Sitting of 28 February 1928

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase) Bill.
Barnet District Gas and Water Bill.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill.
Zoological Society of London Bill.
Bills committed.
PRIVATE BILLS,
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills,. That in the case of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) (Substituted Bill).

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) (Substituted Bill).

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the
188
First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    WOOLLEN AND WORSTED TISSUES (IMPORTS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade which were the countries, other than France and Germany, from which we imported woollen and worsted tissues during the years 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927, respectively; and what are the quantities and values of such goods?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The principal countries from which we import woollen tissues, besides France and Germany, are the Netherlands, Belgium and Czechoslovakia. Particulars of the imports from those countries in 1924–6 are shown on pages 253–6 of Volume II of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1926. The corresponding figures for 1927 are not yet available. Imports of worsted tissues from countries other than France and Germany are very small.

    FOOTWEAR (IMPORT DUTY, FRANCE).
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, seeing that the revised French import duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem on footwear is to apply only to those nations who have not a commercial treaty with France and that, as a consequence, British footwear entering France will be subject to a higher rate of duty than the footwear of Germany and other countries which have recently concluded such treaties, he will, with a view to facilitating British trade with France, consider concluding a commercial treaty, or state what other action he proposes to take;
    (2) whether he has received a communication from the Société des Chaussures

    189
    Manfield, France, a subsidiary of a British company, pointing out the effect on the sale of British-made footwear in France of the proposed new French import tariff on footwear; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no reason to believe that, in the application of the proposed increased import duty on footwear, any departure will be made from the existing general most-favoured-nation treatment which France accords to British goods. As regards the latter part of each question, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member yesterday by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade.
    Mr. MALONE: Is it not, a fact that 15 per cent. ad valorem is going to be put on imported footwear, and is not that a very important consideration?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The point I was asked to deal with was the question of most-favoured-nation treatment. It is true that there is a proposed increase in duty, which will probably figure in one of the Bills now before the French Chamber.

    CANADIAN TARIFF (BRITISH TRADE).
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the provision in the new Canadian tariff affecting the percentage of Empire labour in goods imported from Great Britain; and whether his Department has evidence as to the probable effect upon AngloCanadian trade?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The telegraphic summary of the Canadian Budget proposals which has reached me does not contain any information on the. question of the percentage of Empire labour or material in goods shipped from this country to Canada which will entitle them to preference in Canada, though I have seen statements in the Press that this percentage is to be increased. I expect, however, to receive full details very shortly, and I will see that they are published in. the Board of Trade Journal.
    Mr. HURD: Under the Budget arrangement will that increase come into force forthwith?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I have not had any particulars yet. I am expecting a full report shortly. I shall not know definitely what the proposals are until them.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Does that affect the Canadian Government's attitude with regard to the claim to a higher percentage of Canadian labour in Canadian goods?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I prefer to answer when I know what the exact proposals are.

    DUTIABLE GOODS (TRANSHIPMENT UNDER BOND).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the quantity of dutiable manufactured goods transhipped in bond in 1927; if he can arrange to publish a statement indicating what the re-exports of such goods would have been in 1927 if the goods transhipped in bond had been included in the re-export statistics; and if he can include in any such statement a comparative figure for 1924?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not possible to supply the particulars requested. Apart from the main articles liable to duty, particulars of the quantity of dutiable manufactured goods transhipped under bond are not separately recorded in the official statistics of trade.

    DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT.
    Mr. FENBYasked the President of Board of Trade how many applications were made to the Dye Stuffs Advisory Licensing Committee in 1927; how many were granted; what fees were collected; and what is the cost of the Committee?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The total number of applications for licences during 1927 was 7,407 and that of licences granted was 6,753. The amount received in respect of fees was £3,439, and the cost of the committee (inclusive of allied services) was approximately £3,800.
    Mr. FENBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that Great Britain is the only country in the world which prohibits the importation of articles treated exclusively with

    191
    British dyes previously purchased in this country, he will state the reasons continuing this prohibition?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, prohibits the importation, except under licence, only of all synthetic organic dyestuffs, colours and colouring matters, and all organic intermediate products used in their manufacture. There is no prohibition on the importation of articles treated by dyestuffs, British or other.
    Mr. FENBYasked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for refusing to grant licences for the importation of inks manufactured with British dyes in order to comply with the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, and containing no other ingredients dealt with by that Act; and whether this action is taken on behalf of the British dye Manufacturers or is a, measure of protection for British ink manufacturers?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Such inks as aro "synthetic organic dyestuffs, dyes and colouring matters" are, I am advised, wholly covered by the prohibition of importation imposed by the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920. The Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee therefore refuse to recommend the issue of licences under that Act when they are satisfied that suitable inks of the same kind are obtainable in this country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is ink now, therefore, to be considered as a key industry for the national defence of the country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A dye slightly diluted with water is, under the Act, a dye, and will continue to be regarded as a dye.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this for the strategic defence of the country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes; plainly, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman casts his memory back to the vital need of dyestuffs during the War, he will find that, whether in peace or war, it
    192
    is vital to country to have a dye industry.

    FRENCH TARIFF.
    Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the new French customs duties; and whether the Government will consider the conclusion of a new Franco-British treaty which the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris has been urging for many years on the lines of those agreed upon with other nations who were in active commercial relations with France?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Particulars with regard to the changes in the French Tariff resulting from the Franco-German and Franco-Swiss Agreements have already been published in the Board of Trade Journal, and particulars of further changes proposed in the new French Government measure will be included in the Journal to be published next Thursday. As regards the second part of the question, there is a Franco-British Treaty of Commerce already in operation, whilst most-favoured-nation treatment is accorded to United Kingdom goods in France by French legislation. Representations have been addressed to the French Government in regard to recent changes in the customs tariff in so far as they involve increased duties upon goods imported from this country. But I would point out that so long as our customs duties in this country are few in number and designed mainly for revenue purposes, we are hardly in a position to conclude treaties such as those to which the hon. Member refers, based on lengthy schedules of mutual tariff concessions.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICES, NORTH AND SOUTH SHIELDS.
    Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has come to any decision with regard to the closing of the Mercantile Marine offices at North Shields?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the Mercantile Marine offices at North

    193
    and South Shields, as the inquiries are not quite complete. I will inform my hon. Friend as soon as a decision is reached.

    DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Department of Mines is to be continued, he will now arrange for the transfer of the Research Department from the Board of Education to that Department, so that, as far as possible, every phase of mining, and especially one of such importance as this, may be under one Minister who shall be responsible and answerable to this House for its conduct?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension with regard to the organisation of the Research Department. This is not under the Minister of Education, but under the Lord President of the Council. As he is a member of the. other House, some other Minister has to reply in the House of Commons; and under the original constitution of the Research Department this Minister was the head of the Board of Education. This Minister has no direct knowledge of the work of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and it is throwing an undue burden on him to expect him to deal with every question which affects a Department for whose administration he is not responsible. A change has therefore recently been made under which any questions relating to the Department asked in this House will be answered by the Minister most directly concerned. This re-arrangement of duties will, I hope, meet with the approval of the House.
    As regards the proposal to set up a Special (Fuel) Research Department under the Mines Department, I cannot think that this would be an improvement on the existing system. It would only lead to overlapping and confusion. There is a full account of the research work carried on by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in its Annual Report; and I think if the hon. Member consults it he will agree that much valuable work has been done in matters which specially interest those for
    194
    whom he speaks. Of course, he will understand that the responsibility for research work affecting particular industries primarily rests with the industries concerned; but the Research Departments of the Government are most anxious to do all they can to further fundamental investigations, especially those which are of primary importance to our general industrial system.
    Mr. PALING: May we take it from that answer that it is possible that questions in regard to the carbonisation of coal, etc., will be answered by the Secretary for Mines?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that would seem to arise, but, of course, hon. Members must understand that the Department that is responsible and that has the expert knowledge of it is the Department of Scientific Research, which co-ordinates the whole research both into fuel and every other scientific question which it is investigating.
    Mr. BECKETT: In view of the great importance of this Department, is it not possible to consider having a Minister to reply for it?

    TYPISTS (CENTRAL POOL).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has seen the representatives of the temporary typing staffs of the Civil Service; and if he is in a position to agree to their proposals for a central pool from which typists can be transferred to other departments as they become redundant in the particular branches of the service in which they are at present employed?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I saw the representatives of the association in question on Friday last, and I hope to be in a position to communicate with them in the course of a few days.

    BRITISH WAR GRAVES, GERMANY.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Imperial War Graves Commission are looking after the graves of prisoners of war who died in Germany; and, if not, whether he can take some steps to see that they are properly looked after?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Yes, Sir. The graves of British soldiers who died in Germany as prisoners of war are maintained by the Imperial War Graves Commission in the same manner as British War Graves in other parts of the world.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain places they have not been properly looked after, and will he make inquiries?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Certainly, if my hon. and gallant Friend will tell me the places to which he refers.

    FIGHTING FORCES (HOSPITALS).
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War what progress, if any, has been made during the last three years with regard to the co-ordination of military hospitals at home and abroad with naval and Air Force hospitals, respectively?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In 1922 the Military Hospital, Chatham, and the Royal Naval Hospital, Gibraltar. were closed. Military patients at Chatham are now treated in the Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, and naval sick at Gibraltar are treated in the Military Hospital, Gibraltar. Since 1922 the Alexandra Military Hospital at Cosham and the Military Hospital at Devonport have been closed, and military patients in these districts are now treated at naval hospitals. The Joint Medical Services Committee has the question of co-operation between the three medical services continually under review and useful work is being done.

  SCOTLAND.

    WIFE-BEATING CONVICTIONS (GLASGOW).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a suggestion made at a meeting of Magistrates in the City of Glasgow for the purpose of dealing with men convicted of beating their wives, wherein it was suggested that the best way to deal with persons so convicted would he to allow them to remain at work, and to compel them to enter prisons each week-end until the term of
    196
    their sentence was completed so as to enable such convicted person to continue at his work during the weekdays, in order that the wife and children should not be deprived of wages during the man's detention; and will he consider introducing legislation to amend the present law to make this suggestion practicable?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed that this matter had not been considered by the Glasgow Magistrates Committee prior to the date on which notice of this question was given. The subject was, however, raised at a meeting of the Magistrates' Committee on the 21st February and was submitted for consideration and report to a special sub-committee of the Magistrates.
    Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman making any inquiries and will he follow up this matter?

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief is 15 per 1,000 more in Scotland than in England; if he has made any inquiry into the causes of the growing disparity between the figures for the two countries; and will he state his conclusions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that in recent years the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief per 1,000 of the population has been higher in Scotland than in England. The Scottish Board of Health have been investigating the matter, but the inquiries are not yet completed, and I am not at present in a position to state any conclusions.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this subject has given rise to grave apprehensions in Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the setting up of a public inquiry to ascertain the causes of this disparity?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. Until I have received the report of my Department, I cannot form any judgment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish as a White Paper the result of that inquiry when he has received it?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not, aware in what form the report may be made. If the hon. Member will put down a further question, I will consider it.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when I may put down a further question on the subject when he has received the report?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not in a position to say now, but I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

    JUVENILE OFFENDERS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of youths below 21 convicted of any crime at Glasgow Southern Court and the similar figures for the Glasgow Queen's Park Court?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The numbers of youths between the ages of 16 and 21 convicted at the Southern and Queen's Park Police Courts, Glasgow, during the years ended the 31st December, 1927, were respectively 1,462 and 151.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman make an inquiry as to the great discrepancy between the two? Do the police treat those in one district differently from others?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any differentiation.
    Mr. BRIANT: How many of these lads have been actually sent to prison, and how many put on probation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Glasgow great dissatisfaction is arising because of the differentiation between districts which are privileged districts in the way of wealth, and working-class districts, in the prosecution of youths?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think there is any ground for supposing that there is differentiation as regards districts. My reports emphasise the fact that crimes or matters for which these people are dealt with are similar in both Courts.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the large discrepancy in the figures, will the right
    198
    hon. Gentleman not make a local inquiry as to the causes and see if anything can be done to stop the large number of arrests in the working-class districts?

    HOUSING, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses built by the Glasgow Corporation since the end of the War; the total now building; the total for which plans are passed but not started; and if the latter will rank for subsidy?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The total number of houses completed with State assistance by the Corporation of Glasgow as at the 31st January, 1928, was 12,114, and the number under construction at the same date was 4,730. The approval of all plans by the Scottish Board of Health is not required, but at the 31st January, 1928, the Board had approved tenders for the erection in Glasgow of 4,608 houses which had not then been begun. These latter houses will rank for the present rates of subsidy if completed by such date as may be fixed as the result of any revision of the subsidy in terms of Section 5 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, after the 1st October next.

    SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
    Sir WILLIAM EDGE (for Sir ROBERT HAMILTON)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the qualifications required by the Scottish Board of Health for their medical officers who examine applicants for pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In appointing medical officers to their staff the Scottish Board of Health do not require candidates to possess special qualifications in ophthalmology other than the course now obligatory in the medical curriculum. But the majority of the present staff have had special experience in eye work, and in view of the special conditions of industrial blindness the whole medical staff have undergone a course of instruction by a consultant ophthalmologist directed to the peculiar problems arising under the Blind Persons Act. When cases presenting exceptional difficulty are reported, the Board authorise the employment of an eye specialist.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information relating to international agreements being arranged between the coalowners of any European countries; and, if so, can he state the terms of such agreements?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I have no information relating to international agreements between the coalowners of any European countries.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it has recently been reported that an arrangement, if not already signed, is about to he signed between Germany and Poland; is he also aware that the competition which is being felt in Durham and Northumberland largely arises from those countries and is likely to be worse; and what steps are likely to be taken to deal with the matter?
    Commodore KING: I have no information, as I have told the hon. Member. I have seen rumours in the papers.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that there is no body in this country capable of conducting negotiations on behalf of the coalowners?
    Mr. BECKETT: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department make any efforts to find out about these agreements? Have they any officers in Germany to find out, or do they just not bother about it?
    Commodore KING: I assure the hon. Member that my Department does everything it can to obtain reliable information. I have no reliable information about this matter and, therefore, I cannot supply the information asked for in the question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the great importance of this matter, why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman send one of his officers over to Germany and France to make inquiries? Is he aware that this is, perhaps, the most important question before the mining industry to-day?
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not the case that any movement from this side would be regarded as a sign of weakness; that both Poland and Germany are at the last gasp and that a little more competition will finish both of them in our foreign markets?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I respectfully ask for an answer to my question? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman send somebody over to Germany?
    Commodore KING: At the moment, I do not think the expense would be justified. If and when things develop, I will do my best to obtain reliable information?
    Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the Department is watching this business, and that in the event of any international arrangement being made between European, countries, the Department is prepared to act on behalf of this country?
    Commodore KING: I hope the hon. Member understands that my Department is, at all times, watching the interests of the coal industry of this country.

    MARKETING SCHEMES.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of Mines if he has any information relating to coal-marketing schemes being formed in this country; if so, what is the nature of such schemes; and are they likely to lead to an increase in the price of home-consumed coal?
    Commodore KING: The information in my possession with regard to coal-marketing schemes generally confirms that published in the Press. I am not in a position to furnish details of the schemes, and until such details are available it is impossible to say what effect they may have on inland prices.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is intensifying the internal competition already existing in this country and that the position in Durham and Northumberland is likely to be made worse if this scheme goes through; and in view of these facts, is it not time that his Department took steps to organise the whole business upon one basis?
    Commodore KING: As I have said, until details are available, I cannot judge of the effects which the scheme may have.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the competition felt in Northumberland and Durham also largely arises from the export of coal from the Humber ports, now mainly sold by these people; and is not this new scheme likely to make the competition still greater as far as these Northern and Eastern counties are concerned?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not a fact that all these schemes are in strict accordance with the Samuel Commission's Report. which advised strongly that we should raise the price against the home consumer, in order to subsidise our exports?

    Boys (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).
    Mr. TINKER (for Mr. LEE)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that many of the 28,000 youths of the ages between 14 and 16 working underground at the collieries in the country are expected to work on the night shift; that youths of a similar age are not allowed by law to work on the surface at night; whether any of these youths are medically examined as to their physical fitness for working underground; and whether he is prepared to recommend that facilities be granted for placing youths working underground on the same basis as youths on the surface?
    Commodore KING: I am aware of the facts referred to in the first two parts of the question. As regards the third part, medical examination is the practice at some collieries but it is not compulsory by law. In reply to the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that in 1911 when Parliament passed the Coal Mines Act of that year it was decided that the prohibition against night work by boys on the surface should not be extended to underground work, and that this decision was confirmed by the Washington Convention of 1919 and by the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act of 1920. I am not at present aware of any sufficient reason for reversing this decision.
    Mr. TINKER: With regard to the subject raised in the latter part of the question, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be willing to meet a deputation of miners' Members in order to get their views on this matter?
    Commodore KING: I am always willing to meet Members of this House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: is there not a new factor in regard to this question which has arisen through the great redundancy of adult labour; and does this not constitute a strong case for prohibiting these boys from entering the pits?

    CLOSED MINES.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES)asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines which have closed down permanently during the last four years within the areas covered by the Aspull, Hindley, Biackrod, and Westhoughton Urban Councils; and the numbers of workers thrown out of employment in each colliery?
    Commodore KING: During the four years ended 31st December, 1927, 11 mines situated in the areas named have been notified as permanently abandoned. The total number of persons employed at those mines prior to closing was approximately 2,000.

  TRANSPORT.

    REVERSING PROHIBITION ORDER, LONDON.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport what arrangements have been made to notify the motoring public where the area of the no reversing order (within three miles of Charing Cross) commences and ends; and whether any communications have passed between his Department and the recognised motoring associations of Great Britain on this subject?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I do not think any further notification is required or practicable. As regards the second part of the question, communications from the motoring associations were received and very carefully considered before the order was made.
    Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered the painting of a lamp-post at the extremity of this three-mile limit, so that motorists will know when they are coming into it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. I do not propose to do that.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (ESSENTIAL SERVICES).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the Railway Bills now before Parliament, the Government is taking steps to ensure the full maintenance of the road transport of food, raw materials, and other essentials in the event of disputes in other industries?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, the Government is vested with powers to take whatever steps appear to them to be necessary in order to ensure the transport of goods which are essential to the life of the community during an industrial dispute, and I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that one of the clauses in the Road Transport Bills promoted by the railway companies expressly provides that nothing in the provisions of those Bills shall limit the operation of any provisions of the General Law or any Regulations made thereunder applicable to vehicles used on the highways.
    Mr. HURD: Have any communications reached the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from those concerned in railway transport on this matter, in relation to the Bills now before the House?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Not on this particular point.

    MOTOR TAXATION (POLICE SERVICES, WARWICKSHIRE).
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a report from the Warwickshire Standing Joint Committee with regard to the cost of police constables in checking motor vehicles for taxation proposals, and recommending that this duty should be made a charge on the Road Fund; and what reply he has returned to this recommendation?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am causing the committee to be informed that I am prepared to meet claims for overtime incurred by the police in making such checks. This is in accordance with present practice, but I do not consider it necessary that payments should be made to police funds in respect of such checks carried out during ordinary hours of duty.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in Birmingham alone within a period of six weeks there have been 700 convictions owing to default in licences?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am very glad to hear it. That means some more money to the Road Fund.

    PARKING PLACES, LONDON (TRADE VEHICLES).
    Mr. CRAWFURDasked the Minister of Transport the reasons why, under the London Traffic (Parking Places) Regulations, 1928, dated 24th January, 1928, the use of London parking places by drivers or persons in charge of vehicles bearing general or limited trade licence plates is prohibited?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The reasons are set out in paragraph 9 of the London Traffic Advisory Committee's Report on Parking Places, 1927, copies of which are on sale. I understand that some motor dealers were making a practice of placing on parking places vehicles under trade number plates, either for the purpose of exhibition or as additional garage accommodation. It was, therefore, necessary to prohibit the use of parking places by vehicles carrying trade number plates.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Is there any allegation that this has been a general practice among people who own vehicles of this kind?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It would be difficult to answer that question definitely, but quite a considerable number of instances were brought to the notice of the Committee who examined the matter.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of feeling on this matter among the general body of people owning these vehicles, and is he prepared to receive a deputation on the subject?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am always ready to receive a deputation, and the only condition I would make is that the hon. Gentleman should introduce it.

    HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED).
    Colonel VAUGHAN- MORGANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to issue a new order amending the Heavy Motor Orders, 1904, 1922, and other orders regulating the

    205
    speed of heavy motor vehicles exceeding two tons in weight, so as to increase the existing legal speed limit for vehicles fitted with pneumatic or solid rubber tyres from 12 miles per hour to a speed more approximate to the speed at which such vehicles can be driven with safety on the public roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have under consideration the question to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

    RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.
    Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGANasked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made with the work of abolishing existing railway level crossings over public roads; and whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining power to require the substitution of a bridge for a level crossing?
    Colonel ASHLEY: With assistance from the Road Fund, 16 bridges have been or are being built enabling level crossings to be avoided. Negotiations respecting at least 10 other important level crossings are now proceeding, and will, I anticipate, be successful. There are, doubtless, many other cases where schemes which are being considered by local authorities have not yet been brought to my notice. I do not think there is any immediate need for fresh legislation.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a well-considered scheme was presented by the city of Hull, and that he turned it down and would not give a shilling towards it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am quite aware of that. I recollect the case very well, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) asked me to find far too large a share of the cost.

    MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport if he has recent figures of motor and other power-driven vehicles on the roads engaged in the carriage of goods and passengers, respectively; and if he will give the two figures?
    Colonel ASHLEY: According to returns recently furnished by the licensing authorities, the numbers of goods vehicles and hackney vehicles respectively bearing
    206
    licences current during any part of the quarter ended 30th September last were as follow:

    Goods vehicles (including road locomotives and tractors)

    287,664

    Hackney vehicles

    95,752

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to relieving traffic congestion, he will endeavour to obtain consideration, in conjunction with the railway undertakings, of a tube uniting some point or points south of the Thames with Victoria and Paddington by securing facilities in and under Hyde Park, provided that the amenities of the park are duly safeguarded?
    Colonel ASHLEY: So far as I am aware, no authority is, under present circumstances, prepared to seek powers to carry out a scheme on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, and there are other tube and railway extensions, such as those recommended in the recent reports on travelling facilities by the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which appear to be of greater urgency and importance.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE CALL-BOXES, LONDON.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Transport whether the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee were consulted by the postal authorities in regard to the erection of the red telephone call-boxes recently placed upon the public highways in the metropolis; and whether they have approved of the sites selected and in particular those on island refuges, which compel persons who make use of these call-boxes to cross busy tramway and omnibus routes?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Since the end of 1925 the Postmaster-General has been good enough to consult me with regard to the sites of the new telephone boxes in streets in the London telephone area, and I have referred these cases to the Committee for advice. The Postmaster-General has always met my wishes in the matter and since the date mentioned

    207
    kiosks have only been erected on sites which I have been advised are unobjectionable from the point of view of danger whether to pedestrians or to vehicular traffic.
    Mr. GRENFELLasked the Postmaster-General how many red telephone call-boxes he has caused to be erected on the public highway in the metropolitan postal district within the past two years; what is the total estimated expenditure incurred in erecting, fitting and connecting them; and what payments have been made to the highway authorities to enable them to acquire additional highway space to compensate the travelling public for that occupied by these boxes?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): During the last two years, 255 red telephone kiosks have been erected on public highways in the London postal district at a total cost for supply, fitting and connection of about £22,000. Telephone kiosks are placed on highways by agreement with the road authorities without charge for rental in the interest of the travelling public, who use them extensively.

    POSTAL CHEQUES.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet received the report of the sub-committee of the Post Office Advisory Committee with regard to the introduction of a postal cheque system; and what is the nature of the report?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: understand the report is on the point of completion and will be presented to the Advisory Council at an early date.I am not in a position at present to indicate its conclusions.

    TELEVISION.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is taking any steps to keep in touch with recent developments in television; and whether he has considered the application of existing radio legislation to this invention?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. My technical advisers consider that television is still only in the experimental stage.

    BRITISH SHIPS (WIRELESS OPERATORS).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Postmaster-General under what Regulation, if any, a natural-born British subject is not eligible for the Post Office certificate of proficiency in radio-telegraphy; and why the fact of being the son of an allied alien debars him from the occupation of wireless operator on British ships?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The International Radiotelegraph Regulations prescribe that a person employed as a wireless operator on a ship must hold a certificate issued by the Government to which the ship is subject. It has been the general rule in this country since 1919 that such a certificate shall be issued only to a natural-born British subject whose father was also a natural-born British subject. This rule was made after consultation with all the Government Departments concerned and is considered necessary in view of the special character of the duties of an operator in charge of a ship's wireless installation.

    STAFF (CONVICTIONS FOR THEFT).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Postmaster-General the total number of persons convicted of any form of theft while in the employment of the Post Office last year; what percentage of the staff they represent; and how many prosecutions arose from letters between bookmakers and their clients?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The total number of persons convicted of any form of theft. while in the employment of the Post Office in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927 was 227, about one per 1,000 of the total staff. No record is kept of the number of prosecutions arising specifically from the theft of letters in course of transmission to or from betting agents.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, of that number of 227, how many were permanent and how many temporary employés?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not without notice, but perhaps I might be able to do so if notice were given of the question.
    Mr. MORRISON: Would that 227 include, say, men who were only taken on for a fortnight at Christmas time?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like notice of that question also.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Has it come to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that in the last few weeks there have been at least two or three cases in the Police Courts where the penalties inflicted for these offences have been modified in view of the possible consequences to the men, such as loss of pension and so on, which would follow conviction?
    Mr. SPEAKERThat is quite another matter, and the hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    PART-TIME NIGHT TELEPHONISTS.
    Mr. STAMFORDasked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Post Office has recently advertised for part-time night telephonists at 1s. 1¾d. an hour, he will say what the average attendance of these night telephonists will be; how many applications have been received from existing full-time civil servants; and whether he will inquire into the wage conditions of those full-time civil servants who apply for nightwork after having done a full day's work in the service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The attendance of part-time night telephonists in London, to whom the advertisements refer, average about two hours a night. I understand that about 200 out of the 3,000 applications so far received are from men stated to be civil servants; but the inquiries are not yet complete. With regard to the latter part of the question, appointment to these posts will be made solely on the ground of the qualifications for this employment, and the question of the rate of remuneration otherwise payable to the applicants whether or not civil servants does not arise.
    Mr. STAMFORD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable to make some inquiries in order to see whether under-payment is forcing any of the full-time servants to seek part-time additional employment?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is a, question which clearly ought not to be addressed to me.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Have any steps been taken to see that these men are not already working a full week when appointed to these jobs?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No; I could not say that. This arrangement which I am trying to make is with a view to getting greater efficiency in the night telephone service; I am by no means satisfied myself with the efficiency of the night telephone service and am endeavouring to procure men who will be able to give a certain amount of regular time and will further, after undergoing a period of training, be regularly available as far as possible to carry on duties.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be advantageous to the Civil Service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the arrangement which I am endeavouring to arrive at will be advantageous to the telephone service and the interests of the public.

    BROADCASTING.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation is authorised to exercise discrimination between representatives of the medical profession and other practitioners who do not belong to that profession?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Corporation is entirely responsible for the selection of the persons engaged to broadcast talks or lectures, and I do not propose to interfere with the Corporation's discretion in this matter.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation asked a distinguished osteopath to give a talk, that he sent the talk for revision, but that they sent it back to have cut out all references to osteopathy, and after this was done the British Broadcasting Corporation then wrote that, because he was not a doctor, which they knew all along, they would not allow him to give this talk; and will the right hon. Gentleman take some authority to prevent such incidents happening again?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not officially aware of any of these matters, and I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Corporation.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: But I wish the right hon. Gentleman to interfere with their indiscretion!

    POISON GAS WARFARE (PROTOCOL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that on 17th June, 1925, the plenipotentiaries of 30 States, including this country, signed a Convention accepting the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating poison or other gases and all analogous liquids, materials, and devices; that since that date France and Venezuela have ratified; and why His Majesty's Government has not ratified, in view of the French contention that ratification by a minority of States only binds them not to use these instruments of warfare against the other States who have ratified?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government think it inexpedient to ratify until all important Powers have ratified the Protocol, or have signified their intention of doing so.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this attitude will prevent anything being arrived at; and cannot we ratify on the same terms as the French Republic, whereby we are not bound until other States have done so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No. I have nothing to add to the statement I have made.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But. does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to set. an example in a case of this sort, especially in view of the great indignation which he expressed during the War at the first use of poison gas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No. I think that if we wait, before ratification, as I suggest, it will be the best way of achieving our end.
    Mr. BECKETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that on an
    212
    important matter like this there is a danger of every Great Power waiting for the other one, and so of nothing being done?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No Powers, so far as I am aware, have yet signified their intention even of ratifying.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman signify ours?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion that if men are to be murdered in war, if the gas used is a painless gas, asphyxiation is not nearly so cruel as a bullet or a bayonet?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do we understand that France has not ratified?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    PENNY POSTAGE.
    Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the representations lately made to him by national organisations of traders and manufacturers impressing upon him the stimulating effect upon the trade of the Empire that would he caused by the restoration of the penny post; and whether he can state if there are any prospects of the renewal of the penny post within the Empire in the forthcoming year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 21st February in reply to questions by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) and the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas).
    Mr. DAY: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely when we can have a decision on this important matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As to when it is possible to say definitely, I do not know, but a certain time when an indefinite announcement, I hope, will be made will be when the Budget is opened.

    NEW SILVER COINAGE.
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Chancellof of the Exchequer the date after which the various denominations of the new silver coinage can be obtained

    213
    in bulk from the Bank and not merely in specimen sets by individuals applying at the Royal Mint?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certain supplies of the half-crown, florin, shilling and sixpenny pieces are available or will very shortly be so. Persons asking for them through their banks will be able to obtain them from the Bank of England not later than the 12th March. The minting of crowns and threepences for general issue will be commenced in April next.
    Sir C. OMAN: Do I really understand that we are going to have crown pieces after April?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, the minting of crowns and threepenny pieces for general use will be commenced in April next.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are you not minting any more 2s. pieces?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely we could never get on without them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENVVORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman as a father, whether he cannot expedite the issue of crown pieces before the Easter holidays?

    INCOME TAX (FARMING LOSSES).
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in cases where a claim is made under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for repayment on account of losses in respect of farming sustained by an individual who has substantial unearned taxed income and a limited and small earned income assessable under Schedule E, an entirely different source, from which the earned income relief of one-sixth has properly been given in accordance. with Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1925, it is the practice of the Revenue to limit the repayment due by deducting such earned income relief; and whether, in view of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1920, he will state by what authority this deduction is made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that the practice of the Revenue authorities in cases of this kind is as my hon. Friend
    214
    has stated it. It is, of course, open to any taxpayer who disagrees with this view to make application to the General or Special Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the Section.

    WAR DEBTS (RECEIPTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which are the nations who are now paying moneys to this country on account of War debts; and which countries, other than Russia, who owe War debts to this country have so far made no payments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Funding agreements have been signed and payments are being received in respect of all the War debts to this country other than that of Russia. The Governments concerned are those of France, Italy, Rumania, Portugal, Greece and the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom.

    PUBLIC AUDITORS (REMOVALS FROM LIST).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of removals from the lists of public auditors for 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively, and the reasons for such removals, together with the names of the accountancy associations of which the persons whose names were thus removed were members?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of removals from the list of public auditors under the Friendly Societies and Industrial and Provident Societies Acts in the years 1925, 1926, and 1927 were 35, 31, and 45 respectively. The reasons for removal were:

    Death

    39

    Resignation

    32

    Removal from district for which appointed

    4

    No audits for a number of years

    22

    Failure to render returns of audits

    7

    Inefficient audits

    4

    Unprofessional conduct

    3

    As explained in my reply to the hon. Member on the 16th February, it is not the practice to publish the names of auditors removed from the list or of the associations to which they belong.

    TATE GALLERY (TURNER BEQUEST).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the Turner Bequest drawings, damaged in the recent floods, were placed in the cellars of the Tate Gallery?
    Mr. SAMUEL: These drawings were removed from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery shortly after the Turner Gallery was opened at the Tate Gallery. A number of them were exhibited in the upstairs galleries, but the majority were kept in cupboards in the basement galleries, for the use of students when required, because they were too numerous for framing and public exhibition. As the cupboards were raised well above the ground, it had always been supposed that there was no risk of damage from floods.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman say why they were removed from the National Gallery?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Speaking offhand, and only from memory, they were found in large numbers in the National Gallery, and it was thought that they would be more available to the public if they were removed to the Tate Gallery.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that it was the late Mr. Ruskin who caused these pictures to be removed?
    Mr. STEWART SANDEMAN: What is going to be done with the destroyed proofs?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether photographs have been taken of the drawings of the Turner bequest; and, if not, whether he will suggest to the directors of the Tate Gallery that this course should be followed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; most of these drawings have not been photographed. It would be extremely expensive to have so many drawings photographed; and as they are now kept in a place of safety, it is not considered necessary to incur the expense. But when a request is made for a particular photograph, steps are always taken to have a photograph taken.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Seeing that some of these drawings are irreplaceable, will the hon. Gentleman not strongly represent to the Directors that in the
    216
    national interest, and in the interest of art, the drawings that have not been damaged should be photographed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would be inclined to agree in an ordinary case, but there are 10,000 or 15,000 of them, and it would be impossible to photograph them all.
    Mr. SKELTON: Could not the more important ones be photographed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will represent that to the Trustees.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the recent flooding of the Tate Gallery, whether he will call the attention of the directors of the Tate Gallery to the fact that there are more than 400 provincial museums and galleries in the country, in order that consideration may be given to a more widespread loan of pictures to these galleries?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is the policy of the Trustees to lend to provincial galleries. No application for an unhung picture from a properly constituted gallery in this country is ever refused if the necessary conditions for safe custody exist, and subject to the restrictions imposed by the National Gallery (Loan) Act, 1883.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Directors of these national museums are always appealing for money to buy new pictures which are not worth buying, when they cannot display old pictures which are irreplaceable and of the utmost value?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: As the hon. Gentleman said yesterday that the Trustees do not refuse an application from any gallery, would he take into consideration an application from Dublin for an indefinite loan of the Lane pictures?

    FISHING INDUSTRY (INSHORE TRAWLING).
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the state of the fishing industry all along the south coast and the destruction of spawn and immature fish attributable to the unrestricted trawling of inshore waters; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made for the purpose of providing a sanctuary for fish in shallow waters?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The state of the fishing industry on that part of the coast in which I think my hon. Friend is particularly interested is being discussed with a deputation in the Fisheries Department this afternoon. In the light of that discussion I shall no doubt be able to form an opinion as to what further inquiry may be desirable.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. gentleman not aware that all the inshore fishers, especially round Scotland, have been ruined in past years by trawling, and will he not see that the penalties for those who are breaking the inshore laws will be such that they will not repeat the offence, as the present maximum penalty of £100 is no use whatever?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think my hon. Friend has not perhaps appreciated that this question is concerned with trawling in inshore waters, and, I take it, by inshore fishermen. All trawling, wherever it is done, destroys a certain amount of immature fish, but it does not destroy spawn, at any rate, in these areas, because the only spawn in the bottom is herring spawn, and there is none in the southern waters.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that trawling, by destroying immature fish, improves fishing in the long run, and that the real trouble is due to the use of oil fuel which kills the fish?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We are making inquiries and tests as to the effect on these immature fish in Poole Harbour and certain other western bays, and we hope to get some further information.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that most of the real wrongdoers come from the constituency of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the country would have been ruined during the War but for those same trawlers being used for war purposes?
    Sir C. RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement shortly as the result of our conversation this afternoon?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know if it will be the result of our conversation this afternoon, but I should be glad to lay before the House the result of our inquiries and experiments when we receive them.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of the Government's commitments to county councils under the Small Holdings Act of 1926, from the passing of the Act to date; and the numher of schemes and individual holdings covered by the commitments?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The amount of the annual contributions promised by the Ministry in respect of schemes which have been submitted under Section 2 of the Act of 1926, and have been approved, is £3,031. Of this sum £2,425 is in respect of 35 fresh acquisitions comprising 194 holdings, and £606 is in respect of 43 schemes for the further equipment of 51 existing holdings.
    Mr. RILEY: Do these commitments come up to the expectation of the Minister with regard to the Act?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We never expected that a good immediate result would be obtained, and from the reports of meetings of small holdings committees it appears that these committees are waiting to see the result of the valuations and how they are left financially before deciding as to any increase in their commitments.

    ROYAL NAVY (AIRCRAFT CARRIERS).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the total tonnage provisions for aircraft carriers of the Washington Agreement were intended to cover every size of aircraft carrier?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): No, Sir, the total tonnage provisions include only vessels of war whose tonnage is in excess of 10,000 tons, which are designed exclusively for carrying aircraft, and are such that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon.
    Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the building of vessels of under 10,000 tons for carrying aircraft will be permitted under the Washington Agreement?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Subject to the conditions which I have read out.

    ADULT EDUCATION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the. President of the Board of Education if he can give particulars of the reformed Adult Education Committee; and if any special inquiries are being undertaken at the present time by this body?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I sent the hon. Member on 20th December last a list of the names of the members of the Committee as reconstituted. Perhaps he will let me know what further particulars, if any, he requires. As regards the second part of the question, I understand the Committee at its last meeting decided to review, in the light of experience, the aims and purposes of the different types of adult education, the needs they are designed to satisfy, and the suitability of the methods employed.
    Mr. SMITH: May we take it that the field for adult education in the villages will be taken into account?
    Lord E. PERCY: Certainly, under this formula it will certainly be taken into account.

  POOR LAW.

    RELIEF, GATESHEAD.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in the town of Gateshead in receipt of relief from the Poor Law guardians on 1st February, 1927 and 1928, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Separate information is not available as regards the town of Gateshead, but the total number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief (excluding lunatics in asylums, casuals and persons receiving domiciliary medical
    220
    relief only) in the Gateshead Union, on 29th January, 1927, was 17,065, and on the 28th January, 1928, 20,043.
    Mr. BECKETT: Do I understand that it is not possible to obtain from the guardians any distinction between the people in the town and all the people who come under the Poor Law guardians?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the information is not available to the Department.

    POOR LAW INSTITUTION ORDER, 1913.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the number of boards of guardians not complying with Article 14 of the Poor Law Institution Order, 1913; and if he can state any reasons why the Counties of Dorset, Somerset, and Cornwall are not complying with the Order in question?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member presumably refers to Article 4 of the Order, which provides that a child shall not, in normal circumstances, be retained in an ordinary Poor Law institution for more than six weeks. The number of boards of guardians who, for one reason or another, find themselves unable to comply completely with the rule varies from day to day, and the latest date for which a complete return is available is the 1st January, 1927. At that date there were 53 unions in which there were more than five children, and 136 unions in which there were five or less children, so resident. The corresponding figures for Dorset, Somerset and Cornwall were, respectively, 2 and nil, 3 and 7, and 3 and 4. An unknown proportion of these children were in the institution on medical grounds recognised by the Regulations.

    WEST HAM UNION (CHILDREN).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the number of children boarded out or housed in small scattered homes under the control of the West Ham Poor Law Commissioners, in accordance with Article 14 of the Poor Law Institution Order, 1913, and when the children were inspected by the Commissioners' health inspectors; and if he has received any Report from the Commissioners in respect to the health and general standing of comfort of the children?
    Sir K. WOOD: Ninety children are boarded-out by this board of guardians and 282 are maintained in scattered homes belonging to the guardians. The boarded-out children are inspected by the guardians' women officers at least once every three months, and by the members of the boarding-out committees under whose charge they are. The children in scattered homes are regularly visited by the superintendent and matron of the children's homes, by persons nominated by the board of guardians, and by members of the board itself. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. THORNE: Do I understand from that reply that the present Commissioners appoint visiting committees; if so, how are they appointed or selected?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Member had better put down a question on that point.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied that the children placed in scattered homes are being satisfactorily looked after?
    Sir K. WOOD: So far as this answer goes, I think the hon. Member will see that a great many precautions are taken to ensure the comfort and the health of the children.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: And the experiment is quite successful?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should hesitate to give a general answer of that kind, but I think a great deal has been done.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Is it not the general opinion that to place the children in scattered homes is better than keeping them in an institution?

    SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION (STATISTICS).
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he will give the small-pox statistics for 1927 in England and Wales; and the number of cases of small-pox for the latest date available?
    Sir K. WOOD: 14,764 cases of smallpox were notified in England and Wales during 1927, and there were 49 deaths in respect of which small-pox was entered
    222
    on the medical certificate as the cause, or one of the causes, of death. 2,582 cases have been notified during the first seven weeks of the present year, but no particulars as to deaths are yet available.
    Dr. DAVIES: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the number of smallpox cases so far this year is greater than the number in the corresponding period last year?
    Sir K. WOOD: From the answer I have given I think it would appear that that is so.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a resolution from the Darlington Board of Guardians referring to the operation of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and protesting against its continuance in its present form on the grounds that by depriving many people of sources of income which but for its inception they would still be able to enjoy the Act is throwing upon the ratepayers a heavy additional burden in relieving persons thus deprived; and whether he will adopt measures for the amendment of this Act which, without detracting from the benefits conferred by it, will also secure to needly pensioners the retention of those benefits accruing from the national health and unemployment insurance schemes to which by virtue of their contributions they are entitled?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have received this resolution and I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend in the course of the Debate last Wednesday on a Motion of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove).
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Is information available to show what is the extra burden put upon the local rates by the operation of this Act?
    Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will study the statement made by my right hon. Friend last week, he will see that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, so far from being a burden it is a relief.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MOTHERWELL EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE (MINERS' REPRESENTATIVE).
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Minister of Labour why the district of Bellshill is not represented on the unemployed committee that meets in Bellshill; and why the miners have no representative?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): There is no separate Committee for this area. It is covered by the Motherwell Employment Committee, on which miners are represented by a nominee of the Lanarkshire Mine Workers' Union.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Bellshill is a county area, and is it well that a county area should be represented from a borough area three miles away?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Of course, we cannot have committees everywhere, but in this case there is a sub-committee of the Motherwell main Committee which goes down to that area.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: What I want to know is why the Bellshill people are not represented on a Committee sitting at that place?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The main Committee at Motherwell have appointed a rota committee to go down to the area, and it has on it a representative of the Lanarkshire Mine Workers Union, as mining is one of the principal industries in that area.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Can the hon. Member tell the House when a miner sat on that Committee at Bellshill which deals with miners' cases?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That I cannot say without notice. The name of the representative on that particular Committee is Mr. Barr. When he last sat I cannot say.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Will the hon. Member take it from me that Mr. Barr has never attended at Bellshill?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this very important industrial town no miners' representative has sat on the rota committee for some
    224
    considerable time, and, in view of the fact that it is a big mining centre, will he take steps to see that the miners are represented by someone who sits constantly on the Committee?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly look into that suggestion. As I say, Mr. Barr is the name of the representative, but whether he has in fact sat I cannot say. In view of the hon. Member's statement I will look into the matter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Member aware that miners locally, who know all the circumstances have expressed dissatisfaction from time to time? Will he consult his local officials on this important matter?
    Mr. BETTERTON: We have had no representations from the Motherwell Committee, and so far as we know the present arrangements are considered to be satisfactory by them.

    TRAINING, LANARKSHIRE.
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Minister of Labour what he is doing to train youths between the ages of 14 and 21 years who are unemployed in the county of Lanark?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Sixteen juvenile unemployment centres for boys between the ages of 14 and 18 are open in the Glasgow and Motherwell districts. The opening of an additional centre in the Coatbridge and Airdrie area is under consideration by the local education authority. My right hon. Friend will be glad to give sympathetic consideration to any proposals for opening additional centres by the education authority. As regards training for young men aged 18 to 25. I would refer the hon. Member to replies on this subject given to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on 15th and 20th February.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is a good thing that thousands of young people should get no training?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As I said in the answer, my right hon. Friend will be happy to give sympathetic consideration to the opening of additional centres by the education authority.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. Member aware that last week, when it was pointed out that the provision made for training young men from 18 to 25 was totally inadequate, the Minister said they did not intend extending the centres.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I understand the question put to me to-day had reference to juvenile unemployment centres. With regard to the training for persons between 18 and 25, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given last week.
    Mr. PALING: I am referring you to the same answer.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the hon. Member tell the House whether anything is being done to train the unemployed youths of Kensington?

  ROAD TRAFFIC.

    REGULATION AND CO-ORDINATION (INQUIRY).
    Private Notice had been given of the following question by Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD:
    To ask the Prime Minister if he can state whether it is the intention of the Government to pass the Road Traffic Bill into law during the life time of the present Parliament and whether he proposes in the near future to institute a full inquiry into the whole question of the need for better regulation and control of transport and of the possibility of its co-ordination?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to apologise on his behalf for not being able to be present to ask this question, of which he has given private notice to the Prime Minister. May I therefore be allowed to ask it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Subject to the exigencies of public business, it is the intention of the Government to ask the present Parliament to pass into law the Road Traffic Bill. As to a general Inquiry into the need for better regulation of road traffic and the possibility of greater co-ordination of our internal means of transport the Government have it in contemplation to institute without undue delay an investigation into this
    226
    subject, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the matter is of such importance that the consideration of the scope of such an investigation and of the appropriate channel through which it should be undertaken must occupy some little time.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Arising out of the second part of the reply to this question, may I ask whether the Inquiry will be representative of all interests, including Labour interests, and, if the Committee includes Members of Parliament, may I ask whether Members. of all parties will be invited?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That question is really answered in the last part of my answer, which reads:
    "The matter is of such importance that the consideration of the scope of such an investigation and of the appropriate channel through which it should be undertaken must occupy some little time."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Prime. Minister a question arising out of the business to-day. The Government proposes to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. The most important matter down for consideration is the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill, and so much importance is attached to it by my hon. Friends that we think it will be quite impossible to get the Second Reading by half-past seven o'clock, and it would certainly be undesirable to continue the discussion after eleven o'clock. Under these circumstances, may I ask the Prime Minister if he cannot agree to continue the discussion upon some other occasion, and not continue the discussion after eleven o'clock at night?
The PRIME MINISTER: Our only desire is to make reasonable progress with the business before the House. As regards the particular Bill mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I recognise that there are a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House who wish to speak upon it, and therefore I shall not proceed with that Bill after 7.30 to-night. I may say, however, that I propose to take after eleven o'clock a certain amount of non-contentious business, including the Report stage of the three outstanding Supplementary Votes and the remaining

227
stages of the two Bills which the House has treated as non-contentious, which appear as Orders No. 4—Patents and Designs (Convention) Bill, Committee—and No. 5—Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill, Committee.
Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the Bedwellty Prayer come on after those Measures have been taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

RATING AND VALUATION BILL,
"to extend to the administrative county of London the provisions of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, with respect to the valuation of hereditaments containing machinery and plant; to make temporary provision with respect to the deductions to be made in ascertaining rateable value; to amend sections eleven and thirty-seven and the Fourth and Fifth Schedules of the said Act; and to provide for obtaining decisions on points of law with a view to securing uniformity in valuation," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; supported by Sir Kingsley Wood; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

LANDED PROPERTY AGENTS' REGISTRATION.
Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of persons carrying out certain duties in connection with landed property."
This Bill provides for compulsory registration of all persons acting as agents for the letting or sale of land or houses to the public, and its object is to protect the public against the consequences that may follow from the employment of unqualified agents. At the present time, any person can put up a board and style himself a house and estate agent. It is true that in some cases he has to take out an auctioneer's licence, but, even in those cases, there is no inquiry; the licence is granted automatically on the payment of a fee. While, however,
228
persons without any test as to their good conduct or financial standing are entitled to carry on this business, it is still a business which involves the passing of considerable sums of money from the hands of the public into those of the estate agents, and I understand that recently there has been a growing number of cases in the Courts where malversation has been proved against such persons. I submit, therefore, that it is only right that persons carrying on this class of work should be placed under some sort of professional control, and should be subjected to some kind of disciplinary treatment. In the case of solicitors, doctors, dentists, chemists and others, upon whose character and competence in the conduct of their business the public are dependent, there is such registration, and I am told that the house and estate agents themselves are unanimously in favour of this proposal.
The machinery by which this little Bill proposes to bring it about is very simple. A registration board would be set up, to be composed of nominees from each of the recognised bodies. The functions of this board would be to compile and maintain a list of qualified persons, and the nature of the qualification would be determined by the board as regards conditions, examinations, character, and so on; but the rules regulating that would have in the first instance to obtain the approval of Parliament. There is one safeguard in the Bill. A great number of people carrying on business as solicitors, accountants, architects and so on, do a class of work, or some of a class of work, that could legitimately be carried on by house and estate agents. It is not right that they should be compelled also to register, and the Bill provides that any of these classes of persons, provided that they are already under some sort of professional control, shall not be required to register under this Measure.
For two years, the Act would remain permissive, that is to say, during that period anyone who desired to do so could apply for registration. At the expiration of two years it would become compulsory, and then no person would be entitled to carry on the work of a house or estate agent, unless he had qualified under this Measure. If he carried on such work without registration, he

229
would be unable to recover his fees and would be subject to certain penalties. That is really the whole of this short Bill, and I commend it to the House as being at all events a very useful Measure. All of us are largely dependent upon these agents for the straightness with which they deal with us, for their being under an obligation to make good their words, and for their capacity. Moreover, they very often, as I said at the beginning, receive moneys of the public, and in some cases, I am sorry to say, they misuse those moneys. In the circumstances, I ask the House to give me leave to introduce this little Bill, which will have the effect of giving a greater status to men engaged in this occupation, and will also prove a protection to the public in dealing with them in what is now a largely growing class of business, namely, the obtaining of houses and of land. I beg to move.
Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I hope the House will not give leave to introduce this Bill. There are three well-recognised and long-established organisations representing the professions that would be affected by this proposed Bill, namely. the Surveyors' Institution, the Auctioneers' Institute, and the Land Agents' Society. They have requested

Division No. 18.]

AYES.

[4.0p.m.

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

Gillett George M.

Mosley, Oswald

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

Gosling, Harry

Murnin, H.

Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Grace, John

Naylor, T. E.

Barr, J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Owen, Major G.

Batey, Joseph

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

Palin, John Henry

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

Greenall, T.

Paling. W.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Braithwalte, Major A. N.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Penny, Frederick George

Brass, Captain W.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Ponsonby, Arthur

Bromfield, William

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Potts, John S.

Broun-Lindsay. Major H.

Hardie, George D.

Riley, Ben

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hirst, G. H

Rose, Frank H.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Buchanan, G.

Hore Belisha, Leslie

Salmon, Major I.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Cape, Thomas

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sitch, Charles H.

Cluse. W. S.

Kelly, W. T.

Smillie. Robert

Compton. Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Snell, Harry

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Kirkwood, D.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Lansbury, George

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Lawrence, Susan

Stamford, T. W.

Day, Harry

Lowth, T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Dunnico, H.

Lunn, William

Sullivan, J.

Edge, Sir William

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Sutton, J. E.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

MacIntyre, Ian

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

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Maxton, James

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Fenby, T. D.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Tinker. John Joseph

Fermoy, Lord

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Tomlinson, R. P.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

Townend, A. E.

Gibbins, Joseph

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

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

me to put certain facts to the House, and to invite the House to refuse the leave for which my hon. and learned Friend has just asked. Although there is much in the Bill with which those three bodies could agree—that is to say, the Bill as it has been privately circulated outside the House—there is also much of which they do not approve, and they feel, not unnaturally, that, as they are the recognised organisations of this profession, a Bill that was presented, read a First time, printed, and circulated by the authority of this House, dealing with the internal economy and domestic discipline of the profession which they represent, would be naturally, though falsely, assumed to represent their views, which it does not. I do not think that more words are necessary, but I hope the House will not allow legislation dealing with the discipline of a profession to be introduced into this House unless it has the approval and authority of the representative organisations of that profession.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of persons carrying out certain duties in connection with landed property."
The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 132.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Womersley, W. J.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Wellock, Wilfred

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

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Wiggins, William Martin

Mr. Harney and Mr. Briant

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Windsor, Walter

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Goff, Sir Park

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Groves, T.

Meller, R. J.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Barnes, A.

Hamilton, Sir George

Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Berry, Sir George

Hammersley, S. S.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Hanbury, C.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Harrison, G. J. C.

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hartington, Marquess of

Nelson, Sir Frank

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Haslam, Henry C.

Nuttall, Ellis

Briggs, J. Harold

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Oman. Sir Charles William C.

Briscoe, Richard George

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Brittain, Sir Harry

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Preston, William

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hills, Major John Walter

Price, Major C. W. M.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hilton, Cecil

Ramsden, E.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

Remnant, Sir James

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Rentoul, G. S.

Burman, J. B.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Campbell, E. T.

Hopklnson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hurd, Percy A.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Christie, J. A.

Hurst. Gerald B.

Sanderson. Sir Frank

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Savery, S. S.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Scrymgeour, E.

Cooper, A. Duff

Jephcott. A. R.

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

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Crookshank. Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Lamb, J. Q.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Long, Major Eric

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Looker, Herbert William

Viant, S. P

Eden, Captain Anthony

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Waddington. R.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Watts, Dr. T.

Ellis, R. G.

Lumley, L. R.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

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

Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)

Everard', W. Lindsay

McLean, Major A.

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Falie, Sir Bertram G.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Wood, sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Malone, Major P. B.

Gates, Percy

Manningham Buller, Sir Mervyn

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

March, S.

Sir Cooper Rawson and Sir George Courthope.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Post Office (Sites) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
AIR ESTIMATES, 1928.
Estimates presented,—for the year 1928 [by Command]: Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. No. 34.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members
  232
  from Standing Committee A: Sir Walter de Frece. Colonel Mason, and Viscount Sandon; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Gunston, Sir George Hamilton, and Mr. Savery.

  STANDING COMAIITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Captain Foxcroft and Mr. Wellock; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Mac-Laren and Mr. Roy Wilson.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Companies Bill): the Lord Advocate, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Mr. Sandeman Allen, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Ernest

  233
  Evans, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. William Hirst, Lord Huntingfield, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Lloyd, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Sir John Pennefather, Sir Walter Raine, Sir Henry Slesser, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Tinne, Colonel Wedgwood, and Mr. Herbert Williams.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Bill): Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lamb.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  STATEMENT OF LOANS ADVANCED BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH TO THE BEDWELLTY POOR LAW UNION.

  Amount of Loan.

  Date of Loan.

  Rate of Interest.

  Principal Repaid.

  Interest Paid.

  Amount of Indebtedness on 30.9.27.

  Principal.

  Interest.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  60,000

  10.7.22

  5½

  13,200

  0

  0

  10,264

  5

  3

  46,800

  5,148

  0

  0

  50,000

  9.10.22

  5½

  10,625

  0

  0

  7,879

  4

  11

  39,375

  4,331

  5

  0

  20,000

  25.4.23

  5

  1,250

  0

  0

  2,432

  17

  6

  18,750

  1,875

  0

  0

  20,000

  14.7.23

  4¾

  1,250

  0

  0

  2,100

  8

  2

  18,750

  1,781

  5

  0

  20,000

  14.9.23

  4¾

  1,250

  0

  0

  1,941

  12

  11

  18,750

  1,781

  5

  0

  50,000

  7.11.23

  4¾

  —

  4,503

  8

  4

  50,000

  4,750

  0

  0

  30,000

  17.4.24

  4¾

  —

  2,069

  3

  7

  30,000

  2,850

  0

  0

  30,000

  2.6.24

  4¾

  —

  1,893

  9

  10

  30,000

  2,850

  0

  0

  50,000

  10.11.24

  4¾

  —

  2,104

  19

  4

  50,000

  4,750

  0

  0

  19,000

  28.1.25

  4¾

  —

  604

  11

  0

  19,000

  1,805

  0

  0

  50,000

  16.5.25

  4¾

  —

  884

  18

  8

  50,000

  4,750

  0

  0

  20,000

  19.6. 25

  4¾

  —

  268

  1

  0

  20,000

  1,900

  0

  0

  35,000

  10.12.25

  4¾

  —

  —

  35,000

  2,999

  6

  8

  55,000

  9.1.26

  4¾

  —

  —

  55,000

  4,491

  7

  1

  15,000

  29.3.26

  5

  —

  —

  15,000

  1,130

  2

  9

  25,000

  6.5.26

  5

  —

  —

  25,000

  1,750

  0

  0

  25,000

  27.5.26

  5

  —

  —

  25, 000

  1,681

  10

  2

  50,000

  14.6.26

  5

  —

  —

  50,000

  3,239

  14

  6

  50,000

  14.7.26

  5

  —

  —

  50,000

  3,030

  16

  5

  50,000

  31.7.26

  5

  —

  —

  50,000

  2,900

  13

  8

  30,000

  19.8.26

  5

  —

  —

  30,000

  1,670

  11

  0

  20,000

  1.9.26

  5

  —

  —

  20,000

  1,078

  1

  8

  30,000

  16.9.26

  5

  —

  —

  30,000

  l,555

  9

  7

  25,000

  14.10.26

  5

  —

  —

  25,000

  1,200

  6

  10

  50,000

  28.10.26

  5

  —

  —

  50,000

  2,297

  18

  11

  30,000

  17.11.26

  5

  —

  —

  30,000

  1,300

  13

  8

  70,000

  29.11.26

  5

  —

  —

  70,000

  2,919

  17

  3

  30,000

  1.1.27

  5

  —

  —

  30,000

  1,111

  12

  11

  15,000

  7.1.27

  5

  —

  —

  15,000

  545

  11

  0

  15,000

  12.2.27

  5

  —

  —

  15,000

  469

  10

  5

  60,000

  9.3.27

  5

  —

  —

  60,000

  1,680

  6

  7

  1,099,000

  27,575

  0

  0

  36,947

  1

  2

  1,071,425

  75,625

  6

  1

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RATING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This brief Bill covers two points on which Amendment of the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, has been found in practice to be necessary. I have already dealt the other evening with the first part, and it might be convenient if I were to restate once more the difficulty that has arisen. The second point is a very short point on which I will attempt to give seine explanation also. The first point relates to the calculations of the Treasury grant which is to be given in each year to Scotland to make up the cavity or deficiency caused by the relief given to agricultural people under the various Acts which have been passed, and, if I may take the matter somewhat chronologically, it will explain, perhaps, a little more clearly how the difficulty has arisen. To go back to 1896, under an Act of that year relief was given as regards rates to agricultural occupiers. That relief was that they were to be rated only on three-eighths of their valuation for the purpose of local rates. In order to compensate the rating authority for the shortage brought about by this reduced valuation of agricultural occupiers, the Act provided for a Treasury grant being given which was to be brought into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Fund, and distributed from that in the correct proportions to the various rating authorities. Unfortunately, the amount of that grant, or the basis on which it was calculated, was stereotyped by the amount of rates calculated for the financial year to Whitsunday, 1896, and the proportion of those rates which had been borne by agricultural occupiers.
  The result was that, as time went on, a very large gap was left uncovered by the Treasury grant, and in 1898 the gap had already begun to develop, and an additional £20,000 was added to the grant of 1896. When I talk of the 1896 grant, perhaps the House will understand I am also including the increase of 1898. By 1923 the condition of things was that, the normal rate being leviable in Scotland on
  248
  the counties, half on owners and half on occupiers, the relief which was given to the agricultural occupiers under the 1896 grant at that time—I am giving illustrative figures taken from the condition of things in 1923—amounted in round figures to £431,000. That was the amount which, it was imagined, the Treasury grant would meet; in fact, the Treasury grant at that time only amounted to £69,000, and the difference—what I call the gap or cavity—between the relief obtained by the agricultural occupier and the actual amount of the Treasury grant was a sum of £362,000. That was a deficit in the rates not made good by the Treasury grant, and which required to be rated for by the rating authority in addition to their normal rates. That was the effect of it. In 1923, when the amount of relief given to agricultural people was somewhat extended, and greater relief was given to the occupiers and a certain amount of relief was given to the owners, at the same time there was provision made in the Act of 1923 to try to fill up this shortage of the Treasury grant which gave rise to the deficit of £362,000, of which I spoke.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not quite clear about the £431,000.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It was the total value of the relief given to agricultural occupiers under the 1896 grant. The sum of £431,000 is what it came to in 1923. I am taking an illustrative figure, but of course it varied. That is five-eighths of the agricultural occupier's valuation from which he escaped in 1896. There always had been a shortage, but, of course, the rates in 1923, taken all over, were rather a different proposition from the rates in 1896, and, therefore, what we want to know is the situation in 1923–1024. In order to fill up that gap, an additional annual grant was provided for under the Agricultural Rates Act of 1923, and the basis of calculation of that grant was this. In the first place, it was based on the relief given to owners. The basis of calculation is prescribed under Section 10 of the Act of 1923, and it was not stereotyped as in 1923, but was to be ascertained from time to time under the certificate of the Secretary for Scotland, so that the old form disappeared. What fell to be done under 1923 was to take the total amount of rates levied as if the Act of 1923 had not been passed—

  249
  that is ignoring the 1923 relief fund—and to find out from that total rate levied the portion of it which the owners—that is all the owners—including the agricultural owners, carried. Having discovered that portion out of the total rate, which gave the actual burden falling on all the owners, you then found out the portion of the total owners' rate or burden which fell on the agricultural owners, and, having got that figure, the grant was calculated on the basis of three-eighths of the agricultural owners' share of the total rate.
  If the House has followed me so far, one point I hope I have made clear is that the basis of the grant was the actual burden falling on the owners, and consequently the actual burden falling on agricultural owners. Under 1923 the relief—I am talking for the moment of the relief given and not the grant—was 50 per cent. of the valuation to the agricultural owners and 50 per cent. of the valuation to the agricultural occupier, but the agricultural occupier could recall or get over from the owner 25 per cent., so that in effect the agricultural occupier got 75 per cent. relief and the agricultural owner only got 25 per cent. That was the condition of things, and it worked out quite well until the Act of 1926. That Act was not intended to and did not, in fact, affect the relief granted, although it put it somewhat differently, but it saved the roundabout method of the occupier recovering from the owner and put it directly, 25 per cent. relief to the owner and 75 per cent. relief to the occupier. We are not concerned with that point, but the Act attempted to simplify incidentally the basis of calculation of the grant of 1923, and it assumed, erroneously, that the owners' share of the total rate for the purposes of the 1896 Act was just the normal share of half the total rate—half occupiers' and half owners'. But it has been forgotten that this gap which I have spoken of, which existed before 1923—that is the £362,000—when it came to be rated—because the Treasury have not made it up—fell, not half on the owners and half on the occupiers, because the 1896 relief to the agricultural occupiers was given effect to, with the result that the occupiers' valuation on which you were rated for this purpose being decreased by
  250
  this relief, the owners' liability bulged over the half into the occupiers' half.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: Under the 1926 Act the owners' rate was stereotyped at 25 per cent.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: That is relief. I am talking of the grant.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: You say the addition of one portion of the rate had been forgotten in 1926. Forgotten by whom?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The draftsman of the Bill.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Forgotten by the Government.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: If you please. It was a very natural mistake to make. Equally, the Opposition were not right. I do not want to argue the point. I want to explain the difficulty first.
  Mr. MAXTON: You recognise that the Opposition have not the advantage of learned legal advice as the Government have.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not assume ignorance, certainly not on the part of the hon. Member. In 1926, for the purpose of the grant, a shorthand method was prescribed of taking the owners' share, as the basis of the calculation of the grant; as being half the total rate. The result was that we altered the amount of the grant to the Scottish agricultural owners from the Treasury detrimentally, and if you look at the last page of the White Paper—I do not want to trouble the House with actual figures too much—the difference between finding the actual share of the total owners' liability in the rate as levied under 1923 and taking the rough method of counting it as being half the total rate means a difference, on the illustrative figures I have taken, of £200,000. That is to say, the actual owners' share of the total rate exceeded by £200,000 the half of the total rate, and the result is that in calculating the grant a sum of £200,000 is missing from the basic figure, namely, the total owners' share, and equally the corresponding proportion of the £200,000—you find these figures on the last page—of the agricultural owners' share of the total of the owners' rate is £60,000. The grant under the Act of 1923 is three-eighths of the agricultural owners' share. If you are looking at the last page of the White Paper, that comes out at £22,500.

  251
  That is the loss that this drafting error involves.
  Apart altogether from any question of fault, we are concerned at, any rate to see that Scotland does not lose anything. In fact, of course, the 1926 Act did not come into operation till last Whitsun. We are in the middle of the first year of its operation, and up to Whitsun the old 1923 rule has applied. This error was discovered early in the current year. The Treasury meantime is still following the 1923 rule on the footing that we are to get this Bill. That is the reason why the Clause is worded "shall have effect and be deemed always to have effect." That is so that it will cover the current year, which is the first year of the operation of the Clause we are amending. I have done my best to make clear what is certainly not a very easy subject, and I hope that the House has followed me fairly well.
  I come now to the second point in the Bill, which seeks to amend the definition of rateable value. This relates to the question of lands which are entitled to total exemption. In the 1926 Act it seemed a reasonable measure not to bother about the valuation of these lands at all, but to enter them as nil in the valuation roll right from the beginning, and therefore we made this provision in this definition of rateable value, directing the assessor in making up the valuation roll—because that is what in effect it means—to enter land entitled to total exemption from rating at nil. In practice, a difficulty has emerged, and it is this. Again, I will do my best to make it clear. The question of total exemption from rates is a, matter which falls to be decided at a stage when rating is done, and that is a later stage than when valuation is done. That is to say, the assessor makes up his valuation roll and then it becomes available for the rating authority to make their assessment. That is the second stage. It is not until the assessing stage by the rating authority comes up that, if there is a dispute about the right to exemption, it really arises, and the proper, persons to decide that in the first instance are the rating authorities. The House will see at once that one effect of directing the assessor in making up the valuation roll to enter properties at nil is that he has to consider
  252
  the question of exemption. He has to find out which properties are entitled to total exemption, and the result is that you anticipate in that way the decision of the rating authorities.
  Of course, there is no harm done if the assessor decided that the property was not entitled to exemption and put in a value, because when the roll came to the rating authority a person claiming exemption could go and say, "It is true I have a value on my property, but I am entitled to total exemption, and you cannot rate me." The assessor's action in that case in no wise prejudices the decision by the rating authority. But if the assessor took another view and made up his mind, wrongly we will assume, that a particular property was entitled to exemption and simply put in nil opposite it, and then the roll had gone to the assessing or rating authority, which decided, we will say rightly, that the claim to exemption was bad, they would have no value on which they could assess. That was a consequence not foreseen at the time of what otherwise would have been a perfectly reasonable and sound method, to simply enter exempted property at nil, but the result has been that there has been some talk as to whether this did not amount to a statutory direction to the assessor to decide the question of exemption. We have no intention or desire to take away the right to decide that question from the rating or assessing authority, and it is in order to make clear that that is not interfered with, and to restore the position, that we insert this second Clause, simply taking out the excepting words in the definition of rateable value in the Act of 1926. I hope that may be a clear explanation, and I shall ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not like confessing to stupidity any more than any other Member of the House. I have sat here and tried to look as wise as other Members, but, I am too honest not to be prepared to admit that in the understanding of this Bill I am just as much in a fog as I was at the beginning, except on one point, that this House obviously trusted the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the passing of the 1926 Act to make a workmanlike job in matters of this description. We hold the view, where they are technical, and where

  253
  there is no real party issue involved, that when we pay very handsome salaries to the right hon. and learned Gentlemen for very special legal knowledge—
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It is not a legal question at all.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not know. I do not want to enter upon any argument with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the line of demarcation between legal business and political business—
  The LORD ADVOCATE: Technical I meant to say, not legal.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not mind if the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the responsibility for this Bill to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is sitting beside him. I am not really concerned. There are four right hon. and hon. Gentleman who represent the Scottish Office in this House. I want to say that I am glad and pleased to see them all four of them, sitting on the bench opposite at one time while a Scottish Measure is being discussed. I hope this is to be interpreted as meaning that, although they have made a gross mistake which has caused great trouble, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has explained, to local assessment authorities, to landowners, and the occupants of agricultural land, they are at least prepared to come before the House and accept responsibility for that mistake.
  Since they have made that mistake, I think it behoves the Opposition to take very great care that they do not allow a similar mistake to occur on this Measure. Frankly, the explanations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman have not satisfied me that the new Bill now being presented fully rectifies the errors that slipped into the Act of 1926. Let me say this further. The one thing that sticks out clearly even to the most simple-minded Member of this House in reading the Bill, and the White Paper explaining the financial Resolution and after listening to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this: What a tremendously complicated business is the whole system of raising rates for local purposes, and the whole system of giving grants to those local authorities in relief of certain parts of their
  254
  expenditure. How the ordinary citizen can understand where he is on this matter it baffles me to know. It ought to be the principle of rating and taxation—and I think it is accepted as the principle by the experts on this subject, both as regards rating and taxation and the method of imposition—that the incidence of it should be clearly understood by the persons who are responsible for paying these rates and taxes. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if Members in this House who are in the habit of examining Acts of Parliament of various types find it impossible to follow the ramifications of this Bill, it must almost be impossible, or quite impossible, for the man who has actually to pay the rates to understand where he is. I put it to the Government that it is bad that a man should simply be handed a paper and told "You have to pay that," and he says, "How is this arrived at?" that he should be told that the basic principle is laid down in the Act of 1896 which was amended by the Act of 1923.
  The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.
  Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is denying now the one thing that he had explained to me in the matter of this legislation, that he had to go back to 1926. I will go back to it myself. I have the Act here. The first sentence in his Memorandum explaining the Financial Resolution is:
  "The Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896, provided that, for the purpose of the agricultural occupiers' share of the rates therein mentioned the annual value of agricultural lands and heritages should be held to be three-eighths of the value appearing in the Valuation Roll."
  Then it goes on:
  "It provided Further"—
  and, I think, this certainly has to be known to get an understanding of the position—
  "for the distribution of an Exchequer Grant among rating authorities affected, which was contemplated to be equivalent to the deficiency in the produce of the rate due to the reduced value. The Grant actually available, however, did not equal the deficiency. A further grant was provided by the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898. The combined grants vary within very narrow limits and for many years have been less than the deficiency, the amount by which

  255
  they fell short having had to be raised from the rates."
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman still shake his head or will he now shake it up and down?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I shook my head at the suggestion that the Act of 1896 was amended by the Act of 1923 as regards the grant. On the contrary, the 1923 Act gave an additional grant.
  Mr. MAXTON: The argument that I am making is that the person who is asked to pay rates ought to know how the amount for which he is asking is arrived at. To understand that, he has to go back to the Act of 1896. Having gone to the Act of 1896 and having read the appropriate Sections there, he has to come to the Act of 1898, read the appropriate Sections there, then come to the Act of 1923 and read the appropriate Sections there, next come to the Act of 1926, and finally come to the amending Bill which we are now discussing in this House.
  The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.
  Mr. MAXTON: It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head at that statement of the position. It has been outlined in his own speech, and it is in the White Paper issued by the Vote Office for our financial guidance on the matter. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that, instead of coming forward with this trifling Bill, he ought to have said: "Oh, this cannot go on." The new amending Bill makes a confused position worse confounded, and we have to get right away back to the very foundations of our rating system and produce a new Bill that will be simpler and clearer and will place the burden of local expenditure on the proper shoulders in the various districts, will relieve that local expenditure by that proportion which ought properly to be taken out of the national Exchequer, and will be in plain, simple language. It is not beyond the wit of man, not even beyond the wit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to bring forward a Measure in plain, simple language that plain, ordinary people can understand and that will not involve everybody concerned, those who are responsible for the valuation as he has pointed out, those
  256
  who are responsible for the collection, the members of the local authorities, the Treasury officials who are responsible for sending down the grant-in-aid, the assessors who are responsible for imposing the rate, in tremendous complications. All this tremendously complicated collection that was instituted by the original legislation has been added to by the Bill which is being introduced to-day. There is a very general impression throughout this House, and throughout the country, that if we simply get sufficient money that is all that Scotsmen or Scotland as a nation want and that we do not inquire too closely from whence it comes.
  On the occasion when I was opposing a Financial Resolution in the early hours of the morning an English Member said to me: "It is only to give Scotland money." We are expected to say: "Oh, yes; it is all right: as long as it is money, we will take it." I do not know whether I am speaking for anyone but myself on this subject. but I hope that I am speaking for right hon. Gentlemen opposite when I say that we want our money clean and that we want it definite. I think that the story which has grown up by tradition about the Scotsman's meanness has only this kind of foundation, that the Scotsman is willing to pay money very freely provided he knows that it is due from him and provided he knows that it is the proper amount for the article or the service that he is obtaining He wants to be thoroughly satisfied about these things—whether he is giving money or whether he is receiving money.
  I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Bill places the whole of the Scottish people in the position of not knowing whether they are getting something to which they are entitled, how it is assessed, how it is totalled up and how the official calculations and details are arrived at. It reminds me of the arithmetical sums that the youngsters used to give to one another in school Think of a number, double it, add two, subtract five, add four and divide by 10, and your answer is nothing. That is exactly the type of calculation that is involved here. I think it is shameful that the right hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen should first of all allow the mistake to arise in the Act of 1926. Their

  257
  predecessors in 1923 were grossly careless in producing the Measure of 1923, instead of producing a, Measure to deal with Scotland and make it sensible and readable. But I think they were guilty of an act of gross carelessness in 1926, and they are not remedying that carelessness in any way by producing the miserable Measure they have produced to-day. I oppose the Second Reading.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Like my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. Maxton), I earnestly endeavoured to follow the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought that I had ordinary capacity for following a financial statement, but I must confess —and I want to say so very respectfully—that, at the close of the statement, I was almost as poorly informed as when the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke the opening sentence. It is all very well for us this afternoon to dismiss this admitted blunder of the Government in a jocular mamnner; but I am sure the Lord Advocate is quite aware that it has been a costly blunder for many people in Scotland. I would like to know how many appeals are pending as a result of the bad drafting of the Act of 1926. I would like to know how much has been involved in costs.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: It has not affected a single ratepayer. This is a, question of a relief grant.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Has there been no appeal from the decisions of the local valuation committees in regard to this matter? Can the Lord Advocate say that?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not aware of a, single case.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I think that, if the right hon. and learned Member would make inquiry, he would find that he is not perfectly informed as to the state of affairs in Scotland. Admittedly, there has been a serious blunder made in the Act of 1826, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton has pointed out, the Act of 1926 was only one of a series of Acts dealing with the same subject. There were Acts in 1896 and 1898, and the 1923 Act cancelled certain provisions of the Act of 1898, and created the difficulties with which we are dealing to-day. The House has to remember that the same legal
  258
  advisers and the same Government who were responsible for the Act now before us, were responsible for the Act of 1926. I would like to know whether the Government have consulted practical people in Scotland. They must have assessors in Scotland who are dealing with these cases every day, and whose advice and knowledge are at the disposal of the Government. It is not good enough to come forward and say, "We made a blunder in the Act of 1926. We intended the Act of 1926 to be capable of doing something for which it has not proved capable. Why did not the Opposition come to our assistance and with their legal advice see that we did not land the rating authorities into this difficulty? "Is that a reasonable proposition to put to the Opposition? Has this Bill, before it, was submitted to the House, been submitted to the legal advisers of the Opposition, so that they might peruse it, and, if necessary, advise the Government of its defects? I submit that nothing of the kind has been done.
  Is it any wonder in view of what happened in connection with the Act of 1926, when we have to waste our time this afternoon in trying to remedy the defects of that Act, our minds are enshrouded in doubt as to the complicated provisions with which we are dealing. I would like to have some assurance that some more responsible people than those who drafted the Act of 1926 have looked into this Measure, and have assured the Government that it was one with which the House could go forward with every confidence. I do not think it is asking too much to have that assurance, and to have an assurance from the Lord Advocate that if he discovers as a result of inquiry that people in Scotland have been involved in costs as a result of this blunder, he will see that the Government will compensate them for their losses. It is not good enough that a blundering Government should impose on people who need assistance in relief of their rates, comparatively poor people, losses directly due to their own incapacity as a Government in doing work for which they are paid, and for which the country looks to them in their official capacity. While I cannot go into the Lobby against this Bill, I do feel a good deal of doubt and hesitancy, in view of all that has passed, in accepting the right hon. and learned

  259
  Member's assurance that we may safely pass this Bill.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I would like the House to consider this Measure very carefully before they give it a Second Reading. I have a feeling that everything is not as straight as the Lord Advocate would have us believe. It may be that there is some difficulty in fixing the valuation of land; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted to tell us anything whatever as to the fixing of the valuation of the land. He has told us the amount to which the owner was entitled in the way of remission, and how much the occupier obtained by way of remission. Those two remissions put together, he told us, amounted to a given sum, and now he says that the grant was not as large as the amount of the sums to which these people were entitled. Am I right in suggesting that the grant was not sufficient because of the method adopted in fixing the amount for the benefit of the owners? The amount payable by the owners was deemed to be a certain proportion of the rate levied. I wonder if the method adopted is a means of trying to relieve somebody of something which they ought to pay. I notice that the Lord Advocate does not seem to be treating this matter very seriously. He says that we have been suffering for many years in connection with the points which he brought forward in his speech. I am wondering whether we have been suffering for many years, and that we had to wait until he arrived to discover that we were suffering.
  I am very suspicious about this matter, and about anything done by hon. Members opposite in connection with the rates of agricultural owners, because those rates have come almost to the vanishing point, by one means or another. I know that in connection with the Rating Act in 1926 one hon. and gallant Member who is present to-day put down an Amendment to secure a remission of 75 per cent. instead of 25 per cent.; but the right hon. and learned Member who is in charge of the present Bill had to refuse that Amendment, because he said it would mean a gift to agricultural owners in Scotland of £300,000 a year. When an owner has the audacity to put forward an Amendment
  260
  that would have benefited his class by £300,000 a year, are we not right in thinking that, although the Government were right in refusing that Amendment at that time, they may have had pressure brought upon them from some quarter, with the result that this Bill is now put before us?
  If I felt clear that this Bill only meant a sum of money coming to Scotland of which we had been cheated, as a result of the Act of 1926, I should be more satisfied; but according to the statement which has been made we have been losing money for many years. We are entitled to know how much we have lost each year and how much worse off we are as a result of the Act of 1926. It is not enough to come forward in this way. We require to know more about the Measure, and if we do not get the necessary information we may feel inclined to vote against the Measure. During the little while that I was at school I was taught that one ought to be aware of the Greeks when they come with gifts. In regard to any gifts from hon. Members opposite, I feel much as I did in regard to gifts from the Greeks, which I was taught to watch. When the present Government come with gifts, I want to examine them very carefully, lest we be trapped in this Bill, as it appeared we were trapped in the Act of 1926.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the representatives of the Government what they mean by coming here time and time again to amend Acts. for which they have been responsible. It is not a fortnight since the Lord Advocate was in the same position as he is to-day. Is there anything we can do in order to draw attention more than we do to the stupidity of the present Government? This is a serious business. Had such a blunder been made by a workman in the employ of the Secretary of State for Scotland—the right hon. Gentleman is a big landowner, and this Bill affects his class—he would have no hesitancy in dispensing with his services. The Government throw cold water on the points that we raise in Opposition, and that is why Bills are not properly amended when they are before the House. Nobody knows better than you, Mr. Speaker, that unless it will suit the convenience of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, they

  261
  threaten us that if we proceed with our objections they will withdraw their Bill. That has been done again and again. Is that not the case? They come before the House now and say that we have been Tax in our criticisms and that we have not straightened out matters when Bills have been before the House, and yet when the Bills are before the House they will not give us a proper opportunity of amending them.
  5.0 p.m.
  Is there no way of checking the action of these right hon. Gentlemen? They do not represent Scotland. Scotland is not a nation so stupid as that. If we had our Parliament in Edinburgh, do you think our nation would tolerate men behaving in this fashion, that they draft and design a Bill, with all the brains that they have, such as they are, and then they come back here and use up the time of the House in amending the Bills which they have drafted. We represent the people of Scotland. We represent the working classes of Scotland, the people upon whom the country has to depend. While this Government find time for amending Bills in regard to which they have made blunders, while there is no time to deal with the position of the working classes, they find time for something that is going to help the landlords. The Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland come from the landowning classes of Scotland. The finest parts of Scotland, the best agricultural parts of Scotland which could produce food, they keep lying fallow as beautiful parks for themselves, and then they come here in this fashion and simply do it on us. They take advantage of the good nature of this House when we should be doing more serious business in trying to ameliorate the conditions of the folk we represent. No matter where go I do not see the folk as hard up against it as the people of Scotland. I have seen working folk comfortable in Germany, Switzerland, Belgimn and France, but in my own country the working folk, who are the salt of the earth, are up against it at the moment. I have never seen such starvation and degradation as there is in Scotland; yet we cannot find time to bring in a Measure to ameliorate these conditions. The present dispensation in charge of Scotland ought to be chased out of the country.
  Mr. HARDIE: I hope the Lord Advocate can explain what is meant by agricultural land. I have been through the original Act and I can find no definition anywhere. I want to guard against making the same blunder than was made on the last occasion. I want to know what is meant in the case of agricultural land situated 100 miles from a population of 10,000; and what would be the value of that land if it was near a growing city?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Bill. That is a question of the general rating law. This is only giving more money out of the Treasury to rating authorities for a specific purpose. We cannot debate the general basis of the original Act.
  Mr. HARDIE: May I call your attention to Clause 2 which says that the interpretation Section of the Act of 1926
  "shall have effect as if the following words in the definition of 'rateable value' were omitted 'except that in the case of lands and heritages with respect to which there is total exemption from all rates the rateable value shall be treated as nil."'
  If those words are to be left out we are going to put it on the basis of the rateable value, and I am trying to guard against making the same mistake that has been made already. I should like tile Lord Advocate to give us some definition of what is meant by the words "agricultural rates grant." Why agricultural rates grant? Why not general rates grant?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  REORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is practically the same Bill that was introduced in March last. I then explained to the House the, motives which actuated the Government in bringing forward the Measure and I expressed the hope, which I still entertain, that this Bill will be regarded by hon.

  263
  Members on every side of the House not as a matter of party controversy but one upon which we can all be reasonably expected to combine in evolving a system which will be an appreciable improvement on the present position. The history of government in Scotland is very familiar to Scottish Members. They will recall a period during which the affairs of Scotland were conducted by another Department of State in England. Then came the constitution of the Scottish Office, and in order to overcome the inherent difficulties of the new system of government there was established in Scotland the system which had been used in other parts of the Kingdom, known as the "Board system." The motive which led to placing the administration in Scotland in the hands of Boards, was the fact that communication at that time between Scotland and London was less easy than it is at present; that the responsibility to Parliament of the holder of the office which I have the honour to hold and the assertion of the right of Parliament to make the Minister answerable for government in Scotland, was not then so fully developed.
  The history of administration by Boards is well known. The system has been used in England and has been abandoned. It was used in Northern Ireland, but it has been abandoned. For what reason? The reason is patent to anyone who is brought closely into contact with this problem. This question has been investigated by a Royal Commission which came to certain very definite conclusions. Let me repeat what I said on the last occasion:
  "This is what the Royal Commission said on that point in their Report:
  The system affords no room for that type of selected and trained permanent administrative official which is represented by the administrative class.
  They recommend that the Scottish Departments be no longer deprived of the advantages which will come from employing officers of the administrative class. The Commissioners add:
  The local sympathy and knowledge which it may be contended is provided by the existing system might, we believe, continue to be secured, partly by the natural tendency of Scottish officials to seek service in Scottish offices and partly by the creation in suitable cases of unpaid advisory boards."
  264
  Whether the administration of Scotland it carried on by a board or department, the House should bear in mind that the responsibility rests, and must rest, with the Minister responsible for the board or department. So far as this House is concerned in any change from a system of administration by boards to an administration by departments, which is common to this country, and is indeed working in Scotland now in regard to one of the most important administrative subjects, education; the responsibility of the Minister remains the same and the opportunities for criticism by this House of the actions of the Minister remain the same. Therefore it comes down really to a practical question as to whether the system of boards is as efficient and as effective as the departmental system. I have long held the view, and it is corroborated by the fact that in England the same view is taken, that the most satisfactory method of administration in Scotland is the establishment and maintenance of a Civil Service which remains continuously and closely in touch with the work for which they are responsible and who are not liable to the fluctuation and changes of political policy.
  Further, the position of the Minister in coming to decisions and taking responsibility for which he has to answer to Parliament and the country, is likely to be more efficiently safeguarded and, indeed, assisted, if he has at the head of a department a single advisor who, in his turn, takes responsibility for the advice which he tenders. In criticising the board system, I am not casting any reflection upon the good work which many of these boards have done in the past. Hon. Members can picture to themselves the position: questions coming before a board upon which there may be, legitimately, a difference of opinion and where a majority and minority report is submitted to the Minister. In such a case the Minister is unable to turn to the head advisor of the Department for advice, and he finds himself in the position of not having any responsible advice from the head of the department. He has to make up his mind on the majority and minority report of the Board. From that point of view it is wise that this should be avoided. One of the things which the Royal Commission emphasised was that patronage, if possible, should be abolished.

  265
  It is a difficult problem, but I think we are all agreed, no matter what party we belong to, that for these appointments patronage is undesirable. The great public service of civil servants, drawn from a class which reach and maintain their position by examination and merit, who are attached to one department or another, gain during the course of years an experience which is of enormous value to the State, to this House, and to the Minister who is responsible.
  It is for that reason that I desire to see established in Scotland a system of departments. We have had experience of departmental work in Scotland. The Department of Education is not a Board of Education. I have no reason to suppose, from such evidence as I have been able to gather during my three years of administration, that there is any real criticism in Scotland that the system in the Education Department has not worked satisfactorily. The head of that Department resides in the capital of Scotland. He has, it is true, a second in command here in London. But I would emphasise at once that there appears to have been a kind of conception in the minds of some hon. Members and, indeed in the minds of some of the outside public, that this change which we propose to make is going to transfer the centre and activities of these offices from Scotland to Whitehall. On the contrary, there is no such suggestion. There never has been such a suggestion. Since I submitted the Bill last year there has been no such suggestion.
  To prove that there was no intention or prospect of such a thing taking place, I have specifically inserted in the Bill a Clause which declares that the Departments shall remain in Scotland. Indeed if we achieve, as I conceive we shall, the placing at the head of these Departments of civil servants of the first class, drawn from the whole service, so that Scotland can have the best service possible without restriction of any kind except the restriction of efficiency and of examination, then we will have at the heads of the Departments men who will be capable of advising and conducting even some of the work which may, at the present moment, be carried on here at Dover House. The. ambition which I have formed is not only to have first class civil servants at the heads of these offices, similar to the first class civil servants
  266
  at the head of the offices here in England, but that we shall in course of time, when the clamant demands for economy shall have been overcome, centralise in Edinburgh under one roof all the Departments concerned with Scottish affairs.
  Then I can visualise the linking up of Parliament and Dover House with a central office in Edinburgh, where the Minister responsible to Parliament and the Scottish Members can be in close and easy touch with the heads of every one of his Departments. The House will believe me when I say that with scattered Departments in Edinburgh now it is no light or easy task for the Minister to keep in touch with any work that is going on, and indeed to obtain from those Departments, with the rapidity that one often desires, answers to questions put to him either across the Floor of the House or by the large interests outside. This Bill, therefore, changes the Board system. It does not in any measure lessen the possibilities of contact between the outside interests in Scotland and the Departments. The opportunities of deputations to the Departments, of consultation with the heads of each section in those Departments, and of access to the Minister—all those things are entirely safeguarded. There will be the same channels for communication. But, above all, there will be one responsible official at the head of each Department, who will give responsible advice to the Minister in the policy that he pursues.
  Mr. SKELTON: Does my right hon. Friend mean that the leading permanent civil servant at the head of the Department of Agriculture may quite well be an Englishman born and bred?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: In our offices in Scotland we have men who are not all of purely Scottish origin or descent. Let me be perfectly frank. This opening for the Civil service is a complementary thing. We have many Scotsmen at the head of the great English Departments, I am glad to say. Is it conceivable that that will not continue or, indeed, that these examinations shall not be held and the posts be staffed by Scotsmen? I have enough confidence in the ability and brains of the Scottish people to believe that these civil servants will be largely drawn from the Scottish race. But whether that be so or not,

  267
  what I am out for is efficiency. I want to get the best man for a post, and I want that man to be there so that he may be absolutely free of patronage of any kind. I want him to get there through the ordinary channels of the Civil Service. The system has proved itself to be of great advantage to the Departments in England. It has been of great advantage to education in Scotland.
  Let me turn to some of the details of the Bill. The first part of the Bill, of course, deals with what I have been speaking of, namely, the abolition of the Board system. It will create a Department of Agriculture and a Department of Health. There comes the problem of what is known as the Fishery Board for Scotland. The reason why we do not propose to alter the nature of that body, beyond placing the chairman of it in the position of a civil servant with adequate Civil Service remuneration and position, is that in this case the Board differs from the other Boards, in that members of the Fishery Board are not paid and are drawn from various interests in an advisory capacity. That has proved to be a system that is workable and of value, and I do not propose to alter it. Then we come to other problems. We come to a matter which has concerned a great many people in Scotland, the Register House. This is by no means an easy problem. I have come to the conclusion that it would be well to establish a single head over that Department. At the present time there is no such single head.
  There have been criticisms because it was thought, on the one hand, that the historical section has been neglected, and, on the other hand, that if we made a single head we should not do justice to the needs of Scotland. I have carefully studied the problem and have come to the conclusion that it is possible to combine these offices and at the same time get efficiency. The purport of the provisions of the Bill is the creation of a post of Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland. That post will absorb the post of the Deputy Clerk Register, which has not been filled since 1919, and that of the Keeper of Sasines and the Keeper of Deeds. Some words have been added in order specifically to provide for the payment of salary in respect of the new post. But that does not mean that there will be any increase in the total cost of
  268
  the Department concerned. It should also be realised that the changes effected by the Bill with regard to this Register House Department do not involve any departure from the present system of registration and recording. Some doubts were expressed upon that point after our last Debate, and I wish now particularly to draw attention to the matter. The existing powers and duties vested in or exercised by the Court of Session with regard to the Public Register Records and Rolls of Scotland are expressly safeguarded.
  The last part of the Bill effects various minor changes. Legal sanction is given to the transfer, which has already been effected de facto, of the powers and duties of the Keeper of the Minute Book and Record of Edictal Citations to the Principal Extractor of the Court of Session. The object of Clause 10 is to put the staff of the Extractor's Department in the Court of Session on a Civil Service basis as regards method of appointment and tenure of office. That, I think, is only doing justice to the staff working in that department. There is a small Amendment which we desire to make to widen the field of selection for the members of the National Galleries Board of Trustees. I hope that hon. Members, in approaching the discussion of this subject, will realise that the sole motive is the motive of efficiency, that it leaves intact the same responsibility of the Minister to any Member in this House, but that it gives to him additional assistance, in that in future he may have available the best class of Civil Service advice. That this will greatly strengthen and improve and elevate the position of these Departments I have not the slightest doubt. I commend the Bill to the House with confidence that it will give an opportunity to many in the Civil Service who are at present in the Second Class to rise, as indeed they do rise and have risen, to the First Class of the Civil Service, and that, on the whole, it will be an improvement to our administration.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this clay six months."
  On the last occasion, on 23rd March, 1927, I listened to the right hon. Gentleman expound this Bill, and I have

  269
  listened very patiently to his recitation to-day of the advantages which he expects will accrue from this Measure. For the life of me I cannot understand the urgency that the right hon. Gentleman apparently attaches to the Measure. There are great public questions requiring solution in Scotland, questions of health, of economic prosperity and of the happiness of our people. The right hon. Gentleman can find no time to bring in Measures to deal with those questions. He can find no time to bring in Measures to deal with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Deer Forests. He comes forward persistently with this particular Measure, which is recorded, in the King's Speech as one of the major Measures of the Session. Although the right hon. Gentleman put the best face he could upon his case, he will not expect the Opposition to pass this Bill without considerable criticism, particularly in view of the fact that a large section of public opinion in Scotland—a section which has no political sympathy with those on this side of the House—is intensely amazed at some of the proposals in the Bill. The right bon. Gentleman said the chief reason for the Bill was efficiency, and I think he repeated that statement in the course of his speech. I would call his attention to what he said on 23rd March last. year when introducing a similar Bill:
  "Is it, not true to say that the Board system has been found to be less effective in securing responsibility for official action and advice than the system of having one responsible civil servant at the head."— [OFFICIAT, REPORT, 23rd March, 1027; Cols. 465–466. Vol. 204.]
  Following that the right bon. Gentleman proceeded to give one illustration from his experience to justify that statement, the illustration being the Department of Education in Scotland. What is the fact about the Scottish Education Department. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that the permanent head of that Department is situated in Edinburgh. The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have direct personal access to the head of that Department in connection with the answering of questions put to him in this House. It is true that there is an assistant head of the Department in London, but still, the right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that he is in touch with that Department, and we await an
  270
  explanation and a justification for the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in March of last year and to-day. As far as we can see, there is no closer contact between the right hon. Gentleman and the chairman of the Board of Agriculture than between the right hon. Gentleman and the permanent head of the Education Department in Edinburgh. They are both the same distance from London; they are both as difficult to reach, and they are both in the same position as regards giving advice to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: May I explain? The whole question is this: Do I get advice from the head of a Department giving that advice as the head of a Department, or has that official to go first to his board and then come to me and say that his board differ from him and that he can only speak as the Board? Thus, instead of getting advice from him, I have to form my own opinion, but the head of a Department like the Education Department which has an office here, is in touch with me—he is often here and he can give me advice as the head of the Department.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: That is another point altogether with which I propose to deal later. The question of whether the right hon. Gentleman gets more efficient or more direct advice—shall I say more positive advice—from the head of his Education Department than he does from the chairman of his Board of Agriculture does not arise at the moment. The point I am dealing with is, whether he has any closer touch with the Education Department than he has with the Board of Agriculture. I submit that on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing he has no closer touch with the Education Department than with the Board of Agriculture or the Board of Health. If I am correctly informed, the right hon. Gentleman had no consultation with the boards in Edinburgh prior to the publication of these proposals. I understand that the first the boards saw of this Bill was its publication in the "Scotsman" and the "Glasgow Herald." I think the right hon. Gentleman might have taken care to consult not, only his Civil Service advisers in London and elsewhere but also the people who were "on the job" and who knew some of the difficulties

  271
  of the work. He should have taken or at least considered their advice before coming to a conclusion on the matter. I draw his attention to the fact that the only body in Scotland which, with inside knowledge, feels itself free to make a public criticism of the details of the Bill are people on the legal side. Probably every Member of the House has received a copy of a report by a committee of the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. They are wholeheartedly opposed to the parts of the Bill which deal with their own business—with the Deputy Clerk Register and the keepers of the various registers and so forth. I am not going to discuss these points; I am not competent to do so; I merely point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the only body in Scotland which feels itself free to criticise the Bill has done so. The Board of Agriculture cannot speak because they are civil servants. The Prison Commissioners cannot speak; the Board of Health cannot speak. The only body which can make a public criticism, on public grounds, of the details of the Bill has already done so.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Mac Robert)indicated dissent.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: If the Solicitor-General has not seen the document in question. I shall be pleased to let him have it. but I am more than surprised if they have not sent a copy to him. Apart from the reason of efficiency—which is at least dubious—we must see whether there are any other possible reasons for the introduction of this Bill. The whole tendency under this Government has been, rather strangely, towards centralising and bureancratiging administration. We are accused on public platforms of being in favour of running the industries of the country from Whitehall, and of conducting businesses through civil servants who, however qualified in a scholastic way, have no knowledge of business affairs. Now we find this Government, of all Governments, deliberately attempting to take away the detailed administration of public affairs in Scotland from bodies of presumably skilled men, who have been nominated because of their knowledge of those particular affairs. It is proposed that the direction of these affairs should be
  272
  handed over to men who, whatever other qualifications they may have, whatever examinations they may have passed in Oxford or Cambridge, have not proved their fitness to conduct these great, businesses upon which the lives and happiness of our people depend. We have seen the right hon. Gentleman's Government transferring the local administration of pensions in Scotland, and is there any hon. Member who will say that that change has been a public benefit to Scotland? There is not one. We see a gradual tendency, of which this Bill is, we believe, the latest symptom, towards the bureaucratisation and the concentration in Whitehall of the administration of Scottish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman points proudly to the fact that in his Bill there is a Clause, declaring that
  "the offices of the said Departments shall be situated in Edinburgh,"
  but while the offices may be, and, in fact are now situated in Edinburgh, where is the power going? Of course the power is going to London.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The responsibility is here now.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Of course, the responsibility is here now. If the Lord Advocate's interruption is to be believed, there is going to be no change and if there is going to be no change, why have the Bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The fact is that there is a change, and the proof that there is a change lies in the production of the Bill. Of course, the power—I do not say the supreme power because that will always rest with the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet—but a certain measure of power, a certain power of direction is being taken away from these nominated boards in Edinburgh and will be more or less canalised. Certain matters will be placed under the control of the permanent officials to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I have said that there are other big problems which might have occupied the right hon. Gentleman's attention with profit to his native land. At Question Time to-day I asked him to give the House any justification or explanation of the fact, which he admits, that poverty is 15 per cent. greater in Scotland than in England. Surely that is a most remarkable fact and one deserving of the

  273
  right hon. Gentleman's immediate attention. But he has no explanation to offer, and instead of bringing in a Measure to deal with a problem like that, he produces this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon about an administrative class. I think he will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow that he used the phrase two or three times. He quoted from the Royal Commission of 1914 and employed this epithet "administrative class"—which takes us back to Platonic phrases. We are reminded of the phrases in Plato's "Republic" about the creating of classes. Here is an administrative class being justified and made permanent by the right hon. Gentleman. The present system has its defects. I do not think anybody disputes them. Nevertheless, it is open to the right hon. Gentleman or his successors in office, always to procure the advice of the most skilled men in any business in connection with Scottish affairs to-day. By the passing of this Bill however, the right hon. Gentleman is definitely, clearly and I think deliberately, taking steps to make permanent this administrative class which in the past we have had no reason to believe was any more efficient than the Advisory Boards with which we are familiar in Scotland.
  There are three main Departments affected—the Board of Health, the Board of Agriculture and the Prison Commission. Let me very briefly see what changes will be effected in the Scottish Board of Agriculture. There is a maximum of three members on this Board, but one of these three must be designated as a Commissioner for Small Holdings. He must be a specialist in small holdings —that is his business, his duty, his job—but under this Bill he disappears, and he is replaced by a gentleman who may be an authority on the Greek classics, who may have been able to grind away at the special subjects which the examiners very foolishly sometimes set for students, but he has no necessary knowledge either of Scottish affairs, Scottish history, land problems, or small holdings. The one office upon which we have depended for an active attempt at the recolonisation of our country is being abolished under the terms of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, but is it not the case that he is abolishing his
  274
  Board of Agriculture? Is it not the case that one member out of the three at present must be a Commissioner for Small Holdings, and that that Commissioner disappears and is replaced by a permanent civil servant, selected ultimately because of his knowledge of other subjects altogether, and because he is able to pass some scholastic examination at Oxford or Cambridge?
  I will take the other Boards. At present on the Board of Health there is a maximum of six members, of whom two must be medical men and one an advocate or a law agent. The present Board of Health consists of the right hon. Gentleman himself, his Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Ewan Macpherson, who was a member of the Local Government Board so far back as 1904, and who has had considerable experience therefore in local administration; Sir James Leishman, of the Insurance Commission; Sir Leslie Mackenzie, than whom, I suppose, no man in public life in Scotland to-day knows more about public health; and Miss M. Ritson, of whom I know nothing. Here is a Board selected for its skill and for its knowledge of health in Scotland. The. right hon. Gentleman says he cannot always get a unanimous report or advice from it, but why should he? Why does he always want a unanimous report? Is it not his job to get both majority advice and minority advice, and to decide? But what he is proposing to do now is to hand over his decision to a permanent civil servant. He is going to take the advice of a permanent civil servant, who has at some stage in the business to make up his mind upon the conflicting advice which he will get from various quarters. The right hon. Gentleman is taking a very serious step indeed when he proposes to hand over the complicated and legally difficult administration of affairs in Scotland to one civil servant, who may be a Scotsman or who may not, who may have some knowledge of Scottish affairs or who may not. His sole qualification, so far as we know now, is that he has to pass a higher grade examination set by the Civil Service Commission.
  Then we will take the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, who to-day at most consist of three. I think there have never been any more than two appointed, but I am not certain about that. In addition,

  275
  they have on the Board two Commissioners ex officio —the Sheriff of Perthshire and the Crown Agent in Edinburgh. They have all equal powers, and they manage all the prisons in Scotland, inspect them, and report to the Secretary of State. Is the Secretary of State prepared to get up to-day and say that any single member of the Prison Commission is inefficient or ineffective, or that they could possibly be replaced by one selected civil servant who had passed some higher grade examination? Here is Mr. Condie Sandeman, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and Sheriff of Perth. Is he inefficient? I will await an answer to that. Is Sir John Prosser, the Crown Agent, inefficient? No answer. Is Lord Polwarth inefficient? No answer. Is Dr. James Devon inefficient? No answer. We get not even an accusation that the Prison Commissioners are inefficient, yet the right hon. Gentleman, without a scrap of evidence as to inefficiency, without a solitary argument either to-day or on the 23rd March, comes forward and proposes that this efficient body of capable, skilled men shall be swept away and substituted by one of the higher clerical class of civil servants. We have heard something, though not very much, about the great economies that are to be secured by this Bill.
  Sir J. GILMOUR indicated dissent.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say there is no mention of economies? I say it is in his Memorandum which he has printed and circulated.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: They have never read their own Memorandum.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: The average cost per head of prisoners in Scotland is £73 14s. 2d. and in England £85 18s. l0d. Under the Board system it is cheaper than under the system they propose to set up. Other hon. Members, with very much greater knowledge of Civil Service administration than I have, propose to take part in this Debate, but I am perfectly certain that neither in March nor to-day has the Secretary of State for Scotland produced a reasonable argument why this Measure should obtain precedence, be mentioned in the King's Speech, and be brought forward as a first class Measure in this House. I make
  276
  this suggestion, that the old system, with all its faults, is a system under which any Secretary of State for Scotland can nominate an advisory body of skilled men to advise him in running his business, and the alternative is the bureaucratic system, the Whitehall direction system, a system that inevitably will end in failure.
  All the criticisms made of the proposals of the Labour party for nationalisation and public ownership are criticisms based largely upon the view that we propose to run the mines, the railways, and other large public Departments from Whitehall by civil servants. Never any such idea crossed our minds. We will, when our time comes, take advantage of all the skilled advice and assistance we can get, and the technical knowledge of representatives of the workmen, to run the boards upon which the nation will depend. We will not have this Whitehall business, and I submit that one reason, at any rate, for the introduction of this Bill is to scrap the boards which we already have, the skilled advice which we already possess, and make it more difficult for us, in the days to come, to run the national business effectively and efficiently.
  Mr. BARR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  6.0 p.m.
  This is a Bill to alter the machinery of government in certain Departments in Scotland. In essence, as has been explained, it is a change from a system of boards to a system of departments. It has been advocated on two main grounds, that of efficiency, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has so well dealt, and that of economy. As has been indicated, we have, in the Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill, a good deal made of the subject of economy. It is quite true that the plea that is put forward on that ground is subdued. In regard to the change that is embodied in Clause 1, it simply says: "It is anticipated that some diminution of cost may be effected," and in his speech of last year the Secretary of State for Scotland put it, I think, as regards the whole Bill, in a very subdued tone by saying: "It might well lead to economies." There is the discontinuance of the Director of Chancery. The salary there, we are told, has been £1,700, and even there all that is

  277
  told us is that "It is anticipated that some saving will be effected." It is only when they come to the subject of the discontinuance of the Keeper of the Minutes and his clerk that they become eloquent on the great economy that is to be effected. It is to give permanence to economies that have already been effected, and so we come to this, that after this great policy of economy has been launched and this Bill has been brought forward as a first-class Measure in the. interests of efficiency and economy, after this great talk of the economy policy that is to save the British Empire, they are economising by the discontinuance of the Keeper of the Minutes and his clerk. I am not so sure that there will be this economy, after all. I did not gather from the speech of the Secretary of State so distinctly as I did on the last occasion, but it came out incidentally as he read part of the Report on Civil Servants, that it is proposed in some voluntary way still to have the advice of unpaid advisory boards and advisory committees. In regard to the Keeper of the Registers and Records in Clause 5, the various offices that are to be dispensed with entail something like £2,700, but the official who is being set up is a very important one indeed. He is not only to be the Keeper of the Registers and Records, but the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines, the Register of Hornings, the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications, and so forth—offices all more or less referring to bankruptcy, I understand, and to the service of Diligence in connection with it, the Register of Entails, and so forth.
  I am bound to say that the man who performs all these offices will need a very large salary. You will not, therefore, economise very much there. The troops of clerks who are to be attached to the Principal Extractor will tend to increase rather than diminish, and all I can see of economy in this Bill does not amount to more than £2,000 or £3,000 at the most, if anything at all. There is a very remarkable provision in Clause 10. It is explained in the Financial Memorandum that formerly they engaged an Engrosser at piece rates, and they have found it much better to have a typist, working, I suppose, on time rates. As far as I read the Press which support the right hon. Gentleman opposite, they
  278
  are all for piece work as the real solution of industrial troubles; yet here, when they have had experience of it, they are going to dispense with it, saying that it would be far better to go on time work with a good typist than on piece rates with an engrosser.
  One of the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was in regard to the Department of Education; it was an argument for changing the whole of these Boards into Departments. I happen to know a little from experience of education, for I was 11 years a member of the School Board, now known as the Education Authority, of Glasgow, and every year I noticed an increasing tendency to dovetail this system, and assimilate the system in Scotland with what was being done in England. This was increased in recent years, and we cannot get a Superannuation Bill passed until the corresponding Bill for England is passed. So I am not enamoured of the suggestion that interest will be heightened and bettered by turning all these Boards into Departments. It seems to me that what is proposed is a very easy way of assimilating Scottish customs and practice with those of England. The Secretary of State has told us that there would be one man at the head of the Department, that there would be no minority or majority, and that he would have his word from the man and so know where he was. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), speaking as a supporter of the Measure last year, said:
  "When you get a Board, you have all sorts of difficulties and complications; all sorts of different ways of looking at things." [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd March, 1927. Col. 479, Vol. 204.]
  He went on to argue that we must centralise and unify. The fact is, that it is easier when you have only one man to get that man under your complete control. I was much interested in the interjection of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), Who brought out that an Englishman fresh from his scholastic honours, or with some experience in English offices, might be appointed to this position. I would not, in ordinary circumstances, take any narrow view. I believe in the great. offices being thrown open to competition, and to the very best ability that can be obtained. But I think that when we are dealing with

  279
  Scottish questions of this kind, we want men who know something, even by their upbringing, of the subjects with which they are to deal. I was astonished one day, when I was speaking with a Front Bench Member opposite—one who is not present just now—who was surprised when I told him that a feu duty had something to do with land and the building of houses. It was a revelation to him. I do not want to give his name, because I do not want to hinder his promotion. In face of that sort of thing, you are going to appoint an Englishman with no practical experience.
  This Bill enhances the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the first Clause he has great powers to appoint secretaries, officers, inspectors, clerks, servants and other persons. Not one of these can give his signature to any document until he has the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Keeper of the Registers in Clause 5 goes on his holidays, or is absent for any reason, the right hon. Gentleman has to appoint a man to take his place. He appoints the Assistant Extractor and all his clerks, and after he has appointed them, he says, "All shall sweetly obey my will." With the ambition almost of a Stuart King, he says: "Here I sit and govern Scotland with my pen. I write, and it is done, and by the clerk of the Department I govern Scotland now, which others could not do by the sword."
  I would call attention to what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee in regard to the importance that is now attached to this Measure. A year ago it was brought before the House, one or two speeches were made, and it was counted then of so little importance that the Government made no effort to secure time for its passage into law. This year it figures in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. We can understand the straits to which the Government had come when they approached the right hon. Gentleman and said: "We must have some first-class Measure for Scotland in what is to be our last great appeal before the General Election." The right hon. Gentleman looked round and said: "I cannot really do anything with housing; I may have to reduce the subsidy by-and-by, but it would never do to
  280
  advertise that in the Gracious Speech. I can do nothing with the land question; the White Paper shows that our policy, as far as Scotland is concerned, is exhausted." When it came to the Prison Commissioners, he said: "I cannot tackle the subject of eliminating the causes of crime; I need to go into some Socialistic Measure before I can do anything in that connection. The best and only thing I can do is to change the Boards into Departments."
  What we in Scotland want at the present time is not new machinery but new men, not new Departments but a new policy. I was much interested in the Financial Memorandum. It says that what is being done does not involve any change in the activities of the Department. I think it might equally have been said that it does not involve any change in the inactivities of the Government in regard to Scotland. So our time is to be taken up this year in the Scottish Grand Committee with a Measure which is at best a purely technical Bill dealing with pure procedure. In my own constituency, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary to the Board of Health know—and as individuals they have done their utmost—housing is at a standstill because we can get no further loan. Instead of dealing with this question of giving further powers so that housing can go on, we are given this change from Boards to Department. The Report of the Board of Agriculture on Land Settlement shows that they have been obliged to decline 10,288 applications for small holdings, and only 214 of these were ruled out as being unworthy: 5,396 have been examined carefully and favourably commended, and yet no new machinery has been set up for that.
  Instead of something being done to make history, we have this Bill which is to secure that all the registering of sasines, inhibitions and adjudications, and all the registering of entails, shall be done with a new accuracy, and all the dusty deeds are to be put in their proper pigeon-holes and properly kept; but there is not a word about doing something bold and great for Scotland. The Secretary of State, in a, letter he wrote to one of the Members for Aberdeen, published last week, prided himself on the fact that no objection had

  281
  been taken to the latter part of this Bill. As a matter of fact, we have now the petition of the Faculty of Procurators. This Bill pays no regard at all to national sentiment in Scotland. It seems as if the right hon. Gentleman looked round, and seeing some traces of Scottish national sentiment, brought forward this Measure to flout that, sentiment. Some Members will remember a passage in Carlyle's "French Revolution." When the Revolution was going forward, the Prime Minister of France, Vergennes, took his seat, and Carlyle says:
  "And now nothing but a solid phlegmatic M. de Vergennes sits there, in dull matter of fact, like some dull Public Clerk. In him is no remedy, only clerk-like despatch of business according to routine."
  That is what we say to-day of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Bill. In him is no remedy, and of his Bill we can say that it is at best only
  "clerk-like despatch of business according to routine."
  And forasmuch as I believe in the reality of Scottish sentiment, forasmuch as I believe the salvation of Scotland is to come neither through boards nor through Departments, but, by a national Scottish Parliament, I would scorn to vote for a paltry Measure of this kind as being of any value whatsoever. I would scorn to vote for a Measure which is really tinkering and trifling with what is, after all, the most urgent of the subjects we have in Scotland at the present time.
  Mr. KIDD: I wonder whether I do an injustice to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) if I discover that their opposition to this Bill is contradictory of their attitude in regard to Home Rule for Scotland. The hon. Member for Motherwell finished up his speech—a very impassioned speech for a Bill which he regards as so trifling—by saying that he wanted neither a board nor a Department, but nothing less than a Parliament for Scotland. Let us assume for a moment that he had his Parliament in Scotland. Let us assume that the hon. Member for Dundee had dissolved the union between England and Scotland. Would he then interject a board between the Secretary of State and his work?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Since the hon. Member asks me that question, may I answer that it is based on a false premise? I have never desired to dissolve. the union between the two countries.
  Mr. KIDD: Well, let us suppose there is a separate Parliament without dissolution. Would you, with a Secretary of State in Scotland, and under a Scottish Parliament, interject between that Secretary of State and his work anything in the nature of a board? If the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Motherwell got Home Rule for Scotland, would they not pursue exactly the same policy that the Minister is now following? [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] The Minister has told us the history of these boards in Scotland. I am quite prepared to admit that these boards represent a kind of compromise with the national spirit as represented particularly by the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment, and that they also have some relation to the difficulty of access between London and Edinburgh. What the Secretary of State now wants to do is to get rid of this board, to systematise the administration of public affairs, so that the administration of public work shall be in the hands of the Civil Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee—I think it is he—seemed to discover some contradiction between that action of the Minister and the Minister's opposition to. nationalisation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON indicated dissent.
  Mr. KIDD: Then it was the hon. Member for Motherwell. But surely there is all the difference in the world between committing the administration of national business into the hands of the Civil Service and committing the industries of this country into the hands of the Civil Service, seeing that those industries are in competition with other industries in the world. The hon. Member for Dundee, in speculating upon the results of this Bill, said that in all probability the Board of Agriculture would lose the Commissioner for Small Holdings. It has already lost the Commissioner for Small Holdings. Under the Act of 1911, the Board of Agriculture was allowed to have as one of its members a Commissioner for Small Holdings, but that was repealed by the Act of 1919.
  Mr. JAMES BROWN: You have some Commissioners.
  Mr. KIDD: The fear entertained by the hon. Member for Dundee is a needless fear, because already that fear has been realised for eight or nine years. Again, the hon. Member for Dundee remarked upon the anxiety which had been occasioned in legal circles by the concentration of those Departments which have a bearing on law. He referred us to the memorandum of the Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow in proof of what he was saying, but with all respect to them, their case against the Bill could not be a more slender one. it is contained in Clause 4 of the Memorandum:
  "IV. That long prior to 1868 the members of the Commissary Courts of Glasgow and certain other Courts in the County of Lanark have been united into the Petitioners' Faculty, and that your Petitioners' said Faculty was recognised and then privileges were allowed by the Commissaries of the said Courts, by the Sheriff of the County of Lanark and by the magistrates of the City of Glasgow and that their exclusive privileges of practising before every Court in Glasgow and certain other Courts in Lanark were recognised and confirmed by a Royal Charter in their favour … but the said exclusive privileges were superseded."
  The Faculty of Procurators seem to anticipate under this Bill, that the Commissary Court will be so affected as to diminish their exclusive privileges a little more. Observe what their exclusive privilege was:
  "The sole right of practising in the Courts of Glasgow and certain Courts in the County of Lanark.
  I begin to suspect that Glasgow, has flourished not merely by the preaching of the word, but by observing the wholesome rule of "keeping their ain fish guts for their ain sea maws." It is a very excellent rule. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would you translate it?"] No, I will not translate it.
  Mr. MAXTON: It sounds very vulgar to English ears.
  Mr. KIDD: Then it may be the sweeter to ours. I wish to point out that the case made by the Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow is really no case at all. They have a Charter. They are jealous of their rights under that old Charter. But most of those rights have gone, and in the rearrangement of the Commissary Courts it may be the last shred goes,
  284
  as already the substance of these exclusive privileges of theirs has gone. They have nothing substantial to fear under this Bill, and theirs is the only objection against the Bill from any legal body. If the whole of the profession in Scotland, the Society of Writers to the Signet, the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court, the Faculty of Advocates in Aberdeen and the Incorporated Law Society of Scotland, are silent, though everyone of them is intensely jealous of the privileges they enjoy, am I not entitled to argue that the legal profession of Scotland, almost in its entirety, approves of the action of the Secretary of State?
  What does the Secretary of State propose to do? He wants to harmonise the administration of public work. He wants to have the administration of public work put into the hands of trained civil servants. Who has any right to object to that oeing done? In combining the different registries, he is undoubtedly making for economy as well as for efficiency. The secret of the multiplication of these offices goes back to the old days. Those were the days when patronage was rampant. Every man wanted a little sop and one is surprised to find that this doctrine of patronage and nepotism finds its champions today not among the bloated Tories who are my friends, but in this new aristocracy represented by the Socialist party. In opposing the Bill on that particular head, they stand as the champions of nepotism and patronage, although I should have thought the effort of the Secretary of State to systematise the administration of our public work, by concentrating it more and more in the hands of trained civil servants, would have been most warmly supported, not on the benches from which I address the House, but on the benches opposite.
  As far as the question of legal offices is concerned, I am justified in what I have said by the fact that the overwhelming force of legal opinion in Scotland is entirely in favour of the action now being taken. The one exception is the Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow. I sympathise with the memorandum they have sent to us, I share their respect for these old charters which are jealously guarded, as they ought to be in Glasgow, but if one comes to analyse their case, one finds

  285
  nothing in it; their case really confirms the attitude of the bulk of the profession in taking no exception to the Bill. As to whether we do wisely in concentrating the whole administration of public business in the hands of civil servants, there may be two opinions. I have had some little experience of the Board of Health in Edinburgh, and I do not suppose that any country could have better service than it obtains from the various officials, medical, legal, enginneering and otherwise, supplied by that Board, but I still think there is a great deal to be said for our concentrating the administration of public service in the hands of the Civil Service.
  We have passed the age of maintaining opportunities for indulging in a little patronage in order to throw a scrap here and a scrap there. Any system which cultivates patronage is directly contrary to economy. We are getting rid of that system of patronage. The Secretary of State proposes to get rid of it, and while it is all a speculation as to whether economy will follow from this Bill or not, one is justified in saying that the system he is establishing is one whereby he is avoiding patronage and that should make for economy. The present system has lasted its day and generation, and I think we ought to congratulate the Secretary of State on taking the line he has done. The hon. Member for Motherwell made great fun of this as a sample of a first-rate Measure. I wonder what he would call a first-rate Measure. There is nothing more important than putting right the machinery of Government. We want to get the machine right at the start, and I think the Secretary of State for Scotland has shown that he has a fine methodical brain by the way he has proceeded. The right hon. Gentleman has begun in the right way to get the machine in order, and, once that is done, I think local government will be established on a more satisfactory basis.
  Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I intervene in this Debate, because I think it will be worth while to bring out one feature of the proposed change which has not been dealt with. I do not deprecate the importance of some of the views put forward in opposition to this Bill, although they are views which I do not always share. I want to emphasise one criticism which has not been mentioned. I am not going to undervalue the importance of efficiency in administration. I do not
  286
  doubt the argument that the best way to get that efficiency is by employing a permanent civil service, and we must select the best qualified men to fill the higher positions. I can understand having a single administrative chief to whom we can look for responsible advice and guidance, but I have no sympathy whatever with anything which would diminish the responsibility of the Minister for an absolute decision on every point.
  Therefore, if I say a word in favour of Boards, I must not be taken as saying a word in favour of the old-fashioned type of Boards or the kind advocated in some quarters of representative people who can advise the Minister and who act as a kind of screen. I have nothing to say in favour of Boards which are simply screens behind which the Minister can shelter himself when he wishes to avoid doing an unpopular thing that needs to be done. We do not want a Board that screens the Minister, but I ask the Government in carrying out this reform to consider very seriously the risk they may be running of providing no body upon which will be found various professional officers and civil servants who are there solely because of their professional qualifications. On the contrary, the Government should take care that in making these changes the expert advisers are not smothered and extinguished by the power of the single permanent head of a department—I refer particularly to medical experts, agricultural and educational experts and prison experts, whose advice and constant counsel are absolutely necessary for efficient administration. It is true that the Scottish Local Government Board was a Board, but not in the sense of a screen, or a representative body, or in the sense of being unpaid amateurs. It was a Board of civil servants, but there was a chief administrative officer, and there was a chief medical officer who was responsible. Besides those officers you had a legal member and an insurance member and other representatives. You had sitting on that Board a chairman who was the representative of the Minister, and a vice-chairman; they sat together with various professional officers, and they were able to see that whatever was necessary was done in accordance with the best expert knowledge, as well as with the best administrative knowledge.

  287
  That was a very good thing, and I think that some of the best deeds of the Local Government Board in the old days were due, not to, the perfect wisdom or genius of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary—I am not sure that you could credit those deeds to the gentleman who was a member of the Board by virtue of his administrative knowledge—but to the sanitary expert who was always there, and who was able to see that whatever was done was done in the light of his expert sanitary advice. There was a general Board of Health in England at one time, and it had its vicissitudes. There was a distinguished sanitarian at the head of the English Board who had one or two clerks under him, but there came a time when it was felt that there should be a Ministry of Health, and that was in 1869. A Royal Commission was appointed, and it recommended the establishment of a Ministry of Health, but the Government of that day said, "We cannot multiply Ministries, and we will turn the Poor Law Board into the Local Government Board, and attach the old remnant of the Board of Health to the Local Government Board." At that time Sir John Lambert laid down, very rightly, that it was absolutely necessary for administrative efficiency that the Minister should be advised by a single permanent head. The result was that Sir John Lambert became the Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Board.
  What happened? Sir John Simon, who had been previously carrying out the sanitary work, found that under that regime there was no place for a chief medical officer; he was relegated to the position of consultant, and they asked his advice whenever the Secretariat thought that expert advice was required. They did this without referring to the chief medical officer. Frequently unwise decisions were taken in the absence of the chief medical officer. That kind of thing went on under the English Local Government Board and a succession of chief medical officers was treated in the same way, and ending up with Sir Arthur Newsholme. Besides this, in the English Local Government Board there has been a succession of important engineers. There is no question of substituting a representative Board for civil servants, but there is more than one kind of civil servant. You have a permanent head,
  288
  and what is proposed may involve the exclusion, or at least. the subordination, of a number of professional civil servants, medical, educational, agricultural, prison experts and engineering experts. You want somehow or other to solve the problem of how to mitigate the bureaucratic view of your secretariat by the expert advice of your professional men. In the Scottish Local Government Board they did that. They managed to make their board consist of public officers and civil servants, with these professional experts sitting with the secretariat.
  If the Secretary of State for Scotland forms his Department in the way he wishes, let him consider how he can ensure that he has sitting with him experts in all the things I have mentioned. It was the glory of the Scottish Local Government Board that they had that kind of procedure. The Scottish Local Government Board has passed away, and the Scottish Board of Health also seems destined to pass away. The right hon. Gentleman wants a permanent single adviser, and he wants the effective administration to be in the hands of civil servants, but they should not be of one kind. You must have more than one kind of civil servant, and you must arrange for them to come in at the right moment. In one Government Department in England—I will not mention its name—that kind of Board is very much needed. The Minister in the Department to which I have alluded has created a council of heads of departments, and they discuss in his presence every single proposal which the Office has to make. In that way the Minister, with his Under-Secretary and the permanent head, are able to afford an opportunity to the legal man, and the medical man, and all the various technical experts of the Department, so that they are able to see that nothing is proposed in any one part of the Department without their being able to advise upon it.
  If this Board is to pass away, I venture to think that it ought to be replaced by such a council as I have mentioned. which the Minister would be able to meet, so that he would have the opportunity of getting expert criticism of any proposals that might be made. You do not merely want the civil service: you want a little more. I understand that the Fisheries Board is to remain, because it is felt that it is able to keep usefully in

  289
  touch with all the experts and interests concerned. Is it not possible to set up advisory councils in the other Departments which could be consulted if desired? Let me say, however, that no advisory council of non-civil servants can possibly replace the skilled advice of the professional civil servant at the formative moment when proposals are being considered. I should be sorry if my advocacy of advisory councils were taken to mean that such councils could be a substitute for the council of heads of departments. You want your council of heads of departments, as well as your single administrative head and an advisory council.
  I venture to think that it would be a mistake to substitute simply and solely a permanent Civil Service departmental head for the various boards which now exist. The Bill seems to me to err, not because it gets rid of an antiquated machinery, and, least of all, because it, gets rid of a lot of titles and separate offices in the various legal Departments, but because, unless the Minister takes steps which experience has shown to be necessary, it is likely to subordinate in an altogether improper way these other kinds of civil servants—medical, insurance, engineering, educational, agricultural, prison—all of whom have a range of knowledge and experience which the ordinary administrative secretariat cannot possibly have. I make this criticism, not out of any hostility to the Bill, although I agree with some of the arguments which my Scottish friends have put forward so eloquently, but by way of suggesting that it is possible to avoid the mistake which has certainly been made in England, and which, by a happy accident, Scotland has avoided.
  Mr. MACQU1STEN: I was rather surprised at the way in which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) denounced this Bill. In a sense, it is not a Bill of first-class importance, but some of the matters with which it deals go very deep down into Scottish administrative life. The hon. Member for Motherwell talked about what was going to happen to the Scottish Board of Agriculture, but, as far as I can see, not very much change will be made in it, and, indeed, if any change is going to be made in regard to that Department,
  290
  it must almost necessarily be a change for the better. If anyone wants an opinion with regard to the Scottish Board of Agriculture, he should go to the Highlands, where, if it were not for the innate politeness of the Highland people, the opinions he would hear would be almost unparliamentary.
  With regard to the Prison Commission, the gentlemen named by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) were, as he says, all very competent, and I think that in the main they were unpaid. I do not think that very much change is going to be made in regard to that part of the administration. The really important part of these proposals is that which relates to the Registers. The hon. Member for Motherwell poured great scorn upon that Department, but, after all, the Register of Sasines deals with all the heritable property in Scotland, and is, perhaps, one of the most important Registers in the Kingdom. It has existed for hundreds of years, and is really one of the very best kept Registers. The question as to who should have charge of that Register is a very important one.
  This Bill really carries out what was arranged with the Treasury in the time of the Coalition Government, namely, the dropping the office of Deputy Clerk Register. Clause 4 says that:
  "The present vacancy in the office of Deputy Clerk Register shall not he supplied."
  One would almost think that it was a vacancy in the Church. I believe it was arranged, in the time of the Coalition Government, that the Deputy Clerk Register was to disappear altogether, so that, each part of the Register was to be left more or less without a unifying head. It is all to the credit of the present Secretary of State for Scotland that he has resurrected the Deputy Clerk Register, although, for the sake, perhaps, of saving the face, as they say in China, of his predecessors, that official is now to be called the Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland. Practically, he will be an official doing the same business as the Deputy Clerk Register. There is only this to be said that perhaps he has a little too much put upon him. A Memorandum has been issued by the Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow, a very capable and able body of legal practitioners, and they take the

  291
  view—a very sound view, which is shared by the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh —that the custody of the records and the searching of the records should not be entrusted to the same office which does the copying, because in that case a check upon the accuracy of the Registers would be lost, and the entire system under which the Register House has been conducted in the past would be departed from.
  I am sorry to see that, typewriting is coming to be adopted in copying these documents, in place of the beautiful handwriting in which they used to be written. This copying by hand used to be done by piecework, and it was very lucrative. I remember getting one man, who was only receiving £60 a year in a law office, to do this work, and on piecework he was able to make as much as £300 a year at writing these documents in most beautiful handwriting. I am sorry to see that the place of that is being taken by the cruder system of typewriting, which I am sure will not produce such satisfactory results. It would be far better that the keeping and searching of the deeds should be entrusted to one office, and the copying to another, because then, naturally, the one checks the other. The new proposal is like a man passing judgment on his own doings, and it seems to me to be a more or less retrograde step.
  I see, also, that a change is made in Clause 5 of the Bill. Under 42 & 43 Vict., cap. 44, the King appointed the Deputy Clerk Register, but I find that Clause 5 of this Bill provides that:
  "It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to appoint a Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland."
  Why is it changed from the King to the Secretary of State? Is it because it is thought to be a less clumsy method, or is it to diminish the dignity of the appointment, or is it that there is more patronage, or what is it? I do not suppose that there is a great deal in it, but it seems curious that such a change should be made. Again, Clause 7 provides that:
  "It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State by order to direct that the office of Director of Chancery shall be discontinued, and to provide for the exercise and performance of any powers and duties of the said Director by the Keeper of the Registers
  292
  and Records of Scotland, the Principal Extractor of the Court of Session, the Sheriff Clerk of Chancery, or the sheriff clerks of counties in such manner as may seem expedient to him after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session."
  It seems to me rather unusual merely to say:
  "after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session."
  I should have thought it ought to be:
  "after consultation with and consent of the Lord President, of the Court of Session."
  Otherwise, there is nothing to ensure that the Secretary of State is to abide by any advice that the Lord President of the Court of Session gives, and I suggest, as a Committee point, that the word "consent" might be inserted.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is the hon. and learned Member proposing that the Lord President of the Court of Session should be dominant over the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: No; but I say that, if the Lord President is to be consulted, his consent ought to be taken in the matter of the disposal of offices. It seems to me that a mere consultation would be a kind of idle ceremony.
  Mr. MAXTON: That means that the chairman of the legal trade union is to tell the Secretary of State for Scotland what he is to do.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: If he were accurately described as the chairman of a trade union, I should have thought that was a thing that was likely to commend the suggestion to the whole of the Opposition Benches, because I have seen the chairman of the Trades Union Council seeking to dictate to the King, to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, to the Commons in Parliament assembled, and also to the people of this country. That, however, is a minor matter. Again, we find that the Deputy Clerk Register had a salary, fixed by Statute, of £1,200 a year, but we now find, in Clause 5 of this Bill, that he is to receive, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may fix. We are putting into the hands of the Treasury here in London the question of what, is to be the salary of this important office, and I rather think that that, again, is derogating a little from the right of Scotland. We ought, whatever

  293
  we are going to call the Deputy Clerk Register, to have adhered to the original provision. It strikes me that here we are giving in a little to the Treasury.
  7.0 p.m.
  I suspect that this Bill is really directed to some extent to economising. I am quite ready to economise up to a point provided that in regard to our Scottish records it shows a profit. In England, the record system costs the nation £36,000 according to one method of computation, and £61,000 according to another, whereas the record system of Scotland shows an actual profit to the Treasury, whatever method of computation is adopted. They want to make more and, therefore, I would enter a caveat to the Secretary for Scotland that Scotland should get the benefit of whatever saving may occur in some way or other—in improved administration, for example—and it must not merely go to the Treasury. Then, again, in Section 10 there is another provision which provides that the appointment of an Assistant Extractor and of Clerks is to be vested in the Secretary of State. Formerly it was vested in the heads of Departments. That may be more in accordance with custom, but that, again, is giving more patronage in some of the ancient offices to the Secretary for Scotland. On the whole, although I quite agree that, it is not a Measure which strikes the popular imagination, I believe it is going to be for the efficiency of the conduct of Scottish affairs, and in some respects it is desirable. The Bill ought, therefore, to meet with the approval of Scottish Members.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House made a statement which was not consistent with his usual power of reasoning. He seemed to have very strong objection to giving to the chairman of a trade union with approximately 200 members power which he would deny to the President of the Trade Union Congress having 6,000,000 members.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Look at the value of the 200!
  Mr. WHEATLEY: If one were to judge their comparative values by their incomes, I admit that the Faculty for which the hon. Member speaks so eloquently are more valuable than miners, but I am
  294
  quite sure that if the country had to go through a crisis in which it had to choose for real values between that Faculty and the people represented by the Trade Union Congress, then the Faculty for the moment would be thrown overboard. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) who spoke from the same bench accused the Members who sit on these benches as being the champions of patronage. If we are, we have been singularly free from any opportunities of displaying it. During the very brief opportunity we had, I do not think you will find much evidence of that love of placing our friends in permanent positions which is implied in the accusation, but it is remarkable that, just as we are approaching the time when it would be possible to prove champions of patronage, and when the power is obviously slipping from the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party, it is then you bring forward a Bill to prevent selection when selection might mean the selection of practical people, and you thus place these rich positions in the hands of the class who can afford to send their sons to Oxford and Cambridge.
  One's attitude towards this Bill is determined to some extent by one's view on the function of government. If one believes that the function of government is merely to interfere in the details of prison administration, or agriculture or matters of public health, then it matters very little whether you run the Government by a Board or in the manner proposed in this Bill. These are details that might very well be left to Boards. The real function of a Government is to develop its country in such a way as to give to its people the greatest opportunities of rising to a decent standard of life. I submit that the principle of this Bill is opposed to all modern tendencies. The whole tendency, both in private capitalism and in national or civic administration, is in the direction of co-ordination. What would one think to-day of the railway company that would propose to abolish its board of directors and put all the power in the hands of departments, as is proposed here? That would be a reversal of modern policy, a step backward to the old times when the industries were run by irresponsible individuals. We have moved away from that to the modern method of placing it in the hands of a

  295
  board of directors selected because of their display of capacity. In future we may expect that agriculture in Scotland will be under the control of a Government clerk, a man who has demonstrated during 20 years of faithful Civil Service his capacity for working out costs and for doing the general work of administration. Under the system you have today, the Secretary of State for Scotland can select a capable farmer, a man who has displayed not a knowledge of clerical work but a knowledge of agriculture, and make that man his adviser in dealing with the national administration of agriculture.
  Might I ask the Secretary for Scotland in what Clause of the Bill it is provided that these Departments which he is about to set up will be under the Secretary of State for Scotland? I notice that the first Clause says that these Departments will be set up: a Department of Health for Scotland, a Department of Agriculture for Scotland, and a Prisons Department for Scotland, acting under the control and direction of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. I may be wrong, but there does not seem to me to be anything in these words to prevent the Department of Health being co-ordinated with the Ministry of Health in England, or the Prisons Department being put under the appropriate Department in England, or the Department of Agriculture being put under the Ministry of Agriculture. I may be entirely wrong, but one is more entitled to examine these Bills carefully, as we have spent this aftrenoon dealing with the blunders in former Bills dealing with Scotland. It may be that this is the ordinary form of words, but I should like to be assured by the right hon. Gentleman that when he puts words in a Bill providing that these Departments are to be under one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, that that necessarily means the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I was saying that this Bill is contrary to all modern tendencies. Take the tendency in Government Departments. Quite recently we have been dealing in this House with broadcasting, with electricity and with cables. We have had to set up fresh schemes of administration to deal with these important proposals, but
  296
  the Government for which the right hon. Gentleman speaks to-night did not set up a chief of a Department. They appointed, instead, highly paid Commissioners to deal with these subjects. They set up Commissioners to deal with electricity; they set up a Board of Commissioners to deal with broadcasting and they did exactly the same with cables. Will he explain to the House why the system which has now been adopted by the Government in relation to these affairs, has been quite reversed in Scotland? However much he may make of the little sentiment in regard to Scottish administration and Scottish affairs, that sentiment still exists, and if anyone cares to look back to the time when the Board of Health was set up, he will find that it was a concession to Scottish sentiment and the wish that in future the powers of the Board would be extended, rather than that the Board should be abolished altogether and its existing limited powers transferred to Whitehall.
  The only justification so far laid down for this attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards Scotland is that he wants to get the very best men to administer Scottish affairs. That seems a confession that he feels that he cannot get the best men under the present system for the administration of Scottish affairs, that agriculture in Scotland cannot be trusted to the trained agriculturists of Scotland, that you must go to Oxford or Cambridge for them. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman goes to Glasgow he will be able to justify that to the people of Scotland who still retain very strongly some of that national sentiment. His objection to a Board was that it gave him a majority report or decision, and the minority report. I could not help thinking that his objection to majority rule was not so much that it was a majority, but because the majority so seldom agreed with him. He found, with his reactionary mind, when he went to experienced and practical people dealing with public health and other questions, that they would very seldom accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He detests majorities of experts. He does not like them, and says they are not to be trusted. What he wants is the one-man group, and no doubt at the back of his mind was the idea that the one man was himself. He did not want any intrusion, by those people who understood

  297
  public health, or agriculture or other Departments. He did not want them to be coming to a decision by a majority which was contrary to the decision at which he would arrive with his limited knowledge of affairs over which he presided.
  That is not good enough for Scotland. Scotland wants the best administration. Scotland wants to have its work done by experts, and that is the proper way to carry on any business. With all due respect to Parliament, to the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else, our safest line of policy is—and I am sure it is the one that will be adopted by the Socialist party—that, having made up your mind in favour of State administration of any Department, you then select, the men best fitted for running that particular Department. You do not go to look for men who have graduated at Oxford and spent 20 years at a desk to guide you in the running of agriculture or public health. You would go to the experienced agriculturists; you would go to the men who had devoted their lives to the study and administration of public health. But the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to all that. He wants to take the administration of Scotland into his hands and to ask the House to believe that he and he only is competent to run the country. It would not be in any way a lowering of his dignity or anything of that kind to admit that he does not know everything, and that there are experts in Scotland who know as much about agriculture as any man who has been trained at Oxford or Cambridge. He is pursuing a wrong course in getting back to the old one-man policy and the idea of having the details of important Departments settled in this House instead of setting this House free to face the bigger problems that confront the nation, and relegating it to boards of experts to carry out the policy on which we are already agreed.
  Mr. J. BROWN: I intervene in the Debate for a few moments because I do not want to give a silent vote. I can only corroborate what has been already said regarding our fears of the proposed legislation. I am not quite sure where the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) stands regarding this Bill for he speaks with two voices and one does not know exactly how far he will
  298
  support these benches in resisting the Bill. If he were the thorough paced Scotsman he claims to be, he would be supporting those who are against the Bill. There was nothing whatever in the argument of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd). I was afraid to meddle in a Debate like this, but after I had listened to him I gained courage because I understood that, although I said nothing at all relevant to the Bill, I should be on common ground with the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) also contributed to the Debate. He knows more about these things in his little finger than I do altogether, but he cannot argue a case like this with the vigour or the enthusiasm that a Scotsman ought to argue when he sees Scotland being Anglicised. We are being so much Anglicised that we shall soon not have a remnant of the old legislation on which we used to pride ourselves. I am going to touch on the three offices which are to be reorganised and made Departments. The Board of Fisheries is being left as it is, I presume, because it makes for economy.
  The Memorandum claims that there will be both economy and efficiency. I am sure it will neither be economical nor efficient if this Bill goes through, because where is the economy to come from, and where are we to have more efficient administrators of our affairs in Scotland than the men who are at present at the head of those offices? There is a good deal in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). How would it be possible for a man, trained probably at the desk for a long time, however great his learning might be, to administer efficiently the Board of Agriculture? Surely the trained men are the men who ought to be at the head of these affairs. We have no guarantee that the head of the Department would know very much about agriculture. He would be selected probably because of his place in the examination lists, and I do not think that would conduce to a better state of agriculture. Judging from what we have got in the way of small holdings, I am afraid we should not be any worse off under the proposed new regime than we have been under the old. It is just possible that the Sub-Commissioners of Small Holdings and the rest of it have

  299
  been far too energetic and far too much in favour of extending the system of small holdings to meet the view of the Secretary of State. That I do not know, but I know there is a far better chance if we keep as a Board rather than as a Department. After all, the Board is the democratic thing, and surely if the members of the Board are to discuss the policy regarding either fisheries or agriculture or the Prison Commissioners or the Board of Health, we are more likely to get at the truth as to what ought to be done for Scotland than we are under the single head proposed to be set up in those various Departments.
  I was saying just now there is to be no change in the Fishery Board. I rather think that is a mistake. There is to be a change. The chairman is not to exist as he exists at present, but it is to be a legal gentleman, and the Board is to remain there because they give their services gratuitously. I thought the chairman was in the same position, and he is a legal gentleman, too. [Interruption.] I understand the Sheriff Principal of Ayrshire is head of the Fishery Board. However, I stand corrected. In any case, I do not see why the Prison Commissioners and the Board of Health and the Board of Agriculture should not he left, just as the Board of Fisheries is being left. There is surely some chance of getting efficient administration and there will surely be a chance of the Secretary of State getting sounder advice from his Board than he would get from any head of any Department he might be able to set up. It may be said patronage will be abolished, and there will be no more nepotism if we get those Departments, but I am none too sure of that. The right hon. Gentleman could devise means of still keeping up patronage. I am not sure that they would abolish patronage by setting up these Departments. In any case, whether we abolish it or not, after all it is efficiency we want also, and we claim that under the present system, at any rate, we are more likely to get efficiency than we have been in the past. I know some members of the Board of Agriculture and of the Board of Health and of the Prison Commissioners, and I do not know that we should be more efficiently governed by any Department
  300
  that could be set up than we are by the present occupants of those offices.
  I wanted to raise my voice against the anglicising of our national institutions. We shall soon not have a vestige left. I do not understand the point of view of Scotsmen who support this Bill. Has Scotland been inefficiently governed in the past? Have we not, without any offence to English, Irish or Welsh Members, been in the vanguard in many of the things which have made this Empire great? We have, and why we should now be tagged on to the tail of England I do not know. Although I talk about Home Rule for Scotland, I should only be voicing a good deal of the opinion of the citizens of Scotland. Sentiment rules a great deal. It is thought by the Sassenach that a Scotsman has no sentiment whatever. We are very sentimental concerning these things, but along with our sentimentality there is a hardheaded knowledge behind it all that we are better governed by the present system that we should be by the system that is proposed to be introduced. For these reasons I would oppose the Bill. I do not know whether our opposition gill meet with the success we deserve, but at least we will deserve success if we are not able to command it, and I trust many more Scottish Members will, like the hon. Member for Argyll, damn the Bill with faint praise, because after all no one can be expected to speak either eloquently or at any length on a Bill such as this. The right hon. Gentleman has no case, and he knows that he has no case. He knows he is going against the sentiment of the whole Scottish nation. He knows we want to retrieve what we have left of nationality. There is only one good thing in the Bill that I can see. If it passes there will be a bigger cry than ever for Scottish Home Rule, so that out of the evil that we see to-night good may probably come. Let us have Scottish Home Rule by all means, and I know many English Members would be prepared to see us away altogether, at least so they say. It is a tribute to Scottish worth. It is a tribute to the way we have been able to govern our country. The overplus of the governing ability in Scotland has come over the border in order to keep the Empire going, and in order that the British Empire, as governed by this Mother of Parliaments, is

  301
  governed in the right way. I hope every Scotsman will speak and vote against the Bill.
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Scrymgeour.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now react a Second time."
  Mr. LAMB: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
  In moving the Amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey), I should like to say, first of all, that my opposition is not actuated by any feeling whatsoever of animus against the railway companies. My opposition is based upon apprehensions which are very genuine and which, I believe, I shall be able to show to be very well founded. Before going further I wish to pay my meed of respect to the railway companies for what they have done, not only in this country, but elsewhere, in the development of the country. Since the advent of steam, undoubtedly, railway companies have done a great deal to develop and extend the usefulness of our nation at home and abroad. When we have said that, it does not entitle us to give the railways all they ask without giving full and due consideration to what they are asking us to give them.
  Let me refer very briefly to the flood of literature which I, and, no doubt, most Members of the House have been receiving. Shareholders, of course, are acting within their rights in communicating with their Members of Parliament, but I am afraid that many of those who have written to us, or rather—for there is very little of it in their own handwriting—those who have sent us printed matter which has been supplied to them by others, have done so with very little thought of what that printed matter
  302
  really meant, or of what was the other side of the question. At all events, this literature has come, and we have to give due consideration to it. But there are others who have seen us, and some of them have given reasons for asking us to support this Bill. I will be very brief about this, and will only take two communications. One asks me to be fair and generous to the railway companies. I hope that anything I say or anything that this House may do will be fair, but when they ask us to be generous, it is a very different thing. To be generous at the expense of the rights of others will certainly not be legitimate. Therefore, I cannot agree to the suggestion of being generous in all circumstances, although I would always wish to be fair.
  Another reason given to me while I was coming to London, was that if it were not for the railway companies I should not be able to come to London. That was on Monday morning. My reply to that was that if it were not for agriculture and trade and industry, the railways would not be there for me to travel by. I think that is a very conclusive reply. Undoubtedly the benefit is mutual, and one which has to be considered in a mutual atmosphere. Another statement has been made to me that the reason we ought to give very due, if not undue, consideration to the railways is that a great deal of money is invested in the railways, and that they were in existence before road transport. They might have been there before organised road transport, but they were not there before the old stage coach. That was road transport, and it disappeared. We have also to remember that the canals were there before the railway companies —and where are the canals? I would like to read something which a Commission said of the canals. The Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways in their final report issued in 1909 said:
  "The railways had defeated canal competition by the purchase of links in a through system of navigation and the discouragement of through traffic, and they referred to accusation brought against the railway companies of neglecting to repair their own canals and thus suppressing, traffic. They pointed out that Parliament, in many cases, had endeavoured to annex conditions to the amalgamations of railways and canals compelling railway companies to maintain their canals in an efficient condition and keep them free and open for traffic, but that these conditions had not

  303
  been effective since such obligations can be more easily evaded than enforced, and, in short, that it is difficult to make a company maintain an effectual competition with itself."
  I hope that we shall bear in mind the statement made by that Commission, because I shall refer to it at a later stage. I do not think, perhaps, all of us realise that a great deal of the difficulty of the railways has been caused by an economic condition having arisen owing to the invention of the internal combustion engine. Other industries, particularly the primary industries, have found that, owing to conditions which were created by the War, and which have remained with us, and also other conditions such as improved transport, they have had to adapt themselves to those new conditions. I cannot help thinking that the railway companies will have to do the same. I know they are doing so to a certain extent, and it is very much better that they should continue on that line rather than come here and ask us to give them powers additional to those they possess with a view to further protecting their position. We have to remember that the big industry of agriculture is to-day certainly undergoing very great trials which are admitted by all to be very largely due to the change in circumstances, and particularly to a change in forms of transport—not only internal transport, but in the facilities which transport now gives for the importation of foodstuffs from other countries. There is no protection given to agriculturists against this new form of transport. Railways are talking about wanting further facilities to enable them to protect themselves against the new form of road transport in respect of the internal combustion engine.
  There is also the great industry of coal. We are constantly telling the colliers and the coalowners that they must co-ordinate and do everything they possibly can, that they must paddle their own canoe and adapt themselves to the new conditions. If we ask agriculture and coal and other industries to do this, why should we not ask railway companies to do the same? We must remember that when we talk of industry it includes not only the capitalist but the worker, and the effect which it will have on the worker in this case is very great. Why should the worker in one of these unsheltered industries be compelled
  304
  to maintain those engaged in the sheltered industries? If increased rates come about, they will undoubtedly have to be paid by industry, and that means that they will be paid in part by the workers. If out of the unsheltered trades you have to provide something further to entrench those who are in sheltered or semi-sheltered trades, it will be a very great hardship.
  One finds oneself in a somewhat more difficult position with a Bill of this description than if it were introduced at the Treasury Box. I have no complaint to make about the very admirable speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Bill. It was brief and terse and did not lead to much argument. It was simply "I move," and there is not much that one can say about such a speech. We are thrown back upon the fact that we have to consider the Bill just as it is presented or in the light of what has been written and circulated to us. We have not had an opportunity of hearing the personal views of those who are promoting the Bill as to its interpretation and so on. We are somewhat handicapped as compared with what would have been the case if somebody at the outset had explained what were the views of the promoters with regard to the provisions of the Bill. I am compelled, as I have already suggested, to rely very largely upon what has been written about it.
  I propose to refer to two statements made by Sir Josiah Stamp. I take it that no one will question his right to speak for the railways, and, consequently, whatever he says I am entitled to view as being said with authority. At the annual meeting of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company he expressed this view with regard to the Bill:
  "The company seek powers to provide passenger and goods services on the publicly-owned roads in any district to which access is afforded to their systems either by themselves or by agreement with other road users, and this Bill enables them to apply their funds for the purposes of such services and agreements in the interests of the general public and of the railway shareholders."
  I suppose that one of the chief duties or necessities of the general public is cheap transport. Let me read what the companies said:
  "If the nation is to obtain the cheapest possible form of transport, and this is one of the first needs of the country, it is essential

  305
  that the railways should have powers to operate road vehicles as part of their organisation."
  This appeared in the "Railway Gazette" of the 27th January, 1928. There is another statement on the same point which I should like to read. I would, however, like to point out, first of all, that although the railways have full and unrestricted powers to operate road vehicles for purposes of their statutory business, they are now claiming freedom to embark upon an entirely new business. We have to remember that they are also claiming liberties to finance it out of the great resources of their railway finances. That is a very important point. They say they are not allowed to compete. I say that they are already competing; they can, and they do. They have no fewer than 35,000 vehicles on the roads to-day. Though they are very largely horse-drawn vehicles, they are on the roads and they are there for the purpose of their legitimate business. Of those 35,000 vehicles, 4,000 are motor vehicles. While they have powers in connection with their business to utilise the roads to the full, they have not the powers to embark upon an entirely new business. I do not think that they should be given the right to do so. Their road transport in connection with their business is losing money at the present time. The railways have lost £3,000,000 upon this section of their work, and we have to remember that the public pay for that because it is taken into consideration by the Railway Rates Tribunal when they are fixing the rates. The railway companies have concessions made to them when the rates become operative, in consideration of the fact that this sum of £3,000,000 has been lost, and that they anticipate losing it again in the current year. If these road services which the railway companies now run cannot be run at a profit, I do not see that they have the right to ask us to increase their facilities for losing money.
  In regard to the new powers for which they ask, we might ask them whether they wish to run long journeys on the roads. If they say, "No," I do not see how they will cheapen transport. It is admitted by the railway companies and by everybody that cheap transport is the great desideratum for the public. If, on the other hand, they say that they do wish to run long journeys, my reply is
  306
  that they will only further deplete the amount of traffic which is run at the present time upon the railways. We are told by the railway companies that these new proposals are made because they are going to co-ordinate. What do they mean by co-ordination? I have a very grave doubt that when they use the word "co-ordination" they mean that they are going to get rid of competition, and that is what we are afraid of. We have to remember that if, temporarily, industry is given a lower rate, that is no advantage whatever. It is no advantage to industry if they accept a rate for traffic, temporarily, and eventually, when competition has been killed, the rate is raised, and they are permanently saddled with the higher rate. Therefore, we must not allow ourselves to be misled by the suggestion that this movement by the railways for road transport may lead to lower rates. We must be sure that those lower rates are going to be continued and that the competition which has caused those lower rates is not going to be removed.
  On the subject of competition, the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has referred to wasteful competition, and to co-ordination as a means of getting rid of it. I think everybody would agree that anything wasteful ought to be eliminated. We would agree to the elimination of wasteful competition, even on the railways. But all competition is not wasteful, by a long way. I can give three instances where the agriculturists, in particular—I am speaking not only for agriculture but for very large industries as well—were favourably affected by competition. There was an instance, not very long ago, where, because the agriculturists could point to cheaper sea transport than railway transport, considerable concessions were given to them in the transport of Scottish seed potatoes from Scotland to England. Agriculturists appreciate the migration of Scottish seed to England, perhaps more than we do Scottish migration in other respects. In the second instance, an application was made for exceptional rates by the railway companies. On 13th February, 1928, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, the London and North Eastern Railway, the Great Western Railway and the Cheshire Lines Committee applied

  307
  to the Railway Rates Tribunal to sanction a number of exceptional rates from 40 to 75 per cent. below standard charges. Their representative said:
  "These rates are all desired in order to meet road competition, or practically all of them are desired to meet road competition. Road competition has offered the trader a more economical proposition than the present railway rates, and, in view of the commercial officers, it is necessary for these rates to be brought into operation in order to give us an opportunity to meet the road competition."
  There, we have an instance of the benefit to the agriculturist of having road competition with the railways, and not being subject to a monopoly or to the competition having been removed. Does anyone seriously believe that the object of the railway companies in seeking to establish a new business is to intensify competition with their railway business? Nobody would believe that they wish to do so. Then there is the question of milk. Many milk producers were only able to secure reduction of railway rates by showing the railway companies that they could send more cheaply by road, and by agreement with the railway companies the charges for carrying milk have in many cases been considerably lowered, not only to the advantage of the farmer but to the great advantage of the consumers of milk. Then there is the question of fruit. I am speaking for the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades Associations, which represents 5,000 wholesale distributors of fruit and vegetables. I have a letter from the association, in which they say:
  "The Measure will result in the removal of competition, and we maintain that that competition is necessary as a safeguard to the public interest. In the past as a result of railway monopoly the fruit trade has suffered through inefficient and over-costly services. The lever provided by the development of free competitive road transport has already effected some improvement under both headings, and this tendency to improvement, we fear, would be threatened if the Measure became law. It is suggested that railway transport has already become less efficient through the reduction in competition among the railway companies themselves, under the grouping system. The Measure now presented undoubtedly tends to reduce still further the possibility of competition in transport, and would, in fact, render possible the creation of a still greater monopoly, thus removing the principal incentive to efficiency."
  308
  I will not read more of the letter, but it gives an indication of the fear of those who are engaged in the fruit trade.
  There is another aspect of the question, and that is that the new modes of road transport which have been established are not of a nature similar to that which has been or can be supplied by the railway companies. It is what is generally known as the door-to-door transport. The railway companies will never get back the door-to-door transport. I have in my constituency men who are employed on the railway, who have a free pass on the railway, but they do not travel by the railway. When they leave their work they get on to an omnibus, which takes them to their own door, whereas if they went by the railway they would have to walk a considerable distance home at the other end. Therefore, it must be realised that the traffic which has been developed by the road transport companies is a new service from door-to-door which never will, under any circumstances, be brought back to the railways, and it is not desirable that it should be.
  This door-to-door transport is very important for trade. I am old enough to remember the time when in the thickly-populated area of North Staffordshire the whole of the provisions were brought down from Liverpool by the railway. The man in business requiring hams, bacon, or anything of that description had to buy anywhere from 10 days to a fortnight ahead, before he required the goods for his business to ensure having them in time, because of the period it took for railway transport. To-day, the man in business can sit in his office at, say, five o'clock in the evening and can telephone through to the merchants in Liverpool, and can have the goods on his doorstep by nine or 10 o'clock next morning. The railways cannot do that, simply because the new method of transport has eliminated a great deal of hand labour in regard to transhipment. That is a very great advantage to traders, because not only does it mean that the business man can take advantage of the market by buying when the markets are suitable, but in not having to buy so long ahead in order to keep his shop supplied he can work his shop on very much less capital. These benefits are not simply going to the transport companies, but also to the

  309
  traders. The interest of the traders are as much affected as the interests of one class of transport and another. I have dealt with the question of unsheltered and sheltered trades, and will say no more on that subject.
  With regard to co-ordination, I am afraid that this Bill will lead, not to co-ordination, but to the elimination of competition. I would like to read the theoretical expression in regard to co-ordination of those who are putting forward this Bill. I again refer to Sir Josiah Stamp. In the same Report from which I have already quoted, he said:
  "Most people agree that transport by road and rail requires co-ordination in the public interest, and that the most economic combination of these two means for each particular set of circumstances must be discovered and made available. Now the road transport people with no railway control or interests cannot achieve this, but the railways, by extending their use of road vehicles, will he able to explore its possibilities and afford a service. An outside authority without financial responsibility could not dragoon the two elements into economic fusion."
  Not a good word "dragoon!" I do not know whether Sir Josiab Stamp intended us to take that word without examining it. It did not sound very nice. I consulted Webster to see what Webster said about it. He says that "to dragoon" is
  "To compel or attempt to compel to submission by violent measures; to harass and to persecute."
  Sir Josiah Stamp let light into his ideas of co-ordination. I do not know whether it is an idea which we shall accept. It seemed to me that there was not much sunlight in it; I would rather say that it was all moonshine and no sunlight. That is the theoretical view which he set forth. I have a letter which will give some idea of what has been the practical result of co-ordination from the railway standpoint. It is a letter from a large motor transport company. It says:
  "Details of experience in co-ordination In 1924, the Omnibus Owners' Association called the attention of the Great Western Railway to the fact that they were running an omnibus service for which they have had no legal power, in the opinion of the association. The railway company replied that, notwitnstanding that perhaps they had no legal power, they were not prepared to drop the service."
  The Canal Commission said in their Report that it was almost impossible to put in safeguards which you could
  310
  make a railway company observe. I have quoted an instance of that.
  8.0 p.m.
  The railway company were nut prepared to drop their services; but would be prepared to discuss with various omnibus companies the question of co-ordination or working agreements. Some omnibus companies refused; others, including this one, agreed to negotiate. The result was an agreement covering those parts of North Wales in which the Great Western Railway Company operate, particularly in the littoral between Carnarvon and Cardigan. Great detail was gone into, but the following are extracts of important parts of the arrangement.
  I wish the House to pay particular attention to these three extracts:
  "(a) Neither company shall provide omnibus services over routes allocated to the other."
  There is no competition in that.
  "(b) The omnibus company shall not institute new services which compete with the Great Western Company's line of railway."
  That is eliminating competition.
  "(c) Between Aberystwyth and Cardigan (where there is no railway) the railway company fares not to be lower than the existing omnibus company fares, and if either party wishes higher or lower fares, this to be done in agreement with each other."
  I have one or two notes on the second and last extract. The note on the second extract is this:
  "(b) In connection with the second of these, several new routes could have been opened, but we were barred from doing it, and the railway company naturally would not, as they wished to keep all traffic on their railway. We were the only alternative people who could have opened the new routes, the capital required being too much for small man."
  "(c) In connection with the last of these, frequent applications have been made by us to the railway company for a reduction in fares, owing to the poorness of the people concerned, and for revision from time to time. These have always been refused, the contention of the railway company being that if lower fares were put on, the route would lose money."
  This company was prepared to run on lower fares, but they were not allowed to do so because of this co-ordination which has eliminated competition.
  "The route is 40 miles long and covers a district where the people cannot afford to pay high fares, and there is no other way of travelling."

  311
  This is a district where the workers are in the primary industries and are not in a position to pay high fares. The omnibus company were willing to run at low fares, but the railway company would not allow them to do so.
  "This company's omnibuses and the railway company's omnibuses run over exactly the same route for the whole distance. We commenced it first, and they followed some months afterwards. This agreement was come to because the railway company intended running on most of our routes there; and said providing we agree to certain terms, which included the above, they would refrain."
  They have threatened these people in order to make them come to this so-called co-ordinating agreement.
  "We are thus barred from the opening of new routes, and cannot reduce the fares on the existing routes where both companies run omnibuses, under the threat of further competition."
  " It is one instance which shows what co-ordination will probably mean. The public will receive no benefits and such arrangements will only exist for the purpose of keeping up fares and restricting the means of travel."
  I have given you a theoretical view and an actual case of the results of this so-called co-ordination. We are told that the railway companies demand the right to run these new services because of the inequality in rating they have to meet. I am not going into the details of the rating of railway companies because I have a much better and sounder argument than that, but I must say that the particular system of rating is not to their disadvantage at the present time. In 1925, when we passed the Rating and Valuation Act, the valuations and assessments on railway companies and other special services were eliminated from it, and since that time railway companies and others have been negotiating with the authorities for the purpose of preparing another Bill, which I believe is on the stocks at the moment. It looks to me as if the railway companies were trying to play a game of toss with a penny with two heads, or are making the call, "Heads I win, tails you lose." They desire to win both ways. They wish to have the advantage of the assessments they have received, because already some Assessment Committees have adopted the suggestions which were made on this point, and while they are accepting this
  312
  they are using the argument about the inequality of rating in asking for permission to enter into an entirely new business. That is not playing the game.
  If they have a real grievance I should be the last one to say that they should not be given fair consideration, but I cannot agree with a proposal which is calculated to allow them to gain under both heads. I have not said anything about the shareholders of railway companies, but I would like to mention this. I do not think the shareholders are very much afraid of their railways. In the same Report, to which I have already referred, a statement is made that a new issue of £6,000,000, of new capital for the London and North Western Railway, was offered to the shareholders; the people who should know all about their own particular property, and of the £6,000,000 £5,750,000 was taken up by the shareholders, leaving the remainder to be taken up by other people. That, however, is not the particular point. The particular point is this, that although there was only £6,000,000 asked for there were applications for over £42,000,000. Therefore, I do not think the shareholders are very much afraid of the position. I think railway companies should reorganise under the new conditions to carry on their railways, as they expect other industries to do. I was pleased to read that portion of the Report where they said that they had adopted a new spirit in industry and were co-operating with their men; that very useful suggestions had been made by the men which, in many instances, had resulted in great economy. Those are the lines upon which they should go, and the more fully they co-operate with their men the better. While the men are willing to admit that the directors and shareholders are the people to arrange and manage the finance it should be equally admitted by the directors that the people employed in the working of the railways should know something of the practical side of the industry.
  This House has always been here, and I hope always will be, to protect the interests of all and not the interests of a section. I hope they will not protect the interests of the shareholders of this or any other railway company, or any and company, but will take into fair and full consideration the rights of all traders and individuals. While giving to shareholders

  313
  of a company all the rights to which they are entitled—I do not wish to deny any of them—we must not be over-persuaded by the arguments put forward on the one side without giving due consideration to the arguments put forward on the other. In asking that the Bill should be read this day six months I am asking for it to be killed. I think I am justified in doing so by the statement which was made by the Prime Minister this afternoon. He said that the Government intended to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question of internal communications, and I think the House should agree that it will be much better for us to have the Report of that Committee before coming to a decision on this Bill.
  I put forward that argument quite seriously. The previous Committee which considered this question said quite definitely in their Report that this further extension of the powers of railway companies should not be given; that powers should not be given to railway companies to run on the roads in the interests of the public. If I had time I could give hon. Members the reference. We cannot fully discuss all the details of this question in one or two sittings, and we may come to a decision which will not only be contrary to the opinions of the previous Committee but may be contrary to the findings of the Committee which is now being set up. We shall be much wiser if we vote against this Bill to-morrow night when the Debate finishes and give the new Committee an opportunity of considering this question in its fullest sense, so that when we have their Report we shall be able to give it due consideration and come to a decision with much better judgment than we shall do now.
  Mr. DIXEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so recognising quite well that there is a strong combination of people interested in the passing of this Measure. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) always carries considerable weight in his own party and, naturally, he will carry some hon. Members opposite with him in support of this Bill. I realise also that there are many hon. Members on this side who, in order to see fair play to the taxpayers and shareholders of railway companies, who are possibly in their
  314
  opinion not treated equitably at the present moment, will naturally be inclined to sympathise with the objects of this Bill. If this Bill were merely to give equity to shareholders of railway companies, if I thought it was introduced for that purpose only, I should be inclined to withdraw my opposition to the Bill. Quite frankly, I cannot say that I consider that to be the case. Why? There is not a demand for more motor transport throughout the country as a general rule. In fact my own personal experience tells me that there is to-day too much motor bus competition on various routes. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, hut I have known of certain corporations which have repeatedly refused to grant licences for further services for motor buses because the public were already quite well supplied and further services on the roads in those districts would be dangerous for all. There is no genuine demand from the ordinary people of the country for increased motor bus services.
  I suggest that the main object of the railway companies in bringing forward this Bill is plain. They realise that the present motor bus services are cutting too deeply into their passenger traffic receipts. They realise that people today prefer the motor bus, which drops them at their doorsteps, to the slow trains and the spasmodic service to which some of us arc accustomed. For the present state of affairs the railway companies have themselves largely to blame. I do not want to say anything that will give offence to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who represent the railway companies and do so well in this House, nor do I want to say anything against the right hon. Member for Derby. I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's support of the Bill. He is already a very important man in this country. He already exercises tremendous influence in trade union circles. I predict that if the right hon. Gentleman gets these Bills through, the result will be that he will control practically every transport worker, on roads and railways, in the country. It is a most unholy alliance to my mind when we have gentlemen like my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir R. Blades), the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden), and the right hon. Member for Derby

  315
  smiling across the Floor of the House to each other, when we realise all the time that the Bill is going to give a monopoly to the railway companies as traffic runners in this country, and that the right hon. Member for Derby will be the dictator of labour in this country.
  In looking at the matter further it is only fair to consider also the motorbus services at present running. Those services were started by people who realised that the country wanted a new industry. It was started by people, some of them very small men indeed. who put their money into these enterprises. This Bill will give the railway companies the power to squeeze out every small motor-bus company in the country. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say that the Bill is required to co-ordinate the services. It is perfectly obvious that the railway companies desire to drive people back to the railways. That is what is at the back of their minds. They have their permanent way to keep up and long stretches of lines which are of little use locally for passenger traffic. Undoubtedly, in the minds of the promoters of this Bill is the desire to force people, if possible, to use the railways instead of the roads. To do that they have first to eliminate private competition. If they start motorbus services and drive passengers off the roads, bit by bit, they can withdraw their own bus services or run very attenuated services, and then force the people generally to use the railways. That is a fair criticism of the motives behind the Bill.
  I will now deal with one or two other small points. There is the position of the private haulage contractor. He has been a very useful man to the business community. He has filled a gap. The railway companies in using the roads for haulage are in a position to cut rates. They can afford to undertake haulage by road at considerably lower rates than the small private contractors. Moreover, they are in a position to force a large number of private haulage contractors to shut down, because they can refuse traffic where the haulage contractor of necessity has to send some of his stuff by rail. The railway company is able, therefore, to make the private contractor's position practically untenable.
  316
  A third point is the effect of the Bill's proposals on the public. After all is said and done, apart from the shoals of postcards that we have had from railway shareholders and railway servants, there is a large body of people who are not interested at all definitely in railways. In any case, their shareholding in railway companies is so small as to be of no moment. But from a business point of view the general public do desire to maintain a certain amount of competition. I suggest that owing to the huge amalgamations of railway companies, the London, Midland and Scottish Company, so well represented in this House, has a monopoly in given area, and the Great Western Railway has a monopoly in another area. If we run the risk of eliminating private competition, whether for haulage work or passenger carrying, we may hand over the transport system of the country to a monopoly. I for one would far sooner have a nationalised railway system at any time.
  Another point I want to bring before the House relates to the position of the railway user. The railway companies cannot have it both ways. If they are going to take a lot more of their people from the railroads and carry them by omnibus, that will mean that fewer people than ever will travel by the trains, with the result that the companies will find their passenger trains putting less money into their pockets than they do now. The effect on the unfortunate people who have to travel by rail ought to receive the serious consideration of the House, because there are large numbers of people who unfortunately are compelled to travel by rail, whether they like it or not. The railway services will then become even more attenuated and these people will suffer. Another important point is the question of agricultural rates. I do not pretent to be an authority on rates, but all of us have commonsense, and we know that our roads to-day cannot carry the present motor traffic. If the railway companies are permitted to put still further traffic on the roads for haulage or passenger carrying, that must result in roads which are already much overcrowded becoming even more crowded, more dangerous and more expensive to maintain. If we could afford to-morrow—possibly the right hon. Member for Derby thinks that we can,

  317
  but the Government think that we cannot —to spend many millions of money on the making of really good new roads—there is no suggestion of the kind—it would be very silly to extract more money from the taxpayer in order to keep these roads fit for fresh traffic which is not required.
  Finally, I think the suggestion made by the Mover of the Amendment is a proper suggestion. It seems to me extraordinary that the railway companies should come forward with Bills of this kind, seeking huge powers with no safeguards. We are to have a Debate from 7.30 to 11 o'clock to-night, and to-morrow night, and this House is asked to hand over the tremendous powers which these Bills will confer on the railway companies, without any proper Debate. The Bills are to be rushed through on Second Reading and we are not to have an opportunity of going into them in detail. I assure hon. Members on the Labour benches that every Clause in the Bill now before us needs careful watching and careful scrutiny. I am not exaggerating the case at all. I am simply putting the matter as it appears from my own point of view, and it seems to me that the best solution of the question would be to have a proper inquiry such as the Prime Minister suggested to-day, into the whole subject —an inquiry in which the rights of all parties concerned would be considered. I, for one, would have perfect confidence in such a committee and if they came to the decision that this was the proper thing and the right thing I would support it.
  Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: Evidently the time has come when the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment ought to be told what this Bill is. I cannot but think that the very modest way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) moved the Amendment struck all Members in the House, and when the Seconder opened his speech in the same modest way, I felt that we were going to have a quiet evening. But if the Mover, all through his speech, seemed to appertain to the old style, the last few sentences of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) seemed to be in the style of the more explosive modern engine, which has disturbed us and caused all this trouble. What is the Bill with which we are dealing this evening? It seems to me that
  318
  the question at issue is whether the railway companies, alone, in England, are to be debarred from using roads as freely as anyone else in this country. That is how the question appears to me as an outsider who is not in any way concerned in railways, personally or through any particular interest.
  I should like to describe the Bill from the beginning. It is a peculiar thing that under existing road transport arrangements, every one may use the roads in country and in town, quite independently except the railway companies. That is due to the fact that railway companies are statutory companies, and that special restraints have been placed upon them. This was done originally in order to protect the shareholders. I do not believe that anyone would say that the opposition to the present Bill is actuated by philanthropists, who are solely considering the merits of the question and the dangers involved to the shareholders of the railway companies should the Bill pass. The Bill contains only one Clause which is vital to both sides in this discussion. Clause 2 authorises the company to provide and use road vehicles in any district to which access is afforded by the system of the company concerned. That is what the railway company asks and that is what the opponents of the Bill wish to prevent Practically all the rest of the Bill consists of Clauses restraining the railway company from being on a par with the present road transport companies who have an absolutely free hand. Clause 3 authorises the company to make such reasonable fares, rates and charges as they may think fit, but there is a right of appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal, and, as far as I understand it, there is nothing to compel the ordinary road transport people to refer any of their charges to the Railway Rates Tribunal.
  Clause 4 is not of great importance and Clause 6 enables the company to enter into relations with existing companies to provide any funds which may be necessary, to invest in their securities or guarantee their dividends. These are things which would be allowed to any road transport company except the railways, but Clause 7 is much more important. It provides that the road service must be an ancillary service. The word "ancillary" is a beautiful word,

  319
  and one that is not always appreciated; but, at any rate, this Clause imposes a distinct check upon the railway company as compared with the ordinary road transport company. Clause 7 provides for the protection of the public against anomalies and the protection of the shareholders against waste. Any shareholder in a road transport company can have his investments jeopardised by the directors rushing into wild schemes, but this Clause 7 absolutely restrains the directors of railway companies from doing certain things, and at the same time it protects the shareholders, in the first case, from waste, and the traders, in the second case, from unduly high rates. Clause 8 requires the company to include in its annual account certain particulars of receipts and expenditure and so on.
  Every Clause of the Bill, except Clause 2 is in restraint of the railway companies, and it appears to me that the railway company can hardly be said to have brought in those Clauses, without having given an indication that they are prepared to have some handicap placed upon them in their relation and competition with the existing road companies. The case for the Bill is that in the opinion of the railway authorities—and they are people who have some knowledge of transport, as I think even the independents will admit—the losses which railway companies have sustained through modern inventions, and through the action of the independents may be modified by some form of arrangement and co-ordination. Co-ordination also is a beautiful word, on the meaning of which some doubt seems to be thrown by a previous speaker. The railway authorities, however, believe that by some form of co-ordination, a process can be introduced into the road services which will promote efficiency. Since the last Bill, that is, six years ago, when the losses which the railways have had were only anticipated, but were not fully known, the railroads have lost a very large amount of traffic. I think the receipts in the last two years from the passenger service of the four big lines have shrunk by £5,000,000, which is a considerable figure. I have not got by me the loss in freights, but the continued loss of revenue must inevitably result in higher rail rates for the remainder of the traffic.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Till they lose it all.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Yes, till they lose it all. The hon. Member for Stone referred to the extinction of the canals and stage coaches, but the railways do not propose that they shall follow the canals and the stage coaches, and why should they? They, or their shareholders, have invested a great deal of capital. They know as much about the modern form of transport and the modern engines as the independents can do, and possibly more, and the outcry against the railways today is, to my mind, only due to the fact that the independents know perfectly well that they have got a strangle-hold on the railways. The name of the railways, the name of any great. institution, is a thing out of which it is easy to make bad feeling, and there is nothing so easy as to say, "Oh, the big man will establish a monopoly." Nothing has been more appealing to the public than the fact that it was attractive to smuggle. That was not because people actually disliked the Government, but it was big and fair game.
  I was connected with a steamship company where the losses of plate and linen amounted to enormous sums, and no doubt still do. It was found that passengers usually used the towels instead of packing paper, and that the silver spoons had an irresistible attraction as souvenirs, and the excuse was that these little things did not matter to a big company. In this case it has been a cheap cry to say that the great railway companies are out for monopolies. Because they are so big, they are unpopular, and the amount of literature we have all had on the subject has shown how well this stunt has been worked. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) says the railways will be ruined in the long run, but I sincerely hope they will not.
  The hon. Member for Stone referred to the condition of agriculture to-day, but that is not due to the railways. In the early days of the railways, I believe, the railways developed agriculture to a very large extent, and I believe that to-day the dreadful plight of many of the agricultural counties is not due to the railways but to natural conditions, to cheap sea transport, virgin soil and Free Trade. But if agriculture is at a low ebb, I do not propose that the £1,200,000,000 of money invested

  321
  in railways should go the same way as the canal or stage coach capital, if we can prevent it.
  I do not myself understand—I am not a railway man—but I believe some method between the existing road companies and the railways can make things work more smoothly. The hon. Member for Stone suggested that he wished for more transport on the roads, more freedom, more competition, and more omnibuses, but when we came to his seconder, we found him objecting to the amount of traffic already on the roads, asking that it should be stopped, and differing in every way from his predecessor. Which are we to have? It may be that with a certain amount of co-ordination, the railways may be able to retrieve their losses without hurting the public. That, I do not know, but I think the present methods that are adopted of encouraging, with State funds, competition with the railways is distinctly unjust. We cannot look on the proposed expenditure of £3,000,000 on a great new road between Salford and Liverpool, which in itself will compete with three great railways and the Manchester Canal, and think that it is fair that those four institutions should contribute largely towards providing this new competitor to take away their traffic. It is useless to say that the railroads are unfairly benefited by the present rating arrangements, because, as a matter of fact, the railways pay an undue proportion of the cost of the highways and not, as stated, less.
  What is the present position existing between the road transport and the big railways? What is the cost of the permanent plant of the railways? There is the capital cost of purchasing land and constructing the permanent way and the stations, which amounts to £900,000,000, and if we take the cost of that per annum, there is £45,000,000 to pay in interest on that. The ordinary road transport companies have none of these charges except the cost of garages, which cannot amount to a very great sum. There is the maintenance of the permanent way, £14,000,000 a year, and the transport companies pay no undue proportion on the permanent way, namely, the roads. There is also the signalling and wages of signalmen, £9,000,000 a year, and if you add those three sums together, namely, £45,000,000,
  322
  £14,000,000, and £9,000,000, you get a yearly cost to the railways of £68,000,000.
  In regard to the road transport companies, they find the permanent way provided for them free of charge; that is to say, they pay certain taxes, and the railways also pay similar taxes. The transport companies contribute less than one-third of the current annual expenditure on the highways, and the police themselves do the signalling and the controlling of the traffic, except for the smart young gentlemen belonging to the Automobile Association, and they pay nothing of the railway passenger duty, which is £400,000 a year. It does not seem to me that that is a very fair division of responsibility, but it looks as if there is a very undue handicap on the railroads as compared with the road transport companies. Another thing to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is that the National Wages Board for Railways drew attention to the unfair position of railways in reference to road competition when they were reporting in December. 1925, on a claim of the companies for a reduction in wages. The board is not composed entirely of railway people. There were Sir Edward Manville, of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; Mr. H. J. May, of the Co-operative Union; Sir Thomas Robinson, of the Federation of British Industries; and Mr. E. L. Poulton, of the Trade Union General Council. I will read their report, which stated that they were not satisfied that a sufficient case had been made out for reduction of wages. They added:
  "The Board desire to add that they are unanimously of opinion that the rapid growth of road motor transport undoubtedly constitutes a serious menace to the railway industry. The majority of road hauliers are not common carriers, are under no legal obligation to provide regular services, and are at large in the matter of the charges they make. They are, therefore, in a position to select the traffics for which they cater and to vary their charges to meet the circumstances of each particular case. On the other hand, the railway companies are common carriers and have no such freedom, their charges being subject to statutory restrictions."
  It goes on to say:
  "The unfairness of this position is further emphasised by the fact that the railway companies are not permitted a free use of the roads. They are thus put in a position

  323
  of assisting to subsidise a formidable and increasing competition, a state of affairs which ought not to be allowed to continue. The consequence of this unequal system of competition is that, while serious inroads are being made upon railway revenues, road transport undertakings are extracting a handsome profit out of the transport needs of the public and are helped to do so by subsidies granted out of public funds."
  That does not seem to show that there is fair treatment as between the railways and the independent companies. Another thing that cheeks the railway companies is that they are not allowed unlimited profits. The profits are limited to those of 1913, plus interest on further issues of capital that they might have made. Any ancillary trade in which they might engage has to be so treated that, if they make a profit in that trade, it goes to the company's profit and loss account, but if there should be a loss it is not allowed to go into that standard revenue. That is an important thing to remember. If the railway companies are allowed by the passing of this Bill to engage in road transport, they could not, and would not as wise men, rush voluntarily into a competition and establish a monopoly which might. result in the loss of many millions, which would fall on their stock holders, and which they could not put on the traders of the country.
  The opposition to the Bill refers to the monopoly that would be created. I have worked it out, and I cannot see what monopoly the railways can get. It would be suicidal for them to begin attacking, first in one place and then in another, the existing road transport. I put aside the idea that they would attack it all over the country at once, but, according to the figures of to-day, I understand that in road transport 70 per cent. of the goods are already carried by the owners of the goods, and that leaves 30 per cent. on which to wage war. If the railway companies begin to attack motor transport, first in one place and then in another, well, we have seen what happened in America. The road carriers may be driven off by the cutting of rates, but as soon as the railways, having destroyed by its monopoly the road transport, begin to put up rates to some fearful figure in order to drive people back to the railways, what will happen? Those yellow coaches will all appear again, road transport will revive,
  324
  and a little thing called the jitney will appear. No one can believe that our railway companies are going to be so foolish as to indulge in a warfare of that sort. Their shareholders would not stand it, the public would not stand it, and the tribunal would not stand it. I have noticed that some of the criticisms directed at shareholders' meetings against railway company directors has been that they are too old. I quite agree that that might be a criticism. I have no interest in railways, but I once had. I inherited it. My father became a director of one of the biggest constituent companies of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 86 years ago, and I believe he had been a director for three days when it was found that he was under age; he was only 20, and he was asked to retire. It can well be understood that, that being my only connection with railways, I have never felt very much inclined to take their side from prejudice. I may say, after writing to the Secretary of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, a few days ago, that the young man did become a director when he attained riper years.
  Another point that has been raised is that the railway companies are permitted to run road transport, provided they are bringing goods or people to their railways. I should like to know why that restriction is adhered to. The railway companies are allowed to have ancillary companies which run hotels, but I am not aware of any rule that you must go for a railway journey before you can have a meal or sleep in a hotel connected with it. I have yet to learn that in the ancillary service of a steamship line you must take a ticket to travel on the railway before you can go on to the steamship belonging to that ancillary service. I fail also to understand why railways should be penalised in the running of road transport. I remember that six years ago, when a similar Bill was before the House, the present Home Secretary, in a very able and statesmanlike speech, opposed the Bill; he has to-day reached a position of responsibility—responsibility with discretion. I can only say that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was equally judicious and fair.
  I really think that the House, on giving this matter consideration, will see that

  325
  the railway companies have been unfairly treated. Their position is getting worse. It has been the proudest boast of this country that the railways and roads were superior to those of any other country. Our roads are still superior by a long way. I believe our railways to be superior. There is still room for both. It is time these harassing restrictions were removed from the railways, and I sincerely hope the House will consider this Bill favourably and to-morrow give. it a Second Reading. I am sure the railway companies themselves are prepared to consider in Committee any suggestions which may be made to them. They have altered the Bill since 1922, because certain circumstances have arisen; the development of road transport has been so great that they have eliminated some of the old Clauses which they feel ought not to have been inserted in 1922. In that connection I would say that six years ago the Home Secretary said that the two Clauses which had been put in were not necessary, and that the railway companies might well have left them out, and that is the reason why. I think, the railway companies have not included them this year.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: It has been laid down by a great British statesman that our constitution knows nothing of mandates and delegates. While the man who represents any particular constituency ought to do his best for his constituents, he ought first to think of the interests of the country at large, and if these are not reconcilable with the interests of his constituents then the latter must take second place. That is a maxim which sometimes gives hon. Members great uneasiness of conscience in certain Debates; but to-night I am in the fortunate situation of being able to gratify the wishes of my constituents in the Swindon Division and at the same time, by supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, to do what I think is in the interests of the public at large. Without wishing to be uncomplimentary to the hon. Member who moved that this Bill should be read a Second time six months hence, it seems to me that his speech was characterised by what somebody has called "A very plain perception of the obvious." Of course it is obvious that there is a tendency on the part of any individual or group
  326
  which has a monopoly, by which it is absolved from the necessity of facing competition, to get slack and careless, and, as we used to say, to "profiteer" at the expense of the public. As he said, it was difficult in the matter of the railway companies and the canals to ensure that a railway company, which was like wise the owner of canals, should maintain an effectual competition against itself. But that is an argument in favour of free competition, and against monopoly, and it is on that very argument that I base my support of this Bill, because the powers which the railway companies seek in this Bill, so far from giving them a monopoly, enable them to enter into free competition with others who, it seems to me, consider that they have got some sort of vested interest. Suppose that in the year 1927 you are engaged in making money out of a certain form of transport and that you are limited to that, and suppose a newer and perhaps more convenient form of transport comes into being What would be wrong would be to say, "Here is a new phenomenon, here is a new enterprise and I ask to be protected against that. I ask that this new enterprise should be curtailed, and its activities he circumscribed, in order to maintain my old monopoly." But we are doing no such thing. We are merely asking for power, not to protect ourselves against the haulier companies and motor services, but to be allowed to do what any body but a railway company could do, that is, to enter into free competition with them. It seems to me that the arguments which have been addressed to the House by the hon. Gentleman and his friends might have been valid if he had been urging them on behalf of transport companies and others if they were saying to the railways, "You have got a monopoly of conveying people by rail, and we should like to compete with you therein." He might have based a proposition of that sort on the arguments he used; but to say, because monopolies are bad, that, therefore, it is bad to allow a new competitor to enter into a new field, seems to me to be as grossly illogical as any argument I have ever heard in this House.
  I am bound to say that I agree with one hon. Member who said that the Clauses of this Bill require careful consideration.

  327
  Of course they do, and without doubt they will receive such careful consideration in the course of the Bill's progress through Committee. To-night we are only considering its main principle. The question is, Will it confer upon the railway companies a monopoly? Of course it will not, unless it results in a monopoly indirectly through a course of conduct on the part of the railway companies which I believe to be precluded by the provisions of this Bill. As far as I know, the only way in which it has been suggested that the railway companies can contrive to secure a monopoly of road transport is that they, backed as they are by their great resources, which no competitiors can face, will begin by cutting prices, and, having so wiped their competitors off the roads, will then force up their charges and bleed the public through the monopoly they have secured. As my hon. Friend opposite has said, Clause 7 of the Bill is of the greatest possible importance. Speaking without careful consideration, it does seem to me that that Clause, in conjunction with Clause 3 of the Bill, precludes a railway company from that course of conduct upon which alone a monopoly can he based. As hon. Members will probably recollect, the Railways Act of 1921 provided that charges—meaning rates and fares and tolls—should be fixed in the first instance at such a level as would, in the opinion of the Rates Tribunal, yield with efficient and economical working and management an annual net revenue which is called "The Standard Revenue." Subsection 4 of Clause 58, which deals with that, goes on to say:
  "When fixing the charges necessary to produce the standard revenue, the tribunal shall take into consideration the charges in respect of any business carried on by the company ancillary or subsidiary to its railways."
  That is, such business as we ask to be allowed to do under the provisions of this Bill. Those charges are not subject to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, but to sum up the sub-section from which I am reading: If in the opinion of the tribunal the companies are not taking reasonable steps to get adequate charges for that ancillary business,
  "then the tribunal shall, in fixing the charges under this part of this Act, take
  328
  into account the revenue which would be produced by any such business if such adequate charges were in operation."
  In plain English it means this: The tribunal will say to the railway company, "With regard to this ancillary business, you have not charged enough. If you had, you would not have to charge so much in that sphere over which we have control in order to produce your standard revenue. Therefore, we shall reduce the charges in that sphere over which we have control." I think that speaks for itself. That is giving to the tribunal power to see that if there are any losses they shall be borne by the railway. Section 59, Sub-section (6), of the Railways Act of 1921 deals with the ancillary business contemplated, and it states that when you are having your review of the charges you can go on the same principle as when you originally fixed those charges,
  "Provided that the tribunal shall have regard to the financial results obtained from the operation of all ancillary or subsidiary business carried on by the company and if satisfied that the net revenue resulting therefrom is, having regard to all the circumstances, unduly low, may, for the purpose of such review, make such deductions from the charges which would otherwise have been fixed as they think proper."
  It says that the tribunal may make such deductions. I agree that the terms of Clause 7 ought to be more strict, but I think that that Clause does give the tribunal control over the ancillary business by allowing them to make deductions in the other sphere so as to prevent the railway companies entering into cut-throat competition. Clause 3 enables them to reduce rates if they are regarded as excessive as applied to the public. Obviously, it is only right that the Committee should take the utmost precautions to see that the rights of the public are safeguarded as well as the rights of the present transport companies. The Committee should see that a rate war is not entered upon with a view, in the first place, to abolishing competition, and bleeding the public when competition has been eliminated. I am disposed to think that the terms of the Bill are already sufficient for this purpose, and, if they are not, proper terms can be provided in Committee. The principle of the Bill, so far from increasing the chance of creating a monopoly, increases that open competition which, broadly speaking, always redounds

  329
  to the public benefit, and on those grounds I support the Second reading.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The subject before the House to-night is one which all parties in this Chamber must carefully consider. There is division of opinion in all parts of the House, but I wish to state the case for transport as a whole, and as we see the problem in the light of the Railway Bills now under discussion. I think a very large part of the reply in this Debate is to be found in an analysis of the Railways Act of 1921. These Bills are drawn in the most comprehensive terms. That is elementary common sense on the part of railway amalagamations to-day, because, quite clearly, if concessions are to be made they will be made during the Committee stage, and from some proposition which is stated at its highest point as the Bills are originally presented to this House. We need not therefore, express any surprise regarding the terms of these Measures.
  Let the House go back quite frankly and impartially to 1921 and to subsequent Debates. Many of us who took part in the nine weeks' analysis of the Act of 1921, during the only summer this country has enjoyed since the War, will remember that the Minister of Transport promised economies of all kinds, improvements, and public benefits under that legislation. There is not the least doubt now that at that time the case was overstated, even after making allowance for the effect of the industrial depression we have experienced during the last four or five years. Even when the largest allowance is made for that state of affairs, it remains true that the Act of 1921 has not provided those advantages and economies which were promised. As regards the railway companies, they have been compelled during that time, in order to maintain a certain rate of dividend, to make inroads into their reserve funds strengthened by the £51,000,000 net and other sums which were paid to the companies in respect of war-time agreements. Taking all those circumstances into account, and remembering that at the moment the railway companies seem to be just turning the corner and getting into a happier state of things, they find this problem relating to road transport
  330
  competition. The House will recall that round about the time of the Act of 1921, or at all events in the year immediately following, there was an inquiry by the Balfour-Browne Committee which was singularly inconclusive in its character. One side of that Committee broadly supported the railway companies having such powers as we are discussing to-day, and the other side opposed.
  That, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is the position, very roughly summarised, in which the House of Commons approaches this problem. The Bills raise many minor considerations into which I will not enter at the moment. There is anxiety on the part of railway staffs as to how many men are going to be displaced under co-ordination or other agreement arising from road transport powers, and there is a desire that someone should make a statement which will reassure the railway staffs on that point. There is a far-reaching and important economic consideration confronting the country as to what will be the precise result of the application of such powers to the railway companies, whether it will lead to a form of monopoly, or whether there will be more relief from some points of view in the competition of the roads of Great Britain than there can be under existing or future circumstances.
  All of these considerations are before us, but, as hon. Members who have already spoken in the Debate have pointed out, there can only be one duty for the House of Commons in this matter, and that is to fight to the very best of our ability to protect the public interest. I have been long enough in the House, of course, to recognise that, in trying to fight for the public interest, we are sharply divided in fundamental matters. I am going to try to state the case to-night from the Labour Benches on lines which will be so far familiar to the House, but which, I trust, will be strictly relevant to these Bills, and I recognise that, the very moment we say that we stand for public ownership and public control of transport as a whole in this country, we are in conflict with hon. Members on the other side of the House. With regard to these Bills, I do not suppose that their most enthusiastic supporter would deny that they may appreciably alter the whole

  331
  problem of domestic transport in Great Britain. We cannot consider them tonight purely as railway promotions, any more than we could so consider promotions that might in other cases be put before us by the ordinary road transport interests. We must look to underlying principles, and I do beg the House to remember that in this matter we are not dealing with Socialism and anti-Socialism, or public ownership and private ownership, in the old and strict use of those terms.
  No one could sit through the nine weeks of the proceedings on the Railways Bill of 1921 without appreciating the fact that, in setting up these four great amalgamations, in wiping out a hundred and more constituent companies, in federating on a geographical basis £1,300,000,000 of capital in a great enterprise in the State, we were putting that service to a material extent on a public utility basis, upon which, in fact, it had very largely been resting under the mass of preceding legislation and under regulations of all kinds. Everyone, however, whether individualist or Socialist, recognises that this is a very great change, and, as we shall see a little later in this Debate, practically the railway industry is regulated from top to bottom.
  That is the state of affairs which confronts us, and side by side with that, of course, there has been a great deal of development in municipal enterprise in different departments of transport. Hon. Members must have had their attention directed to an important scheme, to give the House only one instance, covering nine important authorities in Lancashire, which propose to unite to set up an express motor omnibus service covering a considerable and populous area in an industrial district. Agreements of that kind must proceed, and will proceed, dictated by economic and other considerations over which, I am bound to say, neither individualists nor Socialists have very much real influence. These changes are taking place every day, and, in my view, they are altering the whole character of this transport problem. We on this side of the House say, first of all, that, whatever divisions there may be on these details, we are at least united in this, that in our judgment these
  332
  changes are making in the direction of that public ownership and public control for which we stand.
  Be that as it may, there is, to pass to the second point, an immediate question with regard to the position of the municipalities. Again we are perfectly clear and frank. In regard to these Measures we shall do everything that is in our power to protect the interests of the local authorities. That will be a central and an important part of our case, and the Bills raise that controversy in a very sharp form, because, of course, the companies contemplate some kind of working agreement with the local authorities, and all kinds of indirect problems, notably in licensing and other matters of that kind, are raised the moment they come within the jurisdiction of any municipality or borough council, or, in some cases, of the county authorities themselves. Up to this point, according to our information, there has been no agreement with the local authorities, and I recognise that the railway amalgamations are not likely to reach a decision on that, or to propose it, until they are confronted by the representatives of the local authorities in the proceedings before the Joint Committe of the two Houses to which in all likelihood these Bills will be referred. I want, however, to say that, quite apart from any views which hon. Members in all parts of the House may have in regard to matters of public ownership and control, it cannot pay any of us, and it cannot be in the public interest, to do anything to prejudice the local authorities or the municipalities in this phase of transport, in which they have sunk many millions of the ratepayers' money, and in regard to which, of course, they are entitled to the fullest consideration.
  I have occupied a few minutes by way of introduction in making these points plain, because we in this part of the House regard them as being among the fundamentals of our case, and we believe that they are very sharply raised by the series of Railway Bills on which the House must pronounce to-morrow. Let us now approach the problem under another head at rather closer quarters. These Bills also raise the question as to how far agreement will be reached in appropriate areas throughout the country

  333
  on the lines of the common fund and common management suggested for passenger transport services within the Metropolitan area, or in London at large. The House is familiar with the broad outline of that plan. It contemplates a kind of working agreement between the underground railways, the omnibus services, the steamy services owned by the large amalgamations, and the trams of the London County Council: and the central note of that is a common fund and a common management designed to secure a co-ordination of all those services in order to provide a basis for efficiency, facilities for the public, and, above all, the extension of tubes and other facilities, particularly in some of the hard-pressed suburbs of this city. We on these benches have always urged, both outside this House and here, that again we are not prepared to support a scheme of that kind unless the municipal interests and the public interests are fully secured; but it is undeniable that that class of co-ordination will proceed, I trust on sound lines, not only in London, but in other parts of the country where there is great density of population, and where conditions are broadly analogous to what we find in the Metropolis itself.
  These are the three lines of argument which we press in the consideration of these Bills, and we have not the least doubt that, in the proceedings before the Joint Committee, these issues will be raised. The hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) went, if I may say so with respect, very near to the heart of a difficulty which, for all practical purposes, is irrespective of party difference. He tried to outline the kind of safeguards to the public on these Bills in terms of the Railways Act, 1921, and I believe it to be of vital importance that the House should specially consider that point.
  What did the Railways Act of 1921 do for the purposes of this part of our discussion? It amalgamated the constituent companies, it set up on a compulsory basis a rates tribunal, and it gave a direction to that rates tribunal so to fix the charges for passengers and freights as to yield, with economical working and efficient management, as near as may be the standard revenue or the net revenue of the last pre-War year, 1913. It went beyond
  334
  that. It directed the rates tribunal to take into account certain classes of capital expenditure, past, present, and future, so long as that remained unremunerative. That also is to be taken into account in arriving at the standard revenue. The important point to the House is that that is a compulsory part of the Act of 1921. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to a Subsection in that Act of Parliament which brings these ancillary services, of which, of course, these road powers would be part, within the scope of the legislation of 1921.
  On the Second Reading Debate, the House should be clear as to what is intended. If, for example, any hon. Member took the Bill of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. and read it, more particularly the relevant Clause, he might come to the conclusion that all that was intended was the establishment of these road services, and, if traders or passengers or others were dissatisfied with the charges, they had a right to appeal to the Rates Tribunal. So far the theory would be that that would be a safeguard in their interests and in that of the public. That is the broad face of the Bill. But, of course, as the hon. Member suggested, if we are correct in this interpretation of the Act of 1921 the railway companies could not, in fact, disentangle these ancillary services from all the terms and conditions in the last resort laid down in that legislation.
  The question for the House of Commons on the Second Reading is whether in these Bills the public is protected by safeguards of that kind. That is obviously a very debatable proposition, but perhaps most of my colleagues on these Benches have been inclined to state the case in substantially the following way. The Act of 1921 ensures a certain return to the railway companies, namely, the revenue of 1913. When, however, the return goes above that point, there is a passage in that legislation which provides that 80 per cent. of the excess, or some figure like that, shall be returned to the public in some shape or form. That return, of course, would normally take the form of lower fares or lower freights or other charges. It seems to me that during this Debate, either to-night or to-morrow, somebody, speaking for the railway companies or against them, must

  335
  state whether these ancillary services on the road are in fact completely under that legislative umbrella or control. Because plainly, on the Second Reading of these Measures that is a vital consideration as regards the protection of the public. It means this, in practice, that you extend to these ancillary services on the roads the regulations of the Act of 1921, and, if that be so, then many of these troubles of road competition and rate cutting and the allied issues tend to disappear. I attach the very greatest importance to safeguards of that kind, and I trust that whatever happens there will, in the last resort, when these Bills come back to the House of Commons, be no dubiety at all on that point. It is a form of protection to which, in the light of all the evidence both in 1921 and since, the public of this country are entitled.
  In the last place, there are only two other points which I intend to press. We have appealed to the Government—and they have made their reply to-day—for a comprehensive inquiry into the whole problem of transport. We put that on the broadest possible basis, and the Government have indicated that they are sympathetic to that idea, and, presumably, the inquiry will start at some early date. I want to amplify our position. Let me explain that we are not recommending anything in the nature of a prolonged Royal Commission on the Bill. I say to the House of Commons that, in the light of the Committee work before 1921 and in view of all that happened in the Act of that year and in the light of the events since, there is really no need for the great delay and national loss that would be involved if a Royal Commission were appointed. There is at the present time a mass of material in public Departments bearing upon this problem. There is much that arose from the discussion and analysis of the Railways Act of 1921. There is a great deal connected directly or indirectly with the Board of Trade and Ministry of Transport machinery of that time. I have always taken the view that that material could be quite rapidly, accurately and conveniently summarised. One of the most important questions to determine is the exact incidence of local rates on railway amalgamations and on
  336
  ordinary road transport, the amount to which that has been affected by the extent to which the Road Fund has been modified in recent times, and a whole variety of problems of that kind, so that the inquiry should be expeditiously undertaken and should not be in the nature of a prolonged review. That is one definite proposal we make arising out of the discussion of these Bills.
  There is another even more urgent in character. How are the local authorities and the public at large to be protected? Obviously, in an immediate sense largely through the method of licensing all classes of vehicles. That is a fundamental and immediate part of this problem. What is the evidence of leading municipal authorities, lawyers, and others on this question of licensing? So far as I understand it, it is divided into two parts: first, as to what really is possible under general legislation, general Acts of Parliament now in existence; and, in the second place, the precise position under local Acts of Parliament. The criticism made is that that general legislation is antiquated and chaotic. It has been described in some quarters as patchy in character. On the other hand, while local Acts of Parliament may be more precise, they are undoubtedly more varied in character, and we find leading local authorities in adjacent parts of the country whose powers differ materially even in a matter of this kind. That is not a state of affairs which the House of Commons seeking to protect the public interest on these Bills can contemplate with anything like ease.
  Now in Clause 4 of the draft Road Traffic Bill, which has been circulated for the information of Members, there is considerable reference to this problem of licensing. If I remember rightly, it puts the duty very largely into the hands of the local authorities, and my suggestion to the House would be that the public interest demands on this point, not progress with the Bill during the present Parliament, which after all may carry it well into next year, but immediate attention to that central point of licensing even on these very Bills themselves. Is the Government prepared to embark on that task? If so, the difficulties of the local authorities would be so far solved and they would get a reply to a question they are asking all over the country "What

  337
  will be our position generally, that is as regards legislation at large, if these railway Bills go through, and what will be the effect on our local Acts of Parliament of the promotions of the railway companies?" On that point I believe they are entitled to an immediate reply from the Government. My colleagues on these benches will exercise their votes in whatever way they please, but I trust, not merely from the party but from the national point of view, they will indicate that there are bed-rock considerations on which the Government might pronounce at this stage and that a definite and vigorous statement on these lines will clear away much of the doubt that surrounds these promotions by the railway companies.
  Mr. PALIN: I cannot say that I agree with those who have moved the rejection of these Bills, because I believe something has got to be done and done immediately. My difficulty about the whole business is that the right thing is being done in the wrong way. We are starting at the wrong end to bring order out of chaos. The inquiry ought to have preceded the introduction of these Bills. No one wishes to deny to railway directors and shareholders anything that is their just due. As a matter of fact there are some people who believe if they had their just due some of them would have been out a long time ago. But when railway shareholders and directors come on their hands and knees to beg Parliament to do something for them, we have a right to inquire how they got there. I am certain they have got into their present position very largely by their own stupidity. If they had attended to their business as they should have done they would not have driven the amount of traffic on to the roads that is there to-day. It is very largely due to the superiority and the good humoured contempt with which they have treated their customers when they have suggested certain facilities which should be granted them that the customers have sought to protect themselves. They are complaining that some of the most remunerative traffic has been lost. Those who read the reports of the meetings of Chambers of Commerce will see very frequent complaints as to the way they are treated by railway companies. It is not a question
  338
  of rates altogether. It is a question of facilities.
  Consider the case of a manufacturer who makes a contract to deliver certain goods for export to a certain ship which leaves at a certain time. At one time, particularly before the War, the railway companies had canvassers waiting on that manufacturer to know what they could do for him, and if he told them he was in a difficulty owing to various things over which he had no control and was going to be a little late, they would offer him exceptional facilities to enable him to keep his contract, and they got the traffic. They even went to the extent of loading, say, piece goods in a parcel van behind an express train. All those privileges have been swept away. They will not give any facilities in that direction, and if he cannot get them, what is the manufacturer or merchant to do? He has to put them on the road, and he has put them there. The railway companies have driven him there and they are coming, by these Bills, to ask Parliament to drive him back again, and people in this country do not like to be driven. Furthermore they have adopted ideas of working railways which I believe originally came from America, and no one has protested against them more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr Thomas), who is supporting these Bills. The control system operates very badly so far as prompt delivery of goods is concerned. I remember seeing not long ago in a report of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce that it had taken a wagon of wool six days to be transported from Huddersfield to Bradford. I was told recently by one of the officials of that Chamber that they could produce some hundreds of cases of a similar character. When complaints are made, the railway companies will always find an excuse for delay but they never remedy it, and we frequently find that short distance traffic of that character, which is remunerative, has been lost simply because they would not relax a system which perhaps gives great economies in the matter of engine power and man power but certainly causes very great delay to the traffic carried. Therefore that traffic again has been driven on to the road.
  If the railway companies are coming here to ask for further powers to get that traffic back, what are they going to do with regard to facilities? Are they

  339
  going to meet the manufacturer and the merchant as they did? Are they going to give prompt delivery of goods if they do bring them back on to the railway? So far I have not heard that there is any change of heart at all but they are going to go on in their own sweet way. I went on a deputation from a Chamber of Commerce to meet an official of a railway company and some of these things were raised. He smiled at us in a good humoured way and said he had been in the railway business for something like 40 years and might be permitted to know more about how to work the business than we could. These people ought to know more about their business. If there is not prompt delivery of goods, and if reasonable facilities are not offered, the railway companies must not wonder why people use the roads. It is a very serious matter to have all this traffic on the roads. It ought not to be there. If the railways were managed in an efficient manner there would be no need for it to be there. The railways have been laid down at great cost, and they ought to be used. The roads had not been constructed to carry the kind of traffic that is being carried upon them to-day. As a matter of fact, it is not merely the case of loads of five or six tons being placed on the roads. I have seen proceeding along the Great North Road tremendously heavy loads of material for constructing bridges, boilers and other things which ought not to be on the roads and which are a danger on the roads. If there is no desire to protect the people of the country from a monopoly, surely life and limb ought to be considered in these matters. The railway companies have a perfect right to claim that they succeed in carrying goods and passengers on the railways with a smaller loss of life and a smaller number of accidents than is the case on the roads. That cannot be gainsaid.
  What is going to happen if the railway companies exercised the proposed powers to carry goods on the roads? In regard to London, for instance, the Government, if they had had the welfare of the people at heart, might have caused an inquiry to be held into these matters before any further powers were given to the railway companies. There is no doubt that the railway companies can carry from the
  340
  termini of the great trunk railways to the docks in the east of London all the traffic that comes along at a less cost than they do by sending it round London on the railway. What is going to happen to the people of London when you put 500 or 600 lorries on the streets in addition to the present traffic? What is going to happen in the West End where the roads are broad and yet greatly congested? What is going to happen in the East End where, we are told, the roads are totally unsuited for traffic at the present time? It will be a very serious state of things, and this matter ought to be considered very carefully before any powers are granted. The same applies with regard to roads elsewhere. In London you have the London Traffic Advisory Committee which might get the Government to make a move, but in the country they have no such protection.
  A great deal has been said about the unfairness of the rates which the railway companies pay. I think that is all wrong. As a matter of fact, the railway companies obtain full value for all the rates they pay, and, what is more, they get very favourable consideration by assessment committees when they come with tears in their eyes and tell them that traffic has gone down. The assessments of the railway companies were reduced practically commensurate with the traffic they lost when the electrification of the tramways took place. With regard to village traffic, I do not think they will get that back again. After the War not only could the villages not obtain adequate facilities for travel, but even the large towns could not. Until the charabanc took up the question of providing facilities in connection with seaside resorts at reasonable fares, the railway companies refused to run excursions of this description. While I do not want to see my friends the railway workers reduced to some of the conditions that prevail among some of the transport companies, I feel that the railway companies, finding themselves in a difficulty, will now possibly give us more than they would have given us some years ago. If they fail efficiently to work the railways, what is the remedy? Transfer the railways to the people to be worked in the interest of the people. Failing that, we should have some degree of co-ordination. There is no reason why the local services should not be complementary rather than competitive with

  341
  the railways, but the railway companies will not make any agreement with the local authorities. They never have made agreements with the local authorities.
  Take the case of the city of Sheffield, for instance. Arrangements could have been made there with the railway companies undoubtedly to their advantage. In the city of Bradford attempts were made to deliver all the parcels for the railway companies in that city on very favourable terms to the railway company. Local representatives of the railway companies agreed that the municipality should deliver all the parcels for them, but when it came to London no agreement was possible. They are having to pay for that now. If things go on at the present rate they will not only get their Bills, but they will get a Bill which they will not like. It is true that the municipalities have not quite as much capital at stake as the railway companies. It is only something like £70,000,000 or £80,000,000, but that sum ought to be as great a concern to Labour representatives in Parliament as protecting the capital of the railway shareholders. We have been bombarded with letters, and told that all these shareholders are orphans and widows. Solicitors have been sending letters to me for a week. I remember the time when the orphans and the widows were always trotted out when railwaymen wanted protection from increased hours, and so on.
  If we are really sincere in wanting to do the best we can to get a proper transport system for this country, and we certainly need it, we must have the coordination of all the forms of transport, each getting a fair chance. I trust that when co-ordination takes place, it will not be possible to say that all this heavy traffic destroys the beauty of our roads and the peacefulness of our buildings, but that it will go back to the railways, and that we shall have a system which will prove to be to the advantage of the whole of the country, and not of a few people. I trust that the House will insist that this inquiry shall be held, and that there will be a Measure brought in within the lifetime of the present Parliament that will restore order out of chaos, and enable us to reap the full advantage of the capital invested in the present transport system. At the present time, the only real argument that can be
  342
  advanced in favour of these Bills is "Let us do evil in order that good may come." By passing these Bills and causing more traffic to be placed on to the roads, you will only make the position so intolerable that sooner or later a co-ordinating Bill will be passed in this House in order to protect the people, for they will certainly need protection if all the traffic that I anticipate will be forced on to the roads if these Bills are passed into law.
  Sir ROBERT SANDERS: I assure the hon. Member who has just spoken that I am not a railway director, nor have I any interest in any transport company. I look upon these matters from the point of view of one who is interested in seeing what is the best thing to be done in an important matter like this, for the country in general and agriculture in particular. I start with the premise that it is a very strong thing for the House to throw out a private Bill of this sort on Second Reading. When the House proposes to do such a thing, the burden of proof lies upon the objector. In this case the railway companies start on a very strong ground. They are, admittedly, the biggest ratepayers in the country. A great deal of those rates go to the upkeep of the roads and the railway companies are really to the best of my knowledge, the only people and the only sort of corporation that cannot make full use of the roads to which they contribute such a large share of the upkeep. That seems to me to give them a very strong prima facie case, and to upset that case very strong reasons must be shown.
  10.0 p.m.
  The opposers of the Bill are not merely trying to upset the case—that could be done in Committee, and that is the proper place to do it—but they are asking that the case should not be considered. To get the House to assent to that, very strong reasons ought to be brought forward. What are the reasons that have been brought forward up to now? The rejection of the Bill was moved by a representative of the Farmers' Union. I have a good many friends amongst farmers, and a good many friends in the Farmers' Union, but I must say that, as a race, agriculturists are on the cautious side. I think their objection to this Bill is sheerly and entirely a matter of caution. They are easily frightened. They fear that after the passing of these

  343
  Bills, the rates for the carrying of agricultural produce will go up. If I thought that, I should be rather inclined to vote against the Second Reading, but I do not think it. My impression is that the effect will be quite the opposite. Surely, it is almost a commonplace that competition
  has a tendency to lower prices. The hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey), who seconded the rejection of the Bill, actually said that the effect of this competition would be to bring down prices. Therefore, it seems to me from the start that that is a strong argument in favour of the case of the railway companies, and a strong argument that the caution displayed by the Mover of the rejection and his friends, is misplaced. The rates are more likely to go down than to increase. Undertakings that are run on a big scale can generally do their work cheaper than undertakings that are run by a number of small people. Supposing for a moment that the railway companies did put up rates. The, bogey that is raised is that they will reduce the rates, first of all, until they have starved their competitors out of the field and then they will put up the rates against their customers. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) showed pretty clearly that that is a bogy and nothing else but a bogy. He showed, in the first place, that by Act of Parliament, the railway companies would not be able to starve out their competitors, and, in the second place, he showed, and I think it is quite clear in the Bill itself, that the rates charged will have to go before the Railway Rates Tribunal, and if they were charging more than was fair, the Railway Rates Tribunal could compel them to lower their charges.
  That is true in regard to railway companies. If they charge extortionate rates there is the tribunal to whom you can refer the matter, and get the charges reduced. If the railway companies do not come in, and if there should be formed a ring or a monopoly by the present transport companies, there would be no tribunal of appeal, as in the case of the railways, and you would be absolutely at their mercy. Therefore, taking the matter from one point to another, it seems to me that as far as the agricultural interest is concerned the balance of advantage
  344
  is very strongly in their favour in the event of this Bill being passed, because it is much more likely that the rates for carrying agricultural produce will go down in consequence of these facilities being given than that they will go up.
  My hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill referred to the jealousy that is felt by the agricultural labourer on account of the high wages that are paid to railwaymen, who subsist in what is called a sheltered industry. I know from personal experience that that is true, that the railwaymen are pointed at as favoured people who are getting very much higher wages than the agricultural labourer has any chance of earning. But directly they come into the road transport industry they cease to be sheltered. That industry is no more sheltered than any other. It is true that. the railway companies are sheltered so long as they remain on the railways, but as soon as they come on to the roads they are open to free competition from any other company or individual or body of men, and that sheltered industry practically disappears.
  Then there is the question of the increased traffic on the roads. I realise that the traffic on the roads is becoming greater and greater every year, and that it is becoming more expensive, more troublesome, more difficult as time goes on to deal with it. My own view is that the provisions of these Bills, if carried, these powers, if granted, to the railway companies would not have the effect of increasing but rather of decreasing the traffic on the roads. That is a very serious consideration in favour of, at all events, passing the Second Reading of these Bills.
  We have heard a good deal about co-ordination this evening, but I have noticed that every hon. Member who has used the word has given a different interpretation to it. The meaning that I attach to it is this, that lorries and tractors on the roads would be used as feeders to the railways, if they are supplied by the railway companies, and the result of granting these powers would be that the traffic which now goes only on the roads would go partly by road and partly by rail. This seems to me to be obviously in the interests of the railway companies, if they get these powers, and the effect would be not to make the burden on the roads greater, but less.
  Sir BASIL PETO: Will the right hon. Member say why the railway companies cannot do that now?
  Sir R. SANDERS: They cannot take up intermediate traffic. I agree that the railway companies can take up traffic and take it to the railways, and that is what I imagine they would do if they got these powers.
  Sir B. PETO: They can do that now.
  Sir R. SANDERS: They would use motor traffic as a feeder to the railways. These are the reasons why I think agriculture would gain instead of lose by the passing of this and other similar Bills. But I quite recognise that it is a matter for argument. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) seems to differ from me, and I quite agree that he has a right to hold his opinions, but I have no doubt that people interested in other industries are also thinking that, their industries may possibly suffer if these powers are given. The whole thing is a matter for argument. I do not say that I would support the Bill word by word and line by line, but there is a prima facie case which ought to be sent to Committee, where arguments on both sides can be thrashed out. That is the proper course to take with regard to Bills like this. I shall certainly do what is the constitutional and proper thing to do, that is, vote for the Second Reading.
  Sir JAMES GRANT: I am sorry that I find myself in disagreement with my very old friend the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders). I take the very opposite view to him on most of the points he raised. He has told us that he considers these Bills will reduce the traffic on the roads. That may be the effect ultimately, but I cannot understand the grounds on which he takes the view that this Bill will reduce traffic for the time being. If railway companies come on to the roads it means an excess of traffic, a traffic which the roads cannot stand. It will put an enormous amount of traffic on the roads for many years to come. My right hon. Friend may be right that ultimately there will be a diminution of traffic, but that will be when the railway companies have a monopoly on the roads. He also told us, and no doubt believes it, that it would be for the benefit of the agricultural industry
  346
  if the present competition on the roads is eliminated.
  Sir R. SANDERS: Just the reverse.
  Sir J. GRANT: I apologise to my right hon. Friend; I misunderstood. He did say, however, that railway companies were unduly burdened with rates. There I totally disagree with him, and I propose to some to that point later. The question now before us is undoubtedly one of great national interest; it will have a tremendous effect upon the transport question of the future. The duty before us is to see that whatever we do in regard to these Bills is in the national interest. We must not be biased one side or the other. There are two contending interests here, roads and railways, and the only thing we have to consider is the national interest and betterment of the general public. The railway companies are seeking these powers and it is for them to make clear to us that if they get what they ask for they will benefit the
  country as a whole. If the railway companies could tell us that at the present time road transport does not give the facilities which are required in the general interest of the country; if they could tell us that industries are suffering from lack of road transport; if they could tell us that the passenger traffic is not sufficiently catered for, make it clear that the country could be better linked up with road transport than it is, that portions of the country untouched by rail are not supplied with road transport, and that spots of beauty and historic interests are not catered for by road transport—some of us may think they are desecrated by road transport—then I think they would have a case to bring before this House, and say that they are the people who should fill the void and satisfy the requirements of the country.
  Is that the case? If it were, I should certainly consider it my duty to accept the railways' request that they should come in and supply such wants. But I submit that nothing of the sort is the case. The hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) made it quite clear, and I agree with him, that the requirements of the country are supplied at the present moment, that industry does not require any more road transport and that the passenger traffic is fully

  347
  satisfied. That being the case, what is the reason for the railway companies' request for these further facilities? We are driven to the conclusion that it, is not in the public interest. They came here, I do not blame them, for one purpose only; they feel themselves a depressed industry, and they come to the House of Commons and ask us to do something which will put them in a better financial position. Plainly and truly, they want to make some more money, and they ask us to help them.
  The railway industry is not the only depressed industry in the country. Unfortunately, we see many industries that are depressed. What do they do when they are in such a situation? They reorganise; they look to the question of cost; they go in for up-to-date methods; they face the situation. An analogous case to the railways was brought to my notice the other day, and that was the case of the gas companies of the country. Years ago the best artificial light we had in this country was gas, which was supplied by the gas companies. In course of time the companies were attacked by electric lighting, which they found a very formidable competitor. They had very hard times in the years that followed. There were moments when few people would have said there was any future before the gas companies of the country. But the controllers of the gas industry faced the situation, took off their coats, and used their minds. What is the result to-day? Instead of failing before what appeared to be overwhelming competition, they are in a better position than they have even been before. That seems to me to be an example that the railway companies would he well advised to copy, instead of coming to this House for fresh powers. They should use the vast resources they have behind them to reorganise their industry instead of using those resources to cripple the present road transport industry. The railway companies, before coming to this House and asking for further rights, should use the enormous rights they have enjoyed for so many years; they should do more for themselves and stand on their own feet.
  We hear a good deal on the question of electrifying the railways and cheapening the cost. Why is it that the railway
  348
  companies, before they seek to injure another industry, do not try to improve their own industry by adopting this means of cheapening their cost. I am asked, Who is going to find the capital? The railway companies are in a position to do so. Further, why is it that at the present moment the railway companies do not hold out a hand to the transport companies of the country and co-ordinate with them? It is open to them to do so. They at present have transport facilities on the roads; they can carry anything from their stations and take anything there. Why is it that they make no efforts in this direction. Why, on the contrary, have they set their faces against the motor transport industry of the country? Their attitude is one of antagonism. They make no attempt at co-operation. One can quite well imagine that those who are engaged in the motor transport industry fear the advent of the railway companies on the roads, because they have already had experience of the railway companies' attitude, which is one of antagonism to them, and they believe, rightly or wrongly, that if the railway companies once get on the roads, they will use every endeavour and all their capital to crush the road transport industry.
  There are few things which would be of greater benefit to industry at the present time than increased efficiency on our railways. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will agree with me that when we go into industrial areas, we are constantly being told of the inefficiency of the railways, of the cost of traction on the railways, of heart-breaking delays on the railways and a hundred and one other things of that kind. We are told that the railways to-day are not as efficient as they were before the great amalgamations. One is forced to the conclusion that there is truth in that complaint and that this want, of efficiency constitutes a drag on the industry of the country. I think it is true that the railway service of the country at the present time is not as efficient as it might be. But I ask the House, can anything in the Bills now before us make the railways more efficient? Is there a line, is there a word in the proposals of the railway companies indicating a means of securing greater efficiency on the railways? No. These

  349
  Bills are all directed towards leaving the rails as they are, and going on to the roads. These Bills seek to open the way for the vast railway monopolies to come on to the roads and compete with existing road transport companies.
  I contend that the proposals do not, in any way, bring us nearer to that most desirable end for the industry of the country, namely, increased railway efficiency. I feel it is not the duty of this House to bolster up the railways. It would be very much better to maintain the competition which at present exists between the two separate systems of road and rail. I think that is much more the duty of the House of Commons, than trying to bolster up the railways. Let the railways stick to their own job and leave the other industry alone. We have had an idea put forward here about the rights of the railway companies to go on the roads. The railways have no rights apart from those which the House of Commons has given them in the past. It may be arguable that the House of Commons should give them further rights, but at the present moment they possess no further rights, and the House of Commons should only confer further rights upon them if it is considered to be in the public interest to do so. As far as I can see in these Bills, the companies do not even claim to be doing anything towards bettering the conditions of the country as a whole.
  If I may turn from that point, I should like, to refer to the question of the burden of rates borne by the railway companies. We have all received a great deal of correspondence with regard to this question, mostly from the employés of the railway companies and others who are interested in them. In many of these communications we have been given to understand that an undue burden of rates is borne by the railway companies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells told us that the railways were among the largest ratepayers in the country. Why should they not be? How are rates levied? They are levied on capacity to pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not always!"] They are rated on the value of their property, and are the railways to be an exception to the rule, or are they to come into the general position of all industries and of all of us in this country and be rated on their value? Surely, there
  350
  can be no claim for the railway companies to be specially exempted. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that there is any undue burden upon them. On the contrary, the railway companies, of all the industries in this country, have an exception made in their favour, for in regard to their track, they pay only 25 per cent., where everybody else pays 100 per cent.
  All this propaganda that has been put about has been very good indeed, and I congratulate the companies on the success of their efforts. No doubt propaganda is very necessary to make the railway case palatable, but in a great question of this sort I think that propaganda ought to be legitimate, and I do not think the way in which this question of rates has been put before the country, to the effect that the railway companies suffer an undue burden, has been altogether legitimate. I will give some figures with regard to what the railway companies pay in rates, and I think these figures can be relied upon. I find that the total capital expenditure on railways, that is to say, on track, goods and passenger stations, power stations and docks, in 1926, was £969,800,000, and the total net assessment for this property in England, Wales and Scotland was £12,700,000, which is equivalent to 1.30 per cent. of the capital expenditure, whereas the average owner or occupier of a factory premises, offices, houses, hotels and similar properties is assessed at approximately 4 per cent. of the value of the property occupied. That is a fact, and it shows that the ordinary industries and individuals are rated nearly three times the extent that the railway companies are rated. As I say, the railway companies' total assessment is £12,700,000, and the rates payable in connection with that assessment amount to £7,891,000, which is equivalent to 62 per cent. of the total assessment. The total assessment of other property in Great Britain is S138,343,000, on which rates are collected amounting to £157,302,000, which is equivalent to 83½ per cent. of the total assessment. In view of those figures, I think we must disapprove of the idea that the railway companies bear too heavy a burden of rates.
  Apart from that, what our correspondence has mostly insisted upon has been the burden which the railway companies hear in the way of highway rates, but I

  351
  cannot consider that it is any hardship on the railways to have to pay highway rates, although their competitors do run upon those highways. Is there any industry in this country that is more dependent upon the roads than are the railway companies? Could a single train be started in this country if it was not for the roads? Are we to exempt the railway companies from paying rates? Let me give some facts, and I take them with the more assurance because they appear in a pamphlet written by Mr. Davenport in which he supports the railway case. In 1926, the railway rates were some £8,000,000. The proportion that went in highway rates was £1,485,000. They are all the rates of this vast property that went towards the highway rates. I do not think, on reflection, that hon. Members will say that is anything very burdensome. Everything the railway does is dependent on the roads. They are using roads every moment, and they have 35,000 vehicles running on the roads. Mr. Davenport says:
  "The railway system of rates assessment works happily for two facts; first, that the amounts paid by the railway companies in highway rates have been declining while the value of roads for collecting goods and passengers has been steadily increasing; second, that the highway rates paid by the railway companies are only 4.3 per cent. of the total highway rates."
  He goes on:
  "It is, in fact, surprising that the railways do not have to pay more in ratio to the use of the roads, but the rates paid on 40,000 to 50,000 motor garages in the country as well as on premises and plant of motor manufacturers, oil companies, and other businesses connected with the expanding motor industry, are helping to lessen the rates paid by the railway companies."
  He concludes by saying that it is clear from these figures that the railway companies are not subsidising transport nor are they unfairly treated in the matter of highway rates. This very well informed pamphlet is written by one who supports the railway case. I would only just touch upon a matter which is probably one of the most important questions that has been brought before the House, and that is whether this is an opportune moment to deal with this question at all, and whether, as we have in view a Government inquiry, we ought to deal with a matter of this kind which enormously affects the national transport of the
  352
  country. Surely we ought to know where we are before we involve ourselves in action of this nature. I agree with the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) and others who put this question forward, and it is a point the Government ought very seriously to consider. I hope that the House, too, will seriously consider the advisability of passing these Bills in the public interest, and that they will always keep before them the possibility that, if they are passed, they will do away with one of the safeguards of the public, and that is the competition between the roads and the railways.
  Mr. BROMLEY: In rising, I shall, I suppose, give effect to the suggestion of the Seconder of the rejection of the Bill who spoke of what he called the unholy alliance between the railway companies and railway servants. I remember the hon. Gentleman on a certain occasion in this House being very vociferous when the railway unions were fighting the railway companies, and I suggest to him that he cannot have it both ways, but we have very good reason as railway servants for being on the side, not only of the companies on this occasion, but of fair play and national advancement. If the organised railwaymen wished to put any arguments of a selfish nature, we could point out that by the Act of 1921 the railway companies have been brought into line in dealing with their servants under certain machinery, and that the conditions of service of railwaymen are to that extent controlled. The railway unions have expended a tremendous amount of money in assisting to run that machinery. My own organisation has spent the enormous sum of about £40,000 in dealing with only one section of the railway service. Seeing that we have tried to work the machinery set up by this honourable House, to protect the interest of our members and to render efficient railway service, if on no higher ground than that we should have a right to voice our opinions in agreement with the railway companies against what is manifestly and easily proveable to be unfair competition.
  But we put it on higher grounds than that, and I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Newcastle Divisions, who voiced the position of municipal authorities: If I thought this Measure was not likely to give at

  353
  least a square deal and fair play to municipal authorities I should not be supporting it as earnestly as I am at the moment. Although there is some £1,300,000,000 of capital sunk in railway companies, I realise that there is not only, as my hon. Friend says, £70,000,000 or £80,000,000, but nearly £100,000,000, of the capital of the citizens invested in municipal under- takings. I think the opposition which has been heard in this House to-night on behalf of municipal authorities shows they are not so perturbed about their position. Whilst there were some negotiations in December of last year between the railway companies and the representatives of the Municipal Association, there was no further approach—at least no negotiations—until last week, on the 22nd of this month. I understand that although the railway companies, before the Second Reading of this Bill came on, did not give everything that some people have asked, there have been certain side winds blowing among Members of this House—this has not been voiced particularly on the Floor of the House—which have not given quite a fair indication of what has taken place. As late as yesterday, at a meeting of the Municipal Association, there was a vote of only 19 to 18 on the question of whether there should be continued opposition to the Bills—and that, as stated definitely by their leader, not on a question of prineiple at all, because they agree with the railway companies having power, but in order that they may have bargaining power. Therefore, I hope we shall not hear anything further about unfairness or want of consideration in that direction. On this side of the House, at least, every one would see there was a fair deal there, The Bill will have to have a Third Reading, and if there were anything unfair or any lack of consideration for that particular interest, I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would see, even at that late stage, that a square deal was provided.
  The hon. Member for Southern Derby-shire (Sir J. Grant) referred to the danger of increasing road transport and also of delays occurring on railways. I suggest to the House that if these Bills were not passed we are not likely to prevent further vehicles being put on the roads, for new vehicles are continually being placed
  354
  on the roads and causing unfair competition, which I will try to illustrate. Let us consider the temptation for people to put vehicles on the road irrespective of public safety and running in competition with railways which have certain restrictions placed upon them. I would like to mention the case of the Edinburgh Omnibus Company, which advertised its prospectus on the 29th January this year, and it stated in that advertisement that the net profits per omnibus would be £1,250 per annum, the cost of the omnibus being £1,450. The expenditure side indicated that drivers' and conductors' wages, plus National Insurance, would be £215 17s. 4d. per annum, and although they would be making these tremendous profits the rent and rates paid per omnibus would he £19 11s. 2d. for the privilege of running over our public roads.
  Railway companies have certain restrictions placed upon them, but if other people who are not restricted are allowed to use the roads and make big profits, then there will not be any limitation to the overcrowding of the roads about which so many complaints have been made. It is quite easy to gibe at railways for delays when some accident happens. Such incidents are immediately brought under the public eye, but we have only to look at the figures of accidents on roads to see how much more safe the railways are for travelling. Many things occur on the roads, as every motorist knows, when he wishes that there was a railway station near to him. All these small people who are making such enormous profits, when they have a breakdown on the road, hand their passengers over to the railway companies to take them home. Some time ago a milk van got into a ditch and subsequently the milk had to be handed over to the railway company to carry it to its destination. An hon. Member told me yesterday that he intended to vote against giving the railway companies the powers they were asking for, but to-day he is prepared to vote for these Bills. The hon. Member to whom I refer had to travel from Hastings after 10 o'clock last night and he ran into a fog. Some one had to walk in front of the motor and search for the linger-post, and after wandering about for some hours they came back to the

  355
  same finger-post, and finally got London about 7.30 this morning.
  I want now to say a word with regard to something against which railwaymen have to protect themselves, and it has a great deal to do with the fear of hon. Members that the roads may become more congested with traffic. How much more necessary, therefore, is it for this House to see that, if there is to be further transport on the roads, it is done in the most efficient manner possible. The great danger which we, as railway servants, have to face, and which, of course, is troubling the railway companies, is not from the organised and comparatively decently paid municipal employés on their tramways and internal servicea, but from the multiplicity of companies whose object is to get rich quickly, and who have put a motor or two, or a freight wagon or two, on to the roads. While the railway companies have in charge of their trains men with years of experience, almost perfect eyesight, good bearing, even a certain standard of education, compelled to pass continual examinations, and getting, at least in comparison with the past, a reasonable wage, we find, in the case of this kind of road transport, men in charge—indeed, sometimes, youths under 21—of any ramshackle vehicle, their colour vision never tested; and we do not know even what form vision they possess, because they can drive these vehicles with one eye. They may even be stone deaf; they may be youths who are likely to crack up in an emergency, and their wages are often as low as 30s. and 35s. a week.
  The railway unions, in fact, having expended so many thousands of pounds in assisting to carry out the will of this honourable House and to get machinery to regulate our wages, and having dealt with the railway companies for so long, are now meeting competition that is unregulated, with no physical tests as regards eyesight or hearing, with youths without experience and very young in years, receiving miserably low wages. That, I suggest to this House, is neither good for the railway companies, the railway servants, or the nation and the public generally. Is it to the interest of our people that underpaid wage-earners should replace some who are decently paid? Will it increase the spending
  356
  power of the people? Is it the safest possible thing for the public of this country that people who may be miles away from being as efficient as the railwayman should take this work? Further, their hours are unlimited; men go away for days at a time, sleeping where they can, and I have had it admitted to me that sometimes men find themselves asleep on their lorries.
  To quote some experiences of my own, I have travelled with some of this road transport around one important industrial town, just to see what it was. In many cases the vehicle was merely a wooden structure roughly nailed together on wheels, plying for hire and carrying passengers, and, if some boy on a, small toy bicycle had run into it, it would have knocked the whole bag of tricks off except the wheels and the engine. Then I have travelled, only within the last few weeks, near another great industrial town, in a heavy motor carrying a number of passengers, with a young boy in charge and a young girl taking the tickets; and, during the time we were running, these two were having practically a joy ride in front. There was no place for the girl conductor, so she went up and sat and talked to the young fellow who was driving. I have no objection to young people talking together, but there are times when it is inappropriate, and, although I served a railway company on locomotives for over 20 years, and travelled many thousands of miles on engines of all descriptions, I am not ashamed to admit to this House that, after I had seen one or two of these trips, I got off and walked, because I wanted to feel perfectly safe. I suggest, therefore, that it would not be in the public interest for this House to encourage competition of that description.
  May I say a word with regard to the hon. Gentleman's examination of certain phases of railway rating? He told the House that railway companies got tremendous reductions in their rates, but he did not go on properly to describe them and to inform the House as to where they were given and in what circumstances. It is true that in urban areas railway companies have certain deductions allowed from their rates purely for their track and for sanitary and such like purposes. The railway

  357
  companies do not require anything of the sort on their urban track, but there is no deduction whatever on any of their stations or buildings or anything else but running track, and when you come to rural areas that allowance is not made. I think the hon. Gentleman should have put that to the House. The railway companies pay altogether in rates nearly £8,000,000 per annum, or 20 per cent. of their net income. Why then should they not have the facilities asked for—not to crowd the roads with vehicles, but to be given a fair opportunity of working their own traffic in the district, which would give them just the facilties to which they are entitled?
  The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill told a story which somewhat interested me as a railway man. He said that railway men with free passes were travelling by bus because the bus took them from door to door, instead of travelling by train with their free passes. I was very much interested as to why they left the railway where they were working to walk to the bus to take them home when they could have travelled from where they were working, even if they had to walk at the other end. I do not think he would find a large number of such cases.
  Mr. LAMB: I cited one case. I said it was a porter working on the railway who was not going from the station.
  Mr. BROMLEY: I am glad I put that point, because if there does happen to be one railway porter, one swallow does not make a summer or even a winter like last year, and it does not really affect the argument. May I pass to another point? We have had many epistles sent to us. There was one from the Fruit and Potato Growers' Association. In the bottom paragraph on the front page it says:
  "In the past as a result of railway monopoly the fruit trade has suffered through inefficient and over-costly services. The lever provided by the development of free competitive road transport has already effected some improvement under both headings."
  I would suggest that the Fruit and Potato Growers' Association might possibly look in another direction. I know a fruit country in the middle of England, and I know that every year—whether in a boom year of fruit or a poor year it
  358
  does not matter—beautiful fruit is allowed to fall from the trees and rot on the ground, because the road transport is so inefficient that it does not get the fruit to the railways. If the railway companies have power to run a motor freight service around this district and collect stuff, they may be able to fill a wagon.
  Mr. LAMB: They have that power now.
  Mr. BROMLEY: They have not the power which this Bill would give them. I am speaking now of a service which could encircle a district and, instead of a train having to call at every station along the route, could he taken to certain centres, which would not only facilitate traffic but would allow the small grower to get it to stations where now road transport is inefficient. Stuff, as I know myself, is gathered in the orchard and carried across fields to the roads, and the little local carrier with his little wooden hutch on wheels comes along and is full up and the fruit cannot be sold and is spoilt. There is more in it, if the fruit and potato salesmen will look it up, than meets the eye.
  Then I do not know whether hon. Members have thought of possibilities like this. Road transport people do not cater for heavy traffic, neither do they appear so far to cater for cattle traffic, and the railway company is often put in this difficulty. A small consignment of one or two beasts is given them to take in a triangular direction. They take them on the main line, and they have to be put off at a junction and wait for a branch train to take them somewhere else. The railway companies might have power, instead of taking them to or from either of their stations, with specially fitted vehicles as they have on railways for special consignments, to run them diagonally across country. There is no road transport to do it to-day. The railway companies might have those facilities for taking to or from their railway service and thus often prevent a small truck or two of cattle standing at a junction for two or three hours because they cannot get an engine or a special train to run them a few miles. Then the opinion has been expressed that these ancillary services will be likely to punish in some way either railway shareholders on the one

  359
  hand or the traders on the other. In actual fact, in this case they have it both ways. If there is a loss on it it cannot be taken from the railway earnings. If there is a profit, the Wages Tribunal will see that it is taken into consideration. Therefore, I want the House to consider the fair play asked for in this Bill and give it a Second Reading. There will then be an opportunity before Third Reading of anything that may be wrong in particular instances to be rectified.
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— [Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow at Half-past Seven o'clock.
  Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order).
  London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order).
  Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order).
  Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill (by Order).
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Half-past Seven of the clock.

SUPPLY.
  REPORT [23RD FEBRUARY].
  Resolutions reported;
CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1927.
  CLASS V.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services.''

  CLASS VI.
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £160,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
  360
  course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry or Agriculture and Fisheries, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, Loans to and Relief of Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle. Grants for Land Drainage, Grants in Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants in Aid: and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."

  CLASS II.
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £525,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Sundry Dominion Services, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, for certain ex-Gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONVEN- TION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendmentl; read the Third time, and passed.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 56 & 57 Vict. c. 39, s. 22.)
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "member," to insert the words "and after the passing of this Act."
  The object of this Amendment is to meet the point raised in the Second Reading Debate by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Pembroke (Major Price). He pointed out that the Bill in its present form is retrospective in the condition it seeks to impose upon friendly societies. In order to remove any doubt, I am moving to insert the words which I promised to insert at the time of the Second Reading.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Short title, construction, and extent), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE ACT.
  Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider which, if any, of the Acts of Parliament now included in the Schedules to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act can with advantage be made permanent or be enacted for periods longer than those prescribed by that Act."
  Lord Apsley, Sir Henry Buckingham, Colonel Burton, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Ernest Evans, Sir Patrick Ford, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Sir Clement KinlochCooke, Mr. Lougher, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Oliver, Sir Basil Pete, and Mr. Short nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."
  Ordered, "That Five be the quorum.'' —[Sir G. Henncssy.]

  POOR LAW ACT, 1927.
  The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CHARLES EDWAEDS:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated 20th January, 1928, entitled the Bedwellty Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1928, be annulled."
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. I should like to obtain a ruling on a point which has somewhat troubled me. On the Order Paper, when I saw it on Saturday, this Motion with respect to the Bedwellty Board of Guardians appeared for Thursday of this week. Under these circumstances, I want to ask if you will be good enough to give me a ruling as to how the Standing Order with regard to anticipation applies to a case of this kind. I took
  362
  the view on seeing this Motion on the Order Paper for Thursday, that no question with regard to this particular Bedwellty Order could be discussed before that date; otherwise it would be, under Standing Order 10a, out of order on the ground of anticipation, because of the
  "probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time."
  Next Thursday, of course, one assumes would be a reasonable time. I ask for a general ruling as to whether a Motion of this kind is put on the Order Paper for Thursday it can be anticipated by being put on the Order Paper for discussion two clays earlier?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion does not now stand on the Order Paper for Thursday. I understand that it was taken off the Order Paper and put down for to-night, because it was discovered that the time allowed would have expired when Thursday arrived. I agree that it is inconvenient to have these changes of date, but I do not think there is anything in the Standing Orders to forbid it.
  Mr. HERBERT: In thanking you for that Ruling, may I ask—it may be good guidance for procedure in the future—whether it can be generally understood that by taking an Order off the Order Paper one can in fact anticipate the discussion of that particular subject, and that, supposing a Motion stands on the Order Paper for one day next week, and I happen to arrange with my Friend, who has that Order down, that he should take it off the Paper, I can thereby put down some question which will raise a discussion on that particular point, in anticipation of the date on which it has appeared previously on the Order Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite a common practice for an hon. Member who has a Bill down for some future date to withdraw it in order to open the way for another hon. Member who has got an earlier and more favourable opportunity for a Motion. Where a Motion or a Bill is having a blocking effect, these arrangements are often made. The hon. Member is quite justified in removing an Order from the Paper if it be found that it is having a blocking effect.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated 20th January, 1928, entitled the Bedwellty Union (Default) Orders (Continuation) Order, 1928, be annulled."
  I quite agree that it is inconvenient to discuss these prayers at this time of the evening, but I am hoping that this Prayer will be answered and that it will not be necessary to discuss it again. I think right hon. Gentlemen opposite will oe thankful that it has been put down because it has enabled them to get one or two Orders very easily. We have discussed this question on several occasions previously. Why have the Bedwellty Guardians been superseded? It is not for bad administration, as I shall be able to show, but because the district industrially is in such a bad way that the Minister of Health said to himself, "There is extreme poverty here and it is likely to continue. These guardians live amongst the people and know of this poverty, many of them belong to the same class as those who are in distress, and they will not be able to resist. I must appoint men who live out of the district, who know nothing of the poverty of the people and will not believe the tales that are told them." That, I think, was the main reason why the guardians were superseded. Bedwellty up to 1924 was amongst the best administered places in this country. When I came into this House in 1918 nobody knew where Bedwellty was; but to-day everybody seems to know something about it. Things went on so well, the local authority did its work so well, that it was not even heard of, but since then a great change has taken place. The rates in 1914 were £96,985, and it was collected, every halfpenny of it. In 1921, when the cost of every service was so much higher, they wanted four times as much—£345,462—and that was collected, every halfpenny of it.
  Then we come to 1927, and a very different story has to be told. In the meantime many of the industries in the area had been stopped; poverty reigned supreme. People who owned houses could not get their rents, and consequently could not pay their rates. Many of the collieries were stopped; there was not so much income from them, and the result was that in 1927 so much more was needed and the income was much less
  364
  than it had been. They called for 2278,000, but only £132,000 was collected. That was the beginning of the trouble. It is not because of the guardians. They are the same people, with one or two exceptions, who were in office in 1921. But the condition of the area was such that they found themselves in a very difficult position. The assessable value had gone down very considerably. Take one small area, Blaina, the assessable value of the collieries in 1920 was £21,000, but within a year-and-a-half, in September, 1922, it had gone down to £4,000.
  That applies to other areas in almost the same ratio. We shall be told, I suppose, that the recipients of Poor Law relief have been reduced from 16,000 to 11,000 since the Commissioners were put in, and that the relief paid has been reduced by over £500 a week. We shall be told, too, that the Commissioners have stopped borrowing. We do not want to be told these things, which we admit. But we protest against the reduction, because it has been made at the expense of the starvation of men, women and children. Some hon. Members will perhaps say, "What a splendid thing to have stopped borrowing!" I doubt whether they would say that if they saw the homes in this area and the sufferings of the people there. The position of the single young men is deplorable in the extreme. The Commissioners, assisted by the Ministry, have refused to relieve these cases. These young men have been a thousand times worse off since the stoppage in 1926 than they were at that time. Then they had help from sympathetic friends in different parts of the country, there were soup kitchens, and they were getting at least one meal a day. There are now scores and hundreds of them who have never known since then what a real meal on any one day means. Their position has been deplorable above all the rest.
  Only a week or two ago the position was such that the County Council of Monmouthshire discussed it and protested against the conditions that they found, the poverty that existed and was not being relieved. A right hon. Gentleman who was once a Member of this House, Mr. Thomas Richards, one of the best men we know, made a very strong speech and protested against the Commissioners not relieving the distress. He

  365
  called upon them to resign and to allow others to see if they could do better. The Chairman of the Commissioners was at the meeting, but did not reply to a single charge that was made. Things go on just as before. The old age pensioners were relieved by the old guardians to the extent of about five shillings a week. The new Commissioners refuse to give them anything at all. The week before last the Minister of Labour, who is not one of the most sympathetic men in the world, said that every one knew that a person could not live on ten shillings a week, arid it, was never intended that he should. But these Commissioners say that he must, and have refused any relief whatever to these old people. A case was brought to my notice during the Autumn Session. There was living in my constituency a married man, with his wife, four children, and his mother-in-law, who was an old age pensioner. He appealed to the Commissioners for some help for the old lady, but it was refused because the man was working. He was on what is called a subsistence wage, namely 8s. 0¾d. a day. He could earn 48s. in a full week and take home about 46s. But he was working three and sometimes four days a week, and sometimes even less than that. This man's earnings are from 22s. to 30s. a week and the rent to be paid is 10s. a week. According to the Commissioners, seven people have to live on what remains. No one can say how they manage to exist. I do not know—I merely state what is happening.
  I have another case of a man and wife living with a brother-in-law. They have no children but the wife is in a weak state and badly in need of nourishment. The Commissioners at first refused to grant them anything at all, and said the brother-in-law must keep them as he was working. Eventually they agreed to give the woman 5s. 6d. one week, if her husband went to Swansea to look for work—to Swansea where there are thousands of unemployed already. The Commissioners paid the 5s. 6d. in one week but not a halfpenny from that time onwards. That is where our C3 nation comes from—and these are only a few of the cases I could cite. There are scores and hundreds of others, if I cared to take up time in dealing with them. There is another question in this connection, and that is
  366
  the question of small-pox. Shortly before this House adjourned—in fact, on the day of the Prayer Book Debate—the medical officer for Monmouthshire was here and saw the Minister of Health. There were two other members of the council with him, and he was telling us upstairs about the prevalence of small-pox in Monmouthshire. He said that small-pox seemed to follow poverty and destitution. It commenced in the Eastern Valley about Pontypool, and then came to the Western Valley, and then, he said, it seemed to jump over the Tredegar Valley where the work was better and the destitution not so bad. It went over into the next valley and attacked that. That was his statement to us, but I heard an hon. Member who belongs to the medical profession state here last week that destitution has nothing to do with small-pox. Thus we have two doctors who differ on that point. I believe it is only reasonable common sense to suppose that the lowered physical condition of the people renders them more susceptible to disease. I have here a cutting from the "Western Mail" in regard to this question. They do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. A. V. Davies) as to small-pox. Referring to the disease in the East End of London they say:
  "Privation, no doubt, plays some small part in the prevalence of small-pox in these areas, but there is a more feasible theory still to account for its spread among East Enders as opposed to the dwellers in the West. The West Enders, generally speaking, while perhaps more fortunate are more intelligent and better balanced, and consequently exhibit greater public spirit and citizenship, in so far as they submit their children to vaccination with greater readiness."
  I suppose they will next recommend vaccination as a cure for hunger. We have, however, the statement of the Medical Officer for Monmouthshire that the disease seemed to follow poverty and destitution. The people I have mentioned were here to ask for a grant to help them because they had already spent £20,000 in dealing with small-pox up to then. I have promised to be brief, otherwise I would refer in more detail to Abertillery. I wonder what the Minister of Health is doing there. Small-pox is raging there and they have stopped scavenging—stopped the carts going round—and they are allowing the filth to remain on the streets for the whole week.

  367
  I should imagine that that would be a question for the Minister of Health to take up and to make sure that sanitation as far as possible should be enforced, especially when small-pox is raging there. We say that the poverty of these people has much to do with it. These Commissioners are responsible for it; they ought to be relieving distress in a way that they are not. I am asking that this Order should be annulled and that instructions should be given for the election of guardians again as occurred before.
  This district, I suppose, will be experiencing to-day what it never experienced before. I go home every week-end, as do many of my hon. Friends, and I confess it is a misery to walk about the streets and roads of the mining towns and villages. You meet men who are, many of them, your old friends, men who used to dress up and take a pride in themselves and their wives and children, and they go about any way to-day and have lost heart altogether. Then there is the Pensions Act, which has just come into force, but which is a cruise and not a blessing. An old friend of mine met me three weeks ago last Saturday, and he was a man who used to take a pride in himself. A better workman never went down a coal pit than that man, and a man of finer character never lived. He told me he had been employed in a certain pit that had been stopped, and that he had been idle for three months, during which time he had been in receipt of unemployment pay, but he had now become 65 years of age and his unemployment pay had been stopped. His wife was only 63, and he was down from 23s. to 10s. a week as a result. He said that neither he nor anyone belonging to him had ever yet appealed to the guardians, and what, he asked, was he to do now? These Commissioners are refusing to meet cases of this sort, with the result that the district is in a bad way indeed. However, I must finish, as my time is up.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to second the Motion.
  This is a case with which the House is becoming all too sadly familiar. This Prayer must necessarily be a recital of the tragic conditions that obtain in one of our large industrial centres, conditions
  368
  brought about through no fault of their own, but, as I believe, by policies pursued by those who ought to have more sense than they have exhibited. I believe that, if other policies had been followed, these conditions would not have arisen in the way they have done. I have in my hands the report of the Government themselves on the Bedwellty case, and I have no doubt that we shall be told by the right hon. Gentleman who will reply for the Ministry of Health that the effect of bringing about, this change of supplanting the elected members of the board by officials appointed by the Department has been to bring about savings of a very material character.
  I shall not, go over the cases that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), but I will point this out, that these bureaucratically appointed guardians took over a few weeks after the end of the coal dispute, at a time when the men were beginning to get hack to work when the pits were reopening. It is a fair assumption on our part that many of the savings of which the Ministry may boast, and which these gentlemen proclaim that they have effected, are purely automatic savings—savings that have been made by every other union in that area. During the period of worst distress there was necessarily a large number of officials in the Poor Law, and, as men went back to work and the number of cases became less, the officials were gradually displaced. As a matter of fact, at Bedwellty the Ministry itself have instigated what is called a domiciliary system. Under that system, the Ministry lays it down that about 200 cases per man was the number that could he worked, the reason being that the official must visit every person receiving relief at his house. As the cases passed out of the purview of the relieving authority, by the return to work that took place, the number of officials was automatically reduced.
  Another point is the small amount that the guardians are paying in the way of relief. In this Report I find that for the half-year ending 30th September, 1927, there were 53,353 maintenance days at a cost of £1,710 for provisions. In 1926, the number of maintenance-days was

  369
  63,000 and the amount spent was £2,500. The amount spent in the 1927 half-year worked oat at 2¼d. per meal, or 6½d. for three meals a day. It is no wonder that you can make savings under conditions of that description. We could all save a great deal of money if we spent less than 2¼d. per meal. Other necessaries cost £846 over the same number of maintenance days, and that would work out at another penny per meal if the necessaries were used for feeding purposes.
  Let me draw attention to the children's homes and the expenditure there under the new dispensation which we are praying should be removed. For the six months ending 29th September, 1921, there were 29,226 maintenance-days at a cost for provisions of £942. That is an expenditure of 2½d. per meal, and, if one adds other necessaries, about another 1d. per meal. If I turn to the six months ending 30th September, 1926, under the old guardians, I find there were 28,140 maintenance-days and an expenditure of £1,013— not so much for which to blame the old guardians. They were evidently doing their level best under the circumstances, and why they should be so drastically dealt with passes my comprehension. The Ministry have not a very good case against the Bedwellty Union, and these savings are being effected in a very drastic manner. Taking the amounts paid on relief, at no time can it be said that the guardians were acting very extravagantly, because this Report states that for the year ending 1st March, 1922, the average number of cases relieved weekly was 5,200 and the average weekly cost was £5,936. There does not seem to be anything extravagant about granting a little over £1 a week in the year 1922, when the cost of living was round about 85 per cent. above the 1914 level. At 1914 prices this relief would be equivalent to about a week. There does not appear to be much ground for condemnation in granting relief on that scale. When I come to the year 1927, the bad year, the year, I suppose, which induced the Ministry to take action, I find the number of cases relieved was 11,484, and the average weekly cost was £10,036. In that year the old guardians had reduced the amount of relief to less than they had been paying in the previous year. In no year from 1922—in 1923, 1924, 1925
  370
  and 1926—is much more paid than round about a guinea per week, and the year 1927 marks low-water level in the case of the old guardians.
  How are the new people managing? The new bureaucrats appointed to carry out the ministerial will are saving because they are refusing relief, I believe, to all single men below 50 years of age. That is a curious age to fix. That a man should happen to be less than 50 is a curious reason for denying a man relief. Why not 51? Why should a man at 49 be refused relief and a man of 50½ be granted relief? If the man is hungry, miserable and sad, if he wants clothes, food and shelter, surely he ought to have some relief; and it does not seem to me that the Ministry are earning very much credit either for high mindedness or common sense in adopting the methods which they have followed. This refusal of relief is reacting in very many ways. The physique of the teen is also affected to this extent, that many of them cannot carry on the ordinary functions of their trade when work is offered to them. Smallpox has been mentioned, and in Merthyr Tydvil there are ten cases. My belief is that much of this disease is being induced by the low standard of maintenance upon which these people are compelled to exist. I have had no medical experience, but I should be very much surprised if medical men in all parts of the House would not be ready to bear out my contention that this disease is induced and accentuated by the deplorable conditons under which so many thousands of our countrymen are compelled to live. I think this is a perfect scandal.
  Vagrancy is on the increase throughout the whole of the Bcdwellty Union as well as other unions. We who represent some of those areas in South Wales urge that the time has come when the powers of the Bedwellty Guardians should be restored, and they should be allowed to operate in the usual way. We think that more humanity should be shown between the relieving authorities and those who have to seek relief. I do not want to accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of being flinty-hearted or inhuman, but I suggest that the policy pursued by the Government certainly justifies the words I have used with regard to his Department. I am astonished that the Parliamentary

  371
  Secretary should allow himself to be made the instrument of such a hard policy, and I think he ought to chuck up the job, and tell the Government to do their own dirty work. It must be a distasteful task for any man to feel himself compelled to carry out such odious duties as those involved in reducing the standard of living of the people. Not only are these people suffering from hunger and lack of clothing, but many of them have lost their homes, and they have lost all hope. These men at the end of a life of dangerous toil find themselves requited with an income of from 10s. to 15s. a week, and this is a state of things of which the House ought to be ashamed. We maintain that the local authority should be allowed to carry on its work, that the Government should restore democratic liberty and administer the law decently. The Government should recognise their responsibility for unemployment. They should relieve those areas of the burdens from which they are now suffering, and restore full powers to those authorities.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I do not want to detain the House for more than a minute, but I should like to tell the hon. Member who moved this Motion the reason why I take such particular interest in seeing it on the Order Paper. Bedwellty is a far cry from Watford. This discussion with regard to the substituted guardians is one which we have had in this House before, and some of us have been obliged to make up our minds on the question on what one may call general principles, without any immediate, direct, local knowledge of the circumstances. I am sure the hon. Member will believe me when I say that many of us feel as much as he does the hardship of the cases of these men who have lost their work through no fault of their own, but I had a curious experience with regard to Bedwellty only a few weeks ago.
  I happened to be holding some meetings in my Division of Watford, and on one occasion, to my surprise, I was interrupted in my speech by a gentleman who declared himself a miner from Bedwellty. I am quoting this case because it may be a help, perhaps, to the hon. Member to get some of his supporters on to a little straighter lines.
  372
  This miner from Bedwellty, who interrupted me in my speech, told me a very horrible story, and I came here to-night waiting to see whether I should hear such a horrible story from the hon. Member. I have not heard it. When this miner told me this horrible story, I said to him, "Will you tell me, first of all, has this case been brought to the knowledge of the Member for the Bedwellty Division?" I could not get an answer from him for some time, but when I pressed him he said he did not know. I said, "Well, if it is brought to his knowledge I am perfectly certain that he will bring it to the knowledge of the proper Minister, or, if he will not, I will do so myself. If you will wait until I have finished my speech, and then come to this end of the room and give me particulars substantiating the story you have told, I will promise to bring it to the notice of the Minister within 48 hours and let you know the result, because what you have told me about is a thing which certainly ought never to have happened, and I will guarantee that it shall be altered and put right if it has happened." The result of my invitation to that miner from Bedwellty, to come up to my end of the room and speak to me as soon as I had finished my speech, was that, when I had finished my speech, he got up from his seat, walked to the other end of the room, and left by the door, and I never saw him again.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to delay the House for any length of time, or to deal much with the question that is concerned, but I would like to know what was the purpose of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) in telling that story. I probably hold more public meetings than most of my hon. Friends on these benches, and my invariable experience is that some supporters of the hon. Member's party treat me in exactly the same fashion as he was treated. They are very fertile in interruptions during a speech, but when the time for questions comes they are never there to put a point. I hope the hon. Member is not telling that story in order to prejudice the Minister's mind or to lead this House into the belief that the condition in these areas is not very terrible.
  Mr. HERBERT: I am telling it as an excuse for people far away from Bedwelity

  373
  sometimes doubting the truth of the horrible stories they hear.
  Mr. MAXTON: Those of us who are actually in those areas, and in contact with the persons who are suffering, know very well that no story that any Member here could tell could be an exaggeration of the conditions actually obtaining. The fact that my hon. Friend has described the position of these areas with restraint and reticence, rather than with over-emphasis, ought to be treated by the House with proper respect and should not be used to suggest that there are no sufferings in these areas, because there are very deep sufferings which have been intensified by the action of the Minister in super-imposing his authority over that of the persons properly elected who had knowledge of the people, their character and their mode of life. The conditions have been intensified in Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty. I cannot speak for the other area, because I have not been in it, but in these two areas it has been a wrong and harmful act and has intensified the position. It is a wrong thing for any Member of the House to attempt to minimise it in any way.
  Mr. HERBERT: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I expressly admitted that such terrible stories had not been told by Members on the other side of the House to-night. Their case, I admitted, has been put with moderation—certainly compared with the story that I heard—but it is undoubtedly the case that one does hear in less responsible quarters than this House stories which on the face of them cannot be substantiated.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I could bring cases which would horrify the House if they were told in their stark reality.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The occasion for this Prayer to-night is the fact that the Minister of Health has quite recently thought fit to continue the office of the Appointed Guardians of Bedwellty for a further term. If this Prayer is rejected to-night they will continue to hold that position until 30th June, when the matter will again come under consideration and my right hon. Friend will have to decide whether they should continue in their office for a further period or not. It is
  374
  perfectly true, as has been stated by both hon. Gentlemen to-night—in their very moderate speeches, I agree—that the condition of Bedwellty has for some time been a serious one. It is one of the most thickly-populated areas in South Wales and has been hard hit by unemployment, which has been aggravated by the conditions which have arisen from the coal stoppage, and has had to pass through a time of exceptional distress.
  No one will deny those facts. The lesson which I draw is a different one from that put forward by both the hon. Gentlemen to-night. I say that the condition of such a district, especially so far as the administration of relief is concerned, certainly calls for sympathy, but it equally calls for care and discretion. I think few people will deny that the difficulties of that district have been very largely added to and the hardships considerably increased by what I consider to be the unwise and foolish policy which was adopted by the late guardians who had to be removed from office. I do not want to recall at any length to-night the circumstances in which the late board of guardians was removed, but I am obliged to say a word or two, because the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion said in his first words that he contended that there were no circumstances in which the late board ought to have been removed from office. Anyone who has followed the course of events in that district will disagree with him. They were the responsible guardians of a population, it is true, very much distressed but very small in number, and they accumulated before they left office a debt of nearly £1,000,000, and for the 12 months ending 31st March, 1927, the amount that had to be raised from local rates and loans came to the colossal sum of no less than £679,000. During the same period a sum of over £500,000 went in out-relief alone, as compared with some £200,000 in the preceding 12 months. A good deal of that relief was, no doubt, necessary, but a great deal more was wasteful, and the administration was neither careful nor economical.
  When the new board of guardians took office they found that no proper books were kept, and there was no adequate account of the cases that had been dealt with. It is not surprising to find that cases like this occurred where an able-bodied

  375
  man, who had received no less than £350 in out-relief over a period of four years, upon being interrogated by the committee as to his endeavours to find work, said his relief had been cut so fine that it was not a decent living and that his mother had purchased a motor wagon and started him in a motor haulage business. There was another case that shows the loose methods of administration with no adequate inquiry. An able-bodied man who had received £270 in continuous out-relief since 1921 was informed that out-relief would only be continued for a further period of two weeks, after which, if he required further relief, he would be given an order of admission to the institution. He forthwith opened a butcher's shop and ceased to be chargeable on the union.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, after all, supposing this is one of the worst cases he can bring up, the relief granted was an average of about 17s. a week?
  Sir K. WOOD: I am dealing with the facts as I find them. When cases like that occur, steps have to be taken. I will give another illustration. Complaints were made by hon. Members opposite that a large number of officers had been appointed by the late guardians to administer out-relief and the new guardians had cut them down. As I understand it, the charge was that by so cutting them down the people in distress were not receiving adequate relief. What is the position?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I did not say that.
  Sir K. WOOD: That was the inference.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of explanation. I did not infer that at all. I said that by your instigation of the domiciliary system, by the passing out of a large number of cases there had been an automatic release of a large number of relieving officers.
  Sir K. WOOD: All that I desire to deal with is the very appointment which is illustrative of the methods of the late guardians so far as the appointment of additional officers was concerned. I think—and I am putting it very mildly indeed—they paid very little regard to
  376
  the necessities of their district in the additional appointments which they made. I find in the list of persons appointed as assistant relieving officers during the period just before they were dismissed from office that there were three brothers of guardians, three husbands of guardians, two sons of guardians, two sons-in-law of guardians, 15 members of local trade and labour councils, one brother of a miners' agent, one member of the Smelters' Union, one member of the Slate Club of the Smelters' Union, three members of a committee of the Miners' Federation, one official of the Firemen's Union, one member of the Unemployment Committee, and one secretary of a Miners' Lodge. It appears to me that more regard was paid to the persons who held office than to their capacity to do the work. I think the new guardians have acted very properly in cutting down the number of officers of that character, and certainly, so far as their administration and the staff are concerned, matters have been very much improved.
  Although I have been asked not to do so to-night by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion, I must point to the condition of affairs since the new guardians have held office and the gradual improvement which has undoubtedly taken place in their administration. It will be found, for instance, that, so far as expenditure is concerned, the new guardians have not had to borrow any additional money at all. The hon. Gentleman who knows the facts well knows that under the late administration there were no fewer than 29 applications to my Department for loans, and that in the end a sum of nearly £1,000,000 was borrowed on that account. It was the application to my Department for still further sums, coupled with the fact that the conditions which had been laid down in reference to previous applications had been totally ignored and avoided, as the hon. Gentleman knows, which really brought about the position and the circumstances in which the old guardians had to be superseded. It is perfectly true that there has been a very considerable curtailment in expenditure. Out-relief for the half-year eliding 30th September, 1925, cost over £100,000, and for the half-year ending 30th September, 1926, it cost no less than £300,000.

  377
  I believe that has been effected without any hardship. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, and I will state why I believe it, later. That relief has been reduced to £38,322.
  Cases have been mentioned to-night which it has been impossible for me to verify, because I had no previous notice of them, of alleged hardship under the administration of the newly-appointed board of guardians. All that I can tell the House is this, that in all the cases that have been submitted to my right hon. Friend or myself by hon. Members interested, or other parties, very careful examination has been made, because it is only by careful examination that the truth can be ascertained. I find, for instance, that a colleague of the hon. Gentleman opposite did, some little time ago, submit, I think, 10 individual cases to my Department. Inquiries showed that in none of those cases had representations been made to the guardians, and that in several instances the hon. Gentleman had been misinformed as to the facts. There was a committee instituted in the same district called the Distress Committee. That, committee submitted a list of 19 individual cases, in which it was alleged that the relief given was inadequate to supply the necessaries of life. It was found, after detailed inquiry, that the complaints in most cases overlooked the fact that out-door relief was for the wife and children only, and that the men had been offered institutional relief. In two cases only was it necessary for the guardians to re-consider their decision, and in none of the others did my right hon. Friend find any ground for criticism. Finally, so far as these cases are concerned, I would say to my hon. Friend, who has put his points very fairly to-night, that if he has any cases which he desires to be examined, I will, as I have told him before, gladly see that they are considered. Now I come to a case which aroused a certain amount of interest in the public Press. I quote it to show how wild statements are made. The statement was made in the "Westminster Gazette" at the beginning of the year, apparently by some correspondent who had visited the district:
  "To-day I went into a cottage inhabited by a family of twelve—grandfather and grandmother, father, mother and four sons,
  378
  and two married daughters with their husbands. The total income going into that cottage was 25s. per week, earned by a younger son, who paid 5s. railway fare, down the valley at Newbridge, where he was working four days a week in the pit. These Commissioners have refused to recognise that if the younger son breaks his family ties and goes to live in Newbridge in lodgings they will be forced to pay relief."
  That was a striking case to test as to whether there was any truth in it. It was one which, apparently, could be readily identified. The case was referred to the people concerned for investigation. I will read a letter which has been received in connection with the case. Hon. Members opposite, I will not say, naturally, criticise the attitude of the newly appointed guardians; but I do not think they will criticise the attitude of the clerk, who has carried out difficult duties, I think to the satisfaction of everybody. This is what he says:
  "Referring to the allegation that a family of twelve, consisting of the grandfather, grandmother, father and mother, four sons, two married daughters and their husbands, were living on an income of 25s. weekly, earned by a young son, I have made inquiry, and have failed to find such a case. The guardians are of the opinion, in which I concur, that such a case does not exist."
  I wish hon. Members opposite, when they have cases in which they really want justice to be done, instead of making statements, as they have to-night, without giving any previous notice, would submit them to the Department, and investigation would be made. An inquiry was made only a few days ago of the chairman of the newly appointed guardians—no one under the administration of my right hon. Friend desires to see hardship and suffering—as to whether there was the hardship and suffering which have been indicated in the speeches to-night, and we are assured by the chairman that such cases are not within his knowledge, and he believes that in all these cases investigation will show that the hon. Member is considerably misinformed. My right hon. Friend sees no evidence to believe that if the newly appointed guardians were abolished and an election again held that the union would not be again involved in financial difficulties, and in these circumstances he sees no other Course that he can adopt but to continue

  379
  them in office for a further term. Speaking in the interests of the whole district, I believe it is far better for the appointed guardians to continue in office, pursuing the policy they are in the general interests of the district, and I ask the House to reject the Motion.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES.

  [12.14 a.m.

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

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Scurr, John

  Barnes, A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barr, J.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Batey, Joseph

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bromfield, William

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kennedy, T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Clowes, S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Townend, A. E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawson, John James

  Varley, Frank B.

  Day, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dunnico, H.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Maxton, James

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Murnin, H.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wright, W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hardie, George D.

  Riley, Ben

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Meller. R. J.

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

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Albery, Irving James

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

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

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Gower, Sir Robert

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

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Bainlel, Lord

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Oakley, T.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Harland, A.

  Preston, William

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ramsden, E.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Buchan, John

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Burman, J. B.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Clayton, G. C.

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

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

  Cope, Major William

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lamb, J Q.

  Storry-Deans, R.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

  Lougher, Lewis

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Ellis, R. G.

  McLean, Major A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  England, Colonel A.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Mr. POTTS: May I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to agree to an inquiry into the statements he has made to-night?
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 133.

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Wilson, R. R. (Statford, Lichfield)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Mr. Penny and Captain Bowyer.

  Womersley, W.J.

  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr.
  DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the Honse without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  POOR LAW (LOANS, BEDWELLTY UNION).
  POOR LAW (LOANS, BEDWELLTY UNION).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  SCOTTISE(BARLEY (MILLING).
  SCOTTISE(BARLEY (MILLING).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
POST OFFICE.
  INSURANCE POLICIES.
  INSURANCE POLICIES.
  BOY MESSENGERS (FLAT FOOT).
  BOY MESSENGERS (FLAT FOOT).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  GRAVESEND SEA SCHOOL.
  GRAVESEND SEA SCHOOL.
  DERELICTS.
  DERELICTS.
  WAR COMPENSATION CLAIM (MR. S. A. WANDESFORDE).
  WAR COMPENSATION CLAIM (MR. S. A. WANDESFORDE).
  HOSIERY (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  HOSIERY (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  BETTING DUTY.
  BETTING DUTY.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  LAND TAX.
  LAND TAX.
  CUSTOMS DITTIES.
  CUSTOMS DITTIES.
  PUBLIC AUDITORS.
  PUBLIC AUDITORS.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, LANCASHIRE.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, LANCASHIRE.
  TATE GALLERY (TURNER BEQUEST).
  TATE GALLERY (TURNER BEQUEST).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

TRAFFIC IN WOMEN, ETC., BILL. [H.L.]
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend and amend the Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1885 to 1922, the Extradition Act, 1870, and the Children (Employment Abroad) Act, 1913; to make further provision for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; and for the repression of White Slave Traffic; and to move that it he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the Motion that I have to move deals with a matter similar to that which was raised last Thursday.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of Oliver and Charles Holdsworth and others.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave to present the Petition given accordingly.

ARMY ORGANISATION.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE rose to call attention to the changes recently announced by the Secretary of State for War on the distribution of duties at the War Office, and the future Staff Organisation of the Army in the field; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the new distribution that has been announced of duties in the Army Council and the War Office and particularly to their effect on the Higher Command
248
in the field and the position of the Commander-in-Chief. I may say at once that I rise with no hostile purpose towards the Government. Indeed, I do not think that anybody could have a hostile purpose, because the subject is so obscure that no one quite knows what these changes imply and what it is that has to be guarded against. They have arisen out of what is known as "mechanisation," which, as your Lordships know, means the substitution of other forms of movement for the old forms and, in particular, the introduction of engines of war propelled by petrol engines and sometimes assuming the form of tanks, at other times of vehicles which lay down as the wheels proceed the tracks for those wheels to move on, and also for a variety of further engines of war known as "dragons," self-propelling guns and a variety of other devices.
I wish to say at once that I am far from suggesting that the introduction of these necessary changes does not involve considerable alteration in the technical distribution of duties and of the powers that have been given to the Master-General of the Ordnance for construction, for experiment and for invention. All this is true, but the case that I am going to make is that these things could have been done completely and efficiently—perhaps more thoroughly than they have been done even under the organisation proposed—without altering the position of the Commander-in-Chief in the field. That position is a very difficult one. The Commander-in-Chief is there to fight. He is not there to spend his time in reading papers or in discussing things with various people, but to give his undivided attention and his concentrated will to battle. The less you hamper him with advisers who have a right to claim a hearing the better.
I do not know what would have been the view of the late Earl Haig upon this particular subject. I never discussed it with him, but I do know that when he and, indeed, the Earl of Ypres before him, who took the same course, found themselves with an additional staff officer to those already existing, called the Inspector of Communications, who, I regret to say, had been introduced in my own time—I was rather overborne unduly by technical opinion, and I was young then—the two Commanders-in-Chief,

249
agreeing with one another, ousted that extra Staff officer from the field so that he disappeared from the organisation. They found that they could fight better the less they were encumbered with advisers who were not merely advisers who came there, as it were, when they were wanted, but who had a right to claim to give their advice as to the conduct of operations. As I have said I do not know what view Field-Marshal Lord Haig would have taken on the particular point before us. It is at least a loss, the magnitude of which it is difficult to estimate, that we have not got him here, with his vast experience, to give us his guidance on the question which now comes before us.
In order to make plain what the point is, I think I had better tell your Lordships what is involved in the existing system. The point now raised is not a point which is altogether uninteresting to the public. The case we are making is that it really involves a change so large that it should not have been entered upon without much more adequate inquiry than appears to have been bestowed upon it. When it was first announced, The Times newspaper, which is always vigilant about military matters, at once declared that, without expressing any opinion on the concrete question, it thought it essential that there should be more inquiry than there had been. That view, taken by The Times and repeated in its columns on more than one occasion, was taken up by a number of distinguished Generals of different schools of thought, and they all concentrated upon saying that what we want is that this change should not be made without searching investigation—the sort of investigation made by the Esher Committee when the War Office was reorganised—that the inquiry need not take long, but that it should be thorough. Looking at the only document that we have here—the document published on November 10 last by the War Office for the enlightenment, first of the House of Commons and then of the public—it appears to me that there has been some uncertainty in the minds of the Army Council and of the Secretary of State as to how far the change which is proposed ought to go.
I come to the nature of the change itself. At the War Office, as your Lordships know, there is an organisation in
250
time of peace which is larger than that which is represented by the principal staff of the Commander-in-Chief in the field. At the War Office there is the Chief of the General Staff, there is the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance. Under the Commander-in-Chief in the field, at present, there are only the Chief of the General Staff, his Adjutant-General, his Quartermaster-General, and no others. The Inspector of Communications was abolished, as I told your Lordships, in the exercise of their powers, by Lord Ypres and Lord Haig; but when one comes to the duties of these members of the Army Council I am not at all quarrelling with the distribution of their duties.
They are roughly these. The Chief of the General Staff has to study the operations of war, strategy and tactics, and has to think about these things. He is essentially the thinking member of the Army Council. The Adjutant-General is concerned with personnel. The Quartermaster-General is concerned with supplies of all sorts. He even has to do with some supplies which are related to armaments, but armaments, so far as the most important of them are concerned, are within the province of the Master-General of Ordnance. He has factories at Woolwich and he has his technicians. He manufactures rifles and guns, and now he will manufacture the new mechanised instruments of war, which are rapidly transforming the appearance of the Army in the field, which are taking the place of Cavalry, and which constitute something new. These new instruments are of a mobile character. During the late War, soon after the first battle of the Marne, the War became of a stationary character, and during the next three years was of a siege character. At the end of that time mobility was restored, thanks to these new instruments, and the British Army was able to advance, and did advance. The Master-General of the Ordnance furnishes the Army with rifles and guns, but he does not go into the field to advise on the use of rifles and guns. He supplies them and he prepares them. It is the finished article which he delivers to the Commander-in-Chief, who uses it with the assistance and advice which he gets from his Chief of the General Staff. The Chief of the

251
General Staff studies these things, gets information from technical people, who are numerous near the headquarters, although they have not an official position which enables them to come and claim the attention of the Commander-in-Chief. He is able, with the information at his disposal, to advise how the weapons which became mobile at the beginning of 1918, and which ultimately contributed largely to our victory, are to be employed.
If that is so, then it is obvious that there is no necessity for the Master-General of the Ordnance to be represented by-a principal Staff officer at Head-quarters in the field. His business is to supply all these things, and the devising and preparation of them is a matter for time of peace. He goes on supplying them and improving them in war, but his work is mainly to be prepared, so that they may be there if we should happen to go to war. When, however, he has done his work it is the Headquarters Staff who employ them, and who are the proper judges of the mode in which they are to be employed, and not the Master-General of the Ordnance. Therefore the Esher Committee, which made a very searching Inquiry into this matter, laid it down that the Master-General of the Ordnance should be on the Army Council but should not be on the Headquarters Staff in time of war. I have not a copy of the Esher Report, but if noble Lords who have will refer to page 116 they will find a distribution of the duties at Headquarters laid down under which the Master-General of the Ordnance is excluded. And the reason was obvious. The Commander-in-Chief should be left with undistracted attention and with as few Staff officers surrounding him as should be found necessary.
The very principle which the Esher Committee laid down and which we have insisted upon ever since, and which governed the constitution of the Expeditionary Force, and indeed of the whole of our military arrangements, was this: that when you prepare, you must prepare on a basis that is a war basis. You need not call it into vigour in time of peace, you need not call up your reserves, but you must have everything ready; and the test of readiness must be the war test, and not the peace test. It is absolutely essential if there is to be
252
rapid mobilisation and if no hitch or lacuna is to be found when the whole thing comes to be looked into. And therefore the Esher Committee, laying down that principle very strongly, took the line that the insistence on a war basis made it necessary to study the Commander-in-Chief, not from the point of view of arrangements which might be good peace arrangements for the Army Council, but on the footing of readiness for war.
They said the Master-General of Ordnance furnishes the guns, furnishes the rifles—there were no tanks in those days, but there were other things—furnishes all these mechanical adjuncts of warfare, but he has no place on the field of battle. He has his technical experts. He can call in the Quartermaster-General or the General Staff, but these are there only for reference, and they are not there to tender counsel. Now, that is a system which worked unbrokenly since about 1908, when the Field Service Regulations, as they are called, were projected. The Field Service Regulations have gone through several editions, but through these editions the principle has been adhered to that the purpose is to prepare on a war basis, and not on a peace basis. What you do is to make things ready to be set instantaneously on a war basis. That was the secret of the rapidity with which the Expeditionary Force was able to mobilise, and it is the secret of the rapidity with which, I believe, we can still mobilise. But all that depended upon everything being reduced to a minimum, and upon the Commander-in-Chief not being locked out.
Your Lordships will ask how it came about that any departure from this was even contemplated. Thereby hangs a tale. There are two very powerful bodies in the Army, the gunners and the sappers. They have always been very powerful, and one reason why they have been very powerful is that in the old days they were not within the Army in any ordinary sense at all. They were under the Board of Ordnance, only separate from Army Headquarters, which was located at the Tower of London, and there the Master-General of the Ordnance not only controlled and trained them and looked after them, but even signed the Commissions of officers—signed them in virtue of an ancient and very sacred tradition. That

253
was found to be very bad. It naturally led to very slow mobilisation, because if the Commander-in-Chief wanted artillery, the Secretary of State had to direct the Board of Ordnance to send them to him, and they did not come into the Army until they arrived on the field. And therefore in 1855, just after the creation of the office of Secretary of State for War, that was abolished, and the ordnance became part of the Army. They had various curious privileges—they had special officers and inspectors—but by degrees these were cut down, and finally they became the gunners and the artillerymen under the Master-General of the Ordnance, who was a member of the Army Council. I am not reproaching these gallant men in the least. They had a tradition, and they lived up to their tradition, but they were a very potent force in the Army.
However, for a long time, and certainly after the date of the Esher Commission, which was well aware of this, they were quiescent. But of late they appear to have become more active, and with mechanisation, with the introduction of all these new weapons of war, they have come to the consciousness of their own importance in an increasing sense, and they have not only got the Master-General of the Ordnance on the Army Council, but now they have persuaded the authorities to have them represented by putting the Master-General of the Ordnance as an extra Staff officer with the Commander-in-Chief. To be a principal Staff officer is a privilege much prized. It enables you to send out your directions by order, which is a privilege much esteemed. But it is something that can weigh as nothing when you are concerned with efficiency in the field and simplicity and rapidity of action on the part of the Commander-in-Chief.
What was the history of how this was done? When mechanisation came along there were, of course, involved a great number of internal combustion engines—petrol became very important in the War—and there were other things, too. The result was that it was plain that the powers and the staff of the Master-General of the Ordnance would have to be revised and extended in order that he might cope with the new technical duties which these things brought upon him. This involved considerable changes in
254
Army organisation, and the Secretary of State very wisely referred the matter to a Committee. The Committee was presided over by Lord Weir, a very eminent authority on engineering questions. Lord Weir's Committee sat in, I think, 1923, and reported in 1926, to the effect that all military weapons and machinery run by internal combustion power should be under the Master-General of the Ordnance. I have not seen Lord Weir's Report, and I do not know whether I am accurately describing it. I am taking this from the statement of its contents which has been made by the Army Council. Anyhow, whether it was good or bad, whether it was efficient or not does not matter, because the Quartermaster-General would not have that allocation of duties. He said: "I, too, require internal combustion engines and use them," and he objected very much to the allocation of duties, and the thing went to pieces. Then some sort of Committee was appointed, but again this Committee could make no recommendations that were looked at. Finally, I think in despair the Secretary of State last summer referred the whole matter to the military members, and the military members made some recommendations which, not unnaturally no doubt, represented the very best they thought they could do, but, were such as do not strike me as having been based on any minute or careful consideration of the questions, some of them scientific, which this matter involves.
Under what is not only suggested but has now been made public, the Master-General of the Ordnance
"will in future be responsible for all research, experiment, design, inspection, provision, storage, issue and repair of all tracked, semi-tracked and wheeled mechanical vehicles, except vehicles on the establishment of the Royal Army Service Corps which will continue to be provided and maintained by the Quartermaster-General under specifications approved by the Master-General of the Ordnance."
Anybody who knows anything about military matters will see there infinite sources of friction. The Quartermaster-General has to do these things, and has to say what he wants, and the Master-General of the Ordnance is to approve of his plans; and so you get two authorities at work. Although the Master-General of the Ordnance provides these things, yet it remains the case that the Quartermaster-General is given functions with re

255
gard to them. The Quartermaster-General will be responsible as he is the person who looks after the supplies of the Army. The Quartermaster-General will have his own functions in the matter of repairs, and he is responsible for the impressment of vehicles required for the Royal Army Service Corps.
But the functions of the Master-General of the Ordnance and of the Quartermaster-General are so interlaced that they require clearing up. I think it is a great misfortune that the term "Quartermaster-General" ever came into our Army. On the Continent, from which it was taken, the Quartermaster-General is a General Staff officer, who is not concerned with supply at all. How he got this title I do not know; but in the days of the Duke of Wellington it meant what was meant on the Continent—a General Staff officer. Now it has come to mean a supply officer and the result is that there is, of course, rivalry between the branches that supply, many of which naturally say: Why should the Quartermaster-General have his horn exalted above us, and why should not the Master-General of the Ordnance be in exactly the same position? That leads to what we have here.
This Memorandum of November last goes on to say that the Quartermaster-General, who is responsible for providing accommodation for the troops, will take over all duties connected with works; and barrack construction will then come under him instead of under the Master-General of the Ordnance. Good Heavens! This is intelligible only as some sort of compromise made at the last moment. The Master-General of the Ordnance has the Engineering Corps under him and he is the person to set up works. Supposing a war in which there were siege operations and in which works were to be put up, what is the unfortunate Commander-in-Chief to do? Is he to give the duty to the Quartermaster-General, who has got it by law, or is he to go to the natural person to discharge it, the person who has the Engineering Corps under him, the Master-General of the Ordnance? Observe that they are both to be on his staff and, therefore, the unhappy Commander-in-Chief cannot get out of it. He has to come to a decision, and that is just one of the things which may cause infinite worry and infinite trouble.
Here is the concluding paragraph, which is very short, of this Memorandum:
"The war organisation will include a Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance in the General Headquarters. The duties of the three Administrative Staff officers (the Deputy Adjutant-General, the Deputy Quartermaster-General, and the Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance) will be co-ordinated by the Chief of the General Staff as provided for by the Field Service Regulations; in a war on a national scale it may be found necessary to appoint a Chief of the Administrative Staff, under whom the three Administrative Staff officers will serve."
I should think it would be! Is it contemplated that the Commander-in-Chief is to spend his time in giving directions to all these people? Surely he ought, as is the case on the Continent, to be able to turn to one man and say: "You are responsible for the transport and the supply and the administrative arrangements of the Army: direct representatives of the old Quartermaster-General, or the Master-General of the Ordnance, or the Medical Service, or whoever it may be, to do what is necessary in regard to so-and-so, to carry out the orders which have been issued. You have the responsibility, and it is you to whom I look to do it." That is the plan on the Continent.
So far as I know the French system nothing of what is suggested here is contemplated by it or would be tolerated in it. Under the old Prussian system, the system which governed the German Army and which, whatever else you may think of the Germans, gave them the most perfect Army organisation in the world before the War, it is clearly laid down. The system of military organisation there was this. The Emperor was Commander-in-Chief. He had his Military Cabinet. At the head of the Military Cabinet was his adviser on certain questions. Then he had two great Staff officers and two only. There was the Chief of the General Staff—a post held by men like the late Count Moltke and his successors. There was the War Minister, who was also the Intendant-General. He did not interfere with the affairs of the Chief of the General Staff, but took control of the whole administrative arrangements of the Army. That was a perfect system for avoiding confusion. I am not speaking only from paper knowledge. I had the opportunity and the privilege of investigating it at

257
first-hand. I spent a good deal of time in the German War Office and even in the General Staff building. The beauty of it was that old Count Moltke had insisted on the General Staff building being put a mile and a half from the War Office in order that he might not be interfered with by the administrative people, and I think the administrative people, for their part, were glad of that. The Emperor had control, as complete Commander-in-Chief, of the two; but their functions were exactly defined.
This is the principle which was adopted in substance, with some variation, by the Esher Committee. It is the principle to which we have held steadily, and now it is to be thrown to the winds. The Chief of the General Staff, as I have said before, is there to think, to study operations, to advise upon them and to draw up the orders that will be required for their execution. That is a thing which should have all his attention. He must not be at Headquarters merely in an office reading and writing letters and looking at papers that are sent to him. His business is to study the state of things in the field and the plans that should be adopted to defeat the enemy. This document, after setting out these three new Staff officers—that is to say, three in place of two—seems to recognise that the proposal may give rise to trouble. They are to be co-ordinated—they will be co-ordinated, not may be—by the Chief of the General Staff—
"as provided for by the Field Service Regulations; in a war on a national scale it may be found necessary to appoint a Chief of the Administrative Staff, under whom the three Administrative Staff officers will serve."
Could you have any words which more indicate uncertainty of mind? They have been driven to this. The real thing to do is to keep the Chief of the General Staff free from all duties of this kind, from mixing himself up with administration. If he is mixed up with administration even to the extent of having to study the papers necessary to enable him to give co-ordinating decisions, then he is taken away from the work on which the issue of battle and of war may depend. I think it is a change that is disastrous compared with what we have accomplished in the last twenty years in the British Army.
They say it may be necessary in case of war to appoint a supreme administrative head. I should think it would be; that is a change all for the better, a change which I believe for a long time we were discussing in the years, now I am sorry to say far distant, when I was at the War Office. It is not really necessary that the Adjutant-General should occupy a position of that kind. He can look after his own things, but it is essential, if there are a number of administrative services which have to be co-ordinated, that that should be done not by the Chief of the General Staff, whose frame of mind is ruined by having to do it, but by a Chief Administrative Officer, who should look to all these things and who should carry out the directions of the Commander-in-Chief and advise him what he is to do. This business of administering the affairs of an army in the field is enormously difficult. It is all very well for the General Staff to say: "This ought to be done and other orders ought to be given effect to." Then come along the principal Administrative Staff officers, who say: "We have not got the materials with which to do that." The Commander-in-Chief ought not to be bothered with having to study whether the materials are there as the occasion arises. He requires to be advised by the administrative side in the simplest way possible how he stands and, therefore, to put in the sentence that in case of war of national dimensions it may be necessary to appoint a Chief of the Administrative Staff is to me a confession of uncertainty, and confirms my impression that the changes which have been made have been made with the driving force of those most energetic and admirable people, the gunners and the sappers.
I shall ask the noble Earl who is to reply for certain information and certain Papers, but I do not wish him to say whether he can give them to me now. He may like to have time to think about them. One thing I should like to know is what is the present state of the Field Service Regulations. If it is provided in them, as seems to be suggested, that the Chief of the General Staff in the field has to co-ordinate the administrative services, all I have to say is that the Field Service Regulations have sadly departed from the orthodox doctrine in which I was brought up and to which we clung to the very

259
letter. We have heard about getting the Chief of the General Staff free from administrative entanglements, and I should like to see anything else that the noble Earl can show us about the Reports of these Committees which from time to time have considered the whole thing. It is said that these Committees have been sitting since 1923 and that the fact that they sat for so long is proof there has been no haste. I would find that more convincing if the Committees had agreed with one another. I cannot find that there was any prolonged interval for consideration between the conclusions of the last Committee reached in the summer of last year and the steps which were taken.
I postponed calling attention to this matter in your Lordships' House because the Secretary of State was in India and it is the more to my regret that it was necessary to do so because it is possible we might at an earlier date have had Lord Haig here to give us his advice on the question. However, that cannot be so now, and we have to do the best we can. I only wish to add that I am not bringing this matter forward in any Party spirit or with any hostility to the Administration. On the contrary, I know what an enormously difficult business this is, because I have been through it and had to do with it and have made mistakes in it myself. I know how hard it is to get thinks right, but I do wish to see inquiry—what The Times asks for and the Generals who have been communicating to the Press have asked for. I want to see a really careful inquiry, as careful as that made by the Esher Committee, into the change that is proposed. It should be an inquiry in which evidence is taken and opportunity given for statements, and I feel sure that if such an inquiry is instituted and if, as the result, it approves the changes which are contemplated, at least it will relieve a good many very anxious minds. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
THE EARL OF CAVAN: My Lords, I only venture to address your Lordships on this subject, which the noble and learned Viscount has so correctly called obscure, because I can perhaps fill the link that he thinks is missing between the inquiry by Lord Weir's Committee and the present decision. Lord Weir's Committee made
260
a certain recommendation that was referred by the then Secretary of State to the military members of the Army Council. It was my duty to preside over those meetings with the two hard-headed and able men who were then holding the posts of Quartermaster-General and Master-General of the Ordnance and to hear at very considerable length the arguments for and against these changes. It was extremely difficult for a layman like myself or the Adjutant-General really to grasp the fundamental issues. I have tried hard to worry them out for myself and I think I have arrived at—I certainly will not say the correct point of view, but, anyhow, a point of view that is clear to myself.
It always seemed to me that the claim of the Royal Army Service Corps and the then Quartermaster-General was that they should be the automobile engineers of the Army. They did claim to maintain and examine and even supply drivers to all mechanical vehicles. They did not claim that right as regards armoured fighting vehicles, though they often referred somewhat tersely to what they considered was a very young Corps (meaning the Royal Tank Corps) and thought that the members of that Corps were inferior artificers to themselves. Take the question of drivers first. That very soon solved itself because the Infantry, the Cavalry and the Artillery all flatly refused to have alien drivers put upon them, with the result that they now find their own drivers, who drive these vehicles and do first line running repairs. They had a parallel in the corps of drivers in the Peninsula formed for the Artillery, which I think you will all agree was a hopeless failure. Then we had to try to find a dividing line of responsibility, and, to put it very shortly, we formed a sort of compromise by which wheeled vehicles came under the Quartermaster-General and track vehicles under the Master-General of the Ordnance. That was certainly only a very temporary compromise, and it was quite obvious to me at the time that it could not last very long, because vehicles were being made and exist at this moment that are track, or semi-track, or half-wheeled, and so on. At this particular moment the Infantry have track and semi-track vehicles for machine guns, and the Cavalry have six-wheeled vehicles.

261
Where are you going to draw the dividing line between the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance? A solution on that sort of division was impossible. What is the solution? I think it can be put quite simply. In the main mechanical vehicles can be divided into two big categories—commercial vehicles and non-commercial vehicles. Commercial vehicles form the base of our mechanical transport. They not only carry supplies but they may even carry troops on the road. We depend on these commercial vehicles for mobilisation. No change is required in them. They are requisitioned and come straight from commerce; commerce is supplied by definite factories which work in peace, and are ready to be expanded in war. These vehicles, so far as I understand the Memorandum, have been left under the Quartermaster-General, and so the change with regard to these vehicles from peace to war is simple.
Non-commercial vehicles cannot be obtained from commerce. Therefore they must be maintained in sufficient quantities by the Army, and arrangements must be made in peace for enlarging those quantities on the outbreak of war. All these vehicles, if I have read the Memorandum aright, are now under the Master-General of the Ordnance, both in peace and war. The change over from peace to war, therefore, seems to me to be very simple there also. With regard to peace organisation it seems to me the change is beneficial for the reason that excellent officers collected by the R.A. S. C. will now find themselves either in, or attached to, the Ordnance Corps, as is the case with gunners and sappers and other technical officers who show any leaning for that work. You therefore get the best brains all collected together to deal with the mechanised fighting side of the Army. Again, civilian firms will not be confused by orders that they used to get from two separate Departments of the War Office, and will not be treated to a view of any family battle in that office.
Now we come to the result of this organisation, which as I say, appears to rue to be simple, taking the dividing line as I have indicated, and that is the appointment of a fourth Chief Staff officer. I do not think any one of us can yet say definitely whether this is a
262
necessity, because it has not been tried out. I suppose it is being tried at all war schemes and Staff rides, and so on, and I think probably the Army Council will be in a better position a year or two years hence to judge as to its necessity than they are now. But I think it is quite obvious that mechanisation has come to stay. It is obvious that changes take place very rapidly, and if I were in the position of Commander-in-Chief during this transition time I must say that I feel that I should like, if a war broke out, to have a Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance who could tell me how I ought to employ these weapons to the best advantage. I feel that a man like a Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance would be able to translate the lessons that you are bound to learn every day with these new instruments into rules for the guidance of the Master-General of the Ordnance at home. If you had such a man I think that you might avoid such long struggles and controversies as happened in the Great War over the introduction of tanks and the question of whether we should use shrapnel or high explosives against enemy breastworks.
The noble and learned Viscount said, and I am sure rightly, that the ideal is that the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the General Staff should not be worried by technical questions of any sort, that it is their business to think and make the plans of battle. I fully agree, but that is an absolute ideal that cannot be obtained. In my humble sphere in Italy, when I was Commander-in-Chief, I do not suppose a day passed that I did not have to decide on some comparatively minor question, such as whether workshops should be as far forward as Treviso or as far back as Vicenza. In preparation for a great battle a Commander-in-Chief must have the final word on points connected with supply, because if an Army is to advance, as he hopes, it must depend on the position of these things. So I really think that the ideal of relieving the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of Staff of all decisions of that sort cannot be attained.
There is another decision that a Commander-in-Chief constantly has to make. You can never have sufficient transport to please everybody in a war. There are always conflicting demands upon that

263
transport. A Commander-in-Chief has to decide. He must say that it is essential that he should have ammunition, that it must come to-morrow before the food, or that the food must come before the ammunition. Only the Commander-in-Chief can decide that, and the question has to be referred to him, much more often perhaps than would seem to be desirable, but inevitably. I really think that this is a very difficult position for the Army Council and those who compose it, because these changes come along so extraordinarily rapidly. But on the whole I think the decision is a wise one. I hope that the trial of this fourth Staff officer may be a thoroughly exhaustive one, at such manœuvres as may take place, and in all Staff rides. I hope the result of these manœuvres and Staff rides, and the use of this officer, may be fully explained to us. I therefore support the change that has been made.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with great pleasure to the remarks of the noble and gallant Earl, whose views we too seldom hear on these matters, and who speaks with very great authority. Certainly I myself, who am still in some doubt on the subject, even after the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, feel that the noble Earl's speech will have a sobering effect in regard to some of the attacks which have been made on the War Office in regard to this change. I have risen only to ask the Under-Secretary of State to be good enough to try to explain some points which, even after the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, seem to me obscure.
The general opinion of the noble and learned Viscount was that putting a representative of the Master-General of the Ordnance, a new Staff officer, at Headquarters, would be putting a sort of fifth wheel to the coach and throwing administrative work on the Chief of the General Staff. I would like to put the other side of the question as it appears to me. You are going to charge the Master-General of the Ordnance with the expert and technical control of the one service that has developed most since the Great War ended nearly ten years ago. He is to devise and he is also to manufacture these vehicles which are to be utilised to such an enormous extent and in such varied forms. There is an
264
old adage in the Army that the man who is responsible for the wagon should be responsible for the load. If that is correct, I see no possibility of carrying it out under the present conditions at the War Office. I wonder whether any of your Lordships have considered what would be the anomaly of asking one man to manufacture, design and be responsible for the provision of these vehicles while leaving them not only to be worked in the field by another officer but to be repaired by other officers under some fresh Commander, who is not supposed to be technically as expert as themselves in their own work. The noble Viscount said something about tearing up the whole of the decisions of the Esher Committee. The Esher Committee sat twenty-five years ago, and all these things have arisen since. What we have to try to do is to adapt to modern conditions of war the very difficult procedure that has arisen, and the noble and gallant Earl, with all his experience, cannot yet tell us whether he is satisfied that this can be done.
What I would put to the Under-Secretary of State is this: Are you satisfied that you are not overloading certain officers? Some people might hold that the Master-General of the Ordnance is going to be overloaded if he is to have practical control, as I understand that he is, of everything from a tank to a cooking-pot, and if all technical supplies are to come under him. I hope that this is not so, but I gather that it is from the discussions that have taken place. If, in addition, he is to be responsible for his subordinate at Headquarters he will certainly have a very heavy charge. Look at the matter the other way. The Quartermaster-General was responsible for the whole of the Army Service Corps and he is to be responsible for the working in the field of all these vehicles, and, in addition, he is given by this Order in Council responsibility for all works, as well as for barracks, so that at this moment, as I understand it, the Quartermaster-General, an Infantry officer, becomes responsible for the fortifications of the base at Singapore. Surely this is a change that was never contemplated. In the old days of the Inspector-General of Fortifications, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, the artillery, the engineers and sappers were a very

265
powerful body, but any attempt on their part to entrench on other people was nothing compared with this entrenchment on the rights of these technical officers. It is now proposed to put the fortifications of the Singapore base under an Infantry officer, and the very man who by this Order in Council, as I understand it, is to work the whole of these vehicles in the field.
I am certain that there must be good reason for this proposed re-allocation of duties, but I should like to put to your Lordships quite clearly two points on which I would press for information. I quite see why the Master-General of the Ordnance, having to design a great number of very intricate vehicles, ought to have the ordering of them in the campaign, but is it possible at the same time to say that the Quartermaster-General is to work all these vehicles and his own Army Service Corps vehicles as one, while, if the Ordnance vehicle comes to grief, it must go to a workshop where it will be dealt with by the Ordnance officer's subordinates, and an Army Service Corps vehicle must go to a different workshop to be looked after by the Army Service Corps subordinates? I remember well the old days at the. War Office when men were treated on that system when they went into hospital. I expect my noble friend beside me remembers the regimental doctrine which obtained when he entered the Army, which was that there were at Aldershot a dozen medical officers attending patients in the same hospital. One of them came in to see his patient and, if a patient in the next bed required immediate relief, this medical officer could not touch him because he belonged to his neighbour and it would have been a breach of professional etiquette. We have abolished this absurd system and in these days the medical officer is attached to the Command and can attend to all the patients in the same hospital. I cannot think it quite wise to say that a vehicle which comes to grief by the wayside must not go to an Army Service Corps workshop close by but must be left to be fetched and dealt with at the Ordnance workshop.
My second point is rather a wider one and was not touched upon by the noble and learned Viscount opposite in his masterly review of the whole situation.
266
To my mind the interest of every member of this House will be less in the restricted arena to which we have hitherto been confined in the discussion than in another question. We all appreciate the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cavan, who said that in the process of time and after the experience of two or three years at manœuvres and otherwise the Army Council would probably come to whatever is the best arrangement of these very difficult duties. What I ask my noble friend to impress upon his colleagues is this: What you are going to do with the Department of the Master-General of the Ordnance ought to be regarded from the point of view not merely of how the matter will work in the field but of how the immense development of this Department, which must take place in war time, is going to be dealt with.
Your Lordships may not remember that twenty years ago, in the course of the discussions which arose between Lord Kitchener and Lord Curzon in Italia, this question came up. We had not then the experience of the Great War, but the view which the India Office took, and which Lord Balfour's Government insisted upon, was that the man who had to deal with supplies and manufacture should be entirely apart from the War Staff and that when war came his whole energies should be required in that direction. In consequence representations were made to Lord Kitchener as early as September, 1914, that it was absolutely necessary that all questions of the supply of munitions, when they reached such a scale as they were bound to reach, must be dealt with by some Department outside the War Office, and that a single Department of the War Office, that of the Master-General of the Ordnance, could never carry out the work when it came to providing munitions to the value of something like £500,000,000 in a year. If ever there is another great war the same conclusion must necessarily follow. I do not suggest that the War Office ought now to have a Minister of Munitions in days when the demand is perhaps only one hundred-thousandth of that during the War. Knowing that it is from the Department of the Master-General of the Ordnance that all the technical men will have to be drawn, I do think that regard should be had not merely to the men

267
whom he will have to send to represent him in the field, but also to the organisation which will have to be set up on account of the extended demands upon the Department at home. I therefore would ask my noble friend to be kind enough when he replies to tell me whether this question has been considered in connection with probable developments for war, at home as well as in the field.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I venture to intervene for a short time in this debate, and I do so with some diffidence, because so far two ex-Secretaries of State for War, and my noble friend on the Cross Benches, a distinguished ex-general officer in the field, have taken part in the discussion and, I know how many members of the House there are who have held very similar positions and yet have not taken, part. I am therefore reminded as regards myself rather of the old proverb "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." However, I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I intervene for a few moments, not so much for the purpose of entering the lists for or against this proposal, but in order to comment on the fears of those who have expressed fears in the Press, and I think sometimes in speeches, that this new proposal will lead to an increase of staff in the field, not only at G.H.Q. but in the staffs of Army Corps, Divisions and even Brigades. I know that soldiers are often supposed to be very extravagant people, and I think we all rather lost our sense of proportion during and at the end of the late War.
I remember a saying, attributed, rightly or wrongly, to a distinguished Commander in the field, that you had only to make a man a Major-General and he at once asked for a Colonel to be under him to do his work. Without in any way allowing that that is true, I think we all got rather exaggerated ideas at the end of the late War, owing to the magnitude of the War, the length of its duration, and the overwhelming nature of the whole thing. I think that Army officers, on the whole, are just as careful of public money and as anxious for economy as anybody else, and I am sure that in saying this I shall have the support of the noble and learned Viscount opposite who has in my hearing more than one expressed himself to the same effect. Anyone who served in the War on a Corps or Divisional Staff
268
will remember those two departmental officers known to us all as Ados and Dados. These two officers of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps corresponded with their Departmental Chiefs in small matters of routine, but in all matters of principle, such as inventions, discipline and so forth, they were always under the senior A. and Q. Staff officer of their formation. This worked quite well during the late War and I do not see why it should not work well again, the only difference being that in future under the scheme which is to be brought into operation, when correspondence on inventions and so forth, appertaining to the D.M.G.O., reaches G.H.Q., it will be dealt with by the D.M.G.O. and his subordinates, and not, as formerly, by the C.G.S. or the officers attached to his Staff, or by the Q.M.G.
It must be remembered that, although in the higher formations the different, branches of the Staff have separate representatives, the system is that as you get lower down in the scale branches are represented by fewer and fewer officers until you get down to the smallest formation, the Cavalry or Infantry brigade, where General Staff matters, including Intelligence, Training and Operations, are all under one officer, the Brigade-Major, and administrative matters such as discipline, supply, transport, and medical and ordnance services are represented by the Staff-Captain. I quite allow that it may not be logical that this should be so, but many things in our Army and in our Constitution are not strictly logical, but all the same they appear to work out all right given good will, and I have very little doubt that this scheme will do so in a few years' time, after it has got into working order and become known to the officers of the Army.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR. (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned, and has read to your Lordships extracts from, the Memorandum issued on the re-allocation of duties between the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance, and he has mentioned, as the reason why this re-allocation was undertaken, the development of mechanisation in the Army and the consequences which have resulted therefrom. I think we are all agreed in

269
this, and I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Viscount sympathises with the difficulties which the process of mechanisation has imposed upon the Army Council and the Army, and that he addresses the matter in no hostile spirit but solely with a desire to assist. The noble and learned Viscount did not enlarge upon the question of mechanisation, and I do not think that I need do so. Whether we regard the departure of the horse with favour or not, without doubt in a comparatively short space of time we shall see horse traction supplanted by mechanical traction, as surely as we have seen sail supplanted by steam at sea.
The noble and learned Viscount opposite, and the noble Earl behind me, asked various questions about the process and the decisions taken with regard to the changes, and the noble and learned Viscount, I think, said that he made no excuse for putting forward this inquiry, as the whole matter seemed to be very difficult and obscure. Of course it is a difficult one. I will try to explain as briefly as I can what has taken place, and endeavour to throw as much light upon it as possible. As your Lordships are well aware, before the War and before the changes which mechanisation has made necessary were introduced, mechanised vehicles existed in the Army, but those were, comparatively speaking, very few, except the lorries of the Royal Army Service Corps. So it was not unreasonable that the Royal Army Service Corps should maintain all such vehicles. But then mechanisation came along, and there were introduced among non-transport services, among the fighting services, such vehicles as those which the noble Viscount has enumerated. When these numerous other vehicles were introduced into the Army this distinction between transport vehicles and the technical vehicles was very difficult. I adopt that word "technical" because that means the vehicles which are built specially for fighting purposes and cannot be requisitioned off the street and adapted immediately war breaks out—those, I think, were referred to by my noble friend on the Cross Benches as commercial vehicles. As I say, it was very difficult indeed to make such a distinction; and even if you were to make some sort of arbitrary division between transport vehicles and technical vehicles, both
270
the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance would have been responsible for the development of different types of cross-country vehicles.
Now, to deal with the question of repairs. Under the former arrangement the Quartermaster-General provided and repaired all wheeled transport vehicles, and the Master-General of the Ordnance produced all fighting vehicles and all technical transport. The Quartermaster-General was responsible for the provision and repair of all his own transport vehicles, but the vehicles of the Master-General of the Ordnance were repaired by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, not by the Royal Army Service Corps; and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps acted under the orders of the Quartermaster-General. But when it came to the repair parts with which the Quartermaster-General had to repair these vehicles, he had to go to the Master-General of the Ordnance, who supplied them; and, lastly, if the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, which is under the Quartermaster-General, found the particular vehicle in such a bad state that it had to go to the factory for repair then it went back to the control of the Master-General of the Ordnance, who was in charge of the factory.
That is a system which obviously was somewhat complicated, and it led to considerable difficulties. It had a serious effect in units, because in some units—and this actually happened—it might have been necessary to have two mobile repair shops, one belonging to the Royal Army Service Corps, and the other to the Royal Array Ordnance Corps; and the difficulties which prevailed in regard to vehicles communicated themselves in an equal degree to the stores. As, I think, several of your Lordships who have spoken to-day have mentioned, these difficulties were appreciated a long time ago—as long ago as 1923—and a Committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Lord Weir, whose Report received very careful consideration. The noble and learned Viscount read out the statement in the Memorandum as to what took place, and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches supplied a good many details from his very intimate and personal knowledge of the investigations which were made, and I trust that the

271
explanations made by my noble friend will have to a certain degree reassured the noble and learned Viscount that the changes were not undertaken without the very fullest consideration, extending over a number of years, and that they were not the result of a hurried decision in any way.
The Secretary of State has on the Army Council to advise him and to advise the Government the four military members who represent the four branches into which the military side of the War Office is divided. Those officers are specially selected for their qualifications, their position, and their services, and on their advice the Government is bound to rely in military matters. This particular question of the re-allocation of duties between one member of the Army Council and another is a matter with which the military members of the Army Council are peculiarly concerned. It is they who have to carry out the duties of running the administration in the War Office, and it is they to whom the matter was referred and who, as the noble Earl on the Cross Benches explained to your Lordships, considered it at such length and with such care. The result of the advice which was tendered by the military members of the Army Council, as is explained in the Memorandum, was the re-allocation of duties at home and in the War Office during peace. On the re-allocation of the duties in the War Office and in peace there follows, I think, the necessity for representation of the Master-General of the Ordnance in the field. But, apart from any question of further organisation in the War Office, the need for the representation of the Master-General of the Ordnance in the field is, I think, abundantly proved by the experiences of the Great War. I will say something further on this question in a moment or two. But the question of the number of principal Staff officers in the field is not made rigid by the creation of the posts of Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance. As considerable stress has been laid upon it I should like to make that clear at once.
To deal with these changes in a little detail, at the War Office the Master-General of the Ordnance will be responsible for research, experiment, design, inspection, storage, issue, and repair of
272
all mechanical vehicles. If everyone agrees—and I cannot but think that everybody does agree—that changes consequent on the introduction of mechanisation are needed, I think it is clearly a sound general principle that the branch which supervises research, design, and production should also supervise repair. But there is one exception to the control which is to be exercised by the Master-General of the Ordnance. That is in the case of the Royal Army Service Corps. The Royal Army Service Corps is a big transport organisation, which one might compare, not unaptly, to a commercial organisation; and it is big enough, important enough, and widely spread enough to manage its own repairs, and to carry them out economically. There is another reason why the Royal Army Service Corps should retain the repairing of its own vehicles, and that is that it is an extremely efficient Corps. It has an extremely efficient system in existence, which it carries out in an admirable fashion. But although it may be the duty, and will be the duty, of the Royal Army Service Corps to undertake its own repairs, that is by no means a reason why it should undertake the whole of the mechanical repairs of the Army, which is a matter outside its ordinary scope, and could only be placed upon it by special arrangement. While the Royal Army Service Corps will remain entirely with the Quartermaster-General, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps will be transferred to the Master-General of the Ordnance—that is to say that the repair of all vehicles, except Royal Army Service Corps vehicles, will be done by one authority.
The noble and learned Viscount mentioned another matter. He said the specification of the Royal Army Service Corps vehicles is to be made by the Master-General of the Ordnance. I think he considered that this might cause some confusion. But surely that is necessary. The Master-General of the Ordnance being the authority in the Army to whom the design of all vehicles is entrusted, it was for him to lay down the specification—of course, on the request of the Quartermaster-General—as to how the particular vehicles should be built, and the manner in which they should be designed. It is like this. You go to a motor shop or some other shop and say: "I want so-and-so, and so-and-so"; you do not design it yourself, but you say what you want,

273
and the motor manufacturer supplies you with the articles you require. So it will be in regard to the relations between the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance in respect to the design of their vehicles.
I should like to deal with one other point apart from this, and that is the question of these two Corps, the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. The Royal Army Ordnance Corps is open to officers of all arms. In addition, there are officers in the Corps who enter by private entry and who are fully qualified and trained mechanical engineers. In regard to the Royal Army Service Corps, I think there has been some criticism to the effect that the officers of that Corps who are mechanical engineers will, in future, have restricted opportunities of employment. In fact, the contrary is the case, because under this reorganisation all the appointments under the Master-General of the Ordnance will be filled by officers who are best qualified for them, irrespective of the Corps to which they belong, and so all these appointments will be open to officers of the Royal Army Service Corps. In effect, I think the opportunities for advancement and employment of officers of the Royal Army Service Corps will be increased rather than diminished.
The noble Earl on my right (Lord Midleton) referred to the transference of stores and asked me how the re-allocation of duties would affect the whole question of stores. The reasons for the transference of the whole of the stores to the Master-General of the Ordnance are these. By far the greater part of the stores now in use in the Army are technical stores. Even clothing is a technical store, at any rate to a certain extent, because clothing may require to be protective and to render clothing protective necessitates technical knowledge and technical experiment. That being the case and the Master-General of the Ordnance being the principal technical officer of the Army, the stores go to him. If part of the stores remained with the Quartermaster-General and part went to the Master-General of the Ordnance it would be necessary to split up the Ordnance into two departments, and I think that would create great confusion, far greater confusion than putting them under one head would cause; it would
274
also be uneconomical and, I venture to think, a step in a backward rather than a forward direction.
I come now to the point on which my noble friends Lord Midleton and Lord Haldane asked me some questions. As both my noble friends have said, up to the present all works and barrack construction have come under the Master-General of the Ordnance and, as your Lordships are well aware, the Directorate which dealt with such matters was known as the Directorate of Fortifications and Works. This Directorate has been transferred from the control of the Master-General of the Ordnance to that of the Quartermaster-General. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the Quartermaster-General is responsible for the accommodation of the troops. I may say that in discussing the Estimates this year we discovered that it is of the very greatest advantage to have the question of barrack construction under the control of the member of Council who is charmed with the quartering of the Army; that is to say, the Quartermaster-General. As a result of this, if I may enter into intimate details, we have been able, I think, to make as good use as is possible, perhaps a better use than would otherwise have been the case, of the small sum of money available for these purposes nowadays. So much for that question.
Two questions regarding fortifications were put to me by the noble Earl and the noble and learned Viscount. The question of fortifications resolves itself into two parts—fortifications in the field, to which the noble and learned Viscount alluded, and fortifications at home, which I think were the preoccupation of my noble friend Lord Midleton. As regards fortifications in peace-time in this country, the answer to my noble friend's question is that the Quartermaster-General builds what the General Staff and the Master-General of Ordnance require. The noble and learned Viscount asked me whether the Quartermaster-General was the officer who undertook such fortifications of a permanent nature in the field as might be necessary. The answer to that is that really the question does not arise in the field. If fortifications have to be erected in the rear of the Army, as might have been necessary during the last War, that would be

275
done not by the Quartermaster-General—there was not a Master-General of the Ordnance—and would not be done in the future by the Deputy of the Master-General of the Ordnance, but by the Engineer-in-Chief of the Army, under the directions of the General Staff. I think that is the answer to the question which my noble friends put to me.
Now I come to what, I think, is the only really controversial point raised by the noble and learned Viscount—the question of the changes in the field. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned the Esher Committee. I regret that, although two members of that Committee are members of your Lordships' House, we have not been privileged to see them to-day, I trust for no untoward reason, because they would have given us, I am sure, very valuable information on the points which have been raised. The noble Viscount said that the Esher Committee, which reconstituted the ancient office of Master-General of the Ordnance, not quite in the same way as sitting at the Tower but under modern conditions, pointed out that in the section which deals with the organisation of staff duties in the field each military member of the Council, except the Master-General of the Ordnance, was directly represented in the field by officers carrying out the duties for which they had been prepared in peace.
Then he alluded to the table setting forth the corresponding nature of the duties which are carried out at home by military members of the Council and in the field by the chief Staff officers on the Headquarter Staff. In that table the Master-General of the Ordnance at the War Office was charged with these duties: armament, ordnance factories, fortifications, barrack maintenance, custody of land and ranges, technical committees, contracts and the administration of the Votes for those services. There have been certain changes since, but, broadly speaking, they are very similar. In the table of duties of the Administrative Staff officers—the Deputy Adjutant-General, the Deputy Quartermaster-General and the Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance—it will be seen that none of those particular duties of the Master-General of the Ordnance at the War Office was reflected in any of the duties of the General Staff officers in the
276
field. The noble and learned Viscount said that the principle laid down then had worked satisfactorily for many years and, doubtless, he was perfectly right. But those were years of peace. It was not contemplated before the War that experimental work would be done in the field. It was not contemplated that technical work of a very highly intricate description, such as that alluded to by my noble friend on the Cross Benches, would be undertaken in the field. Nor was it contemplated that a vast amount of technical repairs would have to be done in the field. But shortly after war broke out in 1914 it was found, when operations became stabilised and trench warfare was undertaken, that the daily experience in the trenches necessitated experiments on the spot.
Very early in 1915 an experimental committee on trench warfare was set up at St. Omer. I remember it very well because I was serving there on the Staff in a humble capacity, and I recollect how that committee worked. Officers to whom ideas occurred during the day-by-day trench fighting, submitted those ideas to Headquarters and immediate steps were taken to try them out and to see whether there was anything in them. Trench mortars, steel helmets, bombs and many other inventions suggested by the experience of war came first before that committee and, after having been examined and inquired into, were sent home for deeper consideration. A little later, also in 1915, when gas was introduced, experiments in gas for offensive purposes and in gas masks for defensive purposes, were made in the field; that is to say, they were made in France, and so the necessity of having special officers and special facilities at the front in France itself grew. Although I had no personal experience I know that as a matter of fact the same state of affairs existed on the fronts in other areas.
I have quoted some of the initial difficulties which arose in the field for want of somebody corresponding to the Master-General of the Ordnance at home. Now, if I might, I should like to quote the difficulties which occurred in this country, and perhaps I may be allowed to give the personal experience of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, who was then at the Ministry of Munitions. The noble and learned

277
Viscount opposite quite rightly said that it is for the Master-General of the Ordnance to supply rifles, guns and so forth, but the difficulty experienced at home by the Ministry of Munitions was this. They wanted to know exactly what the people at the Front required; they wanted to know the exact design and full particulars of what was required. My right hon. friend tells me that the difficulty the Ministry of Munitions had was to ascertain exactly what the Army required. A great deal of that difficulty was due to the fact that the liaison between the Army and the Ministry of Munitions at home was defective owing to the fact that there was no Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance in the field. Had there been I think many of these difficulties would have been more easily got over. It is a fact, I think, that the late Master-General of the Ordnance at the War Office, who gave up his post last year, General Sir Noel Birch, was at the close of the War Major-General of the Royal Artillery at General Headquarters and used to come over constantly and consult with the Ministry of Munitions. He, in fact, performed very largely—there were, of course, other officers who did the same thing—the duties of Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance in the field.
I venture to submit that during the War the organisation which was laid down at its commencement was found to require alteration and change. During the War in addition to the three main branches of the Staff—the Chief of the General Staff, the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General—there were six other branches. It is perfectly true that the Inspector-General of Communications was abolished, but, although the Inspector-General of Communications ceased to exist, there were six other branches who were nominally under the General Staff. They really were extra wheels to the coach and did not belong actually to any one branch. The procedure, I think, was this. Take the Major-General of Royal Artillery. He had direct access to Lord Haig, the Commander-in-Chief, but when there was any question which touched General Staff matters he would see the. Commander-in-Chief it company with the Chief of General Staff—that is to say, the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of General
278
Staff were constantly in touch with the Major-General of Royal Artillery. Had there been a Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance undoubtedly a great deal of extra work would have been saved to those officers.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, has laid great stress on the argument that you do not want to bother the Chief of the General Staff more than can be helped or hamper him by any consideration of administrative duties. I would submit to the noble and learned Viscount and to your Lordships that the creation of a Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance in the field will relieve the Chief of General Staff and relieve the Commander-in-Chief of a great many of these difficulties to which he has alluded rather than add to those difficulties. I referred just now to the six minor Staff officers who were in a practically independent position and in touch with the Commander-in-Chief. Each of those six were representatives of branches of the Master-General of the Ordnance. It may be that the real difficulty, both in France and the liaison at home, was that there was no person at the head of affairs to co-ordinate the activities of these six officers. If there had been a Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance that position would never have arisen.
I would like to come to another point which is perhaps a little obscure and difficult to explain, but I think I should explain it, and that is that the position of the Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance will be different in a certain degree from the position of the other chief Staff officers in the field. He will, of course, be in the position to a certain degree of a chief Staff officer in the field, because he will not work through anybody but will have direct access to the Commander-in-Chief or the Chief Administrative Staff officer, but I think it would be, if I might use the expression, more correct to describe the Deputy Master-General of the Ordnance in the field not as a principal Staff officer but as a principal officer on the Staff, the difference being that while the principal Staff officers have executive duties the principal technical officer in the field will have duties which will be mainly administrative. Of course he will have the Royal Army Ordnance Corps under him. His duties will be mainly administrative

279
and advisory rather than executive.
Let me deal with the objection which has been made that if every military member of the Army Council were represented directly in the field there would be a great deal of confusion, multiplication of correspondence, extra departments, friction, extravagance and so forth. I think that danger can easily be avoided. If the war is not one of considerable magnitude it would not be impossible for the Chief of the Staff to co-ordinate all the Staff work. It must be remembered that wars are very varying things. There are wars of a minor kind which would hardly require the whole forces of a Division. Between that kind of war and war on a national scale you can have every variety of war. In the case of a small war it should not be impossible (but it is not necessary he should do so) for the Chief of the Staff to conduct the whole of the co-ordination, but, if the war should extend and it should be thought undesirable that the Commander-in-Chief should be obliged to deal with four principal Staff officers, then it would be very easy to introduce a chief Administrative Staff officer and you could do that without any difficulty, even though you had started with four principal officers.
You could introduce a chief Administrative Staff officer at any time the Commander-in-Chief might desire. If that were done you would have two officers, the Chief of the General Staff on the one hand and the Chief of the Administrative Staff on the other, who would deal with administrative questions. Under the Chief of the Administrative Staff would be the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance. Your genealogy would be like this. Instead of having the Commander-in-Chief and three sons—the Adjutant-General, the Quarter-master-General and the Master-General of Ordnance—you would have the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Administrative Staff and under the latter would be the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of Ordnance, who would, so to speak, become the grandchildren of the Commander-in-Chief rather than his children. And that could be done at any moment during the campaign. It is very
280
difficult to lay down any hard-and-fast rule. The noble and learned Viscount rather complained that we had not laid down more hard-and-fast rules in the Memorandum, but I think the answer is that we have to wait and see what is required. We know exactly what is to be done. You will have one chief Staff officer in a small campaign, or you can have four if desired, or you can have two, but I do think that the strongest case has been made for the representation of the Master-General of the Ordnance in the field, as well as for the changes to be made at home. Actual administration in the field must depend upon the nature of the war, upon the nature of the Commander-in-Chief, and upon the magnitude or the reverse, of the operations.
The noble and learned Viscount has asked for certain specific papers, but he has told me that he would not press me to say "yes" or "no" now. I would like to see exactly how the OFFICIAL REPORT describes them before I give an answer. I do propose, however, to lay certain papers, and I think some of them at any rate will give him the information he requires. I am proposing to lay the Memorandum which was issued to the members of the House of Commons, but which was not actually laid as a White Paper. I think it will be convenient to have that on record as a White Paper. I propose also to lay the relevant Army Council Instructions, which I think will make the matter more clear, and the explanatory letter issued to Commands when the changes were first undertaken at home.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I asked for the relevant parts of the Field Service Regulations.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will look into that, but I will not answer for the moment, because I have not the whole of these things in my mind. The Estimates Memorandum will be out in a couple of days, and I think there will be certain further information in that. I need not, I think, trouble your Lordships to-day with any details as to how far the changes have progressed, because details of such changes as have taken place will be shown in the Estimates themselves, which will appear on Thursday. The Estimates are very intricate things, and I think your Lordships will

281
find it much more easy to discuss the question after having had an opportunity of studying them than if I were to go now into lengthy details on the subject. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, if he would like to go more deeply into the matter after he has had an opportunity of studying the Papers, will put down another Question, and I shall be only too glad to give any information in my power.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I think one thing at least has emerged from this debate. We have had a discussion on a military subject of unusual value, unusual because speeches have been to the point and because we have had speeches from a number of distinguished authorities who were able to give us information with a good deal of knowledge. Therefore I think your Lordships' House has been fulfilling one of the functions which it usefully fulfils by the debate to-day. The noble Earl who represents the Government said that, after all, this was not so serious a business as it might seem, this imposing upon the Chief of the General Staff the duty of co-ordination.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Only in small campaigns, and not necessarily then.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: You never know whether a campaign is going to be small or great. It depends very much upon the Chief of the General Staff whether it is going to be so or not. But as regards keeping the Chief of the General Staff free from administration, I would remind my noble friend that there have been two Committees which went into the matter, independently of the Esher Committee, after the South African war. At the time of the South African war we had no General Staff. What we had was an Adjutant-General who was also Deputy Commander-in-Chief, and he was the neck of the bottle—and a very narrow neck of the bottle—through which things had to emerge from the wisdom of the Army Council to the top. The system broke down hopelessly in the South African war. We were not prepared. We could not mobilise with any rapidity, and we had no thoroughly worked out plan of campaign. There were two Committees which investigated the whole of the matter, and the Farwell committee found there had been a great deal of mismanage-
282
ment and blamed it rather on a very distinguished officer. But when we came to look into it we found that the distinguished officer had not been given the means to apply his mind to the task, and had been hampered by all sorts of duties thrust on him. Then came the Esher Committee, who said that whatever you do, you should keep the mind of the Chief of the General Staff undisturbed, keep him free from administrative duties. I do not think that that doctrine has so powerfully taken hold of the mind of my noble friend opposite as it did of my mind, and the result is a disposition today to think that the Chief of the General Staff may, without damage to himself, inter-meddle in matters of administration and co-ordination. We have the lesson of the South African war in our minds, and I think it is a lesson we would do well to take very seriously.
There were other matters. There was that curious provision under which works go to the Quartermaster-General. The noble Earl said that the Chief Engineer of the Army would make the works. I suppose that may be so in the field, where the Chief Engineer may be called on to be present, but there was a striking illustration given by my noble friend the Earl of Midleton in his speech—Singapore. The works at Singapore—I am no great admirer of the plan, but since it has been determined on it would be better to do it with efficiency—will be under the Quartermaster-General, and there may be, and very likely will be, an Infantry officer. I think it would astound the Sea Lords of the Admiralty to find their representatives out there discussing the question of fortifications with the representative of the Quartermaster-General and possibly an Infantry officer. What I complain of in these changes is the want of that distinction of principle and clarity of thinking which seems to me essential if you are to keep military organisation from getting into difficulty. Even the noble and gallant Earl on the Cross Benches did not seem to me very sure. There seemed a certain amount of misgiving in his mind as to where these changes might land us. He spoke of experience making things clear. I do not like waiting for experience to make things clear when it is war with which I am concerned.

283
The only way of preparing for war is to have your mind perfectly distinct in time of peace, and to make your preparations in times of peace on a war basis. That is not consistent with the idea that if there is to be a large war, or if a war develops into a large war, you can suddenly abolish one or (possibly) two of the principal Staff officers surrounding the Commander-in-Chief, and suddenly send a new administrative officer to take their places. That is the kind of thing which courts disaster. It is a thing which I hope will be got rid of, and I trust that whatever is ultimately laid down will be laid down in distinct and definite terms, and not in such a fashion as will lead people to think that there is uncertainty as to what will happen in the field. I raised this question desiring that the Government should undertake to enquire. They have not said they will not enquire, but I think the inquiry should be a fairly thorough one, on the same basis of thoroughness as that provided under Lord Balfour when he directed the constitution of the Esher Committee. As I
284
have said, and as I have given reasons for thinking, the changes seem to me to be serious changes, and I hope that they will be looked upon in that spirit. As regards my Motion for Papers, I am quite satisfied with what the noble Earl has said, and I am ready to withdraw that Motion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Do I understand the noble and learned Viscount to say that he withdraws the Motion for Papers? I am prepared to lay Papers.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Then the Motion may go pro forma. No doubt it will be needed to enable Papers to be laid.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I ought to add that I did not make any promise of an inquiry.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I quite understand that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.