Sitting of 11 December 1928

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

    SAFETY REGULATIONS.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any Regulations issued by his Department requiring that shipowners or masters should see that the drinking water and biscuits stored in lifeboats are changed at regular intervals; and can he give the particulars?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Section 430 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, requires that all the lifesaving appliances on a ship (which would include the equipment carried in the boats), must be "kept so as to be at all times fit and ready for use"; but there is no specific requirement as to the intervals at which the water and biscuits have to be changed, or at which the other items of the equipment in the boats have to be renewed.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement made that the water was stagnant and that the biscuits were so hard that they could not be eaten has any foundation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I cannot, and I really would ask that no questions should be put or answered on that subject until we have had the full Board of Trade inquiry.
    Mr. DAY: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to introduce any Regulations to see that water is changed regularly and that biscuits are changed also?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is there anything contained in the Regulations which lays
    1878
    it down that periodical inspections of these things have to be made, to ensure that these things are kept in such a way that they can be used?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That certainly is implied in the Regulations, which lay down categorically that every part of the equipment has got to be ready for use—and that means effective use—at all times.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But is there any periodical inspection?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, but if you lay down that every officer who is responsible for the conduct of a ship has to keep the whole of the equipment at all times ready for use, that implies that he has to see that at all times it is SD ready.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now give further particulars of the proposed international conference on safety of life at sea, which he has stated is being arranged to take place next spring; where is it proposed to hold this conference; and which of the nations will be invited to send delegates?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is proposed that an international conference should meet in London next April to revise the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea which was signed in London in 1914. The proposals of the Board of Trade on the main subjects covered by that Convention are shown in the White Paper No. 51–166 of 1927. Invitations to the Conference are being issued to the Dominions and to India, and to Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the United States.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent disasters at sea caused by distressed vessels having no means of calling for help and vessels having no means of hearing a call, he will make it compulsory that all ships should be fitted with wireless transmitting and receiving apparatus, have at least one qualified operator on board, and a continuous and efficient watch, human or automatic?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware that any recent disasters at sea have been caused by insufficient wireless apparatus on British ships. The establishment of uniform standards in the matter of wireless on all ships can only be effected by international action, and the question of establishing such international standards will be one of those to be considered by the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea which will meet in London in April next.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that in a recent disaster that occurred a ship that was near was unable to come owing to the fact that it was not supplied with wireless?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: But the ship to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not a British ship.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am quite aware of that, but I am only anxious that all British ships should be supplied with wireless.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The British standards are extremely high. I am more interested in trying to secure that the universal standards should come up to our level.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman was given a very full answer.

    LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "VESTRIS."
    Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the crew of the liner "Vestris" were British subjects and how many were aliens?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed by the owners that the steamship "Vestris" carried a crew of 197, of whom 179 were British subjects.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state when the inquiry into the loss of the steamship "Vestris" will be held; where it will be held; and what will be the constitution of the Court?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did that reply, which I am sorry I missed, contain the composition of the Court?
    Sir P. CLINLIFFE-LISTER: No. It contained the nature of the Court, that it would be held by a Wreck Commissioner and Assessors, but not the names.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Assessors be professional seamen?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course, in a wreck inquiry all the Assessors are men of the very highest competence.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will arrangements be made for representations from the seamen's organisation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    LOAD LINE.
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Load Line Committee which he appointed last year has yet concluded its Report; and whether he proposes, once the Report is concluded, to send it to foreign countries for their consideration and to invite such Governments to attend an international conference on the subject?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that the Load Line Committee has made considerable progress, but has not completed its work. When the revision of the load line rules is completed, it will be sent to Dominion and foreign Governments for their consideration. Every effort will be made to secure international agreement, but it is too early yet to say what the precise steps will be.
    Mr. KELLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when this Committee will complete its work, approximately?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I have not.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman not tell the House whether, since the load line was altered by a Regulation of the Board of Trade, it cannot now again be done by a Regulation of the Board of Trade, without having to have a conference on the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of the first legal supplementary question, I should like notice, but what is happening now is that an expert committee, a very strong expert committee, is inquiring into the present load line Regulations, and it will then report, but in these questions of load line and other safety matters, it is very important to get international agreement. If we can agree in this country on what ought to be done, in view of what we have done in other safety matters, we shall see whether we can get agreement with other countries.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that no international agreement was arrived at when the Plimsoll line was established?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does this mean that it is proposed to endanger the safety of seamen in the interests of competition?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hoped the hon. Gentleman knew sufficient of the British standard of safety to know that we lead.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: One question seems to be leading to another.
    Mr. CONNOLLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government contemplates imposing more severe penalties for violation of the load-line rules; and, if so, will consideration be given to the point of view that it is the owners rather than shipmasters who are generally responsible for overloading, and that a fine commensurate with the offence, with or without imprisonment, would act as the most effective deterrent?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade are considering, in consultation with the shipping industry, whether further steps can be taken to prevent overloading. In accordance with regular practice any proposals would be discussed with the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. If such proposals should involve an increase of penalties the hon. Member may rest assured that every effort will be made to secure that these penalties shall fall on the right shoulders.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sailing from British ports at the present time are many vessels that are overloaded and that there is no efficient inspection to prevent this kind of thing going on?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am not aware of any such thing.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make regular inspection of the ports to ascertain whether or not there is any truth in that statement?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman, I think, knows that there is a very regular inspection at the ports, and I think that, if he studies the matter, he will find that where the difficulty occurs is not nearly so much in British ports as in foreign ports.

    LIGHTSHIPS (WATER SUPPLIES).
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any reports have been received from the Board of Trade inspectors on the lightships and steamboats of Trinity House and the Northern Lights Commissioners, and especially as to the supply of clean water?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. Under the Merchant Shipping Acts the power of the Board of Trade to inspect water and provisions does not extend to ships belonging to the general Lighthouse Authorities.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the Board of Trade endeavour to take some powers in view of complaints that are made as to the water that the men are compelled to drink being unclean?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My powers are laid down under the Merchant Shipping Act, which excludes these from my purview. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put a question about what steps are taken by other authorities which are not under my control, it would be convenient if he would put it on the Paper, and I would give him a fuller answer.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT, 1927.
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the three films claimed as British which have failed to satisfy the requirements of the

  1883
  Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, so as to come within the category of the British film; and will he state the names of the firms who were responsible for the production of these films?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Act only requires the publication of the names of films and their makers after they have been registered. The object of this provision is to give renters and exhibitors such information as will enable them to fulfil their quota requirements. In the case of the films referred to by the hon. Member no such consideration applies, and there is no provision of the Act which requires publication. In these circumstances I hardly think it would be fair to publish particulars of unsuccessful applications.
  Mr. DAY: Have there been any other instances, except these three, that have been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is quite a different question, and I should like to have notice of it.

  FOOD PRICES (MILK).
  Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council has completed its Report in regard to milk prices, and when it will be published?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the Report is not yet completed, and I cannot say at present when it will be published.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BARLEY AND MAIZE (IMPORTS).
    Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of barley and the amount of maize imported into this country in the years 1925, 1926 and 1927, respectively; and what percentage of both these products is imported for malting purposes?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is rather long and contains a table of figures. Accordingly my hon. Friend will perhaps permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows the total quantities of imported barley grain and maize grain retained in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during each of the years 1925 to 1927.

    Year.

    Barley.

    Maize.

    cwts.

    cwts.

    1925

    …

    …

    15,407,900

    25,792,200

    1926

    …

    …

    11,517,500

    30,290,000

    1927

    …

    …

    16,375,700

    40,511,400

    The quantity of imported barley used for malting varies according to its quality, and precise figures of consumption for this purpose are net available. In connection with the 1924 Census of Production, maltsters who produced about 69 per cent. of the total make (12,700,000 cwts.) of malt in the United Kingdom, other than malt made by distillers for their own use, stated that they used about 4,400,000 cwts. of imported barley in that year. Similar data are not available in respect of malt made by distillers for their own use. The retained imports of barley in 1924 amounted to 21,608,000 cwts.
    So far as I am aware, maize is not used for making malt.

    LEATHER SUBSTITUTES.
    Dr. SALTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that substitutes for leather, particularly the leather used for footwear, are being sold under fancy descriptions such as tufhide, itshide, uskhide, durhide, etc., which titles are liable to mislead the public into the belief that, they are purchasing material made from real hides and skins; whether he will consider legislation to compel the marking or stamping of goods to indicate whether the material is genuine leather or an artificial substitute; and, failing legislation, whether he can suggest any other method of protecting the public?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I believe that fancy descriptions of this kind are occasionally used, but I should have doubted whether they were in fact misleading. As at present advised, I do not see my way to propose legislation such as the hon. Member suggests.
    Dr. SALTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that certain of these substitutes are actually being advertised as leather made by an improved process, whereas they contain no leather whatever, or only a small percentage of leather dust made from scrap and refuse?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is already, under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, a provision which makes a false trade description a criminal offence. I make no pronouncement on the statement that the hon. Gentleman has made, but, if facts were brought to the notice of the Board of Trade which, in the opinion of our legal advisers, constituted a breach of the Act of 1887, we would consider taking action.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider "itshide" a false trade description?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think so. It does not convey to my mind any animal of which I am aware.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these substitutes for leather hear the same relation to real leather that ginger beer bears to beer?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure of that.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    POISON GAS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War, if his department is experimenting with, or has in stock, any kind of poisonous gas with a view to its employment for offensive purposes?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Research and experiment relating to defence against gas are directed towards the methods and appliances for individual and collective protection, and also towards the treatment of gas casualties. Research and experiment are primarily concerned with defence against gas, but it is essential, for the purpose of protection against gas, to investigate the possibilities of new gases and other forms of chemical warfare which might be illicitly employed against this country.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the secondary reason for these experiments to discover how gas can be employed offensively?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think that my answer is a very full one.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not only right that the Government should take steps to prevent the utilisation of gas by a possible enemy?

    TUBERCULOSIS (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War how many men have been discharged from the Army during the last four years because they were suffering from tubercular disease; and in how many of these eases pensions were granted on the ground that the disease was due to military service?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the proportion of those rejected from the Army for tubercular disease who have received any kind of pension?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Between 20 and 30 per cent. in the last two years.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his regulations are such as to ensure that each man rejected for this reason is given a fair examination to see whether he is due to get a pension or not?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope so.
    Following are the figures:

    Year.

    Number discharged.

    Number accepted as attributable, and awarded pension.

    1924

    …

    …

    174

    43

    1925

    …

    …

    227

    26

    1926

    …

    …

    223*

    67*

    1927

    …

    …

    201*

    53*

    *These figures include men discharged for tuberculosis from the Reserve and the Territorial Army.

  SCOTLAND.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total grant now being paid to Scottish authorities for nursery school purposes and the sum for last year; and if it is proposed to urge the local education authorities to increase the number of such schools?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the grants to Education Authorities are not allocated for particular services, but are determined by the general principles of the Education Authorities (Scotland) Grant Regulations, the reply to the first part of the question can only be in the negative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 6th March, 1928.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Do I understand that the children who are in the nursery schools and the teachers will come under the scope of these regulations?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Gentleman had better put down a question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any further steps to urge the education authorities to set up these schools?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the Minister of Health has always promised to look into this, and to encourage all authorities, both in England and Scotland, to get on with these schools?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The inspectors of my Department take every care to encourage those local authorities with whom the responsibility lies to institute this kind of service. All I can say is that, when we get a co-ordination of these services under a central authority, they may be better.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Scottish Education Fund is entirely separate from the General Fund, from which payments will be made to these authorities?

    BLIND WELFARE.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any request from the West of Scotland Committee for the welfare of
    1888
    the blind for permission to spend added sums for the treatment of the blind; the nature of such request; and what has been the answer?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I assume that the hon. Member's question has reference to recent proposals by the Glasgow and South West of Scotland Joint Committee for the administration of the Blind persons Act to establish a central clinic for the medical certifications of blind persons and to institute a scheme of allowances to blind persons who are unemployable. The Scottish Board of Health have approved the proposal to establish a central clinic. They have also indicated to the Joint Committee that they will be prepared to approve any scheme of allowance on reasonable lines that the Joint Committee may submit, but that no State grant will be available towards the cost of such a scheme.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider a State grant for this very laudable service?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The whole matter will, of course, come under review in the reform of local government, with which we are now dealing.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Since the Secretary of State's Department has approved of this particular object, does he not think that approval ought to carry with it some form of State grant?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Not necessarily.

    VACANT JUDGESHIP.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to fill the vacant judgeship in Scotland; the reason of the delay in making the appointment; and if it is likely to be filled before May, 1929.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is hoped to make this appointment shortly. I am not aware that there has been unusual or avoidable delay in filling this vacancy.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND, WEST LOTHIAN (DRAINAGE).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the acreage of agricultural land in the county of West Lothian and how much is in need of drainage?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There are approximately 61,000 acres of agricultural land (including rough grazings) in West Lothian. I have no information as to the acreage of land in the county that is in need of drainage.
    Mr. SHINWELLIs not a survey proceeding at present, and is it not possible to find out?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is true that we are making surveys of certain counties in Scotland for certain purposes, but not necessarily to deal with this particular problem.

    SHOP HOURS (FRUIT SALES).
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the great disadvantage under which the retail sale of fruit is conducted through the restriction of closing hours to 8 p.m. on week days and 9 p.m. on Saturdays as compared with the retail sale of confectionery up to 9.30 on week-days and 10 o'clock on Saturdays; and will he take steps to introduce such amending legislation as would put the retail dealers in perishable goods on the same footing as those engaged in the confectionery business?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The closing hours referred to were fixed by the Act passed last Session giving effect to the recommendations made by a Departmental Committee after an exhaustive inquiry. I am not prepared to introduce legislation amending that Act as it applies to the sale of fruit.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the gross injustice which is done under these conditions, and will he not therefore do his best to facilitate such a step being taken?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member must realise that he must bring very strong representations for an alteration in the law, in view of the very recent legislation which this House passed.

    HOUSING, DUMFRIESSHIRE (EASTRIGGS ESTATE).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that on the Eastriggs Estate, Dum-
    1890
    friesshire, brick hostels, formerly Government property, each of which is capable of being converted into four houses with all the latest sanitary arrangements, are being scrapped by the firm which has acquired them; and whether, in view of the shortage of housing accommodation and of the fact that other houses on the estate have been condemned, he will take steps with a view to utilising these hostels for working-class accommodation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: From inquiries I have had made, it does not appear to be the case that there is a shortage of housing accommodation for the working classes at Eastriggs or that houses on the estate have been condemned. My information is that at this place there are at present 20 unlet brick houses available for immediate occupation if tenants could be found, that some of the hostels have already been converted into dwelling houses, and that the demolition of others is taking place as there is no demand or need for them either in their present state or as converted houses.

    RING-NET FISHING.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to state what steps will be taken by the Fishery Board to prevent ring-net fishing for herrings in the sea lochs on the north and west coasts of Sutherland during the coming winter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer is in the negative. The Fishery Board do not consider that sufficient evidence has emerged to justify interference with this method of fishing in the localities mentioned in the question, but the matter is being kept under close observation.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does that mean that further investigations will be made on the spot, where very strong feeling is expressed about the depredations of these ring trawlers?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: We are fully alive to the problem, and are keeping close observation upon it.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (RENTS).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he

    1891
    is aware of the grievance felt by smallholders in certain parts of Scotland who have built houses on their holdings for the purpose of summer letting and have had their fair rents increased in respect of the proceeds received from those lettings; and whether he is prepared to introduce amending legislation to deal with this grievance?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the position, but I have received no recent representations on the subject. As regards the second part of the question, I can give no undertaking as to legislation.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce the result of his consultations with the Board of Trade and other Departments with regard to the necessity of taking more stringent measures than those now in force to restrict illegal trawling?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Consultations have taken place with the Departments referred to, and consideration of the various questions involved is proceeding, but I am not in a position to make a statement regarding the matter at present.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will any proposals need legislation, or will the House have any opportunity of reviewing them?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If they require legislation, it will have to be brought to this House.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SHARE FISHERMEN).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Regulations covering the payment of contributions in respect of the admission of share fishermen to national health insurance will be published?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Notice of proposal to make a Special Order will be published in the Gazettes on Friday next, and a Provisional Special Order will be laid before the House immediately thereafter.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    FOLLONSBY COLLIERY, DURHAM (EMPLOYMENT OF OFFICIALS).
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the Secretary for Mines if he has had a Report from his inspector as to the circumstance in which, on 20th and 29th November, when Follonsby Pit, County of Durham, was idle, the management employed officials of the colliery to do the work of the ordinary workmen; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I have received a Report on this matter, but it does not disclose any breach of the Coal Mines Acts.
    Mr. BATEY: But would it not be a breach of the Coal Mines Act for an official to take charge of the signals when a certified man always ought to take charge?
    Commodore KING: I am not saying what is or is not a breach, only that the evidence in this case shows that there was no breach of the Act.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: How can they use a pit without a man at the signals?
    Mr. BATEY—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a full answer to his question.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines which were producing coal in this country on the latest available date and for the corresponding date for the years 1924, 1925 and 1927; the total wages paid per week to the workpeople employed at the coal mines of this country on the latest available date and for the corresponding date for the years 1924, 1925 and 1927; and the number of workpeople employed at the coal mines of this country for the same periods?
    Commodore KING: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    Pits working and persons employed.

    Period.

    Number of Pita.

    Wage-earners employed.

    November, 1928

    …

    2,084

    896,200

    November,1927

    …

    2,202

    977,900

    November,1925

    …

    2,263

    1,066,200

    November,1924

    …

    2,372

    1,136,600

    Estimated Weekly Wages Bill (based on the three months July, August and September.

    £

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    1,880,000

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    2,250,000

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    2,500,000

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    3,050,000

    Mr. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines producing coal in South Wales and Monmouthshire on the latest available date, and for the corresponding date for the years 1924, 1925 and 1927; the total number of wage-earners employed in the same area for the same periods; and the total wages paid per week to the wage-earners employed in the coal mines of South Wales and Monmouthshire for the same periods?
    Commodore KING: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    Pits working and persons employed.

    Period.

    Number of Pits.

    Wage-earners employed.

    November, 1928

    …

    427

    154,700

    November,1927

    …

    467

    179,500

    November,1925

    …

    476

    199,900

    November,1924

    …

    492

    220,200

    Estimated Weekly Wages Bill (based on the three months August, September and October.

    £

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    395,000

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    430,000

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    508,000

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    660,000

    WORKING HOURS.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines, whether he can state the estimated increase in the cost of coal production which might result from a
    1894
    return to the seven hours day, taking as a basis the period of 12 months ending on 30th September this year; and how many additional miners would be employed as a result of such reduction in the hours of labour?
    Commodore KING: The best estimate that I can make of the increase in the cost of coal production which would result, from a return to a seven hours day is, in round figures, two shillings per ton. In reply to the second part of the question, I believe that such an increase in the cost of production would lead to a reduction in employment.

    NIXON'S COLLIERIES, MOUNTAIN ASH AND MERTHYR VALE.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information regarding the position at Nixon's Collieries, Mountain Ash and Merthyr Vale; whether the liquidator has completed negotiations for the sale of these collieries; and whether there is the possibility of work being resumed at these collieries in near future?
    Commodore KING: I have no information at present as to the future prospects of these collieries.
    Mr. HALL: Will the hon. and gallant Member inquire as to what is likely to be the position in the course of the next few days?
    Commodore KING: I have nothing to do with proceedings in bankruptcy and liquidation.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Secretary for Mines, whether he is aware that developments are in process for the production of oil from coal in Australia and Canada; and whether it is the intention of the Government to undertake such development in this country as a means of reviving the mining industry?
    Commodore KING: I am aware that certain companies are endeavouring to exploit the production of oil from brown coals, lignites, shales, etc., in Australia and Canada. In answer to the second hart of the question, the Government have no present intention of doing more than they are already doing.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the Minister tell us what the Government are already doing?
    Commodore KING: I should have thought it was well known. The Government are rendering great assistance to research through the Fuel Research oard, and, in all, are giving some £l00,000 a year for research other than in connection with safety and health; and they have also given this oil a preference over imported oil.

    LORD CROMWELL V. DENABY AND CADEBY COLLIERIES, LIMITED.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of the Railway and Canal Commission in the case of Lord Cromwell v. Denaby and Cadeby Collieries, Limited; is he aware that such action has already cost the colliery company, approximately, £10,000 in legal expenses, etc.; and will he take steps to simplify the procedure so that costs may be reduced in future cases?
    Commodore KING: I have been asked to answer this question. The case referred to was an application by the colliery company for certain rights and reliefs in respect of the working of coal belonging to Lord Cromwell. I do not know the amount of the costs which the parties incurred, but I can imagine that they were heavy. At the same time, it must be remembered that without the Mines Working Facilities Act a compulsory grant of the rights and reliefs applied for could not have been sought at all; that the issues at stake were very large; that the subject matter was highly technical and difficult to elucidate; and, above all, that the powers which are reposed in the Court are of so important and far-reaching a character that it is essential that a full and competent inquiry shall be held before a grant is made. I see no means whereby either Parliament or the Court could have kept down the costs of this application except by curtailing the inquiry to an extent which, presumably, would have rendered it less full than was required.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not aware that oppressive costs such as these are apt to be regarded by other owners as a means of intimidating colliery owners to accept terms that otherwise would not be accepted, and does he not think that some means might be found whereby such costs can be reduced?
    Commodore KING: No, I do not think the costs in this case will be considered heavy compared with the benefits received.
    Mr. W. PALING: By the colliery company?
    Commodore KING: Yes.
    Mr. PALING: It is the other fellow who receives the benefits.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the Minister think that, while the majority of colliery companies are losing money, any Commission ought to grant an increase to any royalty owner?
    Commodore KING: It depends—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question deals with a matter of opinion.

  TRANSPORT.

    HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC (SPEED).
    Lord APSLEYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the fact that motor lorries, omnibuses, and chars-a-bane continually exceed the statutory speed limit, and that many of them have scheduled runs which do not permit them running at sustained speeds under an average of 20 to 25 miles an hour; and whether, in view of the damage to the roads, danger to the public, and strain on the drivers necessarily imposed by their long and regular runs at high speed, he will consider making some such regulation as the fitting of governors to the engines of all heavy motor vehicles, preventing them from exceeding a speed of 30 miles per hour?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The question of the automatic limitation of speed by mechanical means so as to prevent vehicles from exceeding the appropriate speed limit was fully considered by the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles. Apart from the question of the desirability of such a course on grounds of public safety, the Committee were of the opinion that it was impracticable, both on account of the engineering difficulties and the expense involved and of the facility with which such a mechanical arrangement could be tampered with or altered.

    METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY (SOUTHEND PASSENGERS).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, in the case of Metropolitan District Railway trains starting from Barking station which are supposed to connect with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company's trains from Southend, the time allowed for the connection is insufficient to permit passengers to board the District trains in safety; and whether he will bring this matter to the notice of the Metropolitan District Railway authorities?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware of the circumstances to which my hon. and gallant Friend calls attention, but I will bring his question to the notice of the Metropolitan District Railway Company.
    Colonel APPLIN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I myself witnessed what might have been a serious accident to a passenger who got his foot on the step of a train, and was thrown hack among the other passengers as the train started?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think that instance ought to be communicated to the railway company.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    PRIVATE MINERAL RAILWAYS.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the North of England Coal Trade Association have passed a resolution supporting the private mineral railway owners' claim to equal relief with the users of public railways under the Rating and Valuation Act; and whether he is prepared to give this resolution his serious consideration before giving a final decision on the matter?
    Commodore KING: I have been asked to reply. I have seen the resolution referred to. The Association was not prepared to support the private railways at a time when their inclusion would have reduced the rate of rebate on coal conveyed over public railways, and I presume therefore that the new resolution means only that the Association will lend its support to an effort to secure
    1898
    an additional grant from the Exchequer. This the Government is not prepared to recommend to the House. If the resolution means more than this the Association can meet its own views by pooling the rebates which its members receive and sharing them with the owners of private mineral railways.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the resolution states very definitely that the Association desires that the private mineral railway-owners should receive relief on the same terms as the others?
    Commodore KING: It is perfectly easy for them to arrange for it under the pooling system.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Do the Government favour a readjustment by agreement between the whole of the coal-owners concerned, and will the Government take steps towards this end?
    Commodore KING: Oh no, Sir; it would be purely a matter between the coal-owners themselves.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: But would the Government take a lead in a matter of this kind?
    Commodore KING: Oh, no; it is not a matter in which the Government could interfere.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: If one coal-owner objected, would it be—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Douglas Newton.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

    WAYLEAVES AGREEMENTS.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONasked the Minister of Transport if steps are being taken by the Electricity Commissioners to frame a standard form of wayleaves agreement; and, if so, when such agreement will be made public?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed by the Electricity Commissioners that they hope soon to be in a position to submit a draft form of electricity wayleave agreement to Associations representing interested parties.

    FULHAM.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further information of the intention of the Electricity Commissioners to acquire compulsorily the area in Fulham, comprising Regina Wharf, Coronation Wharf, and Shell Wharf, and would he inform this House as to the firms at present operating within these confines and the number of workpeople employed by them; and have the Electricity Commissioners made any survey of the grounds of the Hurlingham Polo Club, in the close vicinity of the above and occupying an area over four times greater than the one suggested?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Electricity Commissioners have no intention and, indeed, no power to acquire land in Fulham or elsewhere. The position in regard to this matter was explained in the answer which I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member on this subject last Tuesday, to which I would refer him.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Electricity Commissioners are inducing the local borough council to exercise their powers to shut down factories, leaving the neighbouring polo ground alone; and that they are utilising the ground of the factory for another purpose?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If that be so, all those matters will come before the Commissioners if and when the inquiry is held.

    OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES.
    Sir D. NEWTONasked the Minister of Transport the average cost of erection of an overhead transmission line in rural areas in England; and how it compares with the cost of erection of a line used for similar purposes in Sweden?
    Colonel ASHLEYI am not in a position to give comparative figures, but I would remind my hon. Friend that this question is discussed in the recent Report of the proceedings of the Conference on Electricity Supply in Rural Areas.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the form of way-leave agreement is likely to be made public?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member had been present earlier, he would have heard the answer which I gave to a question on that point.
    Sir D. NEWTONasked the Minister of Transport how many inquiries respecting the erection of overhead transmission lines have been held during the past two years; and the average delay between the date of application, the holding of such inquiries, and the announcement of a decision upon the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: There have been 75 such inquiries since the beginning of 1927. The average time which has elapsed between the date of the application and of the inquiry is about five-and-a-half weeks, and between the date of the application and of the announcement of my decision about 17 weeks. It not infrequently happens that at an inquiry both the applicants and some of the objectors express their desire that the Minister's decision should be deferred pending further negotiations between the parties with a view to effecting an amicable settlement.
    Sir D. NEWTON: Is the Minister of Transport aware that these delays are causing great inconvenience, add to the ultimate cost of the erection of the lines, 'and consequently increase the price of current to the consumer; and will he take steps to strengthen the panel which deals with these inquiries?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my notice, and I am going into the matter personally in order to see whether anything can be done.

    FARMS.
    Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Transport the number of farms in England supplied by public undertakers with electricity during the present and past three years, respectively?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not able to give my hon. and gallant Friend the information for which he asks, but he will find some figures relating to the supply of electricity to farms in rural areas on page 19 of the recently published Report of the proceedings of the Conference convened by the Electricity Commissioners on electricity supply in rural areas.

    DOMESTIC APPLIANCES (ACCIDENTS).
    Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to certain recent fatal accidents caused by faulty insulation of electricity in bathrooms, etc.; and whether he is issuing regulations or taking other steps as regards the installation of electrical appliances with a view to avoiding such accidents in future?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that certain fatal accidents due to the causes mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend have recently occurred. The wiring arrangements in private houses are not under the control either of my Department or of the Electricity Commissioners, but a well-known code of regulations for the electrical equipment of buildings has been prepared by the Institution of Electrical Engineers.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that there would have been fewer accidents if all the local authorities had power to do their own wiring?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Not necessarily, because it is open to any person who desires to have his or her house wired to put a condition in the contract to have the wiring done according to the specification of the Institution of Electrical Engineers.
    Mr. PALING: Does that mean that in some of these areas there is no local authority with any power to see that the wiring is done in accordance with the regulations?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As I have already stated, neither my Department nor the Electricity Commissioners have any power in this matter.
    Mr. PALING: Would it not be wise to give such powers to local authorities in the same way as they have been given to borough councils?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. HARDIE: Since these defects are admitted, is the answer given by the Minister to be taken by the House as implying that those who are responsible for the wiring are not skilled or efficient men?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, the hon. Member must not assume that.

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to propose to all the signatories of the Kellogg Pact to undertake that their total expenditure on all forms of arms, armed forces, and civil services attached to armed forces, shall not in their next budgets exceed 12 per cent. of their total revenue for the year and will thereafter be reduced by 1 per cent. per annum for the following seven years?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir; I do not consider that the hon. Member's suggestion would be likely to promote agreement on a general scheme of limitation.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the signatories after signing this very important pact are determined to move at all in the direction of giving effect to it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think so.

  DISTRESSED AREAS.

    RELIEF EFFORTS.
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing distress in mining areas and the inadequacy of the help so far from private subscriptions, he will be prepared to ask the House for a substantial Treasury grant before the Christmas adjournment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can at present add nothing to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to question3 on this subject, to which I would refer the hon. Member.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that up to now the public funds have reached a very paltry figure compared with the Russian workers' contribution of £1,000,000 two years ago?

    CHILDREN, WEST RIDING.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education if he can give a detailed statement of the needs of school children in the West

    1903
    Riding of Yorkshire as to food, boots and shoes, and clothing, and the extent to which these needs are being met by the activities of his Department?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I apologise for the length of this answer. There are 22 education authorities in the West Riding. Of these, during the week ended 1st December, 12 were providing meals for 5,000 children. I have, as yet, received no official return from the West Riding county authority, but I understand that they also are now feeding about 1,000 children. Of the remaining nine authorities, some are understood to be making preparations for feeding. Surveys by the authorities' medical officers of the condition of the children were conducted in a number of the areas last summer, and recently in the Barnsley area. The results of the surveys varied considerably in different areas, e.g., 8 per cent. of the children were found to be malnourished in the districts of the county surveyed, and 3.6 per cent. in Barnsley. In Doncaster, Pontefract, Rotherham, and Sheffield, the surveys failed to reveal at that time any abnormal conditions. The surveys are concerned primarily with the state of nutrition of the children, and I have not the same amount of information in regard to boots and clothing, but they tended to confirm what is generally known as to the unsatisfactory state of the children's boots and clothing in the distressed areas. Thus, in the West Riding survey of last summer, 21 per cent. of the 44,000 children examined were found to have had hoots in the recent Barnsley survey, approximately, 6 per cent. were returned as badly clothed.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that the examination seems to have been undertaken mainly during the summer, and in view of the very serious developments since then, does the Noble Lord propose to give further co-operation in the West Riding?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am in constant communication with the West Riding. The whole point of my action was to get the surveys made at the end of the summer, before the schools broke up, so that preparations might be made for meeting the situation in the winter.
    Mr. PALING: Will the Noble Lord make some such arrangement as that which I understood him to say he has made in South Wales, so that, where children are being fed and the parents are receiving outdoor relief, nothing shall be deducted?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think that that is the case, but I should like notice of the question.
    Miss WILKINSON: In view of the statement which the Noble Lord has just made, and which refers to an area that is not usually considered to be among the most distressed areas, does he not think that that is a good reason for his Government proceeding with the Bill which was introduced the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Wall-send (Miss Bondfield)?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the figures which the Noble Lord has given, may we expect that we shall receive his support for that Bill?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think that, if hon. Members wish for a statement of the Government's attitude on that Bill, they had better give notice, but I should like to point out that the Bill as drafted refers only to the areas where distress is most acute.
    Mr. SMITH: Has the Noble Lord made up his mind with regard to the Bill?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the fact that the Bill only refers to the areas where distress is most acute show that it is rather a reasonable Bill?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that the trouble is that the areas which are most acutely distressed could not afford to bear the cost of even 10 per cent. of a new service of this kind.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: If the Noble Lord is not satisfied with the Bill, will he present a Bill of his own?
    Miss WILKINSON: In view of the rather remarkable statement which the Noble Lord has just made, does he mean to suggest that the fact that an area might be too distressed to provider even 10 per cent. is a reason for the Government doing nothing at all?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, certainly not; as was stated by the Prime Minister, an announcement of what the Government intend to do will be made in a few days.

    SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a Report from his chief inspector as to the result of his investigation into the condition of the mining areas in South Wales; whether the Report will be available for Members of Parliament; and whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to his intentions towards relieving the distress?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is not the practice that reports of this kind should be published, but my right hon. Friend will consider later on whether any exception should be made in this case. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is not able to add anything to the statements made by the Prime Minister last night.
    Mr. PALING: Does this mean that in cases of acute distress it is to be left to private charity to relieve them?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member must not assume that. I would ask him to refer to the Prime Minister's statement.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that time after time the Minister has refused to let able-bodied men have anything from the guardians? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary's answer indicate that they are going to trust to private charity?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, the hon. Member must take my answer as I read it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the last Ministry of Health Report, the Minister actually compliments guardians who refuse to give relief to the unemployed?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is now raising a question of the Report of the Ministry which is not referred to in the question.

  GERMAN REPARATIONS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the composition of the proposed Committee on reparations has now been agreed upon; whether it will be composed of independent financial experts; whether he can give the names of the British representatives; and whether the Dominion Governments will be represented?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am afraid that I cannot yet make any statement in regard to the composition of the proposed Committee.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer on Tuesday next?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope so—within a few days.

  TREASURY CHEST (LOSS IN TRANSIT).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can explain the circumstances in which £5,000 were lost from the Treasury Chest in transit between London and Hong Kong?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Losses of public money are a matter for investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, who have power to call for such evidence as they think proper. The present case will come before that Committee in ordinary course, but I may state briefly that the loss was due to theft from mails in transit and that four persons in Ceylon have been convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment..
  Sir F. HALL: In view of the very low rate of insurance charged will the Government consider whether it is not advisable to insure these consignments?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It has long been settled that the Government is its own insurance company.

  SOCIAL SERVICES (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount contributed by employers

  1907
  and employés during the last financial year to the cost of the following national social services: health insurance, widows' and orphans' and old age pensions, and unemployment; and what was expended by the Exchequer during the same period, exclusive of the amount

  Service.

  Total amount contributed by employers and employés.

  Exchequer Contributions.*

  Period.

  £000

  £000

  Year ended—

  National Health Insurance

  26,325

  7,573

  31st December, 1927.

  Widows' Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions.

  23,254

  4,000

  31st March, 1928.

  Non-Contributory Old Age Pensions

  —

  32,830†

  31st March, 1928.

  Unemployment Insurance

  31,050

  12,020

  31st March, 1928.

  *Exclusive of Exchequer Loans to the Unemployment Fund, and of the contributions made by the Government as Employer in respect of State employés, which are included in the previous column.

  †This includes payments for old age pensions payable at 70 without means qualification under the Act of 1925 and pensions payable under the Blind Persons Act of 1920.

  BETTING DUTY.
  Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are a number of persons who engage in betting on credit terms and who, when they lose, decline to pay; and whether he will amend the law so as to remove the obligation now resting on bookmakers to pay duty upon such bets?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the hon. Member may be aware, a Clause to effect the object he has in mind was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) in Committee on the Finance Bill on the 3rd July this year and negatived. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on that occasion.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Has not the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to cases of harshness and injustice arising out of the present position, and does he think it right and fair that the Government should take tax on losses?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have here all the excellent arguments I used when this matter was debated during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and I shall be glad if I may send them on to the hon. Member, with the general caption that "Hard cases do not make good law."
  lent to the unemployment fund, on loan at interest?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answer contains a number of figures, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?
  Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that the facts stated in this question are a complete reply to the arguments he has just been producing to the House?
  Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any information indicating widespread evasion of the Betting Duty; and what proportion of bookmakers are paying the duty upon bets?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The number of prosecutions instituted by the Board of Customs and Excise against bookmakers, and the number of convictions secured, namely, 1,700 and 1,663 respectively, in the 12 months ended 31st October, 1928, are indicative both of the efforts made to evade the Betting Duty and of the counter-efforts to prevent such evasion. It is impossible to say what proportion of bookmakers are paying duty, as an unknown number carry on business in an illegal manner.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Are the Government not sorry that they ever brought in this miserable Measure?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to receive a

  1909
  deputation in order to show the gross harshness and unfairness of collecting a tax from some people, and winking at it in the case of thousands of others?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, we do not wink at them. If the hon. Member can bring any cases to my notice, I will look into them.
  Sir BASIL PETO: Is it not true to say that the racecourse bookmakers are paying what they owe, and that it is the starting price bookmakers who evade the tax?

  INCOME TAX LAW.
  Mr. DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of meetings that have been held by the Committee on the Simplification of the Income Tax Law; and when the Report is anticipated?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Six meetings have been held by the Committee. Their Report is not expected for some considerable time.
  Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of making this simplification on account of the very many anomalies existing and will he expedite the report?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware of that, but probably the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the fact that there is a great volume of details to go into; I believe that some of the information required is not yet available.

  MILLIONAIRES.
  Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of millionaires in the United Kingdom in 1913 and on the last available date?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I have no means of arriving at these numbers.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Has the hon. Member any idea whether the number of millionaires has increased during the last year?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know, but I hope so.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the hon. Member not consider that the development of unemployment proves the value of making more millionaires in order to cure unemployment?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will undertake that no competent temporary ex-service civil servant who has been employed continuously since the 1st January, 1926, or earlier, shall be discharged to make room for a successful candidate from any open competition until after the 1st January, 1930?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I undertake that no efficient ex-service temporary clerk who has been employed continuously since the 1st January, 1926, or earlier, shall be discharged from the Government Service to make room for a successful candidate from open competition.
    Sir F. HALL: I would like to thank my hon. Friend.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the hon. Member say if he is still making the distinction when using the word "clerk" and excluding the typist clerks?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not understood that it is a case of the ex-service civil servant in the broad sense?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better read the answer.

    WOMEN (RESIGNATIONS ON MARRIAGE).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number and grade, respectively, of women civil servants who resigned, on marriage, from the Board of Inland Revenue during the year 1927?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer involves eight separate items, and I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL, REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    Assistant Inspector of Taxes

    …

    1

    Clerical Officers

    …

    2

    Tax Officers

    …

    10

    Tax Clerks

    …

    19

    Shorthand Typists

    …

    26

    Typists

    …

    4

    Writing Assistants

    …

    21

    Established Tellers

    …

    3

    Viscountess ASTORasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number and grade, respectively, of women civil servants who resigned, on marriage, from the Post Office during the year 1927?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I regret that this information is not available.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be possible to get it?
    Viscount WOLMER: We have the figures with regard to gratuities to 1,464 women who resigned after marriage last year, but there are a number of others who have not been eligible for the gratuity and in that respect the figures are incomplete.

    —

    Place taken by most recently appointed candidate.

    Percentage of possible marks obtained by candidate.

    Department to which assigned.

    Female

    …

    …

    …

    166

    65·4

    General Post Office.

    Male

    …

    …

    …

    107

    65·4

    Ministry of Labour.

  POST OFFICE (NEWSPAPER COM PETITIONS).
  Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Postmaster-General how many men have been discharged from the Post Office as a result of the discontinuance of newspaper football competitions?
  Viscount WOLMER: A few temporary officers have been discharged, but it is unlikely that the cessation of this work will have any effect upon the numbers of permanent staff. The work was intermittent in character, and has been covered almost entirely by overtime and temporary force.
  Mr. MORRISON: Cannot the Noble Lord give the exact figures?

  CLERICAL EXAMINATIONS (APPOINTMENT).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of candidates, male and female, respectively, declared unsuccessful at the examination held in March, 1928, for appointments in the clerical grade who have since received appointments as clerical officers?
  Mr. SAMUEL: 66 male candidates and 24 female candidates originally declared unsuccessful have since received appointments as clerical officers or the offer of such appointments.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the place taken in the clerical examination of March, 1928, by the most recently appointed woman candidate and the most recently appointed male candidate, the percentage of possible marks obtained by such candidates, and the Departments to which they were assigned?
  Mr. SAMUEL: As the answer to this question involves a table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the table:
  Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir.
  Mr. PALING: Does this mean that the Post Office is discharging men at the time when the Prime Minister is issuing pathetic appeals to employers to take men on?
  Viscount WOLMER: The Post Office, like every other employer, has to relate the number of its employés to the amount of work to be done.
  Mr. PALING: Was the Prime Minister aware of that before he issued his appeal?
  Mr. MORRISON: Is it not possible for the Noble Lord to give the number of people who have been discharged from a Department for which he is responsible? Surely he knows?
  Viscount WOLMER: But the hon. Member asks in his question for the number of men who have been discharged as a result of the discontinuance of football competitions in newspapers, and it is rather difficult to divide up the work of the Post Office into compartments in that way. If, however, the hon. Member would like me to give him such figures as I can, I will go into the matter further.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LIEUT.-COMMANDERS (EX-MATE).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of Lieut.-Commanders (ex-Mate) now on the active list; how many of these officers are 40 years of age and above; and whether he will consider the question of allowing the older officers to retire forthwith, if so desirous, with maximum retired pay (as under the special retirement scheme of 1926), in order to facilitate the selection of a larger number of candidates for mate in the next batch?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The total number of Lieut.-Commanders (ex-Mate) now on the Active List is 54; of these, 17 are 40 years of age and above. A special retirement scheme for the older officers (ex-Mate), even if it could be justified under present conditions, would not necessarily result in the selection of a larger number of candidates for promotion to Mate, as the numbers now coming forward who are considered suitable for promotion, are barely sufficient to fill vacancies.

    HYDROGRAPHIC DRAUGHTSMEN.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any vacancies exist in the grade of second-class hydrographic draughtsmen; if so, the number; and whether it is proposed to fill these vacancies by an open competitive examination or whether they will be covered by the formation of a P-class amongst the temporary draughtsmen serving in that department?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There are at present five vacancies for established second-class draughtsmen in the hydro-graphic department. The manner in which these vacancies will be filled has not yet been decided.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    FLYING ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of deaths in the Royal Air Force due to accidents whilst flying during the years 1927 and 1928, respectively?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The number of deaths clue to flying accidents in the Royal Air Force in 1927 was 57; in 1928, 73. These figures include casualties to Reserve, Special Reserve, and Auxiliary Air Force personnel under training, and to Navy and Army personnel attached to the Royal Air Force. I may add that some fluctuation from year to year is inevitable; in 1926, for example, the corresponding figure was 85.

    ENLISTMENT.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Air how many applications for enlistment in the Royal Air Force have been made during the year 1928, and how many men were accepted?
    Sir S. HOARE: During the period 1st January to 30th November, 1928, 5,521 effective applications were received from men and boys for enlistment in the Royal Air Force. The number attested during that period was 1,615 men and 1,104 boys.

  UNIVERSITIES AND TRAINING COLLEGES.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education (1), in connection with the Report of the Committee on Universities and Training Colleges and in connection with the regional scheme this recommended, what steps he proposes to take to provide a centre for the Eastern Counties;
  (2) if he has considered the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on Universities and Training Colleges; and if he can make a statement on the matter?
  Lord E. PERCY: The Report, to which the hen. Member refers, was unanimously adopted by a conference of representatives of the universities, university colleges, training colleges and other bodies-interested in the training of teachers, at which I presided. With the exception

  1915
  of one point, which is dealt with in Appendix G of the Report, the recommendations of the commitee so far as they concern the Board have been or will be adopted. Of the six training colleges in the Eastern counties, two are now associated with Nottingham University College, two—which are concerned with the training of teachers for young children—with the National Froebel Institute, and the remaining two with the Universities of Cambridge and Birmingham, respectively.

  POOR LAW.

    CASUALS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health how many persons were relieved in the casual and tramp wards of London on the night of 30th November, 1924, and the same day in 1928; and will he give the same figures for England and Wales apart from London?
    Sir K. WOOD: In London the number of casuals relieved on the last Friday in November, 1924, was 482, and in 1928 was 790. In England and Wales, outside London, the number of casuals relieved on the last Friday in November, 1924, was 7,156; on the 23rd November of this year, which is the latest date for which figures are available, the number was 10,450.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often a count is taken of the casuals?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should have to have notice of that question.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether he has been informed of the decision of the Halifax Board of Guardians to allow the vagrants at the Gibbet Street institution to have hot water instead of cold water with their mid-day meal; whether this concession is to remain in force both winter and summer; and is it in accordance with regulations?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has not been informed of this decision. As regards the last part of tie question, the decision of the guardians does not appear to involve any breach of the regulations in force.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time this mean and miserly treatment was stopped and that tea was added to the meals of these men?
    Sir K. WOOD: I understand the guardians have done so.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: That would not break them.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the death of a casual at the Poor Law institution, Chailey, Sussex, whilst locked in a cell with another casual with whom he was sharing the floor, and where the accommodation and sanitary arrangements were described by the coroner and medical officer as inadequate and unsatisfactory for male paupers in ordinary health; and whether he will have inquiry made into the whole of these circumstances and into the treatment of casuals at this institution?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is obtaining an early report on the position.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Are the conditions which the coroner and medical officer described in vising casual wards typical of the majority of casual wards, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time the closing of casual wards was stopped in order that the overcrowding may not be so severe as it is, necessitating two and even three men to one cell every night.
    Sir K. WOOD: I should be sorry to think it is typical of casual wards. I understand we are to discuss the matter this evening, and perhaps the hon. Member will develop his argument further.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for some Members of his party to spend Christmas in the workhouse, so that we can discuss the subject a little more profitably?
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that officials of the Metropolitan Asylum Board are informing certain types of casuals that they can be permanently confined in an institution; and will he, therefore, take steps to make it known that the maximum length of compulsory detention is seven days?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, sir. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such action on the part of officers of the managers.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF (ABLE-BODIED PERSONS).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health if he will specify the unions in England and Wales where he is at the present date insisting on the strict application of the Relief Regulation Order in respect to outdoor relief to able-bodied single men and to able-bodied married men and their dependants?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think I can usefully add to the reply to the question on this subject which was put by the hon. Member on the 3rd instant. It was then stated that my right hon. Friend had decided that only in exceptional circumstances can a general distribution of outdoor relief be allowed to continue as a normal means of relieving able-bodied persons. As a matter of fact, in a majority of the unions of the country relief is being administered in accordance with the Relief Regulation Order.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the unions in the case of which the Department is permitting such outdoor relief to be given?
    Sir K. WOOD: To do that we should have to go through all the files, which would be a long process. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to press us in that direction.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the outdoor relief figures go down while the unemployment figures go up; and how does he account for that, except by the fact that the Department will not allow guardians to give outdoor relief to these men, and so is creating the conditions which this House is discussing day by day?
    Sir K. WOOD: The matter is a very difficult one to deal with by question and answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confer with me, and I will see if there is any general indication that I can give him as to the proportion.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that guardians are not only refusing relief to able-bodied men
    1918
    who are not receiving unemployment benefit, but are also refusing them admission to the workhouse?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should like particulars regarding that question.
    Mr. JOHN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week one of the inspectors of his Department condemned the Bridgend Board of Guardians for giving relief to able-bodied men?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a separate question.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health the amount of surplus on the National Health Insurance scheme at the end of the last financial year; and what amount, approximately, was derived from interest on the amount of the surplus?
  Sir K. WOOD: The National Health Insurance scheme is not financed on the basis of a single fund and the surplus is, in the main, the aggregation of the surpluses of over 8,000 approved societies and branches. These surpluses are ascertained by quinquennial valuations, the results of which are summarised in the Report of the Government Actuary. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the last of such Reports (Cmd. 2785), dated 25th November, 1926, from which he will see (paragraph 20) that the total surpluses amounted to £42,413,319, from which amounts totalling £26,619,161 (paragraph 36) were certified for distribution in additional benefits in the ensuing quinquennium.

  HOUSING, FULHAM.
  Miss BONDFIELDasked the Minister of Health how many people at the last census were living in Fulham overcrowded to the extent of more than two to a room, and how many of that number were overcrowded over three to a room; how many houses Fulham Borough Council has built under the 1923 and 1924 Housing Acts; and whether the Fulham Borough Council has applied for his consent to any building scheme at the vacant site of some six acres now for sale on the Fulham Road, lately occupied by a brewery company, and how many houses

  1919
  in Fulham have been unfavourably commented on in each of its medical officer of health's last six annual reports?
  Sir K. WOOD: The number of persons in private families in the Fulham Metropolitan Borough at the last census returned as living at a density ratio of under 5 of a room per person (or over two persons per room) was 20,265; and 2,895 of those persons were returned as living at a ratio under 3 of a room per person. The precise ratio corresponding to that of over three persons per room is not available. 36 flats have been provided by the borough council under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924. No further building scheme has been submitted to me by the council. As the last part of the question involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  STATEMENT giving particulars of the result of the Inspection of Dwelling Houses in the Borough of Fulham as shown in the Reports of the Medical Officer of Health for the years 1922–27.

  —

  Number of dwelling houses found in each year to be in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation.

  Number of dwelling houses found in each year not to be in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.

  1922

  …

  1

  928

  1923

  …

  1

  2,288

  1924

  …

  7

  2,369

  1925

  …

  2

  2,621

  1926

  …

  1

  1,593

  1927

  …

  —

  1,142

  STRANGERS' DINING ROOM (WOMEN).
  Miss WILKINSON: May I ask you, Sir, whether you have yet reached any decision with the regard of admittance of women to the Strangers' Dining Room of the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I have done all I could to ascertain the general feeling of the House on the matter, and I have decided to adopt the recommendation made to me by the Kitchen Committee,
  1920
  that ladies may be admitted in future as guests to the Strangers' Dining Room, for dinner only, if accompanied by a Member.
  Mr. DAY: As the secretary of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is allowed there, do you not think the secretary of the Leader of the Opposition should also be allowed there?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Why ladies for dinner only? Do not women need luncheon too?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I gave the matter all the consideration I could, and I have adopted the recommendation of the Kitchen Committee, which I thought represented the views of hon. Members.

  OVERSEAS TRADE RILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Bognor Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the registration of architects; and for purposes connected therewith." [Architects (Registration) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
  "That in the case of the Local Government Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Bill (which Bills are hereinafter referred to as 'the English Bill' and 'the Scottish Bill,' respectively), the Committee stage (including any Motion for an Instruction), Report stage, and Third Reading, shall he proceeded with as follows:
  (A) In the case of the English Bill:
  (1) Committee Stage.
  Thirteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the English Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall he brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table:

  Table I.—Committee Stage.

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time at which Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

  P.M.

  First

  Instructions and Clauses 1 to 5.

  7.30

  Clauses (6 to 8

  10.30

  Second

  Clauses 9 to 12

  7.30

  Clauses 13 to 17

  10.30

  Third

  Clauses 18 to 25

  7.30

  Clauses 26 to 30

  10.30

  Fourth

  Clauses 31 to 38

  7.30

  Clauses 39 to 44

  10.30

  Fifth

  Clauses 45 to 53

  7.30

  Clauses 54 to 56

  10.30

  Sixth

  Clauses 57 to 67

  7.30

  Clauses 68 to 70

  10.30

  Seventh

  Clauses 71 and 72

  7.30

  Clauses 73 and 74

  10.30

  Eighth

  Clauses 75 and 76

  7.30

  Clauses 77 to 79

  10.30

  Ninth

  Clauses 80 to 82

  7.30

  Clauses 83 to 85

  10.30

  Tenth

  Clauses 86 to 92

  7.30

  Clauses 93 to 98

  10.30

  Eleventh

  Clauses 99 to 115

  7.30

  New Clauses and Schedules I. to III.

  10.30

  Twelfth

  Schedule IV., Parts I. and II.

  7.30

  Schedule IV., Parts III. and IV.

  10.30

  Thirteenth

  Schedules V. to X.

  7.30

  Schedules XI. and XII., New Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.

  10.30

  (2) Report Stage.
  Three allotted days shall ho given to the Report stage of the English Bill; and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion. shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

  Table II.—Report Stage.

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time at which Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

  P.M.

  First

  …

  New Clauses.

  7.30

  Parts I. and II

  10.30

  Second

  …

  Parts III., IV., and V

  7.30

  Part VI

  10.30

  Third

  …

  Parts VII. and VIII. and Schedules I. to III.

  7.30

  Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

  10.30

  (3) Third Reading.
  One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the English Bill; and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that clay.
  (B) In the case of the Scottish Bill:
  (1) Committee Stage.
  Eight allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall he as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.

  Table I.—Committee Stage.

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time at which Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

  P.M.

  First

  …

  Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2

  7.30

  Clause 3 to 7

  10.30

  Second

  …

  Clauses 8 to 11

  7.30

  Clauses 12 to 14

  10.30

  Third

  …

  Clauses 15 to 19

  7.30

  Clauses 20 to 24

  10.30

  Fourth

  …

  Clauses 25 to 29

  7.30

  Clauses 30 to 32

  10.30

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time at which Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

  P.M.

  Fifth

  …

  Clauses 33 to 36

  7.30

  Clauses 37 to 39

  10.30

  Sixth

  …

  Clauses 40 and 41

  7.30

  Clauses 42 to 44

  10.30

  Seventh

  …

  Clauses 45 to 49

  7.30

  Clauses 50 to 61

  10.30

  Eighth

  …

  New Clauses and Schedules I. to IV.

  7.30

  Schedules V. to VII, New Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

  10.80

  (2) Report Stage.
  Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceeding, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.

  Table II.—Report Stage

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time at which Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

  P.M.

  First

  New Clauses and Clause 1

  7.30

  Clauses 2 to 9

  10.30

  Second

  Clauses 10 to 16

  7.30

  Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

  10.30

  (3) Third Reading.
  One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Scottish Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10,30 p.m. on that day.
  On the conclusion of the Committee stage of either Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
  Any day after the date of the passing of this Order on which either Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day shall, for the purposes of this Order, be considered an allotted day as respects that Bill, and either Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday,
  1952
  notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.
  Provided that where an allotted day is a Friday this Order shall have effect as if for reference to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
  For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be; and on the Committee stage of either Bill the Chairman, in the case of a series of consecutive Clauses to which no notice of amendment has been given by the Government, shall put the Question that those Clauses stand part of the Bill without putting the Question separately as respects each Clause.
  A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of either Bill before consideration of any Amendments of the Clause or Clauses in Committee; and the Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of either Bill shall be put forthwith by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who opposes the Motion.
  Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in question or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.
  On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  On an allotted day as respects either Bill no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone

  1953
  a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
  Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

  (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular clay, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

  The arguments relevant to a Motion of this kind are indeed familiar to the House. I remember on one occasion, not so long ago, an hon. Member on the back benches opposite rather took the attitude which has been taken by oppositions before, that this is a brutal action—the guillotine is always brutal—that there is no object in moving it with any expression of regret or any expression of courtesy, but that a brutal action should be carried out in a brutal method. That carries me back many years ago when I remember my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replying to Mr. Asquith, who then led the House, said that the more mellifluous the right hon. Gentleman's tones were the more brutal he was in action. This method of the guillotine, practised by all parties, it is only fair to remember, has, as its one and only begetter, the Liberal party. I say that, not that I envy them their parentage of this method, but simply because, whenever a Leader of the House has to justify the use of the guillotine, he is always driven to the precedent created by that Government, and particularly to the observations made by that great master of Parliamentary procedure, Mr. Asquith, who was Prime Minister for so many years. The House will remember—it is the locus classicus in this case which is always quoted— Mr. Asquith's words, in 1911, when the guillotine procedure had already been in existence for some years, but obviously had not been used to the same extent that it has been used since:
  "I venture to say that, having regard to the commitments of this Parliament, the
  1954
  multitudinous nature of its duties, the diversity of interests with which it has to deal, the enormous and ever-increasing burden of the labours it has to perform, legislation on a large scale in regard to great and complicated questions is impossible unless you resort to some sort of timetable and some allocation of time."
  Ten years later, in the time of the Coalition Government, when of course he was on the Opposition benches, he said again:
  "I am absolutely unrepentant in this matter of the guillotine. I have said over and over again, in the years when I was responsible for the conduct of the business of the House, we shall not be able to carry on the complicated Parliamentary machine unless we adopt in some form or other the time-table system. It is a necessary incident of Parliamentary life."
  I think there will be agreement with the gist of this statement on all sides of the House. But the point of these remarks was said by a greater man than I to be in the application. It is the application we have to consider to-day. I know that observations have been made. I gather this by one or two questions which have been put to me. Are there instances, I was asked, when the guillotine has been applied before a Bill has been allowed to go to Committee? Yes, there are many instances. During the seven consecutive years of that great Liberal Government which began in 1906 there were 12 instances. In four of them the guillotine was applied before the Second Reading and in eight instances was applied before the Committee stage. During the four consecutive years of the Coalition Government the guillotine was applied four times—three times before the Committee stage.
  In 1908, you get an interesting bracket in the Guillotine Motion—the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill and the Land Values (Scotland) Bill—and in 1913 and: 1914 you had a very interesting development., the excuse for which, given in this House, was the Parliament Act, although there is a great deal to be said on that which perhaps it is not necessary to say at this moment. As a matter of fact, in 1913, there was a most delicious, mixed grill, if I may so express it, served up to the House, involving fair treatment to all parts of the United Kingdom. There were bracketed in one Guillotine Motion the Government of Ireland Bill; which concerned Ireland, the Established Church (Wales) Bill, which concerned

  1955
  Wales, and, unless Scotland should be jealous, a temperance Bill for that country was thrown in. The next year the Government of Ireland Bill reappeared in a joint Guillotine Motion with the Established Church (Wales) Bill again, and, as there was no specific Scottish Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, which benefited all countries alike, was included. These were the three put in at that time. I mention this in passing to show that we are not without precedents in what we are doing, whether it commends itself to the House or not.
  If I come, to the reasons why the Government are asking that a time-table shall be established, I think they arise principally from the nature of the Bills themselves. They deal with the same subject, although in regard to application they do differ in the two countries. As far as the financial problem is concerned, the provisions that deal with finance are very much the same in both Bills. When a big reform in such a matter as local government is pending, it is a good thing for the country, when it is wisely decided to make big changes, that the changes should be made and carried through with the least possible delay. For all those who are concerned with the administration of local government, that is to say the departments in London and elsewhere and the local authorities themselves, it is of the first importance that the Bill should reach the Statute Book at the earliest moment possible, compatible—and that is what we have to debate to-day-with the proper deliberation of the subject in the House of Commons.
  Let me remind the House that the appointed days for these two Bills—and I exclude the rating relief, the appointed day for which is 1st October of next year—are the 1st April for England and the 16th May for Scotland in the year 1930. The new financial arrangements and the changes in local government, apart, as I have already said, from the de-rating portion, all come into force on the appointed day. With the large amount of rateable value that will be lost to the local authorities through the de-rating scheme, it will be perfectly impossible for local government authorities on the present line to receive payments due to compensate them. Temporary arrangements,
  1956
  as we know, are being made in the Bill. Those temporary arrangements ought to be for as short a period as is possible. It would be quite out of the question for this House to consider such temporary arrangements being carried on to a prolonged date as they might have to be it the legislation were not got through in good time.
  Let me remind the House of this, that in Part 1 of the English Bill, the functions of the guardians pass to the county councils and to the county boroughs. It is the duty of these local authorities to prepare and submit, within six months of the Bill becoming an Act, a scheme for the carrying out of their duties. That will be a task of the first magnitude. They will have to map out all their areas. They will have to arrange how to form the guardians and the public assistance committees. They will have to settle on their constitution, on their places of meeting and so forth, and on everything which will enable them to function as provided by the Act. They will have to carry out a survey of the institutional work in their own areas and make proposals for co-ordination and the more effective use of those institutions. Whatever they propose will have to be submitted to the Ministry. It will have to be examined by the Ministry. The Ministry will have to hear objections. All that work will have to be done and completed by the appointed day.
  There are also other services. There are the services in connection with roads where the detailed submissions have to be made to the Ministry of Transport by the 1st October of next year. There are the Clauses that deal with the contributions and grants to voluntary bodies for social services, and there are many others. All these have to be in working order by the appointed day in 1930, and it becomes obvious that every day that can be added to the time of the local authorities and the Government Departments themselves, who wish to make these arrangements will be time of infinite value if the new local government is to work, as we all desire, when it becomes law, it shall work, for the benefit of the country. Mutatis mutandis, what I have said applies equally to Scotland.
  4.0 p.m.
  Then, again, apart from these reasons arising from the nature of the legislation, there are certain cogent reasons that

  1957
  arise from the fact that in the present law of our country, next year is to see a General Election. That means that we have to get our legislation through in good time. A General Election is very much like a visit to the dentist. If anyone has to have a tooth out, he likes to get it done as soon as he can. I know that people who wait too long suffer for it. I am quite sure that there is a general feeling in all parts of the House that the sooner we get our legislative programme wound up, the better it will be for us.
  Those, briefly, are the broad reasons why I submit this Motion to the House. I said earlier in these few observations, that the application is the real thing. By "the application," I mean sufficient time being given for the discussion of the important points which arise in the legislation for which the time table is being provided. To discover whether sufficient time is being given has always been the object of the Debate on the proposal for setting up the Guillotine. It is open to Members in the course of the Debate, if they think the time is either insufficient or is allocated unwisely, to make their own suggestions. It is the business of the Ministers who have to deal with the details of the Bill, and who have them at their fingers' ends, to explain their point of view, and, if they think fit, to make any concession in the arrangements that they may be convinced is fair. That is the object of the Debate, and I have fulfilled my duty in moving this Motion by giving the House, as simply and as clearly as I am able, the reasons which have induced the Government to put the Motion on the Paper, and I hope the House may see fit, when the time arrives, to adopt it after the discussion has taken place.
  Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House cannot assent to a Resolution to impose additional restrictions upon freedom of debate on Measures which fundamentally affect the relations between national and local finance and the structure of local government, and this House is of opinion that to deal in one Resolution with two Measures each composed of unrelated parts and applying to very dissimilar conditions in England and Scotland, respectively, is a flagrant violation of customary Parliamentary procedure."
  1958
  Certainly the Prime Minister has submitted this Motion to the House in terms amounting almost to cheerfulness, if not gaiety, and has shown no hesitation in entering upon this work of muzzling the Opposition as far as it is possible to do it by carrying this Motion. May I say that if, later on in the afternoon, as I understand may be the case, the Prime Minister may have to leave the House, I know it will be because of the call of other public duties which will require his presence elsewhere, and no sense of complaint will be felt. I suggest to the Prime Minister that in offering the argument of precedents for the Motion, he is abusing the guidance which precedents might offer. It was never intended to make a precedent into a practice, and to apply it, as it has been applied by this Government, on every occasion of an important Measure submitted to the House of Commons. I suggest that any argument which the Prime Minister has used as to the character of the Bill is not an argument in favour of suppressing debate, but is an argument in favour of the widest freedom of expression of view and opinion that Members could possibly have, in order that this Bill, when it leaves the House, will not hereafter be a cause of great misunderstanding, grievance and difficulty as well it may be in the experience of the coming years.
  The argument of the Prime Minister that the Liberal party in the past was the cause and the origin of this Parliamentary procedure I can, of course, properly leave to the Leader of the Liberal party and his friends, but as one Who can, as a matter of age, recall something of those days, both in this House and outside it, I suggest to the Prime Minister that an outstanding reason for resorting to the guillotine in those years was that the Tory party had behind it the House of Lords, which frequently rejected Bills when passed by this House, and which, therefore, compelled some hastening of the legislation in those days. We now have the spectacle of a Tory Government, with a massive majority in this House, and with even a more formidable majority in the House of Lords, imitating a Government of former years possessed of neither of these two resources. There is, therefore,

  1959
  in the Prime Minister's argument really no argument at all to sustain the Motion he has made. I agree that it my be proper to have some sort of time table as the Prime Minister suggests—some sort of understanding, say, between the Opposition and the Government as to how long the House of Commons should be occupied in debating matters of general importance, but some sort of time table is surely a different kind of thing from this admittedly brutal Guillotine which is now before the House.
  It may also be the case, as the Prime Minister suggested, that it is desirable to carry through a Measure of this kind with the least possible delay, but that argument is a different thing from the terms of the Motion, and I repeat there is in this Bill so much detail on matters about which, I suggest, hon. Members behind m are very familiar, and personally acquainted, because of their great and long experience in matters of local government, that their knowledge ought not to be wasted by any act of suppression on the part of the Government of the day. It appears, therefore, to be the case that the procedure which was intended in a former year as an exception, and so accepted by the House in a former year, is to be translated by the present Government into a regular sessional Practice, and an established rule for House of Commons Debate. When we assembled in November of this year, we read in the Gracious Speech from the Throne that. virtually this was to be a Session of one Bill, and surely more time than this time-table suggests can be afforded for the important purpose of debating in fuller detail this immense Measure, this bulky Bill, the size of which is without precedent for many years back.
  In short, the Bill presents to the mind of the House every reason, not why debates should be shortened, but why debates should be prolonged, and we shall not get that clearness, enlightenment, cohesion and satisfaction in a Bill of this character by mere acts of suppression of debate. We have had many instances of having to pay dearly for faulty legislation, due to the fact that it was hasty legislation passed by the great power of an immense majority used against the opposition to the Bill. I think, also, we
  1960
  are entitled to remind the Government of the manner in which they have arranged their procedure, and the order and priority of Bills. This is not a Bill which has come into the House arising out of any state of surprise' or any unforeseen condition of things. It has been before the mind of public men for many years, and if we are now to be told that it is necessary to hasten the Bill, we are entitled to retort that the Government might better have used the time of Parliament in the previous months of 1928, or particularly in the years 1926 and 1927, than to have used it in the way in which they did by their attacks on the trade unions, and by legislation to make gambling an easier thing on the racecourse, instead of dealing with subjects which might be assumed to be of real value. I suggest to the Prime Minister that this opposition, whatever it has been, has not been like the Tory Opposition of former years—an Opposition of obstruction. It has not sought deliberately to delay the passing of acceptable and necessary Measures of advantage to the country. The speeches that have been delivered, I think I am entitled to say, have shown no fractious hostility to any reasonable proposal, and the general knowledge which they have revealed ought to be acceptable to a Government as being as much a contribution to legislation as that from any quarter of the House.
  We, therefore, protest against what, now apparently, is the idea of the Government, that it is sufficient for them to submit anything to Parliament. because they have a f large majority. Their large majority does not justify these large doses of Closure in order to silence the Opposition in offering its views and suggestions on important proposals of the day. There may be one consolation that we can derive from these, proposals, and may I here mention that what is a consolation to us is perhaps a warning to the other side of the House. The Government of the day know that before long the country will approve a change of Government. That is as well known to Members on the other side as to ourselves. It is not a matter of hope; it is as certain and as orderly in the natural course of things as night follows the day. Shall we then be entitled to embody in one Bill covering England and Scotland, with, say, 100 Clauses—not quite the number of this Bill, which has 115—to

  1961
  nationalise this, change that and fundamentally alter the economic and social structure of our time? Shall we then be entitled to bring forward a muzzling order indicating that the House of Commons may have, it may be, 20 days for its work? We shall give a few days extra to prove how generous we are. We shall be a little more generous than the Government of the day. This is a precedent which can be bettered by the Prime Minister's successors and I suggest to him that he is making it much easier for those in future who will want to go much further than the Government of the day.
  The Prime Minister, quite airily, dismissed the fact that both the Scottish and the English Bills are covered by this Motion. Our Amendment points out, how dissimilar are these two Bills. There may be a precedent, but I cannot suggest a precedent in this case. Many hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies on this side of the House, and I hope on the other side of the House, will have something to say of the brutality of the proposal to include in this guillotine Motion Scottish conditions as well as English conditions. While leaving that matter to others who represent Scottish divisions, let me recall to the House what is meant by some of the proposals in the Prime Minister's Motion. On the fourth day, we are to dispose of seven Clauses, and they are to be disposed of in about 3½ hours. Generally speaking, it is 4 o'clock before we can get to the Committee stage of a Bill, allowing for other matters which transpire. On the sixth day, we are to dispose of 10 Clauses in 3½ hours, and on the eleventh day we are to dispose of 16 Clauses in 3½ hours. In some 14 hours of Parliamentary time we are to dispose of 39 Clauses. That is reducing House of Commons service to a farce. It is not legislation; it is pantomime. We shall contest the right of the Government of the day to suppress and muzzle the Opposition by proposals of this kind. While accepting the general argument that some understanding or arrangement, some reasonable time-table is essential for the benefit of the House, we reject the view that on every occasion a Tory Government has the right, because of the size of its majority, practically to suppress all
  1962
  reasonable discussion in detail, and I am certain that hon. Members behind me will go readily into the Lobby in opposition to this Motion.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The Prime Minister has not been as fortunate in his quotations or his precedents as usually he is. The quotation which he chose from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was singularly unfortunate, in view of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made to-day. I will trouble the House with the complete quotation. Speaking on the hybrid Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the present Foreign Secretary said:
  "The briefer his observations, the more merry his mood, the more mellifluous the language and the language in which he commends his Motion to the House, the greater the outrage lie proposes to perpetrate upon the ancient privileges of Members."
  Some hon. Friends of mine have ventured to incorporate the last phrase in our Amendment with regard to this Motion. Not only was the phrase singularly inappropriate, but the precedents quoted are weaker than usual. I understood the Prime Minister to refer to the precedent when three Bills were put in one Motion, but if he had carefully verified the precedent I do not think he would find that it would stand in this particular case. If he looks at the Motion in regard to the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Bills which were put in one Motion he will find three great distinctions between the three Bills which were included in that Motion and the Motion before the House to-day. The first distinction is that the time-table then was not a time-table for the Committee stage of the three Bills but a time-table to deal with the Committee stage of one Bill and the Financial Resolution of two others. The Motion referred to three Bills, which had already been discussed many times in the country and in this House. They had passed through the House in all their different stages twice previously and tie House had been warned in the previous Session when sending the Bill to another place that if it was rejected such a time-table would be brought in in order to ensure that the full operation of the Parliament Act should not be lost. I think, therefore, the Prime Minister

  1963
  was unwise to choose as his precedent the second one, which is' not an analogy at all.
  If the Prime Minister will verify the only precedent that can be in any way comparable to the present Motion, namely, the precedent when the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman linked together in one Guillotine Motion the Committee stages of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill and the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, he will find that there are very great major differences between the conditions then and now. I should like to quote to the House the exact words which were used by Sir Henry Cammpbell-Bannerman when introducing that Motion, which is the only Motion of the kind, so far as my researches have gone, that appears in the Journals of the House, and the only precedent which the Prime Minister can manage to find for the Motion, which we consider An outrage, to-day. Speaking on the 12th February, 1908, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said:
  "The Motion proposes a more summary method than we have been accustomed to. It is undoubtedly a novelty, and it is therefore necessary that I should justify what is an unusual proceeding. That justification I find amply provided in the circumstances of the case. I am glad to say that I think I can make good the justification and explain the circumstances without any reference to the controversial merits of either of these two Bills and without any reproach addressed to either of the Houses with respect to their dealings with this matter."
  He then went into the history of the two Bills, with which I will not trouble the House. Suffice it to say, that the difference between this Motion and the Motion which was proposed by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman is, first of all, that the Bills included in the 1908 Motion were two small Bills analogous in character and allied in nature. The present Deputy-Speaker pointed out in the Debate in 1913, when this precedent of 1908 was quoted as a precedent for the 1913 Motion, that the Bills included in the 1908 Motion were allied in nature and affected the same country. There is this further difference, that those Bills had been discussed in this House and they had been discussed in the country a great deal more than they have been discussed in the House, for long years. One of them had been rejected in the previous Session by the
  1964
  House of Lords, and the other had been so drastically amended that the Government of the day regarded it as being worthless. They were two comparatively small Bills. There is no justification in Parliamentary precedent for 'a Motion of the kind now made by the Prime Minister, which links in one Guillotine Motion two major Bills which have never been before the country, which have never been asked for by the country, and which are only produced now after a long and tardy disinclination on the part of the Government to recognise the drastic nature of our unemployment situation.
  If the Prime Minister complains that he is bound to adopt so drastic a Time-table at this late stage of the life of this Parliament, I would say that it is not the fault of His Majesty's Oppositions it is the fault of the Prime Minister and the Government. For four long years continuous pleas have been made from benches below and above the Gangway on this side of the House that grave cognisance should be taken of the state of the necessitous areas and the conditions of rating in those areas and its effect upon unemployment in those areas. What has been the result 4 I remember my late friend, a most respected Member of this House, Trevelyan Thomson, standing in this spot and making a speech—I think it was the one previous to the last speech which he made in this House—and I remember the retort of the Minister of Health to the plea of my hon. Friend for relief to be given to the necessitous areas. The Minister of Health described the late Member for Middlesbrough, West, as "the lugubrious Member for West Middlesbrough." That was because the Government did not realise the gravity of the situation in regard to unemployment. For four long years they have failed to do anything of a nature calculated to relieve the situation. The result is that we are now faced, in the last six months of this Parliament, with two great Measures, one of 115 Clauses and the other of 61 Clauses, affecting England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. Even if the 20 days for each Bill which we ask for in our Time-table were allowed, and all those days were occupied, hundreds of details which are necessary for discussion, if a greater mass of anomalies and misunderstandings are not to arise when these Bills are operating,

  1965
  would be undiscussed. It would take much more than the 20 days for discussion, and certainly much more than the 13 and eight days respectively which are allowed for in the Government's Timetable.
  There is no real precedent for the Government's Motion. There is no real precedent for putting in one guillotine Motion two major Measures, especially major Measures so vast in size, so complex in character, so multifarious in their effects upon parishes, rural and urban. Further, we recall the fact that after the days which were spent discussing the Second Readings and the Financial Resolutions of the two Bills, there are grave outstanding issues which have never yet been discussed. Last night I called attention to the startling fact that neither on the Second Reading of the English Bill nor of the Scottish Bill, nor on the Financial Resolution of the English Bill and of the Scottish Bill had there been five minutes' discussion of the gravest financial issue, namely, the effect of the loss of rates upon the rate-raising power of every individual local authority in the land. When we consider the drastic nature of the changes proposed for England and Wales and the unprecedented nature of the financial changes, and the fact that the Minister of Health has changed his mind since the Bill was introduced, one begins to realise something of the gravity and complexity of the position. The Minister of Health began by describing those who failed to understand the complexity of the formula as either stupid or lazy. He has changed his attitude, and he now gives us illustrations. He must have been reading Tennyson:
  "Where truth in closest words shall fail, there truth
  Embodied in a tale shall enter in at lowly door."
  The right hon. Gentleman has given us hundreds of illustrations. He finds that not only hon. Members on this side but hon. Members on his own side and hundreds of thousands of people outside do not understand the meaning of the formula, and therefore he has begun issuing illustrations. We have had illustrations of all kinds of losses by the application of the formula, but we have had no illustration to show what the effect will be of the loss of rates in regard
  1966
  to the rate-raising power of the county councils, the county borough councils, the non-county boroughs, the urban districts, the rural districts and the parishes generally.
  There is no case whatever for linking up the Scottish Bill and the English Bill in one Motion. If it be said with some semblance of truth that there is a similarity in the financial proposals of the scheme, the extra time demanded by the Opposition can be justified fully when it is realised how vast are the structural changes in the administration proposed by the Scottish Bill. The method of administration of local government in. Scotland is entirely different from that in England and when we realise that there is only one link in both Bills to cover the major proposals—namely, a desire to get a medical bureaucracy, an idealistic scheme, with all these local public health services under one roof, which means that we are going to have many more whole-time medical officers of health than before—then the time allotted is hopelessly inadequate. The House may regard this medical bureaucracy as wise or otherwise, but it should not pass it without knowing what it is doing. The proposal to take over the school medical services in Scotland was turned down by the Onslow Commission in connection with English local government; and there is no case for widening the area of charge for education in Scotland. When all these points are considered the words of the Amendment we have tabled to the Motion are not one whit too strong; that it is an outrage upon the ancient privileges and liberties of this House—using the words which the present Foreign Secretary used in connection with a similar Motion in 1913—to link these two major Measures together in one Guillotine Motion and present a Time Table which, in both cases, is utterly inadequate to enable the thousand detailed questions which will arise to be properly discussed on the Committee stage.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has stated clearly and emphatically our general opposition to this Motion and I should like to deal specifically with the Time Table so far as it affects Scotland. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of my- few observa-

  1967
  tions as this may be the last occasion we may have of rescuing local administration in Scotland from chaos and collapse; as we on this side think. The Motion proposes to allot 13 days of Parliamentary time to the Committee stage of the English Bill; and in those 13 days we have to discuss two major changes in public administration, Poor Law and the roads. On the Scottish Bill we are to get eight days only and in those eight days we are asked to discuss not only Poor Law and the roads but changes in the major health services in the small burghs, the whole business of our education authorities, our district committees, our boards of control, our police administration, our standing joint committees and our commissioners of supply. Even if it is right and proper to allot 13 days to the English Bill dealing with two subjects of local administration—it is not enough by any means—surely it is grotesquely unfair to allot eight days only for the discussion of some 10 fundamental changes in Scottish administration. Already I believe there are proposals, some of them to be moved by the Secretary of State himself or on behalf of the Scottish Office, for amending the Bill, where it deals with the election of members to parish councils and the compulsory unification of burghs and counties. There are also proposals for an alteration in the most important section of the Clause dealing with education—that is with religious education. These proposals have already been made from the Government side and taken alone they are so fundamental that I suggest it would take eight days to deal with them adequately. But when in addition to that we are to have the entire business of local government in Scotland recast in little more than half the time that is allotted to the English Bill I am certain the Secretary of State, if he gives the matter closer consideration, will be able to propose sonic concession.
  On the first day in Committee he proposes to allot for the discussion of instructions and Clauses 1 and 2, three and a half hours. To deal with what To deal with the question of wiping out parish councils and boards of control; burial grounds; the ownership of church property and churchyards; the aboli-
  1968
  tion of district committees of the county councils, the taking away of major health services from the small burghs, classified roads, and the commissioners of supply. That is all in three and a half hours. I put it to the Secretary of State that as there cannot be more than two or three speeches from either side of the House in that time it is impossible to put before the Committee the point of view of the Royal burghs and the police burghs, the point of view of the county councils and district committees and other local authorities in the time alloted. Then after half-past seven o'clock we are allotted three hours in which to recast our system of control of education in Scotland, to deal with new and important changes in regard to religious instruction; with the police; with registration; with the Catholic churches; the Standing Joint Committees; the transfer of property and offices and the Superannuation Fund. That has all to be dealt with between half-past seven and half-past ten at night. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the time allotted for the discussion of these important matters is grotesquely and absurdly inadequate.
  Take the second day. Three and a half hours are allotted for dealing with the reconstruction of county councils and their representation; the compulsory unification of burghs and counties, and the Statutory powers to be given to the Secretary of State—very important powers, for he takes power even to make Statutes himself. In the succeeding three hours the Secretary of State proposes to deal with all the work of the education committees, their powers and functions, with police, with Poor Law committees, with the principle of co-option—a new principle in our local government—the proportion of Catholic and Protestant representation which is to be co-opted on these committees—all this in three hours. Without attempting to make party capital I say that it is grossly improper to suggest that the whole business of local government in Scotland should be recast without proper discussion, indeed, without any discussion at all, in the two days which the right hon. Gentleman has allotted. We have heard a great deal about precedents. I suggest that no ancient wrong makes a modern right. Without even discussing them we shall

  1969
  not have an opportunity of registering a vote on many of the Amendments. In the interests of efficient local administration in Scotland, which must go on whether under the present system or under the new system, I suggest that eight days is a grossly insufficient amount of time for the discussion of Scottish local government. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to meet us and will extend the time allotted.
  Captain MACMILLAN: It is a matter of some gratification to hon. Members on this side to find so high a regard for precedent entertained by hon. Members of the Socialist party. It is encouraging to find this strong constitutional feeling, which we have always thought existed, among hon. Members opposite and I am glad it has been so well illustrated this afternoon. I rise in order to make one or two observations on the Motion before the House. It will be admitted, I think, that the procedure of the House of Commons in modern times calls for some kind of Time Table for the regulation of discussion in the Committee stage of all great Measures. It would be rather presumptuous of me, a very young Member of the House, to go into the details of our procedure, but I think everyone will agree that it is not possible to conduct our affairs to-day without some kind of time table for regulating discussion. To lay down a Time Table in connection with a Measure of first-rate public importance from the beginning is I think a much more sensible and satisfactory procedure than to allow long discussions on the first and second Clauses under the old procedure and then institute a Guillotine Motion which has the effect of reducing the time available for the later parts of the Bill. Apart from ordinary party feeling, I think we shall all agree that a. Time Table of some kind is necessary if we are to have any adequate and proper discussion of these important matters.
  I venture, however, to record a protest against the actual time table which has been laid down in the Motion. I quite agree that the method of proceeding by time table is a wise one. On the whole, it tends to lead to discussion of those Amendments which are of substantial importance and to the avoidance of long and ineffective discussion of
  1970
  points the discussion of which is not likely to be useful. But the time table laid down here is rather on the brutal side. For instance, in regard to the English Bill, we are asked to discuss in three hours the whole of the first five Clauses, that is to say three hours for discussing the sweeping away of the old system of Poor Law administration in this country, and the constituting of a new system. For Clauses 6 to 8 we are again given only three hours. When we get to very important Clauses like Clauses 13 to 17—Clause 13 is the very important Clause dealing with the recovery of expenses, and Clause 15 deals with the whole of the administration affecting London—we are given only from 4 o'clock to 7.30 for the discussion.
  The Bill should bring about a very great improvement, and I feel that, taken as a whole, it will be of the greatest advantage to the country, but I do think that there are a great number of minor Amendments that should be moved and should have adequate discussions in the House. I would like to say quite humbly, but still firmly, that I do not think I can support the time-table as laid down. I appeal for a rather longer period for the discussion of perfectly legitimate Amendments which are already on the Paper—Amendments which represent the important views of great associations of local authorities. It is right that they should be discussed on the Floor of the House. It is quite clear that the technique, the procedure of modern legislation, is altering in its character. It is quite true that in great Measures of this kind a great deal of the real Committee work takes place, not on the Floor of the House, but outside the House. We know quite well that any Minister engaged on any great Measure of this kind has to deal by private negotiation with very many questions that arise.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean by that statement the addressing of his own supporters by the Minister upstairs, or what does he mean?
  Captain MACMILLAN: In many Measures of this kind, the associations of the various local bodies that are concerned, the association of municipal authorities and of urban district councils, and so on, carry on their discussions with

  1971
  the Minister outside this House. I recognise that, and I think the procedure is inevitable. I am not speaking in a party sense. But at the same time I think that the actual time given to the House to discuss this Measure is inadequate. While I quite agree that a time-table is necessary, and while it is obvious that a Measure of this kind would be obstructed almost indefinitely under the old procedure, I urge upon the Government that we should be given something more than the rather inadequate time which is provided by the Motion. Therefore I hope that in the course of the Debate some concession may be given which will allow us to give more detailed and adequate consideration to Clauses of the greatest importance, so that the great number of Amendments already on the Paper may be adequately discussed, and we may have a chance of putting forward the views of various interests as they ought to be put forward on a Bill of this kind. I hope that the Government will see their way to give some concession and so ensure that the Bill shall not run the risk of being passed in a form in which harm and injury may be done owing to inadequate discussion, and that all the relevant and important points may be put forward in the way that they ought to be put forward.
  Mr. BENN: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken indicated that we were faced with the problem of how we were to deal with the enormous mass of legislation without a time-table. I am cordially in agreement with him there. First of all let us look at this Motion. We must understand that at present the House's concern is in considering whether it will permit two Departments, the Scottish Department and the Health Department to impose a time-table upon it. The representatives of the two Departments are present. But the House has also a champion of its own. The Prime Minister is not merely Prime Minister, but the Leader of the House, and although he is now bound to be absent, we understand for some public engagement, at the same time he certainly should provide for us on the Government Front Bench a representative of our rights, and not merely the two criminals who are proposing this Motion. How can we expect the Minister
  1972
  of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland to be sympathetic to anything that we may say? They are the people who are erecting the scaffold and sharpening the knife, and we should have a champion of our own cause in the Prime Minister, who is not merely Prime Minister and a party leader, but also Leader of the House, which means that in a special sense he is the champion and representative of our privileges.
  Certainly no one would deny that this is a pretty drastic instrument that is proposed. If the Chief Whip were here no doubt he would take some justifiable pride in stopping every hole and corner and avoiding the possibility of surprise. On a brief glance at the Motion I see breaches of no fewer than 10 of our Standing Orders. By that I mean that no fewer than 10 Standing Orders are being overridden in the last part of the Motion. I shall not deal with them all, because that would be too tedious, but I will take four. First of all, Friday is to be treated as an ordinary day. It is a pretence to say that we have a Parliamentary day between 11 and 3.30 on a Friday. The arrangement means that the whole of the Scottish Bill, for example on Third Reading, would be disposed of, and by the time you have had the speeches of the Government there will he only two or three hours remaining for Members from all parts of Scotland to express their opinions. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the least idea of the indignation that is being generated in that country. I am an Englishman, hut I reside in a country district of Scotland, and I have represented a Scottish constituency for 10 years. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is making a very grave mistake if he supposes that there is anything but seething indignation among people in Scotland, some of it justified, and some unjustified but still existing and by no means wholly among those who support the Socialist and Labour party.
  The next point is that, certain Amendments may be considered, not by means of ordinary Debate, but by procedure which we commonly call the Ten Minutes' Rule. There is to be a brief statement by one representative of the Government, and one representative of the Opposition. Although there are two

  1973
  Oppositions in the House only one statement is to be permitted in opposition to the Motion that may be made by the Government. The limitations that are applied for leave to introduce Bills at a quarter to four o'clock are to be imposed. Next, no dilatory Motion or Motion to recommit the Bill may be made at all, except by the Government. Yet we are to deal with a Bill that is full of complications. It may very well be that at some stage the Government will find themselves in difficulties. The ordinary practice of the House then is for the Opposition to move that the Chairman report progress. No such Motion is to be permitted; the ordinary rights which we have are to be taken from us.
  The last of the 10 points is this: A series of Clauses may be put in one question. That, I consider, is about the worst offence in the whole of the Motion. Within the limits of the time-table the Chairman might put Clauses 1 to 20, the question being "That those Clauses stand part of the Bill," and we shall be compelled to vote Aye or No. As a matter of fact I think that the arguments based in precedent are to a large extent beside the point, because we are aiming now at doing something for which the original Closure was never intended. When the Closure was first introduced, it was aimed at a party whose professed object was to bring Parliamentary Government to an end. Therefore, however brutal it was, the Closure was justified in defence of the life of the House. There is no such party to-day. The whole of the machinery, from the Closure to the Kangaroo, the selection of Amendments by the Chairman and the Guillotine, was aimed at obstruction. No experienced Parliamentary hand would say that in this Parliament, or indeed in any of the last three Parliaments, there has been what can be called systematic Parliamentary obstruction. There has been a great deal of detailed Debate and objection made, but there has never been obstruction as the late Mr. John Redmond and Mr. Dillon used to make it. The precedents the Prime Minister quoted, of the Guillotine Motions passed to facilitate the progress of the legislation of the Liberal party in 1913–14, were precedents of Motions that were aimed at obstruction, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows well, not only obstruc-
  1974
  tion, but the grossest disorder was exhibited by hon. Gentlemen opposite, such as the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India, who were then given to denouncing the Labour party, though as a fact it is the best-mannered and the mildest Opposition, and almost a subservient Opposition. The precedents are not relevant. We are dealing as House of Commons men of all parties with the problem of how to get through business in a given time, whereas those Motions were aimed at a party whose object was to destroy an institution which we all respect.
  5.0 p.m.
  The last general observation that one can make is that some measure of legislative devolution is required. That is always said on these occasions. The establishment of the Irish Free State liberated this House from a great deal of detailed Parliamentary work. The signs in the sky already point to further devolution, as was shown by the Rectorial election at Glasgow University. The Government and all sections of Scottish opinion would do well to see whether the time has not come to attempt to meet the undeniable demand of Scotland for some legislative control of its own affairs. It is not necessary to do that on this occasion. When this problem was originally tackled in 1908 the Liberal Government of that day set up the Standing Committees. They were established for the express purpose of relieving this House of some of the Committee work. If the Secretary of State for Scotland would send the Scottish Bill to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills we should save eight days in these Debates. Why will he not do so? I have never had an answer to that question. I would remind him that that Committee does not consist of entirely of Scottish Members. He need not be apprehensive. It is true that, on the Scottish vote, the Bill has been defeated every time it has been presented to this House, but the right hon. Gentleman has 15 English Members to rely upon as added Members on the Scottish Grand Committee. By referring the Bill to that Committee, not only should we save eight days on this time-table, but the desires of the hon. and gallact Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) would be satisfied. The Government ought to take the means

  1975
  available to them for avoiding a congestion of business in this House by remitting the Scottish Bill, as it ought to be remitted, to the Scottish Committee. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out that this was a new precedent. We have been travelling along this road of the Guillotine, the Closure, and the Motion for the allocation of time for a good many years. The Government were in a position to grapple with the problem in a businesslike way. They might have set up a Committee. They might have called the Oppositions into consultation with them to deal with it, but they have preferred to go further than any other Government has ever gone in the method of the guillotine. Some other Government will go further.
  There is one step that has not yet been taken and that is to guillotine a Finance Bill. The Budget of 1909, although a most contentious Budget, was fought through this House for a great number of days—I think 109 days—without the Guillotine. That will not persist. The next thing that will happen, based upon this precedent, will be a Socialist Finance Bill passed through this House by the Guillotine, and then see where you will be! [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes just see where you will be then. Even if you succeeded in robbing Mr. Speaker of his voice in deciding what is a Finance Bill, this would be a real Finance Bill, a Bill which any Committee, even a Committee weighted with Tory opinion, would certify as a Money Bill, and it would be passed. Just fancy a Finance Bill with any number of Clauses being put in one question as is provided for in this Guillotine Motion. Just imagine a Chairman being able to put five or six or ten taxing Clauses in one question and everybody being compelled to vote "Aye" or "No." This is a very dangerous thing to do, and I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whose courtesy in attending the Debate I readily acknowledge—that it would be far better to withdraw this Motion and make a genuine attempt to provide for a new problem which is not the meeting of obstruction, but the allocation of time as between the various sections of the House. I submit that it would be far better to do so, than to force through this very severe instrument,
  1976
  which may be used with terrific effect against the authors of its own being.
  Mr. HARNEY: If the good sense of the House does not set a limit to the exercise of the Guillotine it may go to very dangerous lengths. I see no reason why the Prime Minister, with his majority behind him, should not declare that he will only give one day to the whole of these Measures and compel the House to accept such a Motion. Therefore it is important that hon. Members should realise the significance of a precedent of this kind. What is the position? We have here two Bills which are very long and highly complicated. I speak with no disrespect when I say that there are not many in this House who really understand both of them. I am certain there are not 5 per cent. of people in the country who understand them, and I am sure I will have the agreement of everybody who is not actuated by party feeling when I say that it would require, not 30 but 50 days to thresh out thoroughly all the implications and all the indirect effects of these Measures. Even if you had one Bill there would be a strong objection to this allocation of time but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) pointed out in a most interesting and able speech, we are going further now than any Government has ever gone before. These Bills deal with the local government of two distinct countries—a local government that has grown up in each during centuries, and a local government that in each of those countries has a different history and different characteristics. Both these Bill are locked together and the whole of this legislation is to be cleared off the debating boards in some 20 or 30 days discussion.
  The excuse given by the Prime Minister for this haste makes the matter worse. Had he said that through outside circumstances it was necessary to get this done for the good of the country, one might understand it. But that is not the excuse. What he says is that an Election is coming on and that it is necessary to hurry this business so as to have it completed before the Election. But why start it so close to the Election? Why try to put into the eleventh hour what should occupy half-a-dozen hours? Of course the truth is—and the country ought to know it—that the reason why

  1977
  we are faced with this legislation is this. The Minister of Health has always been anxious to reform local government and there is no blame to him at all, in that. He showed his desire to reform local government in the Committee stage of the Measure of 1925, but the country turned it down and Conservative Members were among the people who turned it down. It was only a few months ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having, I fancy, read the Yellow Book, saw that there was great electoral value in de-rating. [Interruption.] The hon. Member affects not to know what the Yellow Book is. It is not because you are on that side that you should speak of the Yellow Book as though, indeed, you viewed it with a jaundiced eye.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I would ask the hon. and learned Member to address his remarks to the subject before the House—and to the Chair.
  Mr. HARNEY: I am sorry, I was replying to an interruption. As I say, it was by means of the Yellow Book—the statement of Liberal policy—that the value of these de-rating proposals was brought home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having decided to take advantage of them, the right hon. Gentleman must have said to the Minister of Health "Your proposal could not get through by itself, so link it with mine." That is why we are now confronted with this Motion which seeks to take all the stages of this legislation with a hop, skip and jump. Though I know it is useless to do so I desire to enter my protest.
  As regards the allocation of time itself if it is decided that we are to have no more time for the English Bill than is proposed here, I think it could be better allocated. The two parts of the Bill which raise the greatest controversy are Parts 1 and 6. The things that will raise controversy will be first, the Poor Law provisions and then the financial provisions. On the Poor Law, the Liberals, for example, will want to say that it would be far better to make unemployment a national charge. That leaves room for a great deal of discussion. On the other side of the House, a number of rural Members will want to discuss the abolition of the boards of guardians.
  1978
  Then there would be the question of the constitution of the public assistance committees. Those are three big questions arising on the Poor Law part of the Bill. Other big questions will arise on the financial Clauses of the Bill and these ought to take a great deal of time. As regards the registration Clauses, and what I may call the machinery parts of the Bill, I think, since we are to be limited as to time, they might be passed over very quickly. But a big proportion of time ought to be given to the Poor Law and the financial parts respectively. We on these benches would be glad to co-operate with Members in other parts of the House to try to fix the Time Table so as to meet the requirements of debate better than the present proposal—that is if the Government are determined that no further time will be allowed. Perhaps it may be possible for some of us to put our heads together and see whether we cannot agree on another Time Table.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Signor Benito Mussolini can, of course, deal with the Italian Parliament on these lines successfully, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that Signor Mussolini has a great advantage over him. He can muzzle discussion, not merely in Parliament but outside it, whereas the right hon. Gentleman can only succeed in preventing discussion in this House. The very fact that under this Resolution we are making Parliament ridiculous and preventing any opportunity for free discussion in the Mother of Parliaments, will certainly compel all who are opposed to the Bill to make redoubled efforts to convince the country that the country is right in its present interpretation of what this Bill is going to do. I sympathise with the Government completely. I quite understand the necessity for this Resolution. I cannot vote with them but I can sympathise with them. Without this Resolution it would be quite impossible to get this Bill passed into law. No Bill of this magnitude has ever been passed into law with so few friends behind it. The back benchers are, of course, absent and the only friends who have stood up for this Bill are the shareholders of the brewery companies. Even the landlords have not come out as they ought to have done in support of the right hon. Gentleman. You have in this case, not, Athanasius contra mundum but

  1979
  the brewery shareholders against the entire public opinion and Press of this country.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will show me how he connects this with the time to be allocated for these Bills.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, Sir. Without the Time Table, how could the brewery shareholders get their Bill? Considering the unpopularity of this Measure and the growing hostility to it in the country—certainly at every meeting which I have attended—there is no possibility of getting it through, without a Guillotine Resolution. Naturally, the Government are bound to bring in this Resolution. At the same time, I think they will appreciate that everyone who still believes that the British Parliament, at any rate, should be free to discuss legislation and to assist in framing the Government's Measures will have to vote against this Resolution and will have to see that the effect of this legislation is made clear in the country, where, at any rate, the people will soon have an opportunity of pronouncing upon it.
  The real difficulty of the Government in this Resolution is to discover which Part to closure most firmly. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) wishes to have Parts I and VI discussed. I give him Parts I and VI. The only Part that I would like to have discussed at considerable length is Part V, which is passed over in one day under this Resolution; and there too I sympathise with the Government. It is a most dangerous Part of the Bill upon which to allow discussion, for the more discussion there is, the more certainly will the electorate, when they have a chance, say what they think of this Government. Part V is the blessed Part of the Bill in which de-rating takes place upon breweries and landlords, and all the time, every moment while this Bill is going through, unfortunate householders are having their assessments shoved up against them. That is what makes Part V so peculiarly desirable to censor out, to strangle. They must not have the opportunity of showing the electors of this country the connection between Part V and the increased assessments for rating purposes which are being put upon
  1980
  their houses all over the country. In my unfortunate borough they have raised the assessments from £70,000 to £80,000 a year, and every one of those people want to know why. We should have the opportunity of explaining why on Part V, if we could discuss it, but we shall not be allowed to discuss it. We shall discuss it in the country, but not here. We shall not be able to have the Government's answer. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary has a very satisfactory answer, but we shall never know it.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): You will!
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman may tell me privately, but my poor constituents will never hear his explanation, and they will, with the more unanimity, vote for me. One result of stifling discussion in this House will be that the people will hear the case of the Opposition, but not the case of the Government.
  Mr. SHINWELL: The Government have no case.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is one of the reasons why it is so essential to censor out any possibility of discussion, but if the Government think they have a case, if they think it is possible to state in clear language for the benefit of the electors what this Bill means and how it will help them, I assure them that, in their own interests, they should give a little longer time in which to have their case stated to the public. As a matter of fact, I have never come across a Measure which aroused so much opposition; we have every local authority, every rural district and urban district circularising Members of Parliament and writing personal letters in opposition to this Bill. It is exceedingly difficult to amend it. I have been through every Clause in order to draft Amendments, but they are very difficult to draft, and when you have put on paper something that does express the views of the people who are being suppressed, the views of the smaller local authorities which are going to suffer for the benefit of bureaucracy and efficiency under this scheme, you are to have no opportunity whatever of stating the case here in the House of Commons.

  1981
  I suggest that a Bill of this nature, pushed through in this way, is an undesirable precedent, not from the point of view of His Majesty's Opposition or of party politics, but from the point of view of the Government themselves and of the country as a whole. We in this country have managed to preserve, in a wave of reaction against Parliamentary rule that has been going through the world, some respect for Parliament and for democracy and some opportunity to carry on, on our old-established lines, the Government of the Empire. But I am afraid that the Mussolini policy has infected certain Members of the Government. You could not have a better example of Mussolini-ism than a Guillotine Resolution which prevents any form of discussion in this House.
  Mr. SKELTON: I rise to make two observations, one on general lines and one more specifically dealing with the Resolution. What I want to say on the general topic of the guillotine is that, speaking from my own limited experience of Parliament and my own observation here, I am satisfied that a time table, well arranged and adequate, is not a disadvantage, but really advantages Parliamentary Debate. It is an example of the natural power of growth in our Constitution that a change which was introduced merely as a somewhat undesirable expedient is now growing into a Parliamentary form which, in my judgment at least, acids to and does not detract from the value of Parliamentary discussion. The other observation of a general sort is that I should like to see, in all important Bills, a time table set up, and set up as it has been in the case of this Bill, not after one or two days possibly have been spent in prolonged discussion upon Clauses which may not be of great importance, but set up before the Bill reaches its Committee stage.
  I should further like to add that, in my judgment, the most desirable method of perfecting the use of the time table would be that after a Government—and this applies equally to whatever party is in power—has decided to set up a time table, there should be a small Committee of all sections of the House gathered together to discuss, in a friendly and useful way, the proper allocation of the time available. In that way, I
  1982
  believe it will be found—I say "it will," because I have no doubt that some such development will take place in the course of time—that Parliamentary discussion has improved, that a general conspectus and view of the Bill is arrived at before it reaches the Committee stage, and that the House as a whole is able to concentrate its attention upon the more vital matters in the Bill.
  The one particular observation that I desire to make has reference to the Scottish Bill. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider whether some more time could not be given. I do not propose to elaborate that, but I cannot believe that, say, another one or two Parliamentary days will be time wasted. I think that needs no elaboration, nor does it need any comparison of the different features of the Scottish and English Bills.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Why does not the hon. Gentleman agree with the suggestion made from this side that the Scottish Bill should be sent to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills?
  Mr. SKELTON: I am not proposing to discuss that, and I very much doubt whether it would be in order. The hon. Member's question seems to have absolutely no bearing on the topic I was discussing. [Interruption.] T am not in the least afraid to answer any question the hon. Member may put to me, but I am afraid to answer irrelevant interruptions that have nothing to do with the topic. Even if, as I trust may be the case, some further time is given to the Scottish Measure, I hope my right hon. Friend will give to the first few Clauses, that is to say, down to the end of Clause 9 certainly, proportionately more time than is given in the present time table, and for this reason, that these Clauses include the provisions for the abolition of both the parish councils and the education authorities, and they also include the very important question of the reconstitution and election of the county councils. Apart from the financial provisions, these early Clauses, therefore, embody some of the most important matters in the Bill, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to take these matters into full consideration. With regard to the question that has been raised from the other side, as to

  1983
  whether or not this Bill should go to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, it seems to me to be one of the most ludicrous efforts to offer an insult to the country which some of us represent that its matters, when they are of such importance as are those in this Bill, should not be considered by the whole of the united Parliament.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not altogether disagree in regard to what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton) has just said with regard to time tables. Time tables as such may he necessary for carrying on the work of the House in certain circumstances, but when we look at this particular time table and at the circumstances in which it has been set up, I think it will be seen that it is open to very grave criticism indeed. As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has already pointed out, the precedents quoted by the Prime Minister were not comparable to the present circumstances. The circumstances surrounding the precedent of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act being linked with the Land Values (Scotland) Act under one Guillotine Motion were very different from the circumstances of to-day. Those two Measures had been discussed in this House, had been to another place, had been discussed in the country, and the principles with which they dealt were thoroughly well understood and had been canvassed up and down the country; whereas, with regard to the Bills which are now before us, it is impossible for anyone to suggest for a moment that they have been discussed or are at all understood in the country.
  I have given a good many hours already to trying to understand these Bills, and it is my business as a Member of this House to understand them, but I must confess that there are many points on which I want further enlightenment before I can say that I really understand them. May I point out to the Secretary of State for Scotland that when I was in my constituency just before the House met, we could only discuss the proposals—we had not then got the Bill before us to discuss—and now, before I have been able to get back to my constituents to discuss it with them, we are having this Time-table imposed upon us, and a Time-
  1984
  table which you have only to look at to see how inadequate it is to the needs of the Bill. Look at the first assignment. of time, of three and three-quarter hours to Clauses 1 and 2, two of the most important Clauses in the Bill, dealing with the whole structure of local government in Scotland, with the transfer of the functions of the parish councils and the whole question raised in the functions of small burghs. Then go on to the next allocation, and you get Clauses 3 to 7, dealing with the whole of the education question, and only three hours given.
  We want to discuss these matters thoroughly. I frankly say that I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, but, having done that, and realising that the Bill is going to become the law of the land, I am going to do my best, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked, by my criticisms, to make it an effective and workable Measure. But how shall I be able to do that if only three hours are to be given for discussing that question? To go back to the first allocation of Clauses 1 and 2, the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that he is going to make a change, and a very material change, in the Bill as it has already been presented. We do not know what that change is, and we do not know how it will affect us, but it will be a very vital change. And yet only three hours are to be given for discussion by people who are anxious to improve the Bill and to make it a workable Measure. I should like to reinforce the appeal of the hon. Member for Perth for more time for Scotland. Only eight days have been allotted for the Scottish Bill, and not a Member for Scotland will not' agree that this is entirely inadequate. We ought to have 10, and probably 12, days in order to discuss the Bill properly, and I ask every Scottish Member who speaks to do his best to see that the Scottish Bill has a fair allowance of time.
  Sir EDMUND TURTON: We all appreciate the Liberal spirit of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), which means that he has practically promised to give the best of his ability to make the Bill a good and workable Measure, although he was not able to vote for the Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman appealed for more time for Scotland. I venture to ask the

  1985
  Government whether it would not be possible to afford a longer period for a proper and full discussion of the English Bill. May I remind the House that for five-and-a-half years a Royal Commission, of which I was a Member, has been sitting to investigate all the different points concerned with local government, looking at it, not at all from the point of view of politics, but with the sole object of arriving at a conclusion on one of the most wonderful assets of this country, namely, good local administration. If we turn back, as I can, to the time when the Local Government Act of 1888 was going through this House, it will be found that there was not such a small amount at time allocated to it as is proposed to be given by the Government for this Bill. There is the great distinction between the Act of 1888 and the present Measure, that the Act was in principle practically an agreed Measure. I was a candidate in the 1885 and 1886 elections, and during both those contests part of my programme was that we should exchange the machinery of local government by magistrates for that of popularly elected bodies. In this Bill there are questions of principle that have divided us.
  I am obliged to inform the House that to-clay I have handed in no less than 26 Amendments on behalf of the county councils of England and Wales. The County Councils Association knows no politics, but they are concerned with this Bill in order to make it a workable and efficient Measure. If when the county councils put forward unanimously 26 Amendments.—and I am sorry to say that in all probability I shall have to bring up a few more—they will have some cause for complaint if they do not receive full and adequate discussion. I am not going to say whether they are good or bad amendments; I can only say that, in the opinion of those who will have to carry out so much of the administrative work of this Bill, they are necessary for the good working of the Measure.
  I should like to ask the Minister of Health whether, in drafting the timetable for the discussion on the financial proposals, he did so on the footing that the municipal corporations and the county councils had come to an agreement with
  1986
  the Government upon those very difficult points. I sincerely hope that the negotiations which are proceeding may come to the definite conclusion which we all desire. I wish to pay testimony to the patience and courtesy which the Minister of Health and those associated with him have shown towards these bodies whenever they have had to appear before them. I regret that the Minister was not able to allow the plea that we put forward that the amount of rateable value should be annually determined. We have to accept, and we do loyally accept, his decision, but at the same time these negotiations have to proceed on a footing that no area will be any less well off by reason of these rating proposals than they were before. I therefore have to ask the Minister whether, if unfortunately the negotiations should not come to a fruitful conclusion, he will give an undertaking that both the Associations of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Associations—and I am able to speak for both—shall have every opportunity of placing before the Committee their views on the financial question.
  With regard to the question of the roads, is it really to be taken that everybody is agreed? At the present time there are no less than three different and distinct views on the question of the unclassified roads. In the White Paper which was issued last summer, in which the proposals of the Government in regard to roads was set out, it was stated clearly and definitely that the county councils were to be the highway authorities. Is it surprising that a majority of the County Councils Association feel that that would be the best solution of the question of the unclassified roads? The rural district councils, we understand, are anxious to keep to the status quo, at any rate, if not that, they desire that the recommendation of the Royal Commission should lie carried out in its entirety. The Government's scheme does not give, even to the majority of the county councils or the rural district councils, what they are asking. In fact, it is not accepted by either. Under these circumstances, surely it is only right and fair that we should ask that this very difficult position should be fully debated in Committee. The Royal Commission have taken an immense amount of evidence on these matters, and all that

  1987
  evidence ought to be available to hon. Members in order that they can arrive at a fair and proper conclusion.
  The Poor Law proposals again obviously must raise very many and difficult questions, and unless all the details are thrashed out in Committee, we shall have the authorities at Whitehall framing regulations under which these new schemes shall be run by the county councils. I have a holy horror of these regulations, and they will have to be investigated; otherwise, the schemes will be model-formed and drawn up by the Minister of Health. There must be a great deal of discussion with regard to the payment of travelling expenses of those attending county councils, and my hon. Friends opposite will, as they are perfectly entitled to do, no doubt move Amendments to provide that sustentation allowance and remuneration for lass of time shall be paid. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheer, but they will do as they have always done in the past—they will spoil the whole show. They cannot help it. The County Councils Association will support them with regard to travelling expenses, but the Association will not support them if they run into a side track. Is it really necessary to allot half a day to a question upon which we are practically agreed, namely that of the registrars and births and marriages? I appeal to the Minister to see if he cannot rearrange this Time-Table in order that we may have less time for that particular subject and more for the, essentials.
  I hope that the House will understand that I am not in favour of obstruction. I suppose that few Members of the House of Commons have had to suffer as I have wider this deadly weapon of obstruction. In one Session for 13 days, Mr. Pringle, Mr. Hogge and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) kept us discussing whether an egg which had come from Siberia or China ought to be marked with the country of origin. I have no sympathy with obstruction, but, speaking as Chairman of the County Councils Association, I say that we have every desire, and a right to demand, that everything shall be fully and fairly
  1988
  discussed. I am an old Master of Hounds, and I never allowed a fox to be chopped in cover; and I appeal to the Prime Minister, who is a sportsman, not to chop this fox in cover, but to let it have a good run. I do not mind making the admission that many of us will have a great deal of difficulty in persuading guardians and rural district councillors that they are not to continue to function in their different offices, but our task will be made ten times more difficult if it goes out from this Chamber that this important Measure has been refused a full, and adequate, discussion.
  Mr. SEXTON: It is refreshing to hear the flutter in the dovecotes of the Government. Of the speeches opposite, two have been opposed in principle to the present Bill, and one has supported it. From the legal point of view, I suppose that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton) treated the House to an expert legal definition of the Bill, which, I assume, he meant to be educational, in order to dispel the ignorance of the ordinary lay mind. There are two kinds of ignorance, however, the illiterate and educated, and of the two the latter, in my opinion, is the worst. I am not an expert, and I have not a legal mind. I wish to enter my protest against a Bill of this character being placed under the Guillotine; it is a Bill with 125 pages—not one Bill merely, but embracing the principles of half-a-dozen Bills which seriously affect not the expert financier, not the expert foreign-policy man but the back benchers, who, except for the generous impartiality of the Chair, would remain the silent Demosthenes of the Debates of this House. We do not—at least, I speak for myself—attempt to intervene in question of high finance or high questions of foreign policy, but leave it to those who profess to know something about those things. But here is a Bill which strikes at the very root of the lives of the people about whom we on these benches do know something, and we wish to have an opportunity of expressing our opinions. I represent, if industrially, three-quarters of a million people who are the industrial Lazaruses of our industrial system, and who will be harder hit by this Bill than will be any other portion of the community, and am I to be denied an opportunity of

  1989
  pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman, acknowledging as we do his knowledge and his humanity, how this Bill affects the lives of these people?
  The Bill affects education, local government in all its branches, unemployment and national health insurance. On the question of the Poor Law, particularly, I would point out that this Bill makes no real change in the Poor Law of this country. It simply transfers all the system of the Poor Law to another body which has a more limited representative capacity than the bodies which control it at the present time. No one is more affected by the Poor Law than the man who is looking for a job and cannot get it. I do not want to repeat myself, but I have described to the House before how the Poor Law affects particularly the ordinary casual labourer. I hope to see a change in the Poor Law, not a mere transfer; I want to see a change which will abolish the brutal conditions which now apply to men looking for work. I hope the House will bear with me while I describe the conditions shortly. The law of this land lays it down that if a man goes on tramp looking for a job and has exhausted the dole and has no money, he has to keep on tramping for 24 hours of the day or go into the first casual ward he reaches.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is travelling outside the subject of the Debate. We cannot go into the question of unemployment.
  Mr. SEXTON: I will try to keep within your ruling. Perhaps I shall get an opportunity later when this particular part of the Bill comes under discussion. I will content myself now by pointing out that under the terms of this Guillotine Motion I and my friends who know intimately, by hard, practical experience, how things can be remedied, will be prevented from dealing with the lot of that section of the community who, as I say, is worst hit by this Bill than any other. We are, of course, I say it with deep feeling, very grateful to the experts on the Front Bench who deal with other questions, but often the official list of Amendments affords no opportunity for us personally to deal with these questions.
  My only reason for rising is to make my protest against being denied the
  1990
  opportunity of dealing with questions about which we back benchers do know something and wish to see redressed. The right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him might as well confess at once that this Measure is a camouflage to cover the past record of the Government. At the last Election they came out with flying colours, with a red letter; this time the S.O.S. is to be a red herring. As a matter of fact, their record proves that they have so overloaded the ship of State that her scuppers are awash, to-day there are even signs of the crew mutinying, and some of the rats are leaving the ship. Lord Birkenhead, the brains of the movement, has taken to the boats, and it is said that in this respect it is not so much a question of the brains of the movement as the movement of the brains. Right hon. Gentlemen may send out their S.O.S., but it will not be answered this time in the manner they hope for, and they will remain awash, floating about as a mere speck on the political horizon; that will be their reward for the attitude they have taken up towards the working classes of this country.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The business of the Opposition is to oppose, and therefore none of us can feel surprised that on this occasion they should think it necessary to pat forward Amendments to the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I do not think I ever heard a more half-hearted denunciation of a Motion moved by a Government than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). It was quite evident that he was taking care at every step not to say anything which might prevent any Government of the future from making use of what has really by now become an established part of our Parliamentary practice. I entirely agree with an hon. Friend behind who said that he was in favour of applying this practice to all important Parliamentary Measures, and I think that our experience in the past, when we have sometimes allowed the discussion to take its own course for a certain limited time to see how it would go, and then followed on with a Guillotine Resolution, has made it perfectly clear that the first day or two's discussion before the introduction of the

  1991
  Guillotine has been practically so much wasted time. There is nothing revolutionary or unconstitutional or, indeed, undesirable about the practice which lays it down that an important Measure, one in which there are not merely vital principles involved but which also contains a very large field open for the discussion of really trivial matters, should be made the subject of a time-table. The practice is calculated to focus attention on the things which matter, and once a Bill of this kind has passed its Second Reading, and is obviously bound to reach the Statute Book, I think the House adds to its dignity and to its prestige in the country by agreeing to a time-table under which it can decide for itself which are the really salient points of the Bill that ought to have the most attention.
  As I have said before, whether the Guillotine is used wisely or otherwise depends not so much upon the Government as upon the Opposition. If they, in spite of the fact that time on a particular Clause or groups of Clauses is limited, choose to devote that time to discussing matters which are really of no importance, that is their own responsibility. The Government on this occasion, as on others, have allotted sufficient time to enable proper discussion upon all points which really matter. We are not going to be frightened by any suggestion that our action to-day may he used by some other Government hereafter for their own purposes. Even if we had to look forward to that nightmare suggested by the right hon. Member for Platting, I should still remain of the opinion I have just expressed, namely, that the Guillotine is a useful and valuable part of our Parliamentary practice as long as it is not abused.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: That is the point.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member says "That is the point," I am in agreement with him; but the argument raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Guillotine was not a proper part of Parliamentary practice.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) quite clearly said that by agreement he and his friends were prepared to accept some scheme.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was referring to the terms of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman moved, and which says that a Measure of this kind, which affects such vital interests, ought not to be subject to Guillotine procedure. However, I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, that he and his party do not suggest that the Guillotine is not a suitable part of our Parliamentary procedure; and, therefore, the only question we have to discuss now is whether this Motion, in the form in. which we have put it down, is or is not an abuse of the Guillotine procedure. I will take the instances which were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting, who referred to the amount of time allotted on the fourth, the sixth and the eleventh days as instances of the way in which we were endeavouring to rush through a number of Clauses without sufficient discussion. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have studied the nature of those Clauses, and I should like to call the attention of the House to them as evidence of the care and genuine desire of the Government not to waste time on unimportant or non-controversial Clauses, in order that more time might be given to Clauses upon which there is a substantial difference of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said that on the fourth day we were going to discuss seven Clauses in 3½ hours. The Clauses referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were 31 to 38, but I find that there are no Amendments of any substantial importance on the Paper affecting any of those Clauses.
  With regard to the sixth day, the right hon. Gentleman said that 10 Clauses were to be rushed through on that day in 3½hours. The Clauses referred to are 57 to 67, and I find that no less than six of those Clauses have no Amendments put down. As for the other Clauses there are no Amendments of absolutely first-class importance. I think the House would be simply wasting time if it were to allot more time to Clauses upon which nearly everybody is agreed. The last day referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting was the eleventh day on which Clauses 99 to 115 are to be considered. Only 12 Amendments have been put down to those

  1993
  Clauses and none of them are of any substantial importance.
  Mr. HARNEY: No doubt a, good many more Amendments will be put on the Amendment Paper.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAI: I am not arguing that point, and I do not say that we have got all the Amendments down. At any rate, where hon. Members feel very strongly on certain points they have been able to put their Amendments down early, and what has been done up to the present may be taken as a general indication of the Amendments which will be put down.
  Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out that such questions as the transfer of the Peer Law officers raise very vital matters because there are 20,000 or 30,000 officers affected, and surely there ought to be more than three hours' discussion upon questions of that kind.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Those Clauses are drawn much on the same lines as the Clauses in previous Acts of Parliament, and I do not think they need be considered as being controversial. I took the illustrations given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting because they appeared to me to bear testimony to the trouble we have taken to make a fair allocation of the time. After all we do not mind so much how the time is allotted as long as the amount of time we have given is not exceeded. We have divided up that time according to what we consider to be the fairest and best method for the convenience of the House, but we are willing to accept suggestions from hon. Members as to the rearrangement of the time-table. In the case of the transfer of the functions of the guardians to the councils and county boroughs, we have assumed that there was general agreement on the main principle, but if hon. Members desire more time to be devoted to that question and less to something else, I am not going to say that the time-table as set out in the Motion is unalterable. When we have dealt with the Amendment now before the House, I can assure hon. Members that the Government will not take up too rigid an attitude because we are anxious to meet the general desires of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The Minister of Health has said that the principle of the guillotine Motion is provided for in the procedure of the House. I think there should be some way of parcelling out contentious Measures according to the contentiousness of their various parts. My objection to this Motion is a backbencher's objection. I do not consider that the 13 days given to the English Bill is sufficient time to allow adequate discussion of a Bill of this character. It has been said that this Bill really embodies half a dozen separate Measures. No one will disagree with the point that in the main principles of this Bill there are two distinct Measures in de-rating and in the alterations proposed in the Poor Law, and consequently it is quite true to say there are two first-class Measures contained in this Bill.
  Here is a Measure which takes away from individual representatives of constituencies more opportunities to contribute to the value of the Measure by criticism than any other Measure in my experience. We are being deprived of opportunities to contribute personal points of view and points of view representing separate constituencies. I I do not think any Bill has been brought forward within recent years that calls for so much careful discussion as this Bill. What is going to happen is that practically the whole of the time will be taken up by representatives of the Government and of the two Oppositions and the back benchers will have no chance at all to take part in the discussion of this Measure. It is during the Committee stage that the main points can be brought out more effectively than on the Second Reading, and I wish to enter my protest, on behalf of the back benchers, against the small amount of time which is being allotted to the Committee stage of this Bill.
  Mr. HARDIE: We have had some very peculiar statements made with regard to what is meant by government. The hon. Member for Thirsk (Sir E. Turton) who spoke on behalf of the county councils, gave some good examples of what is meant by government, but only after due consideration can a thing be said to be that which is desired by the people as a law. My remarks apply more to Scotland, because the Scottish Bill differs essentially from the English Bill

  1995
  in this fact, that if it is carried through it destroys certain democratic rights now enjoyed by the Scottish people. Of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland is not a Mussolini, but he can be handled by one. We feel that this question of the right of parents having a say in regard to the education of their children is a very important matter. It is a serious thing to propose to tear up something which Scotland has enjoyed for 200 years before the English system of education was established. Why should we be tied down by a time-table put forward by a Birmingham Mussolini?
  This is not merely an ordinary political change in the law. It is an attempt to root up something which has been long established in Scotland, and an attempt to prevent the representatives of Scotland from having adequate time to discuss proposals for the destruction of democratic power in Scotland. We protest against this limiting of discussion, because a full discussion of this Measure is necessary in order to find out what the Government are attempting to do as far as Scotland is concerned. Yesterday I put a question on the Order Paper, hut neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Lord Advocate took the trouble to find out what relation that question had to this Bill. We have not been able to get the information we require in reply to questions put in the House of Commons, and now we are told that the time for the discussion of this Bill is to be limited in this way. I think the question of considering this Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee is one which should receive special consideration. That Committee was constituted because it was felt that the needs of Scotland were so different from the needs of England that they ought to be considered by Scottish Members, since we could not expect English Members to know much about Scottish affairs. If the Government really desire to save time, the Scottish Bill might be considered by the Scottish Grand Committee and the discussion on the English Bill could take place in Committee of the whole House. The dangers of the principle of delegated authority have already been pointed out. That is a very serious thing unless we know exactly what is going to happen.
  1996
  Now I come to the attempt which is being made to destroy effectively all the rights of working class representatives which are at present enjoyed by public bodies. This Bill means that the rights of the working class people are to be absolutely destroyed. The position now obtaining is that the travelling expenses of those engaged in the work of public bodies are paid, and in some instances the local authorities have power to allow expenses other than railway travelling expenses. The Scottish Bill seeks to destroy or tear up the present law without proper consideration, to destroy democratic representation as now enjoyed, and take away the right of the parent to have a say in a child's education. These points form the basic element in the life of the Scottish people and if the Government are wise they will see that some rearrangement is made, as far as the time is concerned, in considering the Scottish section of the Motion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it will be convenient at this stage, as there seems to be an inclination on the part of hon. Members to speak now on the question of the time to be allotted to the various Clauses, to point out that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) have Amendments on the Paper dealing with these particular points. I do not know whether it would be more convenient to discuss all these questions on the Amendment which is now before the House, or to finish that Amendment and then go on with the other Amendments. Obviously, however, we cannot have the same discussion twice over.
  Mr. SHINWELL: May I put it to you, Sir, with great respect, that, unless we have some indication from the two right hon. Gentlemen who are in charge at present as to their intentions with respect to concessions, it will be impossible for us to come to an agreement on that point? If they will indicate now what concessions they are prepared to give, arising from the Amendments which are on the Paper and which they have had the opportunity of scrutinising, it will be possible for us to say whether your view can be immediately met. Failing that, I think you will see the difficulty in which we are.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Before you give a ruling on this matter, may I say that we should like to get our first Amendment out of the way before we discuss these other questions, because what we are really protesting against at the moment is not how we shall use the allotted time, but against the amount of time that is being given. As to that, I understand that, so far as England is concerned, there is no sort of accommodation. We want to make a definite protest on that, but, as regards the question of how that time shall be allotted, we want to discuss that with the Government on the lines that the Minister of Health himself suggested just now. I hope that we shall get rid of the present Amendment before we enter into the other matters.
  Mr. SPEAKERI am obliged to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). That was what brought me to my feet, because there seemed to be a tendency to discuss these various Amendments on the Amendment that is now immediately before the House. That is a matter for hon. Members, but I must point out that we cannot have the same discussion now, and afterwards again on the Amendments. That is really the point that I wanted to put. As to whether the discussion shall be taken now or later, that is entirely a matter for the House itself, and not for me.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: There is a very important point that is dealt with in the Amendment which has been moved. It is a complaint against the Government for having related the English and the Scottish Bills together in one Guillotine Resolution, and I trust that Members from Scotland, particularly, will be allowed to protest against such a method of dealing with the matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It must be understood that I do not at all want to restrict the Debate in any way; all that I want to do is to ensure that it shall not take place twice.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I would respectfully submit to the House that it would have been to the common advantage to have got rid of this particular Amendment, and then to have come to the discussion of any accommodation which can be made. My right hon. Friend the
  1998
  Minister of Health has dealt with the position as regards the English Bill, and I shall confine myself to saying what I feel about the position with regard to Scotland. I have listened very carefully to the Debate, and I would say to my hon. Friends on the other side, and particularly to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), that I appreciate very much the common-sense manner in which he put this problem to the Government, and I shall endeavour to meet the case in the spirit in which, I conceive, he made his remarks on this subject. The Government have endeavoured, in drawing up this Motion, to allocate the time so that all the really important features of the Bill shall have an opportunity of being discussed, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said just now, it is clear that, if the Opposition confine themselves to the particular points of importance, the Government will see that adequate discussion is given to the main features. I recognise at once, of course, that there are in the earlier Clauses of the Scottish Bill problems which are of major importance to Scotland and to Scottish interests, and, from what I have gathered from the discussion which has taken place and from the Amendments which I have been placed on the Paper, the view of hon. Members from Scotland on both sides of the House has been that as far as possible full and adequate time should be given for the discussion of the earlier Clauses of the Bill.
  I have considered this matter carefully, and am able to say that the Government would be prepared to give an extra day in the Committee stage, to be allocated to the earlier portion of the Scottish Bill, and particularly Clause 1, which deals with parish councils and matters of that kind; and that on the Second day education particularly should have the opportunity of coming up for discussion. I understand that hon. Gentlemen on the other side, subject to that, might have certain propositions to put before the Government as to the allocation of the time within the period which I have indicated, that is to say, nine days as against the eight days which the present schedule provides. I am perfectly willing to consider with hon. Gentlemen opposite whether we can properly meet them. It is, of course, as much my desire as it is that of anyone else that the Opposition should have the fullest opportunity

  1999
  of putting their case on this Measure in the way which they think will suit them best, and I hope that with that indication we may now be permitted to proceed.
  Mr. HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered taking the Scottish Bill separately, in view of the fact that when that Bill is being discussed the English Members will be in the Smoking Room, while when the English Rill is being discussed we shall be here?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know that this is really in order, hut I would say, in reply to the last question, that this is a Bill of major importance, which ought to he taken on the Floor of this House. It is in a large measure walking step by step with the Measure which is being applied to England, and the financial side is so interlocked that it would be quite impossible to deal with it otherwise than on the Floor of the House.
  Miss LAWRENCE: This kind concession to Scottish Members makes me feel that our appeal with regard to the English Bill is irresistible. After all, the fate of the Scottish Bill will be to a very large extent determined by what takes place on the English Bill, and want to say that no allocation of time that I can see within these limits will give to the House the opportunity of fair and free debate. Looking down the Schedule, we see that a very short time is given to Clauses 1 to 17, which constitute the Poor Law part of the Bill. For roads, town planning and de-rating the margin of time is very narrow: and, as regards the financial considerations, in the five days or so, with half a day for London, we shall find the greatest possible difficulty in debating the questions involved, more especially as the questions connected with finance are essentially upstairs questions. They are so difficult and so intricate that they can hardly be properly elucidated except in the greater freedom of Committee upstairs, and to get for them anything like adequate discussion on the Floor of the House would be necessarily a long and tedious process. I have gone through the major parts of these questions, and I cannot see where it will be possible in the later stages to spare any time at all,
  2000
  and certainly it will not be possible for the finance part. In that case the margin is very close, and, without an addition of four or five days more, it will be impossible to discuss the Poor Law question. The Minister made a most astounding remark with regard to the Poor Law question. He said that, the House having agreed as to principle, the allocation of time for Clauses 1 to 17 was perfectly reasonable. Has the House agreed to the principle? Has the country agreed to the principle? Has anyone agreed to the principle of this Bill? I would ask the House just to consider the materials for controversy on Part I. I will only enumerate them. Clause 1 abolishes the guardians. Well, that is a subject which has had its history. We had a Royal Commission in 1909, and the Royal Commission could not agree. We had the Maclean Committee shortly after the War, and the Maclean Committee put forward a proposal which was accepted as a sort of compromise by a great number of people. The Government, in their Bill, have thrown over the Maclean Report, they have thrown over the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission, and they are bringing forward Poor Law proposals based on essentially different principles. In order to make that plain, I will take a detail first. As regards the authorities to which the Poor Law is to go, the Government have thrown over the Maclean Report, which most emphatically did not say that Poor Law functions should be given to county boroughs and county councils only—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is going far too much into t-he provisions of the Bill itself. I cannot allow the discussion to develop into one on the merits of the Bill. Is the hon. Member going to move her Amendment which appears later on the Paper?
  Miss LAWRENCE: Yes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If so, she is anticipating what she will say on that Amendment.
  Miss LAWRENCE: With great respect, my point is that we cannot squeeze the rest of the Bill sufficiently to give loom for this Clause. I will not repeat what I am saying now, but will move the Amendment formally.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Lady was arguing in favour of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
  Miss LAWRENCE: My point was that the Government's Time-table is utterly inadequate to the magnitude of the subject, and, without desiring to argue the Bill, I was trying to show that very many persons in the country would urge entirely different opinions with regard to the Bill, all of which ought to be discussed in the House. I was venturing to say that four or five days more would be necessary for the discussion of the earlier part of the Bill—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point which the hon. Member can argue on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: While I recognise that the Secretary of State for Scotland has made some small concession, I say quite frankly that we have nothing really for which to thank him. It is altogether inadequate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw it!"] I am not worrying whether he withdraws it or not. The hon. Member who interrupted me, as a Scottish Member, ought to recognise that there is no relationship between at least 50 per cent. of the, Scottish Bill and its English equivalent. There is no co-relation between the two Bills in connection with local government administration. You are not doing in the English Bill what we are seeking to do in Scotland, and that is my complaint about the attempt in one Guillotine Motion to deal with two Measures which, as far as local administration is concerned, have nothing in common. You are going to wipe out district committees in Scotland, but not in England. You are going completely to change the system of educational administration, but you are going to do more in the Scottish Bill. You are going to disfranchise thousands of men and women as far as their interest and their votes in the matter of education are concerned.
  I trust, when we come to the details in connection with the allocation of time, there is going to be some drastic alteration. We require not less than 15 days to discuss these drastic revolutionary proposals in connection with local government. We have heard much about de-
  2002
  rating. We have heard also of the denuding of the National Health Insurance Fund and of the Road Fund. This Bill will bring about a debacle, as far as Tory supporters in Scotland are concerned, in attempting to steal our rights from us. I trust that even in the attempt to steal those rights you will give us more time to discuss these proposals than the miserable nine days we are now offered.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: To me this whole thing is a fiasco. It is undermining the strength of the claim to democratic representation in this House. You might just as well put forward a Bill arid tell us it is going through in two or three days as in the number of days spoken of now. In Scotland you are tearing up by the very roots old-established localised government. The proposals were never submitted to the country. This proposal is presented at r, late stage of the Government's existence, and now, as the Prime Minister indicated, the near approach of the election means hustling this through without any thoroughgoing consideration. Hon. Members opposite admit their inability to understand the Bill. That may be partly the reason for getting it through as quickly as possible and not allowing other people to understand it any more than those behind the Government. To say now that Scotland is to be favoured with another day, as the Secretary of State tells us in his most gracious manner, is enough to daze the people of Scotland. If it were a question of limiting the time in which speakers should address the House, there would be general agreement that that is a step that ought to be taken, because it would be possible to concentrate on given points instead of what we frequently have, a very considerable amount of repetition.
  An hon. Member on this side of the House made what I think is the most important point that can be considered on this issue, that this is causing a feeling among masses of the people that our Parliamentary machine is a mockery. It may produce nothing more than the usual smile on the Government side, but it is true, and a step of this kind taken by the Government is going to intensify that conviction in the mind of those who are becoming desperate about the conditions of our country. We are having it brought home to us that the

  2003
  Government can put through any proposal without submitting it to the country and drive it home by the power of officialism and bureaucracy behind the scenes. In Italy you have this system controlling the country as a whole. Here we have an imitation of it, and a considerable advance in the direction of dictating to the people what we will carry through. This will greatly strengthen the demand that is coming forward and bring about the day when we shall be able to deal with these things in a thoroughgoing fashion. In the House itself many Members adopt a lackadaisical attitude. They may be very much in agreement with what we have said but, poor helpless sheep, they are hustled into the Lobby, so many Ayes and so many Noes. That is what I shall be obliged to present to my constituents as the picture I see night after night in this House.
  Our only hope lies in laying before the people themselves not only the deficiencies of the Measure and the drastic attack upon democratic representation in Scotland as well as in England, but that the Parliamentary machine is becoming more and. more controlled in such a fashion that the individual representation of the constituencies is placed at a very severe discount. I only wish to make my protest. I insist that at every opportunity reasonable opposition should be put up to all the proposals contained in the Bill. A straightforward answer has not yet been given by the Secretary of State for Scotland as to why we are not going upstairs to the Standing Committee. Only the other day we had the presentation on the Order Paper of all the names of those who were to be on the Scottish Committee. It has never yet met.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is irrelevant to the matter now before the House.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: If that is not in order, it strengthens my argument that the Parliamentary machine is held up, the Scottish Committee practically disbanded, and that the Scottish localised government is being undermined. [Interruption.] I like a little share of humour, but there is too much tendency to adopt a humorous situation. I am not here simply representing myself. At a little
  2004
  gathering held in the House every Tuesday, we have had it brought home to us—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will agree with me that this has nothing to do with the Motion.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Seeing that cannot even approach such a subject, it shows how important it is that under other circumstances we should approach it. We are not here simply representing ourselves. That is a, danger into which we are liable to fall. We often hear on our political platforms that we are concerned with the interests of the masses and the democratic representation of the people. When we see it carried out here the thing is a huge mockery, and a base deception of the people whom we are proud to represent. There is no reason whatever, as the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) has already said, for any thanks for conceding an extra day. It is only trifling and making a farce of the whole situation as far as Scotland is concerned.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The Secretary of State for Scotland has conceded an extra day for Scotland, but the Government are prepared to do nothing at all for England and Wales. We have waited 19 years for this Bill. It is now 10 years since the Maclean Report was published, and the Minister of Health has not until now framed his Bill on agreed recommendations. There are very important conflicts of principle arising out of this Bill. I want to make my protest from the same point of view as the representatives of the county councils did a little while ago. I cannot help thinking that the Minister of Health has had too much of the Birmingham point of view in mind in the framing of this Bill. I hope that he does not require me to remind him that England is not a glorified Birmingham. If he appreciates that point, I want to plead with him that, as far as certain parts of this Bill are concerned, the time which is being put at our disposal is ridiculously inadequate. We ought to ask for much more than 13 days for these discussions. Take the first day of the Committee stage on Thursday. We are going to dispose in one short day of the whole system of local government affecting urban district

  2005
  councils, rural district councils, county councils, bodies like county vagrancy committees, and the whole municipalities of this country. The whole of this profound change in local government is to be disposed of in this House in a solitary day. The Minister of Health knows that there is not a single local authority which is affected that has not raised very important and very controversial questions, whether he takes the local authorities separately or whether he takes them gathered together in their national associations. We are to be asked to dispose of a whole series of Amendments affecting a revolutionary change in local government in the course of a single day.
  The Minister of Health is beginning the Committee stage in a very disappointing way. When he introduced this Measure he impressed the whole House with his appeal that every side of the House and every part of it should cooperate for the good of the Bill. I agree with him when he says that the advantage of a worked-out time-table is that it enables us to fix our minds on the particular problems at issue. That is not our complaint. We are grateful to the Government for assisting us in that way. Our complaint is that they have fixed the procedure on this Bill so as to leave no time in which to discuss the problems which it raises. I want to ask the Minister of Health, after having waited, 19 years for this next great stage in the reorganisation of local government, whether, before this Amendment is put to the House, to see if he cannot find four, five, seven, eight or nine extra days for a serious consideration of what is the most important Measure dealing with local government that has been introduced during the last 40 years.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but I must say that I heard the concession of the Secretary of State for Scotland with some surprise. My first feelings of surprise were that he could give a concession at all. I have never previously known him give a concession of any kind. Then I was reminded that this was really not a concession. The Secretary of State for Scotland knew before the Guillotine Motion was introduced, that he intended to give us a concession of an extra day.
  2006
  He no doubt thought that hon. Members would run after him and say: "Thanks, thanks, the right hon. Member for Pollok has at last become generous." Like many other concessions it is mean and petty. It is just like what 'one encounters when he goes to him with a prison case. He says: "You have a good case." Then, instead of wiping the matter out altogether, he knocks off a day or an hour or something like that. This is typical of his action. He has given us nine days. The point is that the Government are proposing to make drastic changes, and everyone of those changes should be seriously considered by this House. Just think of it, the whole educational system of Scotland being discussed and disposed of in this House in little more than a day! Here is education of which we have been told that we in Scotland are the pioneers, and in regard to which in certain respects we hold a unique and an esteemed position. It does not matter much at the moment whether the abolition of education authorities be right or wrong, but for the discussion you are devoting only one day of Parliamentary time. The position of the parishes is the same.
  I have been waiting to see if the Secretary for Scotland would give us a serious answer to the question as to why this Bill is not being sent to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. There is one answer, and he knows what it is. If we were granted the time for which we are asking, it would mean that we should have time in which to propose first-class improvements; and Amendments of which many of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters have already stated in the country they are in favour. If the Bill had been sent to the Standing Committee, there would have to have been a decision upon them. In view of what has happened in past Standing Committees on Scottish Bills, the right hon. Gentleman knows that at times even sheep cannot be too much trusted. The consequence is that he wants this Bill to go through under a Guillotine Motion in order that certain Amendments which some of his supporters would feel themselves bound to move, can be overcome.
  The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) knows that in his division this Bill is most unpopular.

  2007
  There are certain matters upon which his local authorities have been pressing him from time to time. There is the hon. and gallant Member for Bute (Sir A. Hunter-Weston). Time after time his local authorities have taken exception to various matters. There are certain Amendments to which these people have given lip service. What is going to happen? When the Guillotine falls, whole Clauses will be put and disposed of, and these hon. Gentleman will go back to their constituencies almost like criminals. The first thing that presents itself to the criminal mind is to make an attempt to try and get out of prison—to look for a way of escape. The Members of the Government are looking for a way of escape, and it will be found in this Guillotine Motion. If whole Clauses come under the Guillotine, they will go back to their constituencies and say to the local authorities to whom they have given pledges or semi-pledges: "Yes, we would have voted for these Amendments but, we had no time under the Guillotine." The consequence of all this is that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not prepared to face his own supporters in the Standing Committee.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he cannot now debate the question as to whether the Bill should go to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills. That question has been decided by a vote of the House.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am stating that there is a demand for more time, and surely I am in order in asking that the decision arrived at in relation to the Scottish Bill should be reconsidered. Surely it is not out of order to ask the Government, in view of the representations now being made, to reconsider the matter with regard to the Scottish Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order in asking for more time for a discussion -of this Bill in Committee of the Whole House, but he is not in order in asking that this Bill should go to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills upstairs.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am asking that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government should reconsider the case of
  2008
  the Scottish Bill. That is all I am urging. I will not pursue the matter any further, I have made my point. The Government are afraid to face their own people in the Standing Committee. I am not going to discuss the rights or wrongs of the Guillotine. Even accepting the Guillotine as a method of Parliamentary procedure, can any Conservative Member with an impartial mind say that the time that is being allocated is sufficient for an adequate discussion of this Measure? While the extra day is a concession, it is a concession of the most meagre and typical kind, and only makes the matter, in many respects, worse. As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) said, it might have been more courageous if the Government, instead of fixing eight days and then making it nine, had said, "We will take no notice of the Opposition at all." Nine days is totally insufficient to discuss the sweeping and wide changes proposed in the Scottish Bill. As the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) pointed out, the Scottish Bill includes absolutely different proposals from those contained in the English Bill. It proposes to sweep away local government in large areas, parish councils, and education authorities. These things must be considered. There is the question of the officials who have to be dispensed with. What is to become of them? How are they to be compensated? Questions of public procedure have to be discussed under this Bill, and we have a miserable nine days only for which no Member of the Opposition can feel in the least thankful. We should demand at least 15 or 20 days in order that this matter, as far as Scotland is concerned, could be thrashed out and adequately discussed.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join my protest to those already made in connection with this Motion. I am convinced that nothing like adequate time has been provided by the Government for these two Measures. Even the most enthusiastic supporter of the Government, if he was speaking free from party discipline, could not claim that Measures of such grave importance were being allowed adequate Parliamentary time. I am convinced too that one of the reasons for this shortness of time is that the Government are still very uncertain about

  2009
  the support they can get from their own party on these Measures. In my own Division the representative of the Conservative party has written to a newspaper saying that the Government are really losing their senses in seeking to bring forward such a Measure. He did not use those words, but that is the effect of his letter of protest. From what is happening in my own Division and from the protest this individual is making about the Government whom he is asking the people to support, I am convinced that this Guillotine Motion is not so much a Motion to restrict the opportunity of criticism of the Opposition on this side as it is to do away with the possibility of mutiny on the Government side of the House over this Measure.
  The Government are getting a bad Press about the Measure. It is true that after the Second Reading there was an attempt by some members of the Government to suggest that it was going to be all right and that party discipline had asserted itself successfully. The little time that has passed since then has shown that, as so much of the Measure is so utterly futile in regard to its main purpose and is going to create so many difficulties, there is a possibility of a revolt in the Conservative party. Even on the Second Reading of the Scottish Measure one Member after another said he would have to get the Measure altered so far as his constituency was concerned.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Bute (Sir A. Hunter-Weston) said he hoped the Measure would do a lot of good to Scotland, but that it would have to be altered so far as Bute was concerned. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) took a similar line, and the hon. Member for one of the Northern Divisions said there were some good things in the Measure but it must be altered so far as his own Division was concerned. There is all this gathering force of opinion, and so I believe that the Guillotine Motion is an attempt to stifle the legitimate protest of Members on the other side of the House. As a Member of the Opposition, I protest against this Motion because it will take away a good deal of the time that would otherwise have been given to the Opposition. My hon. Friend beside me has referred to the sheepish quality of the Members on the Government Benches. In a previous Parliament the metaphor used was "the patient oxen." I am inclined to think that the Government in this Guillotine Motion are afraid lest the patient oxen may be turned into wild bulls or even that the tame sheep may become mad goats and butt them out of office.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and' in line 1, stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 136.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES.

  [7.8 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Albery, Irving James

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Croft, Brlgadier-General Sir H.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K

  Burman, J. B.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Apsley, Lord

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

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

  Calne, Gordon Hall

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cassels, J. D.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Atkinson, C.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balniel, Lord

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

  Bennett, A. J.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Berry, Sir George

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Bethel, A.

  Christie, J. A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Bevan, S. J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  England, Colonel A.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Fermoy, Lord

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Couper, J. B.

  Fleiden, E. B.

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

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Savery, s. S.

  Forrest, W.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Gates, Percy

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

  Grenfell, Edward C, (City of London)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Storry-Deans, R.

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

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Hanbury, C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Moore, Sir Newton J,

  Templeton, W. P.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Hilton, Cecil

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Waddington, R

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Watts., Sir Thomas

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Pilcher, G.

  Wells, S. R.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

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

  Preston, William

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Raine, Sir Walter

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

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Ramsden, E.

  Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Lamb, J. Q.

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfre,

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Long, Major Eric

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Lougher, Lewis

  Salmon, Major I.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Sandon, Lord

  Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.

  NOES.

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

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Hollins, A.

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

  Day, Harry

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Amnion, Charles George

  Dennison, R.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bliston)

  Dunnico, H.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Baker, Walter

  Fenby, T. D.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Barnes, A.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Barr, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Gosling, Harry

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Bellamy, A.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Benn, Wedgwood

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

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Greenall, T.

  Kennedy, T.

  Briant, Frank

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

  Broad, F. A.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lansbury, George

  Bromfield, William

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Lawrence, Susan

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lee, F.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Lowth, T.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Lunn, William

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hardie, George D.

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Harney, E. A.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Connolly, M.

  Hayday, Arthur

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Cove, W. G.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  March, S.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Maxton, James

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

  2012

  2013

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Shinwell, E.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Murnin, H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Owen, Major G.

  Smillie, Robert

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Paling, W.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Westwood, J.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Snell, Harry

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Potts, John S.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Riley, Ben

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Ritson, J.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

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

  Windsor, Walter

  Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Townend, A. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Sexton, James

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Viant, S. P.

  Whiteley.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Mr. BENN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "Bill," to the second word "the" in line 3.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. E. BROWN: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the changes that have taken place since the Debate began, and which affect the Amendments. As I understand the position, there is to be a re-allotment inside the same number of days. I understand that the Amendment will cover 13 days for the English Bill Committee stage, with an extra day, making nine days, for the Scottish Bill Committee stage. I should like to be allowed to move Amendments, particulars of which have already been handed to you, which would take one day from England and give an extra day to Scotland, making 10 days for Scotland, with the consequential Amendment of the Schedule. We have discussed the matter very carefully in the short time at our disposal, and we feel that there are three points in the Scottish Bill which ought to be brought out: (1) the transfer of the functions of the parish councils; (2) the transfer of the functions of the small burghs; and (3) the transfer of the functions of the education authorities. Allowing 10 days for Scotland would not add another day to the total, if a day were taken from England. By our Amendments, we propose to leave 12 days for the English Committee stage, and 10 days for the Scottish Committee stage. The total amount would be the same, plus the
  extra day promised by the Secretary of State, and the allocation would enable us on the Scottish Bill to bring out the three great major issues.
  Mr. BENN: This is an Amendment to exclude the Scottish Bill from the Timetable. I understand that an arrangement has been come to, by which we merely ask for the right to divide and not to debate the point. That is why I formally moved my Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), I may say that the manuscript Amendment was handed to me just before the Division took place. I have a strong objection to manuscript Amendments being handed in at the last moment, because it gives me very little chance to consider them with regard to how they stand in relation to the Bill. I have considered the manuscript Amendment, and I have come to the conclusion that I shall not accept it. Standing Order 25 gives me power to select Amendments, and it gives me power not to accept manuscript Amendments. Generally, I think it is much the best thing both for the proposer and myself not to give any reasons for my conclusion.
  Mr. BROWN: I am obliged for your Ruling, but you will understand that it has been a trouble to us to try to draft new Amendments and Schedules.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 136.

  Division No. 48.]

  AYES.

  [7.22 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Apsley, Lord

  Atkinson, C.

  Albery, Irving James

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Barclay-Harvey C. M.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Greene, W. p. Crawford

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grenfell, Edward C (City of London)

  Pilcher, G.

  Berry, Sir George

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Preston, William

  Bethel, A.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Bevan, S. J.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Ramsden, E.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Hanbury, C.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Harland, A.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hartington, Marquess of

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

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Roberts. E. H. G. (Flint)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Brass, Captain w.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Salmon, Major I.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Burman, J. B.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sandon, Lord

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Savery, S. S.

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

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

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Lamb, J. O.

  Strealfeild, Captain S. R.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Long, Major Eric

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Lougher, Lewis

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Templeton, W. P.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Couper, J. B.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Llndsey, Gainsbro)

  McLean, Major A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Waddington, R.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Curzon, Captain viscount

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

  Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Mitchell, sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ellis, R. G.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

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

  Fleiden, E. B.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wragg, Herbert

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Wright, Brig-General W. D.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Penny, Frederick George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ganzoni Sir John

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Gates, Percy

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wallace.

  NOES.

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

  Barnes, A.

  Briant, Frank

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

  Barr, J.

  Bromfield, William

  Ammon, Charles George

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Bellamy, A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Baker, Walter

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Buchanan, G.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Cape, Thomas

  2016

  2017

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hollins, A.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sexton, James

  Connolly, M.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Cove, W. G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shinwell, E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smillie, Robert

  Day, Harry

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Dennison, R.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snell, Harry

  Duncan, C.

  Kennedy, T,

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Dunnico, H.

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

  Stamford, T. W.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lansbury, George

  Stephen, Campbell

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Stewart, J. (St. Roliox)

  England, Colonel A.

  Lee, F.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Forrest, W.

  Longbottom, A. W.

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

  Gardner, J. P.

  Lowth, T.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lunn, William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Townend, A. E.

  Gosling, Harry

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Viant, S. P.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

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

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Greenall, T.

  Maxton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Montague, Frederick

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murnin, H.

  Westwood, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Owen, Major G.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Hardie, George D.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Harney, E. A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Ritson, J.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in line 8, to leave out the word "Thirteen" and to insert instead thereof the word "Twenty."
  The effect of this Amendment would be to give England 20 days instead of 13. I think everyone will agree that the Bill is one of the most important that could be brought in by any Government, and it covers a very large range of subjects about which many people hold very diverse opinions. The few days that are given are altogether insufficient. Take the days allotted to Clauses 1 to 4, which concern the question of the Poor Law. Even the Minister of Health will agree that one or two days is not sufficient. The legislation now before Parliament concerns the lives and wellbeing of a million or so of people, who are quite unable to speak effectively for themselves. The future of these people, for weal or woe, is being settled by this Bill and, therefore, we are entitled in considering what is to be done with casuals and the sick, and widows and children, to be able to discuss it without the fear of the Guillotine or the Closure. It is only occasionally that Parliament settles down to discuss a complete revolution
  2018
  of local government such as is embodied in this big Bill, and when it is also remembered that it is going to change various forms of local administration in regard to public health and roads, and also in regard to finance it is only reasonable to ask that we should be given considerably more time to discuss them.
  I think the day will come when this House, instead of leaving a question like this to be settled in this way, will appoint some Committee, such as has been suggested by an hon. Member opposite, to go through a Bill and apportion a proper length of time for its discussion. No one will agree that on any of the subjects dealt with in this Bill sufficient time is given. The Minister of Health, dealing with the financial provisions, told us how difficult it is to understand the formula and how various conclusions have been arrived at. Therefore, I think some other method ought to be found for dealing with this Bill rather than coming to the House with a cut-and-dried Motion like this. I want to protest against the allocation of time to it e Poor Law sections of the Bill. The Minister of Health quite truly said that there is a large measure of agree-

  2019
  ment in the country as to the necessity for dealing with the Poor Law, but there is a considerable difference of opinion on the method adopted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is not following the lines suggested by any committee or commission that has considered the question. He is proposing to do something which, as far as I know, everybody who has investigated the question has turned down. He is proposing, on the one hand, to abolish the present boards of guardians and reinstate them under another name; and under a bad scheme. He is going to remove the control of the Poor Law from the people who have votes and give it to nominated persons who are responsible to nobody. It is all very well to say that the Bill will secure a majority of elected persons but it will be possible by jerrymandering the committees to give the selected people the bulk of this work to do.
  In addition, the Commissions which have reported on this subject, certainly the minorities of the Commissions, have always maintained that able-bodied per-sons who came to the Poor Law should be dealt with by a different authority altogether. The right hon. Gentleman is going to continue a system which has already broken down, very largely because of the action of himself and the people at the centre. This Bill is to reform the Poor Law in order to make it more effective and more useful. As a matter of fact, it, will do nothing of the kind.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must, connect his argument with reasons for showing that more time should be given to the discussion of the Bill: otherwise, he is going too much into the merits of the Bill itself.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It is extremely difficult to give one's reasons without going into a discussion of the Bill itself. What I was trying to point out is that these Clauses, for which the right hon. Gentleman has only allowed a very few hours, are, in fact, some of the Most important in the Bill. I was pointing out that the question of the able-bodied and unemployed is so important that much more time should be given to it. If we can believe what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends say this Bill has been brought forward largely
  2020
  because of the difficulties which have arisen through the rise in rates consequent upon unemployment and, therefore, we ought to have enough time to argue whether the proposals for dealing with the able-bodied and unemployed are such as will ease the burdens of the people in these overburdened localities. In the opinion of many people the proposals in the Bill will, if anything, worsen their conditions. I am certain that if any Bill of this size was brought in by any Government, and it was proposed to give only 13 days to its consideration, it would be very strongly opposed by any Opposition. No one can say that it is sufficient time. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It bears on the point I raised a few moments ago. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made the surprising concession of one whole day for the discussion on the Scottish Bill and the whole House now waits to see whether the Minister of Health is going to be generous. We all expect him to say that it will be a minimum of 14 days, but I hope he will he able to provide an example, that English generosity always beats that which comes from Scotland. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but I want to press upon the right hon. Gentleman that 13 days is ridiculous for a discussion of this great Measure, not only because of its reactions upon local authorities in urban and rural areas, but because the whole question of principle with regard to this reorganisation requires to be thoroughly discussed. I hope when he replies that he will say that he is prepared to give us the 20 days we ask for.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Bennie Smith) did not attend to that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) earlier in our proceedings when he contrasted the English and Scottish Bills and pointed out that 13 whole days were allowed to the English Bill which contained only two points of major importance. That is the best answer I can give.
  Mr. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the Scots are a humorous race.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The humour of the two nations does not always prove to he intelligible to one another. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) the real answer is contained in the speech which the Prime Minister made in introducing the Motion. The Government have given the matter careful consideration and have allotted 13 days not for the whole stages of the Bill but for the Committee stage. They have come to the conclusion that these 13 days will offer a complete opportunity to the Committee to discuss every matter of primary importance in the Bill. When hon. Members opposite ask us to extend the 13 days to 20 days it must be remembered that local authorities will have a great deal of work to do and it is quite obvious that a further delay in this House might mean serious consequences to local authorities. Therefore, it is not possible for the Government to accept the Amendment. As I have already said the Government are not taking up a stiff attitude about the allocation of time to the various subjects within the 13 days, and it may be possible to meet the point of the hon. Member later on.
  Miss LAWRENCE: I want to draw attention to the extraordinary answer of the Minister of Health. He tells us that the Bill will give local authorities so much work that the House has to push it through as quickly as possible, and that an extension from 13 to 20 parliamentary days would throw the whole of their work into confusion. A fortnight's delay—seven parliamentary days—would have the effect of putting the whole local government of England into confusion, and would not give them time to prepare their complicated schemes before the 1st of April. I have never heard a more unsatisfactory reason given to the House. Let us consider the question of 13 as against 20 days. A period of 20 days is not nearly enough, and I am astonished at the moderation of our demand. Take the case of the Local Government Bill of 1925, which was printed and never introduced. It was a very much smaller Bill than this, and it needed an enormous amount of preparatory time. This Bill has been in the hands of the local authorities for only a very short time. You have to add to the time of Parliamentary discussion, if you want to
  2022
  have every point of view fairly represented, the time spent in discussion outside the House with the local authorities. With a simpler Bill they had nearly a year to get the matter into order. Under this Bill they will have 20 days or so of Parliamentary time to get their views expressed on the Floor of the House.
  The second thing is this: I ask the House to consider the short and inefficient Second Reading that we have had. As many people have said, this is five or six Bills rolled into one—a De-rating Bill, a Poor Law Bill, a Roads Bill, a Reform Bill, and in the interstices there are one or two useful things of minor importance such as a Registration Bill and so on. With such a vast mass of material, the Second Reading has necessarily been far more perfunctory than is the Second Reading of most Bills. We begin therefore at an enormous disadvantage, without the ground having been prepared by consultation outside, and with the Second Reading far too short. Think of all the different sorts of people who will have their important points of view to put before the House. The Maclean Commission was thrown overboard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has said. But I will take a minor matter. There are boroughs of great importance who want to put their point of view. They have not had time to put it to the Minister. They find their Poor Law work taken away from them. This proposal with regard to the Poor Law is an unfamiliar proposal. Such an idea as this had not been before the Royal Commission of 1909 or the Maclean Commission of 1914, or indeed in the Bill of 1925. This new plan is something novel in Poor Law politics. The Maclean Commission did not contemplate lumping the able-bodied into the Poor. Law. It wanted Distress Committees and it wanted the Workmen's Employment Act of 1925.
  So we have a scheme of Poor Law reform which departs from the lines followed out by nearly all those who have considered the question, on a point whose importance is ten times and a thousand times greater than it was either in 1909 or 1918 when employment was not so serious as it is now. Then I come to what is called the break-up of the Poor Law. The guardians of the country do not want the Poor Law to

  2023
  be touched. That is a point which, for good or evil, is being pressed on Members and ought. to be heard. We have argued the question of break-up or no break-up since 1909. Did anyone ever hear of such a novelty as an optional break-up of institutional Poor Law? It is a brand new device. The strangeness, the novelty, and the unfamiliarity of the character of those proposals demands a great deal of time for discussion.
  It has not escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that never in any Bill before was so much power given to the Minister to carry out the purposes of a Bill by Order. It is Order here and Order there, an Order for schemes, or an Order for appointed guardians, and a great omnibus thing which provides that if any difficulties occur the Minister may do anything which appears expedient to him. That is a constitutional point. Could there be a subject which the House could better discuss than the question of how far we can entrust our own powers to the hands of a Minister? That is a point which any House of Commons jealous of its own power would consider with the utmost scrutiny, and would desire to add limitations of all kinds. These Order Clauses, of which there are a great number, and particularly the great omnibus Order Clause, are things which the House should regard with the utmost possible scrutiny. What time have we to scrutinise this usurpation of the functions of the House by order of the Minister? It is not an unimportant thing. Under this hurried time table it will be rushed on one side. It has already been indicated that the Government are going to relax the programme so as to give the novel principles of Clause 1 a whole day, and the others very likely a little more. But where will the time come from? Possibly from the discussion on the financial Clauses, which offer an unparalleled series of difficulties and conundrums.
  Where are we to get the extra time for discussing the new Poor Law proposals? I cannot see that we shall be able to do anything whatever either to express the views of the different sections of the community in the House, or have any rational discussion at all. We shall have weary days, with Members putting their points, with passionate cries for economy taking
  2024
  up all the time, and then the Minister at the end will say that the clock has gone round and unfortunately he will not be able to reply; with the deepest regret he will say that the guillotine has cut off his own head and there is no explanation for the country. Those who are watching the matter, the local authorities and the Poor Law Guardians, will feel even more than the injustice of the provisions in some parts of the Bill, the contempt with which they have been treated by Parliament. Any wise Minister would use his utmost endeavours to get the local authorities behind him. The Minister of Health has so cut down the time that the views of these local authorities cannot even be expressed in the House.
  Mr. E. BROWN: There was a very ancient king who once desired to cast lots. He desired, as a matter of fact to exterminate his opponents. Indeed he went so far as to make preparations to have a gallows ready for them. In the end he was hung on the gallows that he had prepared for his opponents. When he drew the lot, the interesting thing is that the lot fell on the thirteenth day. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen 13 days for the Committee stage of this Bill, in which to hang a great many public bodies and transfer a great many functions from one set of bodies to another. He may find, before many days or weeks have gone by, that the thirteenth day will be the unlucky day not merely for the local authorities, but for him and for those who support him. Let the House consider the range of effects of this Bill. We are considering the interests of thousands of local authorities—of 83 county boroughs, of 63 counties, and thousands of smaller bodies. We are discussing the allocation, along a new line of policy, of £45,000,000 of public money in England and Wales, and it is a new line of policy which I can only describe as being viewed with dubiety and anxiety by some of the greatest Corporations in the land—some of the greatest Corporations who are all in favour of the enlargement of their administrative authority, but are very dubious as to the proposed financial changes, even after the guarantees that have been given during the negotiations of the past few months.
  8.0 p.m.
  We see from the time-table how little we shall be able to discuss. The only

  2025
  people who are pleased with the timetable are the Back Bench Members supporting the Minister, for as soon as the Guillotine is ready they will be free to talk as they are not free if the Committee stage is taken without the Guillotine. From some points of view that will be a great advantage. At any rate it will add variety to the debates. Nevertheless it must be obvious to all that 13 days cannot be sufficient for thoroughly discussing the many and various details affecting the four main proposals of the Bill. Think of the variety of subjects that have to be dealt with. Take the problem of the transfer of officers for one thing. There will be two courses open. If the officers are transferred they will take office under another authority, but they may refuse to be transferred, and the problem then is the fairly simple one of compensation. We have had no indication of the probable cost of compensation. Consider the position of a very capable clerk to a large board of guardians at the present time. He may be offered a secondary place or a third place under two other persons in a county area. Surely that matter demands some hours of thought when it is considered that the livelihood of 30,000 Poor Law officials may be affected. These are only some of the issues involved. Yet on the Poor Law question only two days are allowed in the original Time Table. With regard to grants, it is true that the Minister has been a little more liberal, but even the four days allowed for the discussion of finance are not enough. That time is not sufficient for the proper discussion of the thousands of difficult, complicated, intricate, detailed questions which must arise in considering the effect of the new formula and of the block grant system, and discussing the double purpose of making up loss of rates to local authorities and applying the grants according to the characteristics and needs of local authorities. This appears to be a regular "South Sea Bubble" proposal. We take away from the local authorities their rating power and their money if their is de-rating in their areas. They are then to apply elsewhere and 15 years afterwards, if they are lucky, they will get to know the full application of the scheme financially, and, it may be, not even then. I am sorry that we cannot
  2026
  get the 20 days, but I am sure it will be found, at the end of the 13th day, when all the questions come to be put, that another week would be none too little for dealing with the major questions remaining to be discussed.
  Mr. BENN: There is only one Minister on the Treasury Bench qualified to deal with this matter in an unbiased way, and that is the hon. and gallant Member for Rugby (Captain Margesson). He is a Whip, and he is concerned with the business of the House. We have here the Minister of Health, but he knows nothing, as a Minister, about the general programme of business, and his sole concern is to get this nefarious affair foisted on the House with the minimum of discussion. The right hon. Gentleman made great professions of being ready to consult with everybody upon this Measure and he certainly has been extremely public-spirited in meeting public bodies: But what happens then? People like his own supporter the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) go on deputations and speak to the Minister who is then under no obligation to explain or to undertake to do anything. That has to be done in the House of Commons. But, apparently, in the House of Commons, instead of somebody being in charge of this matter who can take a survey of our time and our obligations, we have only individuals who are concerned with forcing through this proposal. I do not blame the Minister. He and his Friends do not want any more trouble than they can possibly avoid, but I would put this point. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) has devoted in the newspapers a great deal of attention to the iniquities of another Department, and has taken a leading; part in defending people against Departmental exaction and oppression. Here is a Bill which is stuffed full of new powers for the Ministry of Health, and if the hon. Member for Guildford feels that the encroachment of a Department upon the liberties of the individual is a serious menace, then he ought to help us in our protest against all this new mass of powers which the Ministry of Health is to receive.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The points raised by the hon. Member do not seem to have much to do with the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. BENN: I was not wilfully offending against your Ruling, Sir. My point is that, in such a short time, and within such narrow limits, to ask the House to give the Ministry all these powers is indecent. We cannot examine the whole of the time-table now, though at every point of it we should find fresh arguments for opposition. I take one day as an example. We are to start work at four o'clock and we have, among others, Clauses 107 to 115 to dispose of before half-past seven and, be this remarked, that if we do not limit very much the Debate on the earlier Clauses, we may at 7.30 o'clock still be discussing Clause 107 and then we may find Clauses 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 and 115 put in one Question from the Chair without any defence or discussion on any of these Clauses. Now Clause 107 deals with expenses and borrowings—with the finances of the local authorities—which is surely not an unimportant matter. Clause 108 gives the Minister any amount of those inquisitorial powers of which hon. Members opposite so frequently complain. Clause 109 contains this extraordinary piece of legislation:
  "Any order or scheme made under this Act may contain such incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions as may appear necessary or proper for the purposes of the order or scheme."
  We have no control over these Orders. These are very excessive powers to give to the Minister in half a day. I believe they are to be laid on the Table, but as far as our opposition to them is concerned, that is a proceeding which is just worse than useless. Clause 110 deals with transitory provisions and then we come to Clause 111 which relates to power to remove difficulties. That does not mean the difficulties of the taxpayer or the citizen but difficulties of the Minister and of the Department. If they get into trouble, then, under Clause 111, the Minister asks us, probably without any debate whatever, to give him power to remove difficulties. We are getting into that sort of administrative law against which some of the most distinguished Judges on the bench have uttered serious protests recently.
  Sir K. WOOD: It was done before.
  Mr. BENN: What is the use of the Parliamentary Secretary saying it was
  2028
  done before. Does he defend it on the model of what was done before?
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Liberal Government which asked for powers of the same sort.
  Mr. BENN: Whatever the crimes of the Liberal Government may have been, I do not think they ever went as far in the direction of administrative powers as this.
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes.
  Mr. BENN: There may be precedents. In that case no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will point them out and quote them to us. It is not particularly my business to deal with the record of the Liberal Government before the War.
  Sir K. WOOD: You were a member of it.
  Mr. BENN: In a very minor capacity, and I proudly accept such small responsibility as Attaches to the office of Whip in a Government. At the same time, I venture to assert that no Government has ever asked the House of Commons to make. in half a clay such an enormous extension of administrative powers as we find here. Then take Clause 112, which may be included in the omnibus question put from the Chair. It contains the definition of "appropriate percentage." That means that the whole question of de-rating and the whole question of the relief of industrial hereditaments is going to be decided without any Debate as to whether 75 per cent. is appropriate. The proposals suggested in relation to some forms of industrial hereditament, such as breweries, cannot be discussed. This Definitions Clause runs from page 93 to page 98 of the Bill, and, as I have said, probably the whole of those pages will be put without a word of discussion. There is a mass of material in those pages. I give only one point. Page 97 contains a definition of "unemployed insured man." One of the most serious criticisms of this Bill has been that the formula is based on unemployed men and takes no account of unemployed women. That is a serious thing and affects some areas, such as the cotton areas, in a. vital way. Yet this question may not 'arise until 25 minutes past seven o'clock, and it will then be ruled out by the Chair, and we shall have the privilege of voting on it and 50 other

  2029
  matters at the same time. The next Clause deals with the whole question of relief in respect of dock enterprises, which is a very vital point, and the Parliamentary Secretary will admit, whatever he may think of the Liberal Government—
  Sir K. WOOD: The same thing was done in 1911, with the hon. Gentleman's help.
  Mr. BENN: The National Health Insurance Act went to a Committee upstairs, as far as I can remember. I can still recall the obstructive tactics of the Parliamentary Secretary in those days when he sat on this side.
  Sir K. WOOD: I was not then in the House.
  Mr. BENN: Was the right hon. Gentleman not in the House in 1911? I am sorry, but I regarded the right hon. Gentleman as having been always an ornament 'and a powerful force in the party opposite, At all events, in 1911 the Committee stage of the Insurance Act was taken upstairs.
  Sir K. WOOD: There are far more drastic powers in that Act.
  Mr. BENN: Except on certain personal and historical details the right hon. Gentleman's case has entirely broken down. The Insurance Act was sent upstairs—I believe to two separate Committees. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a special Committee appointed to do the job and he will not send his Bill upstairs and thereby save time. The whole question of the relief of freight transport hereditament arises on one of these numerous Clauses. I admit, as everyone must admit, that some arrangement of business is necessary but that does not mean to say that we should accede to this ill-designed use of an instrument which can only result in producing, without adequate discussion, a Bill which in consequence will cause friction and irritation at every stage of its administration.
  Question put, "That the word 'Thirteen' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 131.

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES.

  [8.14 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lleut.-Colonel

  Couper, J. B.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Apsley, Lord

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Hanbury, C.

  Atkinson, C.

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)

  Harland, A.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Culverwell, C.T. (Bristol, West)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cunllffe, Sir Herbert

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Davies, Mat. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Berry, Sir George

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Bethel, A.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Bevan, S. J.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Bird. E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton)

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

  Brass, Captain W.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Ellis, R. G.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  England, Colonel A.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Flelden, E. B.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  James, Lleut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Forrest, W.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H.(Stoke New'gton)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

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

  Foxcrott, Captain C. T.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Gates, Percy

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gault, Lleut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Lougher, Lewis

  Christie, J. A.

  Goff. Sir Park

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Grace, John

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Lumley, L. R.

  Cobb Sir Cyril

  Grotrlan, H. Brent

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Invernen)

  Preston, William

  Templeton, W. P.

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Ramsden, E.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  McLean, Major A.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  Titctifield, Major the Marquess of

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)

  Waddington, R.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Rye, F. G.

  Warrender, Sir victor

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Salmon, Major I.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Sandon, Lord

  White, Lleut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

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

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

  Morelng, Captain A. H.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Somervilie, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Storry, Deans, R.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Major Sir William Cope and Captain

  Pilcher, G.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrld

  Margesson.

  NOES.

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

  Grundy, T. W.

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

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

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

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

  Amnion, Charles George

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hardle, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, Walter

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sexton, James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlllery)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H

  Shinwell, E.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bellamy, A.

  Hollins, A.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smillie, Robert

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

  Brlant, Frank

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stamford, T. w.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Strauss, E. A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kennedy, T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)

  Connolly, M.

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Cove, W. G.

  Lansbury, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Townend, A. E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lee, F.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Dalton, Hugh

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Wallhead, Richard C

  Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lowth, T.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dennison, R.

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

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Duncan, C.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Dunnico, H.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Montague, Frederick

  Westwood, J.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Murnin, H.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanellv)

  Glllett, George M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gosling, Harry

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterciffle)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Ritson, J.

  Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in line 18, column 2, to leave out "Clauses 1 to 5," and to insert instead thereof "Clause 1."
  I have a second Amendment to put 10.30 in the place of 7.30 on this first day. I do not propose to argue this at any length, because on a previous occasion I gave, at some length, my reasons for considering that Clause 1 of the Bill needed a great deal more discussion. We have lost that. All the Clauses are to be jammed together within the very narrow limit allowed by the Minister of Health, and this is an attempt to save one little scrap to give rather more time for the most important part of the Bill. It is a miserable Amendment. It does not do nearly all that we ought to do or would like to do, but it is a humble attempt to make a bad job a very little better.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In doing so, I should like to say at the outset how very much I regret that the Government have failed to meet us over an extension of the time for the Committee stage of this Bill. The num her of complicated Clauses which have to be dealt with in very little time will entirely prevent adequate discussion, but in addition to that, such time as the Government have decided to allocate to this Bill is, in my judgment and in that of hon. and right hon. Friends of mine sitting on these benches, very unsuitably distributed among the different Clauses of the Bill. The Minister of Health told us earlier that so far as the subdivision among the different Clauses of the Bill was concerned, he was open to consider alterations and Amendments, and it is with that purpose that I venture to put forward a change in the allocation of the different parts of the 13 days in order that we may have a discussion upon those things which are of the greatest import to us and to the country as a whole. In this Amendment it is suggested that the whole of the first half-day up to 7.30 should be given to Instructions and to Clause 1.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not quite sure, but I think the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) moved the wrong Amendment. I think the Amendment she ought to
  2034
  have moved was the one to leave out "Clauses 1 to 5" and to insert "Clause 1."
  Miss LAWRENCE: That is the Amendment that I formally moved, but I did refer to the next Amendment on the Paper, in column 3, to leave out "7.30" and to insert "10.30." The two really run together, and in order to avoid speaking too long, I mentioned them both. If that were carried, we should go on to the second Amendment, but in order not to waste time, I spoke on the two Amendments.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady. I misunderstood. I understood her only to move the second Amendment. Therefore, the Amendment immediately before the House is "In line 18, column 2, to leave out 'Clauses 1 to 5,' and to insert instead thereof 'Clause 1.'"
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The great complications of this Bill and the number of Amendments have caused some slight confusion, but there is no doubt of the actual position. The Amendment which my hon. Friend moved is that which allocates the whole of the first half-day to the instructions, if there be any, and to the first Clause of the Bill. We would have liked the whole of that time to be an addition to the 13 days, and we should have liked also to have been able to get an addition of time for other parts of the earlier portions of the Bill, but as the Government have defeated us on the question of the extension of the 13 days, we are compelled to try and see whether within the 13 days we can improve the allocation of time. I have therefore put in a manuscript Amendment, and with the permission of the Chair, I propose to indicate the nature of that Amendment now in order that it may be in effect considered as consequential upon the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence). Before I come to the actual terms of the manuscript Amendment, I will indicate the general lines which actuated us in putting it forward. Our idea, in the first place, is that a great deal more time ought to be given to the earlier Clauses of the Measure. Clause 1 is the important operative Clause, and it is suggested that is should have a whole

  2035
  half-day to itself. Clauses 2 to 4 are also of great significance; Clause 3 gives wide powers to the Minister, while Clause 4 enables county councils at their option to act either through the Poor Law or through specific Acts of Parliament. Clauses 2 to 4, therefore, contain important provisions, and we feel that a whole half-day is the very least that ought to be given to them.
  We do not want to see Clause 5 brought into that second half-day, because it deals with an issue of great controversial importance, namely, co-option, and we feel that this Clause ought to begin a special half-day. There are other Clauses which seem to us too important to be dragged in at the end of a very imperfect half-day. Under the Schedule in the Government's proposals, Clauses 13 to 17 are pot down for a single half-day. Clause 13 is one which deals with the very vital issue of the payments to be charged to patients or their relatives on account of their maintenance and treatment in institutions. I understood the Minister of Health to say that that might he subject to sonic alteration. Therefore, that is obviously a matter on which a great deal of time ought to be spent, in order to arrive at the correct solution. Not only is Clause 13 of great importance, but Clause 17, which deals with co-opted guardians, is one which we very much desire to discuss, and it would be utterly impossible to attempt to discuss Clauses 13 to 17 in the same half-day. Therefore, we suggest that only Clauses 13 to 16 should be discussed in half a day, and that Clause 17 should be the beginning of a fresh period.
  There are other matters of great importance about which I will not go into detail, except one, the matter of finance. It is an outrage which I should hardly have thought even the present Government would have perpetrated, that the important financial Clauses 68 to 70 are given only half a day between them for their discussion. This is totally inadequate, considering the very important matters which have to be dealt with. Clause 68 deals with discontinued grants, arising from which there are very controversial questions; and Clause 69 deals not merely with the amount of the Exchequer grant, which is a. very important issue in itself, but with the apportion-
  2036
  meat of that grant, the whole question of the formula upon which the grant is apportioned, and the appropriate percentage of unemployment in the different quinquennial periods. On top of that, Clause 70 deals with very important matters. How it is conceived that Clauses 68, 69 and 70 can be discussed in the narrow limit of three hours, passes my wit to understand. Therefore, we suggest that at least a whole day should be given to these three Clauses.
  If we are limited to 13 days in Committee, we have to telescope other sections of the Bill in order to make room for the adequate discussions of the Clauses which we feel need more time. Therefore, much as I regret having to do it, it becomes my duty in order to keep within order, 13 days having been passed, to suggest that the Clauses in some of the middle parts of the Bill, important as they are, perhaps do not arouse quite the same measure of controversy which arises on the Clauses to which I have referred. Therefore, it might be possible in the Clauses beginning somewhere about Clause 18, and going up to Clause 53, to make some reduction of time, which will enable us to find the time to give to the Clause which I have indicated.
  To sum up, we suggest that the following Schedule should be substituted for parts of the Schedule in the present Government draft. The first half-day to be devoted to Clause 1; the second half-day to Clauses 2, 3 and 4. On the second day, we suggest that the afternoon should be devoted to Clauses 5 to 8, and the evening to Clauses 9 to 12; on the third day, the afternoon to Clauses 13 to 16, so that in the evening we can start with the important Clause 17 and endeavour to the best of our ability to go from 17 to 28: on the fourth day, in the afternoon Clauses 29 to 38, and in the. evening Clauses 39 to 53: on the fifth day, in the afternoon Clauses 54 to 56, and in the evening Clauses 57 to 67; the whole of the sixth day to be allocated to the financial Clauses 68 to 70, without specification of any middle hour, so that the only Guillotine would fall at 10.30, but naturally we should endeavour to discuss the more important Amendments on the Clauses as they proceed.
  Finally, we feel that Clause 111 is so important that it ought not to he taken in the middle of one of these half-day

  2037
  sessions. Therefore we propose that instead of stopping at Clause 98, discussion should go on to Clause 110, and that the second discussion should begin with Clause 111 and go to Clause 115. It would be out of order for me formally to submit this proposal now, because we must confine ourselves to one Amendment at a time, but if the Government agree to this revised allocation of time we suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for East Ham North on the understanding that I would move whatever Amendments might be necessary in order to give effect to the suggestions I have already indicated. I have already handed them in as manuscript Amendments. I urge the Minister in charge, and the House, to accept this allocation or time, for, although I recognise that it is very far from perfect in regard to its total length, I feel that it is a much better arrangement at the time, and my hon. Friends around me agree with me in that view.
  Sir K. WOOD: I have had an opportunity to look at this proposal before, and also I have consulted, as best I can, hon. Members in various parts of the House. The position of the Government is that we desire to meet the wishes of the Opposition. I do not desire to traverse the arguments of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) as to whether the time allotted to this stage of the Measure be adequate or not. What we have to deal with now is the best way of using that time, and provided they have reason to believe that the new proposal provides an adequate amount of time for various Clauses the Government are naturally anxious to meet the desires of the Opposition. If the hon. Gentleman thinks, as I believe the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) thinks, this to be a better allocation of time, and that his friends will be better able to raise the points they desire to put before the House, the Government take no objection. The hon. Member for Leith may desire to make some observations from the point of view of the Liberal party. He has pointed out to me that he thinks that under this new allocation Clause 27, which he regards, and which I know other Members regard, as an important one, will not secure the place which he
  2038
  would desire it to have. A suggestion was made that instead of starting with Clauses 13 to 16 on the 3rd day we should go from Clauses 13 to 17 and then go on with Clauses 18 to 28. I understand the hon. Member for West Leicester attaches some importance to Clause 17. We shall be quite prepared to discuss Clause 17 or Clause 27, and we hope to be able to discuss both. That is the only observation and criticism which I have to make with reference to these proposals. Of course, if I accept the Amendment it must be on the distinct understanding that the hon. Gentleman for West Leicester is going to move his Amendments and that in doing so he will be speaking for the Labour party, because if there is to be any division of opinion the Government would do better to stick to their original programme; but if this revision does meet the wishes a the Opposition, we are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. E. BROWN: We feel that under either allocation of time not enough attention is given to the rural districts. There are two questions for which I should desire to provide special time if I had the drawing-up of the time table, first., that of the roads, and second, the allocation of the grants to the county districts—that is so very difficult that I think it ought to have longer than it gets under this table. Apart from that consideration I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is much better than the original schedule. Hon. Members above the Gangway naturally attach a great deal of importance to the question of the appointed guardians, but I would point out that, large as is the principle which is there involved, the number of people affected and the number of districts affected is very much larger in the case of the roads problem and of the grants under what I call the minor formula, where they are not given according to weighted population hut according to actual population. I think the House ought to have the largest number of moments—I cannot say hours—in which to consider these matters.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) say exactly what change he wishes to introduce?
  Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) wants more time given to the rural side of the question, and for that purpose he would like us, on the 3rd day, to take Clauses 13 to 17 up till 7.30 and Clauses 18 to 28 up to 10.30.
  Mr. BROWN: It is difficult to meet the other point.
  Mr. BRIANT: It is rather difficult for me to follow this revised programme. I am not quite clear how many days it is proposed to give to Clauses 1 and 8, which now get 1½ days. I am anxious that even more time should be given to them. After all, Clauses 1 to 8 sweep away the whole of the present structure, and in reality create an entirely new organisation. It is a most exhaustive reform, if it be a reform at all; it makes an alteration in the whole system to which we have hitherto been accustomed. This is not a scheme which is the result of a careful investigation by a conference or a commission. If the scheme came from a commission one would understand that it had at least received long consideration and careful investigation, with much evidence. The Government scheme is one which, as far as we know, has had no support from any existing commissions. In the few hours from 4 o'clock to 11 o'clock all the reports of past commissions are going to be swept on one side, and we are to be asked to sanction an entirely new scheme which is a device of the Government's as far as I know, and only of the Government and without any consultation with the guardians, who after all do know a bit about it. I was going to say that since the first day of the creation of the world not much more has ever been compressed into one day.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not muddle our heads in following the allocation of time in this matter by going into the question of the merits of Clauses of the Bill.
  Mr. BRIANT: I want to obey your Ruling, but it is important for me to point out the particular Clauses for which I ask longer time, and to show that they are important Clauses. Therefore, I thought I should be in order in doing so. That is the only point I wish to
  2040
  raise just now, and I do want to urge that even longer time than that suggested by my hon. Friends should be given to these eight Clauses. If we make a mistake that mistake may be of enormous consequence to the nation. Anyone who has served as a guardian will realise the difficulties of the details and intricacies of the Poor Law problem, and they must realise also that one slight mistake in regard to these changes might mean a good deal in the administration of Poor Law relief. I think Clauses 1 to 8 certainly require more than 1½ days. More especially when you realise that you are dealing with a system which has been in force for so many years. I could raise 20 or 30 important considerations on every one of those Clauses from my own personal experience, and for these reasons I hope it will be possible to extend the time for the consideration of those Clauses. I think we ought to have at least two days for dealing with Clauses 1 to 8 seeing that they are the main structure in the whole of the scheme.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I think the allocation of time which the Government have now expressed their willingness to accept is some slight improvement upon the Resolution on the Order Paper. In spite of that I think the extension of time is so meagre for the discussion of the important principles involved in the initial Clauses of the Bill that my view is that my hon. Friends are attaching far more importance to the extension of time than it deserves. My opinion is that the Opposition is not going to be allowed to alter this Bill to any large extent because the Government will, by their majority, prevent the Opposition altering the main proposals of this Measure. I think the Government ought to take the whole responsibility for the structure of this Bill.
  Now the Government agree to give more time to what we consider the most, important Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 proposes to destroy the edifice which has grown up since the time of Queen Elizabeth. It is an attempt to destroy an edifice which has grown up through the centuries, and which has its many traditions in our social organisation. The whole thing is going to be swept away remorselessly after some three or four hours discussion. The whole procedure is disgusting and indecent. I would like to let the Committee know how boards of

  2041
  guardians regard this Measure. I have here a telegram which I would read to the Committee—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that question has anything to do with the Amendment now before us.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Boards of guardians are expressing the opinion that more time should be given to the discussion of Clause 1. The telegram to which I refer requests me to move the postponement or the withdrawal of Clause 1. At any rate, if we could get a little more time to discuss that Clause such a course would meet the views of the Merthyr Tydvil Board of Guardians. I need not tell the Government what will happen if this Measure is passed. I intend to let them take their own course, and the sooner disaster overtakes them the better. I do not see that the Opposition will better themselves either by an extension of the time for discussion or by a reallocation of the time provided for in the Motion. The Government have decided, and on their heads be their own fate.
  Major OWEN: I am not going to say anything about the allocation of 13 days, but I should like to press the point made by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). Clause 27 is one which particularly affects our rural areas, and in comparison with Clause 17 which is to be included under the new allocation, it cannot have anything like the importance, nor does it affect as large a number of bodies. While I do not object to this allocation, I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter in order to see whether there cannot be some arrangement whereby the Clause I have referred to can have more consideration than is now proposed.
  Sir K. WOOD: So far as the Government is concerned, we are prepared to accept the suggestions which have been made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) on behalf of the party opposite. I am not unmindful of the considerations which have been put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen), and, when we come to the Committee stage, the point which he has raised may be considered. I think there is a great consensus of opinion in regard to the suggestions which have been made
  2042
  by the hon. Member for West Leicester, and it is quite clear that the intention of the Opposition in suggesting those Amendments is to make the best of the position in which hon. Members find themselves. Under these circumstances, I accept those Amendments on the understanding that they are accepted on behalf of the party opposite. I shall accept, first of all, the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence).
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will undertake not to taunt us with supporting these Amendments when we say that there has not been sufficient time allowed to discuss this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  Leave out lines 19 to 29 inclusive, and insert instead thereof:

  Clauses 2 to 4

  …

  10.30

  Second

  …

  Clauses 5 to 8

  7.30

  Clauses 9 to 12

  10.30

  Third

  …

  Clauses 13 to 16

  7.30

  Clauses 17 to 28

  10.30

  Fourth

  …

  Clauses 29 to 38

  7.30

  Clauses 39 to 53

  10.30

  Fifth

  …

  Clauses 54 to 56

  7.30

  Clauses 57 to 67

  10.30

  Sixth

  …

  Clauses 68 to 70

  10.30

  In line 38, column 2, leave out "98," and insert instead thereof "110."
  In line 39, column 2, leave out "99," and insert instead thereof "111."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]
  Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I beg to move. in line 47, to leave out the word "Three," and to insert instead thereof the word "Five."
  9.0 p.m.
  We are now passing away from the 13 days—an unlucky number—allotted to the Committee stage, and coming to the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Government, assured those who spoke for the rural districts that Mr. Speaker will give consideration, on the Report stage, to the Amendments which it will not have been possible to discuss in Committee. Only three days, however, are allotted, in the Motion, for the Report stage, and I am moving to make the time allotted five days. I wart the House to try to forecast where we shall be when we come to the Report stage. Thirteen days may seem a long

  2043
  time for the Committee stage of a Bill, but this is six Bills in one, and, consequently, we have the perfectly ludicrous result that on one day there will have been discussed in Committee some 25 Clauses—and not merely formal Clauses, but Clauses which will be of a controversial character. According to a later paragraph in the Motion, when the direful hour strikes, Mr. Speaker will put the Question on any Motion or Amendment already proposed from the Chair, and will next proceed to put forthwith the Question on anything of which the Government have given notice; but no other Amendment, new Clause or Schedule will be put at all.
  It is not merely that this Guillotine Motion will deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing various Amendments, but the great majority of the Amendments will not even be put. from the Chair. Therefore, when we come to the Report stage, there will not only he the ordinary consideration of the Amendments which have been already adopted by the Committee—and they will need a great deal of consideration, for reasons which I will give presently—but there will also be the virtual necessity, as it seems to us, of taking up those Amendments which, under this drastic Guillotine Closure have never even been put from the Chair, not from any unwillingness on the part of the Government to consider them, because they will quite possibly include some Amendments which, if they had been discussed, the Government would have been willing to accept in whole or in part. They will not, however, have been even put. to the Committee. Consequently, I think that this is a ease in which we may ask for rather more than three days for the Report stage.
  Three days would be quite sufficient and reasonable for one Bill, but, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, we are now dealing with six Bills, and, therefore, to cut down the Report stage to merely the time which might be reasonable for one Bill is not only depriving the House of the opportunity of discussion, but seriously militating against any improvement of the Measure. The Minister of Health, in his opening remarks, laid great stress on the fact that he wished the House to improve the Measure. He did
  2044
  not assert that it was perfect; he knew that it was not; and it became clear before the evening was over that a good deal of amendment would have to be made. I do not, however, see how the House is to have any real opportunity, quite apart from obstruction or opposition, for suggesting improvements in this Measure, if we are to be cut down, on the Report stage, to no more than three days, which, I repeat, while it might be enough for one Bill, is a serious deprivation of time when we are discussing what really amounts to six Bills in one.
  As we go through the 13 days in Committee, if the Government are really serious in listening to the opinions expressed, and are capable of being impressed by the points made—because I suspect that even Members of the Government do not quite know so much about this Bill and its effect as all the world does, and it is quite possible that some new aspect of it may be opened to their minds—it will be extremely difficult, even then, for the Government to accept any Amendments during the Committee stage. A large proporton of the Amendments on the Paper are badly drafted: they could not fail to be badly drafted in the case of a Bill of this kind; and, even if the Government should be prepared to accept them in substance, they will find themselves unable to accept them as they stand on the Paper, and they will have to be re-drafted and brought forward on the Report stage, which is the time when such Amendments are usually brought forward. They will have to be considered in much greater detail and with greater expert knowledge than is possible in this House, and the Government, as I say, will not be able to accept the Amendments that they would wish to accept during the Committee stage, and which they have almost intimated that they are going to accept. For that reason alone, I suggest that the Government might give us, say, five days instead of three for the Report stage.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I support the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has moved. The Government are compelling us to discuss the Bill in Committee within a period of 13 days, and. in consequence, we shall be driven to dispose of far-reaching changes, particularly affecting the rural constituencies of this country, in the short space of one-

  2045
  and-a-half days. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that a direct consequence of that is that Amendments which not merely emanate from the Opposition, but represent the considered judgment of all the local authorities concerned, and which have been built up as the result of mature consideration by county councils, urban and rural district councils, and Poor Law authorities, will have to be left entirely unconsidered in the course of those one-and-a-half days. The whole system of local government in my constituency is going to be re-made in one-and-a-half days of Committee discussion after we have been waiting 19 years for the shaping of the Bill itself. The whole thing is preposterous. I hope at the very least the Minister will accept, without, any further cavil, this minimum extension of time, if only on the ground of the hopeless neglect of these very important resolutions which affect the rural system of society.
  Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. I think if "five days" had been inserted in the original proposal we should have heard very much the same arguments as we have heard in regard to three. On any figure that was put forward we might possibly take varying views, and the hon. Member who has just spoken might repeat how bad it was that this was going to happen to his constituency in two days instead of one-and-a-half.: I do not think it is an unfair proportion of time. We shall not be in the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman anticipated because we shall go very carefully through the proceedings in Committee and any Amendments which commend themselves to us will be put down in the name of the Government on Report, and that will ensure that they shall be incorporated in the Bill. I think that to a large extent insures that, where the Opposition and the Government agree, those provisions that, we all desire will be incorporated in the Bill. We are desirous, both in Committee and on Report. genuinely to consider Amendments which will improve the Bill and further the objects the Government have before them. I remember very well the discussion on the guillotine Motion in regard to our last Bill. It was then said by hon. Members opposite that there was not sufficient time, but I remember how, time aster time, we were in advance of our programme. I
  2046
  will not prophesy in regard to this Bill, especially as the right hon. Gentleman will be taking part in the Debates, that we shall anticipate our programme in that way, but I think we shall have reasonable time and, if there is anything that is not provided for so far as this House is concerned, there is always another place where matters of that sort can be dealt with, therefore I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has adopted his usual tactics of attaching great importance to the other place where we can put things right, but in view of the very small representation we have there, I do not see what chance there is for us. This is the only Chamber we recognise as responsible to the people, and it is in this Chamber that the Bill should be thoroughly discussed in the fullest possible details. It seems to me that three days are utterly inadequate for the Report stage. We have not agreed to 13 days. We know that the Government can use their power in the Division Lobby to crush us, and that is the only thing that prevents us getting more than 13 days for the Committee stage, but the Report stage is a kind of of review of what has happened in the Committee stage and it is quite obvious that we shall have little or no time to discuss very important Clauses and the Amendments to them.
  Let me illustrate the importance of Part 4 as an example of the inadequacy of the time allotted in Committee and on Report. I consider that Part 4 is one of the most vital portions of the whole Bill, and one that is going to arouse the strongest possible opposition throughout the country amongst the great mass of the smaller local authorities. It also figures very largely in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in their latest interim Report. I refer, of course, to the rearrangement of local government areas.
  This portion of the Bill is a very radical proposal and one which, if carried out fully, is going to revolutionise the number and the areas of the existing local authorities. At present we have the parish councils, the rural councils, the boards of guardians, the urban councils, the municipal boroughs, county boroughs and county councils, and everyone of these will be affected by these proposals.

  2047
  The time allotted in Committee is absurdly short for these very important things and, on Report, the time that can be given to them in three days is not worth considering at all. I venture to predict that before we reach the Report stage, once it becomes thoroughly known in the country that this portion has been ignored or set aside by the Government, there will be great resentment. The whole thing is of too great importance to be put aside after a casual discussion in a few
  hours. All these local authorities are vitally affected with regard to the proposals for rearrangement, and the wording in the Bill is very vague as to what is to be the procedure with regard to alterations of boundaries, amalgamations of small units and so on. I very strongly support the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'Three' stand part of the Question, as amended."
  The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 133.

  Division No. 50.]

  AYES.

  [9.15 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Albery, Irving James

  Galbraith, J. F. W

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Atkinson. C.

  Gates, Percy

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Barclay-Harvey. C. M.

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

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Goff, Sir Park

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Grace, John

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

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

  Bethel, A.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Bevan, S. J.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hanbury, C.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Harland, A.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Partington, Marquess of

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Burman, J. B.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Perkins, Colonel E. K

  Cassels, J. D.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pilcher, G.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Preston, William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Price, Major C. W. M

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Ramsden, E.

  Christie, J. A.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert

  Salmon, Major I.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Gainsbro)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lamb, J. Q

  Savery, S. S.

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

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Long, Major Eric

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lougher, Lewis

  Skelton, A. N.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere

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

  Dixey, A. C.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Smithers, Waldron

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Lumley, L. R.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

  Fermoy, Lord

  McLean, Major A.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Fleiden, E. B.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Wood. B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

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

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W, Mitchell

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Tinne, J. A.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Waddington, R.

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

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

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

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Major Sir William Cope and Sir

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Victor Warrender.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  NOES.

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

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Richardson, R. (Houghtor-le-Spring)

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

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Ritson, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

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

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

  Baker, Walter

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hardie, George D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Barnes, A.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Sexton, James

  Barr, J.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Bellamy, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shinwell, E.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hollins, A.

  Smillie, Robert

  Bromfield, William

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Snell, Harry

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Strauss, E. A.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

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

  Connolly, M.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cove, W. G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Townend, A. E.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Wallhead, Richard C

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lowth, T.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Day, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Dennison, R.

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

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

  Duncan, C.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Dunnleo, H.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  England, Colonel A.

  March, S.

  Whiteley, W.

  Fenny, T. D.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Forrest, W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gillett, George M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Gosling, Harry

  Owen, Major G.

  Windsor, Walter

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Smith.

  Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in line 64, to leave out the word "One," and to insert instead thereof the word "Two."
  This is a request for another day for Third Reading. There is a peculiar sense of unreality when addressing this House on a subject like this. The question has been settled long ago, and all the arguments that we put forward on the matter under discussion are only so much additional strength to the Minister's determination that there shall not be a discussion, and that is, of course, a psychological frame of mind which we all can
  2050
  readily and perfectly understand. Therefore, I am not going to make a speech, but to point out once more that the. Government have sewn together five or six Bills, and by this means have avoided having a proper Second Reading on any one of them. They have also avoided having what they ought to have had—a Third Reading for each one separately. I ask the House to consider sympathetically what can be done with the Third Reading of this enormous portmanteau Measure. How the speakers will have to jump about from Poor Law guardians to roads, and from roads to de-rating, and from de-

  2051
  rating to quinquennia, and from quinquennia to formula, and what an excessively easy job the Minister will have in replying, when it is impossible, for any human being to deal adequately with the points raised! There it is. The Government are going to force this absurd Bill through, and we are not going to have enough time in which to discuss it. I put forward once more the case that for Third Reading we should have at least two days, in order to admit of some proper classification of Debate. To debate every question in this Bill in one day means a very great trial to the Chair. It will prevent the Debate from being presented coherently.
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It seems to me that when we have before us a Bill with 115 Clauses and 11 Schedules, and occupying 155 pages, it is ridiculous to ask the House to take only one day for the consideration of the Third Reading. I suppose that the Minister will require an hour in order to explain the difference between the Bill on Third Reading and what it was when it was introduced, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will also require an hour to wind up and to explain what a very excellent Bill this is. They may take it on a Friday, when we sit from eleven till four. That means five hours, and for only about 2½ hours shall we be in a position to discuss a Bill of this character, or less than we should give to a Bill dealing with rats or rabbits, or something of that sort. The Bill comprises exceedingly interesting and intricate Clauses, and the Government really ought to give us additional time rather than cut it down. I can offer only one explanation for it, and that is that they realise that by the time it gets to Third Reading the Bill will be in such a condition, owing to the criticism that it has received, that they will be glad enough to get rid of it quickly.
  Sir K. WOOD: The Opposition is surely very contradictory on this matter. I think it will be found that the allocated time is adequate without extension. The hon. Lady who has just spoken has had a very good innings already, and she cannot complain that she has been stinted of time. It will be found, I think, on
  2052
  the Committee stage, on Report and on Third Reading that we have generally a little time in hand and on Third Reading especially, if we endeavour to compress our speeches, every hon. Member who is desirous of joining in the Debate will have an opportunity. At any rate, I do not think matters would be very much improved by an additional day. In these circumstances the House will agree with me that a reasonable amount of time has been allotted. We have endeavoured to meet hon. Members opposite as to the exact allotment of the Clauses to be discussed, and I think generally it will be found sufficient. I do not anticipate any of the difficulties which hon. Members suggest, and at any rate I must ask the House to reject this Amendment.
  Mr. BENN: The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is worthy of the Motion. Not a word of evidence of any sort or kind! He thinks the hon. Lady has had her fair share of debate, that the time will he sufficient, and that in any case he must ask the House to reject the Amendment. That is the complete case put from the Government Benches. When you recollect that the Minister himself took 2½ hours to introduce the Bill—I am not in the least complaining of that, and 1 agree it was an admirable and a justly-admired exposition of the Measure—and that we are going to be allotted what may be only between 11 o'clock and 3.30 on a Friday afternoon for the Third Reading, hon. Members will see that there is something in this Amendment.
  I would like to ask the Chief Whip one or two questions about the allocation. As I have pointed out many times, it is his business, and not the business of the Minister of Health, to defend this Motion. Of course, the Minister wants it, but the Chief Whip is the only man, besides the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House, who is really in charge of the business of the House. To ask the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to judge the case is like having a bench of burglars to decide a case of housebreaking. In connection with these Debates, as we learn from the "Times" and other newspapers, the Chief Whip has resorted to a new strategy, and has had educational classes

  2053
  upstairs of Back Bench Members who have been sent down to give what is described as independent support of the Bill. Is that going on? It is perfectly obvious that there will be no general criticism of the Bill if that is going on, and if he directs hon. Members of his own party—as an alternative to the old policy of absenteeism—to get up and make little speeches praising the Bill. Another question I would like to ask is this: Is the Minister of Health going to reply on Third Reading? The Guillotine falls at 3.30 or 10.30 p.m., as the case may be, and there is no guarantee that any answer will be made to the arguments put forward. We may be a small minority, but that is not a thing which commends itself to the judgment of any person with decent feelings or respect for Parliamentary institutions.
  Mr. HARRIS: I would remind the House of what happened on the Second Reading of this Bill. We had the experience of at least two Members representing rural constituencies pointing out that the point of view of the district councils in rural areas had not been put to the House. I remember one hon. Member for one of the Sussex Divisions, who does not often intervene in these Debates—though when he does he shows extraordinary knowledge—protesting that though he was going to put an independent point of view and to make constructive criticism, he had not had an opportunity of making his statement. Not only have the rural areas not an opportunity, in this comprehensive Measure which covers the whole of the country, of showing their objection and asking for concessions, but London, which has a very big problem and is very much affected by the Bill, has hardly had a look in. No single Member except the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in these three days has had an opportunity of putting the London point of view.
  I agree that London is to a great ex tent supporting some parts of the Measure but that is conditional on a great number of concessions. These concessions do appear on the Order Paper, but there is every reason to believe, according to the time table, that it will be impossible to move the Amendments which will embody the requirements of London. The only chance the
  2054
  great rural districts and London will have to have the case put on large lines, and not merely on matters of detail, is on Third Reading. If it had been possible for every point of view to be put, then there would have been some argument for only one day, but there are other aspects. Take the question of the guardians. You cannot treat the guardians as an isolated problem. Whether some Members, at any rate on this side of the House, can be satisfied with the abolition of the guardians entirely depends on how the Bill is amended. Before they really can state their point of view, they will have to see the Bill in its final form. It is not unreasonable, when a number of people have been prevented from speaking during the three days, that on the Third Reading, which is the last occasion on which the problem can be viewed as a whole, that there should be an extra day.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I cannot help thinking that the Minister has forgotten something. In regard to this formula which he is presenting, will he instruct the House as to how he has arrived at the figures? The Government are up against all the experts in the country. They have not made their peace with the County Councils' Association. One hon. Member has been telling us he has handed in 26 Amendments. Are they going to receive the consideration they deserve on the Committee stage? That is clearly impossible, because there will will not be time. Again, have you made your peace with the associations of local government authorities? The right hon. Gentleman knows full well shat the Urban District Councils' Association and the Rural District Councils' Association are against the Bill, and that many of the communications from these Associations complain of what the Bill contains. If the Minister would go into the country and consult the people there, not of my own political persuasion but of his own political persuasion, they would tell him that they are as much against the Bill as I am. There is no peace in regard to this matter. If a referendum were taken, I am sure the Minister would lose his case. I hope that we shall be given at least the two days for discussion of the Third Reading which are asked for in the Amendment.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us in this matter, otherwise we shall be trying in one day to do an impossible job. Let the Minister consider his own action in this matter. The House and the country have had a serial story in White Paper 3134, White Paper 3220 and White Paper 3227, followed by a series of lengthy negotiations, then the Bill, and now we are to have a compact, restricted Committee stage of 13 days. There will be thousands of Amendments on Me Order Paper before the Committee stage is through. We are to have three days on Report, and when we have Reported the Bill hundreds of Amendments which will never have been touched. As I understand the object of a Third Reading, it is an occasion when the Bill and nothing but the Bill is discussed. Surely, it is in the interests of the Minister, to say nothing of the local authorities and the thousands of administrators who will have to administer the Act, when it is the law of the land, that we should get a clear-cut discussion of the Bill as it finally leaves this Chamber to go to another place.
  The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have made the mistake of thinking that he was discussing a Bill to deal with the Socialistic millennium. Had he been discussing the Socialistic millennium, he might have talked at length until time came to an end, or he might have made a thumb-nail sketch of it, and have got through it in half a day. He is not discussing the Socialistic millennium but the Tory quinquennium which is a very different thing. The Tory quinquennium is not a matter that we can expand or contract; it is a practical business which has to be translated into practical acts by every local authority, and seeing that these quinquennial periods will follow one another, as they will long after the Parliamentary Secretary and I have been gathered to our fathers, and have received our appropriate rewards, the least the Minister can do is to give every hon. Member who has a contribution to make to the discussion with regard to the principles underlying the Bill, and how it will finally work out in detail, a chance of expressing himself on the Third Reading. He ought to give a chance not only to hon. Members on this side but to his own back benchers to
  2056
  state the case as we see it and as they see it for and against the Bill, so that the country may not remain in the maze in which we find it to-day.
  In regard to Scotland there is anger, while in England and Wales there is anxiety with regard to the Bill. The Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils Association, and. the Rural District Councils Association, all these bodies, although they have agreed reluctantly to certain concessions, because they know they can get concessions out of the Minister, there is great dubiety and great anxiety as to the final administrative structure into which our local government system will be cast after the Third Reading and passage of this Bill, and there is great anxiety and great dubiety as to how the financial proposals will finally work out. Two days are not enough for discussion of the Third Reading; certainly the period allowed ought not to be one moment less than two Parliamentary days. Hon. Members opposite will make a good many slips in discussing the Bill before and during the next General Election. The serial story has been so long, so variegated, so multi-coloured, that the shortest possible time which ought to be given to the House in order to put the proposals before the country on the Third Reading of the Bill, is two days.
  Mr. HARDIE: We are certainly entitled to a longer period for debate before we come to the final washing out of Scottish individuality, and the consideration of that part of the Bill.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): Does the hon. Member want the House to think that we are suggesting a joint Committee for both Bills?
  Mr. HARDIE: I do suggest that Scotland is going to be dragged at the heels of England, and that all through Scotsmen on the Government side are selling the pass. If Scotsmen had been of the same character as the Irishmen who used to sit in this House, the Government would not have got off so easily. What we are fighting for, is that we should have some kind of distinctive mark so far as Scotland is concerned. If the time allowed for England is to be, say, one

  2057
  day, then Scotland ought to have six, and the reason for that statement is that Scottish people take their politics seriously, and discuss things seriously. It is not possible at this stage to discuss what the Government have been pleased to call the method of calculation, or the formula. The difference between the English population and the Scottish population is that the Scottish population believe in getting to the bottom of a thing, and finding out whether or not it will work. We believe in going right down to every detail. The fight on the English side cannot be considered to be our fight. Instead of looking at this matter from the true national point of view, and fighting for an extension for both countries, I am afraid that some hon. Members will be prepared to accept something for England and, having secured that, they will not care what happens to Scotland. If you want to have a real review of the Bill on This Reading the time allowed is absolutely inadequate, and I hope, even if it is only for the purpose of educating the people of the country in these difficult matters, that the Government will give us more time.
  Mr. TINKER: This particular Amendment, out of all the others on the Order Paper, appeals to me most. I will tell the House why. Three days were given to the Second Reading of the Bill. It certainly was not adequate because there were scores of hon. Members who did not get a chance to speak. On the Third Reading Debate we shall put up one or two of our experts in order to make a big show, and they will take three-quarters of an hour each. The Government will want to equal this, and their spokesmen will probably take an hour each. The Liberal party will also want their fair share of the time, and it is just possible that hon. Members on the Government Benches will also want to speak. What chance is there for backbenchers on this side of the House? I appeal to the Government to recognise the fact that we want a chance of speaking on the Third Reading and give us another day.
  Question put, "That the word 'One' stand part of the Question, as amended."
  The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 127.

  Division No. 51.]

  AYES.

  [9.48 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Albery, Irving James

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Applin, Colonel B. V. K.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Grace, John

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

  Couper, J. B.

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Atkinson, C.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

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

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Bennett, A. J.

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Hanbury, C.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bethel, A.

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

  Harland, A.

  Bevan, S. J.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. B., Skipton)

  Dixey, A. C.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Brockiehank, C. E. R.

  Ellis, R. G.

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. B. I.

  England, Colonel A.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Burman, J. B.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, whiteh'n)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Forrest, W.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Christie, J. A.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Gates, Percy

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Lamb, J. O.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Long, Major Eric

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Lougher, Lewis

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Perring, Sir William George

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

  Lumley, L. R.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

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

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Pilcher, G.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Preston, William

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Ramsden, E.

  Waddington, R.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  McLean, Major A.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Rye, F. G.

  Wells, S. R.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Salmon, Major I.

  White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Savery, S. S.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

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

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

  Wragg, Herbert

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

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

  NOES.

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

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

  Naylor, T. E.

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

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Ammon, Charles George

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

  Owen, Major G.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Baker, Walter

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Barnes, A.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Barr, J.

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

  Bellamy, A.

  Hardie, George D.

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

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Harris, Percy A.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Sexton, James

  Bromfield, William

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hollins, A.

  Shinwell, E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Charieton, H. C.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smillie, Robert

  Cluse, W. S.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Compton, Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Snell, Harry

  Connolly, M.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Cove, W. G.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kennedy, T.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sutton, J. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

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

  Day, Harry

  Lee, F.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dennison, R.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Duncan, C.

  Lowth, T.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Dunnico, H.

  Lunn, William

  Viant, S. P.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Fenby, T. D.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  March, S.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Gillett, George M

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Westwood, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Montague, Frederick

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  2060

  2061

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Windsor, Walter

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in line 69, to leave out the word "Eight," and to insert instead thereof the word "Nine."
  As I indicated earlier, after having listened to representations made from all sides of the House the Government are prepared to extend the Committee stage by one day. I understand that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) will later move a manuscript Amendment for the allocation of time in those nine days. It is clear from what has been said that the Opposition—and the Government are not in disagreement—desire to have a little more time to discuss the earlier Clauses which refer particularly to the changes that are being made in local government. If it is the will of the House to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee, the Government will accept that proposal. In the main it follows the same line as the Government would have proposed in the allocation of the nine days, with some modifications. I hope that this may lead to the fullest opportunity being given to the discussion of all the important points in the Scottish Bill.
  Question, "That the word 'Eight' stand part of the Question, as amended," put; and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Nine' be there inserted."
  Mr. HARDIE: I wish to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert the word "Fifteen" instead of the word "Nine."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must first vote against "Nine" being inserted.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: If we merely vote against "Nine" being inserted, we are giving no indication of our preference for "Fifteen." We in no way accept the theory of the Secretary of State that nine days are sufficient. We hold that a period of 15 days is required.
  Mr. HARDIE: As I said, I wish to move that 15 days be substituted for the nine days proposed. The reasons for asking for this time is that the Bill differs so much in detail from the English Bill. The Scottish Bill carries with it very
  2062
  radical changes, not only in law but in practice, which take away the democratic vote and change the whole of the methods so far as county and burgh relations are concerned. The Bill seeks to merge two bodies, now democratically appointed, into one body. These two bodies are the parish councils, which correspond to the English Boards of Guardians, and the education authorities. The education authority is at present an ad hoc body. The areas of the education authorities were enlarged in 1918, and they have not been fully tried out in Scotland. Because of these details that have to be considered, we ask for fifteen days discussion. We have in the Scottish educational system something that is not experienced in England unless in the one City of Liverpool. In Glasgow and in the industrial areas, there are difficulties that demand full consideration. Of such difficulties England knows nothing. In nine days there will not be time to deal with these questions adequately. We have a huge community in cities like Glasgow where the line of difference in faith makes the educational system a real difficulty. If for no other reason, we need 15 days to understand what is to take place.
  10.0 p.m.
  The Government are saying to the people, "You have always been allowed to vote for your education authorities. Now you are to have that taken from you and your members are to be co-opted on an education committee." In 1918 this House gave certain things to Scotland in an Act and those things are being departed from now. It is no use the Secretary of State thinking that if the Government can guillotine the discussions, they are going to kill the education question in Scotland. The shorter the time given, the more alive will that question become. Then as to the parish council business, although the Secretary of State has promised to make a new arrangement whereby there will be a kind of half-voting for parish councils working in conjunction with something else, even for that arrangement it is necessary to have 15 days discussion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not wish to have the word "Nine" inserted, he must vote against it, and, if

  2063
  he defeats the insertion of the word "Nine," he can move to insert the word "Fifteen." The Question before the House is "That the word 'Nine' be there inserted."
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Like the last speaker, I oppose the idea of giving only nine days for the discussion of these revolutionary proposals affecting Scotland. Not only are the education authorities, and the small burghs, and, indeed, the people of Scotland, opposed to the local government proposals generally, but the agricultural community is opposed to the suggested system of de-rating in its application to Scottish agriculture as compared with the proposals relating to English agriculture. Well does the Secretary of State for Scotland know the feeling of the agricultural community against the proposed system.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must realise that we cannot allow this to develop into a Second Reading Debate.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I was seeking to give reasons why a longer period than nine days would be required for the discussion of these proposals, and I submit that the difference between the proposals applying to agriculture in Scotland, and those applying to agriculture in England, justify us in asking a longer period for the discussion of the intricacies of the Government proposals. I pass to the dissatisfaction existing in Scotland on the education proposals. Because of the revolution which is proposed in education administration in Scotland, we would require the 15 days which has been suggested, and, certainly, far more than the nine days in the proposal now before the House. The Government seek, not merely to change the educational machinery, but to change the whole system of the election of those who are to be associated with its administration. They are seeking to disfranchise thousands of electors, and it will not be possible to give due attention to that problem in the course of nine days. We cannot possibly have adequate time for dealing with education within the space of nine days, but I would suggest a way whereby the Secretary of State for Scotland could help us to make even the nine days adequate. That would be by the withdrawal of the whole of the
  2064
  proposals relating to education. That would enable us to concentrate on the proposals relating to the burghs and other matters. We must go into the Division Lobby against this limited period of nine days being allowed for the consideration of proposals which are resented in Scotland, as much by supporters of the Government as by the men and women of my own political faith. Air Henry Keith and Lochiel and others are honestly opposing the proposals made by the Government because they believe that those proposals are made for the deliberate purpose of ruining and destroying the system of local government in Scotland.
  Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I wish to add my word of protest to those which have already been spoken against the proposal to allot nine days for this purpose. This Bill is much more radical and revolutionary than the English Bill. Why that should be so I do not know, but poor Scotland has suffered once again the blows of bad fortune administered through the agency of this Government. The educational system in England has been left practically untouched, but the educational system in Scotland is being dealt with drastically and many other points arise which call for a great deal of discussion. I do not think our case would have been so strong had there been an adequate reply by the Government to the Second Reading Debate. There are, for instance, several important matters concerning public health which have never been explained and we are in considerable doubt and mystification as to what is going to happen when these changes take place. Had the Government made matters a little more clear in that respect our claim to-night would not have been so strong.
  I further suggest as a reason for allotting more time, that the Bill has only been made possible by consultation and conciliation and by a study and consideration of the feelings of the local authorities. We know that during the Recess a considerable amount of time was spent by the right hon. Gentleman in work of that kind. To his credit—though I think we would rather it had been otherwise—he gave up his holiday, and devoted himself to arranging matters with the local authorities. Although the local authorities are not

  2065
  quite so anxious in some respects as they were, they are still in considerable doubt. I suggest that the best way to conciliate local opinion and to secure an understanding of the good points, which the Government tell us exist in the Bill, is to give a proper Committee stage in which these matters can be made clear, and the local authorities can be told what is going to happen. I suggest that, in the Government's own interest, the time should be extended. We are grateful for the concession of an extra day, but, like Oliver Twist, we ask for more. We feel we have the right on behalf of Scotland, which we think is being shabbily treated in this respect, to demand 15 days, a period which is only barely adequate for the proper consideration of these important and revolutionary proposals.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: I feel that we have no option hut to vote against this proposal of nine days. The hon. Member for Fast Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) said he was grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the concession of one day, but I should like the House to consider what that means. On the time table as it would be arranged then, it would mean that we should have another three hours to discuss the whole of the vast question connected with the abolition of the parish councils, and another three hours for discussing the transfer of the functions of all the 'other local authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is adequate, I can only say that I am sure that every Scottish Member in the House will not agree with him. As has already been said, the proposals affecting Scotland are far more revolutionary than are those affecting England, and the initial Clauses of the Bill cover the whole range of local government. in Scotland, the new proposals which are going to alter it from top to bottom, and, as the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) said, bringing into the forefront the possibility of religious squabbles over educational matters. To suppose that the whole of these matters can be adequately discussed in a matter of nine days is entirely apart from the opinion of the Scottish Members in this House. I think 10 days would have been the absolute minimum, and that 12 days would have been a proper time, but 15 days have been asked
  2066
  for. I think the House might be satisfied with 12, but certainly not with nine, and I shall feel myself compelled to vote against the Government's proposal.
  Mr. SHINWELL: The strongest argument advanced against the Government's proposal was advanced by the Secretary of State for Scotland himself during the Second Reading discussion, for he then said, when opposition was raised in all quarters of the House to the details of the Bill, that a time would come when, on the Committee stage, we could make our observations and he would be only too ready to offer explanations. Now, having bought off the opposition on his own side and disposed of the opposition on this side for the time being, he refuses to do any more than grant this so-called concession. It is hardly sufficient. The varied interests concerned call for more consideration than he is prepared so far to give them. First of all, the educational side has to be dealt with, and that involves the religious question. That is a serious matter, as there are various denominational interests affected. They will all want consideration, and indeed they are entitled to it. Then he has to deal with the small burghs, the parish councils, the agricultural interests, and the general question of de-rating. Surely he does not contend that all these interests can be properly dealt with and disposed of in the nine days that he now proposes to allot to the Committee stage.
  The assumption underlying the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman appears to be this, that during the Committee and Report stages, the hon. Members on his own side are not going to participate in the discussion, but presumably he does not expect that all parties in the House can get fair treatment in these nine days. If he does, it is an ill-founded assumption, because during the Second Reading Debate there was hardly a Member on the benches opposite from a Scottish constituency who did not participate in the Debate. That indicates that they have something to say, and I presume that they will want to say something on the Committee stage also. We shall have something to say, and my hon. Friends below the Gangway on this side will certainly want to say something. That is characteristic of them, even if it does not seem a great deal, and certainly my hon.

  2067
  Friends on this side will have something to say. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshitre (Lieut.-Colonel Thorn) was very prolific in his observations on the Second Reading. Where is the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), who made three or four speeches when the opportunity offered? I presume the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Under-Secretary also will want to say something, and where is the learned Lord Advocate? Will he not have something to say on the legal aspects of the Bill?
  My last point is one of real substance. The right hon. Gentleman admitted in the Second Reading discussion—and I say this without offence—that he had some difficulty in explaining the formula and the intricacies and complications of this Bill of undoubted complexity. That is what he said, and surely if we are to hear the proper and necessary explanations for which everybody is waiting, it will require some time. Far from being hostile to the right hon. Gentleman, we are anxious to assist him and to give him an opportunity of explaining himself. No one should he more anxious to avail himself of that opportunity than the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who could, I am sure, speak for three hours on this Bill, and indeed on any of the Clauses. It is very seldom that he gets the opportunity of speaking in this House, and why should we prevent him? On all grounds, and for reasons that have been suggested on this side and indeed for reasons that have been suggested by hon. Members on the other side in the earlier stages of the proceedings when they indicated disapproval of the time-table arrangements, we ought to have more time.
  May I correct a misapprehension which appears to exist in the minds of hon. Members on the other side. They appear to think that, because we are opposing a time-table Motion that it is mere frivolity on our part. It is nothing of the sort. We are not opposed on principle to a time-table arrangement, but if the method is to be the accepted practice in the House, it should be reached as a result of negotiations through the usual channels, and not imposed as it is by the Government without previous discussion. The Government come along
  2068
  in this arbitrary, Mussolini, dominating and domineering fashion, and thrust this down our throats. Speaking for a Scottish constituency, and knowing something of Scottish opinion, I protest in the strongest possible way against this proposal.
  Mr. MacLAREN: It is rather incongruous that a Member for an English division should intervene to ask for more time for a Scottish Bill. I want to put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is a conundrum why 13 days should be given to the English Bill, and only nine for the Scottish Bill, because really it does not matter whether England be three times the size of Scotland or vice versa. The legal changes that are involved are as important to England as to Scotland. For years I have been associated in Scotland in the most intimate way with the fight that has been carried on in regard to the reform in the rating law. The fight that has been put up in Scotland for almost 30 years for rating reform has no reflection in this Bill. The Scottish outlook on this question is entirely different from anything that has been freely expressed on the English side, and I am interested, as many other people who come from Scotland are, to find out how the Government are going to impose this novel form of rating on the Scottish people. Intellectually, it will be interesting to those of us who are watching this innovation.
  Therefore, for that, if it were for no other reason, I oppose this Motion. I am not going to be redundant and mention the educational difficulty. It is true that it has been said that some here are Irishmen and only Scotsmen in disguise, but I cannot help feeling, as I sit and watch the complacent way in which Scotsmen are accepting the extinction of the race by this whirlwind method, whereby the Sassenach has suddenly dragged them at his tail, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has dropped tartan and pipes and peasemeal to go flying after the Englishman as if Scotland had no existence—I cannot understand how it is Scotsmen are so complacent over this matter. Putting all joking aside, there is more in this than meets the eye. The Scottish people have had a determined national mind—
  Mr. SPEAKER: May I ask what this has to do with the Amendment?
  Mr. MacLAREN: On a point of Order, I beg to say this to you, that I am stressing a point which will be easily appreciated by the Secretary of State, that the Scottish mind has been very decided on certain principles which do not appear in this Bill. Scottish conceptions with regard to local government and local rating are not embodied in this Bill. The provisions in this Bill are a novel imposition going to be forced upon Scotland, and that is why I am going to—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question I have to put is—
  Mr. MacLAREN: On a point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member has been saying is out of Order.
  Mr. MacLAREN: But I beg to ask your Ruling on this matter. Am I out of Order in begging for an extension of time to be given to the Scottish Bill on the ground of the differences involved in that Bill. Am I out of Order in pointing out—
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, if the hon. Member had been pointing that out he would have been in Order.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I will endeavour to do that. I am sorry if I deviated, but I am afraid that the English mind does
  not appreciate that there is a very great and determined difference. The whole political background of the Scottish demand for local government and rating reform is different from anything which is in this Bill—
  Mr. SPEAKER: All that was ruled out of Order just now. The hon. Member cannot go on saying it time after time.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I would like a word of explanation from the Secretary for Scotland on one point. I notice that on the 8th day three hours are allowed for new Clauses and Schedules 1 to 4, and I notice that in the corresponding part of the English Bill that the new Clauses and Schedules 1 to 3 get three hours. Why is it that the Scottish Bill, with an extra schedule, is getting only the same time as the English Bill has? Our Schedules are quite as complicated as the English Schedules, and I think we ought to have at least an extra half-hour.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Schedules are very similar, and in any case we are accepting the proposals of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in this matter.
  Question put, "That the word 'Nine' be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 143.

  Division No. 52.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Dixey, A. C.

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

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

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Atkinson, C.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Falls, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Fermoy, Lord

  Bethel, A.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Bevan, S. J.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Couper, J. S.

  Gates, Percy

  Brass, Captain W.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

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

  Goff, Sir Park

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Grace, John

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

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Skelton, A. N.

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hanbury, C.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Harland, A.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Haslam, Henry C.

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

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Murchison, Sir Kenneth

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Templeton, W. P.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmar

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Waddington, R.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Perring, Sir William George

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Pilcher, G.

  Wells, S. R.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Preston, William

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Ramsden, E.

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

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Long. Major Eric

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. O.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Lougher, Lewis

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Withers, John James

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Rye, F. G.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wragg, Herbert

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wright, W.

  Maclntyre, Ian

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  McLean, Major A.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Savery, S. S.

  Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  NOES.

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

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hollins, A.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Day, Harry

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Dennison, R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Baker, Walter

  Duncan, C.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Barnes, A.

  Dunnico, H.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Barr, J.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Batey, Joseph

  England, Colonel A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Bellamy, A.

  Forrest, W.

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Gardner, J. P.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Lansbury, George

  Bromfield, William

  Gosling, Harry

  Lawrence, Susan

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawson, John James

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Lee, F.

  Buchanan, G.

  Greenall, T.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Charieton, H. C.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lowth, T.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Lunn, William

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Compton, Joseph

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

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Connolly, M.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Cove, W. G.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hardie, George D.

  March, S.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Harney, E. A.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hayday, Arthur

  Montague, Frederick

  2072

  2073

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

  Sexton, James

  Trevelyam, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Viant, S. P.

  Murnin, H.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Naylor, T. E.

  Shinwell, E.

  Watson, w. M. (Duntermilne)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Owen, Major G.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Westwood, J.

  Palln, John Henry

  Smllie, Robert

  Wheatlev, Rt. Hon. J.

  Paling, W.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Whiteley, W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Snell, Harry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

  Potts, John S.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifte)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Ritson, J.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Windsor, Walter

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

  Strauss, E. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Tomilnson, R. P.

  Henderson.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Townend, A. E.

  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, to leave out lines 78 to 95 inclusive, and to insert instead thereof:

  First

  Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2

  10.30

  Second

  Clauses 3 to 7

  10.30

  Third

  Clause 8

  7.30

  Clauses 9 to 11

  10.30

  Fourth

  Clauses 12 and 13

  7.30

  Clause 14

  10.30

  Fifth

  Clauses l5 to 19

  7.30

  Clauses 20 to 24

  10.30

  Sixth

  Clauses 25 to 29

  7.30

  Clauses 30 to 32

  10.30

  Seventh

  Clauses 33 to 36

  7.30

  Clauses 37 to 39

  10.30

  Eighth

  Clauses 40 to 44

  7.30

  Clauses 45 to 61

  10.30

  Ninth

  New Clauses and Schedules I. to IV

  7.30

  Schedules V. to VII., New Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

  10.30

  The object of this Amendment is to allocate the extra day which the Secretary of State for Scotland, under considerable pressure, has given, but I should like to dispel an impression, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman gave unwittingly, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) a few moments ago. He rather gave the impression, as I understood him, that we were entirely responsible for the Schedule dealing with the allocation of time, whereas the fact is that we were only responsible for the suggested allocation of time within the miserable nine-days limit that the Secretary of State has allowed, and if we had had, as we ought, in my opinion, to have had, 15 days to divide, we should have allocated our time in a very different way. Whereas the Government propose to take only Instruc-
  2074
  tions, and Clauses 1 and 2 up to 7.30 in the evening, we propose that the Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2 should run to 10.30. That means three hours more devoted to Clauses 1 and 2. Then we propose that Clauses 3 and 7, dealing particularly with education, the police and registration, shall run to 10.30 on the second day instead of the half-day previously allocated. Then we propose-that Clause 8 shall run until 7.30 and Classes 9 to 11 till 10.30 on the third day, and that on the fourth day Clauses 12 and 13 shall run to 7.30, and Clause 14, which deals with district committees, shall run from 7.30 to 10.30. In other words, we have taken the extra day and sought to divide it up over the first I. Clauses. After the first 14 Clauses, no change has been proposed. We have to make the best possible use of the meagre and still insufficient extension of time the right hon. Gentleman has given us, and I trust that he will accede to our request, so that we shall Ire able adequately to discuss these important Clauses, which we are still unable to do even with the extra day we have been given.
  Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, in line 97, to leave out the word "Two" and to insert instead thereof the word "Five."
  I will content myself with asking the right hon. Gentleman one question. If he thought it desirable to grant a day in respect of the Committee stage, why does he grant no concession on the Report stage? It appears to me that a day extra on the Committee stage warrants an extra day at least on Report. I have no Lope that he will agree to five days.

  2075
  That is probably too much to ask for at this stage, but we are entitled to some consideration.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I hope that, while we may not get five days, we may at, least get some concession. I think the Secretary for Scotland will admit that it is a certainty that some Amendments will be accepted, Amendments in connection with elections for parish councils and possibly the amalgamation of the school managing committee along with parish council administration, and, if so, we should certainly require more than two days to discuss the changes in the Bill on Report. I do trust that we shall get some concession in connection with it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) I have not the slightest hope of getting five days, but I trust that we shall be given an addition to the mere two days that the Government propose to give us as far as the Report stage is concerned. For the purpose of allowing the Secretary of State for Scotland to give us some indication of what concession he is going to make. I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I desire to say a few sentences from the point of view of myself and my hon. Friends here. We indicated in our Amendment to the Schedule that we hoped the Secretary would see his way to meet us on this matter. I would point out that this may be the most important part of the Scottish Measure. We understand that there are to be some concessions. Certainly,
  there will be new Clauses, possibly new Schedules, and I think that we ought to have another day. The necessary Amendments are on the Paper for that day standing in my name, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to meet us. I agree with every word that has been said by hon. Members above the Gangway.
  Mr. BENN: May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland this question? Since he will not send the Bill upstairs where we might have it discussed, will he tell us on what principle he has allotted the Scottish Bill, which everyone knows covers a. great deal more ground than the English Bill, so much less time than has been allotted to the English Bill?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid that I must say to the hon. Gentleman opposite that, of course, I cannot accede to the request. I think the time allocated will he found to be adequate to the necessities of this Bill. They ask: Why give two days on the Report stage of this Bill when the English Bill has three days? The answer is perfectly clear. The length of the English Bill is apparent to everybody who looks at it, and, of course, the number of English Members who have to discuss these problems is also in excess of the number of Scottish Members. I am quite satisfied that two days will be ample for the Report stage, and I do not propose to make any change.
  Question put, "That the word Two 'stand part of the Question, as amended."
  The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 138.

  Division No. 53.]

  AYES.

  [10.49 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lleut.-Colonel

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Albery, Irving James

  Brass, Captain W.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Brlggs, J. Harold

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Applln, Colonel R. V. K.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C, R. I.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Atholl, Duchess of

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

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Atkinson, C.

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

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Couper, J. B.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Burman, J. B.

  Cralg, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

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

  Cassels, J. D.

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Bethel, A.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Bevan, S. J.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)

  Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

  Blrchall, Major J. Dearman

  Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Boothby R. J. G.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Christie, J. A.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Rye, F. G.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Long, Major Eric

  Salmon, Major I.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lougher, Lewis

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrty, Farnham)

  Ellis, R. G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  England, Colonel A.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Savory, S. S.

  Fermoy, Lord

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

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

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Mac Donald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon, Angus

  Skelton, A. N.

  Forrest, W.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  McLean, Major A.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlnt, C.)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Galbralth, J. F. W.

  Macqulsten, F. A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

  Gates, Percy

  Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Grace, John

  Merrlman, Sir F. Boyd

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Grant, Sir J. A.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Grotrlan, H. Brent

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Morelng, Captain A, H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hanbury, C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Murchison. Sir Kenneth

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Harland, A.

  Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

  Waddlngton, R.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. F.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingstonon-Hull)

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

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

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Haslam, Henry C

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Headlam, Lleut.-Colonel C. M.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Heno, Sir Sydney H.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wells. S. R.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Hilton, Cecil

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Perrlng, Sir William George

  Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Peto, Sir Basll E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel George

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Pilcher, G.

  Withers, John James

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Womersley, W. J.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Preston, William

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Radford, E. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Ramsden, E.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wragg, Herbert

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

  King. Commodore Henry Douglas

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.

  NOES.

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

  Capt, Thomas

  Glliett, George M.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gosling, Harry

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

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

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)

  Compton, Joseph

  Greenall, T.

  Baker, Walter

  Connolly, M.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colna)

  Barnes, A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Barr, J.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Batey, Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Bellamy, A.

  Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Day, Harry

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Dennison, R.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Duncan, C.

  Hardle, George D.

  Bromfield, William

  Dunnlco, H.

  Harney, E. A.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Gardner, J. P.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Hollins, A.

  2078

  2079

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)

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

  Snell, Harry

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Jenkins, W (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Murnin, H,

  Stamford, T. W.

  John, William (Rhondda, Watt)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Stewart, J. (St. Rallox)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Owen, Major G.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Palln, John Henry

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

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Tomilnson, R. P.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Townend, A. E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Vlant, S. P.

  Lansbury, George

  Riley, Ben

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Lawrence, Susan

  Ritson, J.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Lawson, John James

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

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Lee, F.

  Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

  Westwood, J.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wheatlcy, Rt. Hon. J

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Salter, Dr. Altred

  Whiteley, W.

  Lowth, T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Lunn, William

  Sexton, James

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Shinwell, E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Sltch, Charles H.

  Windsor, Walter

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Maxton, James

  Smillle, Robert

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Montague, Frederick

  Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)

  Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in line 112, to leave out the word "One" and to insert instead thereof the word "Two."
  We maintain that Scotland is not receiving a fair share of consideration. I have dealt with some of the points that I thought of general interest, and if I had time I should like to deal with other details. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] If hon. Members will keep their own mouths closed, they will be able to hear me. When people are making a noise, and especially when they tell me to speak up in the way they did, it is in order to tell them to keep quiet and then they will be able to hear me. I never object to being interrupted but if I interrupt I like to see that the person who is speaking is allowed time to speak between the interruptions. The continuous noisy conduct which takes place at the Bar so often, especially after a Division, is very disturbing to a great many speakers, but it does not disturb me. I wish to plead for a greater amount of time for consideration of the Scottish section of this English Bill on the Third Reading of the Scottish section. I have been told that the proper designation of what we are discussing now, is an English Bill which includes a Scottish Measure which cannot be called a Scottish Bill, because it is included in an English Bill. It is a mongrel. The question of what the Third Reading is to be can only be determined when we know the amount of time—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of £1,575,710 out of the Consolidated Fund for the ser vice of the year ending 31st March, 1929.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BUCHANAN: I assume that we are going to have some explanation as to why the Government are taking this Bill at this late hour. I have heard of no such arrangement.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I can only—
HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Clauses 2 (Power for the Treasury to borrow) and 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without. Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ordered,
"That the Lords Message [6th December] communicating the Resolution, 'That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider, with a view to reporting if necessary thereon, any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India,' be now considered."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN.
Resolved,
"That during the absence of the Deputy-Chairman up to and including the 1st day of February next the honourable and gallant Member for Oxford shall be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy-Chairman, including his powers as Deputy-Speaker."—(King's Consent signified).—[Mr. Churchill.]

NORTHERN IRELAND LAND [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Resolved,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional expenses of the Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland, as may be entailed by any Act of the present Session to amend the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925"—(King's Recommendation, signified).—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

CHILDREN (PROVISION OF FOOT- WEAR) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

POOR LAW (CASUALS).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Mr. SHEPHERD: I make no apology for raising the question of the treatment of some tens of thousands of unemployed men who are forced, through circumstances over which they have no control, to seek the shelter of the casual wards. To raise the question adequately in the time remaining at my disposal is almost an impossible task. The subject was emphasized by a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) yesterday, in reference to the casual ward at Isleworth. I can assure the House that the state of affairs then described exists in probably half the casual wards of the country, owing in great measure to the great volume of unemployment, but also owing to the policy of the Ministry of Health in closing so many casual wards and thus decreasing the accommodation. If hon. Members could visualise that, to-night, there will be some tens of thousands of human beings sleeping on concrete, with no other protection than a very thin nightshirt and two or three blankets, they would appreciate why we consider this question so urgent. I shall refer briefly to some of the most pressing points and I propose to do so by way of quotation, but I shall only quote circumstances of which I myself or friends of mine have personal experience and for which we can vouch. The first quotation is from a report by one of the Minister's own inspectors, and it will perhaps bring home to the House the urgency of this matter. I do not propose to mention names in all the circumstances I am about to recount, but I am prepared to provide the names if the. Minister wishes. This is with regard to a casual ward in the South, in which one of the Ministry's inspectors said he found the conditions, in several respects, unsatisfactory. The report states:
"The hammocks were either too short, without any ropes for proper attachment, or too long, for, in a few cases, where ropes were provided, the hammocks touched the; floor. The consequence was that they were

2083
never used for their proper purpose, and the men slept on the floor, which is against the regulations unless mattresses are provided. The rigour of these conditions was enhanced in one of the wards where there was no form of heat whatsoever and the men slept on the boards in the cold."
I shall illustrate the low standard of treatment which prevails in some places by remarking that a debate took place in a board of guardians in the North of England a few days ago on the question of whether they should give the casuals hot or cold water for their midday meal. No words of mine could better express the seriousness of this matter than the fact that a board of guardians thought it necessary to discuss such a question. May I express my appreciation of the activity which the inspector has recently shown, as evidenced by a report concerning a casual ward in Cheshire in which the master was instructed to allow the casuals to have writing facilities and also access to sewing materials such as needles and cotton on Sundays. That may sound trivial, but hon. Members should realise that the greatest degree of degradation reached by young men on the roads is caused chiefly by the fact that they are locked into a small room or cell for the whole of the Sunday with no occupation of any sort. There are about 5 per cent. of what we call "old sweats" on the road. They are absolutely vicious and bad—although instead of blaming them, we ought to thank God that we are not in their circumstances. There are, however, thousands of young men who will become the same as them if we allow this sort of thing to continue. We have pleaded with the Minister to organise some occupation for them and I believe the recommendations made in this respect are having effect.
I come now to what happens when these men protest against their conditions. I have a case here of a man who went through the usual search when he entered the casual ward and all his belongings were taken from him without any receipt being given to him. He felt indignant and he did what the majority of us probably would have done in the circumstances—he broke a pane of glass, that being the first thing which came to his mind. He was summoned, and in reply to the charge said, "I cannot be expected to have any respect for a
2084
system under which such meanness is practised." Would not we all agree with him? He was convicted, of course, but the Magistrate said the guardians ought not to take the last penny from persons coming into the union. In another case, a man ripped up some workhouse blankets as a protest against the condition in which he found his clothes when they were given back to him. In most casual wards clothing is disinfected, but, in such a way is it done in the worst wards, that when the clothes come out they are absolutely rotten. This man protested by tearing up three blankets, and, as a result, he was given two months' hard labour. Here is another man who was given 14 days' hard labour. He said, "Owing to the rats and bugs, I have not had any sleep for two nights," and therefore he refused to do his task.
Another case was one where three men refused to do their task because the porridge they had for breakfast was uneatable, and anyone who has been in a casual ward can testify to the truth of that in the majority of the wards. "To call it porridge is to call it by a wrong name; skilly is a better name—horrible, tasteless stuff, the chief effect of which is to make one vomit. One man refused to have it, and because of its quality and because the tins in which it was served were filthy and the blankets he was given to sleep in were unfit for the purpose, he got seven days' imprisonment. Every time a man protests in the only way open to him he is given rigorous imprisonment up to the limit. I said that I would not mention names, but I will mention one name with regard to the attitude of some guardians and officials to the men in whose interests they are supposed to be engaged. I refer to Horn-castle, which received a great amount of publicity, for which I am grateful. I will quote from the "Daily News" report:
"The Master protested against this horde of tramps who were invading his casual ward, and he said his idea was that something should be done to act as a deterrent and not as an accommodation. Not to be outdone in harshness, a Mr. F. W. Parker put his spoke in the wheel and said, 'We ought to introduce a treadmill and oakum picking,' but again the Master would not let him go on, and said, 'At present we give each man who sleeps on a straw mattress and bedstead three blankets, and I ask the Board to give me authority to reduce the blankets to two per man, and only three for those who have

2085
to sleep on the floor. I think we make them far too comfortable. There is far too much sloppy sentiment, and it is time it was stopped … They have provided a yard for exercise. They do not call it sufficient exercise walking on the road. It is all sloppy sentiment and nothing else.'"
The Board actually agreed to reduce the number of blankets to two. Hon. Members must understand that the men are absolutely stripped naked and are merely handed, in return for their clothes, a night-shirt, which is an insult to the name of night-shirt, and, it may be, two or three or four rugs, some of which are absolutely transparent; and here is this man, this public official, talking about sloppy sentiment. I wonder if he had been guilty of too much humanity what the Minister would have done. Would he have treated him as he has done the Chester-le-Street Guardians? When he is guilty of inhumanity nothing whatever, so far as I am aware, has been done to this person.
Here is another case, where men refused to do a task because they said the blankets were verminous. One man said he had no nightshirt given to him, and another said that his nightshirt was all torn down the back. The defendants were sentenced to seven days' hard labour, and they left the Court smiling. Why? Because an in-creasing number of casuals are deliberately seeking prison in preference to the casual wards, as in prison they are better fed, better clothed, better accommodated, and they have security. Let me read what the Home Secretary gave to me in reply to my question regarding the diet of a man undergoing hard labour. A man in a casual ward has, from one year's end to the other, this for food: bread, margarine, cheese, skilly, potatoes, tea, and water. A criminal sentenced to a term of hard labour has all those, plus preserved meat, beans, bacon, pressed vegetables, soup, suet pudding, and beef. Yet you wonder why men seek prison.
What we are asking the Minister to do is to raise the standard of the food of the casuals at least to the standard of the food of the criminals. At Oswestry the other day they were discussing the question of Sunday occupations and, to show the way some people look upon this question, it developed into an argument AS to whether the cowman should give
2086
the casuals drill on Sunday afternoon or whether the chaplain should be engaged in preaching to them. When we realise the harshness of the treatment of these men, we have sometimes to get behind the minds of the people to see why they impose it. I have a report of a vagrancy committee in the South of England, the chairman of which said he thought it would have a deterrent effect on the admission of men to casual wards if they were searched to see if they bad any tobacco, food or money. I have tried to find out why this degrading searching is imposed on the men, and now I can understand that it is simply to act as a deterrent to them in order to try and drive them somewhere else. That is the whole policy of the treatment of casuals —drive the men from one ward to somewhere else where they try to treat them humanely.
Again, to illustrate what is behind the minds of these people, let me refer to a meeting of the Louth Guardians. A Mrs. Thompson declared that the present wards were not fit for animals, and a Mr. Reid said that the men who occupied these wards were very little better than animals, and were not worthy of anything better. What is the Minister doing about boards of guardians which have representatives like that? Is he taking the same steps to put these people in their right place as he would take if the reverse were done? I am going to make some suggestions in order that something may be done before Christmas. Will the Minister use his influence to ensure that boards of guardians give the casual inmates the same food on Christmas Day as they give to the other inmates of the institution? And will he ensure that where men are compelled to seep on concrete, boards are given to them to lie upon?
Sir K. WOOD: It is obviously impossible for me in the few minutes that are left to deal in anything but general terms with the case which the hon. Gentleman has put before the House. The treatment of these unfortunate men has given considerable anxiety and has been the source of considerable thought by successive Ministers of Health. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley)

2087
was Minister of Health, he was confronted with very much the same sort of difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I recall that on one occasion he was asked in this House, referring to the tasks to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, whether he was prepared to abolish all tasks in the workhouse in relation to casuals, and he said he certainly was not. At the time opium picking and stone breaking were freely performed in the workhouses of the country. Since my right hon. Friend has been Minister of Health, certain steps have been taken which I think commend themselves generally in all quarters of the House. We have abolished oakum-picking for these people. The food and the dietary were reconsidered and revised in 1925. I could elaborate this to the House if I had time. In those two matters there has been a considerable improvement of the state of affairs as it was a short time ago. The hon. Gentleman has devoted a great deal of attention to-night to the condition of the various casual wards. In that respect my right hon. Friend took steps almost immediately after he again became Minister of Health, and in March, 1925, addressed a special communication to the boards of guardians up and down the country, in which he pointed out that there were a great many defects which he was advised still remained to be remedied. The letter went on:
"He is satisfied that further substantial improvements could he effected without any considerable expenditure."
Therefore, he requested the guardians to take into
"their practical and immediate consideration the nature of the provision at present made by them for the relief of casuals and the improvements, if any, which are required."
If the hon. Gentleman looks at this communication he will see very many recommendations and suggestions, a great many of which have since been carried out.
Miss LAWRENCE: Stone floors?
Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to pursue this matter. For
2088
the improvement of the condition of these people, for instance, it was suggested that every opportunity should be afforded to a casual to alter his mode of life, especially if he were an elderly man, by entering the institution. Similarly it is important that children should not be allowed to grow up to a life of vagrancy. In connection with the treatment of children in workhouses, very considerable improvement has been made during the last two or three years. With regard to extensions and additions to the casual wards, I find that during the two years to the end of June, 1928, some £98,000 was spent on extensions and additions and major improvements to wards; and between that date and the end of November, 1928, a further £30,000 has been sanctioned in respect of similar provisions. Therefore, on all these three very important matters in connection with this unfortunate class of men, it can be asserted with confidence that at no time have so many steps been taken to improve their condition; and certainly, so far as the present administration and the present Minister of Health are concerned, at no time has so much money been spent and so many efforts been made, not only to help these men, but if possible to reclaim them. Therefore, nobody has any right to get up in this House to-night and say that, at any rate, a great step has not been taken in the direction the hon. Member desires, and certainly a more humane system is in operation now than at any time in our history. It is only fair to say in defence of the boards of guardians that they are dealing with a very difficult problem. Finally, I hope the hon. Member will be prepared to support the proposals now before the House in which at least a good many of the functions of the boards of guardians, particularly in this connection, are going to the larger authorities of the country, and I assure the hon. Member that I shall look with confidence to him to support our proposals in that direction.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  FACTORIES (FIVE DAY WEEK).
  FACTORIES (FIVE DAY WEEK).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.
  SCOTTISH BURGHS.
  SCOTTISH BURGHS.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS (SUFERANNIYATION).
  POOR LAW OFFICERS (SUFERANNIYATION).
POOR LAW.
  RELIEF, PONTYPRIDD.
  RELIEF, PONTYPRIDD.
  SPECIAL ALLOWANCES, CHRISTMAS.
  SPECIAL ALLOWANCES, CHRISTMAS.
  DIPHTHERIA, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.
  DIPHTHERIA, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  LONDON SQUARES.
  LONDON SQUARES.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  TAXATION AND NATIONAL DEBTS.
  TAXATION AND NATIONAL DEBTS.
  WIRELESS (SHIPS).
  WIRELESS (SHIPS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  ROAD MATERIAL (IMPORT).
  ROAD MATERIAL (IMPORT).
  DAIRY PRODUCE, DENMARK (FREIGHTS).
  DAIRY PRODUCE, DENMARK (FREIGHTS).
  COTTON GOODS (BRAZILIAN DUTIES).
  COTTON GOODS (BRAZILIAN DUTIES).
  SPANISH TARIFF.
  SPANISH TARIFF.
  TYRES (PRICES).
  TYRES (PRICES).
  AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.
  AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.
  SAFEGUARDING (PRICES).
  SAFEGUARDING (PRICES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  PROSECUTIONS.
  PROSECUTIONS.
  INSURANCE.
  INSURANCE.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  HOTEL STAFF (FOREIGNERS).
  HOTEL STAFF (FOREIGNERS).
  MESSRS. E. A. BROUGH, LIVERPOOL (EMPLOYES WAGES).
  MESSRS. E. A. BROUGH, LIVERPOOL (EMPLOYES WAGES).
  THE WASH (TIDAL POWER.)
  THE WASH (TIDAL POWER.)
TRANSPORT.
  PETROL DUTY (MILEAGE FARES).
  PETROL DUTY (MILEAGE FARES).
  STEEL SLEEPERS, RAILWAYS.
  STEEL SLEEPERS, RAILWAYS.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
  LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  COMPANIES (LIQUIDATION).
  COMPANIES (LIQUIDATION).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  PRICES (EXPORT).
  PRICES (EXPORT).
  PITS ABANDONED.
  PITS ABANDONED.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  REMOVAL EXPENSES, SCOTLAND.
  REMOVAL EXPENSES, SCOTLAND.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (WOMEN, RESIGNA TIONS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (WOMEN, RESIGNA TIONS).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS.
  TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS.
  LETTERS AND PARCELS, TRISTAN DA CUNHA.
  LETTERS AND PARCELS, TRISTAN DA CUNHA.
  MAIL VANS, LONDON.
  MAIL VANS, LONDON.
  PARCEL POST.
  PARCEL POST.
  TRISTAN DA CUNHA.
  TRISTAN DA CUNHA.
  PALESTINE (TAXATION).
  PALESTINE (TAXATION).
  BRITISH ARMY (ENLISTMENT).
  BRITISH ARMY (ENLISTMENT).
  SCHOOL BUILDING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  SCHOOL BUILDING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before we enter upon public business I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he can give us any information as to the probable course of the debate to-night and as to the probability of a Division being taken.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I understand through the usual channels of communication which are available that a very considerable number of noble Lords desire to address your Lordships in the debate which we are going to initiate this afternoon. It has become quite evident if these noble Lords persist in their intention, as we all hope they will do, that it will not be possible to conclude the debate to-day. It has been my duty, therefore, to consider what course ought to be pursued for the adjournment of the debate, and in that connection I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord opposite that Thursday would be a suitable day on which to continue the debate. As your Lordships are aware, there is a Bill pending to-morrow which will probably take a considerable amount of time to discuss. Next week we are almost in the holiday mood and it would be rather difficult probably usefully to carry on the debate then. Therefore, Thursday seems to be the day indicated and, with your Lordships' consent, if the debate does not conclude this afternoon, I shall propose that we should continue it on Thursday; that is, the day after to-morrow.
LORD PARMOOR: No doubt the Leader of the House is aware that there is a Motion standing in my name for Thursday. I am willing to withdraw that and take it off the Paper if he tells me it is for the general convenience of the House that that should be done. In
480
a matter of this kind I should desire to consider the convenience of the House, so that if the noble Marquess thinks Thursday is the best day for continuing the debate I will withdraw my Motion for that day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure every member of your Lordships' House will be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for being so accommodating.

IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT SERVICES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BOGNOR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BURNHAM-ON-SEA ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
  DRONFIELD ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.

    LOTHIANS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
    Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 20th November last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 7:
Removal of name from Register.
(2) For the purpose of holding any inquiry under this section as to whether any person registered under this Act has been guilty of any conduct disgraceful to him in a professional respect and at which inquiry such person shall be entitled to be heard, there shall be appointed annually a committee to be called "the Discipline Committee" consisting of seven members, three members being persons registered under this Act to be appointed by the Council, one member appointed by the Minister of Health, one member appointed by the President for the time being of the Law Society, one member appointed by the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, and one member appointed by the Ulster Society of Architects (Incorporated), and the Council shall convene a meeting of the Discipline Committee from time to time whenever necessary to hold any such inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "eight members" for "seven members" The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in speaking to this Amendment I will deal also with the other Amendment which is on the paper in my name. I have been asked by the promoters of the Bill whether I would agree to His Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings, who are of course very interested in the question of architectural qualifications as in all questions concerning the fine arts, being joined with the Ministry of Health and the public bodies which are mentioned in subsection (2) of Clause 7 in connection with the Discipline Committee which is to deal with matters of professional or other misconduct by architects on the register. His Majesty's Office of Works has no objection to undertaking the duty of nominating a member of the Committee and the Government approve of this course provided that the promoters are of one mind as to its being desirable. This, I am assured by my noble friend [the Earl of Crawford] who sponsors this Bill in your Lordships' House, they do consider desirable. The consequence will be that the numbers of the Committee will be increased by the member appointed by His Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings from
482
seven to eight. I bog to move the first Amendment which appears in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("seven") and insert ("eight").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I agree very readily with this proposal.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition. My object is to point out to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that it is inconvenient with Hills of this kind when two Government Departments make their Amendments independently of one another. It used to be the case that any Amendments necessary were moved by the Minister who was looking after the Department which was directly concerned, and if you had other Amendments suggested by other Departments, they were always proposed by the Minister in charge of the Bill or who was looking after the Bill though not in charge of it, as is so in this case. It is apt to lead to a little confusion sometimes if different Departments put down independent Amendments which may not always agree with one another.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will, as I always do, take special notice of any observation of the noble Earl. I do not gather that on the present occasion my two colleagues are in contradiction of one another.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), before "the Minister of Health," to insert "the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, one member appointed by the." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the one your Lordships have just passed.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, after ("by") insert ("the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings one member appointed by the").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Use of Title.
11. Any registered person shall be entitled to take and use the name or title of

483
"Registered Architect," but a person shall not practise in Great Britain or Northern Ireland under any name, title or style containing the words "Registered Architect," unless he is a registered person.…"
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out "in Great Britain or Northern Ireland." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have every reason to think this Amendment has been accepted by my noble friend [the Earl of Crawford] and if it is in order I should like to speak at the same time to this Amendment and the one following it, which is consequential. My first Amendment is to leave out the words "in Great Britain or Northern Ireland." The object of it is to preserve the rights of Northern Ireland. The Bill as drafted extends to Northern Ireland and perhaps it would have been usual to have had a separate Bill upon a matter dealing with subjects which come under the purview of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. In this case the Government of Northern Ireland have been communicated with. They are anxious that this Bill should extend to them, and with the now clause which I propose to insert later, they are in hearty agreement with the passing of this Bill, subject to their right being preserved under the Constitution which has been granted to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("in Great Britain or Northern Ireland").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21
Application of Act to Northern Ireland.
21. In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland—

(a) the expression "High Court" means the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland;

(b) for the purpose of enabling the Parliament of Northern Ireland to repeal or alter the provisions of this Act in its application to Northern Ireland, this Act shall be deemed to have been passed prior to the appointed day referred to in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out Clause 21 and insert:—
".—(1) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland unless and until provision to that effect is made by an Order of His Majesty in Council made in pursuance of a resolution passed by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and any such Order may make such adaptations of
484
this Act in its application to Northern Ireland as may appear to His Majesty in Council to be necessary.
(2) In the event of this Act being so extended to Northern Ireland, then, for the purposes of section six of the Government or Ireland Act, 1920, this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, as I have already stated, is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, leave out Clause 21 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON THE EARL OF CLARENDON rose to move, That having regard to the Preamble of the Parliament Act and to the Resolution passed by this House on 23rd June, 1927, it is hereby resolved—

1. That it is desirable that early steps should be taken to limit the number of members of the House, and to make suitable provision for an elective representation of the Peerage, and for such other representation or nomination as would ensure to each political Party a fair position in the House; and

2. That the following constitution of this House would in the opinion of this House fulfil these conditions—

(a) 150 peers to be elected by proportional representation or the cumulative vote in each Parliament by the whole body of Peers, to sit and vote in the House;

(b) 150 persons to be nominated by the Crown in proportion to the Parties in the House of Commons in each Parliament, to sit for the life of the Parliament;

(c) The Crown to have the power to appoint a limited number of life Peers in each Parliament.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the first instance I should like on my own behalf, as well as on behalf of those with whom I am acting to-day, to accord to Lord Buckmaster our most grateful thanks for having removed his Motion upon this subject which stood upon your Lordships' Order Paper, thus making

485
the way clear for the Resolution which I have the honour to propose to-day. We thank him, I should like to assure him, for his consideration, and need I say that we are looking forward with intense interest to the part that no doubt he will take in the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
At the outset of what I have to say upon my Resolution this afternoon I want to make it perfectly clear that the suggestions I am putting forward are in no way hostile to His Majesty's Government. We do not desire in any shape or form to do anything which would embarrass them on the eve of a General Election, and I think I can faithfully claim that at any rate the second part of my Resolution is the natural sequel to the Resolution which was moved by my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan in June, 1927. May I remind your Lordships of some of the words which occurred in that Resolution?—
"This House would welcome a reasonable measure limiting and defining membership of the House."
I venture to assert that the second part of the Resolution which I have the honour to propose to your Lordships this afternoon, accomplishes that very thing. A moment ago I said that my Resolution was a sequel to that which was moved by my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan eighteen months ago. In one sense it is and in one sense it is not, because it does not go on in any words to touch upon the subject of either the repeal or the amendment of the Parliament Act.
May I say one word upon that subject, though it is not my intention this afternoon to raise it in a very serious manner? That there are defects in the Parliament Act many of us on this side of the House agree. The question of the repeal of that Act was discussed, and discussed very fully, upon a former occasion in your Lordships' House, and if I sensed the feeling of the House accurately I think I am correct in stating that it was ruled out and was not considered practical politics. But on the subject of amendment of certain sections of that Act a very different opinion was expressed, and I think that upon this occasion all I need say is that if the proposals we are laying before your Lordships' House are accepted, then
486
these matters in connection with the Parliament Act can be dealt with at a later stage.
Let me add this one word: although we do not want any assurance, we would like to know that those questions will be made a living issue when the Government goes to the country some time next year. Now I frankly admit that the object of this Resolution this afternoon is to prevent the question of the reform of your Lordships' House being shelved. I frankly admit that my object, and the object of those with whom I am associated, is, if I may use an unparliamentary expression, to ginger up the Government to deal with this question during the course of the General Election. I know that the fate of similar proposals which have been introduced into your Lordships' House on previous occasions has not been a very happy one, but upon this occasion I am, I freely admit, an optimist, at any rate in so far as the fate of these proposals in your Lordships' House is concerned. I am an optimist for four reasons: first of all, because of the fate in your Lordships' House which attended the Motion of my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan; secondly, because I believe that the proposals I am submitting to your Lordships' House are based upon a truly democratic basis; thirdly, because they provide for a much less unwieldy House than exists at the present time; and fourthly, because they are fair and equitable to all Parties in the State.
If your Lordships are anxious for any scheme to be adopted, it seems to be quite obvious that you must be prepared to make sacrifices Unless you are prepared to make sacrifices there is very little chance of your scheme being acceptable, or even of its being adopted. In other words, unless you are prepared to give something away, there is very little chance of success. I frankly admit that, under the proposals I have the honour to submit to your Lordships this afternoon, undoubted sacrifices are being asked of noble Lords, but I agree, and I agree implicitly, with some words that fell from the lips of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch on the last occasion when this subject was debated in your Lordships' House. May I quote those words?

487
"What I think we have to consider is not so much how details affect us but what is really good for the country."
It is because we believe that the proposals which we are submitting today are good for the country that we are asking your Lordships to adopt them, and I believe that if we can persuade noble Lords in this House that these proposals are sound they will be willing to make those undoubted sacrifices and to put patriotism before privilege. I should like to assure your Lordships that there is no thought whatever of improving the position of the Party to which I belong in these proposals. They are advanced, let me assure your Lordships, in the genuine belief that they really will improve the Constitution.
I have no desire to repeat arguments that have been used in your Lordships' House, but I confess that on a subject of this kind, when the ground has been amply covered on more than one occasion, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find any new argument to apply to the subject. I intend this afternoon to make use only of such arguments as I consider essential to my case. Your Lordships will recollect that on the last occasion when the subject was debated in this House my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough moved an Amendment, which was subsequently withdrawn, to Viscount FitzAlan's Motion. That Amendment called upon your Lordships' House to do nothing in this matter. I do not know if I have sensed the feeling of some of your Lordships accurately, but I believe I am right in saying that there are still some members of your Lordships' House who hold that view. Speaking for myself and for those with whom I act, I am bound to say that we regard that as a dangerous road along which to travel. We concur with the late Lord Chancellor, Viscount Cave. Let me refer to some very important words that he used in the debate in June, 1927. He argued that there was an undoubted peril in tampering with the Ark of the Constitution, but he went on to point out that the Constitution received in 1911 a blow from which it would not recover unless some sound remedy were discovered, and he added that, if there was a peril in moving, he
488
considered that there was a still greater peril in standing still. It is with the object of remedying that still greater peril that the Resolution that I am putting to your Lordships this afternoon is conceived.
Let me say one word about the hereditary principle. I admit that, from the point of view of the Legislature, the hereditary principle is to-day a very difficult one to defend. But most of our national life is built up on it. So far as I am concerned, I frankly confess that I am a firm believer in heredity. I believe that, when you get a section of the community which for generations past has been charged with the duty of carrying on the administration of the affairs of the country, that section of the community is capable of transmitting, and does actually transmit, to its heirs and successors, sometimes in a limited degree, sometimes in a greater degree, the actual capacity for government. Holding that view, I am second to none in asserting that the House of Lords, taking it as it is constituted to-day, has in the past performed its functions extremely well. It has behind it a remarkably good record—a record as good as, or perhaps better than, that of any other Second Chamber in the world. Some mistakes, indeed, have been made, but I am one of those who feel that on the whole it has interpreted the will of the people both wisely and well.
You will ask me: Why then should we make any change? It seems to me that the answer is very clear. Times have changed. Let me refer your Lordships to some remarks which my noble friend the Leader of the House made in the debate on this subject in your Lordships' House eighteen months ago. He drew your Lordships' attention to a resolution which had been moved and accepted at a meeting of the National Union of Conservative Associations on the eve of the General Election in 1924, calling upon the Government to do something with regard to the constitution and the powers of the House of Lords. Similar resolutions have been moved on many other occasions, and while you may say that this is merely the expression of a body of opinion that is entirely Conservative, it does represent a very considerable proportion of the electorate to-day. There is another reason. A new Party,

489
the Labour Party, has come into being. That Party has a great deal of support in the constituencies in this country. It has a great many members in the House of Commons itself. But can your Lordships say that that Party, which has now become the official Opposition, is adequately represented on the Benches opposite? Our proposals are designed, in the first place, in response to that great call from a very large proportion of the electorate of the country and in the second place to remedy the defect to which I have just drawn attention.
I should like, if I may, to turn now to the proposals themselves. Upon the first part of the Resolution I need say very little, but I understand that there is a certain amount of (shall I say?) apprehension with regard to the word "limit" in the first line of the first part of the Resolution. Let me say a word in explanation of it. Our idea in making use of that word was merely to suggest that it was desirable that the House should be reduced in numbers without committing ourselves to the actual number itself.
May I now turn for a moment to the second part of our Resolution? Your Lordships will notice that in paragraph (a) of the second part no mention is made whatsoever of four different categories or rather four different sections of this House. I refer to Princes of the Blood Royal, Bishops, Law Lords and Peeresses in their own right. With regard to Princes of the Blood Royal and Law Lords our suggestion is that they should sit ex officio. With regard to Bishops our suggestion is that they should share and share alike with those who are elected in this House by the Peers themselves. My noble friend Lord Davidson of Lambeth, speaking in this House as Archbishop of Canterbury during the last debate, made what I think were two very valuable suggestions if I may say so. While he regretted that the number of Bishops sitting in the future in this House if your Lordships' House was reformed would be diminished, he did, I think, if my memory serves me correctly, suggest that five would be the appropriate number if the numbers of the House were reduced and Peers Temporal were asked to make sacrifices. He went on to make, if I may say so, another extremely valuable
490
suggestion and that was that the Bishops who should sit in this House should be selected by their own order.
I want to say one word upon the subject of Peeresses in their own right, and when I do this I am not aware whether I am speaking for myself only or whether any of those with whom I am associated share my views. I should like, if I may, to express my own views. If the legal bar preventing Peeresses in their own right from sitting in this House can be removed, and I hope it can be, it seems to me only right and fair that Peeresses in their own right should have a voice in the election of the 150 Peers who, if our proposals are accepted, will eventually form the nucleus of the new House, and I venture to suggest that it would be only fair that they themselves should be eligible to appear and be represented among the 150 representatives.
There are, of course, a great many other questions which will be raised in the debate. I cannot, nor would I attempt to, range over that very wide field, for if I were to do so I should be keeping your Lordships far longer than I am entitled to do; but inter alia there is the question of what is to happen to those Peers who are not elected to the reformed House. I would only say this upon that point, as I know that Lord Temple-more is going to raise it during the debate—that so far as we are concerned we hold the view that those Peers should be entitled to stand as candidates for election to seats in the Lower House. I now come to my final observation, which I can put in a sentence or two. These proposals are not put forward with the idea that they are absolutely perfect in conception. They are put forward as a basis for discussion now that your Lordships are once more debating this question in the House. I have very little doubt that during the course of this debate we shall receive valuable and constructive suggestions in so far as they are concerned, and I would only add that, speaking for my own part and for those whom I represent, we shall be only too glad to accept such suggestions, providing they do not in any way either attack or impair the basic and fundamental principles underlying the proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That having regard to the Preamble of the Parliament Act and to

491
the Resolution passed by this House on 23rd June, 1927, it is hereby resolved—

1. That it is desirable that early steps should be taken to limit the number of members of the House, and to make suitable provision for an elective representation of the Peerage, and for such other representation or nomination as would ensure to each political Party a fair position in the House; and

2. That the following constitution of this House would in the opinion of this House fulfil these conditions—

(a) 150 peers to be elected by proportional representation or the cumulative vote in each Parliament by the whole body of Peers, to sit and vote in the House;

(b) 150 persons to be nominated by the Crown in proportion to the Parties in the House of Commons in each Parliament, to sit for the life of the Parliament;

(c) The Crown to have the power to appoint a limited number of life Peers in each Parliament.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)

LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his courteous reference to myself, and to assure him, and all your Lordships, that I shall be only too glad at any time to sacrifice my own personal convenience for the purpose of securing a full and adequate discussion of a subject so important as this, for I do not think that any one of your Lordships can doubt that the subject of the noble Earl's Motion is one of grave and immediate concern. The life of the present Government draws fast to its final stage. Whether the remainder of its allotted span be measured in terms of months or weeks matters but little, but the end is certain, and the end is near, and there is no one, not even the most competent and brazen-mouthed prophet, who can venture confidently to predict what Government will take its place. It is the fate of every Government that its popularity wears thin by use, and no one can deny that in, the subjects of domestic and international policy, of our industries and our finance, there are subjects which will leave this Government open to severe and even devastating criticism upon the platforms at the next Election.
492
What, then, is going to result? We of the Liberal Party do not venture to assert that we are going to be returned as a Government. Why should we? We are attacked on the one side by our traditional enemies and on the other by our own ungrateful offspring. What results? You have added to the difficulties the fact that there are five million new and untried voters in the electorate, and three millions of them are between the ages of 21 and 30—three millions of voters who, if, as I sincerely hope they will, take a keen interest in the issue, will bring to this consideration all the eager and the untried enthusiasm of youth—of youth which is not prepared, as we who have grown older are only too often prepared, to accept with tame and timid acquiescence all the wrong and the injustice of the world. Is it surprising, then, that people look forward and see with ill-disguised apprehension the figure which appears to take more formidable power and shape every day, and realise that in the near future the Labour Party may not merely be seated in office but throned in power?
I admit that that prospect would fill me with more curiosity than alarm, were it not for one fact. How under our present Constitution is it possible that this House can keep pace with the ever-quickening pulse of public opinion? There, on one Bench of your Lordships' House, sit all the representatives that this House can produce of the Labour Party. Nor is it likely that even the magnetism of office will attract more than a very few disjointed and negligible items from the rest of your Lordships' House. I am not decrying for a moment the activities of that Party. By a zeal which I appreciate, and by a not infrequent reiteration which I do not so greatly admire, they do undoubtedly occupy a very considerable part in the business of your Lordships' House. But change the Benches and put them there [the Ministerial Bench]: how do you propose that they shall govern? How is it possible, with this House constituted as it is, that they could get anything more than a courteous hearing and a decisive defeat on any question that they brought forward for your consideration?
And I do not for a moment say that as a representative myself of a Party that has been in a permanent minority

493
in this House. The real difficulty of this House, speaking as one of that minority, is this, that you are always faced with a solid immovable body of opinion, which has the defect of being incurably honest and sincere. You cannot convince it: their convictions are already there, partly by tradition, partly by association. They are satisfied with principles which they hold to be the principles which are essential to the welfare and the safety of the country; and how, in those circumstances, is it possible that they could ever respond to such a Government as that which I have suggested? I feel satisfied that you must all realise that, if the Labour Party does come into power with this House unregenerated and unreformed, there is a danger of a violent collision in which a powerful, if not an irresistible, force will meet with an immovable object. And the physicists tell us that the result of that collision is that you generate infinite heat, and in that heat there may be consumed many of the things that all of us hold dear. It is to avoid that hazard, it is to call attention to that risk, that the noble Earl has put down his Motion for your consideration this afternoon, and I beg of you to give it your most earnest care.
I am not going to deal at any length with the actual proposals, for this reason. I appreciate thoroughly the care and the skill with which those proposals have been put forward. I think they are deserving of all possible consideration, and undoubtedly of very careful debate and discussion in this House; but I think it is almost out of the question at this stage in the history of the Government to expect that they can be adopted and carried into effect. Still less do I think that any Party would be willing to pledge themselves to any definite scheme at such a time, remembering that in vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird, and that anybody who accepts these proposals without question to-day as a member of a Party will find, when he faces his constituents upon the platform, that they, who have not had the advantage of the full and careful consideration which he has given to them, may subject him to some extremely unpleasant experiences.
But the real thing which I do appreciate in connection with all these proposals is this: I think it is of the
494
utmost value to bear in mind that these proposals do not propose any interference with the Parliament Act, and I regard that as of the utmost consequence, I believe that, any scheme for the reform of this House that is based on, or associated with, the alteration of that measure is doomed to defeat. I do not think that everyone here quite understands the way in which the Liberal and the Labour Parties regard that measure. It was the end of a long, historic struggle, that had lasted for very nearly a century, and it was believed that with its passage you had removed the odious necessity which from time to time had occurred of trying, to overawe and overrule the authority of this House by the introduction of a large number of new men. The Parliament Act had as its basis a scheme for effecting the consent of this House to measures without recourse to that particular method of influence. And if once that is given the go-by, if once it is thought that any of these proposals are designed for the purpose of whittling away what I beg you to believe large bodies of people in this country regarded as a great victory—if that is once done, I feel very strongly convinced that the proposals will be regarded with suspicion, and that they will not receive popular support.
It is a strange thing when these issues arise how often the real thing is lost sight of in the quarrel that is once more brought up between this House and the elected body in another place. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. The Finance Bill of 1909, which was the real moving cause that led to the Parliament Act, was rejected by your Lordships' House, who disliked the Bill, possibly not without reason, and who determined that the consequences of their dislike might take themselves to wherever they pleased to go. What was the result? The Bill on the whole was not, I believe, a very popular Bill in the country. Had you gone to the country on the issue of that Bill I think it would have been difficult to maintain the position. I am speaking with the utmost frankness—I never can see any use in making imaginary and pretended situations. My belief is that, with the various forces that had been growing against the Liberal Government at that time, had the issue been taken on that

495
Bill, when nearly everybody would have been smothered with bits of blue paper from some central office, the reaction would have been very strong. But directly your Lordships refused the Bill the whole issue of the Bill was swept out of sight and the thing upon which the country was asked to determine was: Will you have your measures, brought forward by your elected body in one place, rejected by a body over whom you have no control? You know what the answer to that issue was. Believe me, that will be the answer again and again. If you follow out the fate of that Bill, can anything be more remarkable? Its chief author assisted at its funeral. The Bill has now been buried deep beyond the chance of resurrection, and it is only on a few platforms that its spectre can from time to time be seen. If, instead of doing what you all believed was the right thing to do, you had done the wise thing and let that Bill go through the situation would have been a very different one.
It is for that reason that I view with infinite alarm the question of a collision between this House and an advanced Government. It is impossible, as I said before, to control or to influence this House to forsake strongly-rooted, deeply-held convictions. They will act upon them whatever the consequences may be. Surely every one of your Lordships can realise that in such a situation, which I do not think I have over-painted by a single stroke, there exists a danger to the Constitution of this country which it is our duty, as the body which has always above everything desired to preserve, to modify and to continue the Constitution, to concern ourselves with, and to seek to remove. The proposals for that removal are, as I have said, of extreme ingenuity. I do not suppose that the people who put them forward expected that they would be accepted wholesale. I feel sure from the speech of the noble Earl that he was most anxious to have criticism in order that they might be made more perfect, and I sincerely hope that criticism will be provided. I will not deal with that part of his Motion at all, largely because there is so much that one could criticise, I do not mean adversely; but there is so much that provokes discussion that I think we might lose ourselves in the discussion and lose sight of what I regard
496
as the fundamental things of the first part of the Motion.
What I want to do is to persuade the Government at this late hour that they ought now to make some provision that will enable a Labour Government, if it be returned, to function. It could be done by passing even a small Resolution enabling the Government, during the period in which it is in office, to appoint people to assist in your Lordships' House in order that their Bills might be properly presented. At the present moment it might be difficult even to fill the offices, and something must be done. Your Lordships will realise that the Labour Party themselves cannot well make Peers because they are opposed on principle to the very essence of hereditary titles, and to ask members of the Labour Party to accept them is making a very great demand upon those men, a demand to which I very much doubt whether they would readily assent.
I certainly do not propose to keep you long in this discussion. My object has been to attempt in the few sentences I have uttered to impress upon your Lordships, and if I could through your Lordships upon the country, the urgent need for something to be done, by which you can accomplish what, after all, has been the very essence of all the many reforms through which this country has passed—the moulding and development of existing institutions so that they may meet new needs. It is certainly urgent for this to be done. The feet of the young men and the young women are at our door. You can almost hear their quick impatient tread. I want to know whether this House is going to do nothing but lie like the fallen trunk of some great tree uprooted by heavy gales, barring the whole path of progress, or is it going to do something by which not merely fair audience—that is secured to everyone in this House unless he forfeits his right—but fair and sympathetic consideration of the different measures that are brought forward, can be afforded by this body? Upon the right answer to that question depends, I believe, not merely the welfare of this country, but something far greater—the welfare of the whole realm.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down made, as he

497
always does, a very eloquent speech. I admit that we on this Bench appreciate the compliment that he paid us when he said that he regarded us in some sense as an offspring of the Liberal Party. Still more do I appreciate that argument because I understand that the noble Lord is not averse from the hereditary principle, and in that way I think I may claim his assistance, or at any rate his sympathy, as a valuable asset to the Party to which I belong.
The noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, made a most admirable speech. I desire to deal with the matters to which he referred and to explain clearly and frankly the attitude of the Labour Party. At the outset, may I state their attitude from the programme accepted by them at the Birmingham Conference? The first article of that programme is—that we should maintain (that is, that the Labour Party should maintain) "the unquestioned supremacy of the House of Commons." The second is that we should give an "uncompromising resistance to the establishment of a Second Chamber"—that would mean also, of course, the adjustment of a Second Chamber—"with authority over finance"—that is not asked—"and power to hamper the House of Commons and defeat democratic decisions." When I come to the terms of the proposals it appears to me that they will interfere with the unquestioned supremacy of the House of Commons, and would certainly give power to hamper the House of Commons and to defeat democratic decisions.
I am aware, all your Lordships are aware, that we approach this particular question from a special point of view. Underlying the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, was really the premise that he desired a House of Lords, or a Second Chamber, which might be an effective barrier to Socialist legislation. Let me put before your Lordships our view on the other side. We desire that the Second Chamber, whatever it may be, shall be an effective barrier against reactionary legislation, particularly during the periods when the Conservatives have a majority in the other House. I want to discuss more in detail the actual proposals. A leading objection to my mind, and to the minds of those with whom I am in political agreement, is
498
this, that at present when a Conservative Party is in power we really have single-chamber government and the advantages of a second-chamber government are not secured. Instead of there being a mitigation of that evil it would be enhanced and strengthened should the proposals which are brought forward by the noble Earl be accepted.
I do not want to follow the noble, Earl in his language, which was very striking. He only hopes to "ginger up," I presume, Lord Salisbury, the Leader of this House, and also the Leader of the Conservative Party. That is his ambition. It will be for the noble Marquess to say by and by whether that ambition is to be realised or not. But let me deal with the four points to which the noble Earl referred and on which he relied in his main argument in support of his Resolutions. The first of these was the acceptance of a Resolution in this House in 1927. He said quite truly that that Resolution had the advantage of the support of the late Lord Chancellor, Viscount Cave, and of Lord Birkenhead. I recollect particularly Lord Birkenhead saying that if the Resolution was carried it was the duty and the desire and the intention of the present Government to carry it into effective operation. What was its fate? Immediately it was really discussed and considered, immediately the issue was raised, which the noble Earl rightly raises, of an advantage to the State and country—immediately those matters were considered the Resolution disappeared in ridicule, if I may use such an expression. Where are those, proposals gone? I should think that the last matter to which the noble Earl would have referred would have been the unhappy fate of the proposals of 1927.
The second point of the noble Earl is that, as he says, the proposals are democratic. I beg to say that in my view they are most certainly not democratic in any sense. I use the word "democratic," I should like to explain, not in the Greek sense in which it is used as being opposed to oligarchy. I use the word as embracing all classes and ranks of people of this country. When I use the word "democratic" I mean an expression of popular will, backed up, as it ought to be, by a majority, small or great, of the electorate. How can these

499
proposals be said to be democratic? Let us look for a moment at the second Resolution:—
"(a) 150 Peers to be elected by proportional representation or the cumulative vote in each Parliament by the whole body of Peers, to sit and vote in the House."
Every one knows—I do not think it is open to discussion—that those 150 Peers will, in substance, all be men of Conservative mind and feeling. It is quite impossible to produce any other result from a representation of 150 Peers so selected.
It does not matter that you suggest proportional representation. Personally I have always been in favour of proportional representation, although I differ in that respect from some of my political friends. But if you consider the constitution, the feeling, the opinion and the bias of the electorate—that is, of the 700 Peers more or less from whom the 150 are to be selected—you at once have a body impervious to what I may call democratic ideas in the wider sense. You erect a barrier behind which Conservative feeling can entrench itself without any fear of being disturbed, or at least with the hope that it will not be disturbed; and if you once start from any elective proposal of that kind. I say it is hopeless to expect that any Party which desires that the popular will should through the House of Commons be the governing factor in this country, can for a moment support it. I think if the Second Chamber is reconstituted it ought to be constituted with far fewer members than the present House of Lords, with the hope that there will be a good average of attendance, but that is not the matter we are discussing at the moment.
Then the noble Earl supports this proposal because he says it would be fair and equitable to all Parties in the State. I want to put this question to the noble Earl, who is very frank in his views upon these points: How can you have a representation which is fair and equitable to all Parties in the State if you begin with 1150 Peers elected on the hereditary basis? I am not concerned to criticise unduly the hereditary basis, but I am concerned to say that, except in words and phrases, it is really impossible to suggest that you will get a fair and equitable political distribution in this country if you load your dice at the beginning.
500
That is what happens by the election of the 150 representatives of the hereditary Peers. I hope the noble Earl will not think I am persistent in bringing this matter to his mind. We are to have a House of 300 members subject to special nominations; 150 members come as representatives of the hereditary Peers, a body who, if they were elected on any I rue basis, as I hope they would be, would be by a vast majority almost unanimously representative of what we call the Conservative side in our political life: that leaves another 150 which, as I understand, are to be nominated in proportion to the number of representatives of the various Parties in the House of Commons. How would that work? Supposing there was a Conservative majority in the other House, you would have 150 elected Conservative Peers, reinforced, I suppose——
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The noble Lord will, I hope, forgive me if I interrupt him. He used the words "150 Conservative Peers." That would not be so under my proposal. Under my proposal the Peers elected to this House are elected on proportional representation. That would not mean 150 Conservative Peers. It would mean a very much lesser number and a fair proportion of Liberal and of Labour members.
LORD PARMOOR: I had not overlooked that and in fact I mentioned that there would be proportional representation, but what I said then and what I say now is that having regard to the constitution of this House, having regard not only to our Benches but to the Benches on this side generally, whatever proportional representation you have, you would have a very large majority indeed of Conservative Peers elected by the hereditary Peers. Can any one doubt that? Can any one think that they are going to elect—they could not find them. I am afraid—representatives of other classes or of other creeds than the Conservative class and the Conservative creed? Of course, they would not. And I would put this to the noble Earl: he is advocating this scheme I think—I do not want to impute motives to him—for the very reason that it would ensure a strong Conservative majority as against democratic ideas, as a barrier in this House against progressive legislation.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I must interrupt the noble Lord again. I do not think he has quite gathered what the proposals really mean in so far as nominations from the House of Commons are concerned.
LORD PARMOOR: I have not come to that yet.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Then in that case I will not interrupt further.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble Earl does not think I call it interruption. I do not. What I am dealing with for the moment is the election of Peers as representatives of the hereditary body. There may be a difference of opinion, but my own view is that Peers so elected will be predominantly Conservative. However you elect them, you cannot help that because the electorate itself is predominantly Conservative at the present time. Now we come—if I may have the noble Earl's attention, for I should be extremely sorry if I did not quite understand his meaning—to what I may call the second 150 Peers. They are to be nominated by the Crown in proportion to the Parties in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: To the state of Parties.
LORD PARMOOR: "Parties" I have.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That is what is meant.
LORD PARMOOR: The Resolution says:—
"150 persons to be nominated by the Crown in proportion to the parties in the House of Commons in each Parliament, to sit for the life of the Parliament."
Supposing that was the only proposal put forward for the constitution of the second Chamber I for one would say that it would require very careful consideration, but included as it is between the election by hereditary Peers and the interference with the prerogative of the Crown, I say at once that it would have no beneficial effect at all. Let us consider the effect of this second 150 Peers. Take first of all the case which often has happened, and which I have no doubt the noble Earl hopes often will happen, of a Conservative majority in the other House. Then you would have a Conservative majority as against either the
502
Labour or the Liberal Party as regards these nominated Peers. I think there is no question whatever about that. The result would be that an extremely Conservative body in this House would be still further strengthened because the nominated Peers would be stronger than any others. I want to know what would happen then to second-chamber government. Supposing you had a large Conservative majority in the other House and you had your elected Peers plus the Conservative nominated Peers forming, as they undoubtedly would in my opinion, a large majority in this House, you would get single-chamber government and nothing else.
That is one of the great faults of our present system. It is a matter you must put right if you are to have a Second Chamber which will not be brought into conflict with popular opinion. I say emphatically on behalf of the Labour Party that we want protection against reaction just as much as you want protection against what you consider too much progressive legislation. You must give the Parties the same protection whether you call them Socialists or reactionaries. How does the noble Earl deal with that I say there is only one way in which you can prevent the real evil of single-chamber government. We know very well how single-chamber government has worked during the period that the Labour Party has been a Party in this House. The members of this House know how futile was our opposition to the interference, and the wrong interference as we regard it, with the trade union principle, and how we fought in vain against the mining settlement which has brought so much misery, appalling misery, to the mining districts in this country. What protection have we against reactionary measures of that kind? Everyone knows that this House, either in its political outlook or its judicial outlook, is not favourable to trade unionism. Of course you have bias of that kind.
If you ask me, I think the only way to have a fair Second Chamber is so to constitute it that the bias of the different Parties in the first Chamber is directly represented in the same proportion in the Second Chamber, and as for saying that you can possibly get any result of that kind by these proposals, of course

503
it is impossible. I do not wonder at its being impossible. Why is this reform wanted? I think myself it is absolutely essential to have reform of the Second Chamber, but why is this reform brought forward now by the noble Earl, and why was it brought forward last Session and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, and the late Lord Chancellor? It was avowedly said that you must reform the House of Lords in order to have a sufficient barrier against what was called destructive Socialism. If you start from that point of view you will never arrive at a just result. I might just as well say: "Let us start from the point of view that we want a barrier against reactionary government or against reactionary bias, and for that reason the Labour Party ask your Lordships to constitute a Second Chamber in which the Socialist element shall be inherent, so as in substance to have a safe majority under all conditions." Why, you would not look at it. How, then, can you ask us to look at it from your point of view? I say, give us the same safeguards against reaction that you are asking for against Socialism. Let there be equality in either case and you will have our support of any proposal to improve the Second Chamber. But that is not what you want, and I am afraid I should not get your support for a proposal of that kind.
What is the third matter, which I think has not been sufficiently discussed at the present time? It is the proposal that the Crown should have the power to appoint a limited number of life Peers in each Parliament. So long as the hereditary principle is preserved, whether by election or not, so long can there be no interference with the unlimited power of the Crown to appoint additional Peers on the nomination of any particular Prime Minister. I do not think that our Constitution would ever have worked unless that power had been in operation. I may perhaps be allowed to refer to one historical incident. In the Sunderland and Stanhope Government in 1720 a proposal was made to limit the number of Peers in this House to the numbers then existing, and there were to be no new nominations except in the case of death. What was the answer to that I should like to read one passage from Green's History which, I think, has
504
always been considered one of the classical passages dealing with this question. I will not go into the proposal, as I expect your Lordships all know what it was, but Green wrote that this proposal jarred on the good sense of Sir Robert Walpole as a statesman. I need not recall that he was opposed to Sunderland and Stanhope, who brought it forward. The passage continues:—
"It would in fact have rendered representative government impossible."
I think that is perfectly true.
"For representative Government was now coining day by day more completely to mean government by the will of the House of Commons,"—
if that was true in 1720, it is doubly true at the present time—
"carried out by a Ministry which served as the mouthpiece of that will."
The Ministry which was a mouthpiece of that will must have, under the control of the Prime Minister, the power of securing the creation of Peers.
The Prime Minister, of course, does not create Peers. He nominates them. But we all know what happened in 1832, and again at the passing of the Parliament Act, Most fortunately it was not necessary to exercise that power. I hope that it never will be, but the possible exercise of that power made it possible for democratic desires to find a means of expression that they never could have found in any other way without something in the nature of a revolution. The passage continues:—
"But it was only through the prerogative of the Crown, as exercised under the advice of such a Ministry, that the Peers could be forced to bow to the will of the Lower House in matters where their opinion was adverse to that of the Commons, and the proposal of Sunderland"—
that is, the proposal for limitation—
"would have brought legislation and government to a deadlock."
This has been universally regarded as true in every English history that I have read, and I happen to have been a student of history. Taking that to be true in 1720, is it not infinitely more true at the present moment?
In these proposals, you are constituting a Chamber with a permanent Conservative majority. You may have on the other side of the Lobby—as I hope we shall have, but I am no prophet—a

505
majority predominantly in favour of the views of the Labour Party. At the present time it would be open to the Prime Minister to suggest the creation of new Peers or, in the alternative, to resign his position. It would be open to the king either to create the Peers or to find some other Prime Minister to manage his Government. I regard this prerogative as one of the great safeguards of the respect in which every Englishman holds his Constitutional Monarchy at the present time. This is the great occasion for the exercise of the prerogative and, most fortunately, in every instance it has been exercised for the good of this country and in order to raise a barrier against revolutionary principles.
There are two other considerations that I should like to put before your Lordships. I am one of those who feel very strongly that nothing should be done that could interfere with the power of the House of Commons or with our loyalty to the House of Commons. We talk of law and order and of orderly progress by evolution. Why? It is because we are loyal to the real sovereignty in this country, the sovereignty which should keep its power unshared with any other body, the sovereignty of the House of Commons itself. We all have that loyalty. It is not confined to one Party or another. For centuries of time, first against the Kings and then against the oligarchy, it has stood for freedom, for progress and for all that makes life in this country a pattern to other countries of the world. I should regard any interference with that sovereignty as a matter of the deepest concern. I hold entirely to the view put forward at Birmingham by the Party to which I belong. One other consideration comes under the same head. I do not suppose that anybody in this House—I can speak only for my colleagues on this Bench—desires Communist revolution. The great barrier against Communist revolutions is the Labour Party. Communists themselves have said this on many occasions, quite rightly, and the reason why the Labour Party stands as a barrier in support of all that is best in this country is that, by trying to get what it can by constitutional methods, it puts its whole weight against revolutionary and disorderly procedure.
This is a very important question.
506
This is not an occasion—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck master, would agree with me—on which any member of the Party to which I belong could be expected to put forward a new programme. That is, of course, quite impossible, Even the noble Earl himself only hoper to secure by gentle means some endorsement of his opinion from his own Front Bench. The Labour Party are right in placing the hoper of our future in maintaining unimpaired the sovereignty of the House of Commons. That sovereignty would not be unimpaired if we created under these proposals a Second Chamber with a permanent majority in favour of reaction, as against the present great hope for progressive like and progessive legislation.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with very great attention to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. I really expected better things on him. My noble friend Lord Clarendon asked for bread and the noble Lord has giver him a very heavy stone. I assure your Lordships that Lord Clarendon and those who are acting with him have put forward this very modest proposal in no Party spirit whatsoever. Many of us on this side of this House and, as was shown by the speech of Lord Buckmaster, noble Lords on the other side too, are genuinely anxious that there should be some reform of the personnel of this House. In dealing with this question you are confronted with two considerations. The matter divides itself into the question of powers and the question of powers and the question of personnel. If you deal with both questions at the same time you get a double discussion, and if you deal with them singly you are always told that one depends upon the other. On the last occasion when this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House the question of powers was added to the question of the reform of personnel. To-day we were congratulated by Lord Buckmaster, and I think rightly congratulated, that we have not tacked on the question of powers to the question of the reform of personnel.
I cannot agree for one moment with the speech of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Parmoor, in which he talks of the enthronement of a permanent majority in this House. He has his remedy, as

507
Lord Buckmaster pointed out, in the Parliament Act, for getting through measures, and by the proposed constitution in the proposals put forward by my noble friend there is no question of rivalry with the House of Commons. The House of Commons is an elected Chamber and must be supreme. These proposals do not for one moment ask that members of this House should be elected, and therefore there is no shadow of doubt that there can be no question of competition with the sovereign power, as it is held nowadays, of the House of Commons. Anybody who has been in this House for some little time must be struck by two things, and they are, firstly, the paucity of the numbers of those who take part in the debates, and, secondly, the lack of interesting subjects that are for the most part discussed. I am perfectly sure that if there was a different system we should cure both those defects, and a much better House would ensue.
I will deal for one moment with the proposals. I think they are going to be of great benefit. There are a great many members of the House who do not care about coming here at all. Why ask them to come? There are, again, a great many Peers who have to come to this House who would rather stop in the House of Commons. I see before me two notable examples in the persons of my noble friends Lord Selborne and Lord Midleton. They did not want to come here. Why should they be forced to come here because of the hereditary principle? Attain, as you all know, one of the reasons put forward why the late respected Leader of this House was not called upon to become Prime Minister, was the fact that he was a member of this House. Why bar the nation from the services of anyone as Prime Minister, or other high office, because he is a member of this House? I think it would be of distinct advantage to the State, and to the House of Commons, if noble Lords could choose whether they would serve in this House or stand for election to the other House, or, if they did not want to come, whether they would be members of Parliament at all. I think there is a great deal to be said for these proposals from that point of view.
When we come to the second part of the proposals, relating to nominated members in relation to the numbers, of those in the House of Commons, I think
508
your Lordships will agree with me that it would be of the greatest benefit to this House, in considering the various measures which come before us, if we could have added to our numbers men who have had considerable Parliamentary experience. There are a great many, men who have sat in the House of Commons for ten, fifteen or twenty years to whom the labour of wooing a constituency, and the daily toil in the House of Commons, have become somewhat irksome, and who would yet be willing to come here and do a great deal of the work. There, again, I think the proposals would be of great advantage to this House. Whenever a proposition is put forward there are always objections, but I cannot understand the attitude of the Labour Party in objecting to reform of this House, except upon the ground that what they really have in their minds is the idea of single-chamber government.
The main objection seems to me to be that by these proposals you will ensure a perpetual Conservative majority. As I have said, from the ranks of the hereditary Peers, under these proposals, you will get a majority, but on the other hand that is cured to a certain extent by the nominated representatives of political Parties under the second proposal, and the third proposal, giving power to create life Pee helps to redress the balance. I think that is also an admirable suggestion It would solve many a difficulty, and I am sure that if the Labour Party should be in the fortunate position, or unfortunate position, as the case may be, of having a majority in the next Parliament, they will gladly welcome that provision for the possibility of the creation of life Peers. I doubt very much whether there is really any fear as regards the limitation of the powers of the Crown, which seemed to be the principal objection raised by Lord Parmoor, and I am not at all sure whether my noble friend would not consent, when this matter is more closely gone into, that there should be no limit to the number of life Peers. I think, if that is conceded, it strikes at the principal objection of the Labour Party, although, as I have said before, I am not at all sure that their real objection is not that they are really in favour of a single Chamber.

509
May I finish by quoting to your Lordships an historic incident? When George Washington and the statesman who afterwards became President Jefferson were discussing the question whether there should be two Chambers or one, in the United States, Jefferson strongly argued in favour of one Chamber. They were having a cup of tea together, and Washington noticed Jefferson pour his tea into the saucer, in order to cool the tea. Then Washington said: "That proves my argument to the hilt, and shows how right I am in approving two Chambers, because you applied it yourself in a practical way in cooling your tea." I am sorry that there should be such opposition to these proposals from the Labour Party, because if they are a constitutional Party, as they profess to be, they must see that some reform of the personnel of the House is absolutely necessary. They will have to do it themselves at some time or other, if they are a constitutional Party, and it is of no use their setting their faces as a wall against proposals coining from these Benches, as being necessarily bad and necessarily incapable of improvement.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who leads the Labour Party attributed, I think un-necessarily, the somewhat sinister motive to the noble Earl who moved the Resolution, and to those who are associated with him, that they had in view the establishing of a Conservative majority in this House. May I say in all honesty that I do not believe that that was their intention at all. I believe these proposals have been brought forward with a view of making the position of Parties in this House fairer, and therefore our proceedings more realistic, than they sometimes are at present. I have more than once heard the noble and learned Lord opposite complain of the preponderance of members who sit on the Conservative side of the House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in his place. I have heard him more than once complain of this, and say that the preponderance was something like, I think, seventy to one. That may be so. But I say this in all honesty, that I quite understand the feelings and the objections of noble Lords to this state of things, and I can assure him that for my part, as, I think,
510
for many of those who sit around me, the position is no more satisfactory than it is to him.
I do not rise in any way to find fault with the proposals of my noble friend, but merely to call attention to one or two omissions which I think should be brought to your Lordships' notice. In fact, I am not quite sure that they are omissions, because, from a certain remark which my noble friend Lord Clarendon let drop, I think that the matters which I shall mention have been in the minds of those who framed this Motion. I refer first to the position of Peers who will not be elected to your Lordships' House. I think that something ought to be done to enable those Peers to be eligible to stand for the House of Commons. Whatever noble Lords opposite may say about the proposals of my noble friend, there is nothing undemocratic about that: it is not asking for them any privilege which is not enjoyed by anybody else, and I am quite sure that noble Lords who sit on the Labour Benches, with their Socialist idea of equality for everybody, can have no ground whatever for objecting to this principle. But my noble friend Lord Clarendon has referred to this, and so I will not go further into the point.
But, closely allied to that, is the position of Members of Parliament who are heirs to Peerages. I never had the fortune myself to sit in the House of Commons, but I have often thought that it is perfectly deplorable and a great loss to the public service that, because a man succeeds to a Peerage, he therefore by the present law vacates his seat and is forced to sit in this House where necessarily, however good a will you have, opportunities for good Parliamentary work are less than they are in another place. The position, to my mind, is bad enough as it is, but if these proposals become law it will be very much worse, because at all events a heir to a Peerage now, if he has to give up his seat in the House of Commons, has this House to come to, and he may, and no doubt very often does, do exceedingly good work and rise to high positions in the State. But if these proposals become law these individuals will not even have this House as a place of refuge; all they will have is an opportunity of standing for election or for nomination under the proposals on the Paper. Your

511
Lordships may say that a good many of them would get here. I have no doubt they would, especially if they had the ability and the luck to become Ministers of the Crown and make themselves conspicuous in another place. But a good many of them would not, and it is for the sake of these people that I think the position ought to be safeguarded and the law altered in the respect I have suggested. The alteration I have in mind is a law enabling them, if they wish, to continue to sit in the House of Commons, and not to vacate their seats and come to this House.
I am in this matter thinking not so much about ourselves as about our heirs. After all, those of us who are going to support and vote for the Motion of my noble friend are doing it with our eyes open. Many of us are giving up what we value as a very high privilege, the privilege of sitting and voting in this House, and at times taking part in its deliberations. Our heirs will have no say in this matter, and I think, therefore, that we ought to take steps to safeguard their position as well as to introduce what, in these clays, I consider a most necessary reform.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, in a matter of such paramount importance as that which is the subject of the debate this evening, it would seem natural and right that the attitude of the Government should be defined by that member of your Lordships' House who naturally speaks with authority on such a matter, the Leader of the House. That is particularly desirable when, as in the present case, the Leader of the House is himself a member whose past record shows the deep interest which he has always taken in this problem. And therefore I feel I ought almost to apologise for speaking this evening, and I desire to explain that the reason for my taking any of the available time is only this, that it is impossible for this debate to be concluded in one day. There are, we are glad to see, a number of your Lordships who desire to make a contribution to it, and the Government have thought that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships, especially for those of your Lordships who are proposing to take part in the debate, that some indication of the Government's
512
attitude should be made on the first evening, and that the final speech on behalf of the Government should be made by my noble friend on the adjourned debate.
The first observation which, representing the Government, I desire to make upon this Motion is that we welcome most warmly the fact that the question has been brought forward for discussion, and we welcome especially that it should have been brought forward, not merely by the Motion which is now being discussed, but also by another Motion, originally put down by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, so that from different sides of the House there should appear simultaneously a desire that this subject should be ventilated and discussed. The second observation which I desire to make is this, that I think the country ought to recognise more fully than perhaps it docs the sense of public spirit which has induced members of your Lordships' House voluntarily to offer to surrender hereditary privileges which we know they value very highly. The noble Lord who has just spoken has stressed the value which he and others for whom he speaks attach to the privilege of membership of your Lordships' House, and I think that it is a matter of congratulation in the public interest that hereditary Peers, enjoying as they do privileges which they have inherited, and of which they regard themselves as trustees for their posterity, should, without any coercion from outside, be willing to give up a great part of these privileges, when they think that the public interest demands the sacrifice.
Because I am conscious of those two factors it is a matter of regret that I shall even seem to depreciate the value of these considerations by stating, as I have to state, that the Government are unable to accept the Resolution, and that the members of the Government in your Lordships' House will be unable to vote in its favour. I desire, if I may, to explain in a few words the reasons which have led the Government to that conclusion. Your Lordships will remember, as was pointed out by the noble Earl who moved the Resolution, that these proposals have a history in your Lordships' House. He has called your Lordships' attention to the debate which took place some eighteen months ago on the

513
Motion of my noble friend Lord FitzAlan. Your Lordships will all remember how, in the course of that debate, my immediate predecessor, Lord Cave, stated certain proposals on behalf of the Government, proposals which had formed the subject of prolonged consideration in the Cabinet, which were presented to your Lordships' House for consideration as the advice of His Majesty's Government and which, I think, met with a very large measure of support from the great majority of your Lordships who took part in the debate or in the Division. Your Lordships will remember that, however well those proposals were received in this House, it cannot accurately be stated that they were received with the same enthusiasm or the same endorsement either in another place or in the country at large.
I think it is a travesty to say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said, that they were overwhelmed with ridicule. I have no doubt that had the Government thought it right to exercise pressure upon their supporters they could have forced those proposals through Parliament. But it does not seem to His Majesty's Government that that is the right method in which to deal with a problem of this character. These are questions which vitally affect your Lordships' House; but they also affect the general public outside since they materially alter the whole machinery of government. They are, as I think we all agree, matters of great constitutional importance, and it seems to His Majesty's Government that in dealing with ft constitutional change of this kind endeavour at least ought to be made to secure a measure of general agreement as to the changes which have to be proposed.
It may happen that one or other Party in the State may refuse to collaborate in the endeavour to make the desired improvements. Nothing has been more striking to my mind in the course of the debate this evening than the contrast between the attitude of the noble and learned Lord who speaks from the Liberal Benches—I do not know whether to describe him as a member of the Liberal Party—and the noble and learned Lord who leads the Socialist Opposition. We had, on the one side, a statesmanlike attempt to make a real contribution
514
towards solving a difficult problem. We had, on the other, what I cannot help regarding as a rather cheap attempt to make Party capital. It may happen, of course, that one Party refuses to give its assistance. It may happen that the importance of the change is such that the Government of the day is compelled to make the change relying on the support of its own friends and supporters in the country and ignoring the fact that another Party refuses to give its help. Even if that be so, it is at least essential that there should be a large measure of agreement amongst the Parties throughout the country before that change is forced through, to show that the Government is not merely putting forward its own view but can say that it is speaking the conviction of that section of the community which has entrusted it with the reins of power. It was because we felt that the proposals which we put forward had not commanded that degree of general support which justified us in proceeding with them at once that they were dropped in the summer of 1927.
That was eighteen months ago. What is the position to-day? To-day there remain a few months only of the life of this Parliament—my noble friend said of the life of this Government, but I would undertake to correct; him upon that point. So far as this Parliament is concerned, there can be no doubt that it would be impossible to carry through a constitutional change of this magnitude, except, of course, by common consent which we know we are not going to get, within the few months which remain of its allotted life. Therefore there can be no chance of giving legislative effect to proposals for the reform of your Lordships' House during the currency of the life of the present Parliament. In those circumstances, there are brought forward these proposals which have not as yet received the careful consideration even of members of another House and certainly not the careful consideration of the constituencies. In the view of the Government we should have no right to commit the Conservative Party as such, of which we are the chosen representatives, to the approval of schemes which our own followers and supporters have not had time to assimilate or even adequately to consider.

515
The Resolution may be divided into two parts. The second part illustrates one method by which the object set out in the first part may be carried into effect. It also illustrates, I think, the extreme difficulty of evolving a satisfactory scheme for carrying that object into effect. Nobody can read the proposals without recognising, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has recognised, the extreme ingenuity of them and without admiring the care and attention which must have been devoted to their compilation. But it is manifest that they offer at once a target for criticism and attack. I dissociate myself entirely from the sort of travesty of the proposals which constituted the attack from the Socialist Benches. I do not think that the representation of these proposals made in that speech was either fair or even sensible, but that I can leave to the noble Earl, who, I think, is to follow me, and to other members associated with the compilers of the scheme.
There are, however, obvious matters which may be met, which may be capable of amendment, but which at least are matters that call for criticism and make one hesitate before accepting them. Let me indicate one or two, not as saying that these are matters which the Government would wish altered—I have no mandate so to do, and I do not even express the view of the Government—but as pointing out difficulties which would require consideration before the scheme could be accepted. One criticism of the House of Commons to-day is that it very often does not represent the political opinion of the country, that the political balance in the country is quite different from that which is represented in the House of Commons. It might at any rate be arguable that in a Second Chamber that balance ought to be redressed. This scheme, so far as it reproduces political opinion outside at all, reproduces and emphasises the exact balance of power as it appears in the House of Commons to-day. Let me point out another difficulty. There are here three different categories outside the Princes of the Blood Royal.
A NOBLE LORD: And ladies.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Ladies are included in the first category. The
516
numbers of the first two are carefully set out. No number is stated for the third category—that of the persons created life Peers by the Crown, which is intended, I imagine, to mean nominated by the Government of the day. Why is no number stated? I think one reason may be this. If you stated a number you would at once be confronted with a grave difficulty. The object of that third class is to ensure, I imagine, that the Government of the day shall be able to have a fair representation here even if under classes (a) and (b) they do not get it. If you make the number in (c) a small number, then it may easily happen that the addition of that small number would be insufficient to redress the balance and to give to the Government of the day a majority in this House. If, on the other hand, you make it a large number so as to ensure that the Government of the day have a majority, then you are in fact swamping the House of Lords permanently for the existence of every Parliament, and doing the very thing which many of us regard as a most unfortunate thing ever to do—swamping the House so that it shall always have to carry out the wishes of the Government of the day because it has people appointed here by the Government of the day for the very purpose of enforcing its rule. You will be doing that permanently at the beginning of every Parliament instead of only having the possibility of doing it in an extreme case, which exists now, and it might well be said that the remedy was worse than the disease. I am not saying those are great objections. I am not saying they are not difficulties which could be overcome. I have indicated them as matters with regard to which criticism is, I think, legitimate in considering this problem.
Let me indicate one more before I pass on. One of the great advantages, as I see it, of membership of your Lordships' House is that whereas in the House of Commons members change from Parliament to Parliament, and there is in each Election in the main a very large body of new men—practically a new body—in your Lordships' House, when once anybody has become a member, he remains a member for his life, and, therefore, acquires by dint of attendance here that tradition, that experience of the administration of Parliamentary business, that

517
education in the conduct of public affairs which renders your Lordships' House so valuable, in my judgment, as a Chamber which can revise rash projects and correct ill-considered decisions. If this scheme is carried through then you will have a fresh House of Lords elected for every Parliament, or nominated for every Parliament, just as you are having a fresh House of Commons to-day, and though it is true that some of the members of the previous House may be re-elected or re-nominated, just as they can be re-elected in another place, still you will have the loss of that building up of the permanent tradition and permanent atmosphere, I might almost call it, of legislative experience in this House which I, at any rate, regard as one of its most valuable attributes. Those are matters which deserve, I think, careful consideration, and for the Government to accept this Resolution now when we know we cannot carry it into effect, and when our Party has not had the opportunity to consider it or to express an opinion upon it, would, I think, not be fair to those to whose leadership we are entrusted.
But your Lordships may say: "Part 2 is an illustration of Part 1—why not accept Part 1?" I do not think I am going beyond my instructions if I say that, supposing Part I had only declared that it was desirable that there should be such a reform of your Lordships' House as to ensure to each political Party an opportunity of obtaining a fair position in the House, it would be very difficult for the Government to refuse its assent to such a proposal, but Part I of the Resolution goes a great deal further than that. It defines how that fair proportion is to be obtained. It begins by stating that it has to be done by limiting the number of members of the House. The noble Earl in moving the Resolution called attention to that word "limit." He said that no particular stress was to be laid upon it, and that it was only intended to indicate that the numbers of the House ought to be reduced. I fully understand that is the intention, but your Lordships will remember that if the Government give their approval to this Resolution it is not what the noble Earl has said in this House which will be repeated on the platforms in the constituencies. Words will be wrested from their meaning, as
518
we have heard them wrested from it this afternoon, and we shall be told the Government is proposing, if it is ever returned to power, to limit the numbers of your Lordships' House so as to ensure that the Tory Party shall always be entrenched in a permanent majority. That is what we should have to meet and which the language of the Resolution would enable unscrupulous Party speakers effectively to reiterate. That is a position in which we do not think it right to put ourselves or to put our Party.
Whether the limitation of numbers is desirable is a matter on which there may be discussion. Whether it is possible to ensure adequate reform without limitation of numbers is at least doubtful. Limitation of numbers was actually a feature of the proposals of June of last year, but it would be idle to close one's eyes to the fact that that precisely was one of the features which rendered the feeling among our own Party in another place very doubtful and hesitating as to the acceptance of the proposals. I am not saying for a moment that limitation of numbers is not desirable. I am not saying that even if it be not desirable it may not be essential in order to secure reform, and that, even if desirable the disadvantages are not far outweighed by the importance of securing reform. All these things may well be so, but what I am saying is that it would be a mistake for His Majesty's Government, at any rate in our view, that we should commit ourselves in advance to the proposition that we disapprove of any scheme of reform which does not embody as one of its essential features limitation of numbers, and thereby enable, for a Party cry, the accusation at the polls which we have suggested.
For these reasons it seems to us that it is impossible for the Government to accept the Resolution which has been laid before your Lordships' House; but in saying that I want to reiterate that we in no sense express an opinion hostile to the Resolution. Still less are we expressing any hostility to its introduction into this House. On the contrary, we regard it as extremely desirable that the matter should be dealt with. We regard it as a great gain for the country that the country should be made to realise the liberal spirit in which members of your

519
Lordships' House are willing to approach this problem. We regard it as of the highest importance that constructive statesmen of all Parties should approach this problem with the desire to meet an admitted danger. We think that it is especially valuable that such thought should be devoted to the problem by members of your Lordships' House, who by their experience here, and in many cases in another place, have gained a practical knowledge of the working of the Constitution which renders their advice most useful and most valuable. We believe that by the introduction of such a scheme, by its discussion here and outside, public opinion may be and should be educated.
By that process of discussion it should be possible to thrash out and gradually evolve the best possible scheme, and, as the people are educated to that scheme, to secure for its endorsement that measure of support which, as I have said, seems to me to have been lacking for the proposals put forward up to the present time. But we think that in the interests of the cause of reform it would be most unfortunate for the Government to commit itself to the endorsement of any particular scheme which has not been discussed, which has not been endorsed even by the Conservative Party let alone by the great body of public opinion outside. For these reasons, we are unable to give our own support to the scheme or to cast our votes in its favour if there should be a Division.
I have taken, I am afraid, rather more time than I had intended. I would only like to add that whilst I thank your Lordships most sincerely for the patience with which you have listened to me, I would remind you that on the adjourned debate you are to have another speech from the Government Bench. It sometimes happens that when more than one member of the Government speaks on any subject, especially a subject of grave importance, ill-natured persons are astute to try and detect differences in the utterances of the two statesmen. Let me assure you at once that I am confident that the expressions which I have used to-day are intended to convey the same policy as that which my noble friend is going to lay down with more authority on Thursday. If there should be un-
520
happily any kind of ambiguity in what I have said or any kind of difference in what he says, I would assure you at once that that is due to some fault in my expression or your intelligence of it and that you may accept his statement as the final and authoritative view of the Government.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, you will have heard with interest the delightful frankness with which the Lord Chancellor ended his utterance to the House, but I confess that I think your Lordships will have felt some measure of disappointment that he was unable to make a more direct response to the appeal of my noble friend who introduced this question in a speech of such great moderation and, if I may say so, such great importance, and also of the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Buck-master. After all, what does it really amount to? The Lord Chancellor says that the Government cannot deal with this question until there is a measure of general agreement. How long are we to wait to have that measure of general agreement?
Let me remind your Lordships that three of the most powerful members who have ever spoken in this House have tried to secure general agreement on this subject. The Earl of Rosebery and the Marquess of Lansdowne, who tried it, have both been Leaders of this House. The Earl of Rosebery was Chairman of the Committee which sat in 1908 and made recommendations. The Marquess of Lansdowne actually tabled a Bill. Still later a man recognised as a constitutional authority all over the world, Viscount Bryce, was Chairman of another Committee. It is remarkable that these three men were Liberals. All of them had held high office, all of them had the highest possible constitutional feeling, and they all felt that the constitution of this House was indefensible and that a change was necessary. They suggested changes which had a large measure of agreement, but they were not in sight of general agreement, and if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor really means that the Government policy is to wait for general agreement, then this subject, as Lord Buckmaster put it at the beginning of the debate, can only end by another collision on the model of 1832.

521
We are out to try to induce the Government to deal with the matter before such a collision becomes imminent. The real absurdity of the position is best gauged on numbers alone. There are some points in the Lord Chancellor's speech upon which I would like light thrown and there are some points in Lord Parmoor's speech to which I take exception. What are these numbers? There are about seven hundred Peers. Some 475 are called together on the Whip of my noble friend, 105 I believe by the Whip of the noble Earl opposite, and somewhere between five and ten by the summons of Lord Parmoor. Then we have a suggestion, agreed to on all sides, that it is quite possible that you may have a majority in the House of Commons represented by a Party of five or ten gentlemen here. It is asked, how can the King's Government be carried on? I wish that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would consider on behalf of the Government how the King's Government is going to be carried on under those conditions.
No objection was taken by the Lord Chancellor to the main scheme of the proposals, and, of course, there would be a great deal of discussion as to details. What he objected to was one word, which prevented the Government from voting for the first part of the Resolution—the word "limit," which, as my noble friend Lord Clarendon has already explained, was intended in the sense of "reduce." If anybody really thinks that there is a great constitutional or electoral proposition involved in the question whether this House should be reduced in numbers, or that there is anybody in the country who is going to cast his vote in favour of 700 Peers rather than 500 Peers, I think the Lord Chancellor will agree with, me that it is a very strange assumption. If that were the only difficulty, I certainly would counsel my noble friend to substitute the word "reduce" for the word "limit."
I quite realise that we cannot expect the House of Lords to adopt at a moment's notice every detail of a scheme which naturally requires to be most carefully investigated before its adoption, if it is to be the substratum of a Bill. But there are two points that have arisen during the debate on which I think we ought
522
to make the clearest possible challenge. Our object in bringing forward a detailed scheme was to wipe out of the public mind the misconceptions that have arisen as to the attitude of the majority in this House in consequence of the speech of the late Lord Chancellor. I know the difficulties under which that speech was made. Some people will say that perhaps that scheme had not received from the Cabinet the full consideration that we could have wished, but at all events the effect of that speech was to lay it down almost as an axiom that the Conservative majority now existing in the House was to be perpetuated for all time. My noble friend's proposals are absolutely at variance with that proposition. If anybody will take the trouble to think them out, it will be seen that they have quite a different effect. There are far more independent members in this House than most people think. Beyond the numbers that I gave your Lordships just now of those who take the Whip of the different Parties, it will be noted that about 120 Peers still remain, and there will always be, through proportional representation in this House, an independent element which is not to be counted upon by any Party. But, quite apart from that, if, according to the numbers in the House of Commons at the beginning of each Parliament or, as the noble and learned Lord rather adumbrated, according to the votes cast in the Election, which must be considered representative of the views of the people—if an election of 150 Peers is to be made under those circumstances, your Lordships will find that there is not a very large margin left to the Conservative Party of the majority which is now three to one.
In addition, one of the proposals of Lord Clarendon is that we should give power to the Government to add a certain number of life Peers. Lord Buckmaster suggested that power should be given to the Government to bring here for a definite purpose persons who are not life Peers but who will sit here as representatives of the majority in the House of Commons without Peerages. Whichever course is taken, there must be, even with the limitation of numbers, a constant influx according to the number of years that a Labour Government or any other Government is in power.

523
There will, therefore, be a constantly increasing number of those in whom the country is supposed to have confidence and a decreased majority for the Conservative Party, which would have been very small at the beginning, if it existed at all.
When you get a proposal which reduces the difference of Parties in this House from a proportion of three to one to something like an equality, I must confess that I think we have reason to complain that the Leader of the Labour Party in this House, instead of recognising the desire for justice shown by my noble friend, should have made the grotesque presentment of it that he gave to the House. There was not the slightest similarity between his version and the proposals that have been put forward. He said that we were trying to secure that at all times we should have a majority. That is not the intention of my noble friend and it is not to be found in his scheme. The noble Lord opposite also said that he was averse from single-chamber government, but the whole of his speech—I am within the recollection of your Lordships—pointed to a desire that at any moment the majority of the House of Commons should be free to swamp the majority in this House. Further, he was obviously prepared to contemplate that at all times this House must be in touch with the opinion of the Lower House, and that therefore, on the return of another Prime Minister, another swamping was to be regarded as perfectly legitimate. The whole of his speech was disappointing to the last degree. What we had hoped was that those who know that the state of ibis House becomes an impossibility if there should be a great change of public opinion and the Labour Party should be returned to power, would be the first to undertake to consider reasonable propositions for preventing a collision.
I have only two or three more words to say. I do not think that the Government can leave the matter where it is to-day. They can find reasons for putting off this question if they so desire, but they cannot avoid it, they cannot hide from the public the fact that the collision which may take place between the two Houses is one which is unavoidable under the present constitution of this House. It is
524
now quite thirty years since this subject was first genuinely ventilated in this House. Independent members, members out of office, members of the highest standing in this House have come forward time after time and the Government of the day have turned a deaf ear. Is that a fair position for the Government to take up? Is it fair to us who are loyal supporters of the Government to lose a great opportunity and to compel us to say that, from fear of what may bf said at the Election, the Government are unwilling to support my noble friend in the Lobby in a proposal the first part of which is no more likely to be harmful to them than the Motion of my noble friend Lord FitzAlan, which they voted for and passed eighteen months ago?
In point of fact they have actually gone back instead of going forward. I protest against that as a lame and impotent conclusion. I protest against it because I venture to pay that the business of your Lordships' House is being conducted year by year on less defensible lines than it ever was in the past. Year by year you have a slow trickle, like an oriental river, during the summer, followed by an avalanche. This is not fair, nor does it have the slightest effect in persuading public opinion to believe that we are an effective revising Chamber. And how can we stand for impartiality and then say to the public, who rightly or wrongly put in the Labour Party, that some 690 gentlemen in this House are out of sympathy with them? I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision. I hope that at the least they will leave this matter to the House to decide, and I hope that your Lordships will take a step forward and not a step backward.
I hope that, it being impossible for us at such short notice to arrive at a conclusion on a detailed scheme, the Government will assent to the reasonable proposition—
"That it is desirable that early steps should be taken to limit the number of members of the House, and to make suitable provision for an elective representation of the Peerage, and for such other representation or nomination as would ensure to each political Party a fair position in the House."
Surely every reasonable man must feel that it is a Resolution for which he can

525
vote, and unless much stronger arguments are put forward on the part of the Government than have been put forward up to the present, I earnestly hope that my noble friends, who have, as all of us who support the Motion have, a genuine desire to see a large influx of representation of other Parties in this House, will ask your Lordships to divide upon the Resolution.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I bog to move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved, That the Debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly till Thursday next.

BARONIES OF MONTACUTE AND MONTHERMER.
Proceedings and evidence taken before the Committee for Privileges to be printed.
BARONIES OF BEAUCHAMP AND MORDAUNT.
Proceedings and evidence taken before the Committee for Privileges to be printed.
GORDON PEERAGE.
Speeches of Counsel to be, printed.

GRAVESEND ELECTRICITY (EX- TENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Strood, in the County of Kent:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TUNBRIDGE WELLS ELECTRI- CITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Tonbridge and Sevenoaks, in the County of Kent, and parts of the rural districts of Uckfield and East Grinstead, in the Administrative County of East Sussex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.