat down, in which he asserted that there are only some half-a-dozen first-class producers in this country. I do not know the basis for that statement but I am keenly interested in the younger men and women in this country, and I have not got the strong Free Trade views of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to guide me in my thinking on this particular Bill. I have been willing to see this Bill put into operation, largely because the Government defend

    1189
    it as being a Measure for reducing unemployment in this country. I am willing to see them work their experiment to its conclusion, and I certainly agree that the State and its responsible Ministers have a duty to try to remedy unemployment. Now the view is that we are only concerned with removing unemployment in so far as it concerns the humbler workers, but there is in this country a tremendous amount of unemployment and poverty among artistic and intellectual workers—a tremendous burden of unemployment—and we are turning out highly trained men from our universities, from our technical colleges, from our schools of art and of music, but openings for men of that type are very few and scarce.
    Here is a new industry, or an industry that the Government hope by this Measure to expand and develop, and we are told that while the capitalists in the industry are to be protected, and possibly the manual workers in the industry are protected thereby, the artistic workers and the brain workers are not. I have found it rather difficult to discover whether the producer is a technician or an artist but I am inclined to believe that he is a combination of both, that he must be an artist who has some technical skill. Are these men not available in Great Britain? Are there not young men and women in Great Britain with the necessary artistic spirit and the necessary technical knowledge to enable them to act as the higher command, as it were, of this particular industry, or must we roam the world to get a German, or a Russian, or an American to come into this country to interpret the British spirit for us, in so far as it can be represented on the film?
    I think that is absolutely untrue, and that it is unfair to our young fellows who are looking forward to a career in this branch of life, as they have a right to do, that the President of the Board of Trade should say, "No, we will do all we can to protect the capital that is invested in this industry, and possibly any manual employés who may be engaged in it, but we will do absolutely nothing to protect the artistic and higher skill that is involved in the production of a picture." If this Measure is to have the additional prospect of making a distinctively British film available on the world market that
    1190
    shall be inspired by British cultural ideas and express British traditions and modes of thought, it seems to me absolutely imperative that the great director of the production of that film must look at things from a British point of view, and I urge that the House do not accept the Amendment so pressed by the President of the Board of Trade.
    Captain WATERHOUSE:I am in-formed that there is a very great deal of truth in what the Mover of this Amendment has said about the present position of producers, that there are at the moment only a few producers in this country, but the production of a producer is not a very long or a very difficult task. It is admittedly a very technical task and one that takes training, as has been said, under one of these few experts. I therefore put on the Paper an Amendment, which will be ruled out if this Amendment is carried, postponing the date of the operation of this Clause for some years. I understand that I may be allowed to move at a later stage to insert, after this paragraph, the words:
    "and after 1st January, 1933, the producer also must have been a British subject at the time the film was made."
    That is to say, if these words are inserted in the proper place, it will give five years in which foreign producers may be brought into the industry and British producers may be trained. I think the House is generally agreed that the producer is really the main factor in the production of films. I have to admit that my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) and other Members may have laid greater stress on the scenario writer. Shakespeare may be looked upon as the greatest scenario writer that this country has known, and I would remind the House that a little time ago a producer showed us Hamlet in plus-fours. I cannot think that this was a correct interpretation of Shakespeare's intentions; but, if that can be done with the works of Shakespeare, the foreigner may twist the scenario of any British writer. This Bill is not merely a protective Measure in the ordinary sense of the word—a duty of a 100 or even 500 per cent. would have been a more profitable and a more efficacious way of dealing with the business—but it is a Bill with a propaganda value. Its first object is to get a film British in sentiment as well as in fact.

    1191
    If after five years we are forced to employ British producers, it will mean that when this Bill lapses after 10 years we shall have in this country a body of important and capable men who can carry on this industry. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill speaking up-stairs entirely endorsed this view, and I should like to quote his words. He said, speaking on this Amendment in its original form, that he thought to make a British producer essential at the moment would not be possible. He said:
    "I should have thought a period of five years was more satisfactory, and I shall be prepared to vote for this Amendment on the understanding that I also voted for my hon. Friend's later Amendment."
    and the operation was postponed not for three but for five years. I hope that in view of his sentiments upstairs in Committee, and in view of the conclusions that he then arrived at, after a very great deal of reflection, he will not divide the House against my Amendment.
    I do not generally quote the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day), but he has very considerable experience in this industry, and I hope he will forgive me if I do quote him. He said in Committee upstairs:
    "The most important portion of the production of a film in which the characters are welded more or less to suit the public taste in the ideas of the management and the producing company, is not left with the scenario writer; it is left to the producer."
    The hon. Gentleman has had a close experience, probably closer than any other hon. Member, in the production of films and that is his opinion. My right hon. Friend upstairs held the same opinion; and I hope the House, if they accept this Amendment will accept my Amendment, and allow us to have all British producers after 1st January, 1933.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS:I think most of us who have played an active part in this Bill upstairs came to the conclusion that Clause 26 was by far the most difficult part of the Bill. It is not quite so easy to define what we mean by "British films," and many of us find ourselves in a peculiar position, speaking in a sense opposite that in which we are accustomed to speak. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who has come in rather late to this discussion—
    1192
    I am not saying that with any criticism, but he was not on the Commitee—does not, I think, appreciate the situation. I am anxious that the maximum number of films with British characters shall be produced in this country. We have not available, on the evidence of those who ought to be in a position to know, enough people at the present time. If we made the producers British we should be in the position that the number of films that would be produced would be very limited. We should, instead of providing for more employment among the many classes of persons for whom the hon. Member for Bridgeton appeals provide less.
    I am led to believe by those concerned that what stamps a film in the first place more than anything else is the scenario. In the scenario there is a complete definition of the film as it is intended to be. It is, roughly speaking, the rails on which the producer must run, and we see from our own experience when we go to the cinema films which are obviously American and yet the producer is British. The influence of the producer on the atmosphere of the film seems to be much smaller than that of the scenario. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bridgeton has considered paragraph (iv) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 26, which lays down that 75 per cent. of the wages and salaries must be paid t o British subjects. That means that the bulk of the actors, the bulk of the crowds of people, and naturally the clothes they are wearing and the circumstances under which they are appearing, must all be British. Therefore, I am inclined to think that no producer, whatever his origin may be, can possibly destroy the absolutely British atmosphere if you have a British scenario and the bulk of the people are British. I agree there are certain risks, but the alternative is the production of less films.
    Colonel DAY:Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees that a producer in nine cases out of 10 alter the scenario after he receives it just as he desires?
    Mr. WILLIAMS:I have not the, slightest doubt that the producer must, as the thing goes on, introduce certain modifications, in exactly the same way as my hon. Friend if he were producing a. revue which had been written by somebody else would as he went along modify

    1193
    certain features of it, but the general character would be determined by the original book. The producer is not going to alter the general character, and I do not think we are taking great risks even if there is a substantial number of films produced by foreign producers; and if we do not permit them to come in we shall be in the position of not producing so many films, because we shall not have available enough British producers at the moment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:The hon. Gentleman has made that assertion several times. What is his authority for saying it? Does it come from the people who have to bargain about the salaries they pay?
    Mr. WILLIAMS:I have received communications from many sources—from those representing the producers, and those representing the, exhibitors. I have had conversations with individuals who happen to be producers, and I get the same thing from all of them. There is no contradiction of the fact so far as I know, that there is this real shortage of producers. That is commonly accepted all round, and I do not think the hon. Member for Central Southwark challenges that position.
    Colonel DAY:Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that there is a shortage in America, that all the best British producers go there, and that the majority of producers there are British?
    Mr. WILLIAMS:I agree, and I drew attention to the fact that we see films that are essentially American, but that have been produced by Britons. That leads me to the next point, the point of the Amendment that may be moved by my hon. and gallant Friend for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) should this present Amendment be carried. That is the question of making it perfectly free for the operations of the Bill, but only for five years. I am trying to visualise what will happen at the end of five years having regard to the point which is made by the hon. Member for Central Southwark. The Americans, obviously, are in a very much stronger positon than we are, and probably will remain so because of their huge home market. They will have immense resources, and after five years from now the position will be that a British producer must be employed. The Americans want to prejudice the pro-
    1194
    duction of British films; they are going to seek to buy up all our producers and deliberately adopt a policy to tempt away all our producers and paralyse the production of British films five years hence. So long as it is perfectly free whether a foreign producer or a British producer is employed, there is no particular advantage to the Americans in seeking to draw away British producers. So arise the circumstances with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester is seeking to deal.
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir HARRY FOSTER:I have refrained so far from intervening in any of the Debates, because I desired to facilitate the passage of the Bill. I spent many weary hours upstairs taking part in something like 250 Divisions over many months, and I am bound to say that I very much regret the moving of this Amendment and the attitude that has been taken upon it by the President of the Board of Trade. Many statements have been made that it is common ground that we have not enough producers. I do not think it is common ground at all. I am informed quite to the contrary. I am informed that if this Amendment be passed, to the present flooding of British Dominions with foreign films will be. added a stream of foreign films made in England and Government hall-marked as "British Quota Films." We had plenty of reliable evidence upstairs that undoubtedly the producer brings his mentality to bear on the character of the films. It seems such an obvious fact that one would hardly have thought it needed any substantial evidence. Of course, an American producer, if called in here to produce a British film, cannot separate himself from his mentality and from his habits, training and surroundings, and inevitably he will bring into the production some part of that mentality and psychology. I think it is a lamentable thing, when we are bringing in a Measure nominally for the purpose of stimulating the production of British films, and when we are limiting the quota to such an infinitely small amount as 5 per cent. of the total, that anybody on the floor of this House should suggest that we have not competent British producers who will meet that small demand. Even assuming that were so, these producers require technical training, but I am informed, on perfectly sound authority that this would only be a matter

    1195
    of two or three years at the outside. Even if there is any real risk that by limiting the production of British films we are likely to expose exhibitors and those whose capital is invested in the industry to a shortage in the supply of films, except those of an inferior class, I still say to my hon. Friend who has put down the Amendment that five years is far too long a period for the small quota required by the Bill, which at the beginning is only 5 per cent.
    I said it was my information that the statement that we cannot supply the necessary producers was untrue. I say that on the authority of the British Association of Film Directors, who know what they are speaking about. They say they do not hesitate to describe the statement that we have not enough British producers as a false statement. They go on:
    "The quota calls for 45 films next year, and the first-class studio accommodation in England to-day is sufficient for the making of 75 pictures. New studios are about to be built, and it is possible to anticipate enough accommodation next year for at least twice as many films as the Act calls for."
    They say, further, that the services of 14 producers have been engaged to a limited extent and that the quota needs only 12 producers to supply the first year's needs, and that there are available at least 24 producers in England and more than 20 producers in the United States. This being so, I think it would be lamentable if we were to remove the protection from the British producers, as would be done by this Amendment. The utmost extent to which I would urge my hon. Friends in all parts of the House to go is to admit foreign producers for a period of three years at the outside, and then to confine it to British producers. I will give my authority for making that suggestion. It is a critical authority. It comes from the British Masterpieces Films Limited, who take up a critical attitude and with whom I do not agree on many points. They say:
    "We suggest that it would be wise to defer the operation "
    I would like particularly to have the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade——
    "of this sub-paragraph for, say, three years. Until expert British producers are forthcoming and they can be trained in the high
    1196
    technique necessary for the making of first-class films, it is essential for the progress of the British film industry that producing companies should be permitted, if necessary, to obtain the services of experienced foreign scenario writers and producers during such period of training."
    They think that after three years we ought to insist upon British production both as regards scenario writing and the producer. I shall vote against this Amendment, because I think it ought not to receive the sanction of the House, but I shall be to some extent satisfied, as no doubt will others, with a statement that for a limited period only foreign producers shall be allowed to compete, and that then there shall be full play for the British producer.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER:We on this side have been anxious to adhere to the arrangement which was come to to keep the discussion within the limits of the agreed time, but the last hour of these proceedings makes it rather difficult to do so. With regard to the particular Amendment before the House, we regard it as advisable if accepted by itself, but if there is to be added a qualifying Clause that after a certain date there is to be entire protection for British producers then it is my view, and I think it is the view taken by a great many of my hon. Friends, that we ought not to support the proposal. If we imposed this limitation, what conditions would apply in foreign countries to British producers who in the past have proved so excellent that they have had free entry into all the film-producing centres of the world? Are we going to invite all these other countries to put on embargoes against British producers? To do so is certainly not acting in the spirit of the proceedings at Geneva, where an effort was made to try to end anything in the nature of international prohibitions or restrictions.
    Question, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:Ought not the full Amendment to be put: "That the words 'and the producer'stand part of the Bill"
    Mr. SPEAKER:The words "the producer" come out as well. That follows from the decision of the House.
    Captain WATERHOUSE:I beg to move, in page 15, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:

    1197
    "and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the producer must also have been a British subject at the time the film was made."
    Viscount SANDON:I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I do not propose to add anything to the speech which I made to the House in which I gave the whole of my views on this subject. I supported that Amendment wholeheartedly, and the reasons which I gave for supporting that Amendment must lead me to vote against this Amendment. It was left to a free vote in Committee, and I am willing to submit to a free vote of the House now, but I am bound to tell the House that after obtaining the best information and after the fullest consultation I am quite clear that we shall best serve the interests of British film production by allowing British film makers to call upon unlimited talent in the production of their films. While I shall leave it to the House I shall unquestionably vote against the Amendment myself.
    Colonel DAY:Before we proceed with the vote, I would like to stress one instance which was given in Committee by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) when we were talking of American or other foreign producers com-
    ing in. He said he had known a film of Thomas Hardy's wonderful novel "Tess of the D'Urbervilles "produced by an American in which Tess was made to appear more or less as a night club queen; had the production been made by British producers, she would not have been made to go round from club to club fondling a little dog. In another very notable case a disgusting exhibition was given in the film of Sir Arthur Pinero's play "Elsinore," in which the heroine was made to go round dog shows all day. Had the films been produced by an English producer, had there been an English interpretation of these wonderful books, I do not think we should have seen such a desecration of these wonderful works by English authors.
    Sir H. FOSTER:In Committee up-stairs, when this question was left to a free vote of the Committee, 15 voted for the insertion of the words "and the producer" and the "Noes" were only five. After that, I will not take up the time of the House by repeating the arguments.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 298.

    Division No. 346.]

    AYES.

    [6.13 p.m.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Batey, Joseph

    Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Berry, Sir George

    Goff, Sir Park

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Bethel, A.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Bullock, captain M.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Sprat, Sir Alexander

    Christie, J. A.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clarry. Reginald George

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Cowper. J. B.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gansbro)

    Looker, Herbert William

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lumley, L. R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    MacIntyre, Ian

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

    Dixey. A. C.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Fairfax, Captain. J. G.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Viscount Sandon and Captain Water house.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

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

    Baker, Walter

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

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

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Barnes, A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morris, R. H.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

    Murnin, H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harland, A.

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Oakley, T.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Bromley, J.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Owen, Major G.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Palln, John Henry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Paling, W.

    Buchan, John

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Buchanan, G.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Penny. Frederick George

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Burman, J. B.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Potts, John S

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Campbell. E. T.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, G. H.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ritson, J.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rose, Frank H.

    Colfax. Major Wm. Phillips

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Compton, Joseph

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Connolly, M.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cope, Major William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cove, W. G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Savery, S. S.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Scurr, John

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

    Sexton, James

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

    Kennedy, T.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Dennison, R.

    Kirkwood, D

    Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Drewe, C.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Duncan, C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Dunnico, H.

    Lawson, John James

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lee, F.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Edmondson. Major A. J

    Lindley, F. W.

    Smillie, Robert

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Long, Major Eric

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

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

    Lowth, T.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Smithers, Waldron

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Snell, Harry

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lunn, William

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Finburgh, S

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stamford, T. W.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Mackinder, W.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Gates, Percy

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Gillett, George M.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Strauss, E. A.

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

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Glyn. Major R. G. C.

    March. S.

    Sullivan, J.

    Gosling, Harry

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K

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

    Grace, John

    Maxton, James

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

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Greenall, T.

    Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Townend, A. E.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Montague, Frederick

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Groves, T.

    Morden, Col, W. Grant

    Varley, Frank B.

    1200

    1201

    Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Windsor, Walter

    Viant, S. P.

    Westwood, J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Wallhead, Richard C

    Whiteley, W.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Wright, W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Mr. Herbert Williams and Mr. Jame Hudson

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Wells, S. R.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Mr. H. WILLIAMS:I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, after the word "actress" to insert the words "or producer."
    Captain P. MACDONALD:I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I accept this Amendment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I do not think it follows that any Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman accepts should be inserted in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain MACDONALD:I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, at the end to insert the words
    "but it shall be lawful for the Board of Trade to relax this requirement in any case where they are satisfied that the maker had taken all reasonable steps to secure compliance with the requirement, and that his failure to comply therewith was occasioned by exceptional and unforeseen circumstances beyond his control."
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS:I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I think this is a reasonable amendment. It provides for cases where the percentage has been slightly exceeded and which are a little bit over the border-line.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER:I hope my hon. Friends will strongly oppose this Amendment. Some 2½ years ago we had under discussion a proposal to give a large subsidy to the sugar-beet industry, and at the request of an hon. Member on this side of the House an Amendment was inserted to the effect that the machinery supplied should be British up to a certain percentage. Owing to the loose wording of that provision there has been a considerable avoidance of it. I would like to point out that this Amendment contains exactly the same principle, and you are trying to protect British films in the same manner. I agree that as large a percentage as
    1202
    possible of British labour should be employed. We were told in Committee up-stairs that 75 per cent. was a reasonable percentage. I do not think it ought to be left to the Board of Trade to differentiate between the claims of British firms as to whether they had satisfied the provision laying down a percentage of 75 per cent. In the case of a protective measure like this we ought to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that at least 75 per cent. of the salaries and wages shall be paid to British people.
    Mr. BECKETT:I am not surprised at the tiredness of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this Bill. He is not so fresh as he was during the Committee stage, otherwise he would have thought for a long time before allowing himself to be coerced into accepting this Amendment. The Mover of this Amendment made a very short speech.
    Captain MACDONALD:I did not want to take up the time of the House.
    Mr. BECKETT:I have never known time to prevent the hon. and gallant Member, who has interrupted me, from addressing the House if he wished to do so. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member, in moving this Amendment, was wise in being brief, because, owing to the brevity of his speech he could not be led into explaining the extreme looseness and vagueness of the Amendment. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman, in accepting it, to tell us how on earth the Board of Trade were going to pass judgment upon four vague and unmeaning lines of this sort. It seems to me that this is merely going to turn a Bill, which was origin-ally intended to benefit a few British speculators, into a Bill which is also intended to benefit lawyers. It is the passing by the House of Commons of these vague Amendments in the later stages of a Bill, when the Minister is tired, that makes those foolish and vague provisions which afterwards, when the

    1203
    Measure has left this House, cause untold trouble to the business which is interfered with, and, of course, bring the usual legal harvest in addition. The Amendment reads:
    "in any case where they are satisfied that the maker has taken all reasonable steps."
    I think that, if one were to consult any legal expert, he would say that the difficulties of this kind of legislation are greatest where anything depends upon any party having taken "reasonable steps." The acceptance of an Amendment of this sort at once exposes people who are in trade to all kinds of injustice, and, on the other hand, it causes the legislation to be faulty as far as effectiveness is concerned. Therefore, I would ask the House to get the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his opinion, and, at any rate, to see if some more satisfactory form of wording cannot be found in order to tighten up the Bill in this direction.
    Captain WATERHOUSE:I want, very briefly, to protest against this Amendment. It seems to me to be a step in quite the wrong direction. It seems to me to be an encouragement to producers to employ foreigners up to the very maximum number allowed. We have already taken out the provision as to the producer being British, so that there may be a foreign producer. We have gone further than that, and have allowed his wages and salaries to be excluded from the costs other than British costs. We are now going one step further still, and are going to say to him: "If you have been so careless, and have managed your business so badly, that you do not know how many British and how many foreign men you have employed, we will overlook and condone your fault. It does not matter. We are not finding employment for our own people if you are a foreign producer. You may have done your best, or you may not, but we will overlook it and let it go through." That seems to me to be quite against the whole spirit of the Bill, and I feel that I cannot support the Amendment.
    Colonel DAY:I hope the House will reject this Amendment, and I also hope that, if the President of the Board of Trade is going to consider leaving it to a free vote of the House, we shall not be faced this time, as we were on the last
    1204
    Amendment, with the deputy chief Government Whip standing at the door and telling Members as they came in: "This is a free vote; the President of the Board of Trade is voting ' No'" I think that that is disgraceful. When the matter is left to a free vote of the House, Members should be allowed to vote as they like, without any undue influence of that kind from the Government. This Bill, to my mind, is gradually becoming a farce, and the further we go through it the more farcical it has become. We saw that, on the last Amendment, the Government themselves were afraid of having a British producer in five years' time, and the Bill has now been made so that all British films, all British ideas, such as we were told the Government wanted to let the Colonies and the Dominions see, can be produced by foreigners, from whatever country they may come. Now we are going a step further, by the right hon. Gentleman practically agreeing to accept this Amendment, and not only allowing the 75 per cent. restriction which is laid down in the Bill for wages and labour, but, if any person oversteps the mark, allowing the Board of Trade to absolve them. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the decision he has just announced, and will not accept the Amendment.
    Sir F. HALL:I hope my right hon. Friend is not going to accept this Amendment, for the very reason that it is drawn in an extremely loose manner. I do not know what "reasonable steps" may mean; I do not know where they are going to start or where they are going to finish. My impression, when this Bill was brought forward, was that it was going to strengthen the position of British producers with regard to British films, but an Amendment of this nature seems to me to be going contrary to all that we have been desirous of doing, and I cannot support it.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I rather agree about the drafting of this Amendment. I am quite clear that what it was in my mind to accept—I did not attach very great importance to it one way or the other—was that, if someone absolutely genuinely tried to produce British films, and if, the whole of their estimates being rough, something went wrong, say,

    1205
    with the weather, and they were a little out when they came to ascertain the final amount, they should not be prosecuted. That is quite possible; I daresay some hon. Members themselves have been a few pounds out in large speculations. I thought very definitely that it was not unreasonable, in such circumstances, that the film should still count as a British film. If there be any question of its having a widespread effect, or of its enabling a future holder of my office to use this Clause in order to do more than excuse what is practically a clerical error, I should not agree to it. On the whole, I think it might be worth while to consider it later, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend thinks it worth while, it might be put down in a stricter form when the Bill reaches another place.
    Captain MACDONALD:I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words
    "The expression 'British company' means a company registered under the laws of any part of the British Empire, the majority of the directors of which are British subjects."
    I gave the Committee my reasons why I was opposed, on the whole, to any attempt to restrict the control of capital, and for thinking that, whether it be desirable or not, no means could be devised whereby it could be ascertained whether the control was in fact in British hands. The whole of the shares in respect of which control was exercised might be in the hands of nominees. Special voting rights may be attached to a single share, as we have known to be the case before now, or it may be that the whole of the finance is not in the form of share capital, but in the form of loan capital advanced for a particular undertaking. A company with a capital of £1,000 might raise by means of a syndicate £25,000, £30,000 or £40,000 for each successive transaction, and it is quite plain that, while the £1,000 voting power might be in the hands of a British subject, the £40,000 might be put up by someone else for the particular transaction, and in that case the control and operation of the finance would be in the hands of the gentlemen who put up the £40,000. Therefore, I am definitely opposed, be-
    1206
    cause I do not think it is practicable, to putting in any provision which would attempt to rule the financial control. In Committee there was, I think, on the whole, a desire to have the British character of the enterprise established in any way which was possible, and it is possible to ensure that the majority of directors shall be British. If that be an acceptable proposition, I am sure it is more practicable than any attempt at control, and it does give an assurance that the general character of the directorate will be British. I think the House, if I may make the suggestion, would be well advised to dispense with any question of control of finance, and that, if some supervision of the character of the directorate be desired, this is probably the most convenient form.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:The President of the Board of Trade knows perfectly well that in proposing this Amendment to the House he has run away from his admirable principles and speeches in Committee. In Committee we were asked to define a British company simply as one registered in the British Empire. The right hon. Gentleman proved conclusively that to attempt to say that the foreigner should not invest capital in this country is contrary, not only to common sense, but to the obvious interests of this country, and he ruled out the idea that a British company must consist of British capital. We want all the capital we can get from the whole world in this country; the more that comes in the better. We have now hedged, and have decided to say that the majority of the directors shall be British. The right hon. Gentleman in the past has been a director of a great many companies, and he knows perfectly well that the majority of the directors is not what guides the policy of the company. The question is, who holds the voting powers. If the finance is controlled by one of the directors, the other directors will have to dance to his tune.
    It is, however, far worse than that. By putting in a provision that the majority of the directors shall be British, he is opening up another opportunity for the guinea-pig. Take the case of an American company starting a British film industry in this country, and producing admirable films. The capital is American, and it is proposed to correct that horrible

    1207
    alienism by having British dummy directors. The people of this country are, however, getting a little "fed up" with ornamental directors who fulfil the demands of an Act of Parliament but represent nothing on the board except the drawing of a few salaries. It is being pointed out in the Press at the present moment that one serious burden on industry in this country, which checks the recovery of trade, is the undue number of ornamental directors of companies drawing substantial fees; and yet this Measure, which is expected to become an Act of Parliament, is being made to demand deliberately that there shall be a British majority of dummy directors, in order successfully to pretend to the people of this country that a company which is American is in appearance, and by the majority of its directors, a British company. That is leading in the wrong direction. It is encouraging dummy directorates and guinea-pigs, and I hope that, instead of accepting this Amendment which has been put down by the President of the Board of Trade, the House will adhere to the principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, and will do away with these sham dummy directors converting an American company with American capital into a British company.
    Captain WATERHOUSE:May I ask your guidance, Sir? At an earlier stage I had an Amendment down dealing with British control, but did not move it, because I understood the position would be safeguarded by this Amendment. I understand that it is not now going to be moved. May I move it myself?
    Mr. SPEAKER:I am not proposing to select that Amendment. I was informed by the hon. Members who put it down that they did not wish it to be put?
    Captain WATERHOUSE:Then I will make a few remarks on this Amendment, because here again it seems to me we are losing touch with the whole aim and object of the Bill. We have been at tremendous trouble in Committee to produce a Bill which is going to produce, in its turn, British films. We are now going to so broaden the basis on which these films are defined that they will cease to be British films altogether very soon. It seems to me quite unfair to lay down that in a partnership both or all the
    1208
    partners must be British subjects, yet, when a company is formed none of the shareholders need be British subjects. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that any provision about voting power can be got round, but so can any provision about directors be got round. All these provisions can be got round. The only hope is that we put in so many provisions that it will not be worth people's while to try to get round them but they will keep to the spirit and letter of the law. For these reasons I very much regret the decision of my right hon. Friend to leave out words which would ensure that the money must be in, the hands of British subjects.
    Mr. BECKETT:I want to support what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. I am very disappointed that the Amendment is not to be moved because, if it had been, I should have had the pleasure of supporting it and endeavouring to persuade the House to do so, and I should like to give one of my reasons. The Canadian papers are full of the farcical nature of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, and several papers, of what hon. Members opposite would call a respectable colour, have pointed out that a host of American film makers are now waiting on the Canadian frontier, and directly the right hon. Gentleman has discovered how he can make the original Bill even more farcical than it was before, and it actually becomes law, they are coming into Canada, because we have now extended it to the British Empire, in which the company laws are very different from this country and the qualifications for a directorate are not even as stringent as they are here, and you are merely going to get Americans registering their companies in Canada and putting up a certain number of one or two share people as guinea pig directors. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's object is to alleviate unemployment amongst Conservative Members of Parliament—I notice that about eight have already become directors of new film companies—but I think it is a very absurd way of pretending that a film is a British film, and I am amazed at all the true-blooded 100 per cent. Britishers who are members of the House allowing an Amendment of this sort to go through without pressing the very adequate Amendment which they put on the Paper. If you pass this Amendment even the silly Bill that it is is not going

    1209
    to work at all. You are going to have American companies registered in Canada with a few guinea pig directors, and the right hon. Gentleman's term of office will be marked by a Bill that is even more ridiculous than it looked in Committee upstairs.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I beg to move, in page 15, line 30, after the word "and," to insert the words "such (if any) of the".
    The only object of that is to make it plain that an Order-in-Council shall not be made for a mandated territory in respect of which there is no such power to make an Order.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Does that mean that Palestine is excluded from the British Empire and the advantages of this Act?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:What governs mandates is not this Bill but the treaties under which the mandates exist.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 15, line 33, at the end, insert the words
    "His Majesty may from time to time by Order-in-Council direct shall be treated as if they were included in His Majesty's Dominions for the purposes of this Act."—(Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.)

    CLAUSE 28.—(Power of Board of Trade to make Regulations.)
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I beg to move, in page 16, line 29, at the end, to insert the words
    "and the fees payable on application for registration and for licences shall not exceed those specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."
    This carries out a pledge I gave that I would put in the proposed scale into the Act. The intention is that the Act should be self-supporting and, as far as we can see at present, there is no reason why the fees which will be set out in the Second Schedule should not be adequate. It is with the idea of making the Act self-supporting that I propose this Amendment and the consequential Schedule.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the Act into consonance with the
    1210
    best Treasury traditions. Perhaps he will tell us what he estimates these fees will bring in in one year. I want to know in order to be able to explain to the country what the Act is costing it. These fees will ultimately come out of the pockets of the people who go to the pictures.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I gave an estimate in Committee. Speaking from memory, it is from £4,000 to £5,000 a year.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Is that all the right hon. Gentleman expects to raise from a fee of a guinea?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:It is all I expect to raise.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:If he gets more may we anticipate that the licence fees will be reduced?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:That would not be unreasonable in view of the provision I have already inserted that the fees shall be adjusted if necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I beg to move, in page 16, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
    (4) Regulations made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House within twenty-one days after the Regulations have been laid before it presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Regulations may be annulled, His Majesty may by Order in Council annul the Regulations and they shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under or to the making of fresh Regulations.
    I move this Amendment in order that there may be some check on the Rules and Regulations made under the Act.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:I think it would be waste of time to accept the Amendment. These are purely routine Regulations the character and scope of which is strictly laid down in the Bill. All they do is to carry out the executive action which is prescribed by the Bill itself. It is unnecessary to come to the House with every Regulation of the kind and to await the consent of the House and at a late hour in the evening have a Debate on a small variation in a Regulation. If at any time it is desired to challenge the administration of the Board

    1211
    of Trade the proper occasion is on the Vote for the salary of the President of the Board of Trade.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:The right hon. Gentleman may call it a matter of minor importance but a great many people in the House think it of considerable importance that films should be British films, and the Regulations which will be required in order to provide that 75 per cent. of the money spent on salaries has been spent on British subjects, Regulations dealing with the question where the studio scenes are taken, the Regulation connected with the salaries of the artists ought to be laid on the Table of the House, in order to give some sort of security that the Department itself is not driving a coach and four through the provisions of the Bill. I do not propose to divide the House. I propose merely to indicate that we are again leaving the whole administration entirely to the right hon Gentleman.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Institution of Proceedings.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 17, line 12, at the end, insert the words:
    "(2) Any process or notice required to be served on any person for the purposes of this Act shall, if that person is out of Great Britain but has a place of business within Great Britain, be sufficiently served if addressed to that person and left at or sent by post to such place of business as aforesaid."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

    CLAUSE 31.—(Interpretation.)
    7.0 p. m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, to leave out the words "within the administrative county of London."
    The right hon. Gentleman has already met us by leaving to a free vote of the House the omission of these words in an earlier part of the Bill so that prerelease films may be shown anywhere in the country. This is an exactly similar case dealing with normal trade shows. I presume the right hon. Gentleman will allow the normal trade shows to be shown. It would save time if he intimated that he would accept it as consequential. [Interruption.] As it is, we shall certainly have to divide, as this is a matter of very great importance. There are two ways in which films can be registered. They can be shown at what
    1212
    are called prerelease shows, where you get big films like "Ben Hur," and certain other super-films are shown for the first time to the public and the trade. They are exhibited to the trade and to the public simultaneously at one theatre only. Owing to the pressure that has been brought to bear on the Government from other places outside London, we have enabled the Government to accept the idea that these pre-release shows may take place anywhere. [Interruption.] It is hardly worth while addressing hon. Members opposite. On matters of this sort it is a case of idée fixe. Exhibition anywhere else is not an exhibition. Manchester does not matter. The ordinary trade show must be held in London. Why? Because of one advantage.
    Mr. SPEAKER:The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should realise that I am the person whom lie should try to convert.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:What we urge from these benches is that the normal trade show should take place not only in London, but also anywhere where it is more convenient to the trade—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester or in any other big centre. If you have a trade show in London only, how are the people from Caithness ever to see a trade show? They certainly will not go to the expense of coming to London. They will be compelled, unless this Amendment be accepted, to blind book; they will be compelled to rent these films without having a chance of seeing them. They will have to do it, in fact, upon the report published in the trade newspaper of what the reviewer of that paper thought of the film. I prefer that you should give the greatest possible latitude to the trade. The right hon. Gentleman's heart is with me, but, unfortunately, he has already seen the trade about this. The Cinema Exhibitors' Trade Union say, "No, you cannot have trade shows elsewhere than in London, because our headquarters are in London. How can we go outside? "Of course, a trade show in London is an opportunity for serving out free passes to a lot of one's friends to go and see a film and then report to the picture houses in Manchester or elsewhere. There can be no possible reason why the Government

    1213
    should refuse to producers of films or the. renters of films the right to show their goods wherever they like within the union of Great Britain. If this Bill included Ulster, do you imagine the people would allow the prohibition of any trade show in Ulster? It is because Ulster would not stand that sort of thing that you have left Northern Ireland out of the Bill. Why should Scotland be compelled to have a Bill like this? Of course, it is for the benefit of owners of expensive West End theatres. It forces every producer to have a trade show in an expensive London theatre, shoves up the price in consequence, and the cost all comes back on to the consumer, who is the person who goes to see the picture. It is the case in regard to everything else. Apparently, it is the ultimate, aim and object of His Majesty's Government. on any question that comes before them, that if you only add to the price of the goods you are bound to have universal prosperity. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade spent, his time trying to make production easier and cheaper in this country instead of making it more expensive, his efforts would do more good in the country.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has addressed a very imaginative speech to the House, but it is not in very near relation to the truth. It has nothing to do with pre-release. It is quite a different case. Pre-release is an exceptional case where one special film is put on show. It may be in London or somewhere else. The object of the Bill is to make quite sure that a trade show of a film shall take place where it can be available to exhibitors. As a matter of fact—and I speak with some knowledge—the present practice has been that a trade show shall take place in London. The desire of the exhibitors—and I do not put it too high—is that this position should be maintained, and that there should be a trade show of a film in a place where the great mass of people or their agents could see it. That was the unanimous view expressed to me by the exhibitors who are, after all, much more concerned for the trade than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with his professions of Free Trade or anything else. There was the keenest possible
    1214
    desire that trade shows shall be in London. There is nothing to stop people having trade shows in other places if they so wish. If you strike out these words it will mean that the renter will be able to have his trade show in any place he likes, and in a place to which people cannot go. [Interruption.] I will tell you what he would do if he were, free from this obligation. When the renter knew that he had a superior film and would get a good market for it, he would have a trade show where everyone could get to it, but if it was inferior stuff he would have a trade show where exhibitors could not see it, and we should get back to something very near to blind booking again. I say that in a matter of this kind the trade is the best judge, and it is the unanimous desire of the trade that they should have this provision. I ask the House to prefer the trade view of this and to, deal with it accordingly rather than deal with it in the way the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. BECKETT:The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has raised the question as to what the trade wants. I think the House ought to have the facts about that. The right hon. Gentleman has consulted a committee. It is perfectly true that this committee has urged the right hon. Gentleman to retain the lines he had already practically promised to delete. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman himself does not know why they wanted this. He will know if he reads the minutes of the general committee of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, which was held yesterday, when they decided to become a renting agency in order to render the whole of the Bill null and vaid. Of course, this committee, with which the right hon. Gentleman is in touch, wants him to say by law there shall not be a trade show anywhere than in London. They are laughing at him. They are using his Bill, not for his purpose, but for purposes of their own. They are setting up a renting agency from their own organisation. They want him to protect that agency, and give it the advantage of keeping shows in London. They will purchase their American films and films from anywhere else because they will be renters. They will let them through their renting

    1215
    agency, and the only thing they will get out of the Bill is the privilege that the trade shows shall be in London. There are not Members of this House who, if they had goods to sell, would not put them in a place where most of their clients could see them. A candidate does not go to a Parliamentary election and deliver a speech 100 miles from his constituency in order to get in. He goes into his constituency—at least those who dare do so. If a man has got a film to sell, of course he brings it into the proper place. If he were to do as the President of the Board of Trade suggests and exhibit it in some back yard or cellar, the law would not allow it.
    Surely the trade is the best judge as to whether a film in those circumstances might be good or bad. This Amendment is being passed in the interests of a group of renters who are going to be also renters and exhibitors. You will see that directly you get your Bill through, the exhibitors will become renters, and you will not be able to get a postage stamp between them. You will realise the truth that you cannot interfere with an industry run by private enterprise and hamper it by private legislation of this nature. I think that, if the right hon. Gentleman will read the minutes of this committees, of which he boasts so much, at their meeting yesterday—if he has any imagination or any energy left after his efforts in this House—I think he will say, "Well, I thought I was "doing" the cinema exhibitors, while, as a matter of fact, they have made me look just about as foolish as any Committee has ever made me look."
    Colonel DAY:I was rather amused to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was the trade that wanted this Clause and that the trade were the best judges. It is rather surprising to see that the right hon. Gentleman, just towards the end of the Bill, wishes to quote the trade in this way. On several occasions during
    the Debates figures have been given to him recording the decisions of the trade, and no notice has been taken of them. [Interruption.] There is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who has gone to the back benches, shaking his head. He was probably in the House when I read out a copy of the referendum that was sent by the trade.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS:I was simply appealing to you not to read it again.
    Colonel DAY:Some hon. Members are not so attentive as you are. The figures were 679 against and 609 for. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned as to what the trade wants, there is a most important resolution—a referendum. Why does he not take notice of that? If the trade are the best judges, why not allow the trade to decide for themselves? If the exhibitors or the renters desire to hold a trade show in Cardiff for the West country, or if they desire to hold a trade show in Glasgow for Scotland, why not allow them to hold that trade show? Why insist upon the exhibitors or the renters holding their trade show in the administrative county of London? I sincerely hope that the House will take the view that in the show business lately—not so much in the cinema industry; but it will come—trade shows or first performances are given in the provinces. I desire to support the Amendment because I think it is most important that those people who are running the cinema industry, either as renters or exhibitors, should be allowed to run their trade shows in exactly that part of the country they desire without any undue influence being brought to bear upon them by the President of the Board of Trade through this Bill to bring their trade shows to London.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 347.]

    AYES.

    [7.15 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Berry, Sir George

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Bethel, A.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Barclay-Harvey, C.M.

    Betterton Henry B.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Birchall, Major .J. Dearman

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Barnett, Major Sir Harry

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bennett, A. J.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Perring, Sir William George

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

    Harland, A.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Buchan, John

    Harrison, G. J. C

    Pitcher, G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Burney, Lieut: Com. Charles D.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Headlam, Lieut: Colonel C. M.

    Remer, J. R.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Campbell, E. T.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ropner, Major L.

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rye, F. G.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Christie, J. A.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Cobb, Sir Cyrill

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Savery, S. S.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cope, Major William

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Couper, J. B.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Skelton, A. N.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Drewe, C.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Ellis, R. G.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    McLean, Major A.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fielden, E. B.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Finburgh, S.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wells, S. R.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Grace, John

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Withers, John James

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

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

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Oakley, T.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Oman, Sir Charles Willlam C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.

    NOES.

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

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

    Baker, Walter

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Bromley, J.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Barnes, A.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smillle, Robert

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood. D

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)

    Connolly, M.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snell, Harry

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lawson, John James

    Snowden, At. Hon. Philip

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lee, F.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Dennison, R.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Duncan, C.

    Lowth, T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lunn, William

    Sutton, J. E.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mackinder, W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Gibbins, Joseph

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gillett, George M.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Gosling, Harry

    March, S.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maxton, James

    Viant, S. P.

    Greenall, T.

    Mitchell, E. Rosalyn (Paisley)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Morris, R. H.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Murnin, H.

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

    Groves, T.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

    Owen, Major G.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palin, John Henry

    Welsh, J. C.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Paling, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Henderson, Right Hon A. (Burnley)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ritson, J.

    Windsor, Walter

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Wright, W.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scurr, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Sexton, James

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Amendment made:
    In page 18, line 24, leave out the words "the calendar," and insert instead thereof the words "any such."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

    CLAUSE 32.—(Short Title, Extent, and Commencement.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 18, line 44, at the end, insert the words:
    "(4) Part I and Part II of this Act shall continue in force until the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and no longer."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

    New SCHEDULE.—(Maximum Fees.)
    Maximum Fee.

    £

    s.

    On an application for the registration of a film

    1

    1

    On an application for a renter's licence

    5

    5

    On an application for an exhibitor's licence

    1

    1

    for each theatre in respect of which a licence is applied for.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]
    Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Renters' Quota. Part II. Exhibitors' Quota.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 19, leave out lines 14 and 15.
    Leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER:We have now come to the last stage of the discussion of a Bill which has occupied Parliament in various forms since last 'March, and, in spite of the concessions which have been made only during the last stages of the discussion of the Bill, it is my duty to-night to ask Parliament to reject the Motion made by the President for the Third Reading of the Bill. We ask the House to reject the Bill because it is clearly a protectionist Measure, and in my judgment a protectionist Measure of the worst type. It is a protectionist Measure of what I may call the back-stairs type. At the last General Election, we had a pledge from the Prime Minister that if he were given the con-

    1221
    fidence of the country on no account would he introduce a Measure of Protection. It is true he made a slight reference to the uses which could be got out of the Safeguarding duties, but this particular Bill is in every respect a protectionist Measure of the worst kind:
    Sir B. CHADWICK:Hear, hear.
    Mr. ALEXANDER:The hon. Gentleman may be hilarious in his cheering, but I cannot for the life of me reconcile the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade on this Bill with what must have been his instructions to the representative of the Board of Trade at the recent Economic Conference at Geneva. The ink is hardly dry on the latest agreement entered into at Geneva and to which this country was a party, under which arrangements were made between the various nations in regard to prohibitions and licences operating against various constituent nations of the League, and at the very moment that we are hoping that this country will ratify that agreement, we are actually passing through this House a Bill which cuts rights across the principles embodied in agreement.
    We ask the House to reject the Bill for another reason, and that is that perhaps for the first time in the history of British legislation, we are asking Parliament in this Bill to lay it down that men, and perhaps women also, may be declared to be criminals and to have very severe penalties applied to them for their so-called crime simply because they may refuse to sell something which they do not want to sell. That seems to me to be a very grave departure in the history of legislation in this country. First of all, as regards exhibitors. They are to be made criminals unless they agree that they will—whether they desire to show them or not, or even whether the public desire or not to see the films—have a quota of British films put on in their cinema houses, whether they think these films may bring them a commercial return or not. If they offend against that, they are to be classed as criminals and by the Amendments which have been carried—in such a way that the Government did not quite adhere to the position which it had taken up in Committee—there is the right to take away the licence from the cinema theatre, which apparently is to have no right to
    1222
    live at all. For that reason also, we ask the House to reject the Measure.
    Let me take another brief glimpse at this quota principle. I want to know whether the Government may be expected to try to apply the principle of an enforced quota on any other industry as well as the film industry. I remember the discussions we have had from time to time with regard to the preference for Empire goods. If it can be shown that a preferential duty operating in favour of Australian currants or raisins or sultanas has failed to bring quite the desired results to the producers of those fruits, I wonder whether we may expect a Measure from the Government compelling the British distributors of fruit to take a quota of Australian fruit? That is just the kind of thing that one may expect after the production of such a Measure as this. The whole structure of the quota Clauses of the Bill seems to me to be entirely against the basis of freedom and equity of contract which in the past has been the pride of British business. For that reason alone we should feel entirely justified in asking the House to reject the Bill.
    But we ask the House to reject the Bill also because of the first Part of the Bill. The first Part, we have been told, was designed to prevent what was known as blind and block booking. It was said that because those who have to book films for show at the cinemas had sometimes been asked to take other films that they did not want before they could get exactly what they wanted, it was an interference with the actual trade in the industry. There would be something to be said for that if the Government were prepared to adopt the same principle of interfering with any attempt to corner a free market, but to single out one particular industry and to ask the House to put legislative restriction on, one industry only, is entirely foreign to what has always been the policy of this House in legislation. How is it, for example, when there is blind and block booking of any of the commodities required by the people of the country, and that actually inures to the hardship of the people in increased prices—in tea, in rubber, in sugar and all kinds of commodities—how is it that we cannot get the same kind of legislative restriction against that sort of male-

    1223
    factor? When you come to deal with a Protectionist Measure of this kind, one special industry is to be interfered with in this way.
    Moreover, we believe that the Bill as it now is will not even secure the end which the President of the Board of Trade desires in Part I; we believe that the blind and block booking Clauses as they stand will not prevent the existing practices from continuing. Let me tell the House what has been happening this week. The President, during the progress of the Bill, has always informed us that he based his case for the Bill upon his continuous consultations with the industry, and when we have informed him that a certain part of the industry at any rate did not agree with him, he has said that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association formed the majority and that he relied upon it for advice.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Government based their decision to introduce the Bill upon the considered judgment of the Imperial Conference and its endorsement.
    Mr. ALEXANDER:And the President of the Board of Trade has referred again and again, throughout the discussions of the Bill, on Second Reading, in Committee and on detailed Amendments on the Report stage, to his consultations with the trade, and he has told us repeatedly that if the trade did not know what they wanted who really did? Therefore, he said, the trade having asked for this or that, "We think we are on sound ground in making the Bill to meet the situation." This week the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association have met and they have devised a scheme under which the blind and block booking Clauses will not he worth the paper on which they are printed. I understand that an agreement which was first made by the committee yesterday has actually been ratified to-day by the council of the association, and that under it one huge renting; combine will be formed by the association, and they will, therefore, be able to book ahead as many films as they like, block book and blind hook. They will be acting as renters and they will proceed to make their own arrangements afterwards to parcel out what they have thus booked,
    1224
    amongst the various constituent members of the association. So the very association upon whom the President of the Board of Trade seems to have relied during the discussion of the Bill for his opposition to the Amendments that we have suggested, has now been responsible for setting up just the form of combine which will defeat completely the object of the first part of the Bill.
    We have said all the way through that we thought the Clauses of the Bill would not work successfully, and we believe that what has taken place this week, in connection with this new combine, makes that doubly certain. We have been disappointed with the attitude towards the Bill of the bulk of the Members of the Liberal party. We should have imagined, from speeches in the country, that the passage of this Bill would have been really anathema to the party which has always claimed to be regarded as the guardian of Free Trade. Instead of that, whilst a number of them voted against the Bill on Second Reading and have assisted us on a few occasions since with our Amendments, during most of our work we have had no assistance from them.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES:Because it is not a Protectionist Measure.
    Mr. ALEXANDER:I have already proved conclusively that the Bill is a Protectionist Measure. If the hon. Member is not quite certain about it, perhaps he will read the leading articles in the "Times" of this week, which makes it quite clear that the leading paper supporting the Government is in no state of uncertainty as to whether or not the Bill is a Protectionist Measure. I felt it was incumbent upon me in brief terms to state these grounds, on which we ask the House to reject the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. HARRIS:I have been challenged by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, amidst the plaudits of hon. Members opposite, because perhaps there has not been such support as he desired from this party, of himself and his colleagues. The blame is entirely mine. I ought to have been here, but unfortunately I was indisposed. I have had influenza, or I should have been actively co-operating with the hon. Gentleman in opposition to the Bill. I do not feel the same objection as he

    1225
    does to the Clauses dealing with blind and block booking. Anything that interferes with freedom of contract is unsatisfactory, and if by legislation it is possible to enable the public to get the best films available, I do not take very great exception. That is one point. Another thing quite different is to try to force the public to see films that they do not wish to see. If good British films are available the makers can be sure of the support of the public, but to try to force on the public such legislation as will make them see films that they do not want to see, is against the interests of art and of the public, is bad in principle, and so far as I and those associated with me are concerned, we are prepared to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. We are satisfied that as soon as the British film manufacturers produce good stuff so soon will the public give them support. This Bill is going to encourage bad workmanship instead of stimulating this country to produce good films. By guaranteeing the purchase of bad films the quota system will tend to weaken the industry and prevent it from going ahead as it would if it had to face healthy, free competition.
    Colonel DAY:I oppose the Third Reading because I think the Bill is a particularly bad Bill. We have been met throughout with the cynical opposition of some hon. Members opposite, but we have not heard any of their criticism either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. This Bill will not only penalise exhibitors and renters, but it will go a lot further and penalise the public. I have given the House the reasons why I think the Bill will penalise the exhibitors, and I am now going to try to emphasise those facts further by asking the House to reject the Bill and giving the House reasons why the Bill will eventually penalise the general public. To-day I received a letter which was more or less a criticism of the remarks I made on the exhibitors' quota when I read a letter I had received from Sir Walter Gibbons. I want to explain that if an exhibitor has to pay a huge sum for his pictures he must get a return from the public, otherwise he would be bankrupt. The letter I have received is dated 17th November, and it says:
    "The original proposal that we submitted to Sir Walter Gibbons was that we should receive a percentage of the receipts. How-
    1226
    ever, our proposal was rejected, and that left us no alternative but to suggest a hiring fee of £2,000 for a three weeks' run—
    That is for a British picture—
    "I fail to understand why Sir Walter Gibbons should be so perturbed about paying £2,000 for a British picture."
    I only quote a portion of the letter, as the writer particularly asked me to do, because I am convinced that if the West End theatres are forced into the position by this Bill, if it passes into law, as I suppose it will, of having to pay the sum of £2,000 for a three weeks' run of a British picture, or almost any picture, there is only one end to it, and that will be the ruination of the majority of picture houses not only in the West End but throughout England. If the right hon. Gentleman had only considered some of the suggestions which we have made, and modified his Clauses, there would not have been nearly so much opposition from those who sit on this side of the House, right through the passage of this Bill. We are convinced, and that is the reason we have taken up the position we have on this Bill, that this is one of the greatest errors that has been made amongst the many bad errors which this Government have made. I am sure that before the President of the Board of Trade has had an opportunity of working this Bill very long he will regret that ever the Bill was introduced.
    The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned two or three times not only in the House but in Committee that the suggestions contained in the Bill were given to him in consultation with his officers by the representatives of the cinema trade, but he has not gone quite far enough. He has not explained to the House that he told the cinema trade, when they could not come to an agreement, that they had to come to some agreement and come forward with some proposals, because the Government had made up their mind that they were going to introduce a Bill to control this industry. To my mind it is a very serious blunder to try to hinder and hamper a trade in the manner in which this trade will be hampered by this Bill, and I sincerely hope that hon. Members, in their wise judgment, will have the courage of their convictions, as they have expressed them privately, and vote against the Third Reading.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Many bad Bills have been passed by this House, but most of them have not been proved defective until they have been put into operation. I think the House can congratulate itself that this particularly bad Bill has been found out long before the end. When I reflect on the halo of glory which centred around the head of the President of the Board of Trade only nine short months ago when he introduced this Bill with the acclamation of the entire Empire; I reflect now that there is hardly one to do him reverence, and that the Bill goes to another place "unwept, unhonoured and unsung." I remember that his colleagues have said: "We fear that Bill of yours is not going very well," and the temperature has gone down and compromises have become essential because they could not persuade the Chief Whip to give an all-night sitting. I think we can draw a valuable lesson from what has happened, how easy it is at a street corner or in an Imperial Conference to pledge your country, your soul and your honour to a great cause, which is good enough for the street corner, but how difficult it becomes when you have to put those high aspirations into an Act of Parliament. First there is the draftsman, then the interests——
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:Then the obstruction.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:Then the reason well applied from this side, and the great aspiration withers and you get the spectacle that we have to-night. Never have I had greater satisfaction than in opposing this Bill and voting against the Third Reading. I have only one regret in connection with the Bill and that is that we could so easily have defeated it. We could have defeated it with the support of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, but they have supported the Government, in spite of the fact that every one of their constituent elements resent the Bill and will resent it at the next General Election. In spite of that fact, we find the right hon. Gentleman with the cinema exhibitors in his pocket, and a rather uncomfortable pocket it is. We could have defeated the Bill if it had
    not been, I will not say for the Liberals, but if it had not been for the mentor of the Liberals. The Manchester Guardian ' went wrong. For years the whole Liberal party has wisely taken the lead from the "Manchester Guardian," and I am not at all certain that they would not do well always to leave the "Guardian" to do the thinking for the Liberal party; but in this horrible instance the "Guardian" went wrong, and the mere Liberals took no interest in a protective Measure which was so colossal in its impudence that even in the 'Conservative party it has now few lovers.
    It is not only the Liberal party and the cinema exhibitors who have let us down on this Bill, but also members of the Conservative party. How many members of the Conservative party actually spoke against the Bill on Second Reading? They appeared in Committee a few times, and then wilted away. Where is the hon. Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore Brabazon)? Where is the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir Alfred Butt)? Where is the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir Frank Meyer)? He has wisely gone off to South Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here!"] Is he here? Then he is silent. These hon. Members are silent in the House, but they are not silent in the smoking room. What Conservative Members think about this Measure does not bear repeating in the House of Commons; it has to be said elsewhere. If those hon. Members had only had the courage to speak out, or if we had had a ballot vote of this House I think this Measure would have met an early doom. It is no longer popular, it no longer has the plaudits of the multitude behind it. When it has become law its supporters will be not the right hon. Gentleman, for he will live to curse it; the only supporters of the Bill will be the big business in the film world, who will use it to collar the trade.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 125.

    Division No. 348.]

    AYES.

    [7.55 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

    Balniel, Lord

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

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bellairs, Commander Carryon W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Bennett, A. J.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Penny, Frederik George

    Bethel, A.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Phllipson, Mabel

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

    Pilcher, G.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Harland, A.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Ramer, J. R.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Remnant, Sir James

    Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

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

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Buchan. John

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Headlam, Lieut: Colonel C. M.

    Rye, F. G.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Sandon, Lord

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. M c I. (Renfrew,W .)

    Christle, J. A.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Staney, Major P. Kenyon

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cope, Major William

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Couper, J. B.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lister, Cunlifte-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Long, Major Eric

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Looker, Herbert William

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Dlxey, A. C.

    Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Drewe, C.

    Lumiey, L. R.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McLean, Major A.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    MacMillan, Captain H.

    Wells. S. R.

    Fermoy, Lord

    MacRobert. Alexander M.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Fielden, E. B.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Finburgh, S.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waiden)

    Withers, John James

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wormer, Viscount

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

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

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Grace, John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Oakley, T.

    Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Mr. F. C. Thomson.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    NOES.

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Bromley, J.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Dennison, R.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Buchanan. G.

    Duncan, C.

    Baker, Walter

    Charleton, H. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertllfery)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

    Barnes, A.

    Connolly, M.

    Gardner, J. P.

    1230

    1231

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lindley, F.W.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighiey)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lowth, T.

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    Gosling, Harry

    Lunn, William

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mackinder, W.

    Stamford, T. W.

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

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Stephen, Campbell

    Greenall, T.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    March, S.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)

    Groves, T.

    Morris, R. H.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morrison R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Murnin, H.

    Townerd, A. E.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Varley, Frank B.

    Hardie, George D.

    Owen, Major G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Palln, John Henry

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Paling, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burniey)

    Parkinson, John Aiten (wigan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Potts, John S.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Riley Ben

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Ritson, J.

    Weilock, Wilfred

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

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

    Westwood, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Scurr, John

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sexton, James

    Williams, T. (York, Don Vailey)

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

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Windsor, Walter

    Kennedy, T.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wright, W.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Lansbury, George

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lawson, John James

    Smillie, Robert

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Lee, F.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee
[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation of Acts in Schedule.)
  The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LANSBURY:
  In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words "Parts I and II" and to insert instead thereof the words "Part I."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:I have given some consideration to this Amendment and I have come to the conclusion that it should come on the Schedule and not on the Clause.
  Mr. LANSBURY:What part of the Schedule?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:To leave out Part II.
  Captain BOURNE:I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out the words "twenty-fifth day of December," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of August."
  1232
  As the Committee will realise, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill proposes for the first time to include the Rent Restrictions Act, and I have put down this Amendment in order to make an appeal to the Government that we shall not have this very important Act embedded in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill indefinitely. One of the drawbacks of this procedure is that when an Act is included in this Bill it is impossible to amend any of its provisions. We are not permitted to discuss or amend the provisions of an Act which comes into the Schedule of this Bill. The Rent Restrictions Act does create very great hardship on many individuals at the present time. I am not prepared to suggest that the time has yet arrived when it should be swept away, but there are many hard cases of people who are unable to get possession of the house they own, and if they have undesirable tenants or sub-tenants, who may not be quite in the position of being a nuisance to their neighbours, they are not able to get rid of them under the Act and have to put up with them. Even in the case where a landlord wishes to occupy the house himself, the question largely depends on whether there is alternative accommodation and whether in the opinion of the Court greater hardship will be inflicted by refusing or granting the application.

  1233
  Anyone who has sat on a tribunal administering this Act knows that there is nothing more impossible for that court to decide than the question as to whether greater hardship is caused by one course of action or another. It is almost beyond the competence of the court, however anxious they may be to deal justly, and I am sure from my own experience that they do go to an immense amount of trouble over these cases. There are many cases of hardship even in those parts of the country where the supply of houses is nearly up to the demand. I fully realise that there are other parts of the country where the demand for houses is still much greater than the supply. Suggestions have been put forward that you might decontrol by local areas and permit those parts of the country where conditions have become somewhat nearer the normal to be decontrolled first and leave those parts where the conditions are still abnormal to remain under this Act for some time to come. But as long as this matter remains in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it is perfectly impossible to put forward any Amendment.
  I fully appreciate that the pressure of work this Session has made it impossible to bring in a Bill dealing with this matter with any hope of getting it through the House before the existing Act expires. That is the position, but I hope the Government, because they have done nothing this year, will not think that we can allow this matter to go on year after year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There are cases of great hardship in rural districts and in some of the smaller urban districts where the pressure of housing is not so great as it was five years ago, and I hope that they will reconsider this matter and see if some amending legislation, or at any rate legislation giving relief where the pressure is not so great, can be introduced next Session. I have chosen the date, 1st August, because that appears to me to be about the time when the first part of the next Session will be coming to an end, and I hope it will be possible to bring forward a Bill and carry it by that time, giving the House ample opportunity for dealing with it. I have left out any reference to Scotland in my Amendment because the Scottish situation is, I believe, worse than the English, and I have no knowledge of the conditions there. I have some knowledge of
  1234
  the conditions in the South of England, and I have had a great deal of pressure from members in my own constituency who say they are suffering great hardship owing to the continuance of this Act.
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD:In a few words, and without taking up any necessary time of the Committee, I desire to ask the Minister who is to reply for the Government on this particular subject whether he can give us some definite statement as to how long it is proposed that this Act shall be maintained and continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We have heard a great deal in various housing Debates during the past nine months of the number of houses that have been built during the past four or five years. I think no less than 1,000,000 houses have been built, under subsidy or otherwise, during the past five or six years, and a great parade is made of the fact that during the last 12 months no fewer than 275,000 houses, nearly 300,000, have been built. If that rate of building is continued for another three years it means that a second million houses will have been added to the million already constructed, and that must go a long way towards reducing the need for the accommodation which was so acutely felt during the years immediately succeeding the War. But that is not all. Not only has this gigantic number of houses been constructed during the last five years—
  Mr. STEPHEN:On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I should like to ask you if it is not necessary, as this discussion affects Scotland so much, that there should be a representative of the Scottish Office on the Treasury Bench. This Measure affects Scotland, and is it not necessary that we should have a representative of the Scottish Office present?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:Whether that be so or not, that is no point of Order.
  Mr. GREENWOOD:This is rather an important question, so far as Scotland is concerned. Can we not ask that some representative of the Scottish Office should be present?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. GREENWOOD:Should I be in order in moving to report Progress?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member cannot do that in the middle of the hon. Member's speech.
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD:Over 1,000,000 houses have been constructed during the past five years, most of them to provide accommodation for what is customarily called the working part of the population, but which I prefer to call the less favourably endowed members of the community. But in addition, in London and other large centres it has been the case that large numbers of large houses have been converted into flats, which has provided a very large amount of additional accommodation for what one might call the middle classes. In these circumstances, is it so necessary; and if it is, I should like to hear the representative of the Government say how long it will be necessary to include this particular Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? As the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has said, this Act undoubtedly does cause hardship to a certain number of people, not a very large number, who through their very lack of number do not receive that sympathetic consideration from hon. Members of this House to which, in my opinion, they are entitled. But there is no doubt that large numbers of people have suffered hardship and inconvenience through being unable to obtain possession of their own houses for their own residence or for the use of members of their own family. I quite agree that at the end of the War it was necessary to conscript property of this kind to provide accommodation for the people, but it is unfair to conscript only one form of property. It is quite true that there are parties in the community who to some extent have had their property conscripted at the call of the taxpayer and the ratepayer towards providing accommodation for their less fortunately placed fellow-subjects. In addition to that, these rather unfortunate house-holders have also been deprived of the use of their houses. Therefore, in my opinion, the time, if it has not already come, is rapidly coming when a more equal form of treatment should be adopted for all concerned. I suggest that, perhaps not this year, but in the immediate future, this Act should be closely scrutinised to see if it is not
  1236
  possible now to dispense with some of its provisions. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply on behalf of the Government if he can give an answer to these questions. First, how long do the Government intend to continue this Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which entirely precludes any amendment and, to a large extent, any discussion or alteration of its terms; second, whether, in the event of more time being available next Session, it is proposed to bring in an amending Bill, and, finally, whether it is proposed to drop this particular kind of legislation altogether?
  Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON:I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I move this Motion to draw attention to the absence from this Debate of any representative of the Scottish Office. Hon. Members from Scotland will wish to discuss this question from an, angle which has not been indicated up to the present because the problem in Scotland differs from the problem in England to which the previous speakers have been referring. We consider it to be of the utmost importance that a representative of the Scottish Office should be here to reply to the points which will be put forward by Scottish Members in the course of the discussion.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:I wish to emphasise the fact that the question as it affects Scotland is quite different from the question as it affects England. It is ridiculous, on the face of it, to think that a most important Measure of this kind affecting Scotland should be discussed in the House without a single representative of the Scottish Office being in attendance. This is the same attitude that has been taken up by the Government on other matters and the country is bound to see it. The Prime Minister yesterday treated Members on these benches and the House with contempt and the idea is to follow that up in connection with Scotland. But they need not try it. They are not going to be allowed to do it. We do not pay the Secretary of State for Scotland his wages for neglecting to pay attention to his work and he ought to be here, or else the Parliamentary Secretary or the Lord Advocate. They ought to do their jobs or else get the bag. We would be suspended if we did not do our jobs and

  1237
  they ought to be treated the same way. As showing the difference between Scotland and England in this matter, I would point out that in the Bill it is stated distinctly that the date as regards England is to be 25th December, but as regards Scotland it is to be 28th May—six months of difference. I protest
  against the absence of a Scottish Office representative.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 176.

  Division No. 349.]

  AYES.

  [8.20 p.m.

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sexton, James

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

  Hirst W. (Bradford, South)

  Short, Alfred (Wednssbury)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Baker, Walter

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smillie, Robert

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Batey, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Kennedy, T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Strauss, E. A.

  Connolly, M.

  Lawson, John James

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lowth, T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Mackinder, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dennison, R.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Duncan, C.

  March, S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Maxton, James

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

  Gardner, J. P.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Webb, Rt. Hon Sidney

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gosling, Harry

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Whiteley, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

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

  Riley. Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Hardie, George D.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hayday, Arthur

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

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Rose, Frank H.

  Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Couper, J. B.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Bennett, A. J.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Bethel, A.

  Drewe, C.

  Harland, A.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Ellis, R. G.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

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

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

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

  Fermay, Lord

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Fielden, E. B.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Burman, J. B.

  Finburgh, S.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Cassels, J. D.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Christie, J. A.

  Gates, Percy

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W H.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Long, Major Eric

  Philipson, Mabel

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Pilcher, G.

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Templeton, W. P.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  Lumley, L. R.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Lynn, Sir Robert J.

  Remer, J. R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Remnant, Sir James

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

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wells, S. R.

  McLean, Major A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Rye, F. G.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sandon, Lord

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Savory, S. S.

  Withers, John James

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

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

  Weimer, Viscount

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

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Oakley, T.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Major Cope and Mr. Penny.

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

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:On behalf of these benches, I want to oppose the expiring of the Rent Restrictions Act here, the reason being that it is bad enough at the moment in the country from which I come under existing conditions, without all barriers being removed which will enable those who own the houses where the people live to exploit them to the very uttermost. You must remember that it was sheer force of circumstances—
  Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD:On a point of Order. The Amendment now before the Committee cannot apply to Scotland under any circumstances, because the date is different.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:That is so.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:It is evident that it does apply. If the House will bring itself down to hard facts, which we who come from working-class districts and live among the workers have to face, where they are faced now with the conditions which forced the then Government to pass those Rent Restrictions Acts, it will see that it was because those who owned the houses were taking advantage of the conditions of that time to wring from the people excessive rents, .because of the scarcity of houses, because there were no houses being built, because
  1240
  all the house builders were at war, either in the trenches or making munitions of war. Hence there was a scarcity of houses, and in the case of my own trade, the engineering trade, we were not allowed to take advantage of the law of supply and demand that usually determines the cost of an article. The same Government passed what we termed "Dora," the Defence of the Realm Act, which took from us engineers and shipbuilders the right to leave one employer and go to another—that is, the right to sell our labour in the highest market to the highest bidder. We were tied up. The same thing had to be done with the house owners, because at the beginning of 1915 the Sheriff Court in Glasgow was crowded out with nearly 600 people, who were brought there because they could not afford to pay the increased rents. They were brought there in order that the Sheriff might give the factors the right to eject those people from their homes, and among those 600 there were 200 whose husbands or sons were in the trenches at that time in Flanders, so you can understand the type of individual that we had to deal with at that time in Glasgow.
  That was the reason why this Act was passed. The Clyde at that time stopped work, and we stopped work because the property owners were increasing the rents of the soldiers' wives while the soldiers were fighting in the trenches—[An HON. MEMBER: "What were you

  1241
  doing?"]—I was defending the women and children, just as I am doing now, and I am prepared to defend them with my very life. Make no mistake about that. That was the situation then. It was because of the economic circumstances then, and you have to remember a very strange thing, and that is that the same thing happened in every country that was at war. Every country, including that of the Huns, as you called them, the Germans, had to pass a Rent Restrictions Act. I can still remember that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and I visited Vienna, and found a rent strike on there. It was the same crowd. Nationality has nothing to do with it, and the same crowd had cut off at that time the electricity and the gas. This is what they had been doing, but war time is supposed to be past, and we are settled down now to peace. Oh, peace, where is it? Oh, peace, where is thy sting? I want to know where the peace is. I am searching for it. It is a case like the dove that Noah put out of the Ark when the world was flooded. It came back home because it found nowhere to set its foot, nowhere to rest, and it turned back to the Ark. The same thing we have here. Peace is a "wash-out." There is no peace, and there can be no peace while conditions exist such as we know do exist in our country at the moment. What are the conditions now? Take my own constituency—and it is not a foreign constituency. In my own constituency—
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN:The Amendment before the Committee will not, in any event, refer to the hon. Member's constituency, because it does not refer to Scotland.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:What affects England to-day will affect Scotland tomorrow.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:In Clydebank what do we find?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue as if this particular Amendment referred to Scotland.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:Surely it is quite permissible for me to use this as an illustration?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:Illustrations can go on too long. The hon. Member has been speaking of Scotland for a considerable time.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:On a point of Order. We are the official Opposition, and we decided that this was a matter of grave importance as far as Scotland is concerned, because we divided the House on the fact that there was no representative of the Scottish Office here. Therefore, I think it is permissible to illustrate my point. In my own constituency in Clydebank are two-apartment—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:Really, the hon. Member must not continue when I told him he must not speak about Scotland on this Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:May I put this point of Order? It is true that this Amendment only applies to England. If the Act expires in England, the houses will be decontrolled, and if the hon. Member can show by an illustration in his own constituency, which is similar to other constituencies, the effect of that, surely he is in order in using that illustration as a typical example of what will happen in every industrial city?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:He has done it already.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:May I submit that he has not done it already. What he has done is to trace a history of the Rent Restriction Acts which originated in Scotland. He has not used anything in Scotland as an illustration, and it is perfectly permissible, if you can show that houses decontrolled in Clydebank are excessively rented, to use that as a good illustration for the rest of the country.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:I think I have allowed the hon. Member to go too far already, and I am merely asking him to desist now.
  Mr. W. ADAMSON:On that point of Order and the rulings you have given that the Amendment only applies to England, may I direct your attention to this fact, that the Rent Restrictions Act in Scotland is practically the same as the one in England', the only difference being that in Scotland it will expire a few months later than in England; and nobody has any doubt that, in the event

  1243
  of this Amendment being given effect to as far as England is concerned, the same course will be followed in regard to the Rent Restrictions Act in Scotland. Therefore, my colleague is anxious that we should have every opportunity of discussing the Scottish situation as freely as the English Members are discussing the English situation. The two are harnessed together. I do not think there is a single Member in the Committee who does not believe that, in the event of this Amendment being given effect to as far as England and Wales is concerned, it will have its repercussion in a similar thing being done with regard to Scotland. Consequently, I think we are perfectly in order in discussing the Amendment and discussing the application of the Amendment to the housing situation in Scotland. It may be that my hon. Friend in some of the things he has said has been outside the limits of order as applied to this Amendment, but I do not think there is any doubt, if you will examine the situation carefully, that we are entitled to take part in this discussion and to examine the housing situation in Scotland from the point of view of the Amendment.
  Major COLFOX:Is it not the case that the Members for Scotland can easily put themselves in order by moving a manuscript Amendment with regard to the date as it applies to Scotland and move to shorten up the time of the application of the Act to Scotland, after this Amendment has been disposed of?
  Mr. STEPHEN:On this point of Order. I do not think there is any disposition to get into an impossible position, but I think the views of some of us on this side were that if this Amendment were carried, there would be a consequential limitation of the Scottish period, and that, consequently, instead of having the discussion on Part IV of the Schedule, we took it that it would expedite business if there was a general discussion on the whole position. But I am sure if it be preferable, my hon. Friend would be able to have the discussion on the general question on Part IV of the Schedule.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:With regard to the point of Order which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman
  1244
  the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), I am afraid I cannot accept that principle. If I did, there would be no end to the discussion. I am afraid I must confine this Amendment simply to its application to England.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:Could we not have an answer to the point of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that an opportunity should be given to raise the question on the discussion of Part IV of the Act?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member has several courses open to him. He can either move an Amendment to that part of the Clause which refers to Scotland, or he can refer to the question on the Schedule.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD:Very good. We have no desire to fall foul of you, Sir, and we desire to obey the ruling of the Chair. The same conditions apply in Lancashire and London, and I was using my own constituency as an illustration because I know that best. We find £26 a year being charged for two-apartment houses, two-roomed houses, while this Act is still in operation, because landlords have taken advantage of the opportunity to decontrol houses. There are single-apartment houses in London, in Lancashire, in Derbyshire, and all over England, aye, even unto Wales, and also Scotland, in which every function of life has to be carried out, from birth until death. Whole families live in those single-apartment houses. In the West of Scotland we have cases where there are two families living in the one apartment, and the rent which is being taken for it is now £18 a year— of course including taxes. When conditions such as those exist, is it any wonder that we use what powers we have to trammel the voracious appetites of the landlords for profit? It is a case of the horse leech's daughter—give, give, give! They are never satisfied.
  I wish it were possible for us to get hon. Members opposite really to understand what it is that is involved here. It is proposed to take off this Rent Restrictions Act, which would empower landlords to raise rents at a time when the whole tendency is towards reducing the means of those who have to pay the rents. Wages are being reduced all round. This nice, kind Government—[Laughter]. It is no use my calling them names any more. I am tired of

  1245
  calling them murderers and robbers and all the rest of it. It is like pouring water on a drowned mouse. But the fact remains that this Government, composed of men who are supposed to understand, even they, with all their understanding, with all their power, the most powerful Government in the world in my opinion—[Interruption]. Well, that is my opinion. I believe the, British Government is the most powerful Government in the world, and yet that powerful Government is using all its might, the might of Britain at the moment, to crush the unemployed. That is how it strikes me. They are even reducing the means of existence of the unemployed. This has to do with the paying of rent, Captain FitzRoy. They are reducing the income of the families who have to pay the rent. The general standard of life of the workers who live in those houses is being lowered. At this moment along comes the landlord and wants his power increased, he wants more rent. In that way you will be making it harder for people to live.
  We are standing here to-day pleading on behalf of the working folk of this country, pleading with the Government, who, have the power, if they will exercise it, to make things just a little easier. Every individual who goes to the Government with a plea for an attack on the working class has the support of the Government. There is no denying that fact. It can be proved up to the hilt, and particularly against the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I am glad to see in his place. It is asked why we have a special quarrel with him. It is because when the factors of Scotland came to London and asked for an increase in pay for collecting the taxes, the present Secretary of State for Scotland was pre-pared to give them that increase. I will do him the credit of saying that I do not think he was aware of the circumstances or of what was going on in Scotland. It was something which had escaped the 'eye of those who keep him informed. Again it was left to these benches to put him right, and to save him from the lions. The factors are getting more, as the result of collecting these taxes, than they ever got in their history. They never were as well off and yet the Secretary for Scotland was prepared to bring in a Bill to suit them, if we had been soft enough to allow it.
  1246
  To come to England on this. Our special grievance here can be relieved if Clause 6 be taken out of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923. It reads:
  "The County Court, if satisfied that any error or omission in a notice of an intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, is due to a bonâ, fide mistake on the part of the landlord, shall have power to amend such notice,"
  Let those who understand the implication of words consider this.
  "by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, which, if not corrected or supplied, would render the notice invalid, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the Court to be just and reasonable, and if the Court so directs, the notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid notice."
  That simply means that landlords and factors in this country are in a position to do what they jolly well like. If they had been reasonable individuals of a give-and-take disposition, anxious to treat sympathetically those in straitened circumstances, it would have been much different. The only income these poor people get comes either from the employers in the shape of wages or from the Government as unemployment pay. In both these respects the pay of these people has been reduced, and those who own the homes of the people are anxious to wring more out of them. That is why we are objecting to this Clause.
  Captain GARRO-JONES:I want to say a few words with reference to the renewal of the Rent Restrictions Act. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to reply. I shall put the points very briefly and in a businesslike way, and I hope I shall get an equally businesslike reply.
  Section 2 of the Rent Restrictions Act provides that if a landlord does not carry out reasonable repairs the tenant or the sanitary authority may apply to the County Court for a suspension of the increased rent which has been allowed under the Act. I have been spending a large amount of time in visiting houses in my own constituency, and I can honestly tell the Committee of a state of affairs which is truly appalling. In some cases I found windows falling

  1247
  out of their frames, plaster falling from the roof, no latches on the door, the damp coming in, and as many as seven and eight people living in one room. I can honestly say that the state of affairs is appalling in the districts of London Fields and Hackney Wick which I have the honour to represent, and it is perfectly obvious that whatever safeguards are accorded to the tenants under these Acts they are not able, either through ignorance of the law, or from some other reason, to avail themselves of those safeguards. They do not apply to the County Court for relief from excessive rent.
  It is true that the sanitary authority is empowered to take proceedings if they fail, but the sanitary authorities are not doing this. I have said to these people: "Do you ever get the sanitary inspectors here?" and they say: "Yes, occasionally; but they do not do anything. They cannot get overcrowding orders when there is nowhere for the people to go? "
  9.0 p.m.
  I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has in view any steps to deal with this problem. I know that houses are being built, but they are being built for the people who can afford to pay high rents.
  I do not claim that my own experience in regard to these matters is unique, but scores of hon. Members of this House know that there are hundreds of people in their constituencies who are unable to move to the new housing accommodation because they cannot afford to pay the excessive rents which are being demanded. The ironical part about this business is that it is the very people who cannot afford to pay these rents who need this Act the most. Is the Government content with the attractive picture which has been drawn as to the large number of houses which are being built all over the country? Is that being used to hide the more serious side of this question?
  There is one other point which I wish to raise. The repairs under the terms of the lease are supposed to be done by the tenants. I have been examining the facts, and I find that landlords in the East End of London are bringing the most tyrannical pressure to bear upon
  1248
  their tenants to make them expend large sums of money on the improvement of their premises.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:These arguments do not seem to me to be in order on this Amendment.
  Captain GARRO-JONES:I think my points are perfectly relevant as to whether the Act should be renewed and in what form.
  I do not intend to pursue that line of argument, and I will come to my final point. There is in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill a provision that the Act shall be renewed for one year more. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us something a little more definite. There are hundreds and thousands of people in every part of the country who do not quite understand what is going on in politics, and they are suffering the most serious anxiety as to whether they are going to have their rents raised or not. The other day I saw an auctioneer's poster dealing with a de-controlled house which had just been let at four times the rent of a similar kind of house next door.
  I suggest to the Committee that it is not sufficient to renew this Act year after year. There are hundreds of thousands of tenants who cannot afford to pay an increased rent, and they are entitled to some definite understanding as to how long they are to have the security of this Act. Until the demand for houses has been fully overtaken it would be most unjust to remove the Rent Restrictions Act from the Statute Book.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood):At the earliest possible moment I desire to make plain the position of the Government so far as the Rent Restrictions Acts are concerned. After listening to some of the speeches I do not think the intentions of the Government in renewing this Bill are quite clearly understood. We propose that the Rent Restrictions Acts shall be continued in England for another year. I welcome the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) who represents one of the divisions of London, because he has put before the House the anxieties and doubts which so many people are entertaining about the Rent Restrictions Acts. I may say, speaking for myself, that I do not

  1249
  regard this matter as a matter of humour, or as affording any occasion for delaying the House, but rather as a matter of seriousness which ought to be faced, and as to which a proper statement ought to be made. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has referred to the present housing position, and I want at once to make the position of my right hon. Friend and myself, as representing the Department which is concerned with housing, perfectly plain. It is perfectly true that during the last few years an unprecedented number of houses has been built in this country. The figure for England and Wales is well over a million. It is also the case that in September last the number of houses completed was the largest number that has ever been completed in a single month in this country, namely, 52,000. The highest previously recorded figure in this country for the number of houses completed in one month was 18,000. Therefore, I think that everyone must regard that which the Government—
  Mr. MAXTON:On a point of Order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) was speaking, you, Sir, ruled somewhat strictly with reference to the limits of the Debate, and I understood you then to say that discussion must be limited to the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). Is that still the position, or are we having a general statement on the whole housing question in England and Wales?
  Sir K. WOOD:If I may say so at once, I am addressing myself to the Amendment dealing with England only, and am stating the position—
  Mr. MAXTON:With the hon. Gentleman's permission, I still regard the Chair as being the proper quarter from which replies to questions on points of Order should be received.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:As I understood the hon. Gentleman, he was quite in order, because I understand that the number of houses has a considerable bearing on the question of rent restriction.
  Mr. MACKINDER:Further on the point of Order. Should we be able to raise the question of how many houses
  1250
  were built to rent, and how many to the owners' specifications?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:Only to the extent to which the numbers might have a bearing on the question whether the Rent Restrictions Act should continue for a longer or shorter period.
  Mr. LANSBURY:Further on the point of Order. Surely, if it can be demonstrated that very large numbers of these houses are built for persons who need not bother about the Rent Restrictions Act, we are entitled to point to that as a reason why this Amendment should not be carried. I respectfully submit, Sir, that if you allow—I have no objection to its being done—if you allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue the argument he is putting forward now, some .of us will want to follow him and show that, in spite of everything that has been done, it is totally inadequate.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:I should like to hear what various hon. Members have to say, and what arguments they use, before ruling upon them. They may have a bearing on the Amendment, or they may not.
  Sir K. WOOD:I am endeavouring to put forward what I venture to think is a relevant argument on this Amendment. I suggest that, in coming to a conclusion as to whether we should shorten the period of control—which is the Amendment that is being moved—or whether the proposal to continue the Act for one year should be approved of by the Committee or not, it is relevant to consider what exactly has been done, and what ought to be done, in regard to housing in this country. I may say at once that I am resisting this Amendment, and am asking the Committee to confirm the proposal of the Government to continue the Rent Restrictions Acts for another year. Before the points of Order were raised, I was surveying the position in regard to housing, and was saying that, while it is true that over a million new houses have been erected since the Armistice, and while it is also true that in September last 52,000 houses were erected in England and Wales—which is a record for this country, the highest previous figure having been 18,000—I was about to say that the Government recognise that, notwithstanding that great advance, still a great deal more remains to be done in

  1251
  regard to housing. It is for that reason particularly that I am resisting my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, which seeks to restrict the continuation of these Acts to a shorter period than the Government are now proposing. I myself acknowledge, and I think everyone who is connected with this endeavour to meet one of the greatest social difficulties of the time will at once admit, that a great number of these new houses have undoubtedly been built for what may be called the better-paid artisans of the country. I recognise, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke just now, so appropriately, if I may say so, to the matter under discussion, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister recognises, that, particularly in connection with what I may call the lower-paid workers of the country, the local authorities and others interested in housing have undoubtedly to make renewed and, I hope, strenuous efforts to meet that position and that demand.
  Undoubtedly, in very many areas in England and Wales, there is, as everyone knows who represents districts such as I myself represent, a very large number of applicants who are registered for houses, but have been unable to obtain them for a very long time. With that position confronting the Government, the question arises as to what is to be done. There are three or four courses which the Government might adopt at this moment. They might repeal the Rent Restrictions Acts altogether; they might allow Part II of the Act to operate automatically, in which event all the rents of the country would become unrestricted, and owners would be allowed to recover the control of their property, subject to certain restrictions which would subsist for a further period of five years, and were designed to deal with cases of exceptional hardship; or, on the other hand, we might introduce an amending Bill which would prolong the existing law but which would subject it to amendment in certain respects; or, lastly, we might adopt the course which we have adopted in this Bill, namely, the course of continuing these Acts in their present form for a fixed period.
  It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has stated, that there are two very considerable bodies of opinion in this country in regard to the present Rent
  1252
  Restrictions Acts. There is a body of opinion which holds, and holds very strongly indeed, that all forms of restriction should be abolished, and which to a certain extent regards these restrictions as interfering with building operations in this country. Certainly it is the case that the Ministry of Health has received representations from many influential bodies in that sense. On the other hand, as has been stated here to-night, there is an equally strong body of opinion which urges that the restrictions at present contained in the Rent Restrictions Acts cannot be safely removed at the present time. The Ministry of Health is bound to have regard to the opinions of many of the most enlightened local authorities of the country, including the London County Council, who hold, and very strongly hold, the view that it would not be safe at the present time to do away with or amend these Acts. I think every thoughtful person in every part of the House will agree that it is no doubt desirable that all these restrictions should be done away with and completely removed at the earliest possible moment if that can be done without exposing tenants to exploitation and injustice, but the opinion of the Government is that the time has not yet arrived when the Acts can be swept away. They are also of opinion that the rapid construction of new houses is constantly bringing nearer the time when the position will be such that the total abolition, or at least a drastic amendment of these Acts, would be possible.
  When you come to consider the question raised by my hon. Friend, that certain Amendments should be made to the existing Rent Restrictions Acts, again anyone who has had any experience of these Acts will probably agree with that conclusion. Speaking again quite personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with people who have bought houses for their own occupation, and for no other purpose, and have for so many years been unable to obtain possession of them. I have also a good deal of sympathy with people who are suffering grave injustice from sub-tenants and from the profiteering that is undoubtedly going on. But in the first place all these matters would be highly contentious, and in the second place there is very little Parliamentary time available to discuss them. The con-

  1253
  tinuance of this Act for another year will allow time in which, I think, the present housing situation so far as this country is concerned, and I believe also so far as Scotland is concerned, will be found to have improved by the continuation of the high rate of housing production that is now going on and by the gradual extension of automatic decontrol that is undoubtedly taking place. The hon. Member who spoke last gave an example which, so far as my experience is concerned, is not very frequent, of a house which, as I understand it, was out of control and which was next door to a house that was under control. We have no exact estimate in my Department of the number of houses which have automatically gone out of control, but they must be a very large number indeed and, if you compare the number of cases of complaint and of instances that are given of profiteering or high rents being charged, they are very small indeed. In any event, another year will give a full opportunity for the subject to be reviewed.
  Captain GARRO-JONES:This is a subject that some, of us have very much at heart. Can the hon. Gentleman give some explicit assurance that in those areas where overcrowding is still rampant the Rent Restrictions Act will not be removed?
  Sir K. WOOD:The hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving me very much credit if he thinks I am going to prophesy what the Government will or will not do 12 months hence. Tenants may be assured that for the next 12 months they can sleep safely in their beds, and the situation can be carefully watched and reviewed during that period. At the end of that time the Government will again come to a decision and make proposals. But it will be very rash for anyone to venture to announce to-night the policy of the Government in relation to rent restriction, or almost any other matter, 12 months in advance of the time.
  My hon. Friend proposes that the period should be limited to 1st August. I think he would be the first to recognise that it would be unreasonable to extend the Act for so short a period, and certainly it is only reasonable that tenants should have an explicit assurance that protection will be afforded them
  1254
  until December, 1928. I am glad to think that no Amendments have been put down by hon. Members opposite. Notwithstanding the difference that has arisen in connection with rent restriction, it is the judgment of the great body of people that the present Rent Restrictions Acts should continue for a certain period. Only a little time ago the Labour party introduced a Bill to block the Acts for a further period. It is true it was a much longer period than is proposed to-night. There was no suggestion by any Member of the party opposite, so far as I know, that they proposed to make any Amendments of the Acts. At any rate, that is something on which we can all agree, and the only difference, it seems to me, that can arise, at any rate between the Government and the Opposition, is as to the period for which the Act should continue. In this Bill, which has the authority of the Labour party, and which has on the back of it the names of many of the Ministers in the Labour Government, there is no question of amendment of the Acts.
  What the Government are proposing to-night, and which, I hope, will receive the approval of all Members of the House, is to continuo this Act for a further period of 12 months and then, at the end of that period, as all reasonable men should do, review the situation, and, of course, make proposals to the House, when the House will be able to come to a decision on the matter. I hope that in those circumstances, as far as this portion of this particular Bill is concerned, hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will accept the proposals of the Government, who feel, notwithstanding the very great progress that has been made in connection with housing in this country, at any rate, that this Act must be continued. We hope that the progress of building may still continue and that we shall soon see the period arrive when these Acts will no longer remain on the Statute Book and when it will be possible to do justice to landlords and tenants alike by removing from the Statute Book an Act of Parliament which, undoubtedly, is causing very great difficulties in many directions to day.
  Mr. GILLETT:I do not share the hope that the Minister has expressed that there is any likelihood in the near future of seeing the housing problem in some of our great cities restored to the position

  1255
  to which he evidently thinks it is going to be, that is, the position in which it was in the days before the War, when it was purely a matter of private owners and their relationship with their tenants. The Minister has really intimated that he hopes some of these things will come again. It is on that account that I believe fundamentally he has hardly realised—though I know he must be acquainted with them—the difficulties with which we are face to face in Central London. I do not see how you are ever going to provide suitable housing accommodation for the working classes in some of these central districts of London in view of the value of the land for business purposes, in view of the necessity for many of these men and women to live in those places in order to get to their work, and in view of the difficulty of housing these people in the outskirts of London, not alone because of the question of work, but also on account of the cost of travelling to and fro if the family is of any size whatever, or even if it only consists of the man himself. I believe that, far from coming to the conclusion that some day we shall go back to the old order of things, houses will have to be provided to a larger extent by the giving of grants, or that there will have to be some relief given in regard to the mode of transport.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:It is very dangerous to embark on a discussion on housing on this particular Amendment.
  Mr. GILLETT:I would point out to you, Captain FitzRoy, that the whole of the theme upon which I was speaking has been touched upon really in its main points by the Minister. I was only challenging him in respect of his optimistic idea that we should return some day to what was the old system of housing. I was trying to point out that I did not believe that to be possible, because I believe his outlook has a profound influence upon what he has said to the House in connection with this matter now before us. He hopes some day, fairly soon possibly, that this Measure can be done away with, but I do not think you are going to get away from this Measure so easily. At any rate, if you do, it will impose enormous hardship upon those who are dwelling in the centre of London. The Minister has talked about
  1256
  the large number of houses that have been built—I am not disputing the figure—but what I want to tell him, from my experience as the Member for one of the central districts of London, is that, as far as I can see, practically speaking, all that he has done has hardly had the slightest effect upon the housing position in Finsbury, which is the most overcrowded part of the whole of London. While the Minister tells us that 52,000 houses were built a month or two ago, I believe, at the same time, owing to the reduction of the Government's assistance, it is doubtful whether that number of houses is going to be built in the future. That indicates to my mind that the Minister, really, has not gone into the condition of the housing problems in Central London. The Finsbury Borough Council are finishing a number of flats which are to provide accommodation for about 200 families. They have received applications from something like 1,000 people, and they have refused to receive any more applications. We do not know what the number of applications might have been if the Town Hall had kept on receiving applications for this accommodation.
  The Minister himself, in answer to a question the other day dealing with this problem of housing in Central London, said that they were proposing to clear away slum areas. I believe one of those areas in Finsbury has been under consideration of the local authorities for many years. I understand now that the Minister has some scheme that he is going to put into operation in order to clear one of those slum areas. I should like to know bow in connection with the Measure we are now considering—the Rent Restrictions Act—we can possibly think for many years to come of removing such a Measure. I am amazed at the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). It is only charitable to him to think that the hon. and gallant Member cannot have any conception of what the housing conditions are in the centre of our great city. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in Oxford!"] I will not go into the question of Oxford. Some time ago I heard that they had some very bad slums in Oxford. At any rate, I know perfectly well what is the condition of many of the houses in Finsbury. My hon. Friend who spoke from

  1257
  this bench beside me spoke about a part of the country which may not be referred to, but practically the same thing can be said of the conditions of housing in London as were said of Scotland, which is not the subject before us at the present time.
  In conclusion, what I want to impress upon the Minister, in spite of his outlook on this matter, is that he is not by any means going to see any solution of the housing problem for many years to come. I view with grave concern the fact that the Government seem to think they are beginning to get near to the solution. We have not had nearly enough houses built. We shall need to have hundreds of thousands of houses built before we touch the problem, and even then the slum problem in our great cities will seem to be barely touched at all. A man came to see me only a day or two ago because he wanted one of those flats. He said he had a family of six or seven, and they were living, I think he told me, in one room in Finsbury. While that state of things is going on, it is impossible for any Government to imagine that in the near future the housing problem is going to be, solved, or that an Act of this kind is going to be removed. I tremble to think what would happen in a division like mine if the Government were foolish enough to remove the restrictions now in force. I tremble to think what it would mean, when I consider the wages that are paid to-day, and with the state of unemployment, if we were to leave these people to the mercy of the landlords—landlords who are anxious, many of them, at the present time to take the land on which houses are standing for business purposes. You can look at some of these houses which are being left to fall to pieces; they look as if they had been bombarded in the War. This is what you see in Finsbury to-day in many working-class quarters. One wonders what would happen to these people if the Government were foolish enough to remove the only safeguard these people have. I tremble to think what would happen to these people if they were left to the tender mercies of the landlords.
  Mr. RYE:I do not think many Members would seriously suggest that the restrictions should be done away with at present, but I do think that the Government might have considered the
  1258
  advisability of bringing in an amending Act. There are at the present time a number of anomalies in the present Act. I pointed out a year ago the position of an owner of property within the Acts, upon whom a dangerous structure notice has been served by a local authority, and I drew attention to a case where, following an order of a magistrate at the instance of the London County Council, the whole of the premises with the exception of the ground floor, a shop and parlour, was pulled down and the tenant in that case was enabled to plead the Rent Restrictions Act and—
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope):I must point out that the only question is whether this Act should be prolonged to August or December. We cannot enter into the details of a housing scheme.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:Is it not a fact that, when your predecessor was in the Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health detailed the number of houses built each month? In view of that, is not the hon. Member perfectly in order?
  The CHAIRMAN:It may be that the number of houses being built had a bearing on whether the Act should cease in August or in December, but I do not see how details of a housing scheme can well arise on this question.
  Mr. RYE:My point was that it would not be wise to leave this matter for a year, as there are very hard cases that might be dealt with. I raised this very point on a similar occasion and then you very kindly allowed me to put it to the House. My point is that an amended Act would put an end to the position that I was going to put to the Committee. Rent restriction would still continue, but a Clause could be introduced enabling the landlord in such a case to go to a County Court and obtain an order for possession.
  The CHAIRMAN:It is not a case of a proposal to amend the existing law; the object of this Amendment is to end the Acts in August instead of December.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN:Surely the hon. Member is in order, as this Amendment is the only chance the House has of discussing the policy of the Government and

  1259
  of discussing whether or not the Act should be extended in its present form or in a different form?
  The CHAIRMAN:The Amendment makes the Act expire in August, and there will be all the next Session to make a further amendment in the law. All that is proposed by the Amendment is that the Act should come to an end in August rather than December. It appears to me the hon. Member is arguing the whole question of the amendment of the law at some future date.
  Mr. RYE:Might I draw your attention to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary specially referred to the three courses open to the Government, one being the amendment of these very Acts? If he can discuss the question of a possible Amendment as being the wisest course, it seems to me it is within my rights to draw attention to hard cases and to point out that, if this Act be brought to an end at the date stated in the Amendment, then a new amending Act might be put into operation for a further period in order to enable landlords to get possession of their premises in hard cases. It would, for instance, enable landlords, who are under a covenant to rebuild the premises, to carry out their covenant and so give employment to a large number of people.
  The CHAIRMAN:We cannot go into the whole working of this Act on an Amendment dealing with the point whether it should end in August or December.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:I submit there was a general understanding expressed in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech that the three points raised by him should be the subject of general criticism.
  The CHAIRMAN:I cannot go into the question of general understandings. If the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken on these matters, I cannot prevent hon. Members from referring to them.
  Sir K. WOOD:I mentioned the courses open to the Government but I did not in any way discuss any specific amendment.
  Mr. MAXTON:When the hon. Member was making his speech I raised with
  1260
  your predecessor in the Chair the question whether it was in order for him to review the whole policy of the Government with regard to building. He continued to make that speech; he first of all reviewed what the Government had done in building during the last year, and then proceeded to say what was the general policy of the Government with reference to rent restriction. I would feel I had been somewhat tricked if an hon. Member is to be allowed to outline the Government's policy and to express his approval of it while I am not to be allowed to express my disapproval and detestation of it.
  The CHAIRMAN:If the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) is merely answering points made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I cannot prevent him.
  Mr. RYE:All I am endeavouring to do is to show that the Parliamentary Secretary was acting quite properly in suggesting the Government might have brought in an amending Measure, and I was endeavouring to show in what way such a Measure was necessary. Since I have begun to raise the point, I am beginning to think I am wrong, since I have the support of hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] As you have kindly encouraged me, I would like to go on and draw attention to a case which recently came to my notice where certain contractors—
  The CHAIRMAN:As to what passed before I came in, I understand the Parliamentary Secretary pointed to the number of houses that were being built as having a direct bearing on whether the Acts should be extended to August or December. He certainly did not lay himself open to a discussion on the whole merits of the Acts. On this Amendment it is clearly out of order.
  Mr. RYE:It is not for me to criticise what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but, frankly speaking, it seemed to me that he rather roamed over the whole question. The hon. Gentleman made an extremely able speech and went far beyond the territory of this Amendment, but it was not for me to raise a point of Order against the hon. Gentleman. If you, Mr. Chairman, think I am out of order, and hon. Gentlemen opposite think I am in order, I do not propose to continue my observations.
  Mr. HARDIE:I will give some reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted. The difficulty in regard to the Rent Restrictions Act has its basis in the number of families living in less than what is called one house. For the purpose of this Debate I got from the Minister of Health, in reply to a question, some figures that will give good reason why the Mover of the Amendment should not press the Amendment. The figures bear directly on the question before the Committee, and so far as England and Wales are concerned are as follow: The families living in one room are 317,417; the number living in two rooms is 917,958 families; in three rooms 1,358,681 families; in four rooms 2,144,000 families; and in five rooms and over 4,000,000 families. That is a total of 8¾ million families. Those 84 million private families occupy 7 million separate dwellings, of which seven million were occupied by one private family, 597,000 occupied by two families, and 155,007 occupied by three or more families. I ask the Mover of the Amendment what he thinks about conditions such as those. Has he examined the slums in his own town? I have been a visitor there only a few times, but I made myself acquainted with some of the housing conditions and they are such that that great university town cannot boast.
  During the Recess I spent almost 10 weeks in London looking for a house. I have lived in and about London for the last 3½ years, and I was compelled by an incident in my home life to seek a new place. I know of a house which before the War was let at £22. To-day, when I make application for a house of that kind in that same street, I am asked for £84. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health states that there are not many cases of that kind, he shows merely how he lacks contact with the whole subject. In 10 weeks search for a house you find contact, and especially with that thing called the house agent. Everything that points to security, so far as the renter of a house is concerned, depends upon the power of Parliament to restrict the rapaciousness of the house agent. It is not so bad if you get in contact with the actual owner of the house, but whenever the owner gets into the hands of an agent everything is multiplied by four and the bleeding goes on. It is not only the multiplying of the rent. In the de-controlled house you do
  1262
  not finish there. I have called at 100 places if I have called at one where the rent was £150. When I arrived I was told, "That is the rent, but if you want this house there is £95 for decorations that you have to pay with the first year's rent," or there was some premium for someone's auntie who had a piano in that house. Then you get the demand for payment for "sound furniture." I made strict investigations in some houses about the furniture. I was asked for £148 for three small rooms and no bathroom in Chelsea.. The people who were occupying the house had had a lease at £38.
  The CHAIRMAN:How can the hon. Member link up these details with the question whether the Act should go on to December or to August?
  Mr. HARDIE:My object is to try to convince the hon. Member for Oxford that he should withdraw his Amendment. If he knew the facts—
  Captain BOURNE:If the hon. Member will give me a chance I shall be pleased to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE:The reason why I connect these details with what is before the Committee is that it is not only a question of rent in the decontrolled house. You have rent plus key money, plus furniture, plus what are called fittings, plus premiums, plus decorations, plus God knows what, when the house agent is in charge. That is the position. At one place in Chelsea to which I was taken, I asked, "Was this house recently decontrolled?" The agent replied, "What has that to do with it?" I said I was asking only a simple question. We were standing there in this dilapidated place. The admission was made that it had not been painted for eight or nine years. There was a dead rat on the floor. Outside was a square which had been created at the cost of the general public. The agent said, "Look what a fine square there is!" The agent was not charging anything for the rat. That was thrown in. As a Scottish Member I suppose I ought not to intervene, but I happen to be a resident of London. I could give the Chairman some bloodcurdling experiences. I was taken up three stairs into a big apartment, divided by a partition. I asked, "Has this

  1263
  house been decontrolled?" and the reply was, "Yes." "What is the rent?" I asked. "£185." "Where is the kitchen?" She opened a press door, a place 16 inches deep, with a gas ring in it. That was the kitchen. That decontrolled house had previously been rented at £25 a year, and I was asked £185 for it. I asked for the bathroom, and she pulled back a dirty old curtain in one end of the room, and said, "That is the bathroom." As we were going down the stairs she said, "This would be a nice place for a lady."
  The CHAIRMAN:What has this to do with the question as between August and December?
  Mr. HARDIE:If you are going to make any alteration in this Act you must know all the details. I went to another house, and this is my last illustration——
  Sir K. WOOD rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 101.

  Division No. 350.]

  AYES.

  [9.58 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Phllipson, Mabel

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pilcher, G.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

  Harland. A.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Balniel, Lord

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Remer, J. R.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Bethel, A.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Henn, Sir Sydney H

  Rye, F. G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Burman, J. B.

  Hopkins. J. W. W.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sandon, Lord

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Savery, S. S.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Kinq, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cope, Major William

  Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Smithers, Waldron

  Couper, J. B.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Courtauld, Major .J. S.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Long, Major Eric

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Looker, Herbert Wi11iam

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Drewe, C.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lvnn. Sir R. J.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Tasker, R. Inlgo

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

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Templeton, W. P.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  McLean. Major A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

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

  Fermoy, Lord

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Finburgh, S.

  Mailer, R. J.

  Wells, S. R.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Forrest, W.

  Meyer. Sir Frank

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ganzonl, Sir John

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Gates, Percy.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Withers, John James

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Nuttall, Ellis

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

  Goff. Sir Park

  Oakley. T.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Penny. Frederick George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

  NOES.

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

  Hayes, John Henry

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barnes, A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smillie, Robert

  Bromley, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Connolly, M.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lee, F.

  Townend, A. E.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lindley, F. W.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Duncan, C.

  Mackinder, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dunnico, H.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

  March, S.

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

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Maxton, James

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gillett, George M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Westwood, J.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Whiteley. W.

  Greenall, T.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Riley, Ben

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hardie, George D.

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

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.

  Hayday, Arthur

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

  Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Mr. W. ADAMSON:I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "twenty-eighth day of May," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of December."
  This Amendment has an entirely different object to the one which has just been disposed of. The last Amendment sought to reduce the time provided in the Bill whereas the Amendment I am now moving, in the name of myself and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) seeks to extend it. We do not think there will be sufficient time within the limitation proposed in the Bill, to provide the necessary amount of housing accommodation required by the Scottish people. A few figures will very quickly put the position before the Committee. In 1917, according to the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing, there were 121.000 houses urgently required, and if the standard of housing was to be raised, then the number of new houses required was 232,000. The total number of houses built since that date until now is 62,867, and this figure includes all houses built by State-assisted schemes, by private enterprise, and the number
  1266
  of steel houses erected by the Government. But in addition to the shortage of houses which, according to the Royal Commission, was 121,000, or, if the standard was to be raised, a shortage of 232,000, we also required to build annually not less than 20,000 houses if the needs of the people were to be met within a reasonable time, say 15 or 20 years. That means that during the last eight years we required to build 140,000 houses, whereas all that have been built up to date is 62,867.
  These figures will, I think, give the Committee a very clear idea of the housing problem in Scotland, and if we are only going to provide for the building of houses up to the date mentioned in this Bill then it is altogether too short in order to enable our people to be provided with adequate housing accommodation. I could go on giving the reasons why this tremendous shortage of houses has occurred in Scotland but I do not propose to do so because a number of my colleagues are anxious to discuss the matter and I am not going to monopolise the time of the Committee. Let me say this, however, that this problem is causing great concern not only to the working classes in Scotland but also to a number of local authorities on whom rests the

  1267
  responsibility for providing proper housing accommodation. I hope the Committee will agree to the Amendment, so that we in Scotland may have an opportunity of making more ample provision for the wants of our people than we have been able to do hitherto. Bad as is the position in England and Wales, where they have been able since the Housing Acts came into operation to build a bigger proportion of houses for their people, it is not so bad as the position in Scotland. For various reasons we have been unable to build as great a proportion of houses as in England and Wales, and it is absolutely necessary that we should have the time extended so that we may be able to make as ample provision North of the Tweed as has been made South of the Tweed.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:I rise to support the Amendment and, at the outset, I wish to state my belief that it would have been better, had the Secretary of State for Scotland, instead of including this Measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, introduced a completely new Measure. The situation in Scotland is not comparable with the situation in England. The situation in England is bad, but the situation in Scotland is very much worse. Take what is happening in Scotland under the present Act. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government definitely excluded certain houses from the scope of the Act. At the moment, large numbers of people, for good or bad reasons, are emigrating from the West of Scotland to the Colonies and the United States. Every house thus vacated becomes decontrolled automatically, with the result that in the West of Scotland there is now a comparatively large number of houses completely decontrolled, and factors and house owners are charging the new occupier practically any rent they think fit. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in an earlier Debate the factors in many cases in Glasgow are holding up new tenants to ransom.
  The right hon. Gentleman ought also to face this very important fact. In the poorest parts of the city, migration from one house to another is more common than among the better off artisan class. Thus, the very poor who need the pro-
  1268
  tection of the Act most of all are the people who are not protected by the Act as it is working. The nature of their employment, constantly changing as it does from district to district forces these poor people to change their households, but the moment they try to do so the conditions under which the Act operates are such as to mean that they are rack-rented in the new house. Under the present Act, if a tenant has been evicted for arrears the rent of that tenant's house cannot be increased but the factors or houseowners are not operating that portion of the Act at all. The Secretary for Scotland ought to direct his attention to the fact that in those cases houseowners are taking advantage of the tenants' ignorance of their own position under the Act. I would like to see introduced a Measure stating definitely that all working-class houses——
  The CHAIRMAN:The question before the Committee is whether the present law should be continued for another six months or not.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:I was arguing that instead of the present Amendment we might have a new Act altogether.
  The CHAIRMAN:That point hardly arises on the present Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:Surely a Member is entitled to suggest that instead of the present Amendment it would be better to have a new Act?
  The CHAIRMAN:He would be on the Second Reading of the Bill, but not upon an Amendment of this kind.
  Mr. STEPHEN:On that point of Order. I would submit that, when the Second Reading of the Bill was before the House, Mr. Speaker intimated to us, when we wanted to raise such a general question, that we would be able to do it in Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN:Not to the extent of talking beyond what is in order on the Amendment. It is only a question as to whether or not the existing law, for better or for worse, should be continued for a further six months beyond the period stated in the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN:I accept your ruling, Sir, and will try to confine myself to the Amendment. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be well aware that

  1269
  even the six months proposed in the Amendment is not ample, but we ask for this additional time because we think that at least in Scotland the period ought to be continued until the end of December. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, optimist as he might occasionally appear to be, does not think the problem of housing in Scotland will be solved on the date suggested in the Bill, and I am sure he does not even assume that it will be solved by the time proposed in our Amendment. Things in Scotland are not being solved at all. I know the right hon. Gentleman will quote figures to show that there have been more houses built in the last six months than in the previous six months, that in the last nine months there have been about 20,000 houses built in Scotland, that at no other time has that figure been approached, and that the month of September this year was the best for house building, despite the fact that weather conditions were among the worst. I know he will produce figures of that sort, that will not be able to be challenged from the point of view of accuracy, but even if they were twice as strong, even if the number of houses built was three times as great, even if the Secretary of State for Scotland were building houses four times as rapidly as he is now building them, as a matter of fact the houses he is now building are not for the class of tenant that we seek to safeguard in this Bill. The houses he is building are almost exclusively for the better-off type of person. I support this Amendment in the hope that at the end of the six months at least considerable further progress will have been made in this matter.
  Mr. JOHNSTON:There are at least three grave issues dealt with in this Bill upon which the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to attempt to justify the limitation named for the operation of the Bill. My hon. Friends who have already spoken have dealt with the question of housing, but there are two other subjects upon which I think no one can suggest that the state of affairs in Scotland is satisfactory, and that remedial legislation passed by this House should be stopped as early as the 28th May. Referring to Page 5, there is the question of land settlement and of unemployment. Neither land settlement nor unemployment in Scotland is being tackled by the
  1270
  British Government at all, and the two Acts which it is sought to extend until May, 1929, may for all practical purposes be abolished. It is quite true that something is being done in housing, and the Secretary of State will be able to give figures showing that house building, while still unsatisfactory, is at any rate being tackled. But what can you say about the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act. What can you say about the depopulation of the countryside?
  The CHAIRMAN:How does the hon. Member connect his argument with whether the control of housing should cease in May or continue till December?
  Mr. JOHNSTON:The Amendment is not confined to housing, but to the extension of other Acts mentioned in Part 4 of the Schedule.
  The CHAIRMAN:Part IV of the Schedule, I see, refers only to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act. There are certain references to Amending Acts, but I think that is the only Act that is continued.
  Mr. JOHNSTON:If that be so, then I have nothing further to say upon that point. I should like just in a word to reinforce what my hon. Friend has already said about houses. It is not only in Glasgow, it is not only in the big cities and the large towns in Scotland, but it is all over Scotland. It is in the rural areas where the Secretary of State and his administrators ought to take every possible step to assure local authorities that they will not be encouraged to slow down their house-building programme, even at the time which is referred to in this Act. The Secretary of State for Scotland must be well aware that so long as he keeps the cancellation of this Act hanging over the heads of the local authorities in Scot-land, there cannot be as much ardour for a speedy development of housing as there would be, at least among some sections of the local authorities, if they were convinced they would not be handicapped financially by the cancellation of this Act. He will remember what happened a year ago, how local authorities had to be assured by special efforts on his part after considerable pressure in this House that their financial arrangements would not be suddenly cancelled, and that they would be encouraged to

  1271
  go on in their building progress. For these reasons I beg to reinforce what has already been said that the date should be extended from May to December.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour):This problem—
  Mr. STEPHEN:On a point of Order. There are some others of us, who are specially interested in this Act, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland replies now, we shall not be able to hear a reply to the points which we wish to bring forward.
  The CHAIRMAN:That is not a point of order.
  Sir J. GILMOUR:Of course, I have no desire to prevent any hon. Members from expressing their views, but I should like to say that when the Government had to consider the question of whether the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act should be continued or not, it was naturally my duty, as representing Scotland, to make up my mind what measure of advice I should tender to them. Quite frankly I was in favour of extending the period under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act for another year, just as the Minister responsible for the English position has done. I am not going to weary the House by quoting a large number of figures, as a good many have already been submitted, but I think it is clear that in Scotland we have made very material progress with housing.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM:No.
  Sir J. GILMOUR:Of course, it depends on what the hon. Member regards as "material progress." If I take the year in which the hon. Member's party was in office I find that rather over 4,000 houses were completed in Scotland; in the present year we are approaching the figure of 20,000.
  Mr. MAXTON:On a point of Order. I want to ask you how far the Government are entitled, on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, to review the whole of the Government's policy of housing, throwing bouquets at themselves, and making comparison with their predecessors?
  The CHAIRMAN:The right hon. Gentleman would certainly not be in order in reviewing the whole policy, but I understand that he is showing that material progress has been made, and he has taken as his standard the progress that had been made some years ago.
  Sir J. GILMOUR:I do not propose to pursue that point. I—
  Mr. MAXTON:On that point of Order. After your Ruling with reference to my colleague's intervention, on the consideration of an Act dealing with rent and mortgage restrictions which is to be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, is it legitimate to discuss house building in Scotland, which comes under an entirely different Act altogether?
  The CHAIRMAN:The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) related to the progress of housing, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is referring to that. Presumably, if sufficient houses had already been built the need for control would cease.
  Sir J. GILMOUR:All I was endeavouring to explain was that, when I had to express an opinion as to whether or not rent restriction was to be continued, obviously I had to take into consideration the possibility of the expansion of the existing number of houses, and the housing of the people both in present circumstances and in the future. It is perhaps unwise to look too far into the future with regard to these matters, and in all the circumstances one came to the conclusion that to extend the operation of this Act for one year was amply sufficient. I will only say with regard to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) that I am rather surprised he should have chosen a date which does not coincide in any way with the normal terms in Scotland. If the period were going to be extended it ought, in fairness to the tenants and householders concerned, to correspond with the recognised terms. Be that as it may, I can only say in conclusion that I am satisfied the Government are doing right in extending the Act for one year and we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. STEPHEN:I desire to support the Amendment. The Secretary of State

  1273
  for Scotland has just asserted that this Amendment does not take any notice of the Scottish terms. I would like to point out that the large majority of the people who will be affected do not live in houses which are let upon the Scottish terms, because they are weekly or monthly tenancies. The Minister's statement shows that he has been very careless in regard to this matter, and has not taken into consideration the circumstances which affect the majority of the people. I do not think I am putting it too high when I say that there are 60 per cent. of the houses which come under this Act that are not let on the May or November term, but are let as weekly or monthly tenancies. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland would have been justified in proposing a much greater extension of time for the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act in Scotland. When comparisons are made between the number of houses built in England and Scotland it should be borne in mind that the Scottish housing problem is much more acute and desperate than the English housing problem. On the basis of population the number of houses built in Scotland does not compare favourably with the number of houses built in England.
  After all, the length of time that the Rent Restrictions Act should operate is to be determined according to the proposals of the Government by the number of houses produced. According to the Report of the Royal Commission which inquired into the housing conditions in Scotland we find that on the present standard and basis of housing 121,000 houses were required. If we consider the higher standard that is necessary it means that we require 250,000 houses to be built in Scotland without allowing anything for the normal increase which is necessary every year. I understand that the progress this year has been greater, and that the number estimated this year has been so much greater because of the development that has taken place under the 1924 Act. The Government is dependent for further increases on the Act of 1924. If it he admitted that the period for which the Rent Restrictions Act should be continued is dependent upon the condition in regard to housing, the amount of shortage, and the opportunities that people have to get houses, then I submit that Scotland should have a
  1274
  much longer period than England. Accepting the argument that has been put forward by the spokesmen of the Government, that the scarcity of houses should be the main determining consideration, I think we are entitled to ask for that. The fact that there is this extreme scarcity in Scotland, while it might have impelled the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce a longer period, there are other factors operating in Scotland that might have suggested to him an alteration also in some of the parts of the Rent Restrictions Act and the amendments thereto. There is the arrangement made——
  The CHAIRMAN:It would not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make those Amendments now.
  Mr. STEPHEN:I do not suggest that the Secretary of State should make those Amendments now while I am speaking, or while he was standing at the Box, but I do suggest that, when he was tendering his advice and discussing the position in Scotland, he should have said something to this Committee about the peculiar position in which we are in Scotland. The Rent Restrictions Act in Scotland might be continued for a longer period because of the fact that the houses for which the people are paying rent are in such a dreadful condition. I myself have taken other opportunities of trying to make the Secretary of State realise the position in that respect. There are people paying rent in Scotland, under the Rent Restrictions Act, for houses that have been condemned as unfit for human habitation, and some of those houses have been condemned for many years. That seems to me to be another reason why the Rent Restrictions Act should operate for this longer period; the houses are in such a condition, and the people there are getting such poor bargains, that they should have a longer period during which they would not be at the mercy of the property owners and have to pay increased rents for the miserable hovels in which so many of our people are housed. It has been suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in this country that it was obvious that, in spite of the difficulties of the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act, it must be continued until there is an adequate supply of houses.

  1275
  The position has been growing worse until the last two years. Ten thousand houses are required for the normal increase and 14,930 were produced. That was only 4,000 additional. I know there has been an increase of houses for better-off people in the right hon. Gentleman's division, but the position is worse so far as the ordinary members of the working class are concerned, and if on the original introduction of the Rent Restriction Act a term of years was given, if the present Secretary for Scotland had been even as conscientious as his predecessor in those days he could have suggested to the Government that they were still in need of this Act to-day as much as they were when it was first passed through Parliament. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should agree to a longer term because it will allow the local authorities to go on with their programme with more confidence, it will allow the tenants to understand that the Government is coming to realise the difficulties under which ordinary working people have to live and the special difficulties that they face in connection with housing, and I believe also it will be better for the property owners to know that this Government, much as it has done in the interests of capitalism and property owners, much as it has done on behalf of the great trinity, rent, profit and interest, is still sufficiently aware of the desperate circumstances of the majority of the Scottish people that at least they are going to do something to allow them to maintain a roof over their heads.
  Mr. STEWART:If the Secretary of State for Scotland had amplified his remarks it would have been interesting and, I think, informative. During the whole period since the last Rent Act was passed the position of property-owners—when I say property-owners I mean the owners of houses—has been strengthened. They are no longer, and they have not been for years, even prior to the passing of the last Rent Restrictions Act, doing the work that is commonly recognised as being part of the necessary maintenance and keeping a house in good order It was recognised that it was the function of the landlord, so called, to keep the house in decent habitable condition by painting and papering and work of that nature—what might be called minor
  1276
  repairs. Owing to the conditions that have developed, that part of the work has been entirely thrown upon the tenant. Under the Rent Restrictions Act which gave an increase of rent, a considerable proportion of the increase so allowed was in respect of repairs. They are repairs which have not been executed. It is true, as I have said already, that the landlord's position has been strengthened. In 1911, in Glasgow alone, we had 22,000 empty houses, and in 1914 the number had decreased until there were only 7,000 empty houses. In the course of 1914, prior to the War and subsequent to the beginning of the War, rents were increased month after month, and it has to be remembered that, so far as the working classes of Scotland were concerned, under the Shopletting Act, which was passed some years previously, houses of a less rental than £21 were let on a monthly occupancy and could not be let for a longer period. The extension of the present Act to the 31st December, 1929, would not inflict any hardship on the letting conditions as they obtain in working-class houses throughout Scotland. There is this further fact to be remembered, that under this decontrol business the rents of these houses have, been increased, in some cases, very considerably. I am quite sure the Secretary of State for Scotland has read the statements made by the State Assessor in Glasgow from time to time calling attention to the extraordinary increase that has been made in rents because of houses becoming decontrolled. The public conscience of the city, apart from the people who are directly interested in the matter, is somewhat annoyed—this is a very mild word—at the intentions of the Government. We have now the position that the landlords of Glasgow are in a more favourable position in regard to their profits and their rents than they were before. The Secretary of State, in the course of his remarks, threw some blame upon the Labour party that was in office for something like eight months with regard to the number of houses that were built and drew a favourable comparison between the Acts of this Government and the laws of the preceding Labour Government. He said that they had built only 4,000 houses. The Secretary of State for Scotland will admit that, if it had not been for the Labour Government at that time taking the neces-

  1277
  sary action to prevent the builders of Scotland from increasing the cost of building, bad even as the housing conditions in Scotland are to-day, they might have been worse. We did not hold up those houses, not because we were not desirous of going on with them, but because, in the interests of the tenants of Scotland, we were forced to prevent those builders running away with the profits they were then trying to get. The Government got the advantage in the latter part of 1924 and in 1925 of the action which the Labour Government then took.
  It is true that the housing condition in Scotland is to-day worse than it was in 1925. The number of houses required grows from year to year. In Glasgow 12,000 houses have been built, but in 1919 it was estimated that there were 57,000 houses required in the conditions that then existed. There are now required not 57,000 but nearly 80,000 houses. There are now 43,000 single apartment houses in Glasgow; in 1925, there were not 42,000. There are now 114,000 room and kitchen houses. Despite the Government's contribution of something like 20,000 houses this year, they have made no impression so far on the housing conditions of Scotland generally and of
  Glasgow, Dundee, and other industrial parts in particular. The housing condition is worse, and, if you grant this extension, it is only carrying on and saving the time of the House from year to year. Not in the next generation, under the present rate of progress, is Scotland going to be rid of what is its particular infamy, the housing condition. There is no part of the world that is more held up as a glaring example of rotten housing conditions than my own country of Scotland. There is not a Scotsman in this House who is not ashamed of the notoriety of Scotland in regard to housing. It is up to all of us, who love their country and who are ashamed of the conditions in our country, not to make excuses for it or to say what we have done, to set our backs to it and give housing a better chance than it has had. The House ought to allow this extension that is now proposed.
  Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 99.

  Division No. 351.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Dixey, A. C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

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

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Fairfax, Captain .J. G.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Balniel, Lord

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Fermoy. Lord

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Fielden, E. B.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

  Bethel, A.

  Forrest, W.

  Hume, Sir G. H

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gates, Percy

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

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Burton. Colonel H. W.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

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

  Grace, John

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Christie, J. A.

  Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

  Long, Major Eric

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Looker, Herbert William

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Cope, Major William

  Hammersley, S. S.

  MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

  Couper, J. B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Harland, A.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  McLean, Major A.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Marriott, Sir J. A.R.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Tasker, R Inigo.

  Meson, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Meller, R. J.

  Salmon, Major I.

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

  Merriman, F. B.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

  Meyer, Sir Frank.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Watts, Dr. T.

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Wells, S. R.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Savery, S. S.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Oakley, T.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ormsby-Gore, At. Hon. William

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Smithers, Waldron

  Womersley, W. J.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Remer, J. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

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

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  NOES.

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sexton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, Walter

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barnes, A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Batey, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Smillie, Robert

  Broad, F. A.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bromley, J.

  Kennedy, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Connolly, M.

  Lawson, John James

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lee, F.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lindley, F. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Duncan, C.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dunnico, H.

  Mackinder, W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

  Gillett. George M.

  March, S.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Gosling, Harry

  Maxton, James

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Graham, D M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

  Mitchell, E. Rosalyn (Paisley)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Greenall, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Whiteley, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Palin- John Henry

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hall, G. H (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hardle, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ritson, J.

  Hayes. John Henry

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 98.

  Division No. 352.]

  AYES.

  [11.8 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Alexander, E. E. (Layton)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Cope, Major William

  Atholi, Duchess of

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Couper, J. B.

  Balniel, Lord

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Bethel, A.

  Christle, J. A.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jephcott, A. R

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Salmon, Major I.

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

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Sandon, Lord

  Fielden, E. B.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Savery, S. S.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Forrest, W.

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Long, Major Eric

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Gates, Percy

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Lumley, L. R.

  Smithers Waldron

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

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Grace, John

  McLean, Major A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Greene. W. P. Crawford

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Meller, R. J.

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

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hammersley. S. S.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Harland, A.

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

  Watts. Dr. T.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wells, S. R.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Neville, Sir Reginald .J.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Oakley, T.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Henn. Sir Sydney H

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Hilton, Cecil

  Pilcher, G.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Yerburgh Major Robert D. T.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Captain Bowyer and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  NOES.

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

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Rose, Frank H.

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, G. H

  Sexton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, Walter

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barnes, A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smillle, Robert

  Broad, F. A.

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

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bromley, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Townend, A. E.

  Connolly, M.

  Lawson, John James

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lindley, F. W.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duncan, C.

  Mackinder, W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rho-

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  March, S.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maxton, James

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gosling, Harry

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Windsor, Walter

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Riley, Ben

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hardle, George D.

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

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

  Hayday, Arthur

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Ordered,
"That Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee, and that Captain Crookshank be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

ESTIMATES.
Ordered,
"That Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates, and that Mr. Wardlaw-Milne be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

NEW DIOCESES (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) MEASURE, 1927.
Major KINDERSLEY:I beg to move,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the New Dioceses (Transitional Provisions) Measure, 1927, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
I may state at once that there are no Papistical plots behind this Measure; it is purely one of machinery. The position is that certain difficulties arise when new dioceses are created with regard to the machinery relating to the Diocesan Conferences. I can best illustrate the difficulties by referring to the division of the Winchester Diocese into three new dioceses. Under the constitution of the Church Assembly an election can only be held once every five years, and as the last election was held in 1925 there cannot be another until 1930. Meanwhile it is necessary to make provision for the Diocesan Conferences and representation therein between 1925 and 1930. This Measure is designed to do that. I do not think the House will want me to go into any further details and I would ask them to give it their approval, inasmuch as the Ecclesiastical Committee of the House are of opinion the Measure should proceed.
The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer):I beg to second the Motion.
Resolved,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the New Dioceses (Transitional Provisions) Measure, 1927, he presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."

INDIAN CHURCH MEASURE, 1927.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE:I beg to move,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Indian Church Measure, 1927, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
This Measure has been passed by all the authorities required in Church and State in India. Having been passed by the Church Assembly, it is now submitted for the approval of the House.
Mr. WRIGHT:I beg to second the Motion.
Captain GARRO-JONES:Are not we to know what this Measure actually does?
Colonel WEDGWOOD:I have received from India a number of letters and other communications about this Bill. For instance, they write to me:
"If by any chance this Indian Church Measure should come up before Parliament before our memorial can be presented, we very earnestly hope that we may count upon your assistance against it becoming law. It will undoubtedly cause endless strife among Christians. Indeed, between 9,000 and 10,000 in the South have already deft the Church of England and are seeking to organise their own Church because of this Romanising movement in that area."
This further telegram has come to hand:
"Memorial recently posted with certified signatures, received in ten weeks, of 20,848 India, Anglo-Indian, and European Christians, all ranks and casts, praying Parliament will reject the Indian Church Measure, which India never asked for. It is being forced upon us by Anglo-Catholic Bishops and followers."
As I am not only anxious to do my duty by my Indian correspondents, but also am inclined to think that one of the best things the Labour Government did when it was in office was making Canon Barnes a Bishop, I am naturally anxious to know, before Parliament gives assent

1285
to this Measure, whether the charge made in this letter and in this telegram as to the Romanising effect or the Anglo-Catholic effect of this change in the Government of the Church in India, is a fact, or whether this is merely one of those religious phantoms. Normally speaking, I must confess that I should have been more anxious, because one sees at the present time a certain amount of interest even in this country in the Prayer Book question. Moreover, as a careful reader of "Mother India," it seems to me that in that country to-day there is probably a thought too much of superstition and idolatry already. But I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord who is Under-Secretary of State for India, and, although possibly there is no other single point on which we could ever be agreed, I have a certain faith in him in matters of this description. He tells me that, in spite of the doubtful company I notice on the Front Bench—the doubtful nature of the religious views of the Noble Lord who is introducing the Measure, and whom I always regard as the worst "clerical" in the House—this Measure is perfectly safe, and, therefore, I do not propose to oppose it, but merely to ask the Noble Lord a few questions about it, to satisfy myself and the other Members of the House who have the same sort of feeling. In the first place, can we be assured that this Measure does not change the Thirty-nine Articles; that it does not commit the Church of England in India to the doctrine of transubstantiation; that it does not commit the Church of England in India to prayers for the faithful departed, and that it does not supersede the authority of the Bible for the more doubtful authority of the ancient Fathers and the modern Bishops. I prefer to stand by the Bible and the Bible alone, and I would like to have an answer to these questions so as to be certain that in passing this Measure we are not committing ourselves to any movement we do not like.
Viscount WOLMER:I have pleasure in giving my right hon. and gallant Friend the assurance for which he asks, but I should like to say that I am speaking on behalf of this Measure in my private capacity and merely as a member of the Church Assembly, and one who has had
1286
a good deal to do with this particular question in the last few years. The purpose of the Measure is simply to give the Anglican Church in India complete self-government and put it in the same position as the Anglican Church in Canada, Australia and other parts of the world. The position of the Anglican Church in India is really anomalous and dates from the time when it consisted of a few thousand English people who were temporarily resident in India. Now it consists of over half a million people, of whom 400,000 are Indians, and yet the Indian Church has no power of self-government at all. It is legally speaking a sort of extension of the Church of England, and is in fact supposed to be under the supervision of the Archbishop of Canterbury, although as a matter of fact that supervision has never been exercised within living memory.
That lack of power on the part of the Indian Church to make arrangements for its own government has caused a great many inconveniences, and therefore there have been negotiations going on for some years to bring about reform. There have been very elaborate negotiations because a great number of authorities had to be consulted, but the Diocesan Conferences, the General Council of the Indian Church and the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church Assembly have all approved this proposal by enormous majorities or else nem. con. My right hon. Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) read out a petition which has been signed by a number of individuals who are still opposed to this. I quite recognise that there is a small section of opinion which still desires to cling to the ancien regime but my right hon. Friend (Earl Winterton) has satisfied himself that they do not represent a large section of opinion either in India or in this country. The Measure therefore is simply and solely to give the Church in India complete self-government and all the questions raised by my right hon. Friend do not arise at all. The Indian Church will start, if this Measure is passed, free, with the English Prayer Book as it now is, and of course having self government they can in time, under their constitution, modify the Prayer Book in certain directions, one way or the

1287
other. No one suggests that that should be done at the present time—none of these questions are at issue. If this Measure is passed, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India will have to introduce a Bill, which has already been printed and has received its First Reading, called the Indian Church Bill. It merely deals—it has already passed the House of Lords—with the trust funds of the Indian Church, and regularises their position; and it also deals with the position of the Garrison Churches in India, and gives effective safeguards in regard to English Services. I hope that my right hon. Friend is satisfied by that assurance, and will allow us to have this Measure.
Resolved,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Indian Church Measure, 1927, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."

CLERGY PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1927.
Mr. SMITHERS:I beg to move,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, 1927, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
This is an Amendment of the 1926 Act and is brought forward to rectify an oversight in that Measure. It was believed that a compulsory contributor to the Pensions Act who, say, went away to the mission field or elsewhere, and was paying for a time as a voluntary contributor, and on returning to duties in England again became a compulsory contributor, was allowed to count the time of voluntary absence as qualifying for pensionable service. The Church of England Pension Board has now been advised that that is not the case, and in order to remedy this slight, unavoidable error, this Measure has ben brought forward, and I ask the House to allow this uncontroversial and necessary amendment to be made to-night.
Viscount WOLMER:I beg to second the Motion.
Mr. J. HUDSON:Is this not an extra-ordinary way of dealing with subjects
1288
which arise out of considerations in connection with pensions? Is it not astonishing that at this time of night we should be listening to a proposal in the form of a resolution without the opportunity of going through First, Second and Third Readings, which is the customary method adopted, especially where a question of pensions arises? I find it extremely objectionable. I know that it is a part of the general constitution of the Church that it should be possible to make alterations in Church procedure and Church law in this form, but when we get to a question of pensions and begin to allow a special privilege, as it seems to me, to the clergy to obtain an alteration in their status and in their arrangements which we do not accord to other members of the community, it seems to be an extremely objectionable procedure. I do not want to be responsible just now for resisting what may be a just procedure for these clergy, but I think a word of warning ought to be said and a protest ought to be made against the growth of this sort of method in dealing with questions where the clergy are concerned.
Lord HUGH CECIL:Perhaps the hon. Member is under a small misapprehension. No State contribution at all is made to this scheme. It is purely a self-organised system of pensions, and there happens to be this small oversight whereby people who, obviously, ought to have been within the scheme, have accidentally been left out.
Resolved,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, 1927, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November.
Adjourned at Twenty-six Minute before Twelve o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  SHIPS (BREAKING-UP).
  SHIPS (BREAKING-UP).
  CONSTRUCTION.
  CONSTRUCTION.
  MEAT CONTRACTS.
  MEAT CONTRACTS.
  2ND BATTALION THE HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT (COMMAND).
  2ND BATTALION THE HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT (COMMAND).
  AIR SERVICES.
  AIR SERVICES.
  FIGHTING SERVICES (MEAT CONTRACTS).
  FIGHTING SERVICES (MEAT CONTRACTS).
SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT (KINTAIL DEER FOREST).
  LAND SETTLEMENT (KINTAIL DEER FOREST).
  GAME LAWS AND DEER FORESTS.
  GAME LAWS AND DEER FORESTS.
  BALDOVAN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, DUNDEE.
  BALDOVAN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, DUNDEE.
  STEEL HOUSES.
  STEEL HOUSES.
  INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  GLASTULLICH FARM, NIGG (INSPECTION).
  GLASTULLICH FARM, NIGG (INSPECTION).
KENYA.
  FEETHAM COMMISSION'S REPORT.
  FEETHAM COMMISSION'S REPORT.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  GOVERNMENT LAND SALES.
  GOVERNMENT LAND SALES.
  PERSIA (FOREIGN RESIDENTS).
  PERSIA (FOREIGN RESIDENTS).
  RUSSIAN OIL (IMPORTS).
  RUSSIAN OIL (IMPORTS).
  CHINA (HANKOW AGREEMENT)
  CHINA (HANKOW AGREEMENT)
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONES, RAILWAY STATIONS.
  TELEPHONES, RAILWAY STATIONS.
  WAGES (ARBITRATION AWARD).
  WAGES (ARBITRATION AWARD).
  TELEGRAMS, BRAZIL.
  TELEGRAMS, BRAZIL.
  PEDIGREE STOCK, SOUTH AFRICA.
  PEDIGREE STOCK, SOUTH AFRICA.
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  VACCINE LYMPH.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  BELLAHOUSTON HOSPITAL, GLASGOW.
  BELLAHOUSTON HOSPITAL, GLASGOW.
  INCOME TAX (COLLECTION).
  INCOME TAX (COLLECTION).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN, KEW).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN, KEW).
  HISTORICAL FILMS.
  HISTORICAL FILMS.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ST. STEPHEN'S HALL (PICTURES)
  ST. STEPHEN'S HALL (PICTURES)
DOG RACING.
  BETTING.
  BETTING.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
  TAXI-CABS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
  TAXI-CABS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
  CHIEF CONSTABLE, ST HELENS.
  CHIEF CONSTABLE, ST HELENS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PROSECUTIONS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PROSECUTIONS).
  VIVISECTION (DOGS).
  VIVISECTION (DOGS).
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  DOMESTIC COAL.
  DOMESTIC COAL.
  FRENCH EMBARGO.
  FRENCH EMBARGO.
TRANSPORT.
  CONGESTION, FINSBURY PARK.
  CONGESTION, FINSBURY PARK.
  CROSSING SIGNS, ISLINGTON.
  CROSSING SIGNS, ISLINGTON.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
  ELECTRICITY POLES, CORBRIDGE-ON-TYNE.
  ELECTRICITY POLES, CORBRIDGE-ON-TYNE.
AGRICULTURE.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  DAIRY PRODUCE (PRICES).
  DAIRY PRODUCE (PRICES).
  SUGAR-BEET SUBSIDY.
  SUGAR-BEET SUBSIDY.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  TRADE DISPUTES.
  TRADE DISPUTES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  EXTENDED BENEFIT (WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS).
  EXTENDED BENEFIT (WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS).
  TRAINING (YOUNG MINERS).
  TRAINING (YOUNG MINERS).
  SANITARY INSPECTORS.
  SANITARY INSPECTORS.
  CHEMICAL WARFARE (EXPERIMENTS).
  CHEMICAL WARFARE (EXPERIMENTS).
  EX-WARDER, R. BAILEY.
  EX-WARDER, R. BAILEY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Can the noble Marquess give us any indication as to the course of future business?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I understand, from messages which have reached me, that it is likely that the Government of India (Statutory Commission) Bill will be through another place by the middle of next week, and in that event we should suggest that the Royal Commission should be held on Wednesday, in order that it should be passed into law forthwith. That will open the way for the discussion on the Indian Resolution, which, with the consent of your Lordships, we propose to take on Thursday, that is, to-day week. Then I hope that both the Cinematograph Films Bill and the Landlord and Tenant Bill will be through the House of Commons before the end of this week. In that event we should propose to take the Second Reading of the Cinematograph Films Bill on Monday week, November 28, and the Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill on Tuesday week, November 29. My noble friend will understand that these announcements are subject to the exigencies of the House of Commons. It is what I hope may take place.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Has the noble Marquess any prediction to make as to when the Unemployment Insurance Bill is likely to reach this House? Of course he cannot do more than conjecture.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not before the end of the month, at any rate.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (STATU- TORY COMMISSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RUMANIA AND THE MIXED ARBITRAL COURT.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON asked if it is the case that the Rumanian Government has officially declared that it refuses to submit to the decisions of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal set up under the Trianon Treaty. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question, which has been on the Paper for some time, is in itself of a very trivial nature, because it only concerns the question relating to the property of various Hungarians in Transylvania, and the answer to it is obvious. But as a matter of fact very important issues are involved, and it raises a question of very considerable complexity. And the complexity of this matter has been increased owing to the fact that a concurrent agitation, so to speak, has been going on recently advocating the revision of the Treaty of Trianon. I have not a good word to say for the Treaty of Trianon, but at the same time I should like it to be clearly understood that I and the other persons who are interested in this question are not asking for the revision of the Treaty of Trianon; what we are asking for is that the conditions of that Treaty shall be fulfilled.
After the War, as everybody knows, many questions arose regarding the disposal of property of various kinds in the new countries, and in all the Treaties which were signed at Paris articles were introduced safeguarding the property of foreign subjects in the new dominions and Arbitral Tribunals were created in every instance in order to consider this particular subject. These Arbitral Tribunals are functioning in every country in Europe, so far as I know, and their work has been uniformly successful. The particular article in the Trianon Treaty which deals with this question is Article 250, which read as follows:—
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 232 and the annex to Section IV the property, rights and interests of Hungarian nationals or companies controlled by them situated in the territories which formed part of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy shall not be subject to retention or liquidation in accordance with these provisions.
"Such property, rights and interests shall be restored to their owners freed from any measure of this kind, or from any other measure of transfer, compulsory administration or sequestration, taken since November 3, 1918, until the coming into

113
force of the present Treaty, in the condition in which they were before the application of the measures in question.
"Claims made by Hungarian nationals under this Article shall be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for by Article 239."
All that seems perfectly plain; I do not think anything could be plainer.
But I will ask the House to follow exactly what has taken place. The Trianon Treaty was signed in June, 1920, and I may remind the House that we wore parties to that Treaty ourselves. Subsequent to the Treaty the Rumanians passed an agrarian law of a confiscatory character. When the Arbitral Tribunal proposed to set to work upon this question last year the Rumanian Government protested that the Arbitral Tribunal was not competent to deal with this question, although it had been expressly constituted for this particular purpose. On January 10 of this year the Tribunal, after long discussion, affirmed its competence, On January 7 the Rumanians declared officially that they would not submit to the decisions of the Tribunal and announced that they would appeal to the League in virtue of Article 11 of the Covenant, which deals with the danger of war. Later on, on February 24, the Rumanian Government announced that it would withdraw its representative from the Tribunal. In March the League of Nations met, the Rumanians categorically repeated their refusal to submit to the decision and on the same day, March 7, the Hungarians asked that the Rumanian Judge should be replaced by a neutral; but as a compromise and in order to settle the matter as pacifically as possible, they suggested that the question of the competence of the Tribunal should be referred to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. This was at once refused by the Rumanians.
The Hungarians thereupon made a formal request to the League that a neutral substitute should be appointed on the Tribunal at once, otherwise there would be interminable delay. For some reason which I personally am quite unable to understand, this request was refused by the League, and a Committee was appointed, of which Sir Austen Chamberlain was named as the rapporteur. Sir Austen Chamberlain, no doubt very unwillingly and no doubt from a strong desire to settle this matter if he could, accepted this very invidious post
114
and I imagine that he has bitterly regretted it ever since. Then the League adjourned until September, and when September arrived Sir Austen Chamberlain announced the decision of the Committee. The decision amounted to this, that the appeal to the International Court of Justice at The Hague must be refused because the Rumanians objected. But what is far more important is that they laid down the doctrine that the Rumanian agrarian law superseded the Treaty obligations of that country, and that they would only appoint the substitute on the Tribunal asked for on condition that the Hungarians admitted this principle. In other words, they gave the Hungarians their Judge on the condition that judgment went against them. Naturally this offer was refused by the Hungarians, and a deadlock ensued, which remains at the present moment.
I may point out that this deadlock does not exist only in connection with Rumania and Hungary, but it exists everywhere else, because all the other Tribunals are waiting to see what the decision is going to be in this case. This decision of Sir Austen Chamberlain has naturally excited a great deal of surprise, and I might add that it has probably excited a great deal of disquiet as well. Looking at it casually it seems to me ominously reminiscent of the "scrap of paper" theory. But what is more serious, at least so it appears to me as a layman, is that the adoption of the principle that domestic legislation is to supersede and over-ride Treaties is a most dangerous doctrine, and, so far as I know, a new one. If the world is going to accept this doctrine, what becomes of our case against the Soviet Government, or the Mexican Government, or any other predatory Government which proposes to confiscate foreign property? And what an opportunity it affords for the evasion of all Treaty provisions! I can imagine an ingenious Government devising methods by which it would escape paying reparations, or, in fact, doing anything contrary to its own wishes.
It is true that Sir Austen Chamberlain, in making this remarkable decision, announced that it had received the concurrence of a number of legal experts who happened to be present in Geneva at the time. I dare say that he had not much difficulty in obtaining their concurrence, but I need hardly point out that a very short time elapsed before the Hungarians

115
on their part were able to discover any number of far more eminent legal experts who pronounced that their judgment was all wrong, and I hope we may hear something upon this point this afternoon. What I particularly want to elicit from my noble friend Lord Cushendun is why there should be a differentiation between the case of Hungary and Rumania and cases of other countries. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these Arbitral Tribunals are functioning everywhere and functioning with great success; but there have been numerous occasions upon which their proceedings have been interrupted and it has been necessary to appoint substitutes. I might remind the House that when the French occupied the Ruhr the Germans withdrew their representatives from all the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals. They were at once automatically replaced by neutrals and no harm has resulted at all. But it is not only a case of the Ruhr. There have been cases in connection with the Franco-Hungarian Tribunal, the Franco-Austrian Tribunal, the Franco-Bulgarian Tribunal, the Belgo-Hungarian Tribunal and the Belgo-Austrian and Belgo-Bulgarian Tribunals and many others as well. In each case, as I say, substitutes were appointed automatically and the Tribunals continued to function with perfect efficiency. The system, in fact, has worked remarkably well up to the present moment.
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, everybody interested is waiting at this moment, and it is easy to see that there are other nations which are only waiting to adopt equally confiscatory measures as soon as they get an opportunity and this case is decided. I do not wish to discuss the legal aspect of the question. I leave that to others who are more competent than I am; but it seems to me that the real gravity of the case is that one of the signatories to a Treaty has taken upon itself to say that it shall be the judge in its own case. It also appears to me that the system of arbitration has received a very serious, if not a fatal blow. Surely it must be obvious to everybody who supports the League of Nations—and everybody professes to be a supporter of the League—that nothing more injurious could happen to it than that there should appear to be any denial of justice. I do not think the position
116
has been much improved by the speech which Sir Austen Chamberlain made in September last, when he openly admitted that his decision had been largely influenced by political considerations.
Those are the facts of the case. Before I conclude my remarks I cannot help expressing the opinion that this action comes with singularly ill-grace from the Rumanian Government. The Rumanian Government is one of those Governments which, to use the language of Mr. Lloyd George, waited to see who was going to win before coming into the War. When the Rumanian Government came into the War they not only met with disaster themselves but they were the means of inflicting very heavy disaster upon the Allied forces generally, because the Germans were able, owing to the much-needed supplies which they obtained from Rumania, to continue the contest much longer than otherwise they would have been able to do. Neither is the post-War history of Rumania one to excite much admiration. Under the guise of suppressing Bolshevism they occupied Hungary and steadily and thoroughly pillaged that unfortunate country for about six months and only left it after they had received about a dozen ultimatums from the Allies at Paris.
I confess that I do not approach this question in as detached a frame of mind as I should like or as perhaps is desirable. It so happens that I have been in Transylvania itself, which is the scene of the present trouble, and I have been a witness with others of the abominable mis-government which takes place in that country. I do not think I am exaggerating when I assert that I do not think there is any district in Europe which is so badly governed, with the exception of Soviet Russia, a country with which I have also some slight acquaintance, as Transylvania. In the circumstances it seems to me that instead of allowing the Rumanian Government to evade their obligations under the Treaty we should be much better occupied in making them carry out the obligations which they solemnly entered into under the Trianon Treaty and fulfil the articles of that Treaty to which we, amongst others, are parties.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, it would be presumption on

117
my part to complain of my noble friend for having put the Question and made the speech he has addressed to your Lordships. But I hope I may express my regret that he has thought it necessary to do so at this moment, because I gave him notice that it would not be in my power to make any reply on behalf of the Government to the case that he has made. The matter stands in this way. A precisely similar Question was put by my noble friend last May to my noble friend Lord Cecil, who then occupied the office that I have now the honour to fill. In reply to that inquiry he was told that the whole question as between Rumania and Hungary on this matter was sub judice, that it had all been referred to the Council of the League of Nations and that the Foreign Secretary of this country, as he has repeated to your Lordships, was asked to act as rapporteur in the case. The position is precisely the same today as it was then. Owing to delays which I do not think I am called upon to explain, but which are not surprising in the circumstances, the matter has not yet been decided. The Report will come before the Council next month and we hope it will be possible then to have the matter decided one way or the other by the Council.
I hope that your Lordships will take the view I certainly submit to you—that in these circumstances, with our own Foreign Secretary appointed to take judicial action in an international dispute, it would neither be possible nor proper for the Government, in anticipation of what may there occur, to go into the merits of the case and to express any opinion at all. Therefore, I am afraid that all I can do, as I told my noble friend would be the case, is to repeat the statement that was made by my noble friend Lord Cecil in May, that the Government are not yet in a position to give a reply. There is one word I must add to that by way of caution. If I make no reply to my noble friend's speech I hope that no one will suppose that I at all admit or accept the statement he has made as an accurate statement of the facts of the case. In one part of his speech, dealing with the nature of the dispute, he said that up to the present point all is perfectly clear. I have tried to get to
118
the bottom of this extremely complex and difficult dispute, and I have found no part of it yet which could be described as perfectly clear. It appears to me to be fraught with every conceivable sort of tangle and complexity of Treaties and counter-Treaties and to require the most careful judicial investigation and decision. I therefore must not be taken as accepting either the facts of the case as detailed by my noble friend or the decisions which have been taken by the various bodies before whom this dispute has come up to the present time.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I feel sure that every one would be anxious to avoid causing unnecessary embarrassment to the Government's conduct of these delicate and difficult proceedings, but I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord who has just sat down has overlooked the Question which formed the text for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for the Question asks a perfectly simple matter. It asks if it be the case "that the Rumanian Government has officially declared that it refuses to submit to the decisions of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal set up under the Trianon Treaty." That is a matter which the Government can answer without any difficulty or embarrassment whatever, but the noble Lord has deftly, and probably designedly, avoided even referring to the form of the Question which the noble Lord has just asked.
He has pointed out to us that the matter is, as he calls it, sub judice. There is nothing sub judice in it. It is a simple question of fact. I think it may very well be that the matter to come before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal is one upon which we ought not prematurely to express any opinion, but I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord that this matter is involved in such mystery and complexity, for, as I understand it, the proposition is reasonably plain. Hungary presents a spectacle which I think must call for the pity of us all. It was a nation with whom we had no manner of quarrel from beginning to end and when War concluded I very much doubt if there was any person in this country who entertained the slightest feeling of hostility towards people who had formerly been members of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Our relations remained unharmed

119
by the horrors and excesses of the War, and the Peace, which by universal tradition is supposed to assume the aspect of a dove, descended upon Hungary in the form of a vulture and tore her limb from limb, tore her in pieces without the least regard to the economic interests of what were left and left this unhappy country absolutely paralysed and impotent in the face of ancient and determined foes.
What the noble Lord has said is perfectly true. She first of all suffered depredations from a victorious enemy and then she had the humiliation of having to undergo the régime of the Bolsheviks. But the unfortunate country when it suffered the excesses of the Peace Treaty was surely at least at liberty to rely upon the provisions that that Treaty had created in its favour. Why I think this matter is reasonably plain is because when those provisions are examined it seems perfectly clear that there is a case for discussion. What the merits may be, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, is not for us to say, but there is a matter for discussion, a matter for judgment, and that is what it is that Hungary seeks to assert.
The Peace Treaty contained many other provisions, against one of which I have never ceased to protest. It was the provision that expropriated within the territory of any Allied country all the property of the people who were called ex-enemy aliens. I need not hesitate to refer to my protests here, because your Lordships' House passed a Resolution requiring a material modification of the terms of that Treaty in favour of the enemy aliens, but recognising that the clause was directed only against enemy aliens who possessed property in one of the allied countries as constituted at the outbreak of war, there was a provision inserted that this clause should not apply in cases where new national boundaries were created. It is in relation to precisely that case that this question has arisen. Part of the Hungarian territory was taken away and was possessed and occupied by Rumania, and what has happened, as I understand it, is that an agrarian law has been passed in Rumania which enables acquisitions to be made of the big landed estates there on certain terms of valuation which it is wholly unnecessary to discuss.
120
It sought to apply that to the property of people who were formerly Hungarian subjects, and they say: "No, we are entitled by virtue of the Treaty to retain rights in that property, which you cannot get round by passing a domestic Act of Parliament which gives us something less than the full value of our estate." I repeat that that is a question upon which I do not intend for a moment to pass an opinion, but I say it is eminently a case to be decided and the Peace Treaty set up the very Tribunal for the purpose of determining this kind of question. It was the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, which was to be established by the appointment of a representative from each of the two disputing countries with an independent Chairman. It is to this Tribunal that the Hungarians seek to refer this question, and it is, as I understand it, from that Tribunal that the Rumanian Government has withdrawn their representative, so that the Tribunal cannot function. So far as that is concerned that appears to me a perfectly simple, plain, comprehensible question that is not involved or entangled with any of the difficulties to which the noble Lord referred. All that the Question asked was: Is it the fact, is it true that this Tribunal has been rendered incapable of functioning by virtue of the Rumanians removing their appointed representative from its body?
I am not so sure that the matter quite ends there. The noble Lord has said that this Question was asked in May and that nothing has happened since. Is that the case? It may be so. I should like to know for certain whether it is. Is not this what has occurred? In the event of one of the disputing parties declining to put their representative on this Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, the Council of the League of Nations has the power to appoint one in its place. Is it not the fact that Hungary has applied to the Council of the League and asked that such representative should be appointed in the circumstances that have arisen, and is it not true that the Council has referred this to a Committee, which reported in September of this year that they would only do that in the event of the Hungarians accepting the statement of the law that the Committee itself prepared? If that is the case the Council of the League, as it seems to me, has taken upon itself a duty which is entirely

121
outside the provisions of the Treaty and never was contemplated. Their function was to appoint the arbitrator. Their function was not to impose terms upon the person who asked them that such an arbitrator should be appointed and it was the function of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to determine this question. I cannot see by what means it is possible to avoid that conclusion.
I have most carefully avoided saying anything about the merits of the dispute. It may well be, when the matter is argued before this Tribunal, that the Hungarians will be found to be wrong. It may be that what they believe to be the protection given them by the Treaty of Trianon has in the result been taken away. That is not a matter for us to consider or discuss. The thing which I think is of the greatest consequence is that in a question of this kind the League of Nations should act in strict accordance with the duties that are established by the Covenant by which it is set up, and that we should do all in our power to support the League in order that its authority may be unimpeached and its reputation undimmed.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have listened to the debate, and I have listened to my noble friend Lord Buck-master, and I am not sure that I take quite the highly-coloured view that he does on the position of Hungary. Hungary is a nation, it is quite true, with which we are at profound peace, and Hungary is a nation against whom we have no grievance and no criticism other than that she is singularly bad at getting on with her neighbours. If you ask the rest of the Jugo-Slavs you will hear a good deal about that. That has nothing whatever to do with the Question we are discussing, nor has it to do with it that Rumania also, according to the information which I have accumulated, has been anything but an easy neighbour for Hungary in their transactions. None of that touches the points which Lord Buckmaster made and in which I find myself in the main in agreement with him. It began with the Question which my noble friend Lord Newton put, which was, in effect, whether Rumania had declined to recognise the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and to have anything to do with it. Then there was the second question, whether this was such a question
122
as would naturally go to the Arbitral Tribunal and whether it was not in the power of the Council of the League to appoint somebody to take the place of the missing arbitrator.
It seems to me that both these are simple questions on which the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, could properly have given us information. He made a temperate speech, well worded, a speech which makes one look forward to other parts which he may take in the debates before this House, but though I appreciated the tone of Lord Cushendun's speech, I do not think that he made an answer to the point which Lord Newton has put before us rather forcibly to-day. I think we owe a good deal to Lord Newton for having brought this matter up. I am quite aware of the difficulties of Sir Austen Chamberlain. I am quite aware of the inexpediency of saying a word which could pre-judge the issue which has to be determined. But on the other hand, it is a matter about which we are entitled to be informed, whether Rumania has made the refusal which is referred to in Lord Newton's Question. We are entitled to be informed why the Council of the League thought it right to take this somewhat circuitous method of coming to a conclusion instead of simply appointing another arbitrator. I only wish to add that, although this is a small question, it is one which has caused a great deal of interest in this country and to which a great deal of attention has been given. I do not see that the volume of that interest and attention is diminishing, and although I appreciate the reserve with which Lord Cushendun has spoken, I think it is desirable that the British public should be informed as to what is the real situation.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I do not profess that I shall be able to add anything to what Lord Buckmaster has so very well stated upon the Question of my noble friend Lord Newton, which seems to me to be a very simple Question. I am very sorry so early in his career in this House to differ from my noble friend regarding the action he has taken as representing the Government, but I think it is a very disappointing thing on a question of this kind, which rouses the most intense national feeling, naturally, upon the part of Hungarians, and no

123
doubt upon the part of others who under the Treaty of Trianon are similarly situated in relation not to Rumania but to other countries, to be told that we ought to be satisfied with an answer that was given as far back as the month of May, this being the month of November.
I think it would be a great mistake to attempt in any wise to press the case of Hungary upon the merits. I am certainly not competent to do so. I know that very eminent lawyers have given opinions—I have one in my hand at the present moment—upon the meaning of the Treaty. I dare say the Rumanian Government may have had certain opinions given to them in a different direction from that which I hold myself and that which I know very eminent men in this country who are acquainted with International Law and who are accustomed to consider Treaties hold. But that is not the question. The claim of Hungary—and I think it is an unanswerable claim—is: We want to have our case tried under the Treaty which took away our lands. The Treaty is good enough to give possession of the lands to the Rumanians. They took the lands upon the conditions of the Treaty. Hungary alleges that while they keep the lands they refuse to carry out the other parts of the Treaty, and all Hungary asks is that the Tribunal which is set up under the Treaty should decide. Was there ever a more reasonable request? Surely to goodness if the League of Nations are not able to do that much, or are not able to support a Tribunal set up by themselves for the purpose of carrying out the Treaty, one begins to despair as to what the League of Nations can ever do at all.
The questions asked are simple and we might very well get an answer to them on this occasion. The first is: Have the Hungarians asked to be heard? Secondly, was there a Tribunal set up under the Treaty by the League of Nations? Thirdly, the moment it was set up did the Rumanians say, "Although we will keep the land under the Treaty we refuse to recognise the Tribunal"? Is that true? Did they then in order to enforce that view withdraw their representative? These are all more or lees ancient facts now. They have nothing to do with anything that is sub judice at the present time. Is it also true that, as a sort of compromise
124
to bring about peace, Sir Austen Chamberlain and a Committee were asked to make a certain Report? I do not know. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the methods of the League of Nations, as to their ways of getting out of appointing members of the Tribunal under the plain terms of the Treaty. But was it done, and if it was done is it a fact that in September the Committee presided over by Sir Austen Chamberlain reported that a Judge ought to be appointed presuming that the Hungarian Government were willing to admit that they were bound by the domestic laws of Rumania? I do not know whether that Report was ever made. I do not know how such a Report could ever come to be made. I do not know how any nation could be asked to accept such a Report because what it means is this: Do you admit that the Rumanians had the power to do what they did do?—which is the question that the Hungarians asked to have tried, and which they were willing to submit to the Tribunal, accepting whatever was decided.
All these seem to me to be very plain questions. I think the public ought to know them, but where the facts can be found I do not know. I have a very strong suspicion that it is one of the weaknesses of the League of Nations that it will always yield to a greater Power, and I think that at the very outset of these proceedings of the League of Nations this House, this country and the Government of this country ought to proclaim that they will see fair play in the carrying out of these Treaties for the people whose territory has been handed over, though I understand that they were allowed to maintain their Hungarian nationality. It is all very well for Rumania, for Sir Austen Chamberlain and for other nations to say these things, but the people who are suffering from day to day are the Hungarians, whose claim is that they should be heard. That claim has been refused.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I think the answer to the observation made by Lord Cushendun, that the Question put in May and then answered ought not to have been pressed in November, is that since the Question was asked in May something has been done, and something prejudicial to the Hungarians, which

125
possibly might have been prevented if my noble friend Lord Newton had not been put off asking his Question in May, The noble Lord who has answered for the Government has said that there is great uncertainty about these facts, great difficulty and great complexity. I take leave to say that there is no difficulty and no complexity except for those who want to have it made complicated. Of course it is a familiar device of the injuring person to establish a sort of cuttlefish fluid around the facts. The facts, as Lord Buckmaster and others have stated, are quite simple. I have them all here under my hand, and I have verified them.
The Hungarians had a right under the Treaty of Trianon to bring a question of this kind before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. The Mixed Arbitral Tribunal did not decide it, but they decided that they had competence or jurisdiction to decide it, and thereupon, on that preliminary point, the Rumanian Government withdrew its arbitrator. To complete the Tribunal it was necessary to have a substitute. Provision was made under the Treaty of Trianon by which that substitute should be appointed, or two persons from whom a substitute could be chosen could be appointed, by the League of Nations, and the Hungarian Government went to the Council of the League of Nations and asked it to perform that duty which it was requested by the Treaty of Trianon to perform. The Rumanians protested, and the Hungarian Government then went below its strict rights and suggested that the Permanent Court of International Justice should be asked whether they were, in the terms of the Treaty, right or wrong.
Then a most remarkable thing happened. Sir Austen Chamberlain said: "You cannot go to the Permanent Court of International Justice unless the Rumanians agree to go there." But Article 15 of the Covenant, the very Article that the noble Lord was relying upon last night, decides that you can make a unilateral application, that it is possible for the Council to refer a matter that has been brought before it unilaterally to the Permanent Court of International Justice. There is an excellent precedent for this in a case which I am shortly going to mention—that of the German farmers in Poland. I cannot see why this procedure was not followed. However,
126
this proposal was dropped for the moment and then the Hungarian Government went back upon their rights and asked for the appointment of a Judge. Instead of a Judge being appointed, they were told: "We will appoint a Judge only if you will consent that the Judge shall have his hands tied by some previous proposition of law"—the very thing that he was there to try. I cannot understand, except on the view that it was a very awkward job and the sooner they washed their hands of it the better, why the members of the Committee of the League of Nations did not at once proceed to do their business.
This has now been a matter of international discussion, and international legal discussion, for a long period of time. Most eminent lawyers, not only in this country but in others, have given their opinion upon it. There are Mr. Vaughan Williams and Sir Frederick-Pollock, names which are known all over Europe and the United States for competency in International Law. There is Dr. Bellot, also a very competent international jurist, and we have since had the opinion of Sir John Simon and of Mr. Sutton on a similar point. Then there is M. Pillet, a distinguished Parisian lawyer, and I think I am right in naming also M. Lapradelle, who was sent by the French Government as their representative on the Committee which constituted the Permanent Court of International Justice. All these men have expressed their opinion that the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction or competence to hear this question. They have not expressed their opinion that the Tribunal had to decide it in any particular manner. The Hungarians may be wrong, and very possibly arc, but all these great lawyers have agreed that it is within the competence of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to decide this question, and they ought to be allowed to decide it.
Before I sit down I want to know what is the distinction between this case and the Polish case. In Poland there were a large number of very aggravating German settlements put there by the Germans with a view to the Germanisation of Prussian Poland. These farmers were encouraged to settle there on very easy terms by the German Government. The Poles wanted to get rid of them, and they passed an agrarian law the effect of which was to turn out all these German farmers,

127
who had only inchoate rights and had not paid all their money. The law was carefully drawn to touch them. The Germans complained. This was at a time when Germany was not a Member of the League of Nations—unlike Hungary, which is a Member—and they got their complaint heard by the Council. The Poles said, just as the Rumanians say now: "This is a matter of internal legislation; it is our agrarian law." What did the Council do? It sent the matter to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court heard it and said that the Poles were wrong and that this was only a device to injure the German minority, who were protected. Thereupon the Poles, though they could not reinstate the farmers because they had put other tenants in, consented to have determined by the Council of the League the amount of damages that they were to pay.
I speak with great knowledge on the subject because at the time the Labour Government was in power the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, asked me to take his place for the moment as representative on the Council of the League and, with the Brazilian and Italian representatives, we sat in Paris and arrived at a determination which was ultimately worked out as to the amount of compensation to be paid to these German farmers in Poland. I fail to see the difference between the case of the German farmers in Poland and the Hungarian landowners in Transylvania. By hook or by crook it seems to me that they ought to have their case heard, and, strictly speaking, they are entitled to be heard by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. If there be a question whether that Tribunal is competent, then it should go before the Permanent Court of International Justice.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I am sure you will sympathise with me, because in the first place I know nothing about the question on which I am going to say a word in a moment, except what I have learnt from this debate, and in the second place I find the Government are the object of an attack by four of the most eminent ornaments of the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdom. It is a very serious thing to get up and express, upon a question which they declare to be a legal question, any opinion which is inconsistent with what
128
they have stated. As everybody who knows me is aware, I have the most profound respect for the legal intellect, but I am not sure that the legal intellect has been displaying itself to the best advantage in the course of this debate.
What is the position? The position is that the representative of the Government who speaks for the League of Nations has got up and clearly indicated to your Lordships that this is an extremely complicated question, and a question which with all its complications is going to be thoroughly investigated by a competent Tribunal in about three weeks' or a month's time. Thereupon four of the most eminent legal authorities in the world get up and explain that the matter is as simple as possible, and that you have only got to say "Yes" or "No" to a series of questions—hardly any of which, I may say, are on the Paper—and everything will be plain. I used to be told that nothing was more misleading than to suppose that every question that could be put could have a perfectly clear answer given to it, "Aye," or "No." Everybody is aware that there are innumerable questions which cannot be answered "Aye" or "No" without leaving a very misleading impression upon those who listen to that answer.
My noble friend near me, who is acquainted with this problem, tells me that this question cannot be answered quite simply, clearly and explicitly, so as to cause no misapprehension in your Lordships' House or in the mind of the public who read our debates by simply an answer of "Aye" or "No." But if your Lordships can restrain your impatience for three weeks or a month it then appears that you would, with full knowledge, be able to say what questions could be answered simply "Aye" or "No," and what questions would require qualification or amplification in order to make their real bearing known to the public. Surely the legal talent in this House can restrain its impatience for that time. We cannot, I am told, give your Lordships any further information on the present occasion, and in those circumstances I hope that none of the eminent and learned noble Lords who have spoken to-day, and certainly no other member of the House, will think I am guilty of any disrespect either to them or to the cause that they are advocating,

129
if I venture to suggest that we had better refrain from further debate on this subject until we are able to debate it with full knowledge.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, it is only the fact that I am not a lawyer which emboldens me to rise after that appeal. The noble Earl has told us to restrain our impatience, on the ground that this matter is going to be investigated, I understand, by a competent legal tribunal in the course of a few weeks. Most unfortunately that is precisely what we learn from, the Official Report of the Council of the League of Nations is not going to happen, and the simple point which noble and learned Lords have been trying to impress upon the attention of the Government is that a matter, a complicated matter doubtless, which dons require legal sifting, seems to be deprived of any chances of ever being sifted at all upon what I venture to suggest are the legal grounds which alone should apply to it.
May I briefly put what seems to the ordinary unlearned reader of the Reports of the Council of the League to be the clear sequence of events? Here was primâ facie evidence that a wrong had been done, contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Trianon. Here was a Tribunal set up by that Treaty which was the proper body to sift these things, and if it were going to sift them all of us would be well content. The action of that Tribunal is paralysed for the moment by the withdrawal on the part of the Rumanians of their representative. It was within the power, and it had been the practice, of the Council of the League of Nations, in such a case, to set the Tribunal upon its legs again by the appointment of another member of the Tribunal. That simple course, after prolonged debate, the Council of the League of Nations has omitted to take, and it was conveyed to us that they refused to do so not because of any consideration of the rights or wrongs of this matter, but because of larger political considerations beyond it, which affected the peace of Europe.
I am not going to ask what those considerations are. I am sure they are weighty ones, but on the other hand, may I venture to say this, that, apart from any legal wrong done, surely from the point of view of international politics
130
it is a grave and, if a necessary, a most melancholy step, that this plain question of legal right or wrong should apparently be kept from coining before the Courts that are competent to decide it, for fear of what the consequences might be of faithfully adhering to, and enforcing, the provisions of the Treaty. I have some idea of what the difficulties are to which the Foreign Secretary, to whom all supporters of the League are most grateful for the work he is doing on the Council of the League, has alluded, but at least we would ask that the Government would bear in mind, and would cause to be represented in the Council of the League, what grave consequences the course now being pursued by that Council is likely to have, not only upon opinion in Hungary but in other countries as well, in regard both to the belief which those countries hold in the capacity and the reliability of the League of Nations, and in the respect which they will hereafter entertain for the Treaties by which they and we are bound.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I cannot pretend that I am disappointed with the result of the discussion, because I never imagined that I should get any satisfactory statement, so to speak, out of the Government, but I think my noble friend Lord Balfour somewhat incorrectly described the discussion. He complained that a concerted attack had been made upon the Government by four most eminent lawyers. I submit with respect that nothing of the kind has taken place. There has been no attack upon the Government at all. There has been criticism—not, I hope, of too unfriendly a kind—of Sir Austen Chamberlain and the League of Nations. Sir Austen Chamberlain is not here to give his own explanation of his position, and apparently has not thought it worth while to take the trouble to instruct anyone here to speak for him, and therefore we remain as we were. Personally I am at the end of my resources. I have made two attempts to elicit information, and there is nothing more to be done as far as I am concerned. But I do take some consolation from this fact, that, strange though it may sound, the debates in this place on foreign questions are followed with great attention on the Continent, and I am convinced that what has been said here this afternoon has not been a

131
waste of time. I cherish the hope that the views which have been expressed by the eminent lawyers already alluded to will carry some weight in other countries besides this, and that they may exercise some effect on the ultimate decision of the League of Nations in regard to this matter.

WAR MINISTER'S PROPOSED VISIT TO INDIA.
LORD FORESTER LORD FORESTER had given notice to call attention to the proposed visit to India of the Secretary of State for War; to ask His Majesty's Government what necessity there is for such a visit, seeing that it will involve the absence for some time of the Secretary of State for War; to inquire what arrangements will be made to carry on the important administrative work at the War Office during his absence; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there has been a certain amount of correspondence on this subject in the Press, in which I have taken some part, and I noticed that on November 8 the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a Question in another place, stated that the proposed visit was only going to cost his fare, which would be roughly about £250. If the visit is a necessity it cannot be said that £250 is unduly extravagant, but if the visit is unnecessary—well, we all know the old adage that if you look after the pence the pounds will take care of themselves. I think that adage should apply to Governments as well as to individuals.
It is not generally recognised, I think, that the Government of India—and I think I am right in saying so—is entirely responsible for the pay and upkeep both of the Indian Army and of the British troops in India, so that any idea the Secretary of State for War may have of effecting economies in either of those forces—presumably at the expense of the fighting portion of them—would afford no relief at all to the British taxpayer. Since this correspondence started in the Press I have heard from various distinguished officers, not only retired officers but officers serving at the present time both at home and with the British troops in India, and also officers of the Indian Army, and I have heard no expression of approval or satisfaction about this visit.
The Secretary of State for War, when speaking the other day at the Mansion House, is reported to have used these words:—
"Our main difficulty is that we have not yet got the types of vehicles we require, and we are rather in the position of a man trying to run a 'bus service with experimental 'buses and, to some extent, experimental 'bus drivers. I do not know how many years it takes to design and produce an entirely new type of motor car, but I can certainly assure you that it takes very much longer to produce satisfactory cross-country armoured vehicles."
If it is going to take such a long time to produce cross-country armoured vehicles I confess I fail to appreciate what possible benefit can accrue to the nation as a result of this visit, at any rate at the present juncture. In ordinary every-day life if any of your Lordships require a bricklayer's job to be done you would usually get a bricklayer, not a carpenter or any other tradesman, to do it; and I submit that this so-called mechanisation of the Army is a soldier's job, and not the job of a politician, and that a soldier should be employed to undertake it. We have had too many bitter experiences of undue interference in military dispositions by various politicians within the memory certainly of the majority of your Lordships here to-night. I myself can remember Majuba Hill, and all the way down from then to the first battle of Gaza in the recent War it would have been better to leave so-called military dispositions to the soldiers who understand them.
As I understand it, the duties of the Secretary of State for War are, broadly speaking, to act as an unprejudiced Chairman to a committee of experts—namely, the Army Council, to form a connecting link between the Government and the Army, and to defend the military policy of the Government in Parliament. These duties are better performed by a politician than by a soldier, and the Secretary of State is expected neither to be nor even to pose as a military expert. If the duties of his position include that of visiting the frontiers of our Empire and formulating schemes for their defence, it would obviously be to the interests of the nation if that position were held by the ablest soldier we have available.
Finally, I beg to ask the noble Earl who, no doubt, will reply, what arrangements

133
will be made to carry out the new and most important administrative work at the War Office during the absence of the Secretary of State for War if he goes upon this visit. I venture to suggest that if the Secretary of State would forgo the visit and devote the time that would be saved thereby to the internal arrangements of the War Office itself and would leave the mechanisation of the Army to soldiers who understand the job the country would be in a far better position both as regards security and economy. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend intended to bring forward this Question, but as I called your Lordships' attention to the same point two years ago I should like to say something from the more general point of view. I do not propose to follow my noble friend in the arguments he has used, mainly because I feel convinced that if, after what was said two years ago and the time that has elapsed since then, it has been decided by the Prime Minister that it is expedient the Secretary of Stats for War should go to India, there must be some strong and urgent reasons of public service which compel him to take that view.
Again, I would not in any way criticise the occasional visits of Ministers presiding over important Departments to what may be called the scene of operations, such as Mr. Amery is making at the present time or as the late Mr. Chamberlain made on a celebrated occasion to South Africa. But my noble friend Lord Balfour will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that up to the time of the War it was almost unknown for any Minister to absent himself from a Cabinet Meeting except on the most urgent public duty or owing to ill-health. But more recently attendance at such meetings has become dangerously irregular. Last January the question of China arose. I will not trouble your Lordships with dates or with statements regarding individuals because I have not the slightest desire to reflect on anybody, only on the system. But much comment was caused at the time, and I looked up the facts of the numerous Cabinets which were held in the month of January. The first meeting was called no doubt in a great hurry, and some Ministers must necessarily have been abroad or absent. But a number of
134
Cabinet meetings were held in the next three weeks and I believe your Lordships will be astonished to hear that less than two-thirds of the twenty-two Ministers were, present at most of the Cabinet meetings when a most vital question was being considered—namely, whether we should begin military operations in China or not.
I would submit to His Majesty's Government that although it may be necessary that certain very prominent Ministers should occasionally go abroad on the public service, there ought not to be any conscious slackness in the attendance of Ministers at Cabinet councils. The confidence of the country is not maintained by any one Minister but by all. The paper I hold in my hand, which I have no intention of reading out, would show your Lordships that my suggestion is not in regard to one or two Ministers only but points to the fact that some of the most prominent were obviously unable to be consulted on one of the most important questions this Ministry has had to decide. Even if my noble friend Lord Onslow cannot deal with this question, I hope it will not escape attention.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, this question is more important than appears on the face of it. My noble friend mentioned something as having happened two years ago; I do not know what it was, but I presume it had reference to a Minister leaving the country. Once approve of the absence from his duty of a prominent Minister like the Minister for War we shall be creating precedents which may be used by another Government very much to the detriment of the public service. I do not wish to go into the question as to whether the Minister for War should be a soldier, a civilian or, as my noble friend behind me said, a politician. I do not know that there is much difference between a civilian and a politician and I do not presume that my noble friend meant that a politician was an inferior person to a civilian. But I think certainly that the proper head of the War Office and of the Admiralty is a civilian, for the very reason which my noble friend suggested—that he should be a link between his Department and another place and he should

135
be able to collect the views of the experts and guide them into the best channel he can find.
It was never intended that the head of a Department should be an expert himself and should go about administering or looking for matters which require attention or should become a military expert. If that had to be done you had much better have a soldier at the head of affairs. I may be wrong, but I think that we should have done much better in the War had there been a civilian at the head of affairs instead of Lord Kitchener, who evidently forced his views upon the Generals who were on the spot. However great a soldier he may be, it is not possible for a man at some distance from a place to know exactly what ought to be done there. All those matters should be left to the Generals on the spot. If we alter all that and allow the Secretary of State for War to travel about the country and every part of the Empire so as to settle military matters, I think we shall be embarking upon a very dangerous precedent.
My noble friend has said that the English taxpayers will not benefit by any economies made in the Indian forces because the Indian forces are paid by the Government of India. I am not quite sure that I am with him there. I agree with economy wherever it is made and whoever benefits by it; but I am not for economy in the forces of the Crown, if it means reducing the number of the fighting forces below what is really safe, and certainly not in India. My own idea is that we have not enough soldiers in India. I certainly should not be prepared to support any Motion which would reduce any further the fighting forces of the Crown. It is not really true economy. If we had only had a stronger Army and a stronger Navy thirteen years ago we should have saved enormous sums of money. Therefore I earnestly hope, without in any way desiring to question the efficiency of the present Secretary of State for War, that he will stick to his job, which is to be in his place at the War Office and not go wandering about the confines of our immense Empire.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the fact
136
that the proposed journey of my right hon. friend had been dealt with in certain correspondence in the Press and I had noticed in that correspondence that the people who wrote—I think including the noble Lord himself—seemed to think that my right hon. friend was going to India on a holiday trip. I do not think the observations that have fallen from your Lordships in this debate have added to that impression, but if that impression should exist I think that what I am about to say will remove it from the mind of anybody in your Lordships' House or outside it.
In the first place I want to guard myself against giving your Lordships the impression that my right hon. friend's visit to India is in any sense of the word an official inspection of the British troops there. It is nothing of the sort. The Government of India are of course entirely responsible for the British troops in India. My right hon. friend is not going to India with a view to dealing with military matters of a purely technical character. Those matters concern the military authorities in India and the military authorities in this country. His reason for going to India is this. The British Army there consists of 60,000 officers and men of all arms and it must be obvious, when so large a proportion of the British Army is stationed in India, that there are very many questions which concern both the troops stationed in India and those stationed in this country. That cannot be disputed, but it has been suggested that all these matters are of a purely military and technical character which should be settled by the military authorities alone without reference to anybody else. That is not the case.
Besides the purely military questions there are very many important problems of organisation, of administration, of finance and also of policy, which depend for their successful solution both here and in India upon the closest co-operation between those who are connected with the government of the Army at home and those who are connected with the government of the Army in India. Of those in the former category I do not think any of your Lordships will dispute that the Secretary of State for War is the most important. I would venture to give your Lordships one or two illustra-

137
tions. The question of the mechanisation of the Army has been mentioned. The lines on which the mechanisation of the Army is to proceed involve both financial and political questions of a very important nature. All those questions must be settled before any definite policy of mechanisation can be evolved. The noble Lord semed to think that the Secretary of State for War was going to usurp the functions of the Military Members of the Army Council and other distinguished and eminent soldiers in devising motor vehicles to mechanise the Army. If he had studied the Papers recently issued which dealt with the duties of the Master General of Ordnance and the Quartermaster-General he would have seen that this is by no means the case.
Let me mention the Cavalry as an illustration. We are now considering the question of the future of Cavalry and we have altered the composition of a Cavalry regiment to two sabre squadrons with a mechanised squadron of sixteen machine guns and mechanised first-line transport. We want India to agree that the British Cavalry in India should be similarly composed. It is desirable that the Cavalry in both countries should be on the same footing. It makes a considerable financial difference to our Estimates that we should keep our regiments at a strength sufficient to find drafts for India, and if Cavalry regiments of both countries had the same composition there would be a great simplification of organisation and some saving in money. Both noble Lords who spoke seemed to think that there is nothing to be gained and no financial saving to be made by the Secretary of State's visit to India. I venture to think that there will be a financial saving to the taxpayers of this country if the organisation in India and the organisation here are upon similar lines. It is impossible to suggest that the visit of the Secretary of State himself to India to consult with the Indian authorities in this matter will not be of the greatest benefit to both countries.
I will give your Lordships another illustration. The first artillery brigade the other day came at the head of the list for service in India during this season. That brigade was a mechanised brigade, but India was unable to take a mechanised field brigade on her establishment at that time and, therefore, we had to make considerable
138
changes in personnel of officers and men in order to send to India what she required. In doing so we broke up a very useful formation. This kind of circumstance must constantly arise when changes of policy are under consideration, and when experiments are being made. I venture to maintain—and I do not think that anybody will disagree with me—that by discussion with the various authorities in India in regard to the common problems which have to be solved by the Army both in India and at home great good may be done.
Every member of your Lordships' House will agree that the Secretary of State for War or any other civilian member of the Army Council, even a humble person like myself, would be failing in his duty if he did not visit such military centres as Aldershot, Salisbury Plain, Catterick and so forth, and familiarise himself so far as possible with Army conditions. It does not mean that he is trying to make himself a technical or military expert, but I know from my own personal experience of visits to Aldershot and elsewhere that it is of great advantage. One is enabled to understand what the experts tell him and the advice given is very much better than one gets if one sits at the War Office and reads pieces of paper. I feel certain that my noble friend Lord Midleton and the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Haldane), when they occupied the office of Secretary of State for War, made frequent visits to military centres in this country; I should be very much surprised if they said that they never visited them.
Visits to India have, in the past, been practically impossible owing to the time which they took up, but now that the journey has been somewhat shortened in the matter of time there is no reason whatever why the Secretary of State should not visit India in the same way that he does Aldershot. I think he leaves next week and will be away for two months. That two months includes the Christmas holidays and I venture to think that my right hon. friend during his absence will have quite as strenuous a time as any member of your Lordships' House. The only public charge in connection with this visit—and the expense will fall either upon Indian or British funds—is the cost of his own passage and that will be defrayed from Army funds and amounts to £260.

139
I think it is right that I should refer to one fact in connection with this matter. The noble Lord who asked the Question addressed a letter to the Press some time ago, in which he suggested that the cost of my right hon. friend's journey to India must entail sacrifices to the Army, that the money spent on the Army would have to be curtailed in order to provide funds for this visit. It was suggested also in other quarters that officers and others might accompany the Secretary of State. That is not the case. I believe one officer will go with him, and that he will travel by the same ship, but he was going in any case. I was therefore glad to hear the noble Lord say that if the visit was necessary—and I venture to think it is necessary—the expense was not one which need be regretted, but that it would be a right and proper expense. Of course there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on policy as regards a journey of this kind, and noble Lords who do not agree that it is desirable are perfectly right to raise the question. But I do not think that a suggestion that a necessary journey should not be undertaken because some small charge would be involved is one that can be supported.
The other point in the Question is the representation of my right hon. friend during his absence. Your Lordships are aware that only a Secretary of State can perform certain actions. They are technical and have to be performed by a Secretary of State. In theory there is only one Secretary of State and any one of the seven can perform an action on behalf of any other. That is constantly done, as your Lordships are well aware. In this case when such action is necessary the Secretary of State for Scotland will act for the Secretary of State for War. Then, as your Lordships are aware, the Secretary of State for War is President of the Army Council and presides at meetings of that body. The Under-Secretary of State for War is Vice-President and during the absence of the Secretary of State will preside at the meetings. As regards the rest of the business, the short absence of the Secretary of State will not necessitate any change in the distribution of the work of the War Office. That will remain as laid down in the Order in Council of March 21, 1924, which distributes
140
the work between the Under-Secretary of State, the Military Members, the Finance Member and the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for War. I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Earl of Midleton, who I think criticised the prospect of the visit some two years ago, agree now that in the circumstances and as the visit has been approved by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister it should take place. I feel convinced that the visit of the Secretary of State for India to see the British Army in India will be of the greatest possible benefit to the Army as a whole, and I should like to say that personally I am sure it will enable us on the Army Council to keep in touch with the forces in India in a way which I am sure every member of your Lordships' House will agree is desirable.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that my noble friend would have made a much more efficacious defence of the proposed visit if he had simply said that the Cabinet was so large that the absence of the Secretary of State for War would never be noticed. I personally am unable to get up much admiration for this new principle of peripatetic Secretaries of State. I can understand it is perfectly right that the Colonial Secretary should visit the Dominions, more especially because he happens to know something about them, and I can also understand that it is desirable that on certain occasions the First Lord of the Admiralty should proceed to distant stations because the Navy is administered from London. But what has the Secretary of State for War got to do with India? That reminds me that personally I cannot see what particular object is served by the Secretary of State for Air careering about all over the place, except that it provides a certain amount of copy for the sensational Press.
As for the Secretary of State for War moving about and going to visit these places, I submit that my noble friend has made absolutely no case at all. He talked about problems of administration and problems of mechanisation. What on earth does the present Secretary of State for War know about mechanization? He added, as if it were a new and startling fact, that there are 60,000 British troops in India. There always have been. Ever since the Mutiny there have been some-

141
thing like 60,000 British troops in India, but no Secretary of State for War has ever for a moment suggested that it was necessary for him to go to inquire into their condition. I really think that this is one of the most fantastic proposals that has ever been made and I cannot understand why more antagonism has not been created by it. All I can say in conclusion is that had the late Marquess Curzon been alive this proposal would have gone very little distance at all. I cannot imagine for a moment that the Marquess Curzon would ever have allowed the Secretary of State for War to go to India at all.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: He did not object two years ago.
LORD NEWTON: He was not in India then. I do submit with great respect that my noble friend has made out absolutely no case whatever for this proposal.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I ask one question before we leave the subject? I do not know whether it is quite clear to your Lordships. My noble friend says certain technical duties must be dealt with by the Secretary of State. Does that mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland will on occasion sign technical papers which cannot be signed by anybody else and that the War Office will be administered exclusively by my noble friend below me?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Secretary of State for Scotland will, when necessary,
142
act. The necessity has yet to arise.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: But the Secretary of State for Scotland will not attend the War Office I understand.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: He will when necessary.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I think that really my friend Lord Newton has replied for me. I am not at all convinced by the answer that I have received from the noble Earl. I am very sorry that the two noble Lords who have both been Viceroys of India were not present to-night. I had the chance of talking with one of them and I think he quite agrees with me. I wish he had been here to address your Lordships, but I have no authority to quote anything of what he said. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BOURTON-ON-THE-WATER ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
Special Order in respect of the parish of Bourton-on-the-Water, in the rural district of Stow-on-the-Wold, in the County of Gloucester:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at six o'clock.